Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

Richard. And if I could get roll call, please. Yes. Commissioner. What's Commissioner Jewell here? Commissioner Dahlgren here. Commissioner Renton here. Commissioner Johnson is absent. Commissioner Alvez, Commissioner Beckler here. Thank you. I'd like to welcome everyone to today's Planning Commission hearing. The meeting is open to virtual and in-person participation. And also may be observed online through the Placer County website. If you would like to make public comment on any item today, the Planning Commission clerk will announce when you are to line up to provide your testimony. For the members of the public attending via Zoom, you can raise your hand with the hand icon at the bottom of the page. If you are calling in, you can go ahead and press star nine to raise your hand. Please be prepared to speak at the time. I open public comment for the specific item that you would like to address. Which may also include public comment for matters that are not on the published agenda or hearing items. Each commenter will be entitled to three minutes of comment, and you'll only be given one opportunity to speak on each item. Thanks for your consideration. As we work to ensure each citizen gets an equal opportunity to provide their input. Please also be advised that today's hearing is being recorded and will be available on the Planning Commission's web page following the hearing. I will now move on to the next item on our agenda, which is the consent calendar. We do have one item and that is the Planning Commission meeting minutes for February 26th, 2026. So would any commissioner like to remove the item from the consent calendar? I see none. Do we have any member of the public that would like to remove the item from the

consent calendar? I see none. Do we have anyone on Zoom? I see none. Okay. So is there anyone that would like to make a motion? Sure. Move. We approve the minutes. I'll second it. Okay. We have a first and second roll call, please. Yes. What's. Yes. Juulh. Yes. Dahlgren. Yes. Yes. Beckler. Yes. Excellent. I will now ask for the report from the planning director, Chris Cooley. Welcome, Chris. Good morning, chair Beckler commissioners. Chris Placer County, planning director. You should have a copy or a copy is being distributed to you of my planning director's report. Wanted to start with upcoming Board of Supervisors items. There were actually no items that were heard by the board since the last time that you met, but upcoming, there are a few few items that are going to be considered by the board next week. On March 24th, the board is going to take up the General Plan and Housing Element annual progress reports that you are going to hear later on at today's meeting. They're also going to consider the long range work program, which you considered at your last Planning Commission meeting later in April. On April 27th, the board will be considering the Shiba Estates at Eden ROC project as a reminder that is a rezone vesting, tentative subdivision map, conditional

use permit and variance for a six lot planned development in the granite Bay community. The Planning Commission considered that request and made a recommendation on February 12th to the board to approve the project on a series of seven zero votes. In terms of upcoming Planning Commission meetings, we do have kind of a full slate of meetings ahead. On March 26th, you have a meeting to consider just one item. That's the Placer Vineyard specific plan, phase two East project. On April 9th. You have two items that are are tentatively scheduled. One of those is a draft e I r meeting to receive public comment on the Granite View condo project in Olympic Valley. Included with your planning planning report here. I did include a link to the web page for the project that includes the draft EIR. Should the Planning Commission want to get ahead and start reviewing it as it was released for public public review, I did want to note that we will have a special meeting on April 16th at the North Tahoe Event Center to consider two items, one of which is the Village at Palisades Tahoe. Specific plan. I also wanted to note that that will be a 10 a.m. start time. And then lastly, as noted on your Planning Director report on April 23rd, we are looking at potentially up to five items for that meeting, including an appeal of the planning planning divisions, determination on the True North Recovery Project in

in New Castle, which is a residential care home. And I'll speak about that in just a moment. So next on the report did want to mention that we continue to make progress in public outreach on our residential care homes, zoning text amendment package. I did include the link once again for you for the webpage that we have set up for the Residential Care Home Zoning text amendment package. We have completed five Mac meetings since the last time that we met. We have two that are upcoming as listed on your report, one at the Forest Hill Forum on April 6th and the Central Mac on May 20th. Should also mention that prior to the item, the package coming to the Planning Commission, we will be taking the package to the Airport Land Use Commission in May and are looking at an early summer presentation to the Planning Commission for the item. Just a couple of administrative updates prior to the meeting. We did receive public correspondence on matters, not on the agenda. I reviewed three letters that that came in. One was related to sewer infrastructure, a sewer infrastructure connection for a project with a filed application for a design review in granite Bay. Staff and the project applicant are working with the neighbors, including the public. Commenters related to their request. The second was in support of the Granite View Condo project that, as I mentioned, you are going to be hearing in or on April 9th, and the third was related to the services provided at the First

Steps Recovery Project, which is a residential care home. And I made some note of that earlier. I did also want to note that just prior to coming into the hearing, I received a couple of other comment letters related to the Gateway project and need to review those letters in a little bit more detail, and will provide a response at your next meeting. Your next quarterly reports are going to be presented to you on April 23rd. And prior to me wrapping up my my Planning Director report, I did want to turn it over to Mr. Cook to provide a an update to the Commission on on a matter. Thank you Chris. Thank you. Yes, I did want to provide a bit of a staffing update for your commission, because there were some things that happened this week that I think will affect the Commission. Namely, earlier this week, the board decided to appoint me as county counsel going forward. So thank you. Congratulations, Clayton. Well deserved. Thank you. What that does mean, though, for the Planning Commission is that I will be transitioning out of this role. And this is a role that I have truly, truly appreciated. I've actually been the advisor for the Planning Commission for eight years, and I've enjoyed coming to these meetings. I've enjoyed hearing your deliberations and helping you sort through the issues, and it's something that I really will miss as I transition to that board advising role. But rest assured you, you are in great hands. Hannah's been here. She's handled some of the meetings she's done, the Planning Commissioners Academy. She has clerked the Z, a not clerked staffed, the Z a meetings, the zoning administrator meetings for the past year. She certainly more than capable to

handle this. And I will still be here in any capacity if you need anything, but will not be handling as much of these meetings. There are a couple ones coming up that I'll handle just because of my historical knowledge on the items, but after that, then we'll transition to Hannah. So wanted to let you know that. Great. Thank you. Clayton. I just wanted to say quickly, you have been so helpful to us in getting us up to speed and answering our emails and stupid, stupid questions. And here in the Planning Commission, when I was chair last year, I don't think I could have done it without your support and very well deserved your promotion. Good luck. It's a hard job and we will absolutely miss you. Thank you. Well said. Thank you. That concludes staff's report and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. The commissioners have any questions for Chris? No. All right. Thank you. Thank you so much, Chris. Okay. Now we will go to the next item on the agenda, which is Planning Commissioner reports. Do any of the commissioners have a report or any information they would like to share? Yeah. Just a quick report on the Planning Commissioner Academy that we went to last week, and it's along the same line as what Clayton was talking about. Gave us time to spend some time with Hannah. That's the first time I've out of this meeting that we've been able to sit down and communicate and just have some general conversations about things. So looking forward to her support on that. You know, it was great again, to spend time with not only her, but some of the other commissioners. And I think it was 420 people in attendance at that. That was one of the numbers that they threw out. So a lot of sessions where you could have discussions with other commissioners and see some of the items that they're going through, you know, just for me.

Some items of interest. You know, I think there was 14 different sessions with 20 different topics. And things that stood out for me were specifically our roles in the age of zoning reform, planning after wildfire, California housing law basics, understanding the development review process and the all the one. We always look forward to the legislative update. So we get an insight to a lot of things that are coming before the state or being presented to the state, which will have significant impact on us, especially in the rural areas. It was a great meeting. Thank you. I'll piggyback that. We also went through some ethics training, which this speaks to Clayton and staff. We're doing everything properly as far as I can see or feel. George mentioned the wildfire planning, which is, you know, somewhat specific to us up here. And the point I took away from there, and it's somewhat common sense, but we must keep it in mind as you plan for a project right now, today, but 20 years from now, that project still susceptible to wildfires. So you really need to maintain those standards that you put into place today relative to wildfire safety. Moving down the road. It was stated a lot that the best thing we can do as a county, as a planning commission, are to have objective, objective standards in place and make sure that they are strong and well stated. And the other thing I drew is they mentioned it a couple of times and a couple scenarios that all of the recent legislation, which is geared towards streamlining housing, increasing the affordable housing in particular, there has been no there has been no real significant, if any,

increase in production of housing with all of these state mandates that have come through our legislative advocate, through the California League of Cities, spoke finally, and it was the final speaker, and he felt strongly that. The legislature now is going to hopefully take a take a step back and not just start throwing things against the wall, but actually assess what's been going on in the last few years and see if there are some improvements that can be made. One final number that I found very interesting, they had one slide. I should have taken a picture of it. But the arena, the regional housing needs, Los Angeles County are almost 500,000 homes at this time. So us being less than 1% of that, even though it was tough, is insignificant compared to them. I don't know how they end up meeting those numbers, but it was just a quick slide. So anyway, all in all, excellent week week week end. Great. Thank you. And then I'll just add some additional comments. I also attended in just to piggyback on Jorge and Jeff's comments, the keynote speaker, his name is William Fulton. He's been in the planning profession for many, many years, has a textbook. And in addition, he said, there's three things that the Planning Commission can still embody as part of our role. Even with all these state mandates, one being the objective standards, which I think the county has done a good job of putting together objective standards. Now, some of the laws actually allow those to be overridden, but at least you have them established from the beginning. The other two pieces he thought were really critical for the Planning Commission's role is around the general plan policy, and in very pertinent to Placer County. Since we're going through the 2050 General Plan update on looking forward on land use and other aspects. And

then the third piece was what we do day in and day out, which is interpreting the current zoning code, which you know, will have many, many opportunities. And then just a couple of comments that I had and maybe a question to Clayton and Chris on the last speaker topic around the upcoming legislation, there were a couple of key key legislations, and hopefully I captured the the, the bills correctly. One was that I thought were interesting. One was AB2, two, nine six, which may allow for more time in the next arena cycle, which I know everyone that went through the arena cycle, it was kind of a mad dash. The other thing he talked about, I don't remember what the the bill was, but differentiating, differentiating HCD guidance where it's actually state law versus HCD department desire, because the interpretation of CDC guidance has severe implications on county projects. So I thought that was good that the League of California Cities was sort of promoting and advocating that. The other one I thought was interesting, I think it was AB 1567. There was a former bill that failed, I think, last year, but this one was about getting credit for senior care housing in district four and granite Bay. We have quite a number of senior care facilities that have come in, and so if those were able to be counted toward the affordable housing units, that would be, I think, a big win for the county. Again, that's I think there's a new version of that possibly this year. And then the last one, which was to me quite concerning, but is AB2, four, three three, which would be expanding the density bonus law, which as we all know, was a part of the Hopewell project

and other projects that have come forward. It would actually allow tripling of the concessions and waivers without adding more affordable housing. So that one, to me had some grave concerns. And so one of the questions I had, Chris, in Clayton, is I think the county has a legislative arm or a policy advocacy arm. I think it would be super helpful, given the planning commissioners role in in these, you know, new laws, like having it update periodically. Maybe it's part of your planning director report, Chris, just to share with the commission, you know, not the every day update, but like what's coming, how are these new bills changing? Because they do morph over time and some may never see the light of day, but is that something that's possible? Yeah, absolutely. I should also point out that staff does use a number of different avenues to keep track of, of, you know, legislation that's working its way through through the system. We do interact quite regularly with our chapter of the American Planning Association, which tracks legislation. Also, I'm a member of the California County Planning Directors Association. We regularly communicate on, you know, new bills that are of interest that we might want to be tracking, and then the county's legislative coordinator, we also, whenever there's a bill that they're working, working through with cSAC that there, there's correspondence and we determine if there's an impact and should there be a position or information that that we should provide. But certainly, to your point, having an update and we'll need to think about the best timing for that is

something that I can either incorporate into Planning Director report, or we can agendize a an update as well. I don't know, Clayton, if you. Yeah, no, I think that was a great response. The only piece I'd add to that is I think historically what we've done is waited till bills have been passed before providing them as updates to the commission, just because they go through so many iterations. And and certainly within the past decade, there has been a ton of housing bills proposed that with varied success. And so it's, it's been, it's been a large task just to keep on top of the ones that are actually passed. But yeah, great points and certainly things we can provide going forward. Okay, great. Do other commissioners have comments or questions? I do, I've been following the HCD dashboard that updates regularly on jurisdictions that are meeting their arena numbers. And in California, we right now have 569 jurisdictions, cities and counties. Only 31 of them are on track to meet their arena numbers for this cycle. That's predicting out for the next, what is it, two years before the cycle is over? Each each jurisdiction, you know, depending on their their different which council of governments they're covered by maybe on a slightly different track for their six cycle housing element or seven cycle. And I hope that this signals a more realistic estimate from the cogs in the next cycle. I don't know that that's going to happen, but when only 31 out of 569 are hitting their target, there's something wrong with the target. So I just found that interesting. And you can go out on the HCD website and they have all the dashboard there. You can dig deep into each of the jurisdictions if you want to look at where they're hitting their targets. It's interesting. The ones that are doing it are the ones with lots of land, like San Bernardino and the places that are, you know, taller places that have areas to build. And the other thing that I wanted

to echo, what I completely agree with, Commissioner Beckler, is that HCD is putting out a lot of guidance and a lot more guidance. It's one of the things that they've been doing and it's it's just that it's guidance. It's not ordinance, it's not policy. It's not law. And so I think we need to take that under advisement when we have some things that are coming forward that are going to be structured around HCD guidance specifically, thank you. Anything else? Okay, great. We will move right along. I will now open public comment for any matters not on the Planning Commission agenda. As a reminder, you will have three minutes to provide comments. If you can, please come forward. Good morning, chair Beckler Commissioners Wayne Nader. I first want to congratulate Clayton. I really appreciated him when I was on the Planning Commission to help us navigate through the challenges that we faced, and he did it with a smile on his face. I can't think of a more worthy promotion than the one you just got. Clayton. So again, congratulations on that. As you heard from Chris, you are going to be hearing on April 16th in Tahoe, the Palisades project. And the reason I'm bringing it up now is I am going to be out of the area and unavailable to participate in that. And I want to make a couple of brief comments about it. It's come a long ways. It first started in 2011, and it is now the amendment that's going to come before you. It was, as you know, approved by this Planning Commission and about a year ago, and also the board and then it was challenged legally. So you are getting an amendment as a part of the settlement of that lawsuit. And I want to commend all the parties involved, including the county, for negotiating what I think is a significantly better project, especially as you relate it to the 2011 project, which was, you know, horrendous. So that's a good thing. But there is one

issue. I have a fire service background, and I'm really concerned about the positioning of this project in a valley that only has one way in and one way out. There is no alternatives. None. And there is a state minimum fire regulation 1273 .08, which requires any new development or an additional a growth in a development that has to have multiple exits if they're out their main access point to a major thoroughfare is over a mile. And and in that case, with Palisades, it is two miles. The Cal Fire chief Estes, a year ago gave them an exception to it, but I had never heard a good sound reason for that. And there's a reason for those regulations. And as you understand it said minimum. And I believe that there is great risk by ignoring that, especially when you have a very confined area like the Olympic Valley. And so I would ask you to not get caught up in the fact that, yeah, it's a much better project. But think about the risks, because I think they're going to ask you and they're going to ask the board to make an exception. Also agree with that exception. And I think anybody who goes along with that, it's certainly putting, I believe, people at risk. Now, let's all pray that we never have a fire event, but we know you've been hearing them when you were at that meeting, that the fires in California are much more intense than they were years ago. And so we have to be ready for those kinds of risks. And I would ask you, when you meet on the 16th, really think about that because I just really feel

concerned because the alternative is that they will ask them to shelter in place. And from a fire background, that is your last resort. And I think that's really risky in the valley that could be overtaken by fire. So thank you. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you for your comments. Anyone else here today that would like to provide public comment for items not on the agenda? Do we have anyone via Zoom? I've got one. Okay. Caller go ahead and unmute Mike and give your comments. Greetings, commissioners. Diane Louise Alessi from Christian Valley Community Services District and North Auburn District 560 years in Placer County. The hard truth if Placer County. If Placer County honestly wants to create housing for acutely low, extremely low and low income residents, the county must lead as developer slash producer. Private markets won't deliver at scale or price point. We need proof. Affordable projects proposed hit nearly $500,000 per door, excluding infrastructure, developers normally pay for in market rate. Streets, water drainage, the taxpayers and ratepayers pick up those tabs now, Rina Bi-rite game stacks, tax bonds, grants, fee waivers l I h t c credits subsidies forever. Who wins nonprofit developer partnerships selling tax credits. County slash communities get the debt, infrastructure costs and the blame when affordability fails to produce homes for low income

families. Acutely low means SSI disability. Tiny pensions. These $500,000 units don't reach them without massive extra subsidy. County led solutions use county land public to public partnerships. Control costs directly stop accepting inflated numbers. Hoping Rena boxes get checked. Same tools, same players equals insanity. Expensive affordable units serving financing. Not people. An urgent ask. Start by getting the county to develop pilot programs. Now the boss must make Placer the producer for the deepest affordability and the people that it needs to serve. So I thank you for your time. Thank you, Diane, for your comments. Do we have anyone else via Zoom? I see no others. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. We will now move on to the hearing items for today. Item number one is the planning director's determination related to the Winchester subdivision stormwater requirements. The Planning Commission is the decision body for this item, and the staff presentation today will be provided by Associate Planner Jared Peters. Welcome, Jared. Excuse me quickly. I need to recuse myself. As a resident of Winchester, I was advised that would be appropriate. Thank you. Thanks, Jeff. We'll give you a moment to step away. Go right ahead Jared. Thank you, chair Beckler. And good morning,

Commissioners Jared Peters with the Planning Services Division to present the Winchester Subdivision stormwater requirements planning director's determination. This item was continued from the November 13th, 2025 Planning Commission. Hearing the specific specificities of that, I'm going to discuss later in this presentation. So the requested determination would affect the entirety of the Winchester subdivision roughly outlined on screen in blue. The subdivision is located between Christian Valley and Meadow Vista communities and is accessed off of Sugar Pine Road. The applicant, Jerry Johnson, is requesting a planning director's determination that condition. Four of the Winchester subdivisions conditional use permit may be satisfied through the use of an alternate of alternate stormwater management methods than dry wells. Specifically, the request seeks confirmation that the county, through the Building Services Division and the building permit process, permits alternatives to the currently specified use of dry wells and filter strips on all lots within the subdivision. The ruling contained within the staff report has been referred to the Planning Commission by the Planning Director, in line with section 17 020 50 F. The Winchester subdivision was approved by the Board of Supervisors on August 3rd, 1993. At that hearing, the board modified and subsequently certified the EIR and incorporated the mitigation measures into the conditions of approval. Subdivision has been largely built out with only two phases remaining, one of which is going to construction soon. On screen is an abbreviated chronology of the specific rest, the conversations between staff and the applicant began in August of 2024, with staff providing a determination. In October of the same year. The applicant then submitted a request for a planning director determination in August. I should say, of last year, 2025, and staff then brought a recommendation to the Planning Commission for their consideration in November of

2025. At that meeting, this item was continued to give staff and the applicant additional time to discuss alternatives, and staff is now bringing forward the recommendation contained within the staff report. So the mitigation measure in question is mitigation measure 29 in the mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting program shown on screen. This mitigation measure identifies best management practices to be implemented in the project. A brief excerpt from the FDR is also included on screen, noting that the project's carries were expected to call for drywalls and downspouts. At the board hearing on August 3rd, 1993, the board took action to remove the mitigation measure previously shown, determining that it was not necessary to determine the project would have a less than significant impact on water quality. Despite this action by the board, condition of approval for was approved, with the language highlighted on screen seeming to indicate that dry wells were to were to be used as outlined in the FDR and mitigation measure. Since the original project approval, the county has adopted the West Placer Stormwater Quality Design Manual, henceforth referred to as the Design Manual that establishes updated stormwater quality standards for the county. Under the design manual, all new structures, including single family dwellings, must implement onsite stormwater quality treatment facilities. So on screen are a few examples of those facilities. Acceptable treatments include dry wells, disconnecting downspouts, rain gardens, porous pavements, vegetated swales, tree planting and maintenance, and other improvements designed to intercept, treat and infiltrate stormwater runoff. These measures ensure surface runoff and stormwater are managed, effectively, reducing water quality impacts. These

requirements are implemented effectively. Are these requirements are are implemented for single family dwellings through the county's Building Services Division and the building permit process. Staff has reviewed the request in the context of the certified EIR and original conditions of approval, relevant county records, and current adopted County standards and guidelines, including the design manual. Based on the official board meeting minutes from August 3rd, 1993, it is clear that the board determined that the drywell and filter strips were not necessary to mitigate drainage and water quality impacts to less than significant levels. Although the conditions were not formally revised at the time to remove the language referencing dry wells and filter strips, specifically within the condition of approval for the intent of the board is clearly documented in the meeting record. This establishes a strong basis for interpreting the condition in light of the board's original decision. Additionally, the design manual has since been updated and provides a comprehensive and flexible framework for evaluating and treating stormwater runoff on site specific basis through a variety of BMPs or best management practices. Notably, the design manual did not exist at the time of the original project's approval and now offers a new approach for managing lot level stormwater impacts that did not previously exist. Throughout the November 13th Planning Commission hearing, the commission heard staff's recommendation, heard from the applicant and heard from members of the public who spoke in favor of the project, noting greater flexibility in site planning and that some dry wells in the subdivision had failed on developed sites. The commission ultimately continued the item on the applicant's request to provide an opportunity to resolve outstanding issues and to pursue potential alternative means for resolving the concerns. On January 20th, the applicant requested the item to be placed back on the agenda. So that brings us to our recommendation in consultation with the Department of Public Works and Engineering and Surveying. Division. Staff

would recommend that interpretation of the conditions of approval, that language in the condition for provides a non-exhaustive list of potential BMPs, rather than prescribing specific stormwater quality methods. And that design, and that the Design manual offers a framework for evaluating appropriateness of various BMPs. These alternatives are capable of meeting and exceeding the Winchester subdivisions, drainage and water quality objectives, and therefore can be found to fulfill the intent and purpose of the original conditions of approval. Staff received no correspondence since the previous hearing. So based on the analysis contained in the staff report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions. Determine that the request is consistent with the previously Certified Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Winchester Subdivision Project. In accordance with Public Resources Code, section 21083.3, as it does not trigger any additional conditions in the sequel guidelines. Sections 1516, two through one, five, one, six, four and two to approve the planning director's determination that the alternative stormwater management methods may be used to satisfy condition of approval for of the Winchester community's Winchester subdivisions. Conditional use permit sub 292QP1550. Subject to the review and approval by the county. This concludes my presentation and I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Jared. Are there any questions, Jared. No. Okay. I do have one. Go ahead. Mark, can you discuss the purpose of putting it over to this meeting was to have discussions you provide maybe what those discussions consisted of or if there are any conclusions. Sure. I can discuss what I discussed, what I talked with the applicant about. I'll let him discuss any others he had with other council members. But our discussions were largely limited to alternatives the planning division was aware of, particularly around modifying specifically the condition

through a direct subdivision modification and the impacts that would take and the process that would go through. To kind of briefly summarize that for the commission, a subdivision modification of the scale, because it would modify the condition for the entire subdivision would require the buy in and signatures of the entire subdivision. This presents a quite large hurdle for any project that seeks to do such a thing. And so it's not staff's recommendation to go that path. It's certainly open, but we believe the current path gets the gets to the resolution at a much swifter and more equitable pace. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much, Jared. If I can have the applicant come to the podium. And you could just state your name for the record and just if you have any additional comments that you would like to make. Yes, my name is Jerry Johnson. Thank you. I was the original developer for Winchester. As I stated at our last hearing. I think we've made I've given us a lot of thought. I thank you for allowing time to clarify what my objections were and hopefully work it out with the county. I do want to make progress, but I think that the word may. Here we see it. The board clearly voted 4 to 1 to eliminate the conditions. They didn't say May. So like I said, I want to make some progress. And I think if if you explain to me, Madam Chairman, last time that you can't modify anything. So if I think it's

important. Clayton wrote an email to me, he's the only one of county council that that was willing to do that. But in that email, he clearly stated that it might have been the intent of the Board of Supervisors to eliminate dry wells, but that's not what happened. Well, the Board of Supervisors is the executive legal council for for this county staff has to follow their directions. It wasn't caught. And and they started requiring an 18 dry wells. I brought it up. Then what I'm asking and what I've asked from the beginning is. They go back and follow the 4 to 1 vote, the Board of Supervisors to eliminate the condition, not say may or other alternatives. And I understand that that can't be modified. But I would like to ask county Council if if I agree to this step in the right direction, does that eliminate my ability to then appeal to the Board of Supervisors to finalize or listen to what I basically said here today to eliminate it, not leave it up to somebody's discretion. So appeals the authority for an appeal is to anyone that objects or challenges the action being taken today. So you would need to object or challenge it in order to appeal the item. So if I agree today to say yes, please pass this. It's a step in the right direction. I can still appeal the decision to the board because it's not what I requested in the first, you have to oppose or challenge the action today in order to appeal

it. I will be able to. You would have to either oppose or challenge the action today in order to be able to appeal it. Okay, then. I don't have any other choice but to challenge the action so that I can appeal it to the board. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your comments, Jerry. I'm going to open up public comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make public comment? You can step forward? Wayne Nader I'm a property owner in Winchester, and I spoke at your November meeting about this issue. I was hoping that we had a little clearer path listening to Mr. Johnson. It doesn't sound like we do. Maybe if that May was Will, it's a little bit more solid that he may be satisfied by that. I want to commend the county because they recognize the flaw that was made in this long time ago should have been dealt with because unfortunately, as Jared stated, there's been this was forced on properties that are that should have never been done because there was obviously failed systems. Any of you that are familiar with Winchester, you know, the, the terrain in there is a real challenge. I mean, you've got some pretty severe slopes. You've got a lot of different types of soil, you've got a lot of rock to deal with, and those are not conducive to dry wells. So I think using the discretion of the county to use what's appropriate for those particular oddities within each lot is absolutely essential. So I would encourage you to just go ahead and prove this today. Even though Mr. Johnson may appeal it, he can certainly do that if he wants to. But this is the sound and right method of addressing the issues of of stormwater runoff issues. So I hope you see that, and I hope you will support it and just go

forward with it. Let's not drag this out anymore. I mean, this has been hanging around since 93. Let's get it squared away now. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Anyone else that would like to provide comment? Yes. Go right ahead. If you state your name for the record. Thank you. My name is Jean Merwin and I'm the president of the board of directors of the Winchester Community Association. I'm accompanied today by David Nevin, who is the board's compliance officer, and Jennifer Bollinger, who is our general manager. And we're here to speak on behalf of supporting the county's recommendation. And I would also like to state that we would like to work closely with the county Planning Department as we determine how we're going to write up the amendments to our governing documents, because we have very strict regulations now from the county on what can and cannot be done outside the building envelope. And so we want to work with the county to make sure that we comply with all the regulations. Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this? Do we have anyone on Zoom? See, I see none. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close public comment for this item. Are there any clarifications that staff would like to make? Yeah. What's been said? I think just one is it was related to the language in the staff recommendation about May versus Will. I think the more appropriate place to reference is that this recommendation would actually approve the director determination that's included in your staff report package as attachment C, and I just wanted to read the relevant section to kind of inform the Commission about what what will actually occur, because these projects will be evaluated on a case by

case basis, depending on the unique circumstances for each project. The second to last paragraph in that director's determination states that given the documented intent of the board in 1993 and the availability of alternative BMPs under the West Placer Stormwater Quality Design Manual, that staff concludes that the dry well that dry wells and filter strips should not be interpreted as mandatory for individual lot development within the subdivision. Instead, adherence to the manual and current county stormwater standards is sufficient to satisfy the project's original environmental commitments and conditions of approval. So again, each project will be reviewed on a on a site specific basis and the appropriate method or appropriate BMP would be evaluated for that project under this determination. Okay, so the May versus will versus shall doesn't really have any bearing in the sense of all the appropriate BMP options are available. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to bring it back to the commission. Thoughts, questions, comments. I'll just say it's good to get clarification, and I would support moving forward as written. Okay. And I'm just confused by Mr. Johnson's confusion on where we are. When I was chairing that last meeting. Not yet. Just wait, just wait, just wait, just wait. We had come. We had come forward. You're the applicant. So we had come forward with a recommendation and you weren't clear on that. So we had you go back and work with the county on this recommendation. So we're here today and it doesn't sound like you're on board

again. And I just want to make sure that you've read attachment C, the excerpt that Director Julie just read to us that gives us gives you in the organization some leeway around BMP. Do you understand? I want to make sure today that you get it and you're on board and you agree, since you're the applicant, that this is the direction that we should go, that there's a solution today, rather than just continuing to grind the ax, want to come up and answer like I said. Microphone please. Yeah. Microphone. Yes. I said I think it's a step in the right direction, but it's not. Following the vote of the 93 board, we understand that. They said eliminate it. We understand that we are here today to make a decision on this. And like I don't I just asked like I asked county council. I want to make sure that I can still take this issue to the board so that it makes the next step to meet what the 4 to 1 vote was in 1993. Did you understand that that was not possible after today's vote? If the Commission goes forward with this, did you understand? After today, I understood that he can appeal. Support it? Yeah, I could appeal it. Yes. Clayton. Correct. The the statute that allows the appeal says that the person filing the appeal must have either attended or informed the county in writing of the nature of his or her concerns before the hearing, meaning that there must have been an opposition to it for him to appeal it. So I think what Mr. Johnson is indicating is that he's preserving his right to appeal by stating his opposition. Thank you. Thank you, Jerry. Thank you. Mark, I have a question for Mr. Clayton. So it sounds like if with the

short board we have here, if this motion was a motion was made and this action failed, would his expression against this allow him to appeal our failure to enact this? Exactly. Wait. That's my question. Would you restate that? Can you restate that? I agree, so in the instance that the Planning Commission denied this action, has he stated enough to warrant an appeal? I mean, that's something we would have to evaluate. But I, I, I personally tend not to take strong positions on whether they have a right to appeal if as long as they've met the timeline and the the filing requirements for the appeal. Normally we. Appealable. Yeah. Well, if it's timely in view of that, I'd like to make a motion to accept the staff recommendations as were read in. This will probably take them one at a time. We do them one at a time. These can be taken together. I'll second that. Okay. Okay, so I have a first and second. Can we get roll call please? What's. Yes. Dahlgren. Yes. Jewel. Yes. Yes. Beckler. Yes. Okay. Thank you. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by anyone who appeared at today's hearing and provided comment, or anyone that submitted written comments on this item. An appeal must be filed within ten days of today's date, and shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $752. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the consideration of the entitlements for the estates at granite Bay Golf Course Subdivision. For this item, the Planning Commission is the

decision body. The presentation will be given by Associate Planner Jared Peters. Let's see. All right Jared, you're up again. Not rid of me yet. One more totally fine. We like having you. Okay. All right. Thank you, Chair Beckler. And good morning, commissioners. Once again I am Jared Peters with the Planning Services Division. And now I'm here to present the estates at granite Bay Golf Club project. I'd first like to note that Anuradha was prepared to address conditions 24 and attachment H pertaining to the undergrounding of utilities and the gate proposal. I'll discuss each of these more later in the presentation. So the site is located on the granite Bay Golf Club Golf Club parcel south of East Roosevelt Parkway and west of Barton Road in the granite Bay area. The proposed subdivision would be located on a four and a half acre portion of the golf course, identified previously as a nursery site for the golf course. The site is zoned residential. Single family combining agriculture combining minimum building site of 40,000ft■!S. Combining plannd residential development of 1.1 unit per acre and designated as rural low density residential 0.9 to 2.3 acre minimum. The site has historically been used

as a nursery and a laydown maintenance yard. A seasonal. A seasonal stream runs westerly through the parcel feeding into Linda Creek. So the site hosts about about one acre of riparian habitat. About three acres of urban land cover made up of pathways and non-native landscaping, and about three acres of urban golf course land cover covering mostly disturbed area. Much of the site is subject to a irrevocable offer of dedication or an IUD for a conservation preservation easement. Much of the land, including much of the land in and outside of that easement, is disturbed from previous uses, including maintenance and vehicle traffic and storage of various building materials. This has resulted in limited natural habitat remaining on site. The original use permit conditioned the project to be converted to convert the site to open space. If the nursery use were ever discontinued, though the photos on screen were taken by staff during a site visit. As you can see, much of the remaining habitat is recessed or absent, with construction materials piled on site. There are additional photos provided to you as a part of your staff report. So the original Golf Club subdivision approved 72 units through a planned residential development. The current project proposes to redevelop the nursery site to add six single family residential lots, ranging from 0.41 to 0.51 acres in size. The project would also develop for common area open space lots totaling 0.88 acres, roughly. So the golf club project was approved in 1993 as a 72 lot planned development and 18 hole golf course. As previously mentioned, the subject site was intended to be used as a nursery for the golf course for, or as additional

open space, so the project includes three entitlements. Attended a parcel map, attended a subdivision map and a modification to the existing granite Bay Golf Club project. Firstly, looking at the tentative parcel map, the tentative parcel map would subdivide the existing golf course parcel into two new parcels, the four and a half acre residential site, and the approximately 146 acre golf course parcel. The initial division is for financing purposes and would not convey development rights. The subdivision map would divide the four and a half acre parcel into six residential lots and four landscape lots. The residential lots would range from 0.41 to 0.51 acres in size. The landscape lots would total approximately, as I said, 0.88 acres and would be maintained by the new HOA established by the project. I want to say that again there will be a new HOA with this project. They would not annex into the existing residences HOA. The project includes a modification to the original golf club project to modify conditions of approval and enable the current proposal. In particular, the modifications would enable the project to modify the I, o d area pursuant to state code requirements, and modify a no access strip to provide legal access to the site, as well as to allow the residential development of the nursery site. The project would further modify the original plan development to to enable the new lots. The original entitlement, as I mentioned, created 72 lots across 180 acres. With the new lots, the project would total 78 total lots across. Again, 180 acres at a density of 0.43 units per acre. This is less dense than the 1.1 units ascribed to the parcel by the zoning district. So the applicant provided revised plan development calculations with which staff reviewed against the planned development ordinance or PD ordinance to ensure accurate

measurements. The PD ordinance in chapter 17 notes the following. That the allowed number of dwelling units shall not exceed the number permitted by the base zone district. Based zoning on the property plus 5% if the minimum 20% open space is provided, the maximum number of units permitted under the base zoning is 140. Based on the calculations on screen. The 78 total lots proposed for the modification would remain well below the 140 maximum. Furthermore, the PD must maintain open space totaling 20% of the site area, which in this case would be approximately 36 acres. The site would maintain approximately 72.69 acres of open space, including the golf course. After we subtract out for what would be removed as a part of this project, plan developments may establish unique structural setbacks compared to base zone districts. Per the PD ordinance, the current project is proposing structural setbacks on screen. These setbacks are consistent with those adopted for two sections of the original plan. Development called it, ironically, the estates and Chateau. Those sections are shown on screen in blue that's there on the north of east Roseville and on on the west of the of the screen. And the subject site is there on green. So it's that triangular piece in the northeast corner. The proposed lots in these two areas are of reasonably similar size to those proposed with the current project, particularly those in the estates along East Roseville Parkway. Again, the northern section. Placer County GIS and granite Bay Community Plan identify the aquatic resource on site as an intermittent stream. This would require the project to

implement a 50 foot buffer from the center line of identified streams and boundaries of riparian habitat pursuant to general Plan Policy 6A1. The project proposes to fill the aquatic resource and provide mitigation for its complete loss. Surface water would be conveyed via a pipe beneath the development to the west to maintain consistency with pre-project drainage patterns. General plan policy is six A1 identifies the resources found on site for protection through the application of buffers. The piping of a mapped stream is generally considered inconsistent with this policy. However, Natural Resources Policy six A1 does identify for specific circumstances under which the county may grant an exception to this policy. Those are as follows. One reasonable use of the property would otherwise be denied. Two the location is necessary to avoid or mitigate hazards to the public. Three the location is necessary for the repair of roads, bridges, trails or similar infrastructure, and four the location is necessary for the construction of new roads, bridges, trails or similar infrastructure where the county determines there is no feasible alternative and the project has minimized environmental impacts through project design and infrastructure placement. On screen is a mockup prepared by staff of the available building area, based on the habitat mapping done for the project, the light blue areas are outside any structural setbacks and special habitat buffers. Enforcement of the complex would create two pockets of buildable area, each approximately 25,000ft■!S. The habitat buffer splits the buildable area in two, and would almost certainly require impacting the stream and riparian area to access it, as accessing from East Roosevelt Parkway would likely present safety concerns due to the nearby intersection. Thus, staff is supportive of an exception to policy six A1 under the argument that reasonable use of the property would be denied. General Plan

policy six A3 notes. Projects that propose to encroach into the stream system shall be required to do one or more of the following in a descending order of desirability. One or the most desirable. Avoid the disturbance of riparian vegetation. Two replace all functions of the existing riparian vegetation on site and in-kind. Three restore another section of stream in kind or. Four pay a mitigation fee for in-kind restoration elsewhere, such as mitigation, banks and mitigation credits. Given the degraded condition, the project proposes mitigation measures that replace the lost ecological functions off site in areas with higher habitat quality and connectivity than the subject site. The DND prepared for the for the proposed project includes mitigation measures requiring the developer to work with the Army Corps, California Department of Fish and Wildlife and other state and federal agencies to ensure that all applicable provisions of federal law, federal and state law are adhered to, including section 404 of the Clean Water Act, to ensure no net loss of wetland functions and values. Mitigation for permanent impacts with waters of the United States is typically required at a minimum, a 1 to 1 ratio. Those mitigation measures would be developed directly with the Army Corps. Mitigation with staff has been included in the DND by staff to require the developer to acquire credits at a mitigation bank in Placer County or with a service area in Placer County at a ratio of 1.5 to 1. To mitigate the loss of both the resource and the conservation. This approach aligns with General Plan Policy six A3, which prioritizes mitigation strategies such as restoring or replacing functions elsewhere. When direct. When direct preservation is not feasible. As described earlier, most of the project site is within an ID for a conservation preservation easement created as a part of the original subdivision. The original project called for the nursery

site to be restored to its open space condition should the nursery use be discontinued. In line with the requirements of the ID, the proposed project would modify the conditions of approval, as I mentioned previously, to allow the partial abandonment of the ID and the development of the nursery site, rather than the restoration of the natural, rather than restoration to a natural state. The project would be conditioned to partially rescind and abandon the ID government code. Section 7050 allows this ID to be partially abandoned in accordance with the summary vacation procedure contained in Streets and Highways code section 8330, which requires the board to adopt a resolution. Given the nature of the ID, such a resolution would require the board to find that significant changes in circumstances have occurred that have made the original purpose of the ID impossible or impractical. Since the ID was recorded, the area has been impacted by the continued use as a staging area for the golf course, reducing the amount of viable habitat on site significantly below what was present when the ID was recorded. In its current condition. Staff believes the ID does not adequately protect the habitat it was created for. The applicant is proposing to gate the proposed subdivision similar to other subdivisions in the community. Gated subdivisions in the granite Bay area are regulated by the Community Plan. The community plan states that gated subdivisions shall be limited to specific situations to help preserve the rural character of granite Bay and promote the interconnectivity between neighborhoods. Pursuant to the granite Bay Community Plan circulation policy, 28 gated subdivisions are only to be allowed in the following scenarios. One instances in which the entrance is located adjacent to a substantial traffic generator, i.e. a regional park, church or school that creates a parking issue within the subdivision, or two instances in which the entrance to the subdivision is, is contiguous to or accessed

through a nonresidential land use, such as a business, professional or commercial district, and separating the uses with a gate is the most practicable solution. Or three the subdivision is directly accessed off of a major arterial roadway. The applicant contends that the golf club is a regional facility which draws golfers from throughout the greater Sacramento region and beyond. Furthermore, it hosts events on an annual basis which draw visitors not just from the granite Bay community Area but throughout the Greater Sacramento region. Therefore, the golf club is akin to a regional park. In addition, the applicant contends that not getting the project would enable public access to the golf course, which itself is gated and precludes public access absent permission from the golf club. This would include precluding or. This includes precluding public access to the area which the proposed project is located. Finally, the proposal would be would be a residential use contiguous to a nonresidential land use, making it consistent with scenario two. As previously stated, based on staff's analysis of the granite Bay Community Plan and the proposed project, staff believes the proposed gates are inconsistent with circulation policy 28 for the following reasons. Although the subdivision is adjacent to the golf course, it is located and is located a substantial distance away from the clubhouse, making it unlikely to attract parking associated with golf club activities. The subdivision is not accessed through a nonresidential area, and while the subdivision is contiguous to a nonresidential land use, the uses would be separated by a wall and fence combination totaling six feet tall along the shared property line, with the only proposed opening being a golf cart path and three. Additionally, the Barton Road Barton Road from Sacramento County to Carolina Drive, which is the frontage for this project, is not classified as a major arterial roadway. It's a minor arterial

roadway, so the community plan states that a gate may be appropriate when separating the uses with a gate is the most practical solution, where a subdivision entrance is contiguous to a nonresidential land use. In this case, because the wall would already span the full boundary between the residential and nonresidential uses, the only access point is the golf cart path, and the most practical solution to separating these two uses would be to gate the path, rather than the subdivision street entrance. This approach would allow the golf course to remain to remain gated as it's current as it currently operates, provide controlled access for golf club members within the community and preserve the open, interconnected community design envisioned for the Community plan. The project is conditioned to not is conditioned to not include a gate. If the Commission finds that the project is consistent with circulation policy 28, then the modifications listed in attachment H need to be made to the conditions of approval. The errata I mentioned earlier adds an additional modification in the event that the project. The project is found to be compliant with the community plan policy, which would be the removal of condition of approval 98, which requires changes to the fencing plan to remove the gate. The errata also removes the additional condition, the original condition on attachment H. That's the condition in red, as it is duplicative of condition of approval 56 and instead modifies condition of approval 56 to fit a pro gate project. So the land use section of the general plan includes direction to staff to adopt a system of scenic corridors within the community. Plans to preserve and enhance and protect the scenic resources visible from these scenic routes. The granite Bay Community Plan includes the routes on screen as scenic roads, notably including Barton Road south of the Douglas Boulevard commercial area, which includes this project's section of Barton Road. The community plan indicates specific guidelines

for four scenic roads, including screening of screening of fences and walls with landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, landscaped medians and space for meandering paths. General plan policy 4A4 also calls for undergrounding of of utilities along scenic corridors adjacent to sites of proposed developments, or to contribute to future undergrounding when such work is infeasible, this project would provide and maintain landscaping along the frontage path. Currently exists along Barton and would remain after the project is complete. Additionally, the project has been conditioned to underground utilities along Barton, as shown on the tentative map, to ensure compliance with the general and community plan policies. Furthermore, the modified condition of approval 24, which speaks to the undergrounding. To revise the. The alternative presented to undergrounding. In the event that such work is deemed infeasible. The proposed project is within the Foothill potential growth area of the PCP. The PCP requires projects avoid, minimize, and mitigate effects to aquatic resources and terrestrial habitat as the project proposes to develop, not avoid the intermittent stream and riparian habitat, the PCP cannot provide permits to cover the project's impacts. Furthermore, much of the site is disturbed due to maintenance, vehicle traffic and the storage of building materials. As such, limited natural habitat remains due to the impact of the golf course use. The ND includes mitigation measures independent of the PCP, as previously noted, and the developer would be required to coordinate with applicable state and federal agencies and acquire mitigation credits at a 1.5 to 1 ratio at a bank with a service area in Placer County. On screen, you can see the three photos of the subject site identifying approximately when the. When the project appears to have ceased use as a nursery.

Cultivation areas are visible in 2019 and 2020, but not in 2021, suggesting that nursery use ended around that time or soon after, the golf club was approved with a with a designated maintenance area in the south of the golf course shown on screen in blue. In the future, construction and maintenance materials as well as vehicles must be stored at the approved maintenance area. The project was presented to the granite Bay Municipal Advisory Council on August 1st, 2024. At the meeting, the Mac asked whether the project would be gated, shared concerns about impacts to aquatic resources expressed mixed feelings about gating. The project, expressed concern about modifying and approved PD to afford to allow more density than was initially approved. Expressed concerns about precedent. Asked whether the site would include new pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, asked whether the construction staging would occur if not where where the construction staging would occur, if not on site and otherwise, but otherwise expressed general positive attitude toward developing the site to no longer be, as I quote, an eyesore. One member of the Mac did feel strongly and shared that the site should instead be restored to an open space to open space, as was called for by the approved project. One member of the public took issue with the notification requirements, suggesting they were inadequate to notify neighbors. An ND was prepared to analyze the potential impacts from the project to comment letters were received during the public review period, one from the Air Pollution Control District and one from the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The Air District's letter addressed two issues. Firstly, Air District Rule 225, which regulates the use of wood burning appliances. The Air district recommended a condition of approval if the project were to allow wood burning appliances. Wood burning appliances are restricted pursuant to the conditions of approval set forth in the Air Quality

section. The Air District further suggested that the burning of land development, vegetation and residential outdoor burning be prohibited due to the density of the site and the area. Staff agrees and a condition of approval has been included to prohibit the burning of residential to prohibit the burning of vegetation resulting from land development activities, as well as residential outdoor burning. The Dtsc letter provides general recommendations applicable to projects on or near golf courses. Dtsc and the Environmental Health Services staff discussed project specific details, including the fact that there were no historic orchards on the subject site and that the irrigated agriculture use did not occur on the surrounding area until the golf course was already established around 1998. Based on this discussion and the 2024 phase one environmental site assessment completed for the project, staff believes that Dtsc is in agreement with Environmental Health Determination that there are unlikely to be any potential impacts from any past or present land uses on or near the subject property, including the presence of the active golf course. I'm going to go back for a minute. Staff did receive three pieces of written correspondence ahead of this hearing. One member of the public requested that the developer install a path from the end of the existing. From. Install a new path from the end of the existing path along Barton, just south of the golf course, extending as far south as Wedgewood Drive. Another commenter sought clarification as to whether the applicant intended to annex into the existing residences. HOA expressed concern about the name of the. As the existing community has a nearly identical one and requested that the project be required to contribute to the East Roseville Parkway maintenance Agreement and a third commentator. A third commenter sought information regarding how the rest of the conservation easement would be addressed and protected, and expressed concern about what they identified as a trend of

the granite Bay community losing open space, citing another project. So to first address to address the first commenter, a future path is identified for Barton, south of the golf course running all the way to the county line. However, the planned path is not along the frontage of the project and thus there is not a nexus for staff to require the developer to obtain easements and to fund the development of that path. To address the second commentator commenter. The project would create a new HOA, as I mentioned earlier, and the applicant has stated to staff that they are not opposed to a different name for the community, but have opted for this one simply for the entitlement purposes and a specifically addressing the East Roseville Parkway frontage and maintenance. The HOA would be responsible for. The new HOA would be responsible for maintaining the landscape. Lots along East Roseville Parkway and Barton. The agreement mentioned by the commenter is a private agreement between the residences HOA and the golf club to maintain the landscaping and path along East Roosevelt Parkway as this is a private agreement and the path is not within the county service area for the area. Staff is not recommending a condition referencing this document and to address the third commenter immediately downstream of the open space easement being impacted is the golf course. Staff toward the golf course and inspected the other sections of the open space easement to ensure that no other degradation had occurred and found no violations or indications of unapproved impact. Furthermore, the stream on site is fed from the stream on site is fed from Barton Road and our mapping of it ends at the eastern edge of the golf course. At the edge of this project site. The majority of the water feeding Linda Creek and subsequently. The golf course comes from the north, where an iodine. Where the iodine still exists and will remain in place. So that brings us to a staff recommendation. Based on the analysis presented in the staff report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission take

the following actions. One adopt the mitigated negative declaration state Clearinghouse number (202) 512-1125 and mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting program prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines and section 1816 ten of the Placer County Environmental Review Ordinance Placer County code, chapter 1818 two approve a modification to the subdivision conditional use permit for the granite Bay Golf Club subdivision. 2309CP1667 to allow for the subdivision of an approximately 4.53 acre nursery site and construction staging area into six residential lots and for landscape common area lots subject to the modified conditions of approval. Furthermore, three approve a tentative parcel map for the estates at granite Bay Golf Course. PLN 24 00117 to subdivide the 151.3 acre golf course site into two parcels, one consisting of approximately 404.53 acres and one consisting approximately of 146.77 acres, subject to the recommended conditions of approval and errata, and for approving tentative subdivision map for the subdivision of the resultant. The resultant 4.53 acre site into six lots, ranging from 0.41 acres to 0.51 acres for the residential development and for landscape area lots totaling 0.88 acres, subject again to the conditions of approval and errata. That concludes this presentation. I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Jared. Questions for Jared from the commission. Jeff. Go ahead. Jeff, explain the walkthrough gate. How is access if the drive in gating was not

allowed. And then you've got the walk in gate right at the major or at the front there. How was access allowed or disallowed from the residential area into the golf course area? So currently the proposal from the applicant. Let's see if I can get my pointer. It doesn't. Come on, come on. So the blue line there is a approximately six foot tall fence and wall combination that's proposed with the project. The applicant is proposing to gate it. You can see the black line there signifying the entry gates. Staff would recommend removing that gate and instead installing if the golf course desired a pedestrian gate, one that they could lock and maintain access however they chose to. Whether it's key cards or some other method keypad at the edge, either of the wall, or where it would connect to the path, how exactly they chose to monitor and do that gating would be up to them. Staff is just stating that we would support that, but that we feel that the vehicle gate is inconsistent with the conditions on the conditions, the policy. Okay, so they're contiguous to each other, but. I guess the one is controlled by the six residents and the other. I just, I just I'm trying to get a difference between why not sure. The, the primary difference between staff's and the applicant's proposal here would be the community plan calls for open subdivisions and interconnectivity between neighborhoods, which is the purpose for or the reason there are these limitations on the installation of gates. So the difference in reality would be that folks using the path neighbors, friends, colleagues could drive into the

subdivision without having to enter a gate, something like that, versus with the gated subdivision, it would be minor changes, just they'd have to queue and they'd have to be given a gate code or however access would be controlled specifically. Okay, I get that. So there were subdivisions surrounding the golf course. And in my mind's eye, it seems like many of them are gated. Correct. Many of them are gated. So what's the differentiation there? The difference is purely timing. I don't know exactly when this policy 28 was added to the community plan, but a number of these communities are a bit old. The residences specifically, which. There we are. So this kind of community that runs along the northern edge of. East Roseville Parkway is the residences. Those are. Those communities were developed alongside this one. They were gated at the time. Whatever determination was made at the time. It's my understanding that the community plan policy was not the same as it is today. And even if it were, those take access much closer to where the golf course clubhouse is. So there's much more of an argument in staff's, in staff's opinion, that they could be overflow zones for parking. I believe it's the first instance that talks about potential parking overflow that could impact neighboring communities being a reason for gate, given the distance from the clubhouse to the current proposal, staff doesn't believe that the current project would be a at at risk for overflow parking where potentially these other ones are. And again, these are much older communities, some of them as old as 93, some older. If you go further south, as far as Wexford and Letchford, these

are also older. I believe they are also gated. So Commissioner, Commissioner Ron, just to supplement with what Mr. Peters mentioned, the community plan was amended in 2013. That 2013 amendment included the gate prohibition, if you will, and so subdivisions post 2013 would be would have been evaluated with that community plan policy projects prior to that time period were not required to obviously meet that that policy. Yeah, I just was curious. I, I play golf out at Madeira and it's an, I'm just curious, it's an ongoing problem with the e-bikes and the bicyclists and people coming in using the facilities of the golf course, actually coming out fishing. So I was just curious, what if there would be any liability to the county if they somehow people were able to access the course and, and come into risk? Yeah. And I heard the applicant shared these concerns with staff. They're very real concerns. And that's why staff does understand the desire to limit public access to the golf course. And really the only disagreement is that staff believes the most practical solution, which is the language used in the community plan policy, would be to gate the the pedestrian or golf course access, rather than the entire subdivision. So that could be done either closer to the golf course or at the breach of that path. Staff isn't particular about how they gate the path. Staff is okay with that. Just the difference between gating the path versus gating the subdivision is the tripping point. Thank you. Commissioner, I just wanted to address your

liability concern. Under either proposal, there would be a gate between the golf course and the residence. And at least from my perspective, even in the absence of a gate, there's not necessarily a liability risk to the county on this as as the golf course is a private private property as well as the, the residences on the other side. Mark, did you have a question? In the gate then prohibits public access. So the gate would be only accessible by the residents of that street, the pedestrian gate? Yes, that's the idea is if they wanted to use a key card or a keypad and share the keypad, the code with the residences within the subdivision, it would be restricted to only those who had that keypad number. So presumably those who lived within the community, they'd be able to access it that way. So it wouldn't it wouldn't be gate necessarily. And I don't know if granite Bay or we are would require at a certain point, a public access. So if there was public access, parking for the public would be on that street. I'm sorry, could you restate that? So if there was public access during or during some period of that pedestrian gate, people using that gate would be parking on the street nonresidents, if it was left open, that they could policy 29 of the community plan does address vehicular gates, stating that there has to be pedestrian access from dusk till dawn. Staff looked at that. The applicant shared concerns that that policy could apply to this pedestrian gate. Staff doesn't believe that policy 29 is applicable to this gate slash golf course gate, and so the HOA and the golf course

would be under no obligation to leave that open for pedestrians. So it is specifically for the residents of that. Correct. The this path is purely to serve the residences of the subdivision. Commissioner Jewell, if I may just clarify that the roadway is private. It would not allow for public access and parking to to park and then, you know, travel by foot to access that gate that would be enforceable by the residents to prohibit that. So but it's a, it's a private road that can't be gated. Per per the community plan policy. Yeah. And I might just kind of further clarify a comment that was made by Mr. Peters. The, the gating of the path is not a staff proposal. Staff is is simply indicating that there are no concerns that staff would have should the applicant decide to proceed with gating, that that pathway. Other questions. I have one more. Can you explain the issue in the community plan with respect to the scenic roads component about undergrounding and how that would work? Certainly. So the there's a kind of a timeline of policies from the general plan moving to the community plan, general plan policy 4A4 it didn't get discussed in the staff report. Staff wanted to focus on the community plan, but for A4 in. The general plan does call for staff to identify scenic roads in the community plan and to underground utilities on those roads and adjacent, adjacent or along the frontage when development occurs, or to accept in lieu fees when undergrounding is infeasible.

It doesn't really describe what infeasibility means. So there's a bit of openness to that, and that's reflected in the errata with the modified condition. But when you bring it down to the community plan, there are four roads identified as scenic roads. And those scenic roads are Douglas Boulevard, Barton, south of Douglas, south of the Douglas Commercial area, East Roseville Parkway and Auburn-folsom Road, south of Douglas Boulevard, south of the Douglas Boulevard commercial area. So these scenic roads are subject to kind of an extra step of design review. And I shouldn't use designreview. That's an entitlement. But review and expectations from the community plan to do a little bit extra to make sure that they remain clean, pleasing to the eye, scenic, for lack of a better word, to preserve these kind of visual resources within the community plan area. And the community plan includes a number of guidelines, including undergrounding utilities, screening, fences and walls, landscape medians and preserving space in the right of way for paths, all with the intention of maintaining a pleasing scenic route for folks who are driving, walking, or otherwise using these roadways in the community. And so that's our nexus or staff's nexus for requiring the undergrounding for these roadways or for Barton, particularly because it is identified as a scenic corridor. And the general plan and community plan clearly state undergrounding is a portion of that is a part of or is a requirement for these scenic corridors. Now, if ultimately that's determined that that's infeasible, the

applicant is able to submit in lieu fees to contribute to future undergrounding of these scenic roads at a future time, either by a county project or potentially a project initiated by one of the I think I'm losing my voice. One of the utilities provider's in the area. When that would come, it's. It's unclear, but it's an option presented in the general plan. And it's something we carried through into our conditioning. Yeah, just struck by the photo on page 26 of the lines going down. And I'm sure much further along than the the property we're dealing with. So I was a little confused. That was helpful. Thank you. Yeah. And to kind of add on a little bit, the lines are there are lines on top on Barton Road for much of it. For much of this section in particular, much of it has not been undergrounded at this time. There is a section further north, I'd like to say 1 or 2 intersections near the Bella Terra subdivision, I believe it's called. That is Undergrounded. And they did underground with their project. Some. I don't have the the years ago, but it was it was a slightly larger project, but they did underground. Okay. Thank you. So the so the community plan created this underground requirement with new development. So looking at the photo here, if is it based on the linear footage of the project, is that what needs to be underground. That's what they would be responsible for. Yeah. They wouldn't have to underground the entire section, the entire scenic section, just their frontage. Right. And Commissioner, just to just to add on, just to provide a slight correction there. So it's not just the community plan, it's also the general plan as, as Mr. Peters mentioned, there is applicable general plan. So it's, it's

going to be a hopscotch method of. Yes, it is unfortunately reliant on development coming in. And much of the South Douglas further south of this project is already developed. So it's unclear when those when those lines would be undergrounded, whether it would be modifications to those projects, utility district projects or a county initiated project. So it would be, as you said, a bit of hopscotch. So from a perspective, it's not solving the problem. Now it's, I guess you're looking for in lieu fees to fund those projects down the road sometime or either would be ideal, you know, if the applicant believes they can make it work with their project undergrounding. Now that's one less bit of frontage that has to be underground later, either by a county project or a utility project. But if either timelines or for whatever reason, it's deemed infeasible and there would be a conversation between the county and the developer at the time to determine that in lieu fees would be submitted to help fund future county or utility initiated projects to do that. Thank you. Other questions. Commissioners, I have, Jared, just to make sure I understand it before we go into public comment and then deliberations. So for the utilities, you're saying there is an errata part of this package in the proposal step from staff recommendation recommendation for the utilities. I think it's related to condition 24 S, which is the conditions around utilities. That does allow the applicant to work with the planning department upon improvement plans or what have you, if it's infeasible to do the

undergrounding because of the smaller portion, or they run into granite or granite Bay like that, there is other options. Is that true? Correct. Yeah. The condition 24 as it's listed, it's gone through a bit of a facelift, but it would enable in lieu fee submittal if it was deemed infeasible. And like I said, that would be a conversation between the county and the developer at that time. Okay. And then on for the errata you referenced around the gate, the errata around the gate isn't part of the staff proposal. Currently, the staff proposal related to the gate is around condition 56 S. And just to make sure I understand 56 S, it does allow if a project in the future were to do a general plan amendment to change those requirements for gating did. Despite whatever we decide here today, this project would benefit from that retroactively. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Condition 56 was written in such a way that while staff doesn't currently believe we can support a gate here, if the. If things changed, if Barton became a major arterial or if other changes came in to the to the policy specifically that would end. That would retroactively make this subdivision compliant with that, with whatever the future policy would be, they could come in as an HOA, say, hey, we'd like to add a gate to our subdivision, and they wouldn't have to go through the whole subdivision modification process, which could be long, lengthy and an issue. Thank you. Other questions? Yeah, I had a question about you said if it's infeasible, could infeasible be described as too expensive, too costly cost is is something that is mentioned. I can briefly read in kind of the

additions to this, to the condition of approval regarding infeasibility. So that section of the condition reads. Alternatively, if the undergrounding of utilities is determined to be infeasible by the CDC director based on the cost considerations, development constraints or opposition from servicing utilities, the applicant shall contribute funding towards a future undergrounding project in the county in the amount determined by the CEO director prior to the improvement plan process. So cost is something that can be considered when determining Infeasibility for the project. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much, Jared. Appreciate it. Thank you. And then if I can have the applicant or the representative, please come ahead to the podium. State your name for the record and any comments. Madam chair, members of the commission. Marcus Laduca, 1508 Eureka Road. Before I begin, I also want to extend my congratulations to Clayton Cook. I think I've worked with him since the day he started land use matters here at the county. Again, I've. I've dealt with city attorneys, county councils from the northern boundary of the state to the southern to the southern boundary, and he is one of the best I've ever seen. So the Commission has been very blessed. The public has been very blessed and the board will now be very blessed. So congratulations. I am pleased to be before you with the recommendation for approval from your staff for the six Lot subdivision before you. It will provide home buyers a move down option, an opportunity on.

Again, roughly half acre lots. The staff report, staff presentation details, a lot of issues regarding the project. A lot of analysis. We did have two outstanding issues to review with you, but with the revision, the proposed revision to condition 24, we no longer have the issue with the undergrounding and we think that is a workable condition. So we only really have one. But first, my client and I have to say, recalling the immortal words of the Grateful Dead, what a long, strange trip it's been. As you can see from the first handout to you, this project had its first staff meeting nearly five years ago and has been in the formal application process nearly three and a half years. A long time for six lots on four and a half acres. We've had multiple planners on the project, but we are pleased to say we are finally here before you today. The first the one issue that we want to really focus on is the proposed gate to the subdivision, and that affects conditions. 156, 60, and 98 the 2012 Community Plan, as staff mentioned, was superseded by superseded the 1989 Community Plan. And in so doing, it listed those three specific criteria that are set forth on page 17 of your staff report, which were. Subdivision gate is allowed. As we understand the intent. And I watched a number of those hearings was to be very precise with the criteria to remove judgment calls on whether a gate would be allowed or not. This project has always been proposed with a gated

entrance. The mitigated deck analyzed the project as a gated subdivision. In fact, the very first line of the deck says it that analyze it in its land use section found no impacts from having a vehicle gate there. We were relying on that second of the three criteria, namely, again, staff mentioned, but I'll repeat it, instances where the entrance to the subdivision is contiguous to or access through a non residential land use, such as a business professional or commercial use. And separating the uses with a gate is the most practical solution. A bit surprised on one of the slides because we've had a number of discussions with staff on this issue, and in several of those conversations, staff acknowledged and conceded that the project before you meets that portion of the second criteria that says the entrance to the subdivision is contiguous to a commercial land use, namely a golf course and the granite Bay Golf Club. However, as was relayed in the staff presentation, the staff report staff has maintained that the proposed vehicle gate is not the, quote, most practicable solution, saying that the gated golf cart or pedestrian gate is the most practicable. We want to review that a bit in more detail. Just getting a golf cart path or a pedestrian path is definitely not the most practicable. As was relayed briefly by staff, the granite Bay Golf Club holds golf tournaments and competitions open to golfers from throughout the region, and the clubhouse hosts events business meetings. There was one just earlier this week for visitors from throughout the region and beyond. Not all visitors or golfers are from

granite Bay or even from Placer County. Yet those coming up from south of the project on Barton Road would then be driving by the good distance of the course. Then, without a vehicle gate, thinking they have come across a new access point, will drive in, take that access point, and suddenly come to a cul de sac and have to turn around so you could have. It's not so much a parking issue, although I would have to disagree. Subdivisions that don't have gates that have private streets commonly have parking issues of people parking in their subdivision. But again, that access point now would be open for people to drive in to get frustrated, turn around and have to go back out. The only practicable solution that we see, not just the most practicable, is to gate the subdivision before you, just as every other subdivision which touches the golf course as a vehicle gate. And I think it's Tab five in those exhibits that you see. And we did include some other exhibits in the first tab that show pictures of the four and a half acres. For those of you who are not able to get out or see it from the roadway, get out to the site itself. Again, if there's only a golf pedestrian gate, if members of the public are able to gain access through that gate and feel they can just walk on in, there are significant liability issues when such public access to a golf course, which again is staff acknowledged, is gated and is fenced, or of course, where there are sand traps and water hazards, especially the latter, it is not just the golf course owner who would face potential liability here, and I'd have to disagree to a bit

with council if the county denies our request for Gate, when every other subdivision that abuts the golf course has a vehicle gate, then I would surmise that any plaintiff's attorney and I know quite a few. When representing an individual who has gained access onto the golf course without permission is injured, they're going to name not just the golf course owner, not just the HOA, but they're going to name the county because the county prohibited an additional barrier to access that existed for every other golf course. So again, we think looking at that component of it, just for people having to drive in because again, people come from out of the area, they don't know the granite Bay Golf Club golfers do, but others don't. They come in and they see suddenly what has not been there for three decades. So there's an access point. I'm going to get get through it that way. It's not so much of a parking issue. It's the fact that people will be able to drive on in again, with those with the revisions to condition 24, as seen in the errata sheet, we would ask today for you to approve the project as proposed by the applicant that has been analyzed in the mitigated deck, with the condition changes that have been recommended by staff, and also the condition changes that are in attachment eight. As revised, to enable this section of the golf course to be greatly improved over what it is today with six homes, compared to what's been there for for many, many years. Our project team is here to answer any questions you may have. We would request the opportunity to come back to the dais at the conclusion of the public hearing to address any comments

that were made. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Are you? Oh, Marcus, I know you have the I, I guess, about the recommended conditions of approval. You've already stated the one that you're not in agreement, but outside of that, it sounds like you are in agreement with all the other recommended conditions. Yes we are. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any questions for the applicant? I have a question for Marcus. This is very similar to Morgan Creek. You know, we had a property that was also part of the golf course maintenance that they, we, the HOA agreed to allow in our subdivision, our HOA, and they built seven homes and it was an eyesore and it did take away open space. But as for the gates, it was open to everyone all over the place until ten years ago. It was built 25 years ago. For the first 15 years, access was completely open even though the golf course was private back then. Ten years ago, we asked the county and had some gates put up. However, because we abut the Dry Creek Trail, it's still wide open. Anybody can come in at any time. So there's liability issues exist for Morgan Creek because we have water hazards and it isn't. It is an issue. Honestly, bikes, even cars come in and have access to all that open space. But it's wide open. And it had been from the beginning until, you know, less than a decade ago. So it's just interesting that all of these gates exist in granite Bay and they don't really in Dry Creek for the most part. Well, I think the one thing that's absent is what you just highlighted, the Dry Creek Trail. You have a regional trail that is accessed for miles for people. And so that isn't present here. We also think that those while it was mentioned that the golf, the subdivisions that are gated

around the golf course were built before 2012, we think they would also have qualified for the condition. 28 the second item there again, the very first sentence, the lead in to that policy. 28 in the community plan says for interconnectivity between neighborhoods, there's no neighborhood to interconnect to a golf course. It's a private course. So that's different from having a subdivision, for example, up against another subdivision, which you're trying to gain access to. Another part of the the community here, there's nowhere to go to. There's a golf course. It's a private golf course that is gated. It is fenced. And so that would be different here than if there are, for example, if there was a regional trail that went through the edge of the golf course that was open and people could walk onto the course from there, we wouldn't be here with this request today because we wouldn't have a basis to do so, would would the developer, if they were approved, develop this without the gate? Is the gate a deal killer for them? The gate is a big deal for this project. People coming in with, you know, these are all going to be custom homes and suddenly people driving in all the time. And we all know what happens when you come to a cul de sac. You went down the wrong street. When you have to turn around and leave, you're not leaving going 15 miles an hour. So it becomes an issue. So it's one of those things that if it were developed, these folks would come back and absolutely request the gate because it's not working. It's creating a opening that hasn't been there for three decades. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Go ahead. I just want to ask just clarifying the entire golf course area is fenced in. Correct? Either with a rock wall or a black wrought iron fence. Correct. All right. So

without a without a gate, this would be an open access without a gate. What do you mean in terms of whether it be a pedestrian access there with a proposed residential access. But this would be an opening in the gated system that's already surrounding the golf course. That's correct. There would be it would. And again, you probably wouldn't want a code. You'd probably want to have something more along the lines of a keycard or something like that, because codes get out and gated subdivisions or keys, get the codes, get out. But you wouldn't want to have that gate because you simply don't want to have access, allow any public access to that course. Commissioner Jewell, if I if I may just add as well. So it is a it is a component or a, a feature of the applicant's proposed proposed project to have a, a opening or a path, a cart path into the into the golf course as a benefit to the residents living there. That doesn't I mean, that's part of their recommended recommended project or their proposed project. There wouldn't be necessarily an opening unless they're choosing to have that pathway into the into the golf course, which again, they are recommending, it's part of their project. We've indicated that A, that that pathway could be gated as a as an alternative to gating the subdivision, the opening would be have to be gated. The idea. Otherwise, if people want to get to the course that people in the six homes would have to go out on the Barton, take a left on Parkway, go all the way around with their golf carts. We don't think that's a good solution. So there would be a, you know,

a golf cart path that again, will be locked and be open only up to those six residents. And then, Marcus, I had just one question in the MND and I didn't have time to look at it. The gate on Barton was included and evaluated in the environmental analysis. And were there any safety concerns or queuing concerns? I believe there's going to be a right or a left turn lane coming off Barton into that. But can you just maybe there were no impacts with or without a gate? Frankly, the analysis was there were no no impacts from having a gate there. It's going to be set a ways back. Okay. It's not going to be like sometimes you'll have a gate right on the roadway. It will be back a ways. So there's going to be more than adequate throat depth. And again, it's six homes. It's not a large subdivision where you might worry about stacking or this kind of thing. If you're right at the edge of the, the right of way, and you had 150 homes back there, that might be a concern, six homes and they're in the gate would be set back, as indicated in the one exhibit there that was shown in the PowerPoint, set back quite a distance from the roadway. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Yeah. Just to clarify. So the the golf cart path would be inside. That access would be inside the gate. The gate was included. Correct. And if not, then it would be it'd be open into the cul de sac. But then people could or the golf cart path is then locked. Yeah. Would have to be okay. I mean, again, it wouldn't be if, if there was a gate. Yeah. The the liability otherwise again, if suddenly that's said no you have to keep that open basically becomes an issue because I mean the golf course owner would want an indemnification an agreement with the county because there's

they're being mandated to open up what is not a public course. It's a private foresee people coming into the facility parking and then going through the gate. But since that gate is going to be locked. Yeah, exactly. Marcus, touch base again on the I guess it's called item two, where it's contiguous to the to the golf course community. And you mentioned that that was okay up to a certain point in time, I guess, when all the other areas were developed. I'm not sure I understand the question. I don't think it's so much to. It's that the general or the community plan was updated in these three provisions were. Yeah, the three criteria were added. And as I recall from watching the hearings and listening to the discussion, the concern had been from the 89 plan forward. And Sandy Harris is here. She could probably give you some of the background, too, because she was there in 89 when it was adopted. And as I was also. But the idea was to really limit the the criteria on which a gate could be reviewed and judged. So it made it very bright line. It was so there wasn't so much of judgment calls. And if a majority of a hearing body decided, well, we think this is a good idea, it was really to sort of set a bright line and set three very specific criteria. So there's two of them that we don't meet. I think it's arguable about the golf course and the golf club being like a regional park, but we were really relying on the second item. We have an opening to a subdivision. And this property, these four and a half acres are contiguous to commercial use. So in that respect, we do meet the requirement, the arguments really over what is the most practicable solution to that. And so that's the disagreement with staff. But again, that

becomes again a judgment call which we find somewhat ironic given what the intent was at the time. Okay, so those three items were added just to as. Yeah, it was really to restrict the criteria. It was really set forth very bright line criteria. So it wasn't just an open ended. It was more open ended in the 89 plan. It didn't have this kind of specific list. This is a very specific list. It's fairly unique. The granite Bay community plan, among community plans in the county gates are always very controversial. Granite Bay. Other questions for Marcus. Okay. Thank you so much, Marcus. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and open up public comment. If there is anyone here today that would like to make your comment, please come ahead and state your name for the record. My name is David Brown and I'm the. I live in the residences of granite Bay, and I'm the secretary on the HOA board. And I want to thank you for the opportunity to make a few comments. I'll abbreviate them in light of our written submittal of our concerns has already been addressed by Mr. Peters, and that is that the question of establishing a unique HOA for this development or development wasn't very clearly or prominently addressed in the original document, and so we would request that it be more prominent that the recommendations of the planning staff make this issue more prominent, that it makes it clear there's only one small reference to an HOA being part of the subdivision plan, a new

HOA. And so we would just ask that that be made more prominent. We would also ask and he's addressed it, the question of the members of this development participating because of their property abutting East Roseville Parkway, that they would participate in the shared responsibility for maintaining that. And it's not mentioned in the plan revision at all. So we would ask that that be addressed. And lastly, Mr. Peters mentioned or addressed the concern about the name. There's there's history in the development of the golf club and the residences in Grand Bay Golf Club that seem to use the estate's name and the residences at granite Bay Golf Club name somewhat interchangeably. And that's why the residents would like to see the name changed from the estates. And Mr. Peters has said that the developers of this subdivision are open to that. So I've got two questions. Then how do these issues become formalized? Do they get incorporated in revised comments by the staff in terms of modifications, or do they get formalized by an updated document or submission for the changes? And then lastly, I would let Mr. Peters know that we are open as the board for the residences to participate in a renaming process, and just would like to understand what context should we need, or would that developers need in order to begin that process? I

don't see it as very complicated. As long as the developers have some options to present and for us to give a pass at them and your comments and questions, we will very much address those at the end of public comment. So thank you. Thanks very much. You're welcome. Sandy Harris, granite Bay. Before I start, I'd like to address the gate issue that Marcus is referring to. That second thing about being adjacent to businesses that was put in there specifically because there's one business on the corner office, professional business on the corner of Douglas and Barton Road, and there's a subdivision at the end of it, the west end of it. And the only way those people can get to their homes is to go through that suburb, that business park. So they were allowed to put a gate there so that people going into that little business park would not go into their subdivision that's adjacent to a commercial place. Just make that straight. I don't see that there's any connection between that criteria and what Marcus is addressing. I'm not. I'm ready to start now. I wanted to address what Marcus said. So if you'll put me back to three minutes, please. I think, Sandy, we have to that would be part of your comment. So you would just continue? Yeah. Dave Cook and Marcus. Mark Vicinium approach to granite Bay Community Association about this project. And we worked very closely with them. And their whole concept was there

would be no residences on the golf course. And to put that into writing, there's a condition 97 C that they had to sign saying that they had transferred all the density off that project to the residences on the north side, and there were 72 lots. And there are numerous PDS in granite Bay in County. And if people start coming in and saying, well, we're going to change these when we have a written commitment from these developers that that was going to be the limit of the houses on that project. It also says in the event of a golf course nursery being discontinued, the site shall be restored to its existing open space condition. This condition was written to ensure that no other dwelling units would be constructed on the golf course, and it's a major change. There's a condition about gates which is already addressed considerably, and then there's a condition about irrevocable offer of dedication to Placer County for the protection of Linda Creek corridor. This irrevocable not mean it can't be restored. These conditions were written to ensure the concept of the golf course would be protected in perpetual. This was an article that was in our local paper about the golf course, and it stresses in there in a public releases that were put out by the golf club, that there will be no residences on this golf course because it's a distraction to golfers. And I have numerous documentation of all the meetings that they attended, the Mac meetings, our community association board meetings, the public releases from the golf club, stressing that no homes were on there

because it's a it offends golfers to play in seeing. If you could wrap your comments up. This is not a modification. It's a major change to a gem in our community. It had so much input when it was going through the process. It was one of the first projects that went through after the 1989 Community Plan was adopted, and now we have speculators coming in because they see an opportunity to put six more homes in an exclusive area, and it's just a major change, and I think it's precedent setting for the whole community. And we worked hard on this project. Thank you so much, Sandy. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else here today that would like to make public comment on this item? I see none. Do we have anyone on Zoom? Yes we do. Okay. Cheryl, please unmute your mic and give your comments. Good morning, Cheryl from granite Bay. I also agree with Sandy Harris that I think the planning department should go back and take the documents that Sandy Harris submitted, since she has such a long history in packet of evidence, and evaluate whether the county is at risk for not upholding the documents that were already submitted, saying that there were transfers and there would be no houses. Why is this project even here, if that hasn't been done, would be my first question. In reference to the gate. I would suggest that there's a project on Douglas Boulevard to the east of Auburn

Folsom that a gate was denied. And if you use the same logic that Marcus is using the. The strip mall across the street is a contiguous commercial building because it's it's like a similar type thing. There's a different usage for it, but I don't really see the difference there. And then along Eureka, there's Chelsea Downs. Bella Terra has in terms of walls, you know, high walls and blocking off the community. We have been able to maintain that along Eureka and on Barton. And I don't understand why if Chelsea Downs can not Chester Downs Bella Terra can not have walls. Why it's allowed in a new subdivision. And in terms of the. I think it's a fallacious argument to talk about a 2012 plan that you. You must uphold things while you're coming back and asking for something different. So we shouldn't ask for anything different on gates if we're asking for something different as a project. So I don't think that argument holds weight and I am concerned about. I submitted a letter. I'll apologize late yesterday evening. I'm concerned with the conservation easement and how that is being addressed. The PCP fees. And what about off site impacts to the PCP? And in terms of open space, I think the open space needs to be clearly articulated. And why would it be allowed to be violated in this circumstance? I think this project is tripled. It keeps coming back and coming

back and changing. Morphing things over time is not clarity. It's actually confusing the issue. As Sandy Harris said, thank you for allowing me to provide comments. Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else on Zoom? I see no other hands raised. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. I'll first ask staff if there's any comments or questions that you would like to clarify. So I'll speak first to Mr. Brown's question about formalizing changes. Any changes that aren't made in the hearing specifically would likely require data to be continued, and we'd return with modified likely conditions that clarified issues. Particularly, I think one item that Mr. Brown brought up was the HOA and clarifying that it would be a new HOA and that they wouldn't be required to annex into the existing one. I do want to point out condition of approval 104, which does clearly state that a new HOA is required for the. I'll briefly touch on the Parkway agreement again. Like I said in my presentation, that's a private agreement between the golf club and the HOA. If there is a desire to have the new project participate in it in some way, that's something that staff wouldn't have a hand in, and it's something that that would have to be negotiated. Independent of us. Moving down. And Jared, the name change that was also brought up that would be handled, how the name change. I'll look to my colleagues for a bit of history on this, but I don't believe there is a

significant issue in modifying names after entitlements are approved and usually around improvement plans. Okay. Yeah, no problem at all. Okay. But also the idea of it being named by committee I think is stupid. Sorry. Let the developer come up with some names. A committee of people agreeing on something that has nothing to do with the development, I think is a bad precedent. So let the developer come up with some names that are different that perhaps satisfy, but I think by vote, by committee is not a good way to do it. Personal opinion. Anything else? I think I touched on most most of Miss Harris's comments. I'll briefly go over. There is a deed restriction that was recorded. I believe that's what Miss Harris is referencing. When when she brings up commitments made and promises about. Density being moved off of the golf course parcel that deed restriction, it was recorded. And it does note that density was moved off the parcel. It doesn't explicitly say all density. It doesn't explicitly restrict potential development in the future. I figured I'd add that as context. We don't have it in the staff report today. And then I'll follow up on on Miss Bachmann's comments briefly. I did touch on them initially in the presentation, but I'll follow up with the I o d itself. The ID only that which is on this nursery site would be touched. The ID spans a pretty broad area throughout the entirety of the golf club, and then further north onto what the golf club called parcel A. It's now under a separate project currently being reviewed, but the rest of the I o d staff took a look at it. We wanted to make sure that there weren't other issues that

had snuck in, particularly over Covid, when folks were busy with other ideas. I went out with Brian project applicants, and we looked at just about every inch of ID on the golf course. And I've also been to the site north of East Roseville Parkway, where the rest of the ID is. Staff didn't see any concerns. No trash. It would have all been left in a satisfactory manner. So there's no concerns that staff has there. I will restate again, this project is not within the PCP. It wouldn't be paying PCP fees, so there wouldn't be impact to the PCP necessarily. Regarding off site impacts, like I said in the presentation, as far as our mapping shows, this stream begins on site fed by water from Barton Road. The Bre for the project also backed that up. The primary input of water into into the section of the creek that runs through the golf course is fed from the northern parcel where the ID will remain in. Remain untouched and it's not anticipated that piping the drainage would cause issues to the rest of the project, as it would maintain pre-project drainage flows. So in terms of off site impacts, staff doesn't expect any significant offset impacts to result from piping the the drainage or from conversion of the land on site. And then I think that covers everything. Is there anything else you want to touch on? Maybe if I could just address a little bit of of Marcus's discussion of the gate and the chronology of the project review, just to provide some overarching clarity. And I do agree with essentially the his representation of facts, maybe with some supplemental details.

And so I just wanted to kind of back us up to 2022 in the spring of 2022 is when the county received the applicant or the pre-development meeting application for this project. That is a prerequisite for any major project application. You have to go through a pre-development meeting process so that the county staff can scope the project, identify if there are any project issues during that meeting. At that time, the county staff did identify that we. We felt that there was a an inconsistency with the gate, and that was elucidated in the Engineering and Surveying Division's checklist. Information that was provided back to the applicant. Understanding that that this is a a this policy declaration that is in the community plan. While as as Mr. Laduca said, it is intended to be very specific and measurable. It is nonetheless somewhat qualitative. And so there are instances where those qualitative standards have to be analyzed. So we did identify it initially. Nonetheless, in 2024, when the application was submitted, it did include the gate and the applicant presented their what I would characterize as a, as a narrative argument that identified how they believed that the gate does, in fact comply with the standards. And I think in in large measure, you know, I think that that can be affirmed with some maybe perhaps one exception. And and that is very specific to. Part B of that policy. 28, which says instances in which the entrance to the subdivision is contiguous to or access through a nonresidential land use, such as a business professional or commercial use. It's not accessed through, but it is contiguous to. But it goes on to state, and separating the

uses with the gate is the most practical solution, and that separating the uses with the gate does indicate a. A separation by roadway access. Right? These roadway accesses already separated. The golf course entrance is approximately a half mile to the southwest off of a different roadway. And so that's where we have ultimately had a difference of perspectives. But again, Mr. Laduca correctly and appropriately pointed out, the gate is nonetheless described in the mitigated negative declaration. So as we moved forward in the project review, this remained a point of disagreement. But we nonetheless have a responsibility to advance the project analysis. And so I directed that the mitigated negative declaration move forward, including that the gate would be analyzed and disclosed in there, but also identifying that the county staff would evaluate the consistency with the policy during the project analysis of the entitlement. So I just wanted to provide those clarifications and. And make sure that you all are aware, kind of, of the broader context of how this discussion has progressed. Thank you. Alex. You're welcome. Are there before we bring Marcus back up to respond to anything, are there other questions that you guys have? Yeah. Go ahead Mark. Yeah. Thank you. This is going to sound wacko, but I'm going to go ahead it anyway. So the if you could bring up the slide that shows the gate access. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. That one. So I'm just kind of curious, is there anything that would prohibit the developers from emulating that without gate structure? I mean, the road

structure, the gate house with no fencing. No, no, no gate actual gates. So you're saying make the road as it's shown here, but just don't include the grade? Yeah, that's certainly possible. I don't see a reason why it couldn't be done. I'll let the applicant tag in as well on that question later. Like I said, it was probably a little bit wacko, but it just seems like you could emulate a gate and that would probably do what they're looking for anyway. I know we have that in Morgan Creek. For the 15 years before we had the gates, we had gate House. That's the right word. No gate. Okay, for ten years, I've got one where I live in south off of Eagle. Okay. It's been there forever. Okay. Other questions for Jared. I have a question for Alex, I think, and this is specific to these golf course owners, but it also is affecting golf courses all over the state California, Florida, Texas, because land is more valuable to developers than it is as a business, as golf anymore. Can this subdivision agreement with its open space requirements, ever permit development on the golf course itself, like is happening currently in Morgan Creek? And that's an Alex question. It's a good question. Thank you, Commissioner Dahlgren. There is an entitlement pathway for any request is the answer. And so, you know, any, you know, property, right. Even a restricted property, right, may be later requested to be modified or changed. And, and so that is really inherent to the process we're undertaking today and evaluating. So yes, that potential exists. I do think that there is some distinction with today's request versus maybe, you know, a conversion of the golf course

proper while this piece of property is currently part of that golf course parcel, it was identified for a somewhat distinct accessory land use and is somewhat physically separate from from the golf course itself. And so that has been part of our analysis in moving this forward, understanding that there is nonetheless a requirement to modify the underlying conditional use permit for the original project, which is is part of the action before you. Yeah. And I would be surprised if the golf course owners weren't speculating or thinking about that in today's current environment. That's just my perspective. Jared, to, I think, quick questions, just to clarify, based on some of the public comment, the ID that was initially envisioned to then be adopted as actual conservation easement, that never happened. Correct. So it's technically, I know some of the exhibits show conservation easement and myself, when I think about a conservation easement, I have certain perspective on the, you know, it is technically irrevocable, permanent. But when this handoff happened, I guess it just never was recorded. Correct. So the offer was recorded. There was an irrevocable offer of dedication that still exists today. In theory, the Board of Supervisors or the county could accept that offer and install a conservation easement. Pursuant to that agreement, there was never a recorded acceptance of the I o d, meaning that's what puts us into this situation where the applicant can make an application to us and say, hey, we offered you this, this ID, you never accepted it. We would like to. The word is escapes me,

but but we would like to cancel out that offer. And now there's it's not as simple as saying I don't want to anymore. Right? They've got to go to the board. They've got to make certain they've got to make certain findings particularly particular to, you know, the site no longer functioning as it was supposed to and the purpose of the ID no longer serving. And the board would ultimately have to agree and grant that now, the way it's proposed with this project, they wouldn't abandon the entirety of the ID, just this section that falls within the project. So the majority of this, you know, aquatic resource, the stream, Linda Creek, that still is in very good condition on and throughout the golf course would remain under under conservation easement. And if the board wanted could accept that, I believe it would come with certain requirements such as maintenance. I don't want to speak affirmatively on that, but it's something that's worth considering. But yeah, to kind of wrap back around to your question, this offer was never officially accepted title and the county have not been able to find record of that. Okay. And since the the project is also outside of the PCP, obviously the applicant is going to need to go through the state and federal agencies for all their the the requests. Is it in typically with especially for mitigation for waterways or riparian areas. And I think it's condition 48 typically mitigation credit if that's the route they chose to go happens you know somewhere outside could be Placer County sometimes it's outside of the Placer County. Is it possible? And I'm asking the question and maybe Marcus can address this if if it were to be possible to amend that condition to include the mitigation within granite Bay, even though this is a

degraded section and the actual Linda Creek. I've been out at the site. I did do a site tour, and I'm very well aware of the drainage and the riparian inflow into into Linda Creek. Linda Creek actually remains intact. It's a little bit weird. It runs through a culvert under East Roseville Parkway, but this little section is technically like it is runoff from Folsom Lake Estates, the water treatment plant. So it's sort of an offshoot. But the Linda Creek in general stays contiguous and in good condition. And in this case, is that a possibility to identify those mitigation credits in the fees come into the granite Bay Community Plan such that at least the community has some benefit for giving up commitment that was made many years ago for the intent of that use of that site. I'll briefly touch on that before I send it back to Marcus. But in terms of modifying the condition to request it, it's certainly possible. I don't have an expansive knowledge of all of the mitigation banks in the community plan area, assuming there are any, I don't know what their availability is or, you know, whether they have the correct credits. But it is possible if the Commission would like to, to modify that condition. So Chair Beckler, if I might just add, is is Mr. Peters is wrapping up. If the Commission does choose to head down that route and perhaps modify, as you pointed out, condition 48, that is something that staff would be able to. I'm sorry, condition 46. That is that is something that staff can help out with in terms of crafting a condition modification. Okay, okay. Based on the commission's desire. Thank you for answering that. I have other comments around that,

but just wanted to know on that. Okay. Any other questions for Jared or staff? Marcus, would you like to come up and make any other comments? Madam chair, for the record, Marcus Laduca, on behalf of the applicant, I'm going to take these somewhat in order of people making presentation corners again, Jared mentioned condition 104, condition 104 A says the applicant shall create a homeowners association. You couldn't. I don't know any legal language that would be better than that. On the on the name. We can acknowledge and pledge that the project, when it gets built, will not have the name. The Estates at granite Bay Golf Club, so there's no confusion. That was a name for planning purposes for the application, but it will not. We don't need any help in terms of coming up with a name. I've represented lots of land developers and builders came in and changed names on all sorts of projects, regardless of what they were known for when they went through the planning stage. As for the road maintenance agreement, I think there's going to be a small portion of Roseville Parkway that the project will will have contribution obligations for, but it's a very small segment of Roseville Parkway. I would note on regarding policy. 28 and 28. B if if that policy was only meant for one project, that's not what it says. First of all, I think you don't write policies for one project, but that's not what it says. It has language. And I think, again, we are contiguous to a commercial land use on that. Getting to the question from

Commissioner Watts relative to what I just put out a guard house with that sort of detour, people problem we're going to have is the left hand turn pocket into this subdivision is probably three times the length of the left hand turn pocket at Roseville Parkway. So people see one car and people start turning off. And it's going to be an easier way to turn. So I don't think that would necessarily discourage anyone. You'll still have the cars coming up, and they have a much more convenient left hand turn. In terms of waiting, people don't like waiting at intersections anyway. And even with four way stops, I've seen enough people blow through them. But we have a much larger left hand turn pocket, so it's actually much more convenient for folks. On the change. There was a reference to condition 97 in the golf course conditions. Again, we're proposing a revision that staff had prepared for your consideration. Again, it's already been mentioned, but there isn't a conservation easement. There's an ID. I would ■mention that that ID was recorded 30 years ago, last month. It has never been accepted by the county. I would tend to think that it may not ever be accepted because there are there would be maintenance obligations and other obligations that they would need to do. But it was 30 years ago and that that was first recorded relative to the question about mitigation. We had worked with staff on language to address the chair's concern about, you know, if it's possible for mitigation fees, if that's where we end up to that, to go to a project restoration project, for example, in the Grand Bay

community, we're all for it. It's all completely outside of our control. It's what the Corps says, and we still have to start that process. But I think staff had prepared some language that we were in agreement with to address that very concern, so that there could be a benefit relative to dollars being trying to be spent. If, again, the federal and state agencies, the regional board and others sign off, that that could go to a restoration project, for example, on Linda Creek or elsewhere in granite Bay. I think. Let me see if that all covered it. I think that did. Staff already addressed the fact they're not in the PCP. We don't pay PCC fees. Again. And while again there may have been an issue I wasn't involved in when at a pre-development meeting, when there was first, you know, issues or comments are raised. First time we had seen that staff was opposed to the gate in writing was at least since I've been involved, which is since last summer was when we got draft conditions about a month and a half ago. So we again would ask for your approval today with the project and those change conditions, including attachment H and the sheet that you have before you, I'd be happy to answer any other questions that ■the Commission might have. Madam chair. Thank you. Marcus, are there other questions? From the Commission? I see none. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Okay, I'm going to bring it back to the Commission for deliberations and discussion. Happy to just take whoever wants to go first. Yeah. If we do approve this today, I'd like to see condition of approval number 46. Add something in there. I know it's not within everyone's control, but that it would go back to granite Bay or even particularly Linda Creek

when possible, if may shall those kind of things. Yeah. Again, as was mentioned, I think staff can help out if that is where the commission wants to head with it. Staff is working on a condition that can be read into the record. Okay. Comments or questions or deliberations. My only comment is I was requested to meet with Mr. Laduca and the applicant to review the site, and I did that. No additional. Comments. Yeah, my only comment I still just struggle with the gate. You mentioned to me out of the side of your mouth, that gating in granite Bay has always been an issue, and you've got experience in Morgan Creek getting practical. I would like to know because I've. Been involved in development where there was war gates and not gates, but being practical. What what are we trying to obtain? Seems to be a reason or pathway to approving the gate. What are we trying to obtain by denying it? Is it improved fire access? I don't believe so. Because everyone has Knox Box and Fire Department has the code. Are we encouraging mistaken entry ways into the project? Because that will happen. And even having. I get Mark's suggestion of having a gate house with no gates, but they're going to drive right by that gate house into the project, make a U-turn way up at the end, and then hurry out of there. And who knows how. How many we. That'd be tough to analyze right now, but it will happen. Is it to encourage allowing pedestrians? I just I struggle with that so we can discuss that and maybe give me

a little insight. I think it's precedent setting because if you have this little six home development here, you're going to have all sorts of little pockets of development coming up in the future. They're all going to want to be gated. People like to live in gated communities. It's it's they can demand more for the cost. And that everybody is it's a precedent. Okay. And, and what damages are from that precedent? That's what I'm getting at. You might as well just get rid of the rule and let everybody gate anything they want. But there is a I don't know if it's been mentioned. There is a sense of safety and security regarding a gate. You know, not everybody wants to be gated in or not, but there is a sense of security there. And it. I guess there can be signage if there's no gate, you know, always you can put the signage of no outlet or whatever to discourage people from driving in, but you're still going to get that access. I too went out and, and toured the site and was able to meet with with the applicant. And just even just driving around that area, I drove up the road, couldn't find a place to turn around. I pulled into the street and the driveway and turned around. There is a I don't know if it's a synagogue or a church down the street. So there are things that make Barton Road busy and East Roseville Parkway busy, and it may not be a main arterial roadway at this point, but it is a busy roadway with a lot of lack of turnarounds and all of that. So if you do have a large left hand turn lane near the golf course, you're going to get people going in and out of there. Yes, a gate discourages a lot of things, but it also offers a lot of safety and security for those people in that neighborhood. You bring up a good point that came up and maybe you remember George. It was like and I think it was Holden was his name

Holden, the first speaker. But they were stating that the the primary edict of the Planning Commission is to provide health, safety and something else to every project you analyze. So that is another consideration, the health and safety of the residents. Yeah. My thoughts on the gate. I've gone sort of back and forth with this. And just for the record, I also toured the site with the applicant and drove around. Plus I'm from the area, so I walk by there often for the gate issue. The. I think what I struggle with because I'm very rigorous when it comes to having really good reasons to go outside of a policy or whether it's community plan, you know, general plan. And, and, you know, could it be argued that the practicable solution is the pedestrian gate or the, the, the gate on the road? I'm not sure. I think there is probably a way you could argue both sides. I think when you look at the area around there, it is true. All the other communities around the golf course are gated. There are other communities. Tree like none of those are gated. So it is mixed in. What I will say, this part of granite Bay isn't the the most pristine rural area. I mean, it's suburban. And so I think, you know, one of the intents of not gating every community in granite Bay is to sort of preserve that rural feel. Now, you know, could you argue this area is not really rural? The Eureka corridor, by all means, is very rural. And it has that esthetic. And there's areas up, you know, Barton Road near Carolina Drive. Those are very rural. So I don't know. I'm on the fence on the gate issue.

Whether we go with what's proposed by staff because, you know, their interpretation is, you know, it's a general or a community plan provision. And there's language that can allow the applicant to change, be retroactively approved with a gate if the community plan was amended at a later date. I mean, there is language there that allows it. I know that's not ideal, but I don't know. I'll be honest. I'm I'm on the fence on this one right now. Yeah. If I could just provide some input. I know this gates. It's an issue that that you're struggling with. And I think it's important to just put the parameter that the community plan identified, the structure as to when you can allow a gate or cannot allow a gate. So this isn't necessarily as much of an issue of does a gated subdivision make sense here as much as does it meet with that community plan policy? So the community plan policy, and I know it's been discussed, but let me see if I can just drill down a little bit on it. It's that policy number 28. And it says that gated subdivisions are only allowed in the following circumstances. So that means if you don't meet one of these, then you're not allowed to have a gated subdivision. And there's three ones. It sounds like most of the discussion has been focused on the second item, and that is there's two parts to it. One is the entrance to the subdivision continuous to contiguous to or accessed through through a non residential land use. The golf course is a nonresidential land use and it is continuous contiguous to it. So that that element from my perspective is met. It's the second piece of that is really the, the area that you would need to decide on. And that second piece is does separating the uses with the gate, is that the most practical solution? So that's really what you're struggling with and what you would need to decide either way in terms of factual support is, is

separating is separating the uses with the gate the most practical solution. And that's, I would say when you make your decision as to which way you're headed, you would want to think about do you have findings supporting that either way? So that's, that's where I would focus your analysis on is meeting that policy requirement or not meeting it. And once you get to that point too, I know there's recommendations up. There's an errata and attachment that has modified conditions. So it may be better to let me know where you're headed in terms of do you want to include the gate? Do you not want to include the gate? Do you want to include the condition of approval? 26 and then I can give you the recommendation and the motions to make to proceed on that path. Could could we take the gate if we chose to do this, take the gate issue out of today and approve it outside of this. And then they come back, the applicant comes back and ask for a community plan amendment and a gate like other communities have done successfully. Yes, you could certainly do that. I think in that path it would be to not allow the gate and the existing language that staff has proposed does have that caveat that if the community plan is amended, then it may be permissible. The community plan amendment process is significant, especially for granite Bay. We would expect some public interest in it. I'd add. It's already been five years through this process. So I think what are we going to add time wise to for more analysis? I, I know we want to get it right, but at some point, you know, the applicant needs a decision. So. They can still build, they can still build their homes. They're just not building it with a gate, just like lots of communities also do. They build and then they go back later for the gate. That's not not done. Yeah. If I'm

buying and I'm told, yeah, don't worry, there'll be a gate here someday. Or if I'm selling and I don't know. So Clayton, what can you. I know this sounds like super, probably nitpicky ish, but what does practicable mean? Practical. Practical. I mean, I know what it means, but I mean, in this context, is it practicable to what end? Practicable to health and safety. Practicable to the people living there? Practicable, practicable? Do. It doesn't yet create other implication issues like what is it? Can you help me understand? I would say in that instance, there's not a definition beyond the language that's in the community plan. Okay. Courts do defer to the local agency for interpretation of the community plan, as long as that interpretation is reasonable, which is really a long winded way of saying it's up to you to interpret what practicable means. I would just add, I would add to that that, you know, in staff's evaluation, which ultimately staff is, was, you know, involved in, in evaluating the community plan policy and making a determination about the practicable what, how practicable factors into the decision to recommend approval or not. It really was contiguous and access through. And as was mentioned, there's no access between the proposed subdivision and the the commercial or the non residential use. And that's where staff staff's interpretation on the on whether or not the most practicable solution was, you know, met or not to to the end

of the contiguous piece. Correct, contiguous or contiguous and accessed through non residential. Correct. I would argue that the safety issue, the quiet enjoyment of the residents by not having mistaken entry coming in there, would make it more practicable than a side gate onto the golf course. So that would be a to me. And I'm leaning now hearing, hearing all of this towards that. So. That the practicability is around. Without the. Right. Well, and they are proposing a car path or walkway from this residential area onto the golf course. So either way, there's going to have to be some type of gate or security, right? So that public does not have access to that area. So either it's a gated community or a gated pedestrian pathway, right? So one makes it a little more inconvenient for public access, I believe. Correct. And that's where I would say the practical side is the, the safety. And quiet enjoyment of the residents that bought the house. Then couldn't we just apply that to every development in granite Bay? Why even have this in the community? Why have. Why is it such a big issue for granite Bay? I get the urban rural feeling. But again, for president saying, I get it, I get I get what you're saying, I do too. I don't disagree with you either. I just wish it wasn't an issue for this particular approval that we

could approve the development, move on, and then they could come back and do what they need to do with the community plan in granite Bay and have the arguments about this isn't keeping the rural esthetic, if that's what it was intended for, if that's what the no gate situation that is a big deal for granite Bay is truly about. Let them have that discussion. Let them do it while they're still doing this because they. They can still build. They can still do this. I might not be as amenable to the buyers because there's not a gate. Now, I'm not saying no gate. Never. I'm just saying we just keep steamrolling over all these community plan conditions and some are for the right reasons. And again, I'm not against the gate. Right? I'm just against this precedent because you might as well just get rid of it in the community plan. Do it anywhere you want in granite Bay. Like there's a lot right across here. There's this little condition too, is, you know, it's stated there. We do have a pathway to the east. Roseville Parkway has a spot right across it right here. This is probably going to be developed, no doubt. It's another project. It's another project. It'll need a gate. Everybody's going to need a gate proposing a gate on the other side of East Roseville. They're stupid if they don't propose one. Yeah, the the applicant team is the same applicant team. So. Yes. I don't know if you want to address that or not. It's fine if you don't. But but they would still have to meet one of these three conditions. You could say safety is safety. Well no hanging. You guys want to hear from the I'm giving you whether that one's gated or not, but it's not. I'm sorry, Commissioner Beckler or chair Beckler. I would just mention that that's a project that you will hear in the future. Okay. Might not discuss it. Yeah. Okay. One item I might suggest too is the gate appears to be a sticking point. You can always take a motion on thumbs up or thumbs down on the gate, and

then that will help inform your decisions on the full motions for the project. So essentially like an informal vote, but a motion on whether there's support for the gate or not. Gotcha. I'm I, I'll do the informal vote unless there's other comments that you guys want to make on the gate issue. Okay, let's do it. We're going to start with Jorge. What's your yes or no on amending staff's recommendation to allow the gate on Barton. Sorry, I probably should have corrected. I said informal. You can take a formal motion on this. It just is tentative action on whether or not to approve. We just get the sentiment because then depending on where the sentiment is, I'd like to see what the language is. Yes. Yeah. Yes. You would be okay with the gate on Barton. Okay, as would I. Robin, how about you? Yes, yes, yes. A gate on Barton. I'm doing it informal. Okay. Yes. Or okay? Yes. Okay. I'm mixed right now. So I'm going to say that right now we have the majority. That's a yes. So okay. So can we see what the language is. And so I, you know, you would rely on both attachment H as well as the errata that was provided to you prior to the, prior to the meeting. And one just comment. Oh, yeah. Let's go ahead and look at that first, because I want to make a couple other comments. Yeah, I'm fine going with the majority. I'm not that wedded against it. I just have my reservation. Just. Yeah, I'd like to hear from staff how we could make sure

that it doesn't create a massive precedent. I mean, I have the same concern with the ID abandonment, but I can I can find reasons why it makes sense and I can share that later. But while we're looking at the exhibit H, if we can talk about how this would avoid a precedent setting without going through the general plan or community plan amendment process. Yeah. So I would actually suggest that you look at page two of the errata for the language on the gate. There is some language in attachment H, but it's, it's, it really follows the the errata. So if, if there was an interest in approving the gate, then you would be saying yes to that condition of approval. 56 that's included in the errata. And I can read it into the record if you'd like. Can you? Yeah, maybe I'll do that also, because we do have people online and I know the errata was handed out in person and is available on the desk, but okay, maybe difficult for people online. Okay, so this would be a modification to condition 56 to state the following. And this. This is on the caveat that this would be supporting the gate 56 X goes. This project is approved with a gate period. Any future gated entry feature slash structure proposed by the applicant shall be reviewed by the county to determine if the required criteria are met. Per the granite Bay Community Plan period, any future gate construction shall require improvement plan, review and approval to incorporate the detail. S t 27 improvements period, the face of any future gate and or keypad shall be a minimum of 30ft from the edge of pavement of the street, and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic. Period. Gate instances. Gate entrances shall be at

least two feet wider than the width of the traffic lanes serving the gate. Period. To this, I was just going to distinguish this from, say, another similarly sized parcel. Could we cite the adjacency to the golf course as the rationale? And you're trying to prohibit direct access to. Yeah, that's something we certainly could do that. The first sentence starts with this project is approved with a gate. You could go gate comma because of and include the circumstances. And it sounded like the preference from Commissioner Watts was to state because of the proximity of the golf course, I'd say the adjacency adjacency because proximity is also that parcel across every street near the golf course. Well, yeah. And it could be granite based, small. So you could say a lot is proximal. I like directly adjacent. That's a good add in because it is directly adjacent to the golf course. Yeah. And then because then that to me eliminates the precedent setting nature of the situation. And then for the next sentence, Clayton, any future proposed by the applicant, any future gated, not this one, but future gated. That's planning makes the determination. I'm a little confused by that piece that that that section could be struck because if we are saying

a gate is allowed, it's unnecessary. So strike that, strike that sentence. Our improvement plan. Does that make sense to you guys? And then if I may suggest the following sentence, read the gate construction strike future, strike any and strike future. Okay. Very good. Might I also suggest in that first sentence, since we are doing some revisions, because adding that portion, because it's directly adjacent to the golf course, I might suggest that we add adjacent to and contiguous to align with the community plan requirement. Yeah, that would be great. Did you guys hear that? Okay, I can give you a final version of this when we get done too. I promise I'll wait. Mark. And where are where are we updating the recommendation or the language around keeping the mitigation funds in granite Bay? We'll get to that point. Okay. Let's. Okay. So for the commissioners, can we reread this now? Can you reread what you have? Yes. So I have for condition of approval, 56 S and I once I get it read and I would also suggest the Commission may want to get approval from the applicant as to this language. Yeah, I will, but it would state the project is approved without a gate because it is directly adjacent to with sorry, with the gate. Thank you. 56 S I'll start again back to square one. Clayton, I know you're a short timer here. Yes. Yeah. And I have had mis I have misspoken before on condition. So I

appreciate the diligence. This project is approved with a gate because it is directly adjacent to and contiguous to the golf course period. The gate construction shall require improvement plan, review and approval to incorporate the detail. S t 27 improvements period. The face of any future gate and or keypad shall be a minimum of 30ft from the edge of pavement of the street, and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic. Period. Gate entrances shall be at least two feet wider than the width of the traffic lane serving the gate period. Okay. And so this to me then doesn't void out the granite Bay community plan. Three requirements for any future project. That's correct. Is that correct? It's a determination that it meets that component of the community plan. Okay. Other comments on this? I'd like to move to the mitigation. Right. Yeah. Okay. So would the commission be supportive of. I know Robyn, you talked about it too, but for condition 46. So the I'll just make maybe a couple of comments. Sure. If we could, before we move off of 56, I might suggest that the app we check and make sure that language is good with the applicant. Yes. Marcus, if you could come up, you're getting your exercise. Yeah, I am on the second paragraph. It still says the face of any future gate. Wouldn't it be the face of the gate on that one? To make the same change as was in the. Yeah, I think we're okay with that, but that would be

fine. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We're all good with the gate. Okay, so on the condition 46 for the mitigation credits, just maybe a few comments that I wanted to make just about generally the public comment. Like I said, I toured the site, I've talked to quite a few people in the community about this particular project. As Marcus talked about, you know, this is a long, long road. Like the Grateful Dead song. This to me is like Shakespeare's Comedy of errors situation where the obviously the original intent was to do the nursery and then convert it back to open space. It is clear. Unfortunately, the Comedy of Errors gets into play because there were so many what I would call mistakes. I'm not trying to point fingers or blame, but the conservation easement wasn't accepted by the county. The property was degraded to a point where it wasn't managed or maintained really well for the natural resources. And the other thing, and I think what I will say is like the from a commission perspective, I just want to say I appreciate staff's interpretation of the policies around the general plan and community plan to actually uphold those requirements because that, as you mentioned, they get overridden a lot. So I actually really appreciate your guys's stringent nature in looking at this. Obviously, we came up with a concession on the mitigation. That particular parcel, the, the, the runoff going into that area. Obviously it is lower quality. Linda Creek would still be maintained, but I really would like to give some community benefit so that

the mitigation credits stay within the community plan as at least a little bit of an olive branch trade off for the community, you know, really giving up the commitment that was made when the golf course was originally approved. So I would love your guys's support on that. Don't know if there's interest, but I think staff has some language that we could look at as open to that. Can we? Yes. Okay. Yeah. So if I can refer again to attachment E condition 46, what staff would recommend based on where it sounds like the commission wants to head, is to make a revision to the second paragraph of that condition. It currently reads, mitigation shall be located within Placer County if available, a modification to that language to say mitigation shall be located within the granite Bay area of Placer County if available. Further, we. Staff would suggest adding. After that paragraph a subsection A which would read. The applicant shall first seek to purchase credits from a mitigation bank within or with a service area within the granite Bay community granite Bay Community Plan area. If such a bank does not exist at the time of mitigation or the required credits are not available, the applicant shall provide, if available, the Planning director with a letter from the mitigation Bank stating that the required credits are not available, or that a mitigation bank does not exist within the granite Bay Community Plan area.

Okay. I think staff would also suggest having the applicant in. Chris, maybe one clarification. When you say a mitigation bank, does it mean that current land needs to be held as a mitigation bank for dollars to go to it, or can the dollars be earmarked for the granite Bay Community plan? Does a mitigation bank have to be have to exist in granite Bay? That would be my interpretation, I don't know, I'm looking at our environmental coordinator or Alex to see if there's any be more broad, because I'm assuming the answer is no to that. So so the the the mitigation would happen directly under permit with the US Army Corps of Engineers. And in order for the mitigation credit purchase agreement to be made in granite Bay, there would have to be an existing mitigation bank with those specific credits available. And so that's why Mr. Julie has identified the the provisions, if available. And, you know, our our current knowledge is there not mitigation banks located in or proximate to granite Bay directly for this kind of activity? The preponderance of those are located in the western part of the county. The. The availability of this specific type of resource mitigation. Presently, I don't have specific knowledge of it, but I would tend to think that based on my knowledge of the number of mitigation banks that exist and what we're doing in other areas of our conservation programing, that that it is likely that the mitigation will occur within county. I don't know that it's likely that it would occur within granite Bay. Specifically. We tried. So it doesn't really help. We tried

well, but I. But but keep in mind, and this is an important point, the. The tentative map has an exercise period. And. And, you know, there's a subsequent process that has to unfold. And, and due to a number of factors with the complexity of carrying out land development projects, they don't happen overnight. So there is, you know, to the extent that there is something in the future that's available, that would be an opportunity, something I might suggest also, and this is something that we had previously discussed with the applicant team and and Mr. Laduca spoke to it a little bit. Is the availability to do in-kind restoration somewhere within the community? If we could add that in, that would potentially. And of course, it is. As he pointed out, you would have to have willing and available property owners that would agree and participate and cooperate. So again, it's, you know, it's, it's, I would say it's a lower potential, but we could at least identify that as an opportunity. Okay. So it could also include in-kind restoration. Marcus, it sounds like you have. Thank you. I always like to be again, for the record, Marcus Laduca, I would like to be very clear when the commission has had a very detailed discussion, what I would suggest is we're at the very first sentence. It says that we're changing. Mitigation shall be located within the granite Bay area of Placer County, if available, available, in other words, including for resource restoration projects in granite Bay, comma, all subject to the approval of the applicable resource agencies, so that we're actually laying the stage in the very first sentence for a restoration project in granite Bay, including, you know, for us, it's Linda Creek. So I think

something along those lines might be a good. Yeah, I like that. So, so let me sorry. So it says mitigation shall be located within the granite Bay area of Placer County, comma if available. Comma including for resource restoration projects in granite Bay. Comma all subject to the approval of federal and or state permitting agencies. I like that because they're going to determine it, but this way we specify. Then we can also use this language when we go talk to them. I was going to say you could use that. That's why I want it in very clear black and white. Yeah. Does that make sense? It does. Okay. Are you guys open to that? Okay. Other. So we've solved the gate. We've solved the riparian mitigation issue. Anything else we need to discuss for this before we get to a motion? Yeah. Oh, marks and forum. He wanted me. He wanted me to wait. Yeah. Any other comments that you guys wanted to make? I don't know. Where I work. We don't wait, but. Sorry. Yeah, maybe see if he's okay. He's got two minutes. Oh, he's got one. Sorry for the unprecedented break we're

taking. I know. Wait, I think we're solid here on these issues. Over 30s. Yeah. All right. I think we have everyone here. So we've made the two modifications. Mark, since you were out. Do we need to repeat the mitigation one or I can read those both into the record. There's there's edits to both conditions of approval 46 and 56. The edit to 46 refers to the second paragraph of 46, which starts with mitigation shall be located. If you give me a second. One, it's on page 133 of your packet. So that would start off by stating, hopefully I got this all correct. Mitigation shall be located within the granite Bay area of Placer County. Comma if available. Comma including for resource restoration projects in granite Bay. Comma, all subject to the approval of state and federal permitting agencies, period. Other. Oh, sorry Clayton. Keep going. Otherwise the mitigation shall occur at a mitigation bank that has a service area that includes Placer County or an in lieu fee program offered by the USAC United States Army Corps of Engineers, period. And then there is a subsection A that

would be added that states the applicant shall first seek to purchase credits from a mitigation bank within comma or with a service area within comma. The granite Bay Community Plan area, period. If such a bank does not exist at the time of mitigation, comma or the required credits are not available. Comma, the applicant shall provide comma if available. Comma. The planning director with a letter from the mitigation bank stating that the required credits are not available comma, or that a mitigation bank does not exist within the granite Bay Community Plan area, period. Okay, great. So if you are ready to move forward with motions, recommendations one and two would remain the same as previously read into the record, I will read in items three and four, and you would need to take these all individually. So maybe I'll wait till we get to three and four before I read those in. Okay. Does anyone would anyone like to make a motion? I mean, I can since it's my district, so I would move to. Accept the staff recommendation for number one. And I don't think I need to read this again. Yeah. Number one second. Roll call. Dahlgren. I mean, I'm so sorry. Beckler. Yes. Jewell. Yes. Watts. Yes. Dahlgren. Yes. Renting. Yes. Yes. And I moved to the staff recommendation for item number two, especially given we've made the compromises. So second roll call please. Beckler. Yes.

Jewell. Yes. Watts. Yes. Dahlgren. Yes. Renting. Yes. Alves. Yes. Okay. I move the third one. I'll go ahead and read it. Thank you. The third one stays largely the same, but there is an add on to the end just for those following along. Number three will state as follows. Approve a tentative parcel map for the estates of granite Bay Golf Course. PLN24-00117. To subdivide the 151.3 acre golf course site into two parcels, comma one consisting of approximately 4.53 acres and one consisting of approximately 146.77 acres comma, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Comma, errata and attachment h comma as modified by conditions of approvals numbers 46 and 56, as they were previously read into the record period. Second. Oh, I have to first. Sorry. It's okay. I so move to approve staff recommendation on item three. Second roll call please. Beckler. Yes. Jewell. Yes. What's. Yes. Dahlgren. Yes. Yes. Yes. And Clayton. And then the fourth one is the same. Edit so the beginning part remains the same. It states as approve a tentative subdivision map for the subdivision of the resultant 4.53 acre site into six lots, ranging from 0.41 acres to 0.51 acres for residential development and for landscape slash common area lots totaling 0.88 acres, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Comma, errata and attachment H comma

as modified by condition of approval numbers 46 and 56 as they were previously read into the record period, and I moved to approve the staff recommendation item number four. And I second a roll call. Beckler. Yes. Jewell. Yes. Watts. Yes. Dahlgren. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. With that. I gotta find my sheet here. Sorry. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by anyone who appeared today's hearing and provided comment, or anyone that submitted written comments on this item. An appeal must be filed within ten days of today's date and shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $752. Thanks everyone for being here for this item, and we have one more item on our agenda. Robin. You're welcome to do a quick. Thank you, everyone for coming. Appreciate it. We'll give a minute to transition out. No.

It helps to turn this on. Moving on to our final item on the agenda, a presentation on the 2025 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Report. This is an information item with no action proposed. The presentation will be given by assistant planter Santiago Garcia. Martin. Welcome. Thank you commissioners. Good morning. My name is Santiago Garcia Martin, assistant planner with the Placer County Long Range planning team. They will be presenting on the 2025 Housing Element Annual Progress Report and the 2025 General Plan Annual Progress Report. This report offers a comprehensive look at our housing and planning activities over the past year. Beyond tracking our state mandated implementation progress, they serve as a strategic dashboard to guide our future planning initiatives and policy decisions. This presentation is divided into two main sections. I will begin with the Housing Element April, including development activity, arena progress, and implementation of our Housing Element programs. I will then transition to the General Plan API, which summarizes progress on Placer 2050, general Plan amendments and major planning activities from the past year. Together, these reports provide an overview of how the county is implementing its adopted plans. Before getting into details, I want to briefly explain why this annual progress reports are important. They're not just internal summaries. They are required by state law and must be submitted by April 1st of the. To the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, LCI for short, and the Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD. The state uses them to monitor housing and land use trends, track whether jurisdictions are implementing their adopted plans, and identify whether additional policy direction may be needed. Timely completion of

these reports also supports transparency and can affect eligibility for certain housing funding opportunities. Before I move into the Housing Element Annual Progress Report, I want to start with a brief overview of Rina, since that framework helps explain how housing progress is measured and reported. Rina stands for Regional Housing Needs Allocation. In simple terms, it's the state's fair share housing process, which assigns each jurisdiction with a housing target by income category. Originally established in 1969 by the Housing Element Framework to account for projected growth, Rina has evolved over the years into a much more structured and data driven process, with a stronger focus on affordability, housing need and fair housing considerations. It is also important to remember that reading is a planning requirement, not a construction mandate. In other words, the county is required to plan for and accommodate its assigned share of housing needs through zoning and policy. But the county does not directly control whether all of those units are built. The purpose of Rina and its goal is not only to increase housing supply, but also to encourage a range of housing types and affordability levels, improve the balance between jobs and housing, support efficient land use patterns and further, fair housing is not about numbers. It's also how and where housing opportunities are created. This slide shows how the process works. The state, through the Department of Housing and Community Development, determines that the regional housing need then distributes

that need amongst jurisdictions in the Sacramento region for the fifth cycle. For the sixth cycle, the California arena was a little over 2.5 million units. Regional allocation was 153,512 units. And of that of that total, unincorporated Placer County was assigned with 7854 units, which is approximately 0.03% of the state's allocation. To meet this obligation, our housing element must demonstrate enough capacity to accommodate that need. And the AIP, the a p r tracks that progress over time. So this slideshow shows the Placer Rina unit distribution. As you can see, it's divided into very low, low, moderate and above moderate incomes. And the way it's arranged is it's stacked by volume. So on down it's you can see our most significant requirement is for above, above moderate income, which represents 40% of our total allocations then would be very low income, which is 20, 27% of our total allocations, followed by moderate income, which is 17% of our total allocations. And finally, low income, which is 16% of our total allocations. Affordable affordability categories are defined based on area median income or Ami for short and varied by household size. These categories are

expressed as percentages of Ami rather than fixed dollar amounts. So in this table. Well highlighted in an in bold letters. That's Placer 2025 median income. So for one one person household is $85,000. For a two person household, it's around $96,000. Three person household is around $108,000. The way this income categories are distributed is acutely low. Income is 0 to 15% of the area of Ami. Extremely low income is 15 to 30% of Ami. Very low income is 30 to 50% of Ami and moderate income is 80 to 120% of Ami. Also, it's worth noting that recent state law now requires jurisdictions to report for. For acutely low income and extremely low income. And for the purposes of this report, this. This category. These categories are are engraved within the very low income requirement. So with that background, I will now move into the Housing Element Annual Progress Report portion of the presentation. This one is one of the annual reports. The county is required to prepare and submit to the state by April 1st. The report documents housing activity from the previous calendar year, including production, affordability, applications and progress implementing the accounting Housing Element programs. What is the housing element? The housing element is the county's primary housing

policy document. It identifies housing needs, establishes goals and policies, and includes program independence intended to address housing across income levels and household types. The current housing element was adopted in 2021 and covers the 2021 to 2029 planning period. Each year, the annual progress report documents what progress has been made towards implemented data that adopted program. So now our Rina progress. This slide summarize our progress up to 2025. It shows a unit production by income category for each calendar year, along with cumulative progress towards the county's overall Rina explanation. One thing that I would like to note is that 2025 was the first year that we recorded very low. But for the first time, the 2024. That's an adjusted number. We're currently working with HCD to revise our 2024 Annual progress report to include 14 studios from studios. So we'll be working on revising that. Also, another important thing to note is our above moderate obligation. We only have 14 total remaining. So in addition, staff also tracks affordable housing projects that are currently in the pipeline. This is important because the previous tables track building permits issued. While the pipeline projects have helped show what may contribute to future progress if those developments move forward. So currently we have 960

affordable units within within our pipeline, which will help us for the low and very low income requirements. The next few slides will focus on accessory dwelling units or ADUs. ADUs are one one part of the county's housing strategy and can help expand the supply of smaller and more flexible housing options. They're also known as in-law suites, granny flats, accessory apartments, or guest units. They include kitchen, bathroom and a sleeping area, and they're usually located in a lot with an owner occupied single family home. So this slide shows Adu production and how these units are tracked for the housing element purposes. The housing element assumes an average of 8680 use per year during planning period, for a total of 697 units. Currently, we have a total of 609, so we're well on track and also under Housing Element policy H, C three, ADUs under 750ft■!S are considered affordable by design. That means that these qualifying ADUs may count towards lower income housing needs. Furthermore, housing Element program. He requires annual monitoring of Adu availability and affordability to help confirm whether they are performing as assumed in the housing element. I have with me the numbers of the 2025

Accessory Dwelling Unit survey results. Just I just want to clarify that these are 2025, but they were using the the data present in our 2020 4th April report. So currently 80 used in the survey are affordable for a two person household. In the low income category. Extremely low. We found out that 56% are actually affordable for a two income. What's your sample size? What's your sample size? How many ADUs? You sent out a survey in the mail. I'm guessing 142. No, no, no, 142 people responded to your survey. I'm shocked. The 80 used. This is taken from the building permits data issued. Oh, so you're counting the very low as affordable by design under 750ft■!S. Yeah. This is correct. Yeah. And also this is performed by a survey of the. There is also I'm sorry, there is also a survey that the CEO's housing division conducts with with tenants of of Adu units. Yeah. So this incorporates some of those numbers as well. We didn't have the full data at the time. I can get back to you and, and on sample size. Yeah. We also found out that out of those 142 units, 29, 29% were the financing, financing for those units, 29% were loan on primary home, 10% were individual loan and 64% were cash savings. Also, in terms of

Adu occupants. And we can get back on the sample size. I can get back to you. We found that 60.7% of the the ADUs are for family, 14.3% are being rented, 10.7% are for personal use, and also 10.7% from that survey are vacant. So our housing element includes a total of 55 programs. Currently, we have completed 18. We have 32 programs that are in progress or continuous. And then the remaining we have five remaining that we yet to begin. So we are on track to complete our housing element programs by the end of this planning cycle. So now I will move on to the General Plan Annual Progress report. Santiago, quick question. I don't think you mentioned it, but do you guys forecast based on the applications that are currently in the queue for 2026, like how many of the is it? Is there like a target for 2026 or not? No, we, we, we don't use the data to forecast future projections. I think the intention of HDD with these reports is just to, to see the progress show progress. It's more of a long term effort. But that said, the information present in the APIs does inform other policy directions, perhaps on how we respond to housing element programs, or if perhaps we were we were seeing that ADUs are not being built,

perhaps. How can we address that? So they do serve inform other policy directions within our department. Okay, chair, I might also just supplement that with saying that one of the slides that that Santiago showed did include a pipeline of projects. So we are anticipating projects that either have been approved but not yet constructed or in some some, some process to go through the entitlement process. I should note though, and what's an important distinction is that the API only captures projects once the a building permit has been issued for for it. So it very well could be, you know, a good example on the pipeline of projects. It showed property one a, the affordable housing project in Placer vineyards. That project, although it has been approved and they are at the point of, of pulling building permits because they hadn't pulled building permits before the end of 2025. It's not captured as production for the Apr. Okay, so the building permits is the is the trigger to get it out of the pipeline? That's correct. And onto the April. Okay. Gotcha. And then Santiago, one other question. The 750 foot Adu. So only ADUs under 750ft are counted. Yeah. Affordable. That's our our policy. That's in the housing element HEHEC3. And yeah, it it it says that any, any Adu that's under 750ft■!S is considered affordabe by design. Okay. Hence we can

count it on the low income requirement. Gotcha. And I would just add I'm sorry to add, but I would just add that 750 and below is captured, as Santiago mentioned, as low income 750 to 1200ft■!S. We do capture as moderate income for the purposes of the Apr. Okay, that's what I was going to ask because my follow on question was for developments. You know, people for the alternatives, they build ADUs instead of building the affordable units. So those ADUs likely are bigger than 750ft. They're counted in the arena numbers. Just if it's above 750, it's going to be the moderate or above moderate. Yeah. That's correct. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And I have a question about ADUs. HCD had talked about years ago restricting the number of ADUs that we would be allowed. We jurisdictions would be allowed to count towards affordability. And some jurisdictions have gone a step further where they're doing deed restrictions or requiring that they submit leases or show income levels to see that there is a low income person in this low income unit. Do you see that happening for in general, for HCD guidance or for Placer or because we're right now, we're guessing it's low income by design, but that doesn't mean there's a low income person in it. That's correct. And that was approved as part of our housing element. And that's going back to the program that Santiago mentioned. I think it was G 30 that as part of our housing element approval, HCD agreed that we would be able to count units that were under 750ft■!S. Howev, they did require that there be a survey completed within the first 2 or 3 years of our housing element adoption. And

as I mentioned, the the CEO's housing division has undertaken these surveys, and we have provided that information to HCD. And that's all self-reported by the homeowner, by the tenant of the of the tenant of the Edu. I believe it's the tenant that that's reporting, but it's all self-reported. Correct. Are you getting a good response rate on that? Is it coming? Because usually surveys like it's 3% or 4%, it's considered a decent response rate. I think it's higher than than that. But I don't have the exact the the exact number. I apologize, we don't have Nicky Street and I know you don't have a crystal ball, but do you see that changing in the next housing cycle where they're going to get more strict in terms of ensuring that these low income housing, even by design, that they change, that it's got to be somebody low income has to be in that Adu. It's possible. I also just want to make a distinction, because I know we've had this conversation quite a bit with the with the rezone program and with other conversations. What we're really was unique with our housing element is that we were able to. Capture an anticipated number of ADUs at the lower income level and have that offset the amount of land that we had to show as being available to meet our lower income arena numbers. So that really was the I forgot that that's really good. Okay. Right. And that is where I know I've mentioned in the past that that is very unlikely to continue with seven cycle that we would be able to just have a credit for the a certain number of ADUs to fulfill that requirement. That's what I was asking without knowing I was asking that because I forgot that part of it. But thank you. That was really helpful. Yeah.

Okay. I will move on to the 2025 General General Plan and Progress report. Let's see. So. Just similar to the housing element April, April, this report is required by state law and must be submitted annually to the state by April 1st. It provides an update on the general Plan status and the progress made towards implementing its goal policies and major planning efforts over the past calendar year. It documents implementation activity consistency with state guidance, so your attachment B it documents implementation activity, consistency with state guidance and modified standards or policies. Major planning efforts general plan amendments approved during the calendar year, and major development applications under review or approved. So here are some of the so. So some of the initiated or advanced planning efforts. Highlights of 2025. On February 4th, the board approved the Nexus based Affordable Housing Fee Study contract. On November 13th, there was a County Code amendment package that advanced through the Planning Commission hearing. October 7th. The board adopted the Placer 2050 vision Statement and Guiding Principles. April and in total, the April 24th major

development applications processed during that year. So this slide summarizes the. The general plan amendments that occurred during 2025. So first was the amendment to the Housing element policy H one. That's Rena, the arena rezone. Then there was on October 7th, an amendment to Dry Creek West Placer Community plan and amendment to the Land Use Diagram. Then on November 18th, 2025, there was an amendment to the Tahoe Basin Area Plan phase two, and these were housing related amendments. Amendments. So before I conclude, I wanted to put into the record that we received a public comment on this item last night pertaining communicating discontent with the affordability housing pipeline. So now I will read the closing statement. Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following action. Receive a presentation on the 2025 Housing Element and General Plan annual reports that I'm available for questions. Thank you, thank you. Santiago, are there any other questions? No. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay, I guess I will open it up to public comment for this. Open it up to public comment. If there's anyone in the room that would like to make public comment, please come forward and state your name for the record. Brian Myers, chairman of Placer citizens for Neighborhood Rights. We just are hitting our one year

anniversary of the creation of our organization. We have 5000 members and followers now. We're really proud of that fact. We have people from all over Placer County that are members of our organization. Now. Everyone is on board with the problems that you're facing that the county is facing. Everybody wants affordable housing. That's not the issue. The issue is, as you learned at the conference, you went to the struggle. Everyone every jurisdiction is having with meeting rhna numbers statewide, the state mandates are impossible, just impossible. And hopefully the politics will change a little bit. Even if the Democrats retain control, it lightens up a little bit as all these jurisdictions begin to say, we can't comply with these kind of mandates you're throwing down at us. This chart is an exact example of the failure of the problem. The problem in this county. Look at the numbers in the very low and low income level. We've achieved 8.8% of what's required in the six cycle arena, 8.8%. But in the moderate and above moderate, we've we've got to 78%. Now, what does that tell you? Nobody's building low and very low income housing. Why? Because the counties and the state are not making them do it. There are too many outs in equivalency. Now, equivalency may be something the state says you have to do, but there's other ways of doing it than what Placer County is doing. We've done surveys of successful counties, and Roseville is successful. They have arena number, but they're building a lot of the lower income housing. You know why? You know that their arena there in lieu fee, they're going to raise it to $300,000 a unit. The difference between the cost of affordable housing and the cost of market rate housing, you want to take away the incentive to not build affordable housing. And that's what we haven't done in this county, is take away the incentive. We are incentivizing builders to avoid building

affordable housing, as these numbers show that we're not getting it built. I never thought it'd be an advocate for affordable housing, but I am, and there are other people who are advocates for affordable housing who are congratulating our organization for the stance we're taking. We're not against affordable housing, but it's got to be done in a practical manner. These numbers are ridiculous. And who suffers for it? The people who deserve the housing in the very low and low income levels, you're letting you being the county is letting builders accumulate the deficit and then find a place like Hope way where they want to dump these monstrous, huge projects to make up for not having to build them in their own higher income places. And that's wrong. And you need to communicate to these folks in planning and to your Board of Supervisors, that they have got to address that in in some manner. The Housing Action Plan has numbers in it that was adopted by the board recently. Those numbers set goals, but there really isn't a how to get there. In the housing action plan, you should be asking the Board of Supervisors to come up with an action plan that actually says, let's. Here's here's some techniques we can use to try to get to affordable housing. There are a number of techniques that are very successful in other jurisdictions. Perhaps. Maybe this board, this commission could ask the board to start exploring some outside areas to be able to do this, because can you wrap up your comments? Because those numbers are going to go on. And the proposed arena that we've been seeing could be over 8000 for the next cycle. So we've got to come up with a solution, folks. And I hope this is where it starts. Thank you. Yeah, I see no one else in the audience. I'm going to go to Zoom. Do we have anyone on Zoom? We do. Diane, please unmute your mic and give your comments. Greetings again, commissioners Diane Louise Alessi from Christian Valley

Park Community Services District, a district five. You should all have my detailed letter of what I'm going to express here and request for a response by June 30th. First, I just want to commend Brian on his efforts and p, c and r f efforts, because they are definitely speaking on behalf of most of the constituents here in the county. The 2025 Apr shows nothing but a disaster, rolling down a hill fast with 7854 arena units required, but only 58 very low income and 220 low income permitted, versus 3100 above moderate. We're nearly done with above moderate, but thousands short were truly counts for our constituents. For our residents, the affordability math is rigged countywide. AM I over 110,000 based in tech millionaires and high earners, which skews the actuals so low income, affordable classes means 55,000 88,000 households? Ridiculous. That's not our teachers, our firefighters in district five and a large majority of retirees. It's fiction with smoke and mirrors, deception. The big smokescreen. First aid use policy HEC3 calls them low income with no covenants. The Apr admits affordability, needs deed restrictions, then ignores that the ADUs, using regional surveys as a statistical trick. Second, 1300 rezoned units zoning isn't permits or houses built, most are just wishful

paper capacity. Third, no district by district breakdown. I can't see if district five gets density without real affordability or if our legacy rural lands are getting boxed in with incompatible high density projects. Seriously, half $1 million per door costs make this impossible anyway, especially with a like World War three time supply chain disruptions in the foreseeable future. Plus California's collapsed population, flat refineries, refineries closing in and out, fleeing Blue Diamond downsizing. Rena was set pre exodus and pre World War three. Conditions were building for ghosts by 22 2029, builder's remedy is going to be 20% affordable projects approved. Despite your zoning fines, lawsuits left with no local control. My ask don't just receive this direct staff by June 30th for district by district tables with each delivers delivering the actuals deed restricted versus 80 separation. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Real worker incomes, not fake, am I? Thank you Diane. Legacy land protection analysis. North Auburn workers, seniors and farmers can't live in pro formas. We need transparency, not theater. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? We do. Okay, Cheryl, please unmute your mic and give your comments. Hi, Cheryl. Granite Bay. I also would like to thank Brian Myers,

who's worked tirelessly on finding the right solutions for Placer County. I applaud him and I do agree with a lot of what Diane Alessi just mentioned, especially the district by district, because the ADUs that are being approved, although it makes sense that you're getting to play a math game with HCD, who should not be accepting your numbers year by year. They're not working and the state is not doing their job. They hand down mandates. I apologize, I gave a list of questions that I wanted answered, but it wasn't submitted till this morning. But basically I've asked the questions so that I think the Planning Commission and the Supervisor should be able to answer these questions. And the planning department director and Sidra should be able to answer these questions. They're just basic questions. Please explain how equivalency is produced. Affordable housing in each of the segments. How many dollars does Placer County general fund taxpayer dollars been spent on affordable housing in this housing element? I would propose to you that the residents are paying for most of the affordable housing. How much has Placer County given to Housing Trust Plaster since its inception? And what is Housing Trust Placer delivered to date? They've just produced another $45 million over the next five years for the Tahoe area. What are we getting for results? We are halfway through the current housing element. How is Placer County going to meet the contractual obligations for each category by the end of this cycle? It's a simple question where are the MX 30 Rezones planned in each of the specific plans? For all of the specific plans for this Housing element cycle? Have amendments been granted to any specific plans in this cycle, and if so,

was there a corresponding requirement imposed to implement affordable housing for very low and low affordable housing planning recommended ADUs to meet affordable housing needs in many developments, how many ADUs granted to developers have met family needs in Placer County? Santiago is a great presentation. I think the the CEO survey should be. Those numbers percentages you had would be helpful to have those on a slide so that the board could actually. And Planning Commission benefit from that information. And then is planning going to recommend increasing the 10% percentage of affordable housing requirement for developments to meet the contractual obligations? If not, why not? I think that planning should be able to show trends and forecasts and provide metrics. We are lacking the metrics showing year by year that you're failing is not sufficient. It it just it's an embarrassment for the Placer County supervisors who, by the way, seem to be wrapping up your comments. Yes. I think that to get the same failed numbers year by year and not do not demand from planning that it get fixed is not responsible. And I thank you for your time. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? We do. Okay. Muriel, please unmute your mic and give your comments. Muriel. Muriel, we can't hear you. Try one more time. Muriel. Now. Yes, we can

hear you now. Oh, sorry, I. Okay. I'm Muriel Davis, and I'm. I want to make a comment about this housing element. And my comment is that I think the county is creating enclaves of, of poverty with these high density apartment complexes for affordable housing, instead of incorporating the affordable housing within the development that the 10% rate the county needs to remove these leaves in lieu fees, except for small housing developments, you we're not doing what the state is requesting to spread the. The affordable housing throughout the county and not in high density areas. And we're supposed to have affordable housing near jobs and projects like the Hope way. It's nowhere near any jobs. So you're creating a traffic hazards and other situations. Because of that, the county needs to stop giving out those in lieu fees and the a d use. Well, I guess the ADUs would be okay, but that ADUs makes no sense and a lot of cases, because they aren't going to be rented out to people, but making huge complexes of affordable people is not what the county. I mean, what the state is requiring. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else? I see no one else. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close public comment, bring it back to the commission and staff. Is there anything you'd like to comment on or clarify? Maybe just a couple of a couple of comments. And just as a as a reminder, the Housing Element Annual Progress report is really a report to HCD on the progress in meeting housing

element programs. Some of the comments that were made about, you know, funding program funding programs and sort of a district by district breakdown and so forth. Those aren't requirements of the annual progress report. Staff did not prepare that The production numbers by supervisorial district. That's not a requirement of the April. That is something that if there is a desire at some point to see, we. We. We could do. But that's again, not part of the requirements. Of submittal of the April. And so we have not have not yet done that. There were some questions or there was a question about the residential land inventory and sites in the specific plans. I think as this Commission is well aware, there are a great number of sites in the residential land inventory, in the specific plans that are identified that will build out over time, as the specific plans do build out. And I did mention one site in particular that property one A that was referenced in the presentation out in Placer vineyards and will be included in next year's April as a production unit is a 168 unit affordable housing project at the extremely low income and low income levels in. In the specific plan that is meeting the requirement. There were a couple of comments made about planning making

recommendations on the in lieu fee program, as well as increasing the 10% requirement in the Affordable Housing and Employee Accommodation Ordinance. Again, as this Commission is is aware that effort to look at the in lieu fee as well as the ordinance is being conducted by the CEO's housing Division and there will be upcoming presentations to the Planning Commission and to the Board of Supervisors as it relates to that. So I think that covers it. But if there's other questions that the Commission has, I'm happy to answer them or my colleagues, are there any other questions? No, just a comment. And earlier, Jeff had referenced a slide that we saw at the Academy we're at. And I did take a picture of it and just some interesting numbers. And this was previous Rena versus the current cycle. San Jose went from 35,000 to 62, Santa Rosa from 5000 to 53, Los Gatos from 619 to 1900, Fresno went from 23,000 to 36. Modesto from 6000 to 11, Laguna Beach went from 2 to 394. And the biggie was Los Angeles went from 82,000 to 456,643. Those are. And then I not necessarily applicable, but the 400,000 new homes and the Solano County new development. That was a very interesting new city. Yeah. I had a comment also because it's come up, I know we're going to tackle this later with the Nexus study and Ordinance 1565, but I think it's not clear to a lot of

constituents that that the state requires the counties to provide some kind of equivalency formula. We have a particular one. It's going to be looked at. It's going to be assessed along with the rest of the Nexus study. And there are some creative things that can be done. I find it interesting. And I'm going to ask Clayton about this later. We have a dollar per square foot formula that we had in the past and that we're working towards in the future. In the past, it was 297. It's the high end of the proposal. 1618. But there are jurisdictions like Davis has proposed $608,000 a unit as their in lieu equivalency. Roseville, as Mr. Meyers had pointed out, as proposing $300,000 per unit. It's not per square foot, but they are doing some different things with that. And I know we have a comparative study task for of the statement of work for the Nexus study that's not complete is looking at nearby jurisdictions. And I know that's kind of apples to oranges when you're talking per unit versus per square foot. But I hope it's something that Nikki and her team and I've talked to them about it are looking at because there are some more creative ways. And the other thing is, and I think it was Miss Bachmann who mentioned it, there's no contractual obligation. This is not a contractual obligation. County is not contracted to an obligated to build low income housing. They're required to plan for it and zone for it. There are so many other factors that are involved, but it's a complicated issue. And it's there are some jurisdictions that are doing some really cool creative things. There are places that have a lot more money to do creative things than we do, but it's something we're looking at. It's something that's moving forward. It's something that's coming to us and coming to the board this summer, and I urge everybody to go out and read the draft Nexus study. It's a lot, but it's informative. Thank you. Other comments? I think that's it. Okay with that. Thank you, everyone for attending today's

meeting. The meeting. Oh, I don't we don't have no info with with that meeting is now adjourned.