Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call this 04/23/2026 meeting of the Oklahoma County Planning Commission to order. Commissioner Anson, would you like to lead us in the pledge, please? States Of America into every fight for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Madam Clerk, would you like to, do a roll call for us, please?

Here. Oops.

Commissioner Hansen?

Here.

Chair Fraga?

Here.

Commissioner Costello? Here. And commissioner Spar is absent.

Steph, do we have any announcements regarding today's agenda?

If I may, Rob Peters, deputy director of planning. Wanted to make two announcements. One being that the, at the the Missouri flat, cost reimbursement fee item, that was continued to the next next meeting by the planning commission, is tentatively scheduled for 08/27/2026. We sent some information to the planning commissioners, but I just wanted to let the public know it's been extended so that we have time to work with the members of the public, that you heard from at the planning commission meeting and, for DOT to prepare with with the, planning division, revised materials. So that's where we're at, and I just wanted to make sure that we said that if folks were expecting to see that on the agenda.

And then secondly, you'll notice at the top, there's been a revision. We, are happy to announce that Rianan Guilford is no longer the acting planning, commission clerk, but has taken the full time job, and so just wanted to make that, note as well. Congratulations, John.

We do appreciate you. Okay. Next on the agenda is the, approval of the consent calendar. Okay. So if there's any, members of the audience that would like to make a public comment just on the consent calendar, which would be minutes of the last meeting, approval of the agenda, or the item number four nine nine, number two, which would be a parks and parks and trails division item.

Please, you can, make your comments now.

Okay. Now taking public comments specifically regarding the consent calendar, individuals will have three minutes to address the planning commission. The timer will notify you when you have thirty seconds remaining and, again, when your time is up. Public comment will be taken first from those in the planning commission hearing room and then from those on Zoom. For those participating by Zoom, use the raise hand button. If you are joining the meeting by phone, press 9 to indicate a desire to comment. Please voluntarily state your name for the record. Now taking public comment from the room. No. And now taking public comment from Zoom. No. There's no public comment.

K. Thank you. Okay. Do we have a motion on the consent calendar or any any questions on the minutes? I do have one minor correction. It's at the very end, and it goes to something.

Under

very bad. In the to's and from's, it should say, ma'am, you wanna make a note that commissioner Spar has just arrived?

And let it know that commissioner Spar has present.

Just arrived. Yeah. Under. In the moment, it said that I toured a site, but it says they, and it was just me. I can tell you where that's at.

Oh, yeah. It was the rezone for item number four, the conversion. And where it said that I disclosed that May, I visited it by myself. Okay?

Got it.

Other than that correction, I don't have anything. Does anybody else have anything on the minutes?

I'll be abstaining Okay. If there's a motion.

No. No. No questions.

Alright. Do we wanna take these consent calendar items together, which is the

So chair yeah. All the consent items are all taken together.

Yeah. Okay. Yes. Right. I move the the exception to accept the consent calendar, the match,

and the full agenda. Okay.

I second.

We have a motion to second. Any discussion on the motion? K. We'll take a vote.

Commissioner Williams, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Hansen is abstaining.

Yes. Will you please show him as abstaining on the minutes and, voting yes on the rest of the motion?

Chair Fraga?

Yeah. Yes.

Commissioner Costello?

Yes.

And commissioner Svar?

Yes.

Motion passes four zero.

Good. So next on the agenda is open forum. This is the opportunity for anyone in the audience who would like to speak, on any items that are not on today's agenda.

Right. Now taking public comment in public forum. Individuals will have three minutes to address the planning commission about items that are not on today's agenda. The timer will notify you when you have thirty seconds remaining and when your time is up. Public comment will be taken first from those in the planning commission hearing room and then from those on Zoom. For those participating by Zoom, use the raise hand button. If you are joining the meeting by phone, press 9 to indicate a desire to comment. Please voluntarily state your name for the record. Now taking public comment from the room. Alright. And now taking public comment from online. Now taking public comment from Linda Campbell.

Good morning, everyone. Linda Campbell, Eldorado Hills. First, I do wanna say that maybe you guys need to move your microphones closer to you because, especially Commissioner or Chair, you were I couldn't hear a lot of what you said, so maybe just be aware of the location of the microphones. So then my next question is if we have a target date yet to bring back the revisions for the planning commission bylaws. So that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you, Linda.

Alright. Now taking public comment from Gauri Kausa.

Good aft good morning. Can you guys hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Good morning. I'm on the board of the Highland View HOA, and I'm interested in understanding what is happening to the development across from Sangiovici. I understand that is not on the list today. I would like to understand what's happening with that. What is the update on that?

Could you

please provide that? Thank you.

On APN Way.

Thank you.

There is no further public comment. Oh, thank you. Now taking public comment from Tara.

Thank good morning, Planning Commission. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, I do also have a question. I am in Highland View, resident, ex HOA board, member, but now just a resident.

I do have a question about, the previous person that asked about that and as well as there's a billboard that has been called in. I know I called it into, several times. I logged a request. It's an illegal encroachment because it's off it's at the corner of Apion And Eldorado Hills Boulevard advertising advertising luxury development. It's been there out there over two years.

It violates every outdoor advertising. I've reported it to the what's our what's our, anyway, I reported it to them. Our our I can't remember now, but, they've got it in writing. Nobody's responded. Nobody's gone out.

I did get one callback from a, I think, a student assistant who said, we don't have time to do that work, I quote. So my question is that parcel identifies a 30 acre parcel with no access to Silva Valley. It comes down to a point, and the point intersects a few feet away from the intersection, which there would be it would almost be a landlocked parcel. So I'm curious as to how this parcel is being advertised almost a landlocked parcel unless there's some county county involvement in, working through a development agreement to take land or, do a eminent domain, because that parcel does not have any access from Apion or Silva Valley. Does the county have any information on that?

Is there any intent for that parcel? I know it's being advertised. There's an illegal billboard out there, and I'm just wondering if maybe John Kaling or or Rafael or or any of the planning commission may have any information of what's going on there. We, the couple developments here, Sterling Shire, Highland View, and Highland Hills are very interested in what's going on with this development that is lacking in infrastructure, appropriate infrastructure, and any kind of information. Thank you for taking my call.

Thank you, Tara.

Alright. No further public comment.

Okay. Rob, is there anyone who can address the first comment from Wendy Campbell about this tentative schedule for the bylaws. Yeah.

I'm gonna try to address all quickly just all three at a high level. So, the planning commission bylaws are intending to be heard, by the board of supervisors or the discussion at the direction of the board ad hoc, on May 12. That is the Tahoe meeting, but the board, takes all regularly scheduled items during the course of that action, and so we'll be discussing that then. It has not been agendized, so that's tentative until it goes out on agenda, but that's the intended date. As far as the project, I believe they're talking about the m five project.

They're, so that is, you will be hearing, at your next planning commission meeting on May 14. And so that item is coming soon. And then related to the billboard, code enforcement, who I do see, listening on the item, is who, you know, complaints related to those types of signs, I believe, can be made through. I'm not sure we don't have any student assistance, so I'm not sure who maybe the conversation might have been had with, but happy to follow-up with Linda on that item, and and and figure out what's going on with that sign. Thank you,

Rob. K.

And I apologize. That was, Terry McCann, not Linda. So I said it wrong.

Thank you. K. Next on the agenda would be item number three, which is the Department of Transportation item. Do we have staff appointment?

Item number three, approval of the 2026 annual capital improvement plan from the Department of Transportation.

Good morning, commissioners.

Actually, the chair opposite of the board. Before we begin, I would like to do a disclosure. Absolutely. And I looked at this this material very thoroughly over the last two weeks. And I had reached out to the transportation department regarding information that was not clear to me in terms of the scope of what we're we're talking about, which is the full capital improvement program, which is this document.

What we have received and what the public has been given in terms of of information just related to the unfunded elements and not the funded elements. We're being asked, obviously, today to look at the planning of the capital improvement program in its entirety. And so as a result, I I did ask the staff to make this information available to the entire commission. On Monday, Rafael, Adam, and Zach all graciously met with me and commissioner Spar, and we went over these these this information pretty thoroughly. I think that many of the questions that I would have had today is embedded in this document.

And I'm I'm really troubled that not the entire that the entire commission does not have that full document because it does. And just just going through very rapidly does does an excellent job of explaining the status, the cost, the rationale behind these decisions. So it's it's a good document, but to be asked to to pass this without having the entire commission having had an opportunity to look at this thing is is is troubling to me. Also, as far as disclosure, I did reach out to a number of groups within my district, specifically, to see if they had any comments or questions regarding the, primarily, the unfunded areas since District 2 has the lion's share of the unfunded, certainly disproportionate number versus everybody else. I think if I look at District 1 and District 2, we I think we have, like, 73% of all the un unfunded projects.

So as a result, I did reach out to El Dorado Hills APAC members, the members of the El Dorado Hills CSD and fire department. I also reached out to the comparable organizations in Cameron Park plus several neighborhood groups in other parts of District 2. And so I received some comment, but not a lot. But now that I just wanna let you know that I did reach out and that that that occurred. Okay?

K. Thank you. Are there any other disclosure before we take staff report? Commissioner Spar.

I'd like to thank staff for meeting with commissioner Williams and myself. That was informative, and I did receive a copy of last year's document. It tracks every project. I don't know that I would call it an implementation plan, but it explains so much, and it is hugely beneficial. So I'd like to thank you for that.

Thank you very much.

Anybody else? Okay. Okay. Step forward.

With that said, give this another shot. Thank you very much, chair. Once again, Rafael Martinez, director of transportation for El Dorado County, I'm here with you today seeing for approval of the findings of consistency for the 2026 annual capital improvements program. So for starters, what is a capital improvements program? And to put it simply, it is a long, very, very long list of projects that the Department of Transportation intends to construct, over the course of the next twenty years, in particularly between the next five to ten years.

The long answer is it is a twenty year plan, to map out the improvements of the county's transportation infrastructure. The planning, that goes into it looks into the engineering, the finances, the environmental aspects of these projects, and it is reviewed once a year by the board of supervisors and by the plan commission to make sure that is consistent with our general plan. We also bring forward a comprehensive review of our general plan every five years to make sure that our models are still tracking the correct schedules, the impacts, and the level of services that we have been forecasting for several years that they are consistent. And we bring that before the board and the, plan commission as well. These updates help us to ensure consist consistency with the general plan and overall consistency and accuracy.

There are a variety of reasons why a project might come in and out of a a capital improvements program, program such as safety, level of service, or a development. So for the purpose of approval, we inform you of these changes on a regular basis. And with me today, I have, supervising civil engineer Adam, Bain as well as senior engineers, Zach Oates and Chandra, Gamir just to give you any further details that you might have in, in particular of any one of these projects. So what are we here for? What are we here today for?

We are basically to review our program to make sure it is consistent with the general plan. So if we were bringing forward, the construction of Empire Ranch, is in the city of Folsom, that would not be consistent with our general plan. That would be consistent with the city's, general plan. But if we were bringing forward, guardrail that was to go on Rock Creek Road, now that would be consistent with our general plan and something that it was would be appropriate to be in our CRP. What we are not here for is to go over the the traffic engineering and or civil engineering aspects of these projects.

Those details are and and calculations are done by professionals, by staff, and third party checks to make sure that they are, appropriate and justified and true to their nature. And I believe that the Department of has proven its its worthiness. And if we do find any errors as we have done in the past, that we will bring them forward before the planning commission as well as the board to make any, said corrections. So with that said, I am going to hand this over to my staff, for them to review the details of those changes with you here today.

Thank you.

Good morning. Adam Bain with the Department of Transportation. We have provided some information in the packet. I understand to mister Williams' request for a full capital improvement program book from last year, and I agree that that's very helpful. We've been doing this a while. This is kind of our traditional format. That's excellent information. And if we can provide things that provide you with more background and the ability to understand this very, very broad program, we'll do that. So that's well noted. We did receive a few comments from residents.

We received a comment from former, Commissioner Nevis with some of his concerns, particularly his comments related to Ponderosa Road Interchange and its timing. We have in this year, you've seen the change table. We've moved the funding on that back one fiscal year. That and Mr. Neves correctly points out that there's an Arco project that got approved recently in that same area, and we did a lot of effort to try and coordinate timing.

And so he rightly points out that we were trying to phase that project along with our capital improvement program. His comments asked that this is a planning tool that we used to send a message to the Board as to what the community's interests are. And certainly understand that perspective. However, this tool integrates in with our annual budgeting along with our traffic impact fee program, our grants program. I think we've got 32, different funding programs for all the different things we do.

So while sending a message or conveying the community's, desires and responses is absolutely appropriate, This document probably is not the tool to be moving money around for purposes other than how it's going to get spent and delivered. That project has had a delay in the completion of the DEPA document. We're expecting to have that at the end of last year. It looks like we're going get that in June at this point. And that's a Caltrans issue and the delegation from Federal Highway Authorities Administration.

So there's a lot that goes into all that. And we're still planning construction of the same construction season, but we're moving some of the funding forward so that conforms. We also were fortunate enough to procure grant funds for that project. And the reporting to the grant funding agencies is critical as well. So this is document that we can use to hedge or fudge things for those type purposes. But we can certainly convey the message that was concerned that was provided and that was that the community wants it now. We get it. We understand. We want to do that. But we've got a deal with a lot of other agencies and we need to keep these correct.

We also received some comments from Linda Campbell. We'll go through a couple of those and she may ask some questions for us at the end. We do this every year. We've been doing it in the twenty two years I've been with the county, and we go through this exercise each time. It's a very complex document with a lot of fingers that go out and a lot of different things. So, if we fail to explain something thoroughly, I apologize for that, but there's a lot to go through. So we're happy to answer any questions. I don't know. Zach, did you wanna, make any comments on any of the high level stuff for Ms. Campbell's comments?

Yes. Ms. Campbell did identify for projects 3610509 that there appeared to be a discrepancy and that was something that we had identified following submittal of all the documents to the planning clerk of the planning commission for this item today. There was an issue with funds that were programmed for the prior fiscal year that were not spent. Inadvertently, when the change table was put together, those funds were not rolled over.

So we have made that change and that will be reflected in the items that go forward to the Board of Supervisors when the book is put forward for final adoption. And then the other project that I'd like to touch on is the new project that's being added into the CIP this year, which is $3,000,610,587, which provides for intersection improvements at Silva Valley Parkway and Appian Way. Ms. Campbell, there seemed to be some confusion about the funding source for that. That project is included within our traffic impact fee program So that as new development occurs, every new building permit that's issued will pay their traffic impact fees to go towards funding that project. And then happy to answer any other questions.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Spard, do have questions for staff?

Yeah. Yeah. About the signalization at Appian and Silva Valley. I understand that that's not imminent for next year. That could be fifteen years out.

You have to collect the fees, and modeling involved in that. So it's a future project based on modeling for future traffic. However, removing the overlay on El Rado Hills Boulevard from Saratoga to Harvard, I'd I'd like to see that return and that project completed and have your modeling reflect projects that are near completion or improvement should be done first before modeling for a future project that's fifteen to twenty years out be done and completed. The CIP should be for projects that are much more immediate and beneficial rather than projects twenty years out. I say that because it looks like so many projects that are funded one year become unfunded in future years.

And it makes me believe that the capital improvement plan is just a plan and not a project pro form a document. So I'd like to see some of the projects completed that are on the books, such as that Eldorado Hills overlay. Thank you.

We provide a brief response. We understand that we've heard that comment on El Dorado Hills Boulevard. We and we agree. We'd love to be able to build the full project. Unfortunately, we were anticipating that we would get some grant funding there and that didn't come to fruition.

So we had to scale the project back. It's going to be transferred over to our maintenance division to do the overlay, but we couldn't add in the other appurtenances that we wanted to because we didn't get the grant funding. So it's an excellent point. The point is well taken and we attempt to make sure that we prioritize upfront. This project, you won't hear the Appian Way intersection, you probably won't hear about for another ten years, but to get it into the program early is important to me, and we've gotten that re important to the department. And we've gotten that direction from the board to make sure that we are full putting in the full scope of what the county needs into that program so that we can collect the appropriate fee. So your point your point is well taken.

Well, thank you for that. And I should probably disclose that my wife is now president of the HOA, the same HOA Highland View that, Gallery serves on, and Gallery commented earlier about the n five project.

Thank you, mister Spark. Mister Castillo?

Thank you, chair. The timing on the overlay for El Dorado Hills Boulevard, is that within the next few years? Think I saw a reference within three years.

So, yes, as, supervising civil Adam Bing stated, the project originally was in the CIP because it was, slated to pursue federal grant possibilities approximately nine years ago. And so nine years ago, there was a potential for an infrastructure bill that was gonna be coming out through the federal government. We put together a package that we felt might be appropriate and could potentially, bode well for that type of grant funding. Unfortunately, over the course of several years, either administration did not pursue that kind of a bill, and so that project stood still. And, typically, these types of projects are in our maintenance division.

And because we felt that the urgency, as, commissioner Spar stated, we wanted to pursue getting a surface treatment on this road needed to be sooner than later. We decided to take it off of the capital improvement, aspects of it because they are more cumbersome, more expensive, which is lends themselves to a grant. Now if it's under maintenance, it's less overhead, more efficient, more effective, and it treats the, primary issue that is the roadway surface to make sure that it is, at a an acceptable level of service and providing the, cap needed for it to provide, vehicular traffic so that it doesn't water does not infiltrate underneath the subsurface. So, this project is streamlined, more efficient, and in its appropriate location under the maintenance division. We hope to start and, typically, these projects go through two phases.

One, it's the brushing and ditching phase, which would probably happen this year. That's where we take a lot of the brush, ditch the the curves, and the edges, to remove of all, debris and get a clean surface for us to, pour our surface treatment on. And then the following year, we come back with the surface treatment itself. It is exactly the same type of application that we did on El Dorado Hills Boulevard between Harvard and Green Valley. We did that approximately three, four years ago. Yeah.

Uh-huh. Yeah. So in summary,

when About two years. About two years. Two Two years for us to to have that. If we were to have left it in the CIP, who knows when we would have gotten the grant and gotten those funds. Right. Yep.

Thank you. Sure. And then sorry. I had another question. Go ahead.

Back to my favorite topic, Durock Road. So, yeah, I did read Andy's letter, and I did watch carefully the March 10 board of supervisors hearing when when Laurie Parlin brought it to your attention that this thing slipped a year. And the board of supervisors approved disregarded the appeal and approved that Arco project based in part on coinciding the construction of Arco with the with the road realignment. And now and and, really, we don't feel we being members of the community, several of us, don't feel that the roadway does have capacity for that Arco until that direct road's realigned. So if it's not realigned and the Arco opens, I think that's a big problem in terms of consistency with the general plan, having adequate infrastructure available.

So it is important to try to coincide those two events. And I know Annie's recommendation, you know, may or not may or may may not be available for us to put forward in far as the board working with you to get it done. But but I will I would like if this this is approved, I would like to sort of amend that approval by emphasizing the need to to try to fast track that. And if that means the board has to work with the feds and try to get NEPA done six months earlier, then this you know, it's delayed till June. Whatever they can do to make that happen would would be beneficial because I'm concerned that ARCO might open before that road's realigned.

And that decision from the board was based in part on on DOT's representation at the time.

Commissioner Costello, I couldn't agree with you more. I actually live just down South Shingle, and that is my and that is my way home, and and to work. And so having Arco in before the, interchange improvements would definitely delay my time in getting to work. So I would prefer to have those to coincide. And so, yes, I agree with you, and we are working very diligently, very hard to make sure that those two improvements are done either together or that the article comes in after the improvements to the interchange because it would it's gonna be better for not only for the community, but actually for the applicant itself.

They are gonna get a better product because if if they're having to deal with the construction and or, the coordination with DOT, it's going to, impede their construction. So it's in their best interest. It's in our best interest. And so we're working very diligently. What delayed pushed back, and, frankly, it it only pushed it back approximately six months because we're still gonna be in line to be, performing both, projects concurrently.

It it it's it's the, it's the environmental aspect of it. So, unfortunately, having to deal with Caltrans, it's out of our control. It is something that Caltrans delayed us. And so then we're just adjusting our schedule, our timeline so that we can assure the, transport the California Transportation Commission of when we anticipate receiving those funds. They insist that we provide accurate timelines of when we need the funding for projects. And so then we were informing them through our capital improvements program of when we're gonna need those those funds. And so it wasn't something of our doing. It was more of a schedule.

Understood. Yeah. It's a third party, and you're, you know, Caltrans.

Yeah. Everybody knows Caltrans. Yeah.

Yeah.

But thank you. I I I greatly appreciate it. I I feel the same way as as yourself and mister Fennell.

Else fails, perhaps the the mister Stranches, believe,

Stranches. Yes.

Would be willing to delay his construction a bit. Hard to believe, but, you know, that would be the only other

And that could be a possibility as well. Because, like, once I as I said, it it would be in their interest as well to hold off. So I hope so.

Right. Yes. Thanks. So commissioner Williams?

Chair, if I might make a comment to commissioner Costello. This is a a review and report item. So if if your commission wants to send comments to the board, that's completely appropriate. That's that's the purpose of this. So anything you wanna add is within your discretion.

Very good. Thank you.

Thanks, Jefferson.

Okay. Let me address commissioner Costello's comments briefly if I could or at least dovetail on what you you stated. I I believe that, again, what we are being asked to do is to approve the CIP. Part of that is is is adjustments to the CIP that I I actually attended the the supervisors meeting where this this the the this whole thing was reviewed. Obviously, the supervisors decided to override our recommendation as a commission on this thing, and they reached a a compromise.

That compromise was predicated on the fact that the construction of the gas station, A and P, convenience store, etcetera, would be predicated on the completion of that exchange at the same time, that they would be in sync. If we are now asked to approve the CIP knowing that at least this one item is out of sync, you know, it it calls to the question, you know, how many other things exist that may be out of sync? As I, you know, as I stated to, the staff, I don't envy you. You guys do, your your your person's job. You know, you're you're juggling state, federal, and and local concerns, budgetary constraints, miles and miles and miles of, of road roadways where everybody has their own concerns, sometimes beefs, about the response.

And quite frankly, I think what you guys do overall are are exceptionally, good. And so anything I might say here, please take these these questions. No. No. Not as a as an admin as as a criticism at all, but and point, in fact, trying to look forward as we look at some math math decisions we're gonna have to be making yet this year, coming year, that those decisions are gonna be, again, predicated on on the CIP.

And we don't wanna I don't wanna be back here again trying to figure out, well, how does this really correlate? And the and the and the again, the the decision here is consistency with the general plan. You know, if it's not consistent or if there's areas of nonconsistency, we need to call that out in our recommendations. One thing that before I get into some additional question specific questions, one thing that I did ask the the staff on Monday was to verify whether or not the twenty year projections on housing requirements still hold, in as much as we're talking about less than a 1%, increase over the next twenty years. And I wanted to make sure, given the fact we just passed Creekside or the or the supervisors passed Creekside, we have East Ridge coming on on our board right now as we speak.

And we have this whole slew of other projects in the queue whether or not that twenty year projection still holds. And and they they graciously said, yeah. They'll they'll address that concern. So we'll good. Uh-huh.

Commissioner Williams, thank you. Zach Oates with DOT again. Before I address that, I'd like to go back and just maybe touch on your comment regarding the timing of the projects and the being out of sync. Going back to the February 3 hearing with the Board of Supervisors for the development project's approval. DOT was consistent with the message that we're still delivering today on the timing.

I believe we relate to the Board that moving the county's interchange project forward to realign Durock Road was not going to be feasible in 2027, but that we were remain very confident in delivering that project in 2028. The change that's reflected in the change table is the fiscal year has changed from twenty seventwenty eight to twenty eighttwenty nine. However, we still remain confident that, that project is going to move forward in 2028 along the same time lines as the development project. So I just wanted to address that although the fiscal years have changed, that message that we've relayed to the Board has remained consistent going back to the February hearing with the Board. As to your second question regarding growth rates, I will reiterate as we discussed that this that's perhaps a little bit outside the purview of the item before the commission today, but happy to address it.

The short answer is yes. We don't believe that recent project approval of the Creekside Village specific plan project warrants any changes to the growth rate at this time. As we discussed, the growth rate is based more on data driven by historical trends rather than the available supply of housing. So simply approving a new project that doesn't have units even constructed yet would not be reason enough for us to go back and look at revising the growth rates. If we do anticipate additional analysis pending upcoming development projects approval.

If other specific plans that come before your board or your commission in the future and to the Board of Supervisors are approved, that would certainly warrant a new major update to our traffic impact fee program, our travel demand model to account for those changes. And at that point, it might be worth revisiting the growth rates if enough time has passed, if we have enough new data to justify any revisions. So at this point, based on what is approved, we don't see a need for revisiting those growth rates.

Okay. Just just for clarity, you know, looking at the rates again, it's, what, point six of a percent, so less than 1% growth rate for for the next two two two thousand forty five. Is that correct?

And, again, those growth rates, you know, it's that is the West Slope average over that twenty years. It is certainly higher in the Eldorado Hills community region than it is in the Placerville community region. And so all of all of those nuances are accounted for in the in the work and analysis we do. It's just that county West Slope average over 20. And, you know, years, we're gonna be up here at maybe one and a half percent. In other years, we

might be down at a quarter of

a percent. But over twenty years, again, our our tried and true analogy of looking into our foggy crystal ball, over 20, we believe that we will be close to that number. Okay.

It's an excellent question. It's a hard one to grapple with. At least plays in my mind, we're saying something now that is it going to be correct in twenty years. Part of that planning exercise is we use the best available data, but we also come back and touch it on a regular basis to validate whether or not those assumptions are correct. And if they're not, we can make adjustments to them.

And there's peril in trying to artificially inflate or deflate that. We had for years an estimate of growth exceeding 3% and created all kinds of problems because that growth didn't actually come into fruition. So there's a bunch of projects that thought were going to be needed. And then when that growth didn't come out, we didn't hadn't collected enough development hadn't happened. We hadn't collected enough fees.

And the public says, hey, wait a minute, we were promised this project and we don't have it. So that's why we can't overestimate because it will generate things that are incorrect. Likewise, we can't underestimate because we won't have the facilities to handle it. So the methodology is to go back and touch bases with it on a regular basis. When we have a substantial project that gets approved or we get several, if several of the projects that are coming through the pipeline now get approved, it would force us to go back and do a new major update, and that would allow us to revisit that issue. So your point is well taken. It's built into the system. It just is a twenty year horizon that we only get a glimpse of.

Well, again, I sympathize a 100%. You know, it's just like having those little toys where you shake around with crystal ball that that you might have seen as a kid, where you shake it around and says, what's my future gonna be? Yes or no? It's some you know? And to your credit, you're basing these numbers not only, on past El Dorado Hills projections, but you're also looking at SEGCOG, Department of Transportation, and and other resources.

And so to to the point that you guys are are basing this information on on the number of data points and looking at those data points, they're they're consistent. That said, I still have problems with the conclusion.

And that's what

I'm the fact that you adjusted, you are 3% down to less than 1%. Know, back then when it's you know, you probably didn't have in fact, I can guarantee you didn't have when you had the higher rate, didn't have a plethora of specific plans in front of you. We have a lot of specific plans that are still in in, you know, being considered. Every one of those things will blow these numbers up. Granted that Creekside, they have not hammered one frame yet, and and we don't know what that time schedule would be.

The same but we are we do see Creekside coming in. And I look at these numbers here, specifically to El Dorado Hills. We're looking at 200, units per year if you extrapolate if you look at twenty years. I look at the stuff that's right now in front of us in terms of Pacific plans. All the Pacific plans are in Elorado Hills.

All all those represent thousands of additional homes. Not a few, but thousands, I believe. If I my numbers are correct, twelve, thirteen thousand additional loans. Even if a fraction of those come by, it's certainly not gonna be a lot more than the 200 annual growth rate that we're looking at at at at this stage. So there there's a a inconsistency here that that it's just I'm not I'm not blaming you. I'm I'm just saying I'm I'm saying I I have a problem believing the numbers only because of what's what we're we're seeing in furnace in terms of real projects that are really, you know, in in front of us.

One one thing I'd like to make sure that we point out is that this is consistent with the current general plan. If any one of those projects come in, that will change. And so and and we have to be extremely explicit and careful about that Yeah. Because we can't assume that those projects are approved. If they get approved, then we go and adjust.

Okay. Well, okay. Well, we have got two we have two projects that have been approved. Best guess is, you know, certainly, developers claim in terms of Creekside, what, 800 plus additional units.

That's that's true. However, the majority of those are age restricted, which are generate significant and, again, we're getting a little a little into the weeds here on on

a topic that's not before

us today. We're really not because we're talking about what the the CIP is. You know? It's a capital improvement. We're we're putting the money in. You know, the weeds is where we should be.

So it's general plan conformity finding.

I I I understand. And and and then when we have the general plan under attack by all these specific plans, then then, you know, we're we're talking inconsistency of built upon inconsistency here that is is really troubling to me. So so let's let's just talk about something that appeared before us a few months ago. The the commission, by by four to one, voided to, to move, to to to the Town and Country project forward. Went to the, supervisors.

The supervisors then remanded it back to us. There's no indication exactly, you know, what what's gonna happen with regard to a movement in in terms of whether or not it's gonna come back to us or when it's gonna come back to us. But during that hearing here, we were being asked to amend the the Bass Lake Pacific Plan. What the the biz the the Bass Lake Pacific plan very clearly states that, again, with the Pacific plan, that becomes part of the general plan once once it's approved. But that calls for expansion of all the bags like road.

What we then and also dealing with the the traffic on country, the Well Bay and and the like. What we received in terms of what the developer had requested and that you that you had indicated at that time were consistent with the general plan was just a very partial, you know, view of where the Bass Lake Road extension and expansion would occur. Where I'm going with this is that I based upon the information I have right now, I I don't understand, you know, how this this

I'm sorry. Counsel, is there a question? We we we really need to address this because I I'm not hearing a question to just ask.

I I I'm a I I'm sorry. You you didn't read addressed me. I'm I'm the commissioner.

So Hello. Woah. Woah. Woah. We're getting in the weeds. If you have a question for staff, I I understand where you're coming from. But to me, the the item before us is whether or not we're gonna find this CIP consistent with the general plan. And if there's if there's a specific

Let's go back to project in here Okay.

Or something, we need to address that

instead of just I guess what I'm getting at in a in a roundabout way is we just find ourselves addressing major developments that are predicated on a on this CIP. Correct? Let me okay. Based upon that, do we have all the information as commission to really address it given the fact that only now have I been given access and have been able to review this whole thing. My my my belief is I don't have enough information nor to to really say that the c the ACIP is consistent because I'm just now having an opportunity to look at this rather than, saying yay and nay.

My preference, quite frankly, would be to table this, bring it back once we have when it once all the commissioners have this information and address it in that fashion.

Well, see, when I looked at it, last year, we approved and recommended to the board of supervisors that, the CIP was consistent with the general plan. So when I look at it, I look at it and say, okay. From last year, which was approved to this year, I focused in on the changes.

Okay.

Okay? Solely the changes. And are those changes consistent with the general plan? Not every single project because we already dealt with that last year and the findings were made, and it was recommended to the board of supervisors who approved it that what's in that volume was consistent with the general plan. Now since last year to now, what were the changes, and are those changes consistent with the general plan? That's what my focus is. Okay. And then We can because otherwise, we're gonna be

We have two major projects that are being changed. One is the inclusion of Appian in Silva Valley. The other one is is actually moving a project out of the CIP into our maintenance so it it could be constructed, more efficiently and effectively. And then the, only other changes are those that are on the change table, which are inflationary adjustments. Those are the three changes since last year that we are bringing before the board, and we are bringing before the commission.

Those are the only changes since last year. Now, commissioner Williams, I do agree. You made a very good comment as Adam Bain stated that having that document is beneficial not only to the commissioners but to the public. It is in our website, has been on our website for several more than a decade since I've been here. And and it is open to the public for them to view at any given time, but it is a beneficial document.

So from this point forward, we are going to provide that link, or if not the document itself, as part of the CAP annual update just for the transparency, edification, providing additional more information, the better. But as chairman, Frege said, yes, there are three changes since last year's, update, and that is the intersection at Appian Silva, the change, moving from CAP, to maintenance of Eldorado Hills Boulevard and then the change table. Those are the only changes that we have in our what we are presenting to this commission today.

Thank you.

And and with due respect, I would say that there has been a couple of very significant changes since last year. One, Town and Country, we reviewed. It's coming back. Second, we had Creekside, which was reviewed. That had significant impact on on the capital impact.

Changes have been made and continue to be made. We're gonna be faced with a number of issues, massive massive issues this coming year that also impact this impact fees. And so it's more than than just just this is the the two changes, but it's it's the issue of whether or not this this is really consistent with the general plan if the general plan is now in in such flux.

If if I could add a a little bit comment. The the items that you have articulated that you struggle with are common in every agency in California. Great. Whether development will come forward Great. What what won't.

Funding programming those funding, every county, every city, every state, Caltrans, Federal Highway Administration, it's a transportation planning industry that has gone through that has faced all these questions that you ask and has come up with a methodology to address those, trying to know the unknowable. We try to do the best we can to forecast, to predict, but we have to follow those very specific rules. One of them is to conform to the existing general plan. So we cannot if we did assume that Town and Country was approved and we put it into our model and we put it under our TIFFY program, we updated the general plan with that, that would be a false activity. We would be reporting you something that's not accurate.

So while you have excellent questions and it's a struggle, in looking at these projects to figure out how they go, a little bit of insight into how that industry works would lead you to understand that this is how the sausage is made. It's not just by us. Go to a transportation commission meeting and watch how the state programs all their money and all their funding, and it's 10x more complex than we do. We've got more than 100 items in this. We've got more than 30 funding programs, and we've got a county of 200,000 people in 1,100 miles of road to try and all coordinate.

And this is how it gets done. The concerns you have are absolutely valid, and I understand where you're coming from. But this is how that process works. And you can reach out to other folks in the industry to kind of get a better understanding of that if that would be helpful. But this is the process that we go through. Mr.

Williams, do you have any other questions for Steve?

If I could just add one thing to hopefully put a fine point on it. As Adam said, not only would we potentially not be reporting something to the commission that's not consistent with the current general plan, if we were to assume several of these future development projects that have yet to be heard were approved, we would have a really hard time following the guidance of the Mitigation Fee Act, which governs our impact fee program. If we cannot draw a straight line, a nexus between what is creating the need for these infrastructure projects and the need being an approved development project, then we would be at extreme risk and liability for litigation. If we were charging fees to new development to anyone pulling a building permit, whether it's a large developer or somebody building a one lot home, we would be charging them fees essentially for which there is no nexus, and that would that would create serious issues.

And to that point, I totally agree with you. I also agree with you, Adam, that, yes, if you do listen to transportation and other commissions in the state level, there there are there are issues here sometimes that are are much more complex and sometimes and perplexing also in terms of the the rationale. But that that's right now, we're just, again, dealing with this entire program, just not two items, and whether or this entire program, given the fact that we haven't really had a chance to review the entire program, you know, as a group, is that consistent? Am I prepared to to say, I'm willing to again, this is my my additional I passed and said yes in in the past years. But I given the the the number of specific plans that have that have already come before us, the number of sick plans that are coming to us in the future that to just say there's only two issues regarding consistency would be putting our heads in in the sand.

So, again, I I have such an admiration for you guys. I really do believe that you're trying to do your level best when you're dealing with information that is consistent with the state and regional governments and everything of that nature. That's not the issue. The issue is right now, we have a a general plan that that that is in flux. And we're asking to rule on the consistency of a plan that that is already been changed this last year by virtue of the the the the first Pacific plan in twenty six years that was approved.

We have more that are coming forward. And so whereas I may have in the past voted for consistency, that was before we actually able assaults on the Pacific plan that I I see is happening right now. So that that's all the comment that I I I I don't have any additional questions. So No.

Don't have any any additional questions. My my issues were kind of were dealt with in the discussion of the Jurok Road project main. But I do I will say that I I also view what's being done here process wise or procedurally as being an incremental approach year over year as to the consistency finding between the capital improvement project program, excuse me, and general plan. So there's obviously a very fundamental disagreement or just difference of opinion by the commission of what it is we're we're doing again procedurally. And just seems to me that that what we're what we're not being asked to do is is go back and completely reinvent the wheel, which is up to date update the wheel for the last time.

I like the foggy crystal ball metaphor.

That's pretty good.

Thank you. Okay. Chair chair,

may may I offer a comment? It is a rather discrete item. Is is this as proposed consistent with the general plan? So I I think there's basically three things that can happen as this is this goes through the board. Either you agree with staff recommendation, you could do that. You could agree with commentary, you know, as we discussed. Or if you think it's not consistent with the general plan and you're saying that to the board, I think you need to say specifically what in here is inconsistent so the board knows because they ultimately make that decision. However, the board is who approves the CIP. The whole CIP is not what is before you. It's that finding of consistency.

So I I don't mean to be limiting. Those are pretty broad choices, but I think that's really what's before you.

That was what I was trying to say. Okay. Alright. I do have just a couple of quick questions. First one is already been answered because Jefferson that was gonna be my first question. What's before us? And that's already been taken care of. Second was, can you give us a quick a quick timeline on the Slide Park Road bicycle and pedestrian improvements, which I noticed have been delayed? Does anybody have any updates on when that when that's gonna happen?

I apologize. I don't have that one off the top of my head. Let me see if I can get you an

answer here real quick. On the overall unfunded CIP

Oh, okay. About unfunded stuff.

Okay. Alright.

The unfunded list has got a bit of an explanation to it. Apologize. I'm looking for that.

If it helps, it's in the section that's highlighted in yellow. Yeah.

Okay. That our unfunded project list is a serves several purposes, and it's kind of a placeholder for good ideas that we don't have money for, in general. There's several different ways that projects get on the unfunded list from community input, from projects that were there before, from transportation studies, transit El Dorado County Transportation Commission applies for grants for multimodal and bike and ped facilities, all those types of things. And if we have funding for them and the capacity to be able to deliver them forward, they go into the capital improvement program. If we don't have funding for those, they go on the unfunded list.

And it's kind of a I don't want to say wish list, but it's a list of projects that have been identified by the community. They've been public outreach. The community has decided depending on how it was generated, that that would be a beneficial project. We just don't have money to do it. So we put those on that list. That particular project, I apologize, I'm just not familiar. We did complete a Pollock Pines project a year before last for large sidewalk project up there by the school. This one, I apologize, it just didn't register on my mind. We don't have funding for it, and so that's the issue. If we are able to come up with funding for it, we will.

The Transportation Commission meets monthly, and we go through them for whatever resources we can apply for grants for. We also work with SACOG and Caltrans to try and find out what funding opportunities are available. So it's kind of a wish list of things that, when we get money for it or we see a grant opportunity coming through, that's where we go to the unfunded list, see if anything we've got there would apply. And we have been successful in picking up many projects that way. It just needs to be understood that this isn't something we have funding for. This is a list of things that we would like to do, should the opportunity to win.

And Rafael, I do have a quick question for you, and you might be familiar with this. Last year, we had a tragedy up in the basin on the intersection of Sawmill Road and Lake Tahoe Boulevard. Is there any can you give me some update on any potential improvements that might be coming forward to try and address that intersection so that we don't have another repeat tragedy?

Well and and I I do want to, emphasize that it was a horrible tragedy. Little Giada, lost her life, as she was crossing on a crosswalk. Unfortunately, it was one of these tragedies that, you know, can't be, designed out of. We actually had crosswalks, painted crosswalks, as well as rapid flashing beacons, the kind of signalization that provides motorists awareness that, you know, pedestrians are in the crosswalk. There were, unfortunately, no witnesses as to whether that system was implemented, whether she pressed it or not.

So, it's hard to say, what was the resultant of that. Actually, the big portion of the investigation is still ongoing with CHP in terms of what could have been prevented or what could have been done in order to prevent it. But the rapid flashing beacon installation has been utilized

Philip, my I might interrupt. DOT council is recommending one, this isn't on the agenda, and it's an active investigation. This probably isn't something we should be discussing right

now. Right.

Oh, very good point.

Question is there a we're not getting into details.

It it investigation is still ongoing by CHP. That's all I could that's all I could say.

Alright. So, it is being looked at. And Yes. If there's something comes up positively to be added into maybe next year's CIP. Sure. K. That was my question. Sure. Okay. If there's no more questions from the commission, I'll open it up to public comment.

Now taking public comments specifically on item number three. Individuals will have three minutes to address the planning commission. The timer will notify you when you have thirty seconds remaining and, again, when your time is up. Public comment will be taken first from those in the planning commission hearing room and then from those on Zoom. For those participating by Zoom, press the raise hand button and make sure to unmute yourself when called upon.

If you are joining the meeting by phone, press 9 to indicate a desire to comment. Please voluntarily state your name for the record. Now taking public comment from the room. Now taking public comment from Zoom. Alright. Now taking comment from Linda Campbell.

Hey, everyone. Linda Campbell, Eldorado Hills. So just a couple things. First, I did see the comments from Andy on that, and, of course, it was brought up additionally. Don't think that it's just I would say keep in mind this isn't just about moving money.

It's about the fact that a project approval was tied to align with the CIP project for safety of the community, and he referenced the general plan reference numbers associated with that. I think it's just helpful. I think we've talked about cross organizational processes and procedures before, and this is an opportunity to highlight that along with planning and building saying we had something tied together, it was based on a prior date, now that state's changing, what can we do to make sure that we're still adhering to the general plan and we have it all covered? At the beginning, I appreciate the comments that you had also identified the discrepancy in some of the numbers with the country club project. But I would say, can the revised numbers be at least verbally provided today before the review and potential approval, so at least we have something in resolution to that, just to reconsider it.

And then regards to the signal light, still haven't heard anything about an analysis or any models to support the proposed new project. Was that provided to the commissioners in the discussion that was done? Ultimately, all that be documented before this goes to the board of supervisors. It it it seems that in that the for that, the project still has no supporting information, really. There's no identified scope that's been documented and no costs.

So it's saying let's create a project without knowing anything on it. So the whole my thought, the whole objective is to make this all more visible. It's not to question DOT and your skills and experience. We all know you guys, you know a lot of stuff, but some of the public knows things too. The commissioners know things too.

The whole point of us being able to ask questions is to hopefully be able to get answers, and it's your opportunity to be able to say, hey, we got this, and give us a more confident foundation in what's going to potentially be approved. It also allows us to be able to say, is this really what the priority is? Because that's what's supposed to also be done. I did bring up Saratoga. That's been a priority discussed for a long time and yet that's not being brought up again. So, anyways, also, I think that money discrepancy for the South Tahoe project would be helpful to understand. Thank you. Now

taking public comment from Gauri Kauta.

Good morning again. Some of the questions I had, I think, were brought up by commissioner Spar. Thank you, sir. The the primary question that I had in mind and why I logged on today was about the signal at the corner of APN and Silver Valley. Being a resident of Highland View, I'm very concerned about the signal.

It's a forward stop sign right now, and it could result in high density development on APN Wave, which is a very narrow and a curvy road. I'm obviously opposed to a signal there and concerned about the development along the Apian Way, which could present a significant escape route issue for residents of residents of Highland View. Thank you.

Now taking public comment from Tara.

Yes. Good morning, commission. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Oh, thank you. Yeah. I I completely ditto everything previous caller, Linda Campbell said. I'm so appreciative of her excellent way to put into verbiage what many of us, especially when you many of us who are emotional about some of these topics. Thirty five years civil engineer, thirty five years dealing with El Dorado County, I have been in many meetings. I've been in d detox. I've been in all of these conversations. I know what's being said and what's not being said and what my frustration is. This is not just a simple adding an intersection and taking away an overlay. Although those are huge, there is a lot of specific plans as the planning commission mentioned.

The intersection that's being thrown into the SIP at the last minute, that's because the Dixon Ranch project had to do that inner intersection down at Silva Valley that was part of the traffic mitigations. And now with generations up there coming back, that's part of the mitigation. So there's a lot not being said here. There's a lot of disingenuous that that, and I'm gonna go ahead and say it. A lot of commission, I I know you guys are are you know, have to be political, but you know what? I'm gonna go ahead and say it. Rafael, there is just more than just questions. There is discussion. And I don't know if it's Adam or Rafael that said that to the commission, but it is not just questions. It is discussion.

Here's the discussion. That intersection in your in your CIP said that there has to be some engineering, minimal engineering, minimal. There you couldn't even fit with the right of way you have. You couldn't even fit a turn lane. Do you know what how that would back up all directions? You couldn't even fit. You'd have to widen. You'd have to cover over the move the the bike trail, cover over the drainage. There's so much that is not vetted. Utilities need to be relocated.

Then you've got that development with the illegal billboard that's been reported to the anyway, it's been reported that nobody acts on. Here's the thing. There's a lot that's this is not consistent. This should go out to the public. This should be clearly vetted. There's so much going on here. And the other thing I wanna talk about is unfunded projects. You wanna talk about unfunded projects? The pedestrian over crossing over Highway 50, that was funded. That was federally funded. That was state funded. I have knowledge of that. And then it was pulled out of the SIP. Let's talk about legality and illegal for what's going on because it's bigger than a project being pulled out and and and Eldorado Hills not being overlaid. There are four inch gaps.

We are gonna be paying millions of dollars more if we don't do it. And maintenance doesn't I know. Maintenance doesn't have the ability to do a a slurry seal is not applicable to do a it needs a full structural section removal and replacement. What are we doing here?

Thank you, Tara.

Now taking comment from Bill and Kelly Smythe. Bill and Kelly Smythe, are you there?

Can you hear me now?

Yes. Yes.

Okay. Good. I just wanted to say that, I agree with the concerns and comments of Gowrie and Tara, and I won't go on anymore about that. But I just wanted to let you know I agree, and I'd like to know more about it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright. There's no further public comment.

K. So there's no further public comment. I'll bring it back to the commission for commission's floor.

Mine.

Staff, thank you for the CIP. My view is there's no way we could approve this today. The CIP is not consistent with the general plan land use. The general plan and the specific plans are not consistent with one another. The general plan's outdated. However, we're not asked to deal with any of that today. The projects in the CIP change every year, so we'll fight the interchange and the priorities at another year. We're asked to look at some very broad policies of the general plan and the CIP and say, are they consistent? Yes. They're consistent.

I can fight the land use issues and drone on all morning long with you, and we're not gonna get anywhere, and we're not gonna change anything. So it's broad enough that, yes, the CIP and the general plan are consistent today. It can go forward to the board of supervisors. Do I agree with the changes, the priorities, and the projects here? No. Once a project is in the capital improvement and funds identified for it, we shouldn't change it. Even though grant funds come along or don't come along, we shouldn't change it. It should be cast in stone. The reality is it changes every year. The projects change every year.

We have a specific plan come along. It changes the general plan or updates the general plan. All these things I would like to fight and deny. But I'm asked to look at these policies here, which I've compared and say, are they consistent? Unfortunately, they're consistent. Thank you.

Yeah.

I agree with commissioner Spar. I think what we're being asked to do here today is is is fairly narrow. We have a fluid general plan, obviously, and specific plans. And and I I think what we're being asked here to do is pretty straightforward.

Thank you. Any layoffs? Stands?

Commissioner Williams? Yes. Again, you know, we're we're only addressing what we've been asked, like like good puppies, to to, to do, which is a very, very narrow scope. But if you look at their actual wording, we're looking at consistency of the entire plan. The good chair, you know, referenced a single issue that was listed on un unfounded in in your district between commissioner Spar and I.

We have 91. I have 52. I am looking at this document and and wondering where major issues in my area have not been addressed. Not only what's listed here, but what what hasn't been listed. Quite frankly, I don't even know what what hasn't been listed because we haven't had a chance to to really dive into the total scope of the entire plan as at this this this point.

I we're we're you know, if you if you narrow the scope only to what we've been asked to do, then theory theoretically, two of those items, removal and and addition, may or may not be arguably consistent. I I haven't been able to come to resolution on on that one, the the those. But what I do know is in terms of the broader issue, is this consistent with a a general plan given the major changes in the general plan that have already been before us since last year and what we're gonna be asked to next year, I I would ask the commission to really seriously consider delaying a response on this thing until everybody had an opportunity to look at the entire plan in total. And so then I would like to propose a motion that we delay any consideration of of of this motion until such time as the commission has been given adequate time to look at the entire Pacific plan, and then that we can at that point, also then address those things that we believe may be missing from the totality. So I I I I do I have a second?

No.

Fine. It's for me to call for a second. Okay? Yes. So we have a motion to, continue this item. Is there a second? No. Okay. Seemed on that motion will, will fail. Okay. Commissioner Hansen, do you have any

No. I mean, I think we've obviously, there's some difference of approach and opinion on this item, but, I I think we've you know, we're we need to do procedurally. So I'm gonna make a motion that the commission adopt staff's recommendation as presented. And we

have a motion to adopt staff's recommendation as presented. Do we have a second?

Well, I'll second with, a comment to the board to work with the Department of Transportation regarding the Durock Road realignment in an effort to see if that work can be done in a timely fashion and coincident with the ARCA instruction.

The maker accepts the amendment. K.

So we have a motion in a second. I just have a quick comment. I concur with commissioner Spar that our focus is here is very narrow. Okay? Do we find this consistent with the general plan or not?

And without going through that whole volume, in my mind, last year, we found it was consistent. Everything in that book is consistent with the general plan. The only changes are very, very narrow. And to me, it's are those changes consistent with the general plan. I mean, that that's where we're focusing on what the changes are, because we've already dealt with and the board of supervisors have already dealt with and found that the CIP is consistent with the general plan.

Alright? So given the narrow focus of what we're asked to do today, I can find that I can support it. Commissioner's part.

I understand that, but I do agree with commissioner Williams that we need to digest this information, and a workshop, I think, would be extremely helpful. What would happen? We would wanna delve into every project and argue every project. And I think there's a time to to fight or challenge the projects. I don't know that today is it.

And the consistent with general plan, general plan needs to be updated. The CIP, we wanna do our due diligence. So we wanna look into every single line item and try and realign them to land use and to the constituents concerns at Dura Rock and Ponderosa and everywhere else. And that's not what we're here to do today. So, you know, I'm conflicted.

I'd like to deny this. I would like to do a workshop, and I would like to work on every single project and realign it with the general plan and the land use. I'm not charged with that today. So I'll take another day to do that when it's more appropriate. Thank you.

That's I think I like it. Okay. Can we have a roll call? K. One

minute. Commissioner Williams, how do you vote? No. Commissioner Hanson?

Aye.

Chair will chair Frayaga? Aye. Commissioner Costello? Aye. And commissioner Spar? No. Motion passes three to two.

K. Before we take item number four, it's 10:00. So if you wanna take a ten minute break or fifteen, we'll resume at 10:15. This meeting and planning commission back to order. Gonna deal with item number four, which is a condition hearing for a conditional use permit.

Graham?

Graham. Item number four, hearing to consider a conditional use permit revision CUPR 25Dash0005, ATC wooden pole to monopine request to allow the modification and continued operation of a wireless community facility.

Do we have staff report?

Good morning, commit good morning, commissioners. My name is Michelle Drehobel, assistant planner for Eldorado County. Thank you, Rhiannon, for reading the project description into the record.

Next slide.

Sorry, pulling up the next slide. Next slide. So the project parcel consists of 10.3 acres on the east side of Gold Nugget Way, approximately 600 feet south of the intersection with Horny Road in the Placerville community region within the City Of Placerville sphere of influence and Supervisor District 3. The project parcel has a general plan designation of medium density residential with adjacent parcels to the north, east, and south also designated as medium density residential. Parcels to the west are within the City Of Placerville's adopted plan.

Next slide.

Oh, closer. Sure.

Thank you.

Sorry. The project parcel is zoned residential one acre with adjacent parcels to the north, east, and south also designated residential one acre. Parcels to the west are within the city of Placerville. The site plan for the the proposed project shows the existing structures and the location of the proposed telecommunication tower replacement. On a residentially zoned parcel, the zoning ordinance requires a minimum setback shall be equal to one and a half times the overall height of the telecommunications tower.

The proposed project is for a stealth 63 foot tall monopine, which must be at least 95 feet from all residential structures and all property lines shared with a residential use or a residentially zoned parcel. The site plan demonstrates that the proposed facility is approximately 188 feet from the nearest property line shared with a residentially zoned parcel that contains an existing residence. And the existing facility is approximately 151 feet from the residence associated with the the project parcel, which meets and exceeds the 95 foot zoning requirement for setbacks. An existing storage head structure that is currently at a closer distance to the existing tower than the existing single family home is not subject to the setback setback requirement. This is an enlarged site plan demonstrating the existing access road to the existing American Tower Corporation lease location for the proposed replacement of the wooden monopole to the Stealth Monopine, which Verizon will be subleasing.

Next slide. This slide shows the project elevations of the existing 43 foot wooden monopole with an overall height of 47 feet and the proposed stealth 63 foot monopine with an overall height of 68 feet. The next few slides show the visual simulations of the proposed project from five different viewpoints. Viewpoint one, the top photo shows the existing view looking

the top photo shows the existing view looking

south south along along Forney Road approaching Cribbs Road, and the bottom photo shows the proposed stealth monopine. Viewpoint three, the top photo shows the existing view looking northwest along Excalibur Road, and the bottom photo shows the proposed stealth monopine. And then viewpoint four show the photo shows the existing view, and the proposed stealth monopine will have no visible change looking east from Highway 50 on ramp from Ray Lawyer Drive. In the last few point five, the top photo shows the existing view looking Northeast from Highway 5th from eastbound Highway 50 under the Forney Road Overpass, and the bottom photo shows the proposed Delf Montopine. This map displays the alternative location site that was previously approved by the Planning Commission with conditional use permit CUPR2188 to replace a different existing monopole to a monopine.

The green pin displays the currently proposed project owned by American Tower Corporation, and the yellow pin displays the previously approved location on the same parcel owned by Crown Castle. Lease constraints prevented the project from moving forward and list at this location, and the conditional use permit has expired. The CEQA determination for this project has been found to be categorically exempt pursuant to section one five three zero two, which consists of replacement or reconstruction of existing facilities and structures where the new structure will be located on the same site as the replaced structure and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. And staff received a request from the applicant to remove condition number five, originally condition, number eight from the initial special use permit S98-twenty three, which is, could be found in exhibit j because it appears to apply to the parcel and not the leased area. Additionally, condition number eight, conditions the screening, and the proposed project is to replace a wooden pole with a stealth monopine.

Staff recommends the planning commission take the following actions, find the project to be categorically exempt pursuant to section one five three zero two, replacement or reconstruction of the CEQA guidelines and approved condition use permit CUP R25-five based on the findings and subject to the conditions approval with condition of approval number five removed and renumbered remaining conditions. This concludes SAS presentation. I would be happy to answer any questions that you have. And the project applicant, Melissa Ofina with Epic Wireless Group and representatives from American Tower Corp are available should you have any questions for the proposed project.

And before we have questions for staff, I'm gonna open public hearing. Are there any questions for staff? Commissioner Hansen?

No question. The recommendation was to delete condition five, you said. Right?

To remove condition five.

Delete or remove. Okay. Okay. Yeah. I I don't I don't have any more questions right now. I would like to see if the applicant has anything to say.

Hi. I'm Melissa Ofina with Epic Wireless representing Verizon Wireless and ATC Towers. I just wanted to say that in relation to condition number five, the original condition was in place because of the structure type. It was a wooden pole that didn't present as a tree. We have modified that tower to present as a faux tree itself. So the condition itself is no longer required because the new tower itself is the concealment factor where previously these trees were the concealment factor. Do you guys have any other questions? I'm I'm available for

Any other questions, mister Grant Orson Williams?

No. No questions to you. No. But, for staff, city of, Platerville is right next door. Right adjacent to this, correct? Yes. Have you reached out to them, or have they got any con any comments at all from Placerville?

Yes. I did reach out to the city of Placerville, and they had no comments or concerns for

this project.

Thank you. Where's the room? Yeah.

I have a a couple of questions. There appears to be another monopine on the same property?

That is correct.

So why are we putting the second pole on the same why wouldn't we colocate whenever it's gonna end up on this pole on an existing pole instead of having two poles?

Right. Well, there there is two, sites currently on this property, American Tower Corporation as well as Crown Castle. And they did reach out to, Crown Castle initially with, that CUP that I had mentioned, CUP, revision R21Dash008. At that time, that was approved by planning commission. But, unfortunately, as I had mentioned, because of lease constraints, they weren't able to move forward. And now that that, condition of approval has expired, they had to go through the process of going through another conditional use permit revision.

So they couldn't come to a a financial agreement and then are installing a second pole because of that?

Well, there there's already two poles on the site.

Right.

So they're just replacing one of the poles. I'm not sure exactly. I was just told it was lease, constraints then.

I can give you the So

I can we're not holding up the.

Well, perhaps the owner or the applicant.

Excuse me. I cannot really speak to the lease constraints that they had with Crown Castle. They're proprietary. But as Michelle mentioned, the tower that we're proposing is replacing an existing Correct. Facility. It's not adding, so there will still be a total of two. Right.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. I have another question regarding the acoustic assessment performed by Waterford. So this is you're you're replacing the the Monopine. And so it's a new tower, 68 feet. 63 of the tower, but another few feet of

For the antennas and the

branch units. When you see it when the public sees it, it's 68 feet. Right? Yes. New generator, new HVAC units, new pad for the generator.

So, yeah, it's a complete replacement instead of a modification. The the acoustic assessment, if I encountered if I understand it correctly, when the generator is on, it's gonna make noise, obviously. And during the daytime, it would be within the county ordinance for noise. But the nighttime limit for noise is 45 decibel from 10PM to 7AM. And it looks as if the generator would exceed that if it was going on at night.

That's on page I don't know what exhibit k for the for the acoustic assessment. The page isn't numbered. It's a table. Section three point o noise analysis.

Thank you, commissioner, for that question. Regarding the generator, it is an emergency backup generator. Correct. And because it is for a utility telecommunication facility, it is exempt from those noise concerns. That noise ordinance. Excuse me. Really? Okay.

Well, then why why do a noise analysis on the generator if there's no limit on how noisy it can be?

Maybe maybe I could jump in. I think, you know, we we wanna get an understanding of particularly kind of how the generator would operate should it be out there so that we understand what's there, I think, in those emergency because they also test them during the day and things like that.

They do. I know. I'm very familiar with standby generators and how noisy they are when they every few months, they gotta test them.

Right. And so I think, you know, the testing wouldn't certainly be done overnight, and so that's to kind of prove the during the daytime, during the testing period that it would reasonably comply. And then but, you know, should it have to be operated, you know, for, you know, several days in a in a situation in an emergency or something like that, yeah, there is some exceptions in the noise, section of the zoning ordinance and the general plan, related to, you know, emergency general.

Emergency. Alright. Very good. Interesting. Yeah. That that's all I have. Thank you.

I just have one question. The original, wooden tower is 47 feet, and it's gonna increase 16 feet to be 63. Why do we need to go up 16 more feet? Just can you explain that to me?

Yes. The additional height is needed to get over the existing tree line so that we can have line of sight to other sites as well as just coverage options for the general public.

That's what I thought. K.

Thank you.

Okay. So now we'll open up to public comment.

Now taking public comments specifically on item number four. Individuals will have three minutes to address the planning commission. The timer will notify you when you have thirty seconds remaining and again when your time is up. Public comment will be taken first from those in the planning commission hearing room and then from those on Zoom. For those participating by Zoom, press the raise hand button and make sure to unmute yourself when called upon. If you are joining the meeting by phone, press 9 to indicate a desire to comment. Please voluntarily state your name for the record. Now taking public comment from the room. Yep.

Sorry about earlier. I did not understand that. Okay. So my name is Melissa Hunter. This is my mother, Deborah McCallum. She is the landowner of this, and we're just requesting a few things. One, we'd like a copy of the current plans with the view, including the canopy to make sure the canopy of this monopine is gonna be within the fenced compound. Also, we would like, to ask to postpone this permitting revision for sixty days so that we can review the plans, have them reviewed as this was a plan with Crown Castle two years ago, and 10 tenths of thousands of dollars was spent on our end to negotiate this. And then we never heard back. Then Verizon went from Crown Castle to American Tower.

That contract, we do not have a current copy of it. The land was owned by my 93 year old grandmother who passed away recently, and we would like a copy of that contract. One, to make sure that this is gonna follow those guidelines. And two, just to make sure that sorry. I lost my train of thought. That we can have it properly reviewed.

Anything else? Nope.

That's it. So let me get this right. You're the property owner.

My mother is a property owner.

I'm her

daughter. Yeah.

So you're the property owners, and the report somebody else is already leasing the space for the tower. Is that correct?

American Tower owns the tower, and the carrier on that that tower is Sprint. Verizon, we had worked out a deal with Crown Castle for the other tower. When we negotiated that deal and and Verizon did not like it, they never responded and said, no. Thank you. They just went to the American Tower because that contract is different than the Crown Castle contract.

That the Crown Castle contract was, being renewed, and so we were negotiating. Basically basically, Verizon wants to get on this tower without having to pay. They wanna rebuild it and not have to pay anything. What what is currently in the contract, which I don't have I've kinda pieced together some of the contracts because there's been addendum since this contract was signed by my 93 year old grandmother, but I don't have an actual current copy of that contract. But I'm pretty sure that what they're trying to do is just take advantage. Verizon went from the Crown Castle site to the American Tower site so they didn't have to pay any more money. Oh. And they're making it taller so they can put multiple carriers on it. I I know that for

a fact.

I just wanna clarify this to my own mind. So you have a parcel. It's owned by private entity, and they have two contracts. One for one tower, one for the other tower.

Uh-huh.

And the one tower is a wooden tower, which is the one before us today, to be replaced.

Decommissioned, and they wanna put a taller tower on it.

Okay. And there's already a contract in place for both of them? Two separate contracts? K. So that's clarified my own one. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Have any questions for her? Okay. Thank you.

Now taking public comment from online. There is no further public comment.

K. Thank you. Bring it back to

the commission. Do we have any questions? Well, I'd like to see what the app I mean, this is just this has now become about as clear as mud. So I'd like the applicant and slow down a little bit. I I want the commission. I want me and the commission to I want you to respond to these these because it it what I just heard is is maybe this deal isn't queued up properly.

So that's So in relation as chair Freca chairman Freca kinda clarified, there are two separate contracts on the property as I understand it, one with Crown Castle Corporation and one with American Tower Corporation. The Crown Castle agreement, I can't speak to. I negotiate it. I'm I'm not a representative of Crown Castle, so I'm not sure, you know, the the dealings that happened there. I do know that American Tower is also on the line if they wanna speak to their contract.

But as I understand it, there is an existing contract with the property owner with American Tower that is valid, and they had majority of the conversation directly with the property owners in relation to Verizon's desire to install and replace the existing tower.

And the previous speaker

Mhmm.

Used the word decommissioned in reference to the wooden tower. I think that's what I heard. Right?

Correct. So she the the term decommissioned means in in my industry means to eliminate completely. So they would to decommission a site means

or is it not used anymore?

Remove and no longer have service at that location.

I wanna make sure to remove it. And, obviously, once you remove, you're not gonna use it anymore. Right?

Correct. So in

And in reference to the wooden the wooden the the original wooden pole, the existing wooden pole. Right?

So it's a site. So you would decommission a site, not necessarily a structure. So the reason for replacing the structure is it was no longer structurally viable. We could not use we did attempt to use the existing structure, the wooden bowl, but it wouldn't support the equipment.

Well, it seems like it also has a little bit of help firewise to not have a wooden struct wooden. Effectively, it's like removing a tree. Right. I realize that's not much to write home about, but alright.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I mean, I don't know. Maybe somebody else has questions for you.

I I don't. Commissioner Williams, any questions?

I'm thoroughly confused now. We're here for the staff report and the conditional use permit, but the contract doesn't involve us, and the ownership doesn't involve us. Correct?

My take would be yeah. I mean, when I was just looking at some of the application materials. You know, the owner of the tower was identified as the tower company. They have, you know, their lease area and their contracts related to that. They did have, you know, Epic Wireless has a letter of authorization from the tower company to pursue this permit.

This is sort of news to us as well. And so, I mean, it is on, the subject property, but there is, you know, contractual, pieces that I might not be able to explain related to this lease area and the ownership of the tower on the site. Right? So Right. It sounds like, from what I could see, the, you know, the the, application that has been provided to planning was related to the replacement of the tower within the lease area, and I would imagine that, you know, that those, that that authority to do those things within that lease area is in those contractual documents, but, you know, I have not viewed those myself.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah.

It appears that maybe I don't know if dispute is the correct word, but there's some trepidation on behalf of the property owner to have this

Excuse me. Can you come up so you're on record? Thank you.

Hi. My name is Debbie McCallum, and I'm the, owner of

the

property. I just found out about all of this, by the little card that you guys sent to my all my neighbors and me saying that it was a public hearing. That's how I found out about it. So it listed my personal number on the paper, and I was just like, what the heck? So, I mean, I I don't know.

I mean, all of this is done, you know, with without even a thought of letting me know what's going on. Last I heard, they were just decommissioning the site and taking it away, which was fine with me. But, now they're gonna put this huge tower in my front yard, so I'm I'm not very happy about it. And I'm not happy that they didn't let me know what was going on. It it involves my income.

It involves the noise that comes off the generators because it's just I mean, I can see this tower from my house, whereas the other one is way in the back of the 10 acres. So it doesn't, you know, it's not an issue.

Mhmm.

So that's all I just wanted to say was that we just we didn't know. So that's why we're asking for a little time to catch up

Yeah.

And see what's going on.

Thank

you. Thank you.

Thank you. So maybe this is for gifts. So what go ahead.

So I I think the landowner is not asking for a denial, but is opposing the project because they haven't had enough time. But I haven't heard that they're outright opposed to it. I don't know. It's in our purview to postpone this and that could be worked out or not. But the application's in front of us and the application's clear. It's a replacement tower, and it's improved services. So what's in our scope here?

Yeah. I think it is in our purview. If we wanted to continue it, we could always we could continue anything.

So so, Chair, with the overlay, the cell towers always have shot clocks, so you would need to check with staff because usually there's a clock ticking. Right. Otherwise, these can end up, you know, getting approved through in action.

Okay. But if, if everything was in order and the shot clock is going, we could continue it if it came back and the timeline was okay. We we we do have that option. Correct?

Yeah. I I think staff could confirm that. I I it it does sound like a bit of a strange situation. I I I share your confusion at this

point. So

I

know Rob, go ahead.

Because I was just gonna say so on page four of six of the staff report, which is attachment a, we speak to the tolling and the number of days left. There was a tolling agreement that was enacted to extend the project through 06/25/2026 that usually, allows for the time for this hearing and any appeal. And so we may have to address the tolling to, you know, depending on what the commission decides to do to ensure that we are bringing it back, you know, in in what the applicant says about it.

And here's what I'm thinking. We are meeting again on the second Thursday in April and in May. This is April. In May. And that date is so off the top of my head, I can't remember. And there is a very light agenda for that date. Correct? The meeting on

Moment.

May. Yeah.

I don't know that. Yeah. We talked last night, and there's only one item. Correct?

Yeah. I believe the twenty eighth, did, you know, tentatively have some items moving forward. There was a

Wait. No. For the first meeting in May.

First meeting in May is on the twelfth. Yes.

I spoke. Yes. We only have one item That's correct.

On the agenda. Yes. So what I well, my thought is since we only have one item on the agenda, and there is some confusion here between the property owner and the lease and the leaseholder. I could would a couple of weeks be sufficient for you folks to talk to each other? And then we could possibly continue this until that meeting in May, which is twelfth. Correct? '14? Sorry. '14. Yeah.

That way, we're just not here for one item. We can do we can do this if that's sufficient time for you, if that's the sense of the commission.

The the only thing I would say is that, you know, generally, I'm just gonna speak for our administrative sort of procedures. You know, most of the things for the 05/1214 meeting, excuse me, you know, our our due dates have come and gone. We would have to do a date certain so we wouldn't have to notice it. And then I would just ask that the expectation be that a lot of what we might bring back to the meeting would be in a you know, to the degree we can in a verbal way because we or that there might be attachments that come a little later, you know, in preparation because it doesn't give staff much time to prepare anything anything with approximately three weeks between this meeting and that.

Basically, the only thing I'm thinking is we're just gonna if we continue it to the fourteenth, everything's gonna stay the same. Nothing's really gonna change except folks are gonna have a couple of weeks to talk to each other, and then we come back and we're in the same place we are right at this very minute. Public hearing's already done. Everything's done. It's just coming back So, Cherif,

I I think what Rob is saying is there may be a supplemental memo or something, but it might be on a shorter time frame, maybe seventy two hours or something. It won't be the week and a half that the agenda is normally published. I think that's the leeway he's looking for. But if you continue to that specific date, staff won't have to renotice it.

Right. So my recommend my thought would be we continue the item until May 14.

I would also just maybe ask that the app can have an opportunity to weigh in on this request if you

guys should give them that.

Sure. I conferred with ATC in there an agreement to continue so they can have those conversations with the property owner.

Oh, so it's okay. I mean, we continue To

May 14? Yeah.

Okay. Well, do I have do I have a a motion?

I will. Since it's your district? Yes. It is my district. I I will move that the item for us right now, this item will be continued to for further review by the commission on its meeting of May 14.

I would second that.

Okay.

Commissioner Williams, how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Hanson?

Aye.

Chair Frege?

Aye.

Commissioner Costello? Aye. And commissioner Spar?

Aye.

Motion passes five zero.

K. Thank you, folks, and we'll see you in three weeks. Thank you so much. Okay. Next item on the agenda is number five. Ren?

Item number five, hearing to consider rezone and tentative parcel map Z 24 Dash 0007 Slash P 25 Dash 0001 Wilson Rezone and Parcel Map. Chair, can you please open the hearing?

K. We can open the public hearing. Staff.

Good morning, commissioners. Leila Shelley, project planner. Thank you, Rhiannon, for reading the project description. The project we are presenting includes a rezone request from residential estate five acre minimum to residential one acre minimum and a tentative parcel map dividing the 7.94 acre property into two parcels of approximately 1.5 acres and 6.43 acres. There's no development being proposed at this time.

Slide three. The project park parcel is located on the Northeast side of Coon Hollow Road, approximately 600 feet east of the intersection with Excelsior Road in the Placerville Community region, Supervisor District 3. The project parcel has a general plan designation of medium density residential, which is compatible with the current and requested zones. Surrounding parcels have general plan designation of medium and low density residential. The project parcel has a zoning designation of RE5 and parcels directly adjacent are zoned RE5, R1A and RE10.

Slide six, this graphic shows the existing and proposed zoning designations and how the request relates to the adjacent zoning. The tentative parcel map shows the two existing residences, a main dwelling with an accessory dwelling unit closer to Coon Hollow, as well as the existing driveways, garage and sheds. The proposed parcel lines create a parcel for each residence and propose a driveway easement to be recorded providing access through the front parcel. This project qualifies for streamlined environmental review according to California Environmental Quality Act section one five one eight three. Projects consistent with a community plan, general plan, or zoning.

Although the project proposes a rezone, this exemption is appropriate because it remains consistent with the general plan. Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to take the following actions. One, determine according to CEQA guidelines, find the project to be exempt pursuant to section fifteen thousand one eighty three and approve rezone Z24-seven and tentative parcel map p25-one based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval as presented. This concludes staff's presentation. The applicant, Terry Ottens, is also available and would like to share a few things.

Thank you.

Okay. Do we have any questions for staff? Mister Hanson? No. I not any questions yet. I hear hear from the the owner, the applicant.

Yeah. Mister Costello. I just have one quick one. So, if, in my mind, there's one parcel and one split it. K. It's gonna be one structure there, which is an ADU. One structure and then an ADU. On the six plus acre site, that's where the ADU is. Correct?

No. The larger parcel is the main dwelling currently. Once it's split, it will be two main dwellings.

Right. Two main dwellings. So if this is approved, will they be able to build another ADU onto that larger parcel?

You are correct.

K. That's my only question. Okay. Is the applicant here? Press the green button. Right there. Okay. You go.

So my name is Terri Ottensen. I'm a trustee of the Wilson Family Trust and representing my mom, Marilyn Wilson, who owns the property. I know the planning department did a good job in summarizing the technical aspects of the application. I'd be happy to answer any questions. I'd like to just take a moment and give you the human side of what's behind this application.

My parents have lived on this property since 1972 for fifty four years. My sister and her husband moved on to the property in 2003 to take care of my parents and to provide, the necessary maintenance of the property, which your fire codes, it's a lot of maintenance for eight acres. My mom is now 90 years old. My dad, passed in 2016. She's she's alone.

She's now 90 years old. She was 88 when we started this process and knows that the property will need to be sold, either upon her death or if she is in need of greater care options. What she'd like to do is leave a small portion of the property to my sister who has lived there for twenty six years, so that she won't basically be homeless if my mom passes away or has to move. I wanna emphasize, and, Leila already did this, there's no new proposed development. There's no new proposed construction, and the two homes are already existing on the property.

Because of the configuration of the property, and we looked into this, and the oak forest that takes up the back four acres of the property, it's would be very, very difficult, if not impossible, to further subdivide this piece of property even though it might be zoned that way. I which we think we'll leave it the way it is for many years, which I know at least one of our neighbors exit, expressed some concern about. In addition, at as the planning department pointed out in your question, it it's my understanding that each one of those parcels would be eligible for an additional ADU. I just wanna tell you that we were working with, e, EID and the fire district, we were informed that any new dwellings on that property, would, trigger an off-site improvement to the water system for fire flow purposes to the tune of 50 to $75,000. So even with the addition of a ADU, that's quite a hefty price to put pay.

So I'm not sure you could even it's even feasible to add an ADU on that property. So I just wanna summarize that what we're asking is consistent with both the surrounding neighborhood. It's also consistent with the general plan. And, with that information, we hope that you'll approve this application. And I I can answer any questions you might have.

Thank you. Yes. Yep. Very very yes.

Go

ahead. Very well very well done. Thank you for coming in. I think you said my question is is in it's just for my maybe it's in Stafford, and I don't remember, recollection, that your folks this first came into the Wilson world in 1972?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah. Alright. So you had long

Which for me, it doesn't seem that very long ago, but it was quite a while. Yeah. It the years have passed.

I don't think any of us wanna talk about Oh. How long ago that was. And my purpose in in is really just to to make sure I understood your family's, you know, commitment to this property and and Oh, yeah. Of it. No So Yeah.

It's gonna be hard to give up. But if there is a mortgage on the property, and it's definitely gonna have to be sold.

Okay. Thank you. You mean the bigger parcel?

The the bigger parcel will definitely have to be sold. And so we're hoping that by, applying for this, that the smaller parcel are my sister who's lived there for twenty six years and her husband will be able to retain their home.

Thank you. K. So we did open the public hearing. Right? K. And it was and there was no public comment. Right?

We haven't done comment.

No comment.

No. We haven't taken it yet.

Okay. Let's take public comment.

Alright. Now taking public comments specifically on item number five. Individuals will have three minutes to address the planning commission. The timer will notify you when you have thirty seconds remaining and, again, when your time is up. Public comment will be taken first from those in the planning commission hearing room and then from those on Zoom. For those participating by Zoom, press the raise hand button and make sure to unmute yourself when called upon. If you are joining the meeting by phone, press 9 to indicate a desire to comment. Please voluntarily state your name for the record. Now taking public comment from the room.

Right.

And now taking public comment from Zoom. There is no public comment.

K. Since there's no public comment, we'll close that part overhearing and bring it back to the commission.

Alright. May I offer my Absolutely. Alright. So, mister chair, I'd like to move that we, accept improved staff's recommendations as presented on this item. Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second?

I will second.

We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion amongst the commission? And if we take a vote.

Commissioner Williams, how do

you vote?

Absolutely yes.

Commissioner Hanson?

Yes. Good luck.

Chair Fraga?

Yes.

Commissioner Costello? Yes. And commissioner Spar?

Yes.

Motion passes five zero.

Thank you. Thank you, and good luck, folks. Okay. Next item would be item number six.

Item number

Go ahead, Graham.

Item number six. Hearing to consider an appeal received from Bill Wilde appealing the approval of design review permit D R 24 Dash 0010 Business Drive open storage lot. Chair, can you please open the hearing?

Morning. Okay. We're gonna open the public hearing. And since we don't get too many appeals, that's clarification before we get into staff report. So do we usually do a time limit, like, maybe fifteen minutes for the proponent and then fifteen minutes for the appellant?

We've done a couple different. We've done 10 or 15 as long as the time for both sides is equal and then equal time for rebuttal. This one maybe is perhaps more collaborative. Maybe I'm wrong. But, yes, as long as there's equal time for everyone. But it it's up to usually, the chair decides, and it's usually ten or fifteen.

Oh, I don't like to just dictate time. So would say ten minutes for each side and then maybe five minutes for rebuttal for a total of fifteen for each side. The acceptable If

I may,

mister chair, historically, we've done the rebuttal sort of after public comment.

So I don't know. I just we're just setting to how much time. So, k, let's do public hearings open. We can do a staff accordingly. Good morning, chair. Commissioners, thank you for your time. My name is.

I apologize for that. The storage lot would be surrounded by a six foot perimeter chain link fence containing earth tone vinyl slats and two locked and manually operated gates that would conform to county standards. Mr. Bill Wilde, a resident of neighboring Cameron Estates located to the west of the business park, filed an appeal to the project on 03/05/2026 citing concerns about the lack of landscaping along the western side of the proposed project. The subdivision of the neighborhood predates the subdivision of the business park parcels by decades.

Mr. Wilde claims the project is not consistent with Section 1.6 a point two point d from the landscape and irrigation standards within the community design standards as well as general policy plan or general plan policy, excuse me, 2.2.5.21. A more detailed explanation of these standards and policy will be discussed later in the presentation. From the appeal form, we are appealing this decision to make sure that county regulations and requirements are applied to protect our adjacent residential neighborhood while still being reasonable and fair to the applicant. Next are a series of maps showing the project site, which is inside the Barnett Business Park within Supervisor District 4, the land use designation of industrial and the zoning designation of light industrial.

Next on the project site plans, Note the various easements such as the 20 foot diagonal sewer easement and 50 foot drainage easement along the western edge of the project site. The existing 20 foot wide landscape buffer established with the Bartlett Business Park parcel map P05-two appears to overlap the Pacific Gas and Electric distribution poles and power lines. Slide 10 details the previously approved landscaping along the frontage of Business Drive. The purpose of this general plan policy as cited in the appeal is to ensure projects are compatible with adjoining land uses. Within the landscape standards, where industrial uses to joins residentially zoned parcels, either a 30 foot wide landscape buffer per the section's standards or a 10 foot wide landscape buffer with a minimum six foot masonry wall is required.

Staff is bringing to the commission's attention this opportunity for an alternative landscape plan within our community design standards. The appeal process requires de novo hearings, which means that the Planning Commission may reverse or affirm wholly or partly or may modify the requirements, decision or determination appealed and such action shall be final. An alternative landscape plan may be approved when unique circumstances apply to the site that makes compliance with the standards infeasible. Additionally, native vegetation consistent with surrounding vegetation can be considered as alternative landscaping or site constraints make traditional landscaping difficult. The project applicant submitted an alternative plan to plant approximately 32 trees along the western parcel line under the PG and E distribution lines.

As will

be explained later in the presentation, PG and E strongly recommends against planting trees under distribution lines. The next series of slides are site photos of the project area taken from the point shown here. Photo one from the intersection of Shingle Line Mine Road and Dividend Drive looking Southeast. Further south along Shingle Line Mine Road also looking Southeast. Again, further south looking due east into the project site where storage would occur.

Note native vegetation in the drainage easement. Further south, looking due east again. Further south down the road, looking into the project site towards the Northeast. Here's the southernmost end of the project parcel looking due East. Looking Southwest from Dividend Drive across the project site.

Also looking Southwest from Dividend Drive. Okay. Pacific Gas and Electric details the requirements for the safe planting of trees and landscaping. The existing landscaping easement is directly under PG and E distribution lines, which precludes all trees from being planted in the 30 foot wide wire zone. To the west of the wire zone is Shingle Line Mine Road and to the east is the 50 foot drainage easement.

The originally approved project was determined to be exempt according to California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA one five one eight three. Any subsequent decision would need to acknowledge either this CEQA determination or one appropriate for the decision. Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the attached exhibits and receive appellant and applicant comments to determine the appropriate amount of landscaping to require and then instruct staff to revise the original findings and or conditions of approval and approve the design review permit. Alternatively, grant the appeal thereby denying design review permit and instruct staff to scribe findings for denial or deny the appeal and uphold the approval of the design review permit based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval as approved by the Planning and Building Department Director. In closing, this concludes the presentation.

And commissioners, thank you for your time and attention. If it pleases both the chair if it pleases the chair, both the applicant and project applicant, appellant and project applicant would like to make a presentation.

K. Before we get to the appellant, are there any questions? Yeah.

Just took four, so I'd like to start with the questions. Thank you, chair. Thank Thank you for the presentation. Sure. So I went oh, I should disclose I did meet I have a monthly meeting with planning staff, and so on Monday, I discussed the site with staff.

I went out there yesterday to check it out. I'm familiar with the area already. And with particular attention to the adjacent residential parcel and its distance from this site. And I noted a a few things. First of all, you know, we have these drainage swales, obviously, on the western end and along the northern end too, and a whole lot of easements that encumber the property such that the actual workspace of this property limited, as you know, because we have a 100 foot setback from the western boundary to the road, shingle, lime Shingle, limelight.

And along the western boundary there are a bunch of eucalyptus trees that line it. Now the eucalyptus eucalyptus trees density does sort of fade out a bit as you go further south, but they're still there. And then as you showed, there is some native vegetation in the swales. Mhmm. The property slopes to the north. The property that, from what I could tell being out there, that's gonna be, if approved, gonna be used for storage, does slope to the north. There's discussion of grading of about one and a half acres or so.

Right.

In that area to flatten it out because it grades pretty it's not super steep, but it's steep enough where it needs to be created. So, anyway, I'll get so those are my observations. I'll get to my questions. Given the grading, I assume there's a grading permit required Oh, yes. For for that. And then there'll be a stormwater permit or or a SWIP stormwater, you know, permit and sampling. And And plan. Yeah. And SWIP. So during storage of equipment that's outside, they'll need to be doing stormwater monitoring with time. Is that correct?

I would need to check with the stormwater folks about that.

Okay. Alright. I think it would be triggered depending on the type of material. But, again, I guess that's the hazmat folks or environmental management. Right. Okay. The meeting agenda states that the this permit is to allow for a, quote, temporary construction material storage. So maybe this is a question more for the applicant. But does staff know what that means in terms of years?

They didn't indicate to me.

Okay. Alright. I'll ask you the stat or the applicant in a moment. And and, Rob, did you get an opportunity to to see what came first, the homes or the business park?

I believe the homes did. It was it was parcelized. Cameron, that neighborhood was parcelized in 1959. Okay. And I think the majority of the housing activity occurred probably in the mid eighties. Okay.

And so at the time the residents purchased their properties, then they wouldn't necessarily had been aware of the fact that the property across Line Mine Road would have been industrial or or residential.

Yeah. It would have been when they actually purchased their properties as far as if they were aware or not.

Right.

I I would just also add, yeah, in that time of history, we can't ensure that every single person that bought a house there still remains there. But, yeah, you would be they would have been noticed during the public hearing

process. Right.

Right. And they that would have been addressed based on the approval of the business park at the time. Whoever lived there would have had the opportunity to object to that and use action. Anyone that came subsequent to that would have been aware of it through, you know Of course. Proximity.

Alright. Thank you. A condition of approval in exhibit e states that the project would install approved drought resistant plant species. And my question is where, and is that referring to this stuff along the eastern property boundary along the road there as opposed to on the western side? Yes.

Okay. And then getting back to the applicant's proposal, maybe plant some oak trees under the power line. So and and you mentioned that it's problematic. Yeah. My understanding you haven't gone through that Arco agenda item was that PG and E just flat out would not allow it. Correct?

That's a distinct possibility. Yeah. I did not confirm that with PG and E, though.

Okay. So I'm a little unclear about where these trees, if they were to be installed, would end up given that there's that that drainage swells fairly wide along the western property boundary. Yeah. And I'm looking at the power lines there, it's like, yikes. Maybe further inland would be Well, you know, according to PG and it has to be,

you know, 30 feet from the wire zone. So that wire zone is a vertical

Yes. 30 feet? 30 feet. Yeah. Okay.

So that would put either planting the trees in the middle of the road or right in the middle of the drainage easement, which is not recommended by storm water because it could alter, you know, the functioning of that drainage easement.

Or it could be planted perhaps further east. But there's all kinds of easements. Okay. Yeah. Alright. Problem admits. Yeah. It's highly encumbered. So okay. Yeah.

To help mitigate the dust, the staff report states that there's gravel will be laid down.

Yeah. Gravel laid down.

Then, of

course, we have our standards that they have

to meet. Perfect. That was my question. Yeah. So there are specs that we have to, obviously. All it

takes is a complaint, you know, if it's too dusty.

Right. Is there any is there any thought of having to apply water during the summer if there's a lot of activity out there, or is that triggered by a complaint?

That would just be triggered by our standards. If they were creating too much dust, then

That would be a public complaint, and then it'll go through you

guys. Okay.

I can maybe add to that. Yeah. The air quality management district does the dust mitigation plans during construction. And if there were complaints related to dust out there, it would be the air quality management district that

would go out

and ensure that it met, you know, their standards.

Right. But I was more concerned about after after the application of the gravel. We have neighbors, and they don't want dust. So two years down the road, if water would have to be applied to suppress dust because of inadequate gravel or it's been eroded out or they've been dragging equipment, that would be triggered by a public complaint? Yes, sir.

Okay. And then lastly, you know, this this property is slated for being used for, you know, construction debris, and I have a concern about it turning into more of a general junkyard with time giving maybe different operators. And I can see the the big containers being dumped there, and then maybe someone wants to store fuel there, and then it just gets out of hand with used tires and whatever whatever else. Is there an enforcement mechanism built into this anywhere?

The project is conditioned to only allow that opened construction related material storage. So no vehicles, no fuel. Okay. And if they violated that, then the permit could be revoked. Okay. Very good.

Alright. That's all I have. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Or do you have any questions for staff? Commissioner Williams? Commissioner Hanson? Yes. One quick one. Two quick ones. Number one, it's industrial park, so this would be an allowable use. Correct? K. And when you were saying when I read temporary, okay, I didn't I interpreted it not to be a temporary use. Right. K? But temporary storage. So for example, if it's construction material, the construction material would be there temporarily. Correct.

Not the use would be temporary. Right. Correct? Okay.

Exactly. Because the use is permitted by rights. So Right. It could continuous.

Now if we go down to exception number two where it says where industrial research and development commercial civic utility uses to join residential zone lots, there are two ways they can buffer it. K? You can look at that slide. One says a 30 foot wide landscape buffer with a minimum of 18 trees, 72 shrubs per 100 feet of length. I can see where that would be problematic because of the power lines.