Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Click video.

Okay.

Thank you, good morning Eldorado county and welcome to our regularly scheduled board of supervisors meeting today is June 16 and the time is 9am i'll go ahead and call this meeting to order and i'd like to invite David cook of the cold springs church forward for today's invocation. Good morning.

Good morning, supervisors. Good morning, Chair Lane. Thank you so much for the opportunity to lead us in prayer today. Would you pray with me? Dear Heavenly Father, I thank you for this day that you've given us in such a fantastic place to live it out. El Dorado County is an extraordinarily blessed place and people, and I'm so grateful for the privilege of living here with such a great group of people. And as we come to the 250 years of being a nation, I thank you for your faithfulness and blessings to us. Thank you for the men and women who fought for this nation, formed this nation, protected this nation, and led this nation. I pray that you would continue to guard, guide, and bless us as a people, and that blessings would overflow to the world we are part of. I think of those opening words of the Constitution that we, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Such simple words, but powerful words that have shaped us for two and a half centuries. And I pray that we have a greater justice in this nation. I pray there is a greater domestic tranquility in our relationships with those like us and those different than us. I pray for protection over this nation and all of its people. I pray for the welfare of our nation. I pray for the blessings of liberty to extend to every one of our nation. For the women and men in this room and around our county leading us, may you give them the courage and wisdom to lead in such a way that justice and tranquility, protection, welfare and liberty are afforded to all in our county. Simple words, but a daunting task. Lord, I lift up our law enforcement and first responder communities as well in this time of heightened activity that you would guard and protect them as they protect and serve us. Bring peace to our world and be over those who are being the peacemakers in the world. As we are blessed, help us to see the people and the places that we can be a blessing as well. I pray these things in the name of Jesus. Amen. Amen. Thank you, David.

Supervisor Parlin, will you please lead us in the pledge?

Yeah, everybody please stand and join me in the pledge.

To the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

haven't had the zoom echo in a while that really threw me off thank you george well that's a nice lead-in uh we were glad to see you supervisor turnboo and wish you a speedy recovery i'd like to first call on uh our county council mr livingston to go over the virtual participation guidelines

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Supervisor Turnbull has informed the board clerk that he's unable to attend today's meeting in person due to having recently undergone a medical procedure that now requires him to remain home during his recovery. The minutes for today's meeting should reflect that this constitutes just cause under government code section five four nine five three point eight point three C three, allowing Supervisor Turnbull to participate remotely in today's meeting subject to the following. First, I'd like the record to reflect that as required by Government Code Section 54953.8.3a, there is a quorum of the members of the Board of Supervisors physically present here at the noticed meeting location. Second, I would like to note that as required by Government Code Section 54953.b2a, all votes taken during today's meeting should be by roll call vote. Third, as required by government code section 54953.8.3A2, I'll request that Supervisor Turnbull keep his camera on during the meeting to allow him to participate by both audio and visual means. And finally, pursuant to government code section 54953.8E, I would like to ask Supervisor Turnbull to disclose whether any individuals 18 years of age or older are present in the room with him, and if so, to describe the general nature of his relationship with any such individuals. Supervisor Turnbull?

Please unmute. Supervisor Turnbull, could you unmute to answer that question? We didn't hear the answer.

All right. Hear me now?

Yeah, we can.

Okay. Yeah. So Mark Treat, my assistant's here. He's in the adjacent room in the game room. And then my grandson will be floating in and out. And that's Jay Etter.

Great. Thank you, Supervisor Turnbull. With that, I turn it back to the chair.

Okay, perfect. And we will enjoy your background for the duration of the meeting. It's beautiful.

Family history through Hope Valley.

Supervisor Turnbull, during the meeting, just because we've got a lot of hearings and there's a lot going on, if you would like to ask questions or make comments, will you please raise your hand and I will call on you and then remember to unmute yourself. And then supervisors who are here in the room, if you would use your buttons today so that I can manage who's popped up at what point and call on people appropriately and keep the meeting moving efficiently. Madam CAO, are there any changes to the agenda that was posted on June 10th? No, thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, thank you. Let's move on to approval of the consent calendar. Are there any items that my colleagues wish to comment on or pull for discussion? We'll start with District 4, Supervisor Parlin.

Oh, yeah. On item 23... It was on last week's agenda, the letter of support. I had some questions. The public had questions. You had questions. So I followed up and I found out you also followed up. Yes. And so we just want to get this joint statement in the record in the minutes. And I send it to the clerk for her ease of copy and pasting into the minutes. But It'll say, after researching this further, we have come to realize that SB 1087 would in fact be beneficial to our region, especially the efforts of EDCTC, which is the Transportation Commission, specifically in the planning and programming of transportation funding. SB 1087, if passed, would ultimately make CARB more accountable and modernize the air quality requirement of SB 375 to be more realistic and hopefully apply more more so to urban regions where they may actually have an impact. So thank you for allowing us the extra time to research this.

Yeah, and thank you for taking that extra step and creating that statement. I appreciate that. Are there any other items that you wish to comment on or pull, Supervisor Perlin? That's it for me. We'll do Supervisor Ferraro.

No, thank you.

Okay, and Supervisor Vierkamp.

Yeah, Madam Chair, I would like to make an extended comment on item 22. At your will, I can go down and do it from the podium wherever you want me to do it.

Yeah, no, you can make your, you can just make your comment here from the DS.

Okay, let me do now.

Uh, sure. Yes. And then what we'll do is we'll take public comment on the consent calendar next. And if any members of the public wish to comment on 22, they can do it that time. Very good. Okay.

Well, please join me in celebrating a momentous occasion, 50 years of beauty of grace of a blessing to this County. And they're sitting in the,

Front row, short of our DOT director over there.

Nothing personal, Raphael, but unfortunately you don't hold a candle to these ladies and the grace and the beauty and so forth.

But as a person, you're great.

Anyway, it gives me great pleasure as Board of Supervisor, hopefully to represent all of us and talk about just quickly the proclamation that we're recognizing the 50th year anniversary here. And I think this one piece here sums it up very well. The Eldorado Rose represents many accomplishments of today's older women. She is a survivor, having experienced many changes in her lifetime. The backgrounds and lives of the Roses and Court Ladies are varied, but they all share a deep interest and commitment to our community's welfare. If you haven't been around at all in the last 50 years, you see them almost everywhere. And I myself look forward to every year, and I'm not in the wheelbar races anymore, but receiving that congratulatory kiss on the cheek. Right, Sherry?

Mm-hmm.

after being successful in the wheelbarrow races. And I know all the competitors have, but that's just one thing that you guys have accentuated.

I heard you cheated. Is that true? No, that would be no.

But it's really my pleasure to recognize your 50 years of success. And really, this county is so much better off because of all of you. The pageant is Thursday night, Thursday night. So that'll be also taking place for the new Eldorado Rose for this year at the fair. We encourage everybody to come out and see who the winner is. Do we have any contestants here, Sherry? Oh, we do. OK.

um at this time sherry if you want being sort of the leader right now that well we'll take we'll take public comment in just a moment i want to get to supervisor turnbu i haven't asked him yet uh but thank you for highlighting uh item number 22 and the 50-year anniversary congratulations picture here in a few minutes all right so supervisor turnbu do you have any items you wish to pull or comment on

Yeah, I would like to comment on item 22 as well, but also item 21. I just wanted to make a statement that Brian Fraser, he's a real estate agent. It's not our surveyor. So everybody knows that. And he's going to fill some big shoes because if you remember, it was Richard Mason, Uncle Fuzzy, that was on the assessment appeals board that I appointed. So welcome aboard.

Thank you, Supervisor Turnbull.

And then item 22, I just think this is a great thing. It's what it is, especially honoring the roses. And, you know, Gay Willard was Woman of the Year, and she was one of the roses, but also sits in that audience. I don't know if she's here or not, Roberta. White, which is my cousin. Sorry, Greg, that's 20 bucks, I guess. But anyway, I just want to honor all that and all the hard work that they put in. They're everywhere is what they are. And they represent our county very, very well.

Thank you, Supervisor Chernbu, and the women who are present here have indicated that your cousin is not here with us today, but we appreciate you highlighting her. All right, so we'll move to myself, and I think Supervisor Parlin appropriately entered our comment jointly together on number 23. So we'll now take public comment on all matters on the consent calendar. Public comment on closed session items will also be taken at this time. So to be specific, we will now hear public comment on closed session items numbers one through seven and consent items number eights, excuse me, consent items number eight through 36. Please identify which item number or numbers you will be addressing to the board today. Ms. Dawson.

For public comment, each speaker will have three minutes to address the board. A timer will alert you when 30 seconds remain and again when your time has ended. We'll begin with comments from individuals present in the boardroom followed by those participating via Zoom. If you're joining via Zoom, please ensure you unmute yourself when called upon. If you're joining by phone, press star nine to raise your hand. If you're on Zoom, use the raise hand feature to indicate your interest in speaking. We ask that you voluntarily state your name for the record before beginning your comments.

Are there any members of the public that wish to address the board at this time on consent items or regular agenda items, including the proclamation that we just spoke about?

Sherry, now would be your time if you want to come up and say anything. Yeah. Oh, come on up. Yep.

Good morning.

Good morning, Sherry.

How are you guys doing this morning?

We're great. We are very thrilled that you guys were honoring us on our 50th anniversary. And we're thrilled with Brian. He's been very helpful in getting this proclamation. And we're actually going to be at the state capitol on Monday. And we're going to get a... resolution there and we get to go to see the Capitol and have lunch with Senator Marie Alvarez-Gill. But thank you very much. Great, congratulations, thank you.

Are there other members of the public that wish to address the board at this time? Okay, seeing none, may we go online, please?

Not taking public comment from online participants. Not taking public comment from Sue.

Uh, Sue Taylor, again, I am, um, asking for a no vote on number 23. And I also resent that the board discusses these things behind doors and makes a decision that we don't see the process for why that decision was made. I would like to know you explain what this bill actually says. Um, they put in a lot of those words that don't mean anything, but if you dig through them, they are, what I get out of it is that, um, If you do things that the state wants you to do, then you're going to get more funding. That's what SB 35 does, but this is more mandatory, that you're giving an unelected board to come up with a sustainable plan that's not really spelled out, but if you meet their expectations, then you will get more funding. Well, wouldn't you like to know what those expectations are? This is where it says this bill will revise the Requirements applicable to the preparation of an alternative planning strategy, including by requiring the Metropolitan Planning Organization, who they're turning this over to, which would be like SACOG, instead of an elected board, to include analysis of alternative pattern for the region if necessary, etc. additional infrastructure transportation measures or policies that would achieve the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. You know, what is that saying? I mean, what is it that we're going to have to do that we're going from guidelines to requirements that's generated by a board in Sacramento or a committee in Sacramento that's unelected? In your letter, it says funding needed to advance high impact housing and transportation investments. Are we really going to just, I mean, why don't you say it when you run for election that you're going to implement the state's policies to stack and pack, not have transportation capacity. You've already, you keep violating those requirements that we have in our general plan, allowing projects to move forward without implementing those things. And we're creating traffic congestion, fire hazards all over our county with the projects that we are doing just in the name of we need more money for more transportation to build more of these projects. I ask that, like I said, anything sustainable with that title on it, it basically means that it's a global agenda. And one other thing in here is for purposes of these programs, this bill instead requires if the Metropolitan Planning Organization has adopted an alternative planning strategy that projects to reduce gas emissions, meaning if they require it, we have to do it. And I think we should not sign. We don't have to sign on to this. You can just let it go and not send in a letter or just tell the county what you're really about. Thanks. Thank you.

Now taking public comment from 525.

Hi, this is Leo Bennett Koshon. I would like the record to reflect that I want to comment on items one through 36, five sections each, which is just not possible, but I'd like the record to reflect that I'm protesting. This is not reasonable public input. I say ditto to 22 and 23. So I just say 10 seconds for my preference. Item number one, closed session. You're reopening with all of your bargaining units. I urge you to look at some of the conservative counties, since we keep bringing that up, that have adopted a much more transparent process that allows the public to clearly see what you're doing and tell you, please support all the bargaining units that have high vacancy rates that was referenced in the last meeting, that is not good for us. And I hope that you do better this time and especially look at when you wait to do your managerial units and give them exactly the same, when you give everybody the same but their baseline is much higher, that is not recommended as a fair practice within my public administration. Use the median. Item number two, is you're working with a critical underpaid group of folks that I know so well because they've helped me in home supportive services. I'm a little concerned that as far as I'm reading, your county negotiator, the lead one that's named, appears to be somebody that's associated with probably, I'm assuming you may have a third party contract or something. I think it's much more appropriate You have maybe the Director of Health and Human Services, which isn't named. And my understanding is you should have a name there to be really compliant and especially transparent. So again, I urge you to consider adopting practices that lead to better outcomes to the folks that deliver the service to the public and provide the heart to this county. And they all deserve a better pay raise And I hope you consider prep freezing management because you're cutting everywhere. And that's my experience in other areas. Budget reflect values. The workers at the bottom are the most. Is that my 30 seconds or am I done?

You have 20 seconds remaining.

Okay, that was the thing. You have a significant exposure to litigation in item three. I don't have time to go look it up. It's available. It would be nice if there was a quick summary.

Again, that's more efficient for the public.

And I'm assuming I'm down to just a little bit, so I'll just summarize the rest of the consent agenda. It's just looking at, thank you for hitting my comments.

Thank you. There is no additional public comment.

Okay, thank you. We'll go ahead and bring this item back to the board for action. Ms. Dawson, would you like to read the item?

Of course. Approval of the consent calendar with the following changes. With regards to item number 21, Supervisor Turumbu made a clarification that his appointment to the Assessment Appeals Board, Brian Frazier, is a real estate agent and not the surveyor. With regards to item number 22, Supervisor Turumbu also made a statement honoring the roses. With regards to item number 22, Supervisor Vierkamp made the comment acknowledging the Rose's 50-year anniversary. With regards to item number 23, a joint statement will be entered into the record between Supervisors Parlin and Supervisor Lane.

Thank you. If there's any further comment or action, thank you. Second. There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor, say aye.

We'll call the vote. Oh, sorry. Thank you. All day. We'll call the vote, please. Supervisor Vierkamp, how do you vote?

Aye.

Supervisor Parlin, how do you vote? Aye. Supervisor Ferrero, how do you vote?

Aye.

Supervisor Turnbull, how do you vote?

Aye.

Supervisor Lane, how do you vote? Aye. Motion passes 5-0.

Okay, thank you for that. We have a very busy agenda, so we're going to continue with the agenda. I believe Supervisor Vierkamp would like to meet with the Eldorado Roses out in the lobby for a photo op. Just gonna pause here for a moment so that they can exit. All right, we're now going to take public comment on all other agenda items, excluding the public hearings, of which we have four scheduled today, and they are time certain. So right now, we will go ahead and take public comment on item number 37. Ms. Dawson?

We are now taking public comments specifically on item 37. A timer will alert you when 30 seconds remain and again when your time has ended. We'll begin with comments from individuals present in the boardroom, followed by those participating via Zoom. If you're joining via Zoom, please ensure you unmute yourself when called upon. If you're joining by phone, press star nine to raise your hand. If you're on Zoom, use the raise hand feature to indicate your interest in speaking. We ask that you voluntarily state your name for the record before beginning your comments.

Are there any members of the public here in the room that would like to address the board on item number 37? Okay, seeing none, may we go online, please?

Now taking public comment from online participants. Now taking public comment from 525.

Hi, this is Leo Bennett-Koshon again. As a teacher, I would like to comment that there's many ways to learn comment was made at a previous meeting that why do we read things to the board because some of us learn by hearing but if you're all about efficiency then skip the presentation that i'm going to comment on and just ask the presenter questions if it's good for the public perhaps it's good for the board so just prep this thing UC California Cooperative Extension. Wow, what a wonderful program. I've interacted with these programs over the decades, so much value. And the second slide is the bridge. And so many times this board and agency of the state of California say negative things about the state of California. Well, UC California is also part of the state of California So perhaps remember that next time you kind of disrespect your parents because you are a child, legally and every other way, you want to use that framing. And it goes on and it talks about that it's also a connection between the federal, the state, the local. And I think if we could just get back to this whole idea of collaboration, we are not the state of El Dorado. Skipping forward, they have a great overview. I love their 4-H Youth Development Program. But back in the day, I wish they had told me initially what a market goat is, because that was a challenge explaining to my son. But I bought the goat, and it all worked out. It never went to market. And then the Master Garden Program is something I cannot speak too highly of. I think they do such a great job. And then as a teacher... The community nutrition help, also awesome. When I moved up here, I thought I'd be dealing with floods and stuff because in San Diego, it was their fire network. But hey, here we are today. We have more than one season and sometimes we have this snow apocalypse, I should say. And I just want to remember to everybody, I'm sure everybody knows, but it goes on talking about the 4-H that we have our wonderful county fair coming up. Maybe someday I'll do something with food preservation. I'm not really sure. And then, you know, my background as a teacher and all the other things, I just urge you consider community wellness and how this program interacts with the club and all the other outside agencies who say, oh, they're not county, cut their money. I yield my back to times.

in the interest of efficiency thank you thank you there is no additional public comment all right we'll go ahead and close public comment and move to item number 37 which is our time certain department matter uh madam clerk will you please read this item into the records

Item 37 comes from the Agriculture Department recommending the board receive and file a presentation from the University of California Cooperative Extension Central Sierra on the multi-county partnership activities and programs.

At this time, I'd like to welcome Dr. Ariel Rivers, who is the California Cooperative Extension Director for the Central Sierra. Welcome, thank you for being with us today.

Absolutely. Thank you. Good morning, supervisors. It's a pleasure to be here with you today. I do believe I have a presentation. Are we able to pull that up? Excellent. Thank you. So happy fair week. I'd like to just start this presentation by saying, again, I'm Ariel Rivers. I am the new area director for the University of California Cooperative Extension Central Sierra. I am based here in El Dorado County. We'll go through today just a brief introduction, a reminder of what it is that we do on behalf of the county, how we work together with all of you to support our community members. So first and foremost, as was just mentioned, we are your bridge between local issues and the research expertise of the University of California. I'm going to go further into detail of what that means, but I would like to remind you where we're located. You potentially have seen our name on the Ag Department building. We are co-located with that department, and I'd just like to give an extreme amount of thanks to Leanne Mila, who has been incredibly supportive over the last few months since I started in February. she not only sat on my interview panel and ensured that all of you would have an excellent hopefully candidate to support you in this work but she has been incredibly supportive as we've gone through this work as well so we will definitely miss her upon her retirement So with that said, again, we are located 311 Fair Lane. I encourage everybody to stop by and see us. You may be, again, familiar with the building, but perhaps not what goes on within it. So as mentioned, we are a partnership at many levels. So this may be familiar to many of you, but this may be new information for some of our community members as well. Cooperative extension was established in 1914 via the Smith-Lever Act, that is a federal law that essentially established cooperative extension to disperse science to local communities. Trying to understand how we can use that information that is generated at local land-grant universities and ensure it gets out to the people that may need it the most, especially in rural communities like ours that potentially do not have those higher education institutions. So we are a collaborative effort. We operate through a three-tiered system. We receive funding through multiple tiers, including the federal government. Oversight is provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. And we have our state-level partners, of course. We are administered by the University of California, specifically the University of California Ag and Natural Resources, through which we also receive a certain amount of funding. And of course, we have our local county funded and implemented extension staff and volunteers here within the county. Of course, largely thanks to the support that all of you vote on on a regular basis. So what does that mean at a state level? As I mentioned, we are administered by the University of California Ag and Natural Resources. Essentially, UC ANR is the 11th campus of the UC system. It operates statewide. There are over 1,300 employees within the county offices like ours here in El Dorado County, as well as the variety of research institutes and extension offices, ag experiment stations, et cetera, throughout the state. This means that we are able to leverage the programmatic curriculum, the research, et cetera, that's established through our state office in Davis so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel when it does come to the master food preservers and the master gardeners, for example. They help us establish the curriculum. We deliver it through volunteers and our research and extension agents. So locally, what that means, as we mentioned, we are University of California Cooperative Extension Central Sierra. In 2011, we decided to partner with four, three other counties, including Amador, Calaveras, and Tuolumne to establish what we call the multi-county partnership. We were one of the first in the state to recognize that we could partner with other counties locally to be able to leverage resources and ensure that we could, again, not reinvent the wheel, but be able to provide the same community activities throughout in a way that might be slightly more efficient. We are headquartered here in Placerville. So as I mentioned, I am the administrative head, or I don't know if I did mention, but I am the administrative head of the Central Sierra MCP. We have five offices throughout our four counties, nine academic advisors, and 23 program staff throughout that area. We are supported by the MCP Advisory Council. So that includes our CAO from each county, one member of the Board of Supervisors, thank you to Supervisor Parlin for serving in that role, plus the El Dorado County Ag Commissioner who has joined us. That group provides a forum for ongoing dialogue and support, helps establish our budget. It meets twice a year. Our next meeting will be in September. And it gives us an opportunity for all members of that group to come together, understand our programming, help derive some future opportunities and drive our programs overall. So locally, what that means is we have a variety of different programs within El Dorado County. The three that are funded through your contributions within the county are the 4-H Youth Development Program, the UC Master Gardener Program, and the UC Master Food Preserver Program. The rest of the programs that we participate in, we have staff, volunteers, et cetera, that are... participate in those programs much of that work is is funded through the state and or federal uh opportunities as well so we're going to go through some of these programs now as we know it's fair week so we have a lot of people that are right down the road very very busy getting their animals in and getting prepared for um the shows this week but um 4-h is so much more than livestock Many of you, if you are not familiar with Cooperative Extension, hopefully you at least know what 4-H is. It is sort of one of our flagship volunteer engagement programs. And the whole purpose of it is to help young people reach their full potential as competent, confident leaders of character who contribute and are connected to their communities. Should come as no surprise, I spent all of my youth in 4-H as well. So we have two dedicated staff here in the county, including Angela Johnson. She is one of the first people you will see if you walk into the building right down the road. She supports a lot of the administrative work of 4-H, and we have another individual that supports all of the volunteers as well as they're providing curriculum. So we have eight community clubs throughout the county and a multitude of projects for the youth to participate in, as I mentioned. multitude of experiential learning opportunities related to geology, livestock, domestic animals, quilting, hiking, Legos, gardening, and so much more. It's a fantastic program for youth to develop their civic leadership. In our 2024-2025 program year, we had 673 enrolled youth and a total of 73 volunteers that donated over 8,600 hours. So that is a huge, huge community benefit for our youth in this county. We also have another volunteer program called the Master Food Preservers. This program uses research-based practices to train individuals to safely preserve food in the home, reduce food waste, increase food security, and provide engaging ways to explore healthy food. This is a volunteer program coordinated by one staff member, Haley O'Mara. There's programming in both the West Slope and South Lake Tahoe. Essentially, this program, what it does is train volunteers to then provide curriculum to community members on all of those things that I mentioned. There's several amazing upcoming opportunities to participate in those programs related to preserving stone fruits, Save the Taste, Stop the Waste, Preserving Garlic, Avocados, Why Dry? All of these programs essentially help our community understand how they may be able to eat nutritious food, extend their harvest, and potentially save money at the grocery store as well, which as we know right now, that's an incredible opportunity for all of us. In that same program year, we had over 3,000 education interactions. So this includes learning sessions, individuals answering questions at the fair, various community events, et cetera. We currently have 25 volunteers who also donated over 2,400 hours that year. Master Gardeners is another program that hopefully all of you are familiar with, which is another volunteer program also coordinated by Haley O'Mara, providing those volunteers provide practical scientific gardening information to home gardeners. Also programming in both the West Slope and South Lake Tahoe. There's essentially two separate programs, two different groups of volunteers. One in South Lake Tahoe was one down here. Through their Master Gardener help desk, classes, the Sherwood Demonstration Garden, info booths at events, and more, they also provide a multitude of training related to both food and ornamental gardening for a variety of different purposes. We had 6,800 education interactions in that same program year with currently almost 150 volunteers. I should have mentioned both training programs for the Master Food Preservers and Master Gardeners. They only happen every other year. So we just graduated new classes of both Master Food Preservers and Master Gardeners in this state. So if you're looking in your retirement to become a volunteer, your next opportunity will be 2028. to go through the training of these programs.

Are you retiring?

We don't know what I'm doing. No one knows.

It's a mystery.

So as I mentioned, those three programs, they are some of our most engaging for our community. They are volunteer-led. They are funded through the county. But we also have a variety of other programs that, again, connect that science that's generated through the University of California and through research to our community members. So I'm going to spend a little bit of time now going through some of the academic work that's been developed by our researchers, as well as introduce a few of our staff members that you may or may not know, but could be helpful resources for all of you as well. So generally our research lines up and our extension lines up to several different themes. The first of which I'm gonna talk about is youth development and community wellness. We have two academic advisors. An academic advisor is an individual who is at least master's level educated and serves as both a researcher as well as a conduit to the community to share the research that they are conducting. Our two academic advisors in this theme are JoLynn Miller. She's our 4-H youth development advisor. You may have met her previously. She was serving in both the role as the 4-H youth development advisor as well as the area director. So she is thrilled to be able to only wear one hat and now go back to just her 4-H youth development work. And we also have Kitty Opligar, our community nutrition and health researcher. They're conducting a multitude of activities related to youth career readiness and leadership development, volunteer engagement, connecting science to policy, mental well-being, community nutrition education. And some of the projects that they're working on right now is identifying pathways, for example, for 4-H participants to earn community college credit for the work that they are doing within 4-H. so that they can start applying that to an associate's degree even before they might graduate high school. There's also a lot of work supporting nutrition education for school-aged children. Kitty served as our program lead for the CalFresh Healthy Living Program. Many of you may have heard that that program is sunsetting at the end of the year, but it did provide a lot of opportunity for individuals on our staff to go and provide low-income services nutrition education in schools. Some of that work will continue through our master food preservers and otherwise, but Katie, of course, is a resource as we continue to unfortunately move past that program. We also have a lot of research and extension in agriculture and small farms. Many of you may have met Scott Anetto, who is a farm advisor based in Amador County. He's been with the UC for 20 plus years, also served in this role at one point in time. He's on a much deserved sabbatical right now, but he has done so much work in collaboration with the Ag Department and otherwise regarding weed management, training a variety of individuals up in Tahoe on invasive weed ID and and how to control those weeds in the Tahoe Basin. We also have Mackenzie Patton pictured here. She's our integrated pest management advisor. She does a lot of work around monitoring for, for example, Mediterranean oak borer. She's currently starting a research project on pest management Stone Fruits. She is looking for collaborators, if anyone knows of any stone fruit growers who would be interested in participating. And we also have Hardeep Singh, a local food systems advisor, and he's doing research currently on dry land walnut farming, how to incorporate biochar to reduce water use within orchard crops, and a lot of work in support of farmers markets as well. Within our livestock and natural resources work, we have two academic staff. You may also know Dan Macon, our livestock and natural resources advisor. He supports the El Dorado County Ag Pass training. He's also doing a lot of work around small ruminant production, livestock predator interactions, understanding how the movement of the gray wolf into the state may potentially inflict damage, unfortunately, on our livestock producers and what that actually may look like. He also is doing a lot of work at Blodgett Forest, understanding how grazing can be used as a tool for defensible space, essentially, and understanding how we can manage some of our fuels in forest systems. We also have Brian Allen, an assistant specialist on our staff who is looking at virtual fencing for noxious weed management and understanding how we can essentially reduce costs for some of our livestock producers as they're thinking about how to employ some of these new strategies for fuels management, for example, as well as invasive species management. And finally, we have our forestry, woody biomass, and living with fire staff. So another longtime UC employee, Susie Kocher, you may know her. She's based in Tahoe. She's done so much work in the forestry space for this county, as well as related to prescribed burning, understanding fuels management in general, preventative work, as well as post-fire recovery. We also have Cindy Chen, who's relatively new on our staff. She's only been with us, I think, about three or four years. She's looking at woody biomass and porous products. So how do we utilize all of this excess fuel that we have on the landscape? Can we turn it into wood products for energy, for example? and Bob Woodkey, our Indigenous Disaster Resilience Advisor. He is very new. He's only been on staff within the last year, but he is looking at how to partner with tribal communities essentially to understand how we can leverage work to be more prepared for disaster within these counties. I would like to mention, as we wrap up looking at our research and extension, all of our academic staff, so there's nine academic advisors and one assistant specialist that I mentioned, Brian, as they're developing their programs like Bob is doing right now, they go through a process that we call a needs assessment. So they meet with community partners, they work with local growers groups, for example, a variety of other stakeholders to understand what is happening within the county and then work through that together with those individuals to identify how to conduct their research and then extend that knowledge as well, which is really important to keep in mind because these researchers are part of the communities. They live here. They want to solve problems that matter to not only all of us, but themselves as well. And so they really do put their focus on understanding the needs of the community before they start doing their research. So how do you get involved? So I've mentioned a lot of work, a lot of volunteer programs, when you can start training to become a volunteer. But we also have a lot of low-hanging fruit. So if you don't necessarily have the time to be a master food preserver, master gardener right now, We're always looking for 4-H presentation day judges. For example, the 4-Hers a few times a year have an opportunity to generate a public presentation, share that information out, show what they're learning. Several of those, one at least happens in the spring. So we would love all of you to participate as judges and show your support to those 4-Hers. attend events, see 4-H projects at the fair, thank the kids for participating, congratulate them on their participation, and of course, participate in the classes as well. And we have the Sugarwood Demo Garden. I'm sure all of you have been there, but for anyone who has not, it's a fantastic place to go and see how to grow things in your own home and understand landscaping, et cetera, within El Dorado County. And we're always looking for support. Help us promote these programs. Join research projects as a collaborator. We're always looking for opportunities to get the word out. Make sure your constituents are aware of what's happening. They are participants in these programs, regardless of whether or not they know it. So we would love for them to come and learn from us and so that we can learn from them as well. So for more information, of course, you can visit our website. Come see us. As I mentioned, I'm located in that office as well. I invite anyone to have a conversation with me at any point in time. Our main phone number is here. Find us on social media. And of course, sign up for our newsletters as well. And with that, I conclude my presentation. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. Excellent.

Excellent. Thank you, Dr. Rivers, for that presentation. Thank you for your enthusiasm and your energy. I can tell you really enjoy what you do. And for us, knowledge, data, information, we rely on it heavily to make good decisions for our community. So thank you for being a part of that. Excellent. Thank you. Do I have questions or comments from my colleagues at this time?

Thank you very much. Very good. Very enlightening presentation as well. Thank you.

Okay, I don't see any other additional comments or questions. Oh, now it did.

Wow.

Button.

You were trained.

Supervisor Parlin.

Yeah, I just want to say, you know, thank you, Dr. Rivers, for being here. To whoever is going to be my successor, I want you to know that... when we meet with the other counties, so it's El Dorado, Amador, Calaveras, and Tuolumne, over the last several years, the conversations have been difficult, I'd say, because of budget. It is really difficult. And remember, we're the largest of the counties. The other counties are very small, and they are struggling. There was one meeting we went to, I think last fall, where one of the counties was saying they just couldn't do this. So I want everyone to know that that's going to be a challenge for quite some time, I believe. And we did ask for... dr rivers to come and present to show the values and be here so that the public can also see the value of what we're getting and i just can't thank you enough i i know that you know el dorado county is and ag county and but i think sometimes that connection's lost so i really appreciate you being here with your new energy and um i appreciate that joe lynn's able to focus on where her heart really was you could tell at every meeting she really wants to be out there in the field again i'm like you go girl so um But I just, you know, heads up for that. It's been a struggle. And I don't want to see this program suffer. And so we're going to have to be forward thinking and creative perhaps too in the future.

So that's really what I wanted to share with everyone.

Thank you. We'll put that on our list of things to take care of.

I pushed my button. How are you funding? Is it grant funding or is it discretionary? How's the budget?

Yeah, absolutely. So as I mentioned, it's a collaborative through the federal government, state, as well as county funds. I do have a copy of our annual report, which has a pie chart that shows the breakdown of each of those funding sources that I can provide for all of you. Essentially the county provides almost 330,000 to us as supervisor Parlin mentioned, Eldorado provides the largest contribution the other three, it ranges from about 130 to 180 depending on each of the counties. That funding supports the staff of the three programs that I mentioned, the Master Gardeners, Master Food Preservers, and 4-H staff, as well as provides office space that's in-kind contributions. But the bulk of our staff, for example, myself, we're funded through the state. So that is where that partnership comes in. And anything beyond the basics of what we do. So JoLynn, for example, she applies for grants to be able to actually conduct the research. So anything programmatic has to come through grants.

Thank you very much. Of course.

Yeah, I think we would all be really interested in seeing the annual report if you wouldn't mind sending it on to us. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Any other comments, questions? Okay. Thank you, Dr. Rivers. Thank you. Thank you.

Have a good day.

Okay, we will move on to item number 38, which is the first of our time certain hearings. This comes from the Department of Transportation, who it seems like we're gonna be spending the whole morning with. So you've got a lot of things going on. This first one is the zone election requests. I would like to go ahead and open the public hearing and ask Ms. Dawson to read this item into the record.

Item 38 is a hearing from the Department of Transportation, Maintenance and Operation Division recommending the board approve and authorize the chair to sign the following resolution setting for election measures for various zones of benefit within County Service Area 9. One, a resolution to consider a special tax increase to provide road improvement and maintenance services in the Walnut Drive zone of benefit. Two, a resolution to consider a special tax increase to provide road improvement and maintenance services in the Tigrit Road Zone of Benefit. Three, a resolution to consider a special tax increase to provide road improvement and maintenance services in the Rancho Ponderosa Estates Road Zone of Benefit. And four, a resolution to consider a special tax increase to provide improvement and maintenance services in the Fernwood-Cothran Ranch Zone of Benefit.

And at this time, I'd like to welcome Ms. Hess, who's an administrative analyst with the Transportation Department. Welcome.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Board. Thank you for that very detailed introduction. You always do such a great job with all of these ballot measures. So yes, I am Elizabeth Hess here with the Department of Transportation, and we are here to address four road zones requests to have ballot measures on the upcoming gubernatorial general election to be held on November 3rd, 2026. Three of them are in Supervisor Parlin's district. And I will say that Walnut Drive particularly, this is their third attempt in as many years. And so these committees are working diligently to negotiate with their residents to come forth with ballot measures that might be more successful. um walnut walnut for example you know they came within less than one percent of having their measure pass in 2024 so it's it's just so close um tegra uh likewise they have had the same rate in place since prior to 1997 and so this is their first election that um you know they're really giving an opportunity to try and provide more maintenance funding for their services um And likewise with Rancho Ponderosa, that's been, their same rate has been in effect since prior to 1997 as well. So the fourth district or the fourth zone of benefit is in district two, that is Fernwood Cothran Ranch. This is their second go round. And again, they collaborated with their residents. They came down a little bit and they're just really hoping that they can too, you know, they have a lot of roads in their particular zone of benefit. And so I can imagine it's, It's a heavy load sometimes when you have these large zones. But I praise these committees. They do a great job of educating their residents and then, of course, working diligently through our own processes to get a ballot measure in place. So I'll remain here if anybody does have any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Hess. Are there questions by my colleagues on this item?

I guess one.

Supervisor Ferraro.

Just regarding the Fernwood-Caughton Ranch, does this include, would this include the Ryan Ranch Road? Is that the same location?

Separate zone of benefits.

It's a different one? That's correct. All right.

Yes, Ryan Ranch had their election, I want to say a couple years ago, and they had a successful ballot measure to increase theirs.

All right, thanks.

You're welcome.

And thank you for your help on the Highland View stuff, does last month.

Oh, you're welcome.

Highland Hills, I'm sorry.

You're welcome, sir.

Other questions or comments? Ms. Hess, my only question would be, I notice you mentioned that one's been on the ballot now three times and how close it is. Most of the time when we're more successful on passing assessments like this, we put a sunset on it. Taxpayers like to know that we're going to come back and re-look at that, see if it's working or not. Was there any... talk about putting some kind of sunset on it as opposed to unlimited duration for all of them?

No, and I will happily receive any feedback from Council Livingston should I misspeak. But essentially, we are working with special taxes. And so they have to achieve that two-thirds majority vote. And the way that we present this is they want to maintain their roads in perpetuity. So the only time that that special tax amount might be revised, if you will, would be in the event that the committees decide we do need to increase our rates. As far as sunsets go, I have not seen that in the zones of benefits. Would you like to offer any input?

Sure. Supervisor Lane, you're correct. I mean, I've seen that in many measures that that's a means of making the tax more attractive to voters. As noted, it's not something that we've typically done with the zone of benefit measures. It is a balance, of course. Perhaps that increases the chance of success in raising it. But given the challenges they have, that leads to a very real possibility that the measure may sunset and they are left without funding. And as your board has dealt with in recent years, when you have zones of benefit that have insufficient or no funding, it puts you in the uncomfortable position of having to dissolve the zone of benefit, leaving the residents with no feasible means of of ensuring that their roads are maintained so it is certainly an option uh and uh perhaps something that should be considered i i heard the same thing you did three attempts in three years tells me that something's not working in the the marketing of the measure um so perhaps that is something that should be considered again i think it's an option it's just one that has to be weighed against some of the the pro the benefits and and harms okay

Cool. Any other questions, comments? No? Okay, let's go ahead and open this up to public comment. Ms. Dawson.

We are now taking public comments specifically on item 38. A timer will alert you when 30 seconds remain and again when your time has ended. We'll begin with comments from individuals present in the boardroom followed by those participating via Zoom. If you're joining via Zoom, please ensure you unmute yourself when called upon. If you're joining by phone, press star nine to raise your hand. If you're on Zoom, use the raise hand feature to indicate your interest in speaking. We ask that you voluntarily state your name for the record before beginning your comments.

Are there any members in the room that would like to address the board on this item? Seeing none, may we go online, please? Now taking public comment from 525.

Hi, this is , perpetual public commentator, if you haven't figured that out. Uh, I liked the question asked by the chair and the answer provided by County council. My primary, uh, experiences with similar issues, Melrose, et cetera. And it's so right. Marketing is critical. I would urge you to somehow have a discussion, not approve it as recommended, bring it back. Uh, in my experience, you can leave the baseline. and then say this increase has a sunset so that there will be ongoing funding, and roads especially, as your wonderful Transportation Department has explained, done right and all of that kind of stuff, it's much better than just continuously repairing. So there's just different ways, and I just think you need to listen to the fact that these measures have not passed and try to find a way to address the concerns

You can be all very creative.

You've got great staff. But if you just do the same thing, you know what the definition of always doing the same thing is, it probably won't pass. And especially since the taxpayer groups, many people are pointing out that the state and your parent, that can be a bit problematic at times, is trying to close their gap by everything they're passing. So there's a lot of taxes coming down, unfortunately, on the public sector. Pay for what got reduced at the federal level, so this is not a good environment, but I think you can do it, but only if you tweak some of the marketing. Then I appreciate there's a definition for financial impact. There's a statement, there is no impact to net county cost. That's an accounting construct because it continues to say there is a cost. Each election is $1,500. but it will come out of the respective zone funds. All this money ends up coming out of taxpayers. And if the zone funds are putting 1500 into an election that fails, then that's less money for some aspect of everybody's shared purpose, which is maintaining roads and stuff. So I just caution you to spend another $1,500 in the end, does have an impact. And I remember back when your belt hiking and your billion dollar budget, you know, you're looking at 5,000 sometimes.

So again, I just urge you to proceed very carefully.

And since I'm being trained, the first bell is so beautiful. I yield back the rest of my time. Thank you for taking my comment.

Thank you. Now taking public comment from Linda Campbell.

Good morning, everyone. Linda Campbell, El Dorado Hills. I had some similar questions. So I did note the it seems the election funds are paid from the zone of benefit funds. But again, that means a reduction in what they currently have available. But specifically for Walnut Drive, as noted, not passing in the last two years, and now they want another one. At what point Do we stop paying for the election costs versus doing reduced work or trying to dissolve the zone of benefit and let the homeowners do their own roads? So I don't know if the fund management team understands how to do that or if the county determines that, but maybe it would be helpful to provide that clarity to the homeowners and see if if they're willing to start doing something different. So just some thoughts. Thank you.

Thank you.

There's no additional public comment.

Okay. Thank you. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing and we'll bring this item back to the board for further deliberation and or action.

Board? Oh, all right. Well, if there's no further discussion, I'll move to approve the item as recommended by staff.

I'll second.

Okay, there's a motion and a second. Any further comments from the board on the motion? Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Oh, excuse me. Roll call.

Sorry, I did it again. It's so hard. It's so hard.

May we do a roll call vote, please? Of course, we're all creatures of habit. Supervisor Ferraro, how do you vote?

Aye.

Supervisor Behrkamp, how do you vote?

Aye.

Supervisor Parlin, how do you vote? Aye. Supervisor Turnbull, how do you vote? Aye.

Supervisor Lane, how do you vote? Aye.

Motion passes 5-0.

All right, thank you. Thank you for that. We'll go ahead and move to item number 39, also from the Department of Transportation. This is the 2026 Capital Improvement Program. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. And Ms. Dawson, would you read this item into the record?

Item 39 is a hearing from the Department of Transportation recommending the board, one, adopt and authorize a chair to sign a resolution adopting the 2026 Capital Improvement Program as presented in attachment E. Two, approve the following for the West Slope Road and Bridge Program as presented in the 2026 CIP Workshop. A, approve the additions and changes to the West Slope Road Bridge CIP projects. B, add a new project, Silver Valley Parkway at Appian Way intersection improvements. C, remove Eldorado Hills Boulevard overlay Saratoga to Harvard Way from this 2026 CIP. And three, approve the following for the Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program as presented in the 2026 CIP workshop. A approved changes to the five-year Tahoe EIP as described in attachment D. Written public comments received by 4 p.m. on the day prior to today's meeting were distributed to all board members and included with this agenda item.

Thank you, Ms. Dawson. I would like to recognize our Director of Transportation, the famous Mr. Martinez.

I don't know about that now. Welcome. Good morning, Madam Chair, and good morning, Board of Supervisors. Thank you for that introduction. And yes, I am here today with you with... DOT staff to request the adoption of Transportation's 2026 Capital Improvement Program, or as we like to call it, the CIP. So the CIP is a long-range program planning document that the department utilizes to analyze and estimate costs, schedules, and funding for all of transportation projects, transportation infrastructure that are planned out from the current year all the way out to the 20-year horizon. Every year, the Department of Transportation comes before the board as well as the Planning Commission in order to illustrate what those changes are. For the most part, those changes are minor. They're inflationary changes that are brought up to make sure that we are current. But on occasion, they do have some more significant changes And if there are significant changes, then those are illustrated in the board item themselves. Every five years, the Department of Transportation does a major update. That's when we look at our model, we reevaluate our general plan, all the specific plans, and make sure that those analyses and our previous major updates are brought up to date and they are current with our current model and our traffic model and our current traffic volumes and that our growth are projecting in the correct direction. So this year we have two significant changes to our annual update, and they are the signalized intersection at Appian Way and Silva Valley. that had been brought to our attention from several traffic studies that were done by other applicants, other projects that illustrated that that intersection without any future improvements, meaning several general plan amendments was going to be needing a signalized intersection. like I said, without any additional traffic volume. And because we had two concurrent traffic analysis reports that illustrated that, the Department of Transportation felt it would be conservative to bring that and include that into our CIP program. And then the second was the removal of a surface treatment along Eldorado Hills Boulevard from Harvard to Saratoga that had been in our CIP program for many years in hopes that we would be able to acquire a a future grant through the federal government but those never came to fruition the department of transportation's maintenance division had been allocating funds for the region and we felt now was the appropriate time to bring that forward and and transfer it over from our cip division into our maintenance division, and it was brought forward by Nathan Haynes just this April, included in our SB1 projects, and is going to be constructed in 2027 is when that Elrod Hills Boulevard surface treatment is going to be performed. So with that said, that pretty much concludes my presentation. As I stated, I have staff here. If you have any questions for me or for them regarding any other projects that we have included, any of the changes that are in the change table, or if in general you have any questions regarding any other CIP that we have in our program, we're more than welcome to answer those for you here today.

Thank you, Mr. Martinez. Questions, comments?

Anyone want to push a button? Please. I don't want to go first. I'm pushing the button. I don't know.

I just want to make sure it's working.

Supervisor Perlin. Darn it. I didn't want to go first. Well, number one, I'm really glad to actually see that the El Dorado Hills Boulevard overlay is pulled out of the CIP. I always thought it was weird that a maintenance project was in the CIP anyway. So you're saying that now it's going to be done with SB1 funds, which is totally appropriate. Okay. And then in 2020s. Yes. So that's awesome. Thank you. I'm really glad to see that. That is awesome. And then I just wanted to report out and just say, you know, I saw the Ponderosa sidewalk projects in here. And it is. I just want to say thank you guys for jumping on it. They literally started right before school was out doing prep work. That thing is going to be done long before school is back in session. So thank you. And it's going to be an amazing project. So excited about that. So just gotta be patient for these things to happen. And then the big one on my mind, and there were some emails that asked the same thing, so I thought, okay, I'm not that far off bases. Is it prudent to add Appian Way in at this moment when we're gonna be talking about it later today, and I'm not sure where that's gonna go? Should this be pushed off a bit?

Well, I can tell you that they have nothing in correlation. So it just so happened, it was a coincidence that we are bringing this forward at the same time that a development applicant is bringing forward a project just up from this intersection for the M5 subdivision. But this had been brought to our attention and flagged as I stated in several other traffic analysis reports, that a signalized intersection was going to be needed without those projects actually adding additional volume. So it wasn't that it was due to impacts, due to increased traffic. It was just... due to traffic impacts that is just growth that is coming in in the area and as we had been informed by several board of supervisors citizens stakeholders They rather have the Department of Transportation include these projects so then we can start collecting for them now earlier as opposed to waiting until five years, 10 years just before the project is needed. And by that time, we have not collected sufficient enough funds to have that project. Because it had been brought to our attention, because it was illustrated in several traffic analysis reports, we felt it was prudent to include it now, although it might be 20 years from now, include it now so we can start collecting for it now in our TIF appropriations moving forward. So when the time comes, we have that funding.

Okay, and that kind of makes sense to what you opened with saying that you added it on there because with no changes at all, you found... With no changes at all, exactly. And then I'm just going to ask a weird question coming from me, right? Yeah, I'm going to make your head tweak here. Because we were getting emails about this intersection with another item, fine, and they were talking about traffic flows and starting and stopping and congestion. And I'm just going to ask it, why was the roundabout not considered here so that... You know, what I'm learning over time is as we keep adding stops, intersections, traffic, signals, people are tired of sitting there waiting. We're learning that. I see people blow through things, do odd things, signals all the time. And they kind of just want to go. So was Roundabout explored here so that the people can just kind of go?

So for simplicity reasons, we made the item a signalized intersection because that's the way it was analyzed in all of the reports. But as part of the CEQA and possibly NEPA process, once we start getting closer to that time frame, That will be part of the analysis. As any project, as you know, as we get closer, we have to have a presentation that includes the CEQA analysis and the NEPA analysis if it's going to be federalized. And it shows any other viable options, whether it's... stop sign control only or signalized or roundabouts or any other mechanism and that will be part of the eventual environmental analysis. It's just right now we kind of just placed it as a placeholder for the funding portion of it with determination to be finalized further on down the road.

environmental design and all that. Okay, because that one, the way that I'm hearing it from residents and the traffic patterns and stuff, it could be a good one. There's nothing worse than just sitting there waiting for a light to turn green for you and there's nobody going by. I mean, it's, and that's when you see people do weird stuff. So just throwing that out there, but okay. And you never thought I asked about a roundabout, did you? I know. And then, although Lotus Road. Lastly, in the staff report, it does mention the Austin lawsuit. And I just didn't fully understand the language that was put in here. It says the TIF is fully funded over the 20-year horizon. The immediate reduction in liquidity necessitates adjustments to near-term project delivery to maintain a balanced 10-year west slope, blah, blah, blah. Certain non-safety-related project deadlines have been extended. So there were certain projects that just have to be extended, but we're still going to be able to fund them?

Well, the good thing is that with a lot of the projects that are in the CIP... as I mentioned earlier, they have 20 year horizons. And so we know that within a 20 year period, we might, whether it's 15, 20, or maybe even 25, that's generally when we will need them. So as we get closer, we know exactly when that timeframe is going to be. And so then if it is a project that we feel can be pushed out because it's not reaching either a safety concern, level of service issue, that we can push that out if we feel that there might be more dire projects that are needed now. And so the Austin case did have an impact in our CIP program. And so what we felt would be prudent was to move projects out that weren't needed in the near term within the next, you know, 10, five to 10 years, push them out further because revenues could come in significantly different than what we are estimating now that can then offset that. And as we move along in our projects, Our program, every year we reanalyze it, every five years we do a major update, and we get a clearer picture as to what the 20-year horizon is going to look like. And so then pushing off our project that, similar to Appian and Silver Valley, that, okay, maybe it wasn't exactly 20 years, maybe it was a little bit further off. Okay, pushing it off, it gives us opportunities to prioritize other projects that are needed now.

Okay, that helps a lot.

And I'm glad you're asking that because people, and I was asked this at the planning commission meeting, and that is that people think that the CIP is a set document and that it's set in stone. It's not. It's fluid. It's dynamic. It changes year to year. It changes every five years, and it depends on various conditions, conditions sometimes that we foresee, sometimes we didn't foresee, neighboring agencies, projects that decided to come in sooner or come in later. And so then because it is a dynamic, fluid entity, it is very critical that the Department of Transportation come in and inform the board of where it has gone since the last time we were here. And also what those changes are and the fluidity of where it's going. So that's very important for everyone to realize it's not static, it is dynamic.

To your point, because I lost track of it for a while, the traffic signal at Hacienda on Cameron Park Drive. Yes. You know, we thought we had a project that was going to come in and help. And then that project failed. And so now we're waiting again. And that one's just on the hairy edge. But I do want to remind you that one, to me, is becoming a safety issue, you know, over the years. And where people are... where they're cutting through to avoid that. See, that's the other bit that I think we forget sometimes, and you've experienced a lot up in Tahoe, you know, where the residents will be like, I do not want to go through that intersection. It's a nightmare or it's not safe. And so they cut through other places that are just equally not safe for the locals that live there. So just reminding you, Hacienda has been on my whiteboard for a long time.

I will make sure it stays on my whiteboard indefinitely until it gets built. Thank you.

Supervisor Ferrero.

Thank you. I've got a few questions. First is general. Can TIF be applied to a project if it's not in the CIP? Does it have to be in a CIP in order to apply TIF funds?

No, it has to be in the CIP.

That's what I thought. I've got the same questions with Sula Valley and APN. In the traffic studies, does it determine... is there like a set time when the traffic's back? Cause I'm through there all the time and there's no more than a couple of cars, but granted I'm not there during, you know, at seven in the morning when kids are going to school and stuff. So is there, do you know that off the top of your head? Like what, what time of day, this additional traffic's justifying this?

And I'm glad you did ask that question because I did bring my senior traffic engineer to give you a little bit more of the details of that. So I'm going to hand it over to Zach Oates on that one. All right.

Good morning. Good morning. Good morning, board. Chair Lane, good to be with you. I'm Zach Oates. I'm a civil engineer with DOT. So it's a very good question. When applicants or the county, when we do our traffic studies, we will analyze what we call the peak hour periods, which is the busiest one hour period in the morning, typically sometime between 7 and 9 a.m. And then again, the busiest p.m. peak hour sometime during that evening commute, 4 to 7 p.m. somewhere in there. So we'll use the busiest hour, whichever generates the highest volume on the roads during that time to perform the analysis and conduct the study. And what we've seen in these studies that have been prepared is that the level of service right now, as you just pointed out, is satisfactory. It meets the general plan thresholds of what we consider acceptable. What we have also seen is that the volume of traffic that goes through that intersection currently satisfies warrants that would justify installation of a traffic signal at this time. Just because a location meets those warrants does not mean that a traffic signal has to be installed. So the thinking, as Rafael described, is we know that additional growth is going to occur in El Dorado Hills along Green Valley Road filling in as traffic volumes increase on El Dorado Hills Boulevard. naturally traffic is going to find the path of least resistance and will migrate over to Silva Valley. And we see that in our travel demand model as we look out to 2045 that the volumes on Silva Valley Parkway do increase with the background growth that we have built in there from our discussions over the last year or two. But also as there are potential projects that could come in and add even more traffic. So While the level of service right now is acceptable during those peak hour periods, we are now aware that we are already satisfying some of the signal warrants. And so in order to be ready to construct that signal or a roundabout when the time comes, we want to be able to collect as much TIF as possible to go towards what we estimate those costs to be. so that when that time comes, we're not waiting to collect money. We've got those funds in the accounts to go out and build that improvement.

All right. I just, my concern is that we're prioritizing that over other intersections, you know, that are more dangerous. Sure.

Certainly. It's a good point. We have several intersections identified within the CIP and the TIF program. And that's what we'll be discussing following this hearing today. And constantly every year we do an intersection needs analysis where we'll identify anywhere from seven to 12 unsignalized intersections throughout the entire West Slope. And we'll go out and collect fresh traffic counts and run the signal warrant analyses there to see what the level of service is and whether or not a signal or other traffic control improvements might be justified that would improve areas. So we do have a list of those. And as we identify new ones, if appropriate, we'll add them into the TIF program and the CIP so that we're collecting funds to build those improvements when the time is right.

Okay, and you might be able to answer this, Zach. Last question regarding Bridalwood and Bass Lake. I thought we're going to maybe just talk about the timeframe with that. Cause I know you're, when I met with Raphael a couple of weeks ago, that sounded pretty optimistic that that's going to start moving forward.

Yeah, we are actually in the finalization of the environmental document and the final design for that project. We got a grant for both. And we should be completed with that within the next year for Bridalwood. and Bass Lake. At that time, then we are going to actually working with EDCDC, hopefully maybe pursue grants for potential construction of that intersection. And as a matter of fact, that was an intersection that for the longest time, and I think maybe Supervisor Parlin and Supervisor Vierkamp might remember, had been brought up several times as a topic of conversation. And as Zach said, we reanalyze locations on a yearly basis to see where they are falling in terms of their prioritization. And so then just because we add one more into that list, it doesn't mean it went to the top. It just fell on the list. It's probably somewhere down at the bottom. We are still making sure that we are keeping our radar on those top five to 10, making sure we are pursuing them either in design or construction to get them to fruition.

All right. And then it's one lane. It's a one lane roundabout versus two.

It is going to be a one lane roundabout. Yes. All right.

And then one question just came to my mind. Thank you for the improvements or the signs you guys installed at Saratoga and Finders. Oh, yes, yes. But is that project still, and I haven't looked, is it still in the CIP?

Yes, yes, yes. That is part of our overall improvement for Saratoga is the finalization of the widening. Saratoga to be four lanes all the way to Elrond Hills Boulevard and that intersection is is there and if in the event that maybe development infill comes in we work with applicants to make sure that they you know assist and or we can collaborate on improvements sooner than later okay

Yeah, I was just interested if it was taken out because of the signs you put up. No, no, no, no, it's still there. That's all I have. Thank you. All right, you got it.

Madam CAO, would you like to chime in with us?

Sure. Director Martinez just hit on it a moment ago, but back to the Appian Way. I wanted to note, as he said, just because a project is added, it doesn't mean it necessarily jumps above in priority. And just because I didn't hear anyone specifically say it, I will draw people's attention to the book where it actually has that project 10 years out. So as Director Martinez said, every year they will look at it again. And if that anticipated growth does occur, they'll look at priorities. So I just didn't want anyone to think we're starting on that today just because we're adding it.

Well, and honestly, I think that that's something the board's been asking for for years is to start collecting fees as soon as possible, early as possible, so that we don't come up short when it's go time. So thank you for that.

My pleasure.

Other questions or comments by my colleagues?

Yeah, I just want to piggyback on Lori's statement, which is really true. The problem is, especially when it comes to construction costs, especially when they go up three to five times, it seems like over the years. So I think we need to make sure that we address that problem.

Oh, thank you very much. Supervisor Turnbull, I do want to mention, since March, asphalt costs have almost doubled. Yeah, because as you know, it's an oil product. So yes, that's why a lot of our cost estimates have gone up in our projects.

I want to ask just a couple of different angle questions. One is with regards to fire hazard mitigation, the monies that you have programmed in here. In the basin, we have a lot of Firewise neighborhoods, upwards of 23. Some of our Firewise neighborhoods include vacant lots that are owned by the county that have not been mitigated in a long, long time. And it really creates problems for the Firewise neighborhoods because they're rated on what their neighborhood looks like. And if all the homeowners are doing their work, but the county-owned properties are out of control. How do we address that? And is that part of what this fire hazard mitigation FEMA monies are programmed for? Or how is that money spent? It looks like it's just spent on staff consultants and stuff.

Well, we do have a... vegetation management group within the division of maintenance that actually goes out and evaluates certain locations that are more susceptible to lack of EVACUATION DUE TO HEAVY VEGETATION. AND SO THEY DO PERFORM SOME VEGETATION MANAGEMENT. I HAVEN'T HEARD OF A COLLABORATION WITH ANY OF THE GROUPS UP IN TAHOE. AND SO ACTUALLY NOW THAT YOU'RE MENTIONING THAT, I AM GOING TO BRING THAT UP TO MY MAINTENANCE DIVISION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE COLLABORATING WITH THEM BECAUSE WE HAVE SUPERVISOR TURNBUE CAN ATTEST Grizzly Flats, Coloma, a lot of Somerset. We've collaborated with a lot of the fire groups here on the West Slope. And I think that due to some of their efforts separation in the basin. We haven't done as much with the Department of Transportation Maintenance Group. And so then now that you're kind of bringing that to my attention, I am going to make a note of that, that we collaborate a little bit more and see if there are any additional projects that we can collaborate on together.

That would be great, and that's a perfect example of we don't know what's on that list. And if there are parcels that we're aware of that neighborhoods are asking to have some attention to, is that something that I could bring to your attention? Most definitely, at any given time, yes. Okay, great. And then the next item that is intriguing to me is this transit services improvements item. Again, it shows a little bit of revenue, and most of the expenses, again, are consultants. It says you cannot use it for operating expenses, but it says you can use it for capital expenses. So what's an example of how those monies are being spent? And you said it's transit? Transit services improvements.

I don't know if one of my staff can help me out with that. That one, you actually stumped me a little bit. I'm going to have to look into that. Okay. And you said it's transit?

Yeah, transit services improvements. It's on page 126 and 127. Okay. In the CIP book, right? In the CIP project summary, yeah. Project book. Thank you. Okay. Any further questions or comments by the board at this time? No. All right, no, then we'll go ahead and open this up for public comment. Ms. Dawson.

We are now taking public comments specifically on item 39. A timer will alert you when 30 seconds remain and again when your time has ended. We'll begin with comments from individuals present in the boardroom followed by those participating via Zoom. If you're joining via Zoom, please ensure you unmute yourself when called upon. If you're joining by phone, press star nine to raise your hand. If you're on Zoom, use the raise hand feature to indicate your interest in speaking. We ask that you voluntarily state your name for the record before beginning your comments.

Are there any members in the room that would like to address the board on this particular item? Seeing none, may we go online, please?

Not taking public comment from online participants. Not taking public comment from Linda Campbell.

Hi, everyone. Linda Campbell, El Dorado Hills. First, to summarize a couple of points from my written comments in case they weren't read. Country Club Drive Tongue Road section had $7.5 million shifted out of TIF and is now TBD for funding as approved by the board a few weeks ago. This was explained in the May APAC meeting as pursuing grants to cover, which if not received will continue to delay the project. Also, an additional $12.2 million was added to this file that was not reviewed in the March board meeting or the April planning commission. The item of most interest is the added $4.6 million for the Bass Lake Interchange project, which was not highlighted as a change. and doesn't include any justification for that increase, which now almost doubles the request. The largest item is the project request for the intersection improvements at Silver Valley and Appian Way. This being the third time the item is being reviewed, each time I asked for the analysis done to determine this because nothing is attached to the agenda or the details. Now I hear there were multiple applicant studies, not internal DOT models, but they still aren't included. I would ask the board to consider if you worked for someone and walked in with a request saying, I recommend spending $2.6 million for a project. Would you be asked for other information to justify the request? By saying that analysis was completed, yet none of it is posted for review, how can you make a truly informed decision? In the May APAC meeting, DOT provided a presentation that the FY25-26 funding splits for the CIP are TIF equal $4 million, grants equals $35 million, and local discretionary funds equals $4 million, clearly reflecting that TIF truly does not cover everything in the CIP for each fiscal year. With the analysis details and opportunity for public review, we would have a chance to question what only installing a signal at that intersection would do to surrounding traffic. Would it create potentially significant queuing onto Green Valley Road during peak periods? What would it do to Appian Way? Would Silva Valley being four lanes be better? As you are all aware, the biggest issue typically brought up by residents in the county are the roadways. If we look at the number of projects in the CIP that are unplanned, continually shifting in priority, and of course limited TIF options to complete, then it explains a lot about the concerns regularly heard. Why would we not want to look at a more holistic approach to proposal review before simply placing this in the CIP book out 20 years? We have a group of committed citizens in El Dorado Hills that are willing and able to to participate in such planning. Maybe if we modified the procedures a bit, then we can make the planning process more robust. I recommend not approving the Silva Valley Appian Way intersection improvements until such time as data is made available and proposals can come from collaboration between DOT and the community to confirm project required rather than holding off for an applicant. Thank you.

Thank you.

Now taking public comment from five to five.

Hi, I've been a coach on ditto to all of Linda Campbell's great comment. I know you took an extensive list and I would urge you to give direction to staff to actually include it in the minutes that question, and then your answers. That's an effective process. That seems to be your thing these days, Dean, in other areas. So acknowledging the benefits that you've just received and then recording it is something I urge you to consider. My more specific comments is since we moved up here and we're off Slide Park Road, I have to say that Director Raphael's presentation was truly beautiful and truly gracious. If I was there, I'd give them a rose, a rose by any other name. I know things are limited, so I'm grateful that the striping is in place and so forth because I found this road difficult to navigate at night, especially with fog. But I still think it would be nice, as I've seen in other areas, I don't know what the criteria is, to have snow-proof reflectors in the middle of the road and an increase on reflectors on the sides. For a whole bunch of reasons, when I look up this, this can be a fairly dangerous road for vehicles, and I think that kind of stuff should be in a needs assessment. We can see it, and then eventually it will turn into an active project. My other concerns are general to the whole area, but specific to here, and I couldn't find it anywhere, and perhaps that's my oversight, but the needs assessments, And all the wonderful things that are in this current document you're reviewing for cars and bridges for those of us that like to walk or pedal. As you all know, there's something that probably can't be too commented on, but a lot of improvements I can see are occurring in terms of pedestrian safety. But I also know there's lots of people up here for some reason trying to avoid a little $5 fee. I just buy the annual pass. But they're crossing in areas that are not all that safe in order to access trailheads and stuff for this beautiful reason, as well as the National Forest. So I'm hoping there's a need assessment that someday improvements we're seeing in more urbanized areas and towns will be occurring in your more rural area where tourists and folks come and don't always pay attention, unfortunately. And then the last part goes to the funding piece. And I wish you would comment on how you're going to deal with the Austin settlement.

Thank you again.

Thank you.

Now taking public comment from Sue.

Hi, I thought it was interesting that Raphael mentioned that you can't collect traffic fees without the CIP, which I, um, Maybe that would be true if the Department of Transportation actually connected the two. The fees charged to projects actually have no correlation to these funds or where they go. I kind of gave up asking for that correlation because often or always on these projects, especially large developer projects, they always say they pay their fair share, but they don't say how that payment is going to actually mitigate the impact. that's required by the general plan. And that's why Measure Y was passed, Measure E was passed, because it's called paper roads. You take the money, but you never actually put it on the project that fixes the impact that was created by these developments. And that's why we've always kicked the can down the road and we're still doing it. So if the developers in El Dorado Hills actually had to pay their full cost of their infrastructure, financial impact, they would not move forward with their projects. They would rather have it be put on the public. So I always think that it's interesting that DOT has gotten really good at putting the projects on the CIP when they don't want the developer to have to pay for the full cost. And then they take it off when they're required to pay a fair share. What I'm... What happens if the project's not on the CIP, the developer has to pay the full cost. It's in the general plan. It's part of Measure E. It's in law and put in by the voters. And the only way you can change it is if you put it back out to vote. So what the county has been doing is just ignoring the law. So, again, these projects like on this inner. Oh, and I remember the battles between supervisors for where these funds would go, whether it be going their district, that district. And so they created a zone eight back then, just so El Dorado Hills kept all the money that was collected in El Dorado Hills, stayed in El Dorado Hills. And then that all changed and eventually the other zones paid off the El Dorado Hills developers. It's always been kind of a mess, but the board does have, you are the ones given the authority to determine where those impact fees go. And lastly, if it wasn't in the CAP, either Costco or Parker or one of those folks that this, right now they said we're fine. You know, you should decide where is a better priority for those funds. If it's not in the plan and these guys come along and put these big developments in, they have to pay 100% of that impact. And I wish they could explain that to you.

Thank you.

There's no additional public comment.

All right, thank you. I will go ahead and close the public hearing and bring this item back to the board for further deliberation or action and or if staff would like to make some comments.

Yes, Madam Chair, if you don't mind, I would like to answer some of the questions. Working backwards, I do want to agree with Sue that it is true that sometimes if a project is in the CIP, sometimes it's not in the TIF. But if it's in the TIF, then it has to be in the CIP. So essentially the TIF is for developer impact fees. And so projects could be in the CIP, but they have to do with either safety issues or existing conditions. And so then sometimes, most of the times they correlate, but sometimes they don't. And so then that's where the confusion might lay. uh in terms of leo's request uh yes we do needs assessments uh all the time as a matter of fact um a needs assessment uh was brought to our attention several years ago uh regarding uh crosswalk improvements um in the camino and pony express area and that was actually just performed and completed last year so we are looking at our rural communities all the time in terms of where those needs are, and by all means, Leo, if you're listening, and to the public, that if they hear or know of a location, and I hear from Saratoga and finders all the time, of locations that they want us to look into, either through the supervisors or contacting the Department of Transportation directly. We will gladly look into locations, whether it's intersections, corridors, pedestrian locations, to see if it's not in our radar. And then before I hand it over to my two staff, one regarding Linda Campbell's request to her concern regarding Bass Lake interchange and that significant increase, which I'm going to hand over to Zach in a second. And then the country club one, I'm going to hand over to deputy director, Matt Smeltzer. I did want to answer your question regarding the transit services. So that is a, a, transportation project for county wide for parking rides for turnouts for bus services to be able to turn off of the through lanes and it's a small amount for just collaboration that we might have with either EDCDC or El Dorado County Transit to collaborate on small projects such as those. And we do have some parking rights that are ours and are either constructed by us and or maintained by us as well. And that's what that item is there for. So I wanted to answer that question for you.

I appreciate you following back up on that. So similar to the fire hazard mitigation, is there a list of what kind of projects are you considering?

There are, yes, there are. And so then, and I can easily get that list for you.

That'd be great.

Great. So I'm going to hand it over first to Zach Oates regarding the Bass Lake interchange increase.

Welcome back, Mr. Oates. All right.

So the Bass Lake Interchange project, we have an existing CIP project that will construct what we're calling our phase one improvements, which involves widening of the eastbound and westbound off ramps, signalization of the westbound ramp intersection, as well as some improvements under the overcrossing, but does not actually include any widening of the overcrossing replacement of the Highway 50 overcrossing there. that would come in a subsequent ultimate phase that is not yet within our 20-year planning horizon of the TIF program and therefore not a CIP project. One other item included in that phase one project is a study to determine what those ultimate improvements will need to be. That is something that Caltrans requires when we do these interchange projects in a phased manner like we're doing with this one that When we construct interim improvements, they want to know what the ultimate plan is so that those interim improvements aren't complete throwaway costs so we can incorporate some of those phased improvements into the ultimate design. So we've had some preliminary meetings with Caltrans to discuss what that might look like and have received some updated estimates. And those estimates came back significantly higher, which is why You see the cost increase that we included here. That includes the preliminary engineering, the approval processes that we'll have to go through with Caltrans to get their green light, their seal of approval on what those projects will look like. It includes the environmental clearances, final design, right-of-way acquisitions, construction, construction management. So essentially those updated costs that have come out of preliminary meetings with Caltrans were the reason for the increases there for the Bass Lake Interchange project.

Excellent, thank you.

Can I ask one question about that?

Yes, please.

Thanks. The phase one changes that you're preparing for, those are based on existing impacts?

Those are, so those are based on the approved growth that we have, you know, obviously existing traffic levels that are, that are existing out there today. Uh, in addition to forecasting the growth that we have in our current approved general plan, currently Bass Lake Hill specific plan, uh, further up Bass Lake road, uh, there is some approved growth already South of highway 50 there at the Bass Lake interchange. Um, Again, I want to stress that that's all based on what is currently approved, not anything that is working its way through the process.

Thank you. Mr. Smeltzer.

Good morning, Board. Matt Smeltzer, Deputy Director of Engineering. Question was about Country Club. Country Club, Tong to Sill Valley, is one phase of a long road a connector road that runs parallel with Highway 50. It's been on the need list for a while. We actually wanted to get it done during Sewell Valley Interchange. We saw a need then, but that was Sewell Valley Interchange set aside funding, so we couldn't do it at that time. So there was some unfinished work there. We're trying to get done now and address that need. And... Yes, the schedule, the comments were about the schedule. The schedule did move out because of the length of this project, the phasing that connects to it. Traffic studies are complicated. They take a while. Looking at the growth and the whole network of that road, Country Club. Country Club actually goes all the way from Cameron Park and is planned to connect to all the way down Eldorado Hills Boulevard. So there's a lot of complications to that. We got the interchange next to it. We got some sensitive environmental areas there. And we want to make the right choice on the intersection. So we're looking at intersection control evaluations, something we do for all the intersections to make sure that alternative is the right selection there. So that's still in the planning and study phases because of all those issues. And the other comment was or question was the funding on it that we are going through some economic instability here and we've seen this before. It happens in periods and cycles. I've been here a while. I've lived through it a few times. And it becomes challenging. And we have a program that is, you know, it's funded and sometimes things change, economy changes, demands change, and we make those adjustments. And we collaborate with our partners, our funding partners for unified solutions. meetings with CTC just recently and Caltrans discussing those issues of opportunities and there are opportunities out there and we'll make it happen. So right now we're just going through some tough times and there's some delays and delays in funding but the program, it's in there, it's programmed and just a matter of getting the funding like we always do. Is there any other questions I can answer?

Other questions, Mr. Swelter? Thank you. No? Thank you. OK, I'll bring this item back to the board for further deliberation and or action.

Oh, is it time to approve this one now? Do we make any changes, actually? We did not. I don't think we did. I don't hear any changes. A lot of good discussion and explanation. So with that, I will move that we approve this as recommended by staff.

I'll second it.

Okay, there's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Watch this. Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Parlin, how do you vote? Aye. Supervisor Vierkamp, how do you vote? Aye. Supervisor Ferraro, how do you vote? Aye. Supervisor Turnbull, how do you vote?

Aye.

Supervisor Lane, how do you vote? Aye. Motion passes 5-0.

Okay, super. Can we roll right into our 10 o'clock adoption of the 2026 TIF or does anybody want a very brief break?

Yeah, I would like to request a break for just a little bit.

Okay, can we please take a five minute break and we'll come back at 1055. Thank you.

Thank you.

So you could have a little bit less of a shift.

thank you welcome back to our meeting we'll move on to our 10 o'clock time certain item number 40 which also is from the department of transportation this is adoption of the 2026 tiff program annual schedule i would like to go ahead and open the public hearing and ask miss dawson to read this item for us

Item number 40 is a hearing from the Department of Transportation recommending the board adopt and authorize a chair to sign a resolution for the 2026 traffic impact fee schedule annual update.

Mayor Mrakas, All right, good morning board welcome Mr it's long time no see. Mayor Mrakas, All right, so as Kim just mentioned we're here today to. Mayor Mrakas, bring our annual update to our traffic impact fee program it's been a couple years since we've done the annual update with the major update being approved on in June of last year. Mayor Mrakas, We just incorporated our annual update into that major update so. Again, the reason we have general plan implementation measure TCB county ordinance number 5144 and ordinance number 5173 that require that the fee program shall be updated annually for changes in project costs and any inflationary cost adjustments. A few years back, we revised the cost index that's used to inform these updates. We now use engineering news records or ENR's construction cost index. And the change this year was a 3.6% increase, which is higher than the year or two previous. If you remember back all the way to 2022, I believe we had a 15% increase. All in all, a relatively standard year-over-year increase for us here. There were additional project cost estimates that were updated as part of our CIP update that was just approved. So those projects are typically within our five-year CIP bucket that are well along their way to being constructed. They have more project-specific cost estimates as opposed to kind of the planning level estimates that are used. So those updates were included. And then I also wanted to just real quick touch on our grant funding assumptions that are within the TIF program and provide a little update on what sort of grant funding we've got in the program to date. If you'll remember back as part of the major update, it's been a while, we assumed approximately $57 million in grant funding to go towards TIF projects over the entire 20-year planning horizon. So looking out to 2045, we've assumed that we'll have about $57 million solely for TIF projects. To date, we have approximately $29 million applied towards projects within the TIF program, mainly our interchange projects, the Ponderosa Interchange, El Dorado Hills Boulevard Interchange. And so that's a big chunk of those. And those grants don't come every year. There are call for project cycles that happen periodically. So we expect to continue pursuing additional grant funding. But I did want to provide that update that uh the grant money that we assume we are going to have uh for use within the fee program we're approximately 50 of the way to what we projected now future calls for projects and in funding cycles are obviously going to continue to be very competitive and with changes in in administration and policies at the federal level we expect that those opportunities will continue to be more and more challenging So that was pretty much what I had prepared. Happy to answer questions. Again, we're incorporating a 3.6% increase to our projects within the fee program, as well as some other project cost estimates that were just discussed during the CIP item. So happy to answer any questions.

Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Oates. Supervisor Parlin?

Yeah, just to follow up on what you said about the grants and everything. So a couple years ago was when we came to that big aha, actually Raphael did, about how we were overestimating grants and all that and made adjustments and it impacted the TIF and all that. So are we kind of where we should be now with how we're incorporating that number and the reality and we're not overestimating grants anymore because that was problematic.

Yeah, I would say that, like I mentioned, we're halfway to what we've assumed. So that is great. Those grants have been applied to those projects for a couple of years. They're not new grants. We also don't have any new data that would suggest we should make any adjustments to our current strategy. We work very closely with EDCTC and Woody and his team over there to try and keep our thumb on the pulse of what those programs are looking like. So at this point, I would say there's not enough data to justify any further adjustments. If we get something that says otherwise, we'd obviously bring that back to the board.

Because this is the annual, so there could be a huge policy change at the state and or federal level. And if that were to come to fruition, then we may have to come back on the next annual and say, we're not gonna be getting anything for a while or whatever, and then change the fees, right? Okay.

Yeah, and that would be, yeah, that would certainly be a little more involved than our typical annual update process. But again, that's why we say at least every five years, we can come back and work on a more major update.

Okay, yeah, we just don't want to be cut short, you know, short. We don't want to be short on these dollar amounts. Agreed. These projects are critical. So, okay, thank you.

other questions comments supervisor ferrero yeah um thank you um so i'm looking at the table 20 local roads tiff schedule the current one um and i just haven't and i've had a problem with this for a while the the discounted rate for the is it single family dwelling age restricted being a third basically a third of the price for the uh non-age restricted And it just, how do we come up with that formula? I think it's a motivation for developers to build age-restricted, which 55 and older is very questionable, in my opinion. And I really think the county is cheating ourselves by giving this amount of discount. Sure.

So essentially, the fee schedules are scaled by the amount of traffic they're anticipated or expected to generate. And so again, we use our reference manuals from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. They publish trip generation reference manuals. And they've got all sorts of different land use categories for residential type uses as well as non-residential. And essentially the trip generation rate says that for a normal single family home, if you all of a sudden make that age restricted, It projects to generate a third of the traffic of a normal single family home. And that's usually because there are fewer people in the household. And they have fewer trips. It's, you know, not all, but there are a large population of the age-restricted housing developments that are retired. They're not making the trips out to go to work to drop off at school to go to baseball practice and do all those things. So essentially, it's because it generates about a third the level of the traffic.

Do we have any leeway in that?

Can we change that if we chose to do that? Yeah, we've been talking about this. I mean, I'm not supporting this.

I just, I don't like it. I mean, I look at, okay, yeah, you got retirees. It's questionable whether it's 55 and older or not. But look at young families that have one-year-olds. They're not driving as much either. And maybe they should be discounted.

And they're trying to make ends meet.

Yeah, so I... Can we send this back to you guys to reevaluate this, or can we make this decision?

So that would definitely be something we would want to take a look at as part of a much more major update. So when it gets into the actual bones of the fee program and how the fees are charged, we certainly... PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Need to meet our nexus requirements from the mitigation fee act to make sure that we are not charging people more than what their fair share is if we can make the nexus to PB, Harmon Zuckerman, To do this a different way than perhaps that's certainly something we could look into, but we would have to definitely provide the analysis and justification to to do that.

So, Supervisor Furrow, that is a very good question. And as a matter of fact, it's a question that Zach Oates addressed very clearly that if we were to go contrary to industry standards, we would have to have some kind of justification analysis to back that up. Because now we are telling applicants and the industry that we're doing things differently and we can't just do it willy-nilly. Now, Supervisor Parlin suggested that for our next major update, we reevaluate and look at having more zones. And that is an appropriate time is during our major update for us to reanalyze either certain zones, certain... development areas, commercial, residential, and or trip generations, if this board feels that based on the analysis we bring forward, or if it truly is something that the board wishes us to analyze, we can have reanalyzed during our major update. During our annual update, it's kind of difficult because we don't typically go that in-depth in our annuals. It's kind of more of a looking for inflationary cost adjustments. But during our major updates, that is a perfectly good analysis that we can bring forward to the board.

When is a major update? When's that next taking place?

So our last one was approved June of last year. The general plan says we have to do them at least every five years, which is actually more frequently than what the Mitigation Fee Act requires. So looking out in advance, we would start that process a couple of years before that deadline so that we have time to bring several items and workshops before your board, a couple of which Rafael just mentioned. Um, so that process, let's see 25. So we would probably be starting it within the next 18 months, uh, or so now, uh, As people have noted in the public, there are several very large development projects working their way through our planning department right now. If one of those were to be approved that included general plan amendments, zoning changes, growth way beyond what we have assumed in our current models, then that would be the justification for us to come back before we get to the next scheduled major update to start that new update to incorporate those changes so that we're charging the appropriate fee to all of those newly created units.

Yeah.

So I would say, Supervisor Ferrer, this question's been asked, I think. No, I know it has. Every year forever. I remember Supervisor Frinson sitting here with us, and we were going, OK, what if someday this isn't senior living anymore because our aging population there's this big bubble it might become regular housing someday you know can we then collect the fee you know to take care of our roads people are living longer quite honestly you know to your point is there data to to counter these assumptions in the formula in the manual because I'm guessing that those formulas were made for more urban areas. And in rural areas, there are seniors out there driving all over the place all the time. Well, I'm one of them. So there you go.

Heading to the golf course five days a week.

Yeah, yeah.

They're heading to the golf course five days a week. They're absolutely right on, Greg. You are as well, because I don't know if that... norm that was created years ago fits today, especially with aging and 70 more of a retirement age and people working longer and doing way more things. So the mobility I see of folks has increased, if not decreased.

Absolutely. So just to echo what Raphael said, I think that's definitely something that we'll note down when we do get started on our next update. That'll be an item that we'll do some analysis on and bring before the board to get some direction. But I think as part of the annual update, that goes a bit beyond what the scope of what we typically do.

Chair Lane, I think Supervisor Turnbull would like to say something.

Okay, let me just make sure. Supervisor Vierkamp, did you say? Okay, Supervisor Turnbull. Please unmute.

Hey, can you hear me?

We can.

All right. Laurie was right and so was Brian. We've been kicking this down the road for a long time. It seems like to me all we're doing is addressing these senior communities. And these housing developers are going in as basically most of it is in grades in my district. And I think it's something that needs to be addressed, especially when it comes. And a lot of the seniors that are moving here, they're not from here. They're not helping the people that live here. It's from people that's moving here to our county. So we need to address this problem, especially for the younger people that want to get started building a home. And this has been a big issue for a long, long time. So I think we need to work on that a little bit more.

Thank you, Supervisor. Other questions, comments? I just wanna circle back a little bit to the grant funding.

Hmm.

dollars that we've assumed for the TIF program, that's only on the unincorporated West Slope. And that is only for projects within the TIF program. Our CIP program includes several projects that are not in the TIF program that get funding from other federal and state grant programs, the Highway Bridge Program, Highway Safety Improvement Program, and various others. So that is just projects within the TIF program. Again, given recent changes in policy, the types of projects in the TIF program that increase roadway capacity, VMT, greenhouse gases, aren't going to be as competitive as they once were with some of the older funding programs.

All right. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I've been listening to this presentation now for going on four years, and I'm just starting to feel like I'm understanding pieces of it.

That's how it works. I mean, forever you guys to understand all the parts. There's a lot.

So welcome. All right. If there's no other comments or questions from the board, I'd like to go ahead and open up public comment. Ms. Dawson.

We are now taking public comments specifically on item 40. For public comment, each speaker will have three minutes to address the board. A timer will alert you when 30 seconds remain and again when your time has ended. We'll begin with comments from individuals present in the boardroom followed by those participating via Zoom. If you're joining via Zoom, please ensure you unmute yourself when called upon. If you're joining by phone, press star nine to raise your hand. If you're on Zoom, use the raise hand feature to indicate your interest in speaking. We ask that you voluntarily state your name for the record before beginning your comments.

Thank you, Ms. Dawson. Are there members of the public in the room that would like to address the board on this particular item? Seeing none, may we go on Zoom, please?

Now taking public comment from online participants. Now taking public comment from Sue. Sue, we can't hear you.

Nope, we can hear you now. Can you hear me now?

Yep.

I don't know. I had to switch to my phone. Sorry. The board has the discretion to determine these numbers. You can do that today. That's why it's before you to make a decision. The whole reason they do the senior housing no cost is because of all the senior housing projects they've been putting in, which we're not getting any funding for. And I don't know how you can justify. Sorry, I'm running out. I need to find my paper. My question was going to be is how can you not charge for those projects? Because it's required in the general plan and in the initiative that we passed by the voters. And the only way you can not charge for them is to put it to a vote of the public. So you've been violating the law. for a really long time and it would be nice to correct that so that maybe you actually can facilitate the road projects that need to be put in place so that people aren't getting jammed into their neighborhoods and put into serious fire hazards because you're, you know, no matter the 30 years we put in these policies, you keep ignoring them, kicking the can down to the road. And our kids that live here deserve more. And like you said, these people aren't even from here. We're giving everybody a free ride. We started that a long time ago with the property tax, giving Bay Area people incentives to come here. And we're losing all of our young people. We're losing all our local jobs. And all we're having is a senior bedroom community. So I would ask you to do this today. You don't have to wait. You can say, Department of Transportation, we want you to go back. We want you to charge these the same as you're charging a regular home because you can show it with it's required by the general plan. It's required by the voters and it's required because people 55 and over are driving more than the people that are just going to work and back in this county. So anyway, I hope that you do the right thing. It would be really refreshing and thank you for allowing me to speak. That's it. Thank you.

Not taking public comment from Linda Campbell.

Everyone Linda Campbell, El Dorado Hills. So in the board member memo attachment a there's the statement about adjustments made due to state and federal grants being applied, resulting in less TIFF. Obviously I know that there was just discussion with that. But does that mean that the funding splits in the finance plan sections of the CIP book are being modified to reflect that difference? I'm just curious where it's going to show up. And then it appears that only the two Green Valley Bridge replacement projects fit that grant reduction item. But what I also noticed is the Mount Murphy and the Mosquito Bridge projects aren't on the list in this document, but they were on the project change table approved earlier. So shouldn't Mount Murphy and Mosquito Bridge be also added into this document? That's what I have. Thank you.

Thank you.

Now taking public comment from 525.

Hi, Leo Bennett-Koshon. I'd like to repeat my comment that I hope I hear you in some way direct staff to provide answers to the questions you've heard. There's comments about, well, we're just, you know, whatever. We're never satisfied. But I assure you, everybody that talks have good followers. And I certainly follow what Linda and Sue say because they add value. My specific comment is, The alternative says, basically, you have no alternative. Perhaps, I know staff is overwhelmed, but perhaps you could have a part of the webpage where folks like Linda and Sue could give you suggestions. Staff can review it. From my perspective, when I read the decision that came out of, you know, the past higher boards where the U.S. supporting court upheld the appeal, if I'm I'm messing his name up. I apologize. But for George Kess, Shasta County, and I don't know if I agree or disagree, but they suspended their ordinance in relation to traffic fees. So that tells me you have alternatives like what Linda suggested, Susha suggested, and what your colleagues did in Shasta County. So I hope that you guys don't state, like I've heard in the past, gosh, darn, we don't want to do this.

We have no alternative. Thank you for taking my comment.

Thank you.

Now taking public comment from Woody Delora.

Good morning Board, Chair Lane. I'm sorry I wasn't able to stick around in person. I just wanted to, sorry, Woody Deloria, Executive Director of the El Dorado County Transportation Commission. I just wanted to support DOT staff on the grant forecasts that were included in the documents that is consistent with what EBCDC has provided. The state policies are such that the that any new capacity projects are not likely going to be funded with any state or federal dollars under the current programs. That said, the current federal service transportation bill does expire September of this year, and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee under the current federal administration just released on May 22nd what they're calling Build America 2050. which is the draft proposal for the next federal infrastructure bill. And it is much more focused on traditional transportation investments, which does include new capacity. So we are advocating for the next service transportation bill to support those types of projects. But again, that is yet to be approved at the federal level. But Should it be approved later this year? That could be updated in the next year's TIF and CIP program. So that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you.

There's no additional public comment.

Okay, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring this item back to the board and staff. Mr. Oates?

Yes, I'd just like to respond to a couple of the questions and claims. I do want to state clearly that although there appears to be some sentiment that perhaps we're undercharging for the age-restricted housing, we are collecting fees for every building permit that is issued on those age-restricted homes. It is less than a normal single-family home, but they certainly do pay their share in the TIF program. I believe Linda had a question about determining the split between different funding sources for projects in the TIF and the CIP. And yes, the CIP book, which I believe was attached to the previous item, the CIP item this morning, and will be shortly published on our website, does include a brief project description, a vicinity map, And then on the second page for each project, there is a table that lays out all the individual funding sources, funding amounts, and approximate schedule for those projects as well. bridge programs within the CIP are typically funded by the highway bridge program. We do use what we call new developments, fair share to create match money for those funds. Those federal dollars are typically There's a local match dollar amount that has to go along to be successful in getting those highway bridge grants. And we use some TIF money to create that match dollar amount. So I believe that addressed some of those questions and statements and happy to answer any others.

thank you for those clarifications are there other questions or comments by the board at this time so i just want to make sure i understand the item before us is really dealing with the cost adjustments correct the the item before us it involves disclosure of what the revenues are, but that item specifically is not before us.

Correct.

It's the cost estimates.

Correct. So yeah, we use the cost index adjustment to adjust project costs for inflation to create the new fee schedule, which if approved today will go into effect in 60 days, which I believe is August 15th.

Gotcha, okay, thank you for that. And so to my colleagues, Mr. Ferrer.

Can we realize, and this is just rate increases, which I support, can we approve this in direct staff to start the major overhaul this year?

or could it be included in next year's annual so at least gets the ball rolling?

So from a budgetary perspective, we budget our major updates every five years. So for us to advance it would then put a burden on our TIF program because now we're going ahead of its schedule. similar to Supervisor Parlin's request for more zones, it is definitely either, Staff and I have already made a note that this will be included in the next major update. And actually, I'm kind of curious as to what it is now. Supervisor Verkamp made a good point. You know, today's seniors are doing a lot more activities, and especially in California, where they have that option. And so then the traffic volumes and trips that they are producing might be much greater than what is in our Institute of Traffic Engineers, which is a nationwide standard and could include areas where it is more rainy, more snowy and have more impacts due to those aspects. So I am looking forward to it. And so my suggestion is that we include that as part of our major update, which Mr. Oates said will be started here within the next 18 months. That process will get started. And so to me, that would be simpler in terms of capacity-wise, in terms of workload and budgetary. appropriate for the department moving forward and if there are any other additional requests having to do with either our funding, our grants, our subsidies that we hear from the board within the next 18 months. So we're not just doing it for this one, but we're going to include it all in our next major update.

You mentioned in the very beginning of your presentation that we do a major update every five years and that that's more frequent than, and you compared it to something else, maybe a state requirement or a federal requirement. So, you know, I'm thinking giving direction to the staff to really look at that would be appropriate. I'm not sure that that speeding it up is going to be helpful.

I mean, I certainly will check with SACOG and we can talk with Woody. There might be some, something we don't know that's out there. So at least we could look into it. Um, and that that's fairly easy to do. It may not be as easy for you, but if you guys too, if in your circle, um, keep it on your radar screen. Cause I think we ought to move sooner on it than later. Uh, if, if we can, and if there was something that we're missing, um, We should bring it back maybe in the annual, certainly in the five-year review, but if there's something that we could do annually and we're not stepping in a legal problem, we should pursue it.

What we could also do is staff could reach out to consultants, reach out to other municipalities and see what their age-restricted values are and bring something back to the board, maybe our next annual, just so that it gives you an understanding, a flavor of what's going on.

See if the criteria is changing.

Exactly. And just to give you some perspective, our last major update cost approximately three quarters of a million dollars. So for us to expend that ahead of what we've already budgeted for would be a burden and not only on my staff time, but consultant time and our workload. So doing just an analysis into this one aspect and reporting back to the board then gives the board even more justification. Yeah, you know what? We do want you to look into this based off of what you've already researched.

Madam CAO, can you help us?

Sure. There was a statement made that I just wanted to make sure everyone's clear on. The board does not just have complete discretion over these numbers today. These have to be based on a nexus study that meets the standards of the Mitigation Fee Act. So you can't just decide, as I think Director Martinez said willy-nilly earlier, to waive a discount or to charge one category more or less. So I think it makes sense for what Director Martinez said is that staff can specifically on this issue without starting on the major update, do a little bit more digging on is there more data or a case that we would be able to build to justify doing something different with age-restricted housing. to have that kind of loaded up and ready either for if we find compelling information, potentially for next year's update or certainly for that next major update. But you all make good points and I think it's worth looking into.

Does that sound good to you? No, it does.

I mean, I want to vote no, but I don't want to vote against the rating cruise either. So I guess I'll just move the motion to approve it.

We don't need to add direction in there. I mean, it's pretty much understood from the discussion that...

I'll second the motion.

Okay, there's a motion and a second to approve the item before us with unofficial direction to staff to take a closer look at this particular item and hopefully an update next year. Okay, great. There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion?

Roll call.

Roll call vote, please.

Perfect, now we got it. Supervisor Behrkamp, how do you vote?

Aye.

Supervisor Parlin, how do you vote? Aye. Supervisor Turnbull, how do you vote?

Aye.

Supervisor Ferrero, how do you vote? Aye. Supervisor Lane, how do you vote? Aye. Motion passes 5-0. Great discussion.

Thank you very much. Thank you guys very much.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Really good discussion. All right, we have a lot of closed session before us, so I would like to ask for the board to retire into closed session and knock a couple of those out before lunch. County Council, would you like to read that item?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. The board has seven items on its closed session agenda. It's more specifically identified on the agenda itself. I believe it's the board's intent to hear item one before lunch with the remaining items to be heard later in the day.

Perfect, thank you for that. We'll go ahead and go into closed session. Thank you. Good afternoon, El Dorado County and welcome. We are on item, well, we're on our open forum with the time allocation of 1 p.m. We'll now take public forum comments on any items that are not on today's agenda. Madam Clerk?

For public comment, each speaker will have three minutes to address the board. A timer will alert you when 30 seconds remain and again when your time has ended. We'll begin with comments from individuals present in the boardroom followed by those participating via Zoom. If you're joining via Zoom, please ensure you unmute yourself when called upon. If you're joining by phone, press star nine to raise your hand. If you're on Zoom, use the raise hand feature to indicate your interest in speaking. We ask that you voluntarily state your name for the record before beginning your comments.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Are there any members of the public that are here in the room with us today that wish to address the board on non-agenda items?

Chair Lane? Yeah. I think we need Supervisor Turumbo to join us.

Did somebody say, too, they're having trouble hearing? Hard to hear? Okay. Problems? Is this better? Better? Okay.

Thank you. I think we need to have Supervisor Turnbull join us.

We'll pause just for a moment. I don't see him.

We don't have to wait for him. We can just start.

Yeah, hopefully he'll join us.

Yeah.

Okay. Are you okay with us going forward? Okay. All right. Hopefully Supervisor Turnbull will be joining us via Zoom shortly. In the meantime, we'll go ahead and ask for public comments in the room. Welcome. All right.

Kate Armstrong, District 4 Constituent, President and CEO of Nonprofit Construction Corporation. I emailed Supervisor Lane, Supervisor Turnbull, and Supervisor Parlin of our California Housing Equity Accelerator Program. This isn't an affordable housing program, it's a housing needs program. So you'll have a lot of, you'll have our county, we're talking about affordable housing, right? None of that's gonna have anything to do with our constituents who need hardship homes, ADUs, single family home ownership, generational wealth building, increasing our tax base, and increasing upward mobility and wealth building in our community. We don't have the economic tools and logging and mining and any of those other aspects to help address affordable housing and home ownership as a constituent basis. You have capital A affordable housing. Rob Peters knows a lot about it and we're working on that stuff. I have requested one letter of support from Supervisor Parlin for that. Hopefully I'll get that sometime soon. I have letters of support from assembly member, Heather Hadwick, Cal CAPA, David Knight. He's reviewing that. He's gonna be sending us a letter of support as well. It's a great program. It's gonna increase the tax base here in El Dorado County. It incentivizes home ownership. With affordable housing situations you see with projects and developments, it's a band-aid. It doesn't help the constituents at all. They're relying on welfare government assistance and things that it's not good for them in the long run, right? They're supposed to get off of that, figure out how to build wealth, mobility, access for the families. That's what this program is all about. That's why I'm kind of honored to have at least one of our local supervisors support in it. I'd like to get a meeting where I'm not stranded to three minutes of public comment. I'm very well educated in this program. I developed it myself. It's here in our community. Supervisor Rearcamp, I've given you some cost breakdowns in one folder of some of that, but Champion and Skyline as well as Clayton Homes are dropping their factory costs more for this program. So we'll see more equity building, more wealth building for community members. I would like to get a public presentation. I mean, weigh in public comment, things like that. I've been working hard in this community for years, and I just want to take 30 minutes of your guys' time so you can ask me questions about the program, what it does for people. While this is happening, I already have Placer County looking at our memorandum of understanding. So they're already considering this program. And I don't want to just be stuck over there. This is my home community. It's where I was brought into. And I want to see all of our residents benefit. We have individuals getting hardship homes. They go down to a local retailer. They're getting quoted $163,000 for a 700 square foot manufactured home. That's supposed to be affordable. We're doing that project for them with permits and construction for $109,000. That's $70,000 cheaper, more affordable for that disabled person, that veteran, and in that community. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there other members of the public that would like to address the board? Please come forward. Good afternoon.

Beautiful day.

A week ago today, I took a drive down to Los Angeles, and this was called Operation Godstrike. I went down to pray specifically for certain things that God had put in my heart. A week ago today, I got to speak to the LA City Council for one minute, so I'm appreciative they get three here. But my message to LA, California, El Dorado County and America, United States of America, is this. Amend your crooked ways, Los Angeles, California, United States. Amend your ways, El Dorado County, and return to God Almighty. If you don't see what's going on in the world right now, Have your eyes open. Jesus Christ of Nazareth came to destroy the works of the devil. He didn't come to destroy the devil. He came to destroy his works. I used to be in a lot of works of the devil for 44 years until I got saved. The message is going to get better. For if you thoroughly amend your ways, God or out of county and your doings, if you thoroughly execute judgment between a man and neighbor, if you do not oppress the stranger, the fatherless and the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place or walk after other gods to your hurt, then I will cause you to dwell in this place in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever. Behold, you trust in lying words that cannot profit you. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Baal and walk after other gods whom you do not know? And then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, we are delivered to do all these things. The number one problem in America isn't politics. It's the spiritual condition in the churches, in religion. Come out of them, God says, my people. Come out of them, amongst them, my people. This is the blessing, guys. Hallelujah. The Lord bless you and keep you. May the Lord's face shine upon you. And may he be gracious to you, the Lord that lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace, shalom, salam. So they shall put my name on the children of Israel. Not a land, but people. And I will bless them. And I just, I'm excited about what God's doing in my life. And I implore you, I've seen too many people die over the last two months. I've seen too many people dying of overdoses, suicide. Get out of this place of the devil, man. Jesus Christ of Nazareth came to destroy the works of the devil. Peace, love, and joy. Thanks, Lars.

Thank you. Are there other members of the public that wish to address the board on non-agenda items? Seeing none, may we go online, please?

Now taking public comment from online participants. Now taking public comment from 390.

Well, good afternoon, board. This is Ken Greenwood, live from the Triple Junction out here off Slide Park Road. You know, I keep thinking about last week, and I haven't had a chance to hear the item 30 but I'm told by several people that there was a little bit of disrespect towards the public during your comments on that item particularly some towards me and it's kind of funny because you know we do need some a little bit of levity here but also get down to the facts if you will and And, you know, a couple of you have actually said that they appreciate this chitchat, if you will, I believe it was called. Anyway, very upset with item 30. And picture my Christmas trees. Remember that? One's so pretty, and that's the promise of efficient meetings. And then there's the other that gives the public the shaft, if you will. Works for wireless communications. Also works for this situation. Because that's what you guys have given us. Three minutes to comment on a bunch of different stuff on an agenda item is not enough. And it's just, it's irritating. And, you know, you guys are there because of us, not because of you. Okay? I believe the constitution is very clear and the county charter is very clear. The state of California's constitution is very clear as to who you work for. And it's very interesting that you're trying to get away from that instead of embrace it. And I find that just incredibly irritating. And I mean, the state Senate and the assembly, they've done it. I used to go to their hearings all the time. you were actually allowed to speak. But they don't do it anymore. They have maybe one or two people and then the rest of you line up like dogs, sled dogs lining up at a tree, if you will, to give their momentary presentation. Anyway, we're going to keep on this. I hope that we can hear more about it prior to six months going by, because this is not a great situation. Thank you very much, and think about it, please. See ya.

Thank you. Now taking a public comment from 525.

Am I there? Sorry. Yes, we can hear you. Yeah. So ditto to Ken's comments. I'm not going to read your good governance. I know you read it.

You keep lists about it.

But it tells you, apologize now. There is no business for you from the dais to do what you did at the last meeting. I love Ken's antidote. And if you can listen to a three-minute Bible lecture, which is okay. I don't mind a snow report now and then, so I hope you can say maybe we misspoke, all that. Mentor to us what you expect from us, mutual civil respect. I am extremely emotionally fragile now, so I'm just asking you understand that. But in that context, I have once again been able to experience, again, the heart of your staff. The way folks here rise above all the limitations of being in a rural county and way too many of your departments over in behavioral health and so forth, even the Placerville police left them. Everybody responding to somebody in a crisis mode, mental health, not the first time. So then we decided that let's send them to Sacramento, bigger county. I wish we hadn't. It'll all work out, I trust. and God and the family and everything. But my God, I sure miss the heart of El Dorado County. And in the context of item 30 and everything else I'm hearing, I again urge you, you're going to take a long break in July. Have a workshop.

Pick a topic where you want to learn from the citizens.

Get off that diet. Sit at the same level with the folks that chose you. I don't know how often you do it. I've seen it done other places.

It's so good for healing everything else.

And to return because Supervisor Parlin, who says, I'm going to say it, even though it upsets people, but it's not personal. It's just I went back and looked and she referenced when she was on the other side of the diet. And oh, my God, what a professional, good public advocate. What a skill set. I learned that from that video. But she said, you know, when I leave and if you start talking about me, I'm coming back. That's 12 years ago. And then I liked her comment. I'm urging you to consider. Maybe do open forum like now at 9 o'clock. I mean, you know, we would have some fun. Everything would be done. And then we can go on with our life plotting how to get back.

Common sense.

Warning you, I'm going to read in the honor of 250 years from that manual one day. Thank you for taking my comment.

Thank you.

Now taking public comment from Linda Campbell.

Linda Campbell, El Dorado Hills. First, I want to say I actually miss hearing Ken's ski report because, of course, the ski resorts closed right now. But sure, it's nice to think about snow. And Leo always has some Very interesting ideas that he provides to you. Hopefully you take them into account. I also want to speak in regards to the unanimous vote last week against public engagement. None of the data supported the benefit. All of the people that spoke were in support of returning to the prior engagement per agenda item. Every week you have an opportunity to propose the change. I hope you do that soon and not continue to position yourselves against the public. Hope that you start to listen to us and not even even more than that to show that we have value to you. So thank you.

Thank you.

Now taking public comment from Sue.

Hey. Am I on? Yes, we can hear you. Okay. So I wanted to call about process. And I mean, I know a lot of you pretty personally, unfortunately. And so it's really frustrating to me on intent. And, you know, these people that are just calling in that read the agenda, read the items, do research, call you in to say things and tell you things that they've seen. You don't want to hear them. You want to just listen to the staff and follow their recommendations, and then you don't really have to think about much. And going from that point, all five of you said, we don't like that the senior housing projects are not paying their fair share. We should do something about it. And instead of doing something about it, you let staff talk you into putting it off for, what, five-year, another five-year review. When we get to that, we'll do it. All they had to do is take off that special category and then it would be morphed into what everybody else is paying. It was a very simple fix, but yet you're either buffaloed or that's the show that you actually want to show that we cared, but we might get in trouble with somebody without any documentation, information. I mean, you're not following most of the requirements that you have for road capacity. Again, you're allowing huge developments to go in areas that are high fire areas. You don't seem to have concern for these people that, especially in my district, what's going to happen to those folks that are being heavily impacted in a high fire area, which also impacts George Turnpoo's district for trying to get any egress out of there. And every time these things come up, you say, well, you know, gee, I guess we really can't do anything today, but maybe in five years we can do something. Is that how everything's going to roll for the rest of your terms? Because it's really kind of sad. And I would hope that you start working for the people that are in your district that live here, that you said you would represent, that you said you would follow the general plan, and that you would fix these things that have been overseen or overlooked. intentionally for all these decades. We're losing our rural essence. Everybody that's moving here, they don't care about what family you came from or what generation you are. They don't care about our culture. Anyway, I'll just ask that you might start stepping up and representing us. Thank you.

Thank you.

There is no additional public comment.

Okay, I'll go ahead and close our open forum at this time and thank everybody who participated. I'd like to move to our 1 o'clock appeal, which is item 41. This comes from the Planning Commission, and this is the Serrano Village M5 project. Ms. Dawson, well, let me go ahead and open the public hearing, and then Ms. Dawson, if you would read this item into the record for us.

Item 41 is a hearing to consider three separate appeals received from one, Dean Goetz, two, Gary Kinghorn, and three, Tara McCain, appealing the Planning Commission's May 14th, 2026 approval of tentative subdivision map plan... development permit Serrano Village M5 subdivision of an existing 8.42 acre lot into 10 residential lots in the Eldorado Hills area. Staff recommending the board take the following action. One, uphold the planning commission's approval of a tentative subdivision map plan development permit and based on the findings of approval adopted by the planning commission and as may be modified by the board, to uphold the planning commission's finding that the project is statutorily exempt from the CEQA guidelines. Written public comments received by 4 p.m. on the day prior to today's meeting were distributed to all board members and included with this agenda item.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. I'd like to welcome our Planning and Building Department, who will be a large part of this staff presentation, as well as County Council, who are here with us today. I want to mention that this is a very unusual appeal for us and that there are three different appellants on this particular item. We're going to be rather regimented today on how we hear this appeal. We will ask for a staff presentation first to start things off. Then we will ask Mr. Goetz, who is one of the appellants to present to the board, followed by Mr. Kinghorn, followed by Ms. McCain. All three of the appellants, including the staff report, you'll each be given a 10 minute allocation of time. We will then have Serrano Associates, who is the applicant. He has a 30 minute response. We will then take questions and comments from the board, public comment from the public, and then we'll bring it back and go in reverse order for concluding comments. Each entity will be allowed five minutes. We'll start with Serrano, then we'll go to Ms. McCain, Mr. Kinghorn, Mr. Goetz, and finally closing comments from staff before we bring it back to the board for deliberation. So just wanted everyone to know how we were going to kind of run this today. So I'd like to turn this over to planning and building staff and county council.

Okay.

Good? All right.

good afternoon madam chair and members of the board of supervisors my name is cameron welch senior planner and the assigned staff planner for the toronto village m5 project before you today are three appeals of the same project tentative map 25003 and plan development 25005 or toronto village m5 Serrano Village M5 is a request that would subdivide one existing 8.42 acre lot into 10 residential lots ranging in size from 20,018 square feet to 73,063 square feet and four landscaping lots ranging in size from 435 to 3,484 square feet to create 10 single family residential units Furthermore, design waivers are requested from the County Design and Improvement Standards Manual, or the DSM, for modification of Standard Plan 101b, roadway right-of-way and improvement widths, and Standard Plan 110 to allow for an entry gate and landscaping median. These waivers are typical for all subdivisions within the El Dorado Hills Specific Plan, hereby, herein called the EDHSP or Specific Plan for this presentation. The plan development request is to ensure consistency with the existing specific plan. This project is for a 10-lot residential subdivision map plan development and design waivers. This project does not include a rezoned general plan amendment nor specific plan amendment. The M5 site is on the west side of Appian Way at the intersection with San Giovese Drive located in the northwest corner of the El Dorado Hills specific plan within the El Dorado Hills area. The site was rough graded and stabilized in 2022 for previously approved onsite grading and improvement plans. The project site is otherwise sloped ranging from 5% to 40% slope with the primary vegetation on site being native grasses, while there is a cluster of small oak trees located at the southern end of the property. The EDHSP and the final EIR for the EDHSP were approved and adopted by the Eldorado County Board of Supervisors on July 18th, 1988, and it was designed to be consistent with and represent a refinement and expansion of the Eldorado Hills Salmon Falls Area Plan. The specific plan approved 6,162 dwelling units on approximately 4,000 acres of property with a maximum net density total of 3.05 dwelling units per acre. At this time, it is projected that approximately 4,765 total dwelling units will be developed in the Toronto community at build-out, of which approximately 4,500 have been constructed at this time, while approximately 75 additional units are approved but not yet fully constructed. Current build-out of the residential component of the EDHSP is approximately 96%. Furthermore, the zoning, including single-unit residential and open space, and the planned development and combining zoning overlay, or PD overlay, were implemented soon after specific plan adoption. Regarding density transfers, the number of dwelling units in any of the residential neighborhoods or any of the villages may vary within the specific plan provided that the following criteria are not exceeded. The density for the village permitted by the Eldorado Hills Simon Falls area plan of five dwelling units per acre the total allowed dwelling units of six thousand one hundred sixty two and the total the total gross and net densities of the specific plan that being one point five eight dwelling units per acre gross and three point zero five billion units per acre net It is noted that the M5 project would not cause any of these metrics to be exceeded, therefore not needing a specific plan amendment. Large lot tentative map TM01-1381 was approved in 2002 and were recorded in 2004. Previous iterations of Village M5 include a similar small lot tentative subdivision map and plan development revision that were approved by the Planning Commission in 2007. But a final map was never recorded and the tentative map and PD revision eventually expired in 2023. And a proposed 20 lot residential tentative subdivision map plan development and reason was considered but ultimately denied by your board last year. Access to the proposed lots and units would be by new roads into the subdivision, beginning with an extension of San Giovese Drive from Appian Way and two cul-de-sacs streets, providing access to the individual lots and units. Water and sewer service for the project will be provided by EID, and electricity and gas will be provided by PG&E.

Can I ask that you just slow down a little bit? I'm having a hard time hearing everything. Can anybody else hear the reverb?

Yeah, microphone.

It's killing it is the time, honestly.

We'll try speaking directly into the mic and then just slow down a little bit and I think it'll come through a little clearer.

I'll give my best shot. For CEQA, as this project is a residential project and part of an adopted specific plan, this project is statutorily exempt from requirements of CEQA pursuant to section 15182, projects pursuant to a specific plan stating that a residential project is exempt where a public agency has prepared an EIR on a specific plan after January 1st, 1980. Next slide, please. Before reading the recommendation, staff would like to briefly go over the topics brought up by the appellants and by the public comments received, which are Attachments A through C, Staff Memo Attachment D, Appeal Narrative Amendment Attachment Number 16, and Attachments 14, 15, and 17. The combined appeals centered around four topics. Lot H within Toronto Village J7 that is owned by the Eldorado Hills Community Services District. Concerned about either the review process, prior approval, or state regulations. The DOT review press and or condition 30 for an always stop to be constructed prior to the final map and CEQA. All staff believes that the prepared staff memo covers the appellant raised items with sufficient explanation. Brief high-level staff responses are as follows. Regarding Serrano Village J7 lot H, a memo from 2019 is referenced that focuses on an outdated Serrano obligation to construct a park at the Serrano Village J lot H location. Subsequently, an agreement was signed on August 4th, 2020 at the request of the community service district and signed by Serrano and El Dorado County to dedicate the 12.5 acre Village J lot H park site to the community services district. This agreement satisfied the Parkland obligations of the EDH-specific plan. Regarding review process and prior approvals, the applicant, in addition to the attendance HUD division map application and the PD application, initially filed for a rezone, Z250006, in September 2025. However, after the rezone filing, but before formal project consideration by the Planning Commission, it is determined that the PD overlay already existed on site. Therefore, it was determined that the zone change application was redundant and not necessary. The application for the zone change, therefore, was voided and removed from product consideration. Also, there is never a general plan amendment filed for any iteration of the M5 project, including this current project. With state regulations, the US Army Corps of Engineers did issue a master developer individual permit in 1991, which covered the entirety of the surrounding development and authorized impact to certain wetlands prior to the 2004 permit expiration. The developer did record a series of declaration of restrictions for wetland preserve and wildlife habitat in 2016, one of those documents being on lots 1 and 2 of Sorano Village M5. Regarding traffic concerns and the all-ways stop, a transportation impact study was required. This is an attachment I, the Sorano Village M5 access and local circulation analysis. to evaluate traffic operations at the Silla Valley Parkway and Appian Way intersection stop control and the site distance to the Appian Way San Giovese Drive intersection. The Planning Commission acted within their appointed discretion when they declined guidance supplied by DOT representatives by choosing to modify Condition 30 and temporarily eliminate a requirement for an always stop at that intersection and gave direction to analyze and apply traffic calling measures sometime in the future. Your Board has similar discretion with the de novo appeal hearing to reestablish DOT's Condition 30 to require the applicant construct an always stop prior to file map recordation should you so choose. Regarding CEQA, as previously stated, staff maintains that the M5 project before your board today is statutorily exempt from this requirements of CEQA pursuant to section 15182. In accordance with CEQA subsection 21166, subsequent supplemental impact report conditions, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report was determined necessary because none of the following occurred for the Toronto Village M5 proposal. Substantial changes for the proposed project, which would require major revisions of the EIR, substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken, which would require major revisions in the EIR, and new information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified as complete. Most public comments received since the posting of the agenda item have centered around traffic and CEQA. Whilst the staff responses just mentioned were geared toward the appellant's topic, staff believes that the staff's responses just mentioned, as well as more detailed responses in the prepared staff memo, are applicable to the topics brought up by the public as well. In conclusion, staff has determined that the proposed M5 project is consistent with the EDHSP, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Subdivision Map Act. Therefore, staff recommends that the board take the following actions as shown on the screen. This concludes staff's presentation at this time and is available to answer any questions your board members may have. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now ask for Mr. Goetz to please come forward as one of the appellants. You also have a 10 minute allocation to present to the board. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Supervisors. My name is Dean Goetz. I had attached to today's public agenda a formal evidentiary submission that was a five-page statement of facts and 14 supporting exhibits. I have narrowed that down to the portion of the administrative record that I think best explains what you need to understand today. In other words, I'm not here to read to you every document that supports what I'm presenting. I am here to do my very best to make you understand the severe financial liability you're stepping into as the Board of Supervisors by voting yes on the Serrano M5 map and continuing specifically the ongoing fee credit discount on a permit by permit basis in the Serrano specific plan subdivision. You are being asked to authorize an illegal ongoing public subsidy. That is by statutory schedule. The standard park impact fee for every new home in El Dorado Hills is $13,495 today. But for the units in Serrano Village M5 that we're considering today, the developer is continuing to ask you to assess $7,215 per unit. They are asking you to apply to the park impact fee portion of the development impact that this body levies a 46% discount. I think the first thing to make sure you understand is what that discount is for. That is because historically the developer was required to and promised to in exchange for a fee reduction to build the park system turnkey in the Serrano-specific plan. That is detailed in a number of documents, specifically the El Dorado Hill-specific plan, its financing documents, the development agreement, and so on. That is documented in the CSD's NEXUS study. In exchange for the discount, they would build the neighborhood which could be public or private, the district and the community parks required to fulfill the CEQA mitigation. The packet that I handed out to you that's much shorter than what I put on the administrative record, I would urge you to look at the second page. The second page is an excerpt out of the financing plan that says, upon the completion of the respective park improvements at these sites by the developer. Again, the CSD shall, which is a mandate, be dedicated by the developer to the CSD upon the completion of the respective park improvements at these sites. That is the limiting language. To get passed upon the completion would be to do something other than what the CEQA originally contemplated. As we all now know, the contract was breached in 2020. The developer completely abandoned the last turnkey park obligation that is at Village J, Lot H. Instead, they handed a dirt lot and $3.5 million from an exhausted Melrose fund. I say exhausted because there was a limit on how much Melrose was available for parks. They left the remaining amount to build the park on the CSD and its taxpayers. So let's be clear about how environmental law works. The original CEQA mitigation was for a fully built turnkey park and there was never a CEQA amendment. There was no supplemental EIR to legally downgrade that environmental mitigation to dirt and some cash. It was an illegal backroom slop in my opinion. Furthermore the agreement had a strict funding cap on Melrose funds for the park and the cap was there for a reason Because the developer to this day has been getting rooftop by rooftop fee credits for building those very same parks There's absolutely no benefit to lifting the Melrose cap for the public and making the public who already paid for this park through fee cap waivers pay for it again you are illegally forcing the taxpayers to pay for the very same park a second time just to bail the developer out of a private obligation so i turn to exhibit m in the packet i shared with you today and that is the staff zone report The staff's own report in response to what I had provided them at the time was A1 and A2, which both identify the 2020 agreement resolves the responsibility to dedicate 12 and a half acres of the Village J Park site, which reading between the lines is not to improve it, but to provide the raw dirt. Well, that may be a true statement, but it's only half of the responsibility. The staff admits in A3, which I'm not providing you here today, that the obligation to construct the park, whatever it may cost, falls to the CSD and its taxpayers. Even though the staff admits the mandate is dead and the obligation has been shifted, the developer, who no longer has the responsibility to build the park, is still being offered provided more fee credits. Think about that. What are they getting more free credits for when all their obligations are done? How are the county planning folks trying to continue to process discounts at the permit counter? Because under the Mitigation Fee Act, you're granting millions of dollars in waivers. Those that would have been otherwise tracked had to be tracked through your AB 1600 reports on a dollar for dollar basis. They're just disappearing. I provided you Exhibit N. It's a City of Brentwood's example, and the City of Brentwood does a very good job of identifying the Mitigation Fee Act requires fee credits to be tracked, and it also shows tracking them. Exhibit G shows that the CSD which is repeated by the county presents a $0 ledger for fee credits to this day in fact my emails between Mr.. Harn and Others have documented that the fee credits have never been tracked and So you don't have a ledger with fee credits tracked, which would be otherwise a phantom ledger. The county is permanently, through a text discount on the fee schedule, handing out the public's money by foregoing it. And even if it doesn't come to Joharn in cash, he's still responsible for tracking it on a dollar-for-dollar basis. I cited that government code section of his responsibility. But I'm not giving you my personal opinion, I'm giving you Mr. Harn's opinion. Mr. Harn has written about this extensively in multiple places, but I provided to you my exhibit L, which is an excerpt out of Joe Harn's letter from December 2024. And he writes that in February of 2020, the Board of Supervisors with EDH's support denied his appeal, and he goes on to explain that the The park was given up by the supervisors in that very moment. The decision to agree to a condition remains baffling to him. Why, to this day, that was accepted, giving up the community's quote right under the 1989 development agreement to a park 100% funded by the developer. I will close on the life of this project. The accumulation appears to be almost $30 million in public fee subsidies left in the developer's wallet. back of the napkin because there is no tracking uh there are 13 private parks neighborhood parks that were put in generously a million dollars each which i mean would be very generous in my opinion would get you 13 million that leaves a gap of 16 and a half million dollars of missing public money for which you're adding to today with 10 more lots This is a dead contract, an empty ledger. And I urge you as I'm standing here today to get to the bottom of the accounting for that and not to approve any additional fee credits. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Goetz. Mr. Kinghorn, you also appealed this and you have 10 minutes to present to the board.

thank you chair lane members of the board i'm gary kinghorn i'm appearing today as a resident of serrano el dorado hills i'm also a member of the el dorado hills community services district So this appeal is not based in opposition to the 10 homes or demanding a rejection of the project. I'm just asking the board to remand the project back to the planning commission for additional review to resolve identified environmental infrastructure and procedural deficiencies before reconsideration. And as some of the deficiencies will likely extend Beyond this project, I'm asking for the county to do a transparent accounting of what mitigation and historically promised was historically promised. What has been delivered, what obligations remain outstanding and how those obligations have been modified over time. It's remarkable that along with two other appellants, a planning commissioner who heard the same evidence and voted in the minority has now submitted a written rationale expressing many of the same concerns regarding procedural integrity, environmental review, and the continued reliance on decades old planning assumptions. I'm going to focus on three areas, the removal of DOT condition 30, the park and infrastructure impacts and mitigation, much of which Mr. Gist just covered, and the changed circumstances under the specific plan they need addressing. First, the strongest procedural issue before the board involves the condition of approval number 30. DOT required that an all-way stop sign would be placed at Appian Way in San Giovese. The Planning Commission removed that condition during deliberations. The fair and peers traffic engineering report recommends the always stop sign, not based on congestion delay or traffic volume. It recommends the stop because of vertical geometry on Appian way creates a limited site distance at the proposed intersection. This is a fixed physical condition. It's not something that can be revisited in 12 months after traffic patterns are better understood as proposed by one of the planning commissioners. Staff said that the Planning Commission had discretion to decline guidance from DOT and remove condition 30. Discretion, however, is not the same as evidence. There is no substantial engineering evidence supporting removal of a traffic safety condition recommended by DOT in a six-figure traffic engineering report. Engineering analysis exists for protection of both the public and the county, and when the county's own consultant recommends a safety measure because of permanent site distance constraints, removing that recommendation should be supported by documented engineering analysis. I requested records of such engineering analysis and found no discussion, revised traffic analysis, or documented justification for the public record. Commissioner Williams also in the written minority report concludes that the commission removed the DOT's recommendation without alternative analysis and that additional traffic evaluation is warranted. Second, the planning commission's approval relies heavily on assumptions that all parkland dedication and public facility obligations under the specific plan and related development agreement have been fully satisfied. They have not. The staff report references a 2020 agreement purporting to confirm the satisfaction of those obligations. The grand jury went into depth and noted several issues with that odd agreement and reported so in their 2024 report. And it has been the subject of significant public controversy. The developer applicant was required to build the 12 and a half acre park Mr. Goetz mentioned. But this particular agreement removed that obligation for virtually no consideration at the time. That park, one of three documented in the Serrano-specific plan and funded out of the Melaruse funds, has never been built. Staff even reported that this was a very questionable and problematic agreement. However, there was no legal basis to have it voided. I would point out that the general manager of the CSD who signed off on that agreement was in Placerville last week facing his own three felony accounts, felony indictments. But nevertheless, the people of El Dorado Hills have been severely shortchanged and yet developer plans and build out continues without mitigation. So it's the county's responsibility to ensure developer agreement obligations are met, yet the county has never established a meaningful compliance monitoring system for this specific plan over the past four decades. Additional concerns, as mentioned by Mr. Gates, have to do with the park impact fee disparities and ongoing maintenance contributions. I will point out that all of these homes will be put into an inactive LLAD program Which means that the CSD doesn't receive any maintenance funds for the public parks within Serrano Which directly impacts our general fund and our ability to do other programs and recreation so The cumulative effect is that the people have been short changed and. We would like a public accounting from the county on. On these details so third under the sequence statutory exemptions must be narrowly construed and substantial evidence must support the conclusion that the approved project remains consistent with the environmental assumptions. The record does not demonstrate that the county adequately evaluated whether the current project remains fully within the scope of the impacts previously analyzed. 40 years later, there's changes in land use patterns, traffic conditions, and the village M density primarily has changed from 37 lots to 166. Staff's rebuttal to my appeal indicated I provided no new evidence for any changes to the 40-year-old CEQA. Ignoring that fact, the onus is really on staff to show how it hasn't changed, but the village M density increasing by 400% warrants an updated environmental review. Staff's current analysis reduces the specific plan consistency to merely a simple arithmetic or spreadsheet exercise, saying that the total number of homes within the Sorano specific plan remains under 6,162, ignoring the fact that the Village M density has changed by that 400%, and that the physical assumptions of a rural context no longer exist. But this is about the process going forward. The county can't continue to push projects through by relying on a 40-year-old environmental review. There was no Bass Lake specific plan, there was no Valley View specific plan, there was no interchange at Silver Valley, and on and on. At some point, continued reliance on a decades-old environmental assumption becomes increasingly difficult to justify. So in conclusion, the appeal really isn't about these 10 homes, it's about confidence in the process, confidence that environmental assumptions remain valid, confidence that infrastructure commitments are being honored, confidence that engineering recommendations are changed only on the basis of factual evidence, confidence that the public can trust that growth in El Dorado Hills is being managed transparently and responsibly. Suffice to say that that confidence has been shaken. Three separate residents independently appealed and filed three separate appeals. The planning commissioner chimed in reviewing the same evidence, has now issued his written minority report expressing many of the same concerns. We may all disagree on the legal theory, but there's clearly enough concern from both the public and within the commission itself to justify taking one step back and ensuring this record is complete before moving forward. I asked the board to grant the appeal and remand the project back to the planning commission for further review. And finally, I would like to make one broader point for the record. Regardless of the outcome of this project, I believe there is a growing disconnect between continued build out under the Eldorado Hills specific plan and the public's understanding of what infrastructure, parks, and community facilities were intended to accompany that growth. I hope this board will commit to a transparent public accounting of the specific plan compliance infrastructure obligations and long-term mitigation commitments before the remaining phases of Serrano are approved. And I look forward to working with the board and engaging you in that effort. Thank you.

Thank you. um will miss mccain please come forward you also have 10 minutes to present to the board welcome hi good uh good afternoon madam chair and members of the board

Before we start the clock, let me get situated here. Let me get my notes. Okay, we can start. All right, first of all, I'm going to be talking fast. As Cameron said, excuse me, the other appellant said, I'm not going to be reading everything. It's in the files that were sent up. It's in the project. It's in the record. What I am going to do is try to emphasize why this appeal is structured the way it is. unprecedented, three appeals on this project, which may seem like a seemingly small project, but it spotlights, it magnifies the problems going on in the county and how we're not following the processes and we're putting the county under liability So first of all, I want to just really quickly, I don't have a whole lot of time, but some fatal flaws that Cameron Welch mentioned. There are some changes in the conditions in the staff report after project approval. Did anybody catch that? Is that allowed? So the original standard plan that was asked for a waiver, the project cited standard plan 110. It was changed because I called out 110 is a concrete plan. a paved concrete apron over a commercial driveway. It's the wrong standard. It was material incorrect to cite that standard. The standard is 103D, which I believe you just heard Cameron say it was corrected. So the project corrected that. That right there should remand the project back because the waiver for B was not even correctly approved. and he just changed it based on my calling it out that it was incorrectly. Anyway, I'm going to move forward because I have very little time. And then Cameron mentioned categorically exempt. How is it categorically exempt if we have a CEQA document on the original master plan? It's a 47-year-old EIR. This is a CEQA project. So how can it be categorically exempt? And then he's stating in his staff supplemental change that you have to redo the whole EIR. No, the revision for the whole EIR doesn't have to be done. It's a supplemental EIR that's being requested. And those are very commonly done when you have projects like that that leave out engineering drawings for the waivers that have significant impacts. Also, one thing I'm going to mention on the zoning application that was removed, 25006, There was no void stamped on it. So confusion of the public was that it was listed under e-track. It was produced as a TMPD and a Z, a Z-25006. So, yes, I understand that a PD is a zoning document, but it's a zoning document because it's in a specific plan that's got a CEQA document.

Okay.

I'm here today to formally appeal the approval of this project, specifically the critical unvetted easements on Apian Way. Let me be entirely clear from the outset. My appeal is not merely a complaint about the application of a four-way stop or a two-way stop. The proposed last minute shift is simply the breaking point, the final chaotic tipping point of a worst case public safety scenario. What we are witnessing here is a dangerous attempt to force a modern high density master plan project footprint onto a physically constrained collector road, Apian Way, To understand why this layout is a disaster, we must look at the four compounding elements that have brought us to this crisis. Element one, we have an outdated, almost 40-year-old specific plan that's been case law tested. This specific plan is almost 40 years old, but the EIR, the CEQA document, that is not exempt from CEQA law, is 48 years old, 46 years old, almost 47 years old. Think about that reality. The county is attempting to evaluate traffic safety, circulation, and environmental impacts based on an EIR from nearly half a century ago. The 1988 specific plan never anticipated modeling, modeled or evaluated the massive influx of residential growth that has completely reshaped the area, treating this localized application as an isolated low impact minor modification. Element two, flawed density transfers and infrastructure neglect. While private unit numbers were scaled upwards on paper, the physical capacity of the public collector road, Apian Way, removed stagnant. However, these density modifications were granted on paper without requiring the corresponding off-site infrastructure upgrades to handle them. Let me give you an example. During the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant's representative misleadingly testified that the project would only generate about two AM trips per day. That is a mathematical distraction. It completely omits the reality of this location. The developer is dropping a brand new intersection leg directly into a bottleneck that already handles almost 6,000 combined daily vehicle trips. Citing your own Fear and Peer report from December 25, 3,946 vehicle trips per day for AP and Way. Almost 2,000 serve for San Giovese. That drops almost 6,000 vehicle trips per day on that intersection. You won't see that today in July because school's out, people are on vacations. It is a very different scenario. But go there in August. Go there when school's back, and you will see that backed up all the way to Silva Valley. I have video. I sent it up to the board, and I sent it to Serrano & Associates. Now, element three, unaltered topographic and geometric road constraints, which has already been very well put out there, so I won't go through too much of it for time's sake. But we do have original conditions of approval was a four-way stop to accommodate this village M5, forcing fast-moving public traffic to have to stop on a sweeping curved road with very limited sight distance. Based on the permanent physical constraints, stopping sight distance is already severely limited. There's no question. Farron Pierce states that in the report, sight distance is constrained due to the topography geometry of apian wave. That way can't be changed. The project was approved in... The project was approved, I can't even read my writing there. Oh, leaving a two-way stop is an alternative. Let me correct that misconception right now. A two-way stop is equally a failed opportunity. It would force complex, conflicting vehicle movements across four legs of an intersection under these exact limited visibility conditions. Element four, conflicting grid controls and high-risk traffic queues. The design forces dangerous clash between public infrastructure and private security networks. Apian Way is a critical public collector. San Giovese Drive, proposed Village M5, are private legs regulated by mechanical security gates. It is not uncommon to have 10-minute backups at the security gates. We're talking now of having a... And whether it's four-way controlled or two-way controlled, you've got two gates, private gates now, that are going to be controlling the queues for this four-legged intersection. What that's going to do is it's going to push, spill traffic back onto Apian Way, create dangerous rear-end sideswipe collision potential opportunities there. The worst case scenario, the unlawful, unengineered design waiver, compounding all of this is a severe prejudicial violation. A developer requested and was granted a design waiver for this critical non-standard easement connection to AP and Waste. Shockingly, the waiver was approved without any engineering plans. In my packet, the policy for the waiver states what they have violated, all four conditions. The approval simply states the final design will be as directed by DOT. How can the board and the planning commission or the public properly evaluate environmental and public safety impacts when no engineered plans currently exist for this waiver? Having a high-risk connection on a limited visibility curve based on an undefined waiver bypasses public oversight and engineering scrutiny. Conclusion. We praise good development, but we must stop hazardous planning. I urge the board to grant the appeal, deny the un-engineered design waivers, and remand the project back to the Planning Commission and the DOT for proper discretionary processing and the legal mandated supplemental EIR. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, at this time, we'd like to hear from the applicant, Serrano Associates, LLC. Your comments, you will be given a 30 minute allocation. To those in the audience, it seems like that's a lot, but it's basically with three appellants, it gives them time to go through each of those topics. So welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Supervisor Turnbull, it looks like you're on the mend.

Go ahead.

Okay, good for you. A couple comments. First, Dave Robinson from Barron Piers is a panelist, and he's available to take questions if you...

I'm sorry.

I'll try to get as close as I can.

Maybe raise the podium. Yeah, maybe a little bit.

How's that? Is that better?

There's a button there. You can raise the podium. Oh, there's a button.

Okay. Oh, wow.

That's a good time. Cracking a beer.

I don't think I'll need it, but we just took 30 seconds to do that, but we'll try to keep it short. Again, Dave Robinson from Fair Pairs is a panelist. I heard his name referenced, and he's certainly available to the extent your DOT staff can't answer any questions on traffic issues. I want to touch on a land use issue first. And your staff report, the Planning Commission staff report, beginning on page two, which is entitled Background. If you've got it in front of you there, I don't know if you can put it up on the screen or not, Rob, but it provides a pretty very good analysis of the Village M situation and the North Uplands. And when the Serrano project, the El Dorado Hill specific plan was approved, it was divided into four neighborhoods. This happens to be in the north uplands part of it. At the time the El Dorado Hill specific plan was approved, for simplicity's sake, I'll just say the Highland Hills, Highland View people, I may have the name, those projects were all zoned agriculture. And County came in, and so the specific plan which the county approved a long time ago matched those agricultural uses. Well, the county came back and rezoned that, I think in the late 90s, and so after that happened, We proceeded in the early 2000s to begin to map and match them, if you follow what I'm saying. But the constraint on the number of units, which I've heard a lot of people talk about, is in what's allowed in the north upland sewer, of which M is a part. And if you go to page three of the Planning Commission report, it shows that even with these additional 10 lots, we're under the allocation that's there for the north uplands. I think it's about... I don't know. 1954 is allowed in North Uplands. With this project, I think we get about 1875. So we're under what's allowed. So I just want to make that clear. And there was a lot of conversation about that. But again, the dynamic was Tony Manseur actually matched what was up there. And then the county came back and Satute and a couple other folks changed the zoning. And you'll see it in a couple of the other project maps. Those lots that are in the staff report in one of the exhibits, I can't remember which one it was. They were agricultural lots at the time the project was approved. So we began to do some rezoning to match what was approved by the county in the Highland Hills project in the early 2000s. And we process three or four or five tentative maps that reflected that change. The last approval was the 2007 approval that's been referred to for the first 10 unit project. So I wanna be clear about that. The other issue that I've heard mentioned is CEQA and I'll leave the details to Mike, but the staff report provides a completely adequate and appropriate representation of the CEQA analysis that's in there. But Mike will elaborate on that. The other issue that popped up and has been mentioned is four-way stop. There was a lot of discussion about that at Planning Commission. We have no position on whether it should be a four-way stop or not be a four-way stop. We would defer to the experts on that. And that's either our traffic engineers or your engineers. It's just not anything that we're qualified to judge. I think I heard some comments about the... Design waivers, we have been processing design waivers that look like what's in front of your package now for over 30 years. I don't know that any one of them has never been approved. And the challenge is you've got a one-size-fits-all improvement standard called the DISM for the entire county. It just doesn't work for what we're trying to accomplish in Serrano. And every time we submit an application with design waivers, they are reviewed by your Department of Transportation And at least as importantly as by the fire department, there's never been any contention that they're not appropriate or not allowed. The other issue that I just want to briefly touch on is the queuing that occurs at the gate. And I know Supervisor Ferrero is concerned about that. I just want to make it clear that that gate is owned and operated by the owners association. We can work with them. But it's nothing that we can directly control. We can't walk into a room and say, you got to do something different here. We were happy to make that have that conversation. I think with that. And I don't know if you wanna talk about the queuing now or you wanna wait till later or however you wanna proceed, I'll leave it up to you. But what I'd like to do at this point is to have Mike Cook come up, talk about the park issues. And there's really two park issues. One is the agreement and one is the fees. We think those are settled issues, but Mike will provide you a lot more detail on that. And then Mike will provide you some information on CEQA and those issues being raised. And I want to make it clear that we can help. We're willing to be part of the solution on the queuing issues I've expressed to several of you in the last couple of days.

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. Mike Cook from Hefner Stark-Murray on behalf of the applicant. There's a lot of issues and a lot of material that's been submitted to you, and I've waded my way through it over the last... a number of days and weeks and appreciated hearing from the appellants today, although there are three different kind of approaches. So we'll do our best to respond. Before I get to my presentation, Mr. Goetz indicated to you that you needed to be worried and that you were getting yourself into liability and the developer is asking for a credit today. We're not asking for any credits today. We asked for credits in 2019 and we got them because we were entitled to them. And those were credits against the park fees, those of you that were around back in those days. It was a very simple matter. The CSD charges a park impact mitigation fee, and there are various components of that fee, neighborhood parks, village parks, district parks, community park, regional park, and sometimes like a pool or a community center. And they assign dollar amounts, and there's percentages of the overall fee, say it's $10,000, there's some percentage of that 10,000 goes to the pool, and some percentages goes to the neighborhood park, et cetera. Because Serrano built some of those components, mainly 29 acres of neighborhood parks, the Allen Lindsay Park and the Village Green Park, the CSD was obligated under the law to recognize We're collecting fees for those very types of facilities and you're building those facilities We can't charge you the fee and accept the facility. Otherwise, we'd be paying twice Mr. Goetz has come up with what I believe is a novel theory where he's alleging that the taxpayers are paying twice. No, they're not the developer is is delivering a constructed facilities and getting credits for those constructed facilities. He then alleges that the developer is keeping money in his pocket. We're not keeping any money in our pocket. We're spending the money for the facilities in advance and then getting credits back. So hopefully I've stated that clearly. To go through my presentation I i've started working in Toronto and about 1995 in 1998 I took over as the primary land use Council when another guy named bill holloman who is in house retired and, as a result i've been around for. 30 years. By the way, our EIR, if you did the math, our EIR is not 47 years old or approaching 50. It's 37 years old. But it's irrelevant. The EIR was for a specific plan, and it still controls, which I'll come back to later. As a result of being around for that long and as a result of this being a specific plan i've attended literally dozens of hearings. On the Toronto project every subdivision in Toronto so every lot, which is included within a subdivision came before. Either the planning Commission and, in some cases, got appealed or came naturally to the board. Because that is the way this project processed, it got reviewed all the time. We were here three, four times a year having subdivision maps processed. And in each occasion, the county staff presented to you or to your planning commissioners The underlying facts about those subdivisions, compliance with the specific plan, how we were doing in terms of density transfers, et cetera, none of this was done in the dark. Everything about this project has been processed through county, through normal county processes. In addition, we had a development agreement from 1989 through 2009. we had 14 separate development agreement check-ins with the county, including a massive check-in in 2008, just before the development agreement expired. you're listening to people either insinuate or state, the county has not been checking up on us. Well, you were checking up on us all the time through both the hearings and through these development agreement reviews. And in that massive review in 2008, we had to prove up that we had the appropriate amount of tree cover remaining. We had to prove that we had the appropriate amount of parks with the exception of the one that was still to be built at that time, the Village J Park, which is in controversy and I'll talk about. We had to prove we had the appropriate amount of open space and on and on and on. And we came through all of those reviews having been in compliance. So for anyone to say now, hold up this little 10 unit map until we find out if these guys are in compliance is insulting. First of all, we've been reviewed 20 times, 30 times, 60 times in connection with all of these different reviews and approvals. In terms of the parks, the parks are settled issues that are trying to be regurgitated or mixed together to make it seem like something new so that there can be an argument that we have failed to do something. It's not the case. At the inception of this project, we agreed that we would build parks and the CSD in turn agreed that they would give us credits against the park fee for those components that we were building. In 2018, they updated their fee, and under the same general manager that the appellants referenced, They, out of nowhere, and far as I was concerned, told us, you're no longer entitled to a fee credit. And we said, well, that's ridiculous. We're building parks. You can't charge us for the parks and accept the ones we're giving you. Nope. So we appealed to you or your predecessors. And Don Ashton at that time was the CAO. He hired a third party. The report is in your packet. It's a lengthy report about what Serrano had done and what the CSD had done in terms of developing their park fee program and that third-party consultant came it up with the recommendation that no Serrano is entitled to a credit and here are the specific dollar amounts of credit and here's what that fee should be and in turn this board adopted resolution 116-2019 which established the fee within Serrano Under the Mitigation Fee Act, if anybody had a problem with that determination of what that fee was, they had a limited period to challenge it. We accepted it. CSD accepted it. They implemented it. Why we're here talking about it as if it's a new item that we should have our developments held hostage for is frankly beyond me. We've done what we were supposed to do. In terms, now, that's as to the fee credit. In terms of the Village J Park, the Village J Park is not constructed, and that is unfortunate. It was our obligation to build the Village J Park under our development agreement. Even after the development agreement expired, we recognized that obligation. But it was triggered by the construction of a school next door. And we waited and waited and waited for the Rescue Union School District to purchase that site from us. We had it under contract with them twice. They bailed on the day before closing both times. Eventually, they said, we don't want to build there. In the meantime, the CSD decided they were interested in the Bass Lake Regional Park, which included the Selwood Field. and came to us and said, hey, look, we might be interested in just getting that ground. And we said, no, we'll build you a park. We had a park under consideration. And yes, we could have built it back then for about the $3.5 million that we had in the budget or remaining in the CFD. And we were having discussions to that effect. We processed it. an unrelated Village J application. Village J is now built out on the east edge of Serrano. And the CSD came to those hearings, which started in August of maybe 2019, and we finally got out of the Board of Supervisors in March or April after five or six continuances, because the CSD kept demanding we want that park for them. We had no obligation to grant it to them. They wanted it now and they wanted the money from the Melrose. Your board decided you would impose a condition on us that's condition 51, which said you will, meaning we, the developer, you will enter into an agreement with the CSD to grant them the ground that they want and to transfer them the $3.5 million that are available in the Melrose. County Council Livingston, myself, and a guy named David Tyra from Chronic Moskovitz on behalf of the CSD negotiating agreement, a copy of which is in all of your packet. That agreement is ironclad. We have satisfied our obligations to dedicate parkland to the CSD and to improve parkland as a result of granting that property over to the CSD and assigning to them the rights to the $3.5 million. So to the extent anyone wants to say we haven't filled our obligation with respect to the Village J Park, yes, we have. I don't mean to be rude, but read the agreement that it's very clear There is a breach of that agreement that exists currently, and that is the provision that says the CSD will immediately commence efforts to get that park constructed. So the fact that it's constructed, as I said, is unfortunate, but it is not on us and our little 10 lot subdivision shouldn't be held up for their failure to get that park done. Now, they have a million reasons, and they have a complicated situation there, so I'm not really blaming them. I'm just saying don't blame us. It wasn't on us. They got that park caught up in the whole Bass Lake Regional Park discussion and environmental review, so that probably complicated things, and it was best that we got out under that three-party agreement, but we weren't happy about it at the time. Okay, so that should resolve the park issues, I hope. If you have questions for me, great. I'm happy to take them. Remember, this is an appeal of a 10-lot subdivision. It is consistent with the subdivisions around it at this point. Village M, yes, people keep banging that Village M went up by 127 units. Yes, it did. But Village M is part of the North Uplands that is Village I, J, K, L, and M. all of which go through that gate. And in total, they're down about 100 units. So there's not this giant increase. And people talk about the additional units. There are no additional units. We're down 100 units in the north uplands, and we're down 1300 units overall. There's no way that this 10 unit subdivision creates environmental impacts that would cause us to go back and do any sort of supplemental environmental document. Which brings me back to the 15182 exemption. The 15182 exemption for a residential subdivision within a specific plan clearly applies. Your staff did a very good job of explaining it in the staff report. And the appellant's argument that 15162, which is the limitation on 15182, would require evidence in the record for us or staff to submit, that's exactly upside down. 15162, if you're gonna claim that the exemption doesn't apply, the person alleging 15162 bears the burden of putting evidence in the record that there are changed circumstances. There aren't. Every part of Serrano, for the reasons I started here with all of the various reviews, every part of Serrano has built out consistent with the specific plan. There are no changes in our project. It is true that the specific plan built in flexibility so things don't look exactly the same as they looked on the first maps, but that was intentional. That was part of the specific plan itself. Think I think I've covered it all and Miss McCann's Appeal is generally on transportation issues Part of it hinges on the fact that she alleges there's additional units as I just went through there aren't additional units There's actually in total fewer units, and I'm not a traffic engineer, but my understanding is from listening to them is that intersection has no capacity issues. There's plenty of ability to get through that intersection. It doesn't have sight distance issues from a stopping safety perspective. It doesn't have a long list of accidents, which would require some sort of other traffic devices. What it does have is a sight distance issue, I think, if I understand it correctly, for someone exiting M5. They would have a sight distance issue. But the car approaching them would not. The car approaching them would have plenty of stopping distance. so it was really marginal whether the four-way stop was necessary or not and one commissioner had a very strong opinion and various community members had contrary opinions and so i think the planning commission kind of took a punt on that but as kirk indicated we're not experts whatever the experts say we will go along with um and Mr. Kinghorn had indicated that he didn't have opposition to the 10 homes, glad to hear that because the appeal made me think he did, but he wanted environmental review. Well, the problem with that is this project is exempt and there is no limitation on the exemption, so there shouldn't be additional environmental review. He was worried that the prior obligations of the developer, somebody needs to stop, hold up this project and go back and look at the prior obligations of the developer. I submit to you that we've gone through dozens and dozens of reviews and we've always been found to be fully compliant. To do what they ask, which is to continue this item or to hold it in abeyance on 10 units while you go back and recheck that we were in compliance, it seems unfair to me. We're certainly happy to meet with anybody and talk to them about any compliance issues, because we're very confident that we are in compliance. Mr. Harn submitted a letter this morning. They thought that maybe it would be good if everybody talked. We have never refused a discussion with anyone. If the CSD or any member of the board or county staff wants to meet with us, we will be there, but everyone needs to act in good faith and one indication of good faith is recognizing the existence of a of an agreement and its enforceability and we have a three-party agreement between you and us and the csd and it's 100 enforceable the other two parties need to and i think the county does but the other two parties would need to acknowledge hey we do have an agreement but we would like to talk to you about maybe what is is it that we can do if one party or another has a problem we're happy to talk to you In the meantime, we'd really appreciate you approving our little 10-unit project so that we can continue on with our works. Thank you. If you have any questions, I'm happy to take them.

Thank you, Mr. Cook.

And I didn't use all my time.

No, you didn't, but Mr. Bone is going to take care of that.

I need to pick up Mike's phone. I forgot to ask you to deny the appeal as well. And I will say one thing on the park. a while ago before we had the agreement. I want to make it abundantly clear that we offered to build that park. I can't remember the precise timing, but it was in advance of the 2020 agreement. And the CSD said, no, we want the land and we want the money. So thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Bone. All right. We've heard from staff. We've heard from each of the three appellants as well as the applicant. I would like to pause for a moment to ask my colleagues if you have any clarifying questions or comments that you wish to make at this time. I see Supervisor Turnbrew has his hand raised.

I got a question. There was an agreement way back when about Bass Lake Road. about being four lanes. So how many more homes is going to have to be built before it triggers that? Can you give me an explanation on that?

Did you have someone in particular you wanted to address that too?

Yeah, I'd like Kurt to come up and talk about it, please.

Supervisor Turnbull, I've heard reference to an agreement multiple times over multiple years. I've not seen it. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I suspect you ought to direct your question to DOT as opposed to us. There's some agreement that I've heard mentioned a lot of times, but I've never seen it. And I think that's better directed to Raphael and his staff rather than...

Okay.

Sorry about that. I wish I could answer your question.

Okay. I just wanted to ask that question because when is it going to trigger? Because especially when it comes to the impact, traffic impact on Bass Lake Road. So, Raphael, can you talk about this?

Mr. Oates is coming up.

Okay. Hey, how are you?

Mr. Turnbull, good to see you again. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Yeah. Yeah. Bass Lake Road is a one of the county roadways that we hear about quite a bit with any of these private development projects or when we're updating our CP PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Believe that that got started back around 2000 when the 2004 general plan was being prepared when the county was looking at growth rates at that time, the, the assumed growth rates were almost vertical compared with where they are today. And so the amount of anticipated growth was significantly higher than what came to fruition and what was developed. As we do our major updates to the fee program and we update the board on growth rates, as the board has revised the growth rates downward, we do not currently project that Bass Lake needs to be widened to four lane roads. within our current planning horizon. We talked a lot this morning about major updates that we do at least every five years. When we have new data to support revisions to growth rates, where the growth might occur, we bring that back to the board and use that data in our modeling to determine when will be the right time to incorporate a project like that. So we are, and again, it's not an answer that's necessarily very popular with the public. We recognize that traffic congestion on Bass Lake Road is higher than it was 10 years ago, 15, 20 years ago, certainly. But it is still meeting our county's acceptable level of service thresholds per the general plan. So when the time comes that these growth assumptions reflect in our modeling, that it is time to add that project into the TIF program, into the CIP, we will certainly do that so that we can start collecting fees and be ready to build it when that growth is realized.

Yeah, I was just curious because I wanted to know how many homes is going to be able to, when they build, to trigger that, you know. especially with all the building that's going on in that particular area.

Sure. I would just add that the Bass Lake Hills specific plan, when that was adopted years ago, was anticipated to build out much quicker than what has occurred. I believe right now it's about a third developed when it was anticipated to be built out years ago. So as that continues to move forward and as growth occurs, we'll be sure to get that project in there so we can collect fees from that development that's going to need to use that additional capacity. So I unfortunately don't have a firm number to give you beyond that we are continually monitoring that roadway to make sure that we identify the right time to get the project in the CIP.

That's the only questions I have at this time, so.

Thank you, Mr. Chernbu. If I might just follow up on his question, since we just spent the morning talking about the TIF. You said, then we'll start collecting for the Bass Lake widening. Aren't we already collecting?

So we do have a segment of Bass Lake Road widening in the TIF, in the CIP right now, essentially from the westbound ramp intersection to a point just north of where the realigned Country Club Drive traffic signal is now. That section north of Country Club up to Serrano and beyond is not currently in the program.

So just so I kind of understand, and again, to build off Supervisor Turnbull's comments, if the amount of homes that were originally projected to be built way back in 2000, and we're not even, we're but a third of the way there, even though that might to residents feel like there's congestion, the dollars to actually build out that widening haven't been collected because the construction hasn't been constructed. Is that correct? Is a little bit of the chicken and the egg?

It is. We have to be able to make that nexus, that connection, in order to satisfy the Mitigation Fee Act. We have to be able to make those connections between what approved growth is going to occur, where we forecast that growth is going to occur, and what improvement projects are needed to accommodate the increased traffic levels that come along with it. And so if we are not... projecting or forecasting that enough growth is going to occur within 20 years to create the need for collecting fees to widen Bass Lake Road, then legally we don't have that nexus to collect the fees for that project. Now, within Zone C, we have several other projects for which we are collecting funds. And so as we do these major updates, priorities change. Development projects can come in in an area where maybe they weren't originally anticipated, which might change the focus from one project to another. So again, we're constantly on an annual basis updating our CIP with project schedule changes and cost updates. Similar with the TIF program, when we perform these major updates, we're analyzing where we think the growth is going to occur to make sure that we're prioritizing those projects correctly when we present them to your board.

Got it, perfect, thank you. Are there other questions or comments by my colleagues before we go to public comment? Mr. Ferraro?

Previously, this was a tentative plan and it was approved, right, in 2007? Expired in 2023, is that correct for this M5?

That's correct, the tentative map and plan development permit expired.

I just want to make sure I got that right. And I guess a question for Mr. Bone. Why did you guys let that expire? You might as well sit up here.

Yeah.

Shorter walk. I wasn't sure what the precise protocol is. The market was not good at the time, to be honest with you. And then, you know, as you will remember, we... came back with a 20-lot subdivision, which we spent about two years working on that, I think, by the time we got in front of you. We just thought it was kind of a nice project, another 10 units. The expiration was a function of the market and the fact that we decided that we would come back and ask for 20 units. But that got turned down, and that's why we're back here today.

All right. Thank you. That's it for now.

I thought you said stick around.

Sit in the front row.

Stay in the front row.

Is that all of your questions at this time?

Well, yeah, for now.

Are there other questions, comments?

I think I do have one for now. So Mr. Cook indicated that And thank you for going back. I could not remember why we did all of this. I was on the board at the time, and I went, why did we do this? And now it's like, okay, it made sense at the time. CSC was engaged. All the fees. I get it now. I remember. And so it was mentioned that the agreement, the three-party agreement, was in our package. So I went and pulled it up. And it was mentioned that if anyone's in breach of this contract, it could very well be the CSD. So I'm looking at it, and I think I see where the problem really is. And it's item four, construction of Village J Park. Eldorado Hills CSD shall exert best efforts to commence construction of the park as soon as practicable. Is that how you say that? Practical? Well, a bull. It has a bull. Practicable. Yeah. Yeah. able, practically able maybe in one word, I don't know, after, I didn't write it, after mutual execution hereof and to prosecute the construction to completion. So if there is a breach, who's supposed to enforce this? County Council.

I mean, I think in this case, it presumably would be on the county. I think that it was stemmed from a specific plan that was approved by the county. So I think that if the CSD has been in breach of it, I think it would be the county that would pursue it. I will note, it is challenging to say with true certainty that the CSD is in fact in breach. I mean, these terms that are used, I think they are somewhat open-ended. Again, using best efforts is a fairly open-ended term. I think it would, if that was something the county was interested in pursuing, I think we would need additional information about the level of effort exercised by the CSD in prosecuting that construction project. So it's, again, it's difficult to say with any degree of certainty today, but I think it would likely be as between, perhaps as between us or the developer, I think it would be incumbent on the county to ensure compliance with this particular provision, not the developer.

Very good, thank you. Other questions, comments?

Just if I may, David, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think it was 2019, the county did pursue and push this MOU to get something off a dead center from between the school district, Serrano, and the CSD.

That is correct. So, you know, I don't want to neglect the CSD's efforts at a point to try to push the developer to construct the park. But immediately preceding this, the county was making significant efforts to try to get the developer to satisfy its obligation. As Mr. Cook noted a moment ago, they were prepared to do so. It was actually the CSD's former general manager and I think one of their board members who approached the county said, to encourage us to do an arrangement such as this one because at that point in time, their priority seemed to have shifted away from a standalone park and they were more interested in pursuing construction of this site in conjunction with their overall Bass Lake Regional Park. So obtaining title to the property and obtaining access to CFD funds for park construction was more important to the CSD at that time than having the developer move forward with construction.

Thank you.

Mr. Ferrero.

Yeah, no, you're right. And there are emails to outline that. Emails from... the prior CSD, GM and prior board member to the county, Heidel and county council pursuing that agreement. Even, I mean, frustrated that we weren't moving fast enough in that agreement. And then the agreement signed and it might not have been a good agreement, but we, the county agreed to it and CSD and Parker Development agreed to it. so i really have problems trying to put the illness on park development for the park responsibility i do have a question while we're on the subject is regarding the fee credits and i know i read that that report that as far as uh that outline the justification for the fee credits, and I get why that was started. But I guess my question, and I don't know if we can answer it today, is if Serrano Associates is not building any more parks, are they still entitled to those fee credits moving forward? Or was that just part of the specific plan for eternity?

I would stop short of answering that going forward because I think we might need to consider a more detailed analysis. I think it's fair to say that As it stands right now, because of the third-party analysis that was done and has been confirmed by both the CSD board and this board in adopting fees since that point forward, the current fee structure is such that there is a discounted rate. I actually think it's more accurate to use the term kind of a discounted rate rather than a credit because I do think that use of the term credit may imply that there's some accounting obligations that aren't necessarily here because a credit is a different animal than what's the case here. but but that being said you know i'd have to go back and look through it again i'm not prepared to opine as to whether it would impact their fee going forward that's certainly something worth looking at um but you know again i can't really say that for certain all right i i i don't want to cross dave because he wrote it but i think there's a phrase in there somewhere that says this satisfies all of our obligations and i i

And that's kind of a fairly narrow question, but that was really the issue that was there. And maybe Mike could answer it better than I, but I think there's a pretty clear phrase in there that says, with this, we give them the land, they get access to the money,

Our park dedication, no, I'm talking about the credits or the, not the park itself.

Yeah, I think, so Mr. Bone is referring to a provision in the agreement we just referenced and he's correct. It does indicate that upon execution of the agreement that the CSD acknowledges that Serrano has fulfilled all parkland dedication and parkland improvement obligations imposed on it, upon it in connection with the project. I just, again, I don't know all the ins and outs of the park impact fee to the extent a component of the park impact fee addresses park facilities, perhaps even those, you know, beyond those directly located in Serrano. I just don't know for certain. It is highly likely that this language would pose as an obstacle to further reconsideration of the park impact fee imposed on Serrano. But again, I just can't say for certain without looking at it more closely.

That's our interpretation. I mean, I'm the lawyer's fight. That's what lawyers make. We think that that phrase in there, post the 2019 deal in particular, I think we think satisfies all of our obligations because you earn money for improvements. But in this case, they wanted the land. And instead of us doing the improvement, they said, give us the money. We think that squared that up. But again, I would defer to Dave and Mike on that.

Okay. Okay.

Any other questions? Not now. Not now, okay. Let's go ahead and move on to public comment. Ms. Dawson.

We are now taking public comments specifically on item 41. For public comment, each speaker will have three minutes to address the board. A timer will alert you when 30 seconds remain and again when your time has ended. We will begin with comments from individuals present in the boardroom followed by those participating via Zoom. If you're joining via Zoom, please ensure you unmute yourself when called upon. If you're joining by phone, press star nine to raise your hand. If you're on Zoom, use the raise hand feature to indicate your interest in speaking. We ask that you voluntarily state your name for the record before beginning your comments. Welcome, Mr. Harn.

Joe Harn, El Dorado County resident. I ask that this matter be, and I agree it's only 10 new homes we're talking, or 10 lots we're talking about here, but the person in the room who has known me longer than Supervisor Vierkamp is my cook, and he'll tell you I got involved in local government for parks, and... I've wanted this park built for a long time, and I'm extremely frustrated that it hasn't been constructed. I strongly urge your board, whatever the outcome is today, that we should ask the community service district to document for us their best efforts to build this park. There's some obvious things that were going on. The agreement was signed in August of 2020. In September of 2020, their general manager asked if he could start moonlighting. In October 2020, the board unanimously approved that he could take a side job. From my perspective, I don't see a concerted effort by the Community Services District to build this park. They've made a huge mistake in that this park, if these 10 lots are exempt from CEQA, the park's exempt from CEQA because it was envisioned in 1988. And so they're messing around with an EIR for this big regional Bass Lake Park that they have no money for. They're wasting money on that EIR unless somehow a huge bond measure passes in El Dorado Hills or something else happens. But they could have just relied on the 1988 EIR and moved forward with construction of the park. So I strongly urge your board to ask them what they've been doing because it It appears to a layman like myself that they violated the intent of the August 2020 agreement I I also believe and They've paid too low of a park impact fee since August 2020, but when they took on the responsibility to build this park and they took that responsibility away from Parker Development Company, they should have done a new nexus study. They should have got some evidence together and done some analysis and written the county and say, Parker Development Company still deserves a lower park impact fee, but not as low as they're getting. But for whatever reason, the community service district decided not to do that.

Thank you.

The park situation's a big mess, largely because of the community services district.

Not right now, but maybe later. We'll bring them back.

I'm going to the liar's bench. You want to wear them?

Yeah. we'll be right there please come forward

Thank you. Welcome. Good afternoon. My name is Dudley Mallinson, concerned resident and neighbor to the 10 lots that we're talking about. It's very strange to live right next door to something that so many people are having conversations about when I'm the one that's going to be listening to the hammers, nails, drills, saws for however long it's going to take. That's not actually my concern. I'm not opposed to the building of the houses at all. I think it's actually inevitable and it might actually increase the value of the neighborhood. My concern is the intersection and the access to the tract directly. I don't have any statutes, legal terms. I just have anecdotal evidence living there that it is a fairly dangerous and troublesome section of road. People leaving San Giovese often overshoot because it's on a downhill incline. I hear screeching tires pretty much all the time. A couple of years ago, we had a car flip upside down. We have many walkers. We have many kids on e-bikes. And to complicate an already fairly... awkward traffic situation, I think definitely deserves some more attention and planning before a major incident occurs. I heard tell that there haven't been many incidents there. I don't know what qualifies as a major incident, but I'm not keen on finding out. So please take that into account. And I would really like a solution for an area that doesn't have a sidewalk. loads of traffic, and yes, your point about school traffic, when the school is back in and we have a load of subcontractors parked outside that gate, it is, I would say, a dangerous situation. So please take that into account when, that's it, thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome. Thank you. My name is Mike Sheets. I'm a resident in Highland View, which is right through there. And major, major, major problem here with the traffic. That intersection is not going to be big enough. It needs to be wider. You have no line of sight. So normally you come to a stop sign, you look across and you can motion to somebody, hey, go ahead and turn left or whatever, right? You aren't even going to be able to see the other side of the stop sign. It's actually on the top of a mound. So it's going to be declines on both sides to see that. You have an 18-wheeler trying to come out and make that turn on those one-lane roads. He's going to go into the stop sign of the oncoming vehicle, and he's going to do what's called a rear-wheel cheat. So he's going to basically run over the top of the other vehicle. It's not wide enough for that. So also, you have a construction, obviously, all the trucks coming in, the big 18-wheelers with their trusses and... concrete and all that kind of stuff it's going to be very difficult for them to even get in or get out what i'm thinking about if you guys are going to do it why don't we just go north of appian and build a cut a new road straight up right into that neighborhood there's also another neighborhood down below it that only has one accent point basically in and out for them too So maybe it could help that other community as well. And it's just, but it's really impacted up there. And I'm telling you, everybody that comes out of Toronto, I'm on my break every single time. Just hovering, just waiting. Because I know either I'm going to see an e-bike or something come out of there and I've got a break. I'm just looking out for the county too, because you guys might get all sued personally. And I can see this happening because it is not good. It's the worst traffic thing I've ever seen in my life. And I'm a retired California Highway Patrolman. So this is something, this is my specialty. I'm not going to sit up here and lie to you guys, which I've seen earlier today. That's why I'm a little upset. My voice is shaking because I'm a little upset about that. Where there was going to be no impact. That person doesn't live up there. I do. I travel it every single day. Sometimes I make a ride at Silver Valley onto Appian and I'm stuck there because all the bonnet, everybody doing maintenance and stuff that's going into the upper Serrano project. The whole thing, Toronto shouldn't have been there in the first place, that access point, I'm telling you, because we have to wait. You can't see even, if you're going to even go around somebody, it's on an incline. You're not going to see the other person that has an incline coming over. It's going to be head-on collisions. It's going to be a terrible experience for the county. I'm just telling you that right now. But I'm not opposed to getting the houses, you know, that's fine. It's going to happen. We understand that. Also, we had a beautiful oak tree that one of my neighbors saw somebody actually pouring something on there to kill the oak tree, and the oak tree's dead now. So there's a lot of funny, sneaky stuff going on and I'm not going to put up with it. So I'm not going to stop. So I'm going to keep going on this until we get it the right way. It's for the safety of everybody up there, you guys. That's it.

Thank you. Thanks, Mike. Thank you.

Welcome. Can you hear me? I can't tell because this is... We can hear you. I'm a resident of Highland View. Everything you said about going up Apian is true. It is... Serrano has created the traffic problem at Sanga BC and Apian. One with putting their... guard station or whatever so close to APN, only three cars at a time can kind of line up to be checked before they can go in. It takes about two to three minutes per car, getting people to get their driver's license out, get it recorded, asking them for the name and the address of where they're going, and then going and recording their license plate. Not uncommon to see 10 to 20 cars stacked up, stuck on APN. You can't move. You're inching along, waiting for each of the three minutes of the cars to be checked. I have seen cars literally crossing over the double yellow line, trying to get past so they can either get into Serrano because they live there and go past the gate, or to get home to Highland View. That is a head-on crash waiting to happen. Conversely, if I'm leaving Highland View and I'm going to a social event in Serrano, I stop at APN, wanting to turn left to go past the guard gate, I can't get in because nobody wants to let me in because they've been waiting for 20 minutes to get in. I'm stopped, cars are behind me, stopped. No four-way stop sign is going to alleviate any of these problems whatsoever. In case of an emergency, we have a real problem. We're going to be stuck in Highland View, almost trapped there. It's really unconscionable how Serrano has created these problems. Even with building on both sides and building out more, the infrastructure of the roadway isn't there to accommodate us at all. um i urge the board to not try to put a band-aid on the situation they have created by putting these stop signs up it's only going to delay delay everything that um There needs to be a supplemental EIR to review the traffic conditions created by this proposed easement and mandate and a full design exception review. And not do it in the middle of the night when no one's around. Go there in the morning. See what happens. I have seen 20 cars at 3 o'clock in the afternoon stopped. They're trying to get in for a party in Serrano. Nobody can move. Thank you.

Are there other members of the public? Please come forward. Welcome.

My name is Margaret Gilbo. I'm just a concerned neighbor as stated here. I'm not an expert either, but I do have a driver's license and I have driven these roads. I live in Highland View and everything Mike and Anne has stated is 100% true. Not only is it an inconvenience coming home, or trying to leave, you're backed up. But it's a safety issue. I can't even count how many times, probably at least in the five years I've lived there, as many times as a car has come out to get around the traffic getting into Serrano head on. And someone mentioned the line of sight is not an issue. I don't know what powers they have to see over a hill, but I cannot see traffic coming the opposite direction and like I said several times people go across the double yellow line to get around the traffic trying to get into Serrano and I have had to stop go around them and luckily I have not been hit yet but it's a matter of time and like we said what are you waiting for what accident has to happen before it's taken into consideration and again I know I've been told at the homeowners meetings, it has been brought up to Serrano several times to make a turn in lane to make this safer to where people get into, and that's been ignored. So again, I'm not against the new buildings, but that intersection has got to be fixed. Thank you. Thank you.

Welcome. Thank you.

My name is Steve Fair. I used to walk a lot quicker, but I've gotten old and so now it's slowed down a little bit. I only have one question and it delves around this agreement from 2020. We took three and a half million dollars, we the CSD, pardon me, I'm on the CSD board. I am not representing the CS board today, just myself, okay? But we took three and a half million dollars and the park land 12.525 acres. The question is, is it $3.5 million even available in Belarus? Do they have the money to write the check? And if they write the check, do we have to build a park that's a full community park? Because for $3.5 million, for instance, we could put in walking paths, Class A trail along Serrano Parkway and Bass Lake Road and get people off of the road, pedestrians and bicyclists. We could maybe build a little bridge where the bottleneck is that's been left in place. Somebody's going to get killed there. And for those of you who don't know, I'm a... father of a major mountain biker and he coaches 250 kids. And so we don't want to go to another funeral for one of his people. So the point is we'd like to build that. I would like to build that. I don't even have that permission out of the board yet, but if we build something like that, can we even get paid from, from the three and a half million? And my question is, is it three and a half million available even today out of the We have not been able to get that answer. So if we build it and then we turn in the chit to get paid for it, because that's how it works with the CSD. If we turn in that chit and we get told, no, you can't get the money because one, we don't have it, or two, it doesn't qualify as the kind of park you have to have. Those are some of the little problems we're trying to overcome. And that's what I'm trying to overcome. Thank you.

Thank you.

Have a great day.

Welcome.

Oh, don't start me yet. So I ask that you approve the appeals to reverse the approval of the tentative subdivision map plan development permit. The county needs to stop eroding the agreements that were made by developers in a way that only benefits the developer while impacting county services, creating infrastructure deficiencies and eroding faith in the county's ability to abide by developer governmental agreements. Should we be adhering to the general plan, zoning codes, capacity, I'm talking in the, I'm eating the mic. Should we be adhering to the general plan zoning codes, capacity, health and safety codes, please stop allowing developers to run the county and start supporting the citizens you signed on to represent. Reverse the planning commission's approval, refer this back to the planning commission in order to include DOT's review of the easement and traffic design, and stop eliminating you've been violating this specific plan for, well, the county has for decades. And we were supposed to have buffering areas. And the buffers there have been pretty much almost eliminated. And that's why those were supposed to be larger parcels. And this developer's been allowed to continue to low-densify all these things without dealing with the infrastructure. And that's what everybody's crying about is that this is not a healthy project because of the deficiency in the infrastructure. Well, that should have been vetted at the Planning Commission where everybody from the area could have showed up and said, this is not appropriate, you need to mitigate this. If you look at the specific plan, it's kind of a joke, all the comments by the Transportation Commission. One says it doesn't leak the suggested mitigation measures with the stages of development. And then the response from the county was the EIR identifies mitigation measures needed for 97 and 10, 2010. No information was available to determine phasing out the projects. I mean, if you go through here, it's like comment noted, comment noted. You need to reevaluate a specific plan when it's this old. We actually, the town center apartments was, county lost a lawsuit against that because you tried to use the old Eldorado Hills specific plan to as, you know, no need to look at CEQA. Well, the judge didn't agree. And that's why they lost their case and had to go back and evaluate these things that were that old. Too many things have changed. And so basically, when impacts... You have to look at this when impacts were not previously analyzed. This was not. Substantial changes when the surrounding environment or project scope has changed. New information. There's critical data that could not have been known when the plan was first approved. Nearly all of these apply. They should have done at least an analysis on the traffic. And so I would just suggest you send it back to the Planning Commission. Let the neighbors and the community vet out that. You can't make a rule after the fact. and then come back and mitigate it later. That's also a CEQA violation. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there other members in the room that would like to comment on this item? Seeing none, may we go online, please?

Not taking public comment from online participants. Not taking public comment from Linda Campbell.

Hey, everyone. Linda Campbell, Eldorado Hills. I'm going to read to you specifically from the specific plan document about Village M. It constitutes a variation from the mix of housing types found elsewhere in the specific plan. This is due to the sensitive character of the village in terms of dense tree cover, wildlife habitat, and rolling to steep topography. As a result, this village is reserved for the largest lots within the specific plan area, ranch estates of four to seven acres in size. These rural lots also act as a buffer between the edge of the plan area and the large rural lots to the north and the agricultural preserve to the east. It also says road connections to the north are not expected to permit incompatible traffic volumes that would impact the rural setting and natural amenities of the village. The village M, although large in acreage, is appropriate for approximately 37 dwelling units. So I read that specifically because what we're trying to look at now is 10 homes on 8 acres. That doesn't actually match, regardless of whatever other zoning changes took place that Serrano's taken advantage of. I don't blame them, but this is why there's a problem. So also within the final EIR, one of the comments on land use says, had an impact of inconsistency between proposed zoning and parcel sizes for village M and village C. It was identified as potentially significant. The mitigation measure was no mitigation is necessary because specific plan stipulates four acre minimum parcel size. This was the original design agreed to in the village and all supporting analytics were based on that in 1988. Incremental zone changes over the decades to other parcels and dwelling units per acre have built up a significant change in the area, which the 38-year-old specific plan and related analysis did not factor into the agreement. In summary, the original specific plan for this area is significantly different from the current state. Things change over time, but almost 40 years is a very long time during which other adjustments were made, with a lot of present safety policies or ordinances being disregarded. Our own department in 1988 identified concerns related to the long term phase cycles and adherence to sequence, which originally went beyond 2010. Here we are in 2026 and the residents in that area are asking for reasonable accommodation, so that there are concerns are addressed through current analysis factors. The current request should be denied or reverted back to the Planning Commission until such time as a supplemental EIR and comprehensive traffic evacuation study is performed for the area. Thank you. Thank you.

Now taking public comment from Bill Kennedy.

Hello there. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Hi there. Yeah. So hi, my name is Bill Kennedy. I live on Appian Way in Highland View near the intersection being discussed today. Now, I'm not necessarily opposed to the construction of the 10 homes. However, based on what we've heard today, the project seems to have a number of challenges. My primary concern is that the existing intersection already has serious safety issues that many of us experience regularly, as articulated by several other folks. Today, if you've ever driven up Appian, you'll know very well that the visibility is severely limited at the top, at the crest of the hill there. And vehicles waiting to enter Serrano Gate often stack up into the roadway. As a result, other drivers often take unsafe actions to move around this traffic jam. I personally have observed drivers crossing into the opposing lane. of oncoming traffic to get around those backed up vehicles, even though the line of sight is severely limited, creating an incredibly unsafe situation for residents who use this road every day. And quite frankly, because of the lack of sight line and speed of the traffic and limited road width, this dynamic right now is super dangerous. And by the way, it's worth mentioning this section of Appian is also shared with pedestrians and bicyclists as well. You know, it seems incredibly obvious to me and I'm sure to many others that adding another neighborhood entrance directly across from the existing San Giovese gate will only increase traffic and compound the unsafe situation that exists at an already challenging location. And to be clear, a stop sign is not a solution for this. In fact, a stop sign will only serve to complicate traffic patterns and penalize the people that are trying to get into and out of Highland View. So from my perspective, the request is pretty simple. And that is if this project does in fact move forward, I'm asking the county to require meaningful roadway improvements. I don't know exactly what that might be, but off the top of my head, I would imagine perhaps a dedicated road into Serrano or at the very least a dedicated turn lane so that existing safety concerns are addressed rather than amplified with this project. Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

There's no additional public comment.

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. I do know Mr. Harn represented himself as a resident of El Dorado County, which in fact he is, but he is also our auditor, and I believe in that capacity, Supervisor Vierkamp, you wanted to ask a specific question. Ferrero. Ferrero, sorry. That's right.

I'm much younger. Looks like me. I'm much younger.

I will never confuse that again, I promise.

Actually, the young guy is at the podium now. So the question has been floundering for a couple of years now about that $3.5 million.

No, it isn't. There's a clear public record the El Dorado Hills CSD has from me that I mailed specifically to Mr. Ferry. You have the money.

You hold the money.

No.

Yes. Well, the treasurer has the money, but I've got a ledger that... yeah has okay i just want to clarify that for the public you know i'd like now i'd like to make a side comment uh oh no the public was promised this 12 and a half acre park that mr ferry's now talking about a watered down 12 and a half acre park let's assume no turf fields uh You know, I'll pay what in this case I'll pay whatever your board and the County Council tells me I have to pay related to reimbursing them the three and a half million dollars But since they entered into this agreement number one They probably should have raised the parking pack fee and the Serrano subdivision. They chose not to number two since then they've gone and bought a bunch of Land the old golf course spending a lot of money on that and the intent I believe is Dave Kuntz, Of this board in August of 2020 was there's going to be a nice big park with bathrooms sports fields and all kinds of fancy play equipment and so. Dave Kuntz, For the CSD. Dave Kuntz, Now to be talking down about a watered down park it's very disappointing.

Thank you.

Mr. Horne, if I could just ask a clarifying question, probably one of the newest ones to this conversation. I wasn't clear on who has the money right now, the $3.5 million.

The money resides in the county treasury. I keep the county's books. I've got the $3.5 million in my ledger.

And if the CSD were to properly do anything on this property, it would be reimbursed to them. That's the way that agreement works, right? They put the infrastructure in, then they get reimbursed from us.

Correct. I mean, I would probably look to your board and the County Council if it's a watered, we'll call it the watered down park. Okay, perfect. I mean, it's the intent of what the board wanted in 2020. Okay.

I just want to ask that question because there's been allegations that the money's gone and not accounted for.

So thank you for- I'm curious from where?

Lots of people, Joe, but it's a mute issue. You have it. We have it. So, yeah.

Okay we're going to move into concluding statements and we're going to start, please, with the applicant serrano. Mr bone. And this will be a five minute concluding comments.

uh kirk boning back again um i don't i don't think i have anything to add i mean we recognize the queuing issue at the gate but as i said it's it's it's an opera it's primarily an operational issue that we don't control but as i told supervisor ferrer we're we'll try to be part of that solution but other than that i just don't have anything else to say i mean i could extend it out if you want me to but um i think we've made our case and Hope you'll deny the appeals.

Thank you. All right, we'll go ahead and ask Miss McCain if she would like to make any concluding statements. And you also have five minutes. Okay, certainly. Welcome back.

Tell me about the magic button. It's on your right. Yeah. He found it. For us vertically challenged people. All right.

I remember years and years ago that...

25, 30 years ago, we had this huge high table. All right, don't start it yet until I get settled. All right. Hang on, hang on. Okay, good start. All right. What I'm going to do is respond to Kirkbone, Serrano & Associates. I'm just stunned, like all of us, I'm just stunned that the applicant is grabbing onto this, we're CEQA exempt because we're under the specific plan that meets unit caps. In the project's application and in staff's report, all they do is state, we meet project caps. We meet unit caps. And therefore, we're compliant with the specific plan. They don't say that due to the significant, the project is not exempt if it introduces new, unconsidered, and substantially more severe environmental impacts due to changed circumstances. These are, we've heard from so many people, it's black and white. There's significant impacts. That Village M was supposed to be 37 large lots on gravel roadway. It was a buffer. That's identified. It's the description in the EIR as it stands today. When Village M did the density transfer, they didn't EVALUATE ANY OF THE INCREASE OF TRAFFIC OFF-SITE. IT WAS VERY SIMPLE TO SEE. THERE'S A TRAFFIC MANUAL THAT TELLS YOU THE APPLICANT'S CONSULTANT FEAR AND PEERS KNEW WHAT THE VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY WERE GOING TO BE CREATED BY THAT VILLAGE M INCREASE, BUT YET THEY DID NOTHING. THEY DID NOTHING TO DEAL WITH THE IMPACTS. And now what they're doing is they're putting the impacts on all of us, on all of us residents, on all of the traveling public, and that's happening more and more. Under these density transfers, we're talking about the density transfers in Village M, but it's happening more and more around the county. They're not looking at the off-site and doing the improvements for these. So, and I want to go back to Mr. Kirkbone and stated that they met their obligation under design standards, under the design standards. Now, this is in the packet that I gave the board. The packet I gave the board, El Dorado County, a design waiver application, strictly requires engineering plans and hard data at time of the tentative map submitted It is illegally impossible to merely submit a placeholder statement to defer the waiver process until the tentative map is approved, until after the tentative map is approved. El Dorado County Code Section 120 of the Subdivision, .4402020, design waivers must be processed and voted on by the Planning Commission at the exact time they approve or deny the tentative map. There's a state, here's the, in your own county ordinances that I went through and I read all, all of them again. I read the general plan, specific plan, transportation element, everything. I read it all. Did a whole deep dive. Here's what you're supposed to have in the waivers and design exceptions. It's not made up. It's your policy.

They have none of it.

They have none of it. They don't have an engineered tentative map. They must visually plot the precise standard versus the proposed waiver. They must show exact dimensions, centerline curves, and reduced easement widths. They must show professional justification by a civil engineer. They must formally answer the four questions in your subdivision act map. They must show technical support data to topographical cross sections. You guys know this. You guys are the subject matter experts. But I'm up here laying this out. You guys are opening yourself up to serious legal liabilities that I say you don't have to. The project needs to go back for a supplemental review. It's as simple as that. There are considerable, considerable issues. On the front cover of this handout that I gave you was questions for the record. I would like these to be submitted. There are questions. I'm going to ask two. For the DOT director, the conditions of approval state that the design for this nonstandard easement onto the Vital County Collector Road will be determined at a future date as directed by DOT. How can the Planning Commission or the public properly evaluate environmental and public safety impacts under CEQA when no engineered plans exist, currently exist for this waiver, which is required in the waiver instructions? Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Kinghorn, would you like to come forward and make your closing remarks?

Magic button.

We should everybody line up by height or something, right?

I'll try to summarize and make this as simple as possible. I have to admit I agree with everything that the applicant has stated relative to their obligations in that 2020 agreement. Well, let's first touch on the Condition 30 and the four-way stop. I'm not a traffic engineer. I don't have any... issues with the four-way stop personally. My point was that there was a procedural defect in the approval of that condition because you cannot remove a condition that's in a traffic engineering without further analysis. If, God forbid, somebody is injured at that intersection, do you want to be able to say, if the county is sued, that we've got a six-figure traffic engineering analysis Shows that the design of the intersection was safe for all of the known traffic conditions visibility topographical constraints, etc Or do you want to have to say that one of the planning commissioners? Neighbors complained about stopping at a four-way stop every day That's the only thing that's on the public record relative to removing that stop sign now after hearing all of the all of the discussion today, I think you've got a problem with the traffic engineering report. I would have suggested you remand this back to the planning commission for analysis and consideration of the removal of the four-way stop, but I think you need to reevaluate the condition of the traffic engineering report. I've driven it myself and what they're saying about visibility and lack of visibility and backups on this, if there is a stop sign and backups if there's now a left turn going up Appian Way for the first time, it's a problem for the county. So my advice, remand this back, at least to the Planning Commission for consideration. Relative to the Bass Lake Park, I agree that the applicant probably absolved their responsibility to build that park, but the problem remains. The people of El Dorado Hills are missing a $10 to $15 million asset that they were promised and nobody has delivered. So who would you sue at this point? I would put the applicant probably last on that list. I will not apologize for the incompetence, lack of effort on the part of the CSD. It's one of the reasons why I ran for the board. But I think that the board here has some culpability. You own the compliance with the development agreement, which has not been met in the minds of the people of El Dorado Hills. So is there remediation or are you gonna wash your hands of it? Are you gonna say, hey, CSD signed up for a bad deal, sorry. I don't think that's right. And I'm not talking about holding up these 10 lots for any sort of mitigation on that immediately. But I'm saying we need a longer term study of what impacts were promised, what had been provided, and how we got to this point. order to address probably future serrano build out and projects and that goes beyond just the village c and d that are coming later this year and even into marble valley okay so there's a big problem here that i think we need to address we probably need to address it collaboratively board and csd i hope to do that and that's my primary ask as far as the park impact fees I hate to admit it again, but I agree with Mr. Harn. I mean, I think once you remove a $10 to $15 million asset off of the books of the applicant, is that 2019 NBS report that justified the park impact fee still valid? Again, I can't argue for the competence of CSD for not protesting it then, but, you know, What you see is what you get with those guys. So that's my claim. I mean, again, I'm not saying we need to hold up these 10 lots, except you've got a real problem with the traffic engineering report and you can't approve it today, but let's work together and fix this situation with the park mitigation for the people of El Dorado Hills going forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Goetz.

Thank you again for holding this hearing in a transparent open public process. There's no public restrooms. No pickleball courts, no tennis courts, no sports fields that are lighted, no splash pads. In your largest master plan community that's still part of unincorporated El Dorado County. The 1988 CEQA mitigations have not been met as it relates to parks, yet I think they don't want anybody to notice. The idea that we shifted that mitigation to 12 and a half acres of Quimby land as required under the subdivided map act and three and a half million dollars of Melrose that's highly regulated doesn't meet the mitigation. I'm gonna tell you exactly why you're hamstrung. Three and a half million more isn't available for parks. Let me be clear, three and a half million more is not available for parks out of the Serrano Melrose. There is a limit there that's directly connected to the fee credits and the documentation supports that. They go hand in hand. The fee credit, the reduction was for building parks for which they got out of and to lift the fee credit to cover the developer's private obligation and keep the gap I mind you, I put in the public record exhibit K. It's an email from Joe Harn to me identifying he doesn't plan to spend much time on the gap in fee credits allowed to be retained by the developer. But that's not to say that there isn't a huge gap that he's acknowledging in that email. I also identify to you that in the exhibit is his acknowledgement that that was never tracked. We have no idea what the developer put in for the nearly $30 million that they've been allowed to keep in their wallet. The idea that you can unilaterally raise the limit, let Parker Development Company out of paying out of their wallet the deferred fee cap, fee credits, in exchange for the public picking it up for them again, I'm not even going to hold up. That's a double dip. And Mr. Cook thinks that he's got, incidentally, I'm not sure if Mr. Cook's the El Dorado Hills Fire General Counsel or if he's, general counsel for Parker, but he's got an ironclad agreement, but that's only because he thinks the fee shifting provisions might protect him. He's not in a strong position as it relates to exceeding the fee cap limits. And you three parties can't unilaterally agree to do that. That's called an ultra virus beyond your authority agreement. It's a custodial fund, not your piggy bank. the conversion of those dollars weren't your right to change and you needed to seek bondholder approval. That is the proper process. I had a nice sidebar conversation with Dave Livingston and he acknowledged that that hadn't actually been considered. Mr. Harnes acknowledged that same thing and he doesn't have support to write a $3.5 million check out of the Melrose Fund, which likely amounts to when he finally gets there, likely amounts to a felony. The $3.5 million also doesn't carry any interest, and we're six years on since the 2020 agreement, which means the purchasing power has eroded on the CSD for the implementation of the county's SQL responsibility. You are the lead agency. You are the ones that are responsible for there's no pickleball courts, there's no appropriate amenities in Serrano. You're the ones responsible for the fee credit accounting, not the CSD. You're the levying agency. You learned that through... the Austin litigation. There are 13 private parks. Those parks have never been quantified in terms of value against the fee credits. That's what I'm asking you to deal with. There are two public parks. They were not funded by the fee credits. They were funded by Melrose appropriately. That's been documented to be $2.3 million. So that means that there is very little money when adjusted for inflation left in the Melrose, yet the public is picking up the third park which is to allow the developer to keep the fee credits, which is exactly why this map and 10 more fee credits is a real backbreaker for this county. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. I'd like to offer staff the opportunity to submit any closing comments that you wish to at this time.

starting to feel a little surge of adrenaline the the community service district this board and this county will become a great legal jeopardy when we start raising impact fees higher than a special district requests the csd did not have their act together at all. As soon as they agreed to that agreement, the August 2020 agreement, they should have done a nexus study and come up here and raise the park impact fee. They had a lot of other things going on right now. It was a soap opera. And that I hope Uh, the applicant and the County and the community service district get together as I put in writing to you and somehow accelerate the construction of this park. I hope the community services district takes a look at the lower fee that Toronto is being charged and see if, if they, they can find evidence to raise it. I believe they probably could, but, uh, The County Board of Supervisors related to this park and the park impact fees in El Dorado Hills is not responsible for this problem. It's another elected board.

Does the planning and building staff have any comments you'd like to make with the remaining time?

The only thing I would add, Madam Chair, is just that in the staff report, which is attachment E, page four of 11, you know, we put a table in there to address the history. And so when we're speaking about lot sizes and the anticipated build out of Village M, I think there's some information there that since the early 2000s, that that plan had sort of been modified.

So I just wanted to make sure that the board members were aware of that table.

Just at the table on page E sorry attachment Eve page four of 11 discusses the history of the M five or the village. Changes and that, since the early 2000s, the density has increased and so up to an included the original application which. was M1, M2, and the modifications thereafter. So I just wanted to, you know, we're not necessarily changing the expected density to that degree. Now those decisions were made some time ago. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and bring this back to the board for further deliberation. Questions, action? Supervisor Turnbull, do you want to start us off?

Yeah, Rafael, can you come up, please? You know, we talked yesterday about that problem with that intersection, and I brought up a solution on a right turn lane. Is it feasible or not?