City Council - Regular Meeting

Good on your end? I pressed it, but it's okay to start. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the January 26 special board meeting for the Placer County Board of Supervisors. We are going to start our meeting with a flag salute led by our CEO, Daniel Chek.

Please stand and join me. I pledge allegiance

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

Okay. A few housekeeping items before we get going for the day. If you came in and you saw the cards that are out there, there are green cards to comment on item number one, and there are red cards to comment on item number two. So if you didn't get a chance to grab a card, feel free to run out there and grab a card as the meeting gets started. And then I'll just run through really quickly kind of how things are going to work this morning.

Are going to first hear a briefing by planning. So I'm going to first remind both the Board and the public that the public hearing in this matter was closed on 12/16/2025, after which the Board took tentative action on this item and continued the matter for preparation of findings to support that action. That's what

that you're talking about item one.

Yes, and I am talking about item one right now. That's what's before the Board right now. So the process is going to be, as I mentioned, number one, Planning is going to do a brief introduction of the item, and then I'm going to bring it to the Board and ask if there are any questions that the Board has for planning or any other staff. Then, since the public hearing will not, again, will not be reopened on this item, we are still going to hear public comment on this item. So there's no presentations from either the appellants or anyone else.

It will just be traditional public comment. And then I will, as required for a special meeting, take the public comment, and we will move on to the final action. Because there are such a large number of folks here to comment today, we are going to limit it to two minutes. But we did have many, many comments on this item, and we heard you guys at the previous hearing, and we closed the public hearing. But we do still want to take public comment on this item.

So I would request, as you are making your comments, that you focus on the item that is here today for final action and not go back to the public hearing from before. And I'll try to be very respectful if you go too far off the path, but it would be great if you could stay focused on the item that's here before us today. So with that, we will move to our nine timed item, which is the Hopeway Apartments project design review agreement and state density bonus law concession and waiver request. I will answer that question. If there's a special meeting, there is no general public comment during a special meeting.

So we'll have comment on the items that are before us today. Okay. Thank you, Chris.

Okay. Good morning, Chair Landon, supervisors Chris Pahouli, Planning Director for Placer County. Pleased to be with you today for this item, and I'll be delivering, the brief, staff presentation. So on, December 16, the board considered three appeals of the Planning Commission's October 16 decision to deny the Hope Way Apartments design review agreement, deny one and approve eight of the nine requested state density bonus waivers and concessions, and make a determination that the project is consistent with the previously certified housing needs rezone program programmatic EIR. The three appeals filed were by Placer Citizens for Neighborhood Rights or PCNR, USA Properties, the project applicant, and Yimbi Law.

Following a full day of presentations, public testimony, and deliberations, the board took tentative action, on a majority vote to approve the design review agreement. All nine requested state density bonus waivers and concessions and determined that the project is consistent with the previously certified housing needs rezone program programmatic EIR. The board also took actions to tentatively grant the appeals filed by USA Properties in Yimbi Law and tentatively deny the appeal filed by PCNR. And lastly, acted to continue the item to January 26 for final action, which brings us to

today.

So based on the board's tentative actions, staff has prepared findings for the final actions and I'll read those into the record now. One a, approve the design review agreement for the development of an affordable housing project on approximately 11.43 acre vacant site, including the construction of 12 apartment buildings totaling two forty units and two community buildings subject to the recommended conditions of approval. One b, approve nine, development standard concessions and waivers as detailed in attachment c pursuant to state density bonus law, government code section 65,915 for which items one and two are concessions and items three through nine are waivers and in the alternative concessions. One c, grant the appeals filed by the applicant USA Properties Inc. And Yimbi Law and deny the appeal filed by Placer Citizens for Neighborhood Rights based on the aforementioned actions.

And one d, determine the project is consistent with the previously certified housing needs rezone program programmatic EIR state clearinghouse number, 202310581. So before I conclude staff's presentation, I'd like to briefly address, the public comments received in advance of today's hearing. Staff has reviewed the written comments, and we found that a vast majority of those comments, raised issues that are substantially similar to the comments received prior to and during the December 16 hearing. These include concerns regarding the size of the project, potential impacts related to wildfire risk and evacuation, traffic,

public safety response times, the adequacy of environmental review, and questions regarding the project's ministerial by right processing. Again, all

of these topics were discussed in detail at the December 16 hearing and informed your tentative actions that you took on that at that hearing. I also want to address several comments asserting that newly obtained Public Records Act documents constitute new information that must be evaluated. Specifically, these comments challenge the validity of the traffic study prepared by Fair and Piers, alleging that trip generation assumptions and lane configurations were manipulated, that a new roadway configuration for Penryn Road is being recommended to access the 3 Ms Plaza site, and that staff overstated the implications of HCD's letter, including the potential applicability of builders' remedy. So in short, staff's response to these comments is that no new information has been presented that was not previously evaluated by staff and the Board for the December 16 hearing, nor is any new information before the Board, today as part of your actions. With respect to the traffic study prepared by Farrand Pierce, which was reviewed and verified by the county's Department of Public Works, the study follows standard professional practices, relies on documented and accepted daily reflects both existing and proposed roadway operations.

The traffic study and DPW staffs analysis of it was provided along with the December 16 board report and discussed in detail during the hearing. However, I'd like to restate a few key points for clarity. Regarding trip generation, student trip estimates were developed using data from the Loomis Unified School District's Facilities Master Plan and US Census household data. Trips were assigned to specific schools based on the district's will serve letter and distributed across the roadway network using midweek, travel times. The adjustments made within the traffic demand model reflect standard engineering judgment, to align modeled results with observed travel behavior.

These adjustments were reviewed and verified by county Department of Public Works staff and do not constitute manipulation of the analysis. And further, this methodology was explained in the traffic analysis memo prepared by Farr and Peers and included with your December 16, staff report package. With respect to the I-eighty off ramp turn lanes, this issue was also addressed in detail at the December 16 hearing. The traffic study accurately depicts existing conditions. Although these areas are striped as shoulders, the off ramps and Boynton Road have sufficient width and are currently used as short right turn pockets.

Field measurements and aerial imagery confirm this existing operation. The study reflects how the intersection functions today and was not altered to influence study outcomes. Turning to Penryn Road and access to the 3 Ms Plaza, I want to be clear that there is not a request by the project applicant to revise the project exhibits, to add a left turn movement exiting the 3 M Plaza for today's hearing. The design review agreement includes an exhibit detailing the frontage improvements on Penryn Road associated with the project. The current design proposes a center median that would restrict left turns with access maintained through right turn movements and U turns at signalized or roundabout controlled intersections.

Any required signal modifications were accounted for in the traffic analysis. Staff is aware that the applicant has had preliminary discussions with the owner of three ms Plaza regarding potential future revisions to improve access. However, no such revisions are part of the project before the board today. The design review agreement, including all exhibits and attachments, are unchanged, from the package tentatively approved by the board on December 16. Should the applicant seek to modify the project in the future, any request would be evaluated in accordance with the zoning ordinance requirements for modifications to an approved project.

Lastly, I want to address comments suggesting that staff overstated the consequences of a project denial and the potential applicability of builders' remedy. The letter from HCD was included in the December 16 hearing materials and clearly states HCD's position the denial of the project would likely result in decertification of the county's housing element. That statement reflects HCD's position, not staff's characterization of it. If the housing element were to be decertified, one of several potential consequences could be the applicability of Builders Remedy. At this time, I will turn over the, presentation to Assistant County Council Clayton Cook, who will address this issue and provide additional comments on behalf of County Council.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chris. So first off, I'd like to clarify what's part of

the

record, because I think that's an issue that's come up so far in the correspondence that we've got. And what's included in the record is essentially what's deemed by the courts to be information considered by the board during the hearing. And that administrative record consists of the county's files on the project and would include any documents made available to the public during the public review period, including in agency communications, staff notes, memorandum, unless otherwise exempt from production under the Public Records Act. The reason I say this is that emails are also included in that public record if they were consulted or reviewed by county executives. For that reason, many of the documents that were produced under Public Record Act requests would be part of the public record for this project.

So the extent people say that identification of a document received in a Public Record Act request is new information, it likely is not and would be deemed something that the county considered as part of the action. Mister Pahuli also talked about reasons why the traffic study email, specifically, there's one identified in May 2025, why that was not new information. Namely, all of the traffic numbers were reviewed and verified by county's Department of Public Works staff. Also, it was information provided in one of the earlier iterations of the traffic count numbers and did not include the ultimate numbers used by the project. With respect to this concerns about a modified turn lane into the 3 M Commercial Center, That's also not part of the project being considered by the board today.

As such, neither of those are new information that would modify the analysis undertaken by your board during the prior hearing. There were also some questions raised about s b one fifty eight and its applicability, and the contentions were that that basically that bill requires public builders remedy projects over four acres to do a full sequel review. I think some clarification is needed on this point. First, the Hopeway project is not a builder's remedy project. The county is is not subject to builder's remedy and currently has an HCD approved housing element, which is the the requirement to keep you from builder's remedy.

Even if it was a builder's remedy project, though, s b one fifty eight didn't alter the requirements for builder's remedy applicability here. The bill does provide two new CEQA exemptions, a near miss exemption and an urban infill exemption, And both of those exemptions have language stating they don't apply to builders remedy projects over four acres. However, neither of those new exemptions were used for the Hopeway project. Instead, the project is noted as a by right project not subject to CEQA, and the county also did a conformity analysis with the rezone EIR. Both of those determinations would be unchanged with the applicability of s p one fifty eight.

As such, s p one fifty eight doesn't have any involvement for purposes of your consideration today. There were some discussions about penalties, and I think we saw in the comments some concerns about the potential penalties being overstated. I think it's important to reiterate them, although I did identify them in the last hearing. If the agency fails and the agency being the county fails to comply with the Housing Accountability Act, the fine is a minimum amount of $10,000 per unit. So for this project, 2,400,000.0.

If done in bad faith, it that could be multiplied by a factor of five. And I think there's some question about would that really occur? And I'd like to just note, in 2024, the city of Berkeley had a 260 unit housing project, at 1904th Street that they denied. The court found that denial was in violation of the Housing Accountability Act, fined the city 2,600,000.0, and the city also agreed to pay 1,400,000.0 in attorney's fees. So roughly $4,000,000 for denial of a project that's similar in size to the one being considered here.

Also, the HCD letter that was sent on December 11 noted that denial of the project without supportable findings would violate state housing laws. And then I the letter also went on to identify the consequences that could apply. Ineligibility or delay in receiving state funds, referral to the attorney general, and as we've noted, that's what occurred in in the city of Elk Grove matter. The attorney general actually initiated the lawsuit, and that is a potential possibility. Also, court imposed financial penalties, loss of local land use authority to a court appointed agent, and the immediate application of builder's remedy.

The HCD letter and the action taken against the city of Berkeley are both real world implications of what can occur with an unsupported denial of the project. So with that, I conclude. And if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

All right thank you and Chris are you done as well?

Concludes staff's presentation. Again as Mr. Cook mentioned we're happy to take questions.

All right and questions from my colleagues? Okay, none right now. So we will go ahead and head to public comment. And just a reminder, please comment on the items that are here before us today. And with that, we will start with mister Myers. And if you have a green card, if you are willing to stand up in the aisle and kind of just get ready to go so that we can keep them

Before my time starts, could I clarify something, please? Your agenda does not specify that the county policy of three minutes per public comment is being reduced to two minutes. It did for December 16. It did not for now. I prepared comments for three minutes as have most of the people that are here. To reduce it now, after we've already done our preparation at the last minute, it should have been posted as two minutes, then we would have complied with it, of course. But to change it now seriously puts a dent in our ability to present the information we wanted to present. So I'm asking you to please reinstate it to three minutes. I don't know how many people want to talk, but this is important enough that an extra minute per person isn't gonna kill the board.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I think because it was a special meeting, I'm, that is why it wasn't noticed on the agenda as a typical, it's not a regular meeting. So sorry. I'm gonna disagree with you on this one. We're gonna keep it at two minutes, and and just keep moving on.

Alright. So I'm gonna work off talking for two minutes now, beguarantly, because I can't use my script. I've given you the script. I've given you all the information. I hope you read it. The one point I'd like to make is this little dog and pony show you're being shown now is just a cover up. They're reading from scripts that USA Properties put together with Baron Pierce. It's interesting that mister Pahuli references the Department of Public Works has checked all this math. Have we seen a Department of Public Works report so we could see their methodology, so we could see their conclusions? No.

It's not part of the record that I'm aware of, and I'm pretty up on everything that's been filed here. And so, have you seen a Department of Public Works report that verifies all the data? What we have is an email that was released after you folks voted on December 16 that said, yes, we've manipulated the data. We've changed the data around to make it work. That's false. That's fraudulent. Now how far does that extend into all of what Farr and Pierce did? That's what we're asking for. Continue this matter and make there be an honest traffic report. Mister Tursich from USA Properties wants to settle a lawsuit with three m by cutting a left turn lane in.

But the original Fair and Piers report says, gee, it's good that that's been eliminated because it's going to make a big difference on the stacking. You are being asked to make findings today that there's no adverse impacts, but you have false and manipulated information in front of you. We're asking you to continue it because the facts today are different from what's been released publicly, what's part of the public record, and you must have some serious considerations that these facts are manipulated and not not proper. You can't make a finding of no adverse impacts based on this manipulated data. We're not saying deny the project today. We're saying continue it. Make them do their homework. Do your due diligence. That's what we're asking for. Integrity and transparency are hallmarks each of you have touted.

And yet today, if you proceed, that's out the window. I don't ever want to hear another one of you talk about being transparent or open or worrying about the public. Because all this is, is the builders. This is just the builders running everything. Thank you. And I'm sorry that I'm so frustrated.

Donna Delano from Penryn.

Good morning,

Chair and Supervisors. The Board must determine whether there is evidence sufficient to make the specific findings required by state law before approving waivers and treating this project as exempt from further environmental review. Under the density bonus law waivers are not automatic. The board may not grant them as it would cause a specific adverse impact on public health or safety unless that impact can be mitigated. That determination must be made on this record for this project today.

The problem is that the county did not assemble the evidence necessary to make the findings the law requires. Approving a project without those factually supported findings does not streamline housing. It creates litigation risk and delay. PCNR, Placer Citizens for Neighborhood Rights, is asking the board to pause and ensure that any decision you make is supported with the evidence and is legally defensible. And also, you are here you're all voted in to represent us.

Yes. Right.

Yes. We're asking you for your help. Do the right thing. Make it safe. Continue this until we have all the evidence again. Thank you.

Thank you. Just a reminder, if you have a green card, you're welcome to line up so that you can be ready to go.

Chair and members of the board, I'm addressing the admissibility of the PRA document around the left turn. I understand the administrative record closed on December 16. However, legal precedent allows for admission of evidence that proves material facts existed prior to this deadline. The document is not new information created after the hearing. It is proof of a legal fact that was established on Wednesday, December 10, six days before the record closed.

On that date at 04:40, counsel for the three m center agreed in writing to, quote, not seek any legal or administrative challenge to this project. That is a binding legal position that existed before you convened on December 16. By excluding this, you are effectively suppressing the fact that the dispute was already moot before the public hearing even began. The email sent on December 18 was merely the delivery vehicle. The evidence itself, the agreement, is date stated dated December 10.

If this goes to litigation, which I'm sure it will, a judge will see that a settlement was reached on December 10. It would be a legal absurdity for this board to vote today based on a conflict that was resolved six weeks ago simply because the confirmation email arrived later. To ensure your decision withstands judicial review, you must reopen the record to admit this proof of a preexisting settlement. Thank you.

Thank you. And can you state your name for the record as well?

My name is Aaron Rudolph from Penryn.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Steven Lear. I'm formally re one thing, just for the record against the funding. I'm formally requesting a legal review and opinion from the Placer County Legal Counsel explaining why the Hope Way project does not violate a b six eighty six. A b six eighty six incorporates the federal fair housing acts mandate to affirmatively further fair housing into state law. This explicitly aims to prevent the creation or exacerbation of pockets of poverty through housing planning and site selection. I also formally request the legal findings as well as the risk this request to be part of the administrative record. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Carmen Watson. I'm in Penryn. I'm talking about community plan consistency as a legal predicate, not a preference. Supervisors, the Horseshoe Bar Penryn community plan is not advisory.

The rezone EIR assumed that future projects would comply with community plan standards governing height, circulation and safety. This project does not. It requests relief from those standards. That means the assumption underlying the program level environmental analysis no longer hold. When assumptions fail, tiering fails. The project's inconsistencies with HBPCP standards means that the county cannot lawfully rely on a peer that assumed full compliance. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. I'm going to apologize if this is inappropriate. I'm Doctor. Paul Katz. I live in Penryn.

I spoke with one of the attorneys at one of the breaks, the last meeting. I've spent hours listening to these meetings. And I said to him, hey, you know, we're not gonna solve, you know, affordable housing for the state of California and the little town of Penryn. He said, yeah, yeah, we know that. And I said, you know, why are we building such a big complex? You know? And I said, couldn't it be built at half this size? And he said, why sure it could. And I said, well, why is it not being planned that way? It would be much more appropriate for the community and for the people that live there.

And he said, the state will not let us do that. And I would just ask you, is that true? Was he telling me the truth? Or do I just not understand? I'm not a politician. So I'm just wanna know why this isn't scaled down to a size that's consistent with the little town of Penryn. Because we all want affordable housing. Everybody is given lip service to we want affordable housing, all the attorneys. And they could do affordable housing. It just doesn't have to be huge.

Doesn't have to be three stories. The little kid that lives on that third story and goes to a class with all the other kids that live on five acre lots, when they have his birthday party up on the third story and then he goes to their house, how is he gonna feel? I grew up in Chicago. I lived in a cinder block building and walked to grammar school. It doesn't feel good to be the odd kid.

So is there a reason it can't be small?

We'll get through all of the public comments, and staff are jotting down your questions. And so at the end, we'll make sure to get your questions answered. Morning.

Good morning, supervisors. My name is Anne Hendrickson, twenty five years in Penryn. Sorry, forty five. Time flies. I wanna speak candidly about risk. Courts do not overturn housing approvals lightly, but they do overturn approvals where required findings are missing or unsupported. If this approval is challenged, the court will ask, Where is the evidence of physical preclusion? Where is the safety finding and supporting evidence for wave standards? Where is the evacuation feasibility analysis? If the answers are later or assumed, the county, not the applicant, bears the risk.

Plaster citizens for neighborhood rights, they're asking you to we are asking you to reduce that risk now while you still can. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning supervisors. My name is Susan Gillen and I'm from Penryn. And I want to speak specifically about the waiver and concession requests. The applicant requested nine deviations from adopted standards. State law limits concessions to five and allows waivers only where compliance would physically preclude the project.

The county has not required the applicant to submit project specific evidence showing physical preclude no comparative site sections, no circulation alternatives, no demonstration that a two story or standards compliant layout is infeasible. Without that evidence, the board cannot lawfully determine which requests qualify as waivers, which are concessions, and whether the statutory limits are exceeded. This is not a disagreement over design preferences. It is a failure of proof. Approving waivers without that showing shifts the legal risk from the applicant to the county.

That risk is avoidable by requiring the record that the law already contemplates. Thank you.

Good morning supervisors. My name is Joseph Miller. I live in Penryn here with BCNR. We're requesting refocus of CEQA, the argument on 15162 fifteen thousand one eighty three limits, not general opposition. DCNR is not arguing that every affordable project requires a new EIR.

We are arguing that CEQA requires additional review when a project produces or introduces new or more severe impacts not already analyzed previously. And as we've seen through this whole process, it's been iterative. It's one thing, then another thing, and then a hand wave of it's okay. Not actually an analysis. Here, the program level EIR deferred analysis of local circulation safety evacuation feasibility and site specific design impacts.

Those were not in the program levels submitted. Those issues are now concrete and central to PCNR's position that tiering is unavailable at this point. Under CEQA guidelines sections again, one five one six two, one five one eight three, reliance on prior analysis is allowed only where those impacts are already examined and mitigated. This is not the case that we have here. The county must close the gap before we proceed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, My name is Leslie Bichiraud. I've been a resident of Placer County for forty some years, and I'm a resident of Granite Bay. PCNR is not asking you to evaluate traffic congestion as a CEQA impact. We are asking you to evaluate traffic safety. The applicant's own traffic studies acknowledge queue spill back at the the I 80 westbound ramps.

Federal Highway Administration guidance is clear that queue spill back at ramp terminals substantially increases collision risk. This is not theoretical. It is documented in the in the project's own materials. When a waiver is requested that affects road geometry and intersection design on a primary evacuation route, the board must determine whether that waiver creates a safety hazard that cannot be mitigated. That determination has not yet been made on this record. Treating this as a congestion issue avoids the question. Treating it as a safety issue is what the statute requires. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Carrie Fenig, and I'm a resident of Penryn for about ten years now. This case turns on whether the county has retained authority to deny waivers based on health and safety impacts. The density bonus law expressly preserves that authority. Government code section 65,915 allows denial of waivers when they would create a specific adverse impact on public health or safety.

That means the Board must first determine whether the requested waivers, particularly those affecting circulation, access, and road geometry create such an impact. That determination cannot be deferred, it cannot be assumed, and it cannot be made without evidence. One specific question related to that that I would like to ask if we can get an answer to at the end would be awesome. Fire truck entrance and accessibility in the case of an emergency, particularly if it's a ladder truck and the size, you know, is larger. Is that actually going to be able to access and maneuver around in the facility?

I have never heard that that has been looked at. Because the board must exercise judgment when weighing evidence of potential public health and safety risks, this project cannot be treated as ministerial. It cannot be insulated from further environmental review. The discretion here is narrow, but it's real, and it must be exercised based on a complete record. Thank you.

Thank you. Good

morning.

Good morning.

Mike Giles from Newcastle. I would urge you as human beings, set your standard as professionals. Set your standards of guardians of your constituents, ensure that reliance on prior environmental reviews is legally justified, resolve safety and evacuation feasibility before granting waivers, and require evidence supporting waiver and concession eligibility. It will make your life easier going forward. If you compromise your standards now, you will deal with this time and time again because money is coming to Placer County, and you're going to make a lot of decisions.

By creating a standard and holding to it, as the development community realizes the line you're going to hold, you will save yourself a lot of work in the future versus compromising at this point in the game. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

My name is John Graham. I'm a Penryn resident for thirty five years. It's hard for me to be a NIMBY as I've been a builder for a lifetime. Haven't been retired now. But

when

I built subdivisions in Roseville, Elk Grove, multiple in Reno, it was the affordable housing was integrated in the community. And the local city of Roseville or whomever, and they would manage these houses, and so they you couldn't buy them cheaper than sell them and whatever. So these kids or these whomever, like the mothers, then they were integrated in the community. Went to Oak Ridge School or wherever. So I just feel like I need to speak for those people that would live there.

As this thing's playing out, there's a lot of physical reasons that this is going to be difficult on the Penryn community, on me and my kids at Penryn School, or my grandkids now. And but now I I keep thinking about these people that are going to live there? I mean, this is so off the cuff that you're going to have all packed in with you know, how they and then all these mommies got to take the kids to what school? I can't all go to Penrose School, I'm here to tell you now. So they're to pack, what, two or three kids off to multiple places?

This is not a good place. The one in Auburn, the one in industrial, okay, they're a little bit more community. But is Okay, so US Home bought this property then now, and so they're doing this because they got I mean, whatever that I don't know. And you guys have your own sponsors, then I don't know about that either. But this really is something to consider, in addition to all these other legitimate arguments, is the people you're going to drop there, the children. I just don't think it's good. And I think you should good. I'm done.

I'm Patty Knifer, Penryn. Big decision, hard decision. I have to contradict what your planning director, mister Pahuli, is telling you about new information, about traffic information. I personally spoke to an attorney. I personally saw emails that are promising Mr.

Gustafson entrance to his business if he does not file a lawsuit. It's in black and white. So doing something like that, allowing entrance into three m right after coming out of the turnaround, is a disaster. You'll have cars standing there waiting to turn into the businesses, and everyone behind them will be lined up all the way through the turnaround. People won't be able to come out of the preschool, out of the apartments, out of even the vet clinic.

You are creating a disaster like that. And it's on the record that this is something that is being offered to a business person in the community. I don't think this is the right time to just move forward, bulldoze through, and say, we're going to build this. You have time to actually look at the studies that haven't been done. And that's what we're urging you to do. Take some time, make some thoughtful, logical, and informed decisions. I'm not approving this project today.

Don't want to get in there. Sorry.

She's been up and down. My name's Stephanie Barger. I moved here when I was in sixth grade to Penryn School. I moved away to Orange County. My parents passed away, and I moved back up here.

And one of the reasons I did is I didn't want to live in Orange County. And and in Orange County, there was just developers could develop whenever they wherever they want, when they wanted. There wasn't any public transportation, mass transit, the schools, everything, and that's what we're creating here. So I agree with all the previous speakers. They've given you the legal reasons to not do this, and I just plead with you for the people of Penryn in the surrounding area.

Each of us here are representing hundreds of other neighbors, and this is the wrong project in the wrong place at the wrong time. And if there is a state issue, all of us will march down to the governor's office, march down to our elected officials' office. We can change the state ruling just like we're trying to change here. So please do the right thing and stop this project.

Hello, my name is Lauren Spitz and I'm a Penryn County resident, twenty five years. I also had comments prepared for three minutes, so I'll just summarize. You don't have to make a decision on this. I've been sitting in these meetings, been talking, and every time we have these meetings, you've got these folks over here that are threatening you with lawsuits and, oh, and there's no new information. And yet finally at the eleventh hour, they're saying, oh, just kidding.

Those threats really don't apply here, but you might get lots of penalty fees, a couple million dollars. Well, okay, so if they try to do that, think about what's going to happen. Mean, don't like the threats, but if you do approve this, there will be lawsuits moving forward. You will have to build new schools. You will have to provide for the new infrastructure.

You will have to figure out how you're gonna get some somehow to take care of build a new fire station. You're going to have to come up with more than a couple million dollars in all the improvements to the community to double the size of Penryn. And those penalties you might, which you really won't get assessed or drop in the bucket compared to the cost moving forward on the county. Thank you.

Thank you.

My written was longer than you because I was told there was three minutes. Also, Laura Bullard, long time, lifelong Placer County resident, okay, and not somebody who lives in, in, Penryn. I should not have to be here today, okay, to defend the residents of Placer County or those who visit because that's your job. Okay? You were elected to protect the entire county.

And part of that job is to make sure that any proposal that comes before you has the best interests of the residents of the county, not the developers who wish to make money off of our county. You already know the proposal before you today, Hope Way had low of low income apartments has at least one serious flaw, and that is that dinky roundabout, which is gonna impede traffic for emergencies and potentially risk the loss of life. It's going to affect the businesses along the road, such as those of us who have to come to Loomis Base and large animal vet and and take our our stock trailers around. And then also people attending games at Del Oro High School who use that as an exit route. People visiting Griffith Quarry.

So it affects all the residents of the districts. And further, just as mentioned, the lawsuits will result when people get injured or killed, okay, because of the poorly planned roundabout on the main road will result in massive lawsuits, which will cost the residents of our county far more than any lawsuits threatened by USA properties because they don't get what they want. Okay? Taking the time now, guys, to make sure that this proposed roundabout will actually, under all circumstances, allow for both the safe exit of the people on the main road and also the ladder trucks to come around to save those poor people in those apartments or whatever is critical. Enough evidence has been presented by the Penryn Group to show that this is questionable.

Take the time now to make sure that the studies are done correctly and to look at alternative plans if necessary.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Rhonda Jacobson, I'm a Penryn, lifelong Penryn resident. I've been there for approximately forty six years. I'd like to

say to these gentlemen, we are not Berkeley,

so don't compare us to Berkeley.

I'm sorry, let me pause your time for just one second. If you all could please, you can do jazz hands, that's fine. But if we could just keep it quiet so that it's respectful for the person speaking that way.

I worked at the post office in Lincoln for twenty three years, and there were three roundabouts in that city that have since been removed, and they were removed due to safety reasons. And your roundabout for this is ridiculous. A one lane roundabout. How do you think that's going to affect the traffic? We already have a traffic problem.

We live on the other end of Butler Road. And right now with Bickford Ranch, as more and more people move in, we can't get across. We used to The way we would get out to the freeway is to go out and get on Del Mar Avenue and then Sierra College. And when that development was being proposed, we fought it and said, You needed to put a stoplight there. And we were dismissed, and nothing ever happened.

And so now we're stuck with the stop sign there. It's very dangerous. So many of us now have to use Penryn Exit. And you're going to get more and more people going that way because we can't get across Sierra College. You try to cross there any time when there's people coming home from work, going to school, coming from school. You can't get across there. And everybody knows what a nightmare it is to go down Sierra College and get where Costco and Target and all stores are. It's only going to get worse. There's hardly anybody living in Bickford Ranch yet, and it's already affected our traffic pattern there. So you can't tell me it's not going to affect Penryn exit.

It's going to get worse and you're looking at a nightmare. And I can't believe you would try to do something that's going to put the safety of the residents and Penryn at risk. And I feel bad for these kids that will possibly be in this apartment. I don't see any areas for them to play. And somebody said they were using the Penryn Park that belongs to the LDS Church as a park. Well, that's not a public park. That's a private park.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Okay, I'll be brief. I'm down to two minutes.

Good morning, I'm Carol Kawamoto, fourth generation member of the Placer Buddhist Church, born and raised in Loomis, and a registered civil engineer. Referring back to the Public Records Act documents that were recently disclosed, planning staff specifically asked County Department of Public Works to review Fair And Peer's illegal extra traffic lanes identified by PCNR's traffic consultant, Prism Engineering. The email discovery proves that County Planning and Public Works were aware of the fabricated scenario before the December hearing, yet ignored the problem and defended Fair and Peer's false conclusions. The same PRA revealed that USA Properties Fund redesigned Penryn Road to include a left turn into three ms Plaza prior to the December hearing. These changes further diminished the safety and function of Penryn Road, but were hidden from the public during the earlier hearing.

We've seen no analysis of the associated impacts at all. Any traffic studies evaluated by this board in the public domain are outdated and incorrect. USA Properties Fund and county staff are fully aware that these road modifications make Penryn Road even less safe. I have a whole thing here about how Farrand Piers has multiple traffic engineers on staff, but not a single one of them signed any of the submittals to the county. I wonder why that is. If you adopt the tentative findings from the December 16 board hearing, you're telling everyone in this room and throughout the county that processing projects

in

a fair and correct manner doesn't matter. Transparency in government doesn't matter either. The safety of certain communities doesn't matter. And what does matter to this county is assuring that big money developers are kept happy so that their dollars continue to flow for your benefit. I'm imploring you to do better in serving Placer County, and require that the very real and recently identified roadway safety issues be independently evaluated before you put your seal on this deal. Thank you.

Thank you. Good

morning. My name is Rodney Raymond. I'm a resident of Penryn. And this is project is supposed to be a project for affordable housing. It's being promoted by a company known as well, as far as I understand, US Homes.

And as these will be rentals. Now affordable housing, my understanding is, so you can own a house in an apartment, where is your money going? Is it going towards a mortgage or is it going to your landlord? This doesn't pan out as a affordable housing thing. It's actually a profit operation for US homes.

They build the place, of course, and they're well backed building this. They've got the money to come in every time and and with a new swing on the state laws and promote their thing that's gonna be income for them. This is an income It's it's not going to provide affordable housing for the tenants of the building. It's going to provide a place for them to live with occasional increases in their rent, which will soon probably surpass their income. So I was I'm pushing for some some sense there and trying to get away from the old saying, money talks.

Because that's what we got here. People who will be living there, like I say, will not be afforded being able to afford their house because they're paying rent. They're not paying on a mortgage. With that, I'll leave it be.

Thank you.

I'm Janet Kellman, and we have lived in Penryn for forty five years. And I wanted to say something about the challenge the that's there with evacuation and Penryn Road. If there is an emergency, have you ever thought of just going, you who are going to make a decision, and parking somewhere around there during the high times of traffic? And then imagine what that would be if there was there were all these cars rushing forward, and even from what we've heard about the Lincoln people that would be coming in. What is that?

What is it that's asking to be approved? And what we're saying, please consider these things. It's it's so dangerous now when we go out there and spend so much time to get on the freeway or off. I do have some things that are written here. There's been no project specific evacuation performance analysis completed here.

No queuing analysis under evacuation considerations. No confirmation that emergency access will function under peak demand. The board cannot assume that these issues will resolve themselves. Once waivers are granted, the county loses influence and authority. Legally sound approach is to resolve the evacuation feasibility before approving waivers, not after.

Thank you.

Good morning, Jennifer White. I live in Newcastle. I use the Penryn off ramp frequently. I can tell you it already backs up frequently. This roundabout going in, I think we have to look at it in a couple different ways.

We're allowing that area to go from service C, D, maybe to F. With that, knowing that right here, we're bringing in almost a double population into the area that will probably be using it. On top of that, the area is growing and more people are going to be coming in and using that exit as well. We've already heard that the Bickford Ranch because of that coming in, a lot of residents are going that way to move. And we're really just doing a disservice for the growth of the area by putting something like this roundabout in.

My other concern really is if there's a lawsuit, whether because of the 19 foot walls around this apartment complex with the one entrance in and out, if there is an emergency and people can't get out or there's an emergency and residents who've lived here forever and built this community can't get out, and there's lawsuits, who's responsible for this lawsuit? Is the county now responsible, for this lawsuit that it could be involved with this roundabout or the developers? My feeling is the developers are done and gone and we're gonna end up having to be responsible for this and having the county pay a lot of money to people whether or not it's correct or not because anyone can sue anyone for anything. Also, I I hope in the future that County Council will when people are threatening that there's only one way to sue, will stand up and say the truth. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Vic Mastenkopf. I'm a Penn and resident. We're here today because of a catastrophic failure of our county government, namely the planning process and the planning department who have been either negligent by act or emission. They fail to identify the most critical issues of a project like this and that of public safety.

We're here today because the county has turned a blind eye to public safety. We're here today because all of the proponents of this project have never once voiced any concern for public safety, and that includes certain board members. And this is such a problem in our county government that's come to light where the citizens themselves have to do the work that is the priority of county government. It is certainly worthy of grand jury evaluation, investigation and whatever other outside agency because obviously within the county government, this problem hasn't been identified over years and there's no effort to fix it. And a grand jury evaluation or investigation will hopefully keep this from happening in the near future.

Your vote today will be a test of your integrity as an elected official, as a representative of the residents of this county that voted for you and put their trust in you to keep their best interest, their safety in mind. Your vote today will be your legacy. The county has already created the liabilities and owns the liabilities. They will be paying and dealing with these liabilities regardless of the outcome of this project. But if the project is approved as proposed, those liabilities will be people's lives.

Whether it's 151 life, one injury, you you won't be able to pay for that liability. You, the county, your successors will live with that. Thank you.

Thank you.

I feel like I need to thank you all for doing what you do because we need to work together and we have different opinions maybe. We come from different places. Can I just see a hand of anybody who's lived in Placer County for over forty five years that's on the board? I know you have. Thank you. Okay. Well, I'm six generations deep in Placer County. I do want to thank you for what you do, but I do want to invite you to work with us as the citizens, the people who were six generations deep here. Okay? Before I begin, I just want to thank you. My name is Robin Buzdin.

Thank you.

And just give me one second, please. I'm just a little like with everybody. I want to thank everybody for your opinions and standing forward because it's not always easy. Today, the board must determine whether there is substantial evidence and records to support the specific findings required by state law before approving the density bonus waivers or concessions and before treating this project as exempt from further environmental review. Waivers are not automatic.

The Board may not grant a waiver if it would create specific adverse impact to public health or safety unless the impact can be mitigated that determines the determinations must be made on this record for the project today. I also want to be clear on two related points. Rural designation is not symbolic. It is a legal land use designation adopted by the county and protected by state law planning. It carries enforceable standards related to scales, infrastructure, capacity, fire, safety, and historical character, including architectural capacity.

And affordable housing describes price, not building type. Nothing in state law requires affordable housing to build as large apartment complexes on rural land. Affordable housing can be village scale, missing middle, and architectural capacity with the community it serves. The problem is that the county has not assembled the evidence necessary to make the findings the law requires. Approving a project without factually supported findings does not streamline housing. It creates litigation Can you wrap risk up your comments?

Sorry. Can you wrap up your comments?

Oh, well it beeped twice and didn't show.

Yes, the two minutes. When it beeps twice that means the two minutes are

Well, oh, it was

a you finish up with a sentence or two? And can you once more state your name for the record?

It's Robin Buzden. Thank you. So you started it then before I was starting to go on my note? Is that what I understand? Because that's what

Yeah, think once you started speaking, the timing started.

Oh, I'm sorry. Well, I'm not spending my time to thank you. I apologize for that. So the problem is, Okay, PC and R, Placer Pastor Citizens of a Neighborhood Rights, specifically asked the board to pause the continued at this item. Until this record contains the evidence needed to make legally defensible decisions, including a clear expansion explanation for the CEQA pathway being relied upon and why it applies to this site.

Project specific analysis of public health and safety impacts include evaluations and emergency response and enforceable mitigation. Confirmed infrastructures and utility capacity included downstream impact requires upgrades and who is responsible for those costs. Who were elected?

Sorry.

You Well, would like all right, send it Shanti. I got you. I got you.

Robert.

Marshall, Jake Wish. You've already heard my analysis on the traffic reports. And, you know, I'll I'll save the professional conduct or lack thereof to other supervisory bodies. But I wanted to talk about the project more generally because I've actually built in Placer County recently. When my wife was pregnant, we wanted to move back to the area to be with family. We wanted to live in Loomis, but we looked around and couldn't afford a family for how many kids we wanted to have. Our third's on the way in April. So we made a decision. We bought a lot. I designed the house.

I general contracted it and had a lot of interaction with planning and building during that process. What strikes me is how incredibly scrutinous those bodies were for me building one single family home on a a lot with utilities, no septic, already zoned for for that exact process. There was a point where all of my plans were stamped and approved, and I had to call for three weeks to get them to drag the slider to put it into approval. My concrete subs were ready to pour. I eventually started cold calling the entire Placer County directory.

I got to w before the son of a t shirt of my elementary school finally picked up. I recognized last name, and I said, hey. Can you just walk over to this building and ask them to change the slider? Not asking for an exception. I'm just asking you for you to do your job. That's how difficult it was for me to build this one home, so I'm mystified why it's so easy for the developer to build this large complex. And I think I finally put it together. This project is too big to fail, and that's why it's getting streamlined and rubber stamped. I don't think there is ever an off ramp for any decision that would result in the project not going forward. Because of that, I think you need to take pause and think about whether you wanna be part of this endemic national problem where projects are too big to fail and have catastrophic consequences. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Cheryl Berkema. I live in Granite Bay. I first wanted to call foul on the process last time with the vote on December 16. Whether you use Robert's rule of orders or whatever the process is, it needs to be laid out. And it was very clear that the order of the vote was not what people had intended.

So I'd like to call that out, and I think you know that people understand what's really happening there. Secondly, I'd like to bring up the fact that it's been twenty years. There was recently Andy Bisque, the auditor controller, said there were like four fifty affordable housing units put in since 2005. So you've failed miserably on housing, and yet now you're accepting federal dollars. And I'd caution you that there's a lot of people in here that when you start talking about why you put in equivalency and RM 30, so you have mechanisms to allow developers not to build, yet you're accepting federal funds.

The federal government is coming into California and they're going to start looking at fraud, and I would suggest that the fact that you're allowing taking federal funds and yet not building things and having developers with potential conflicts of interest that are helping select properties, they're not having to build in District 1. They have multiple equivalency projects, yet they're making money on the low income projects. So I think that's something that you should consider that's a real risk for Placer County is that you may lose a lot of federal dollars by having your stuff examined. In addition, I think that you haven't provided any economic analysis. We're about to, on the next item, talk about 77 pages of how you want to give them a credit card, yet you haven't provided any dollars about what this project is going to cost, and it's not fair to the people of Penryn or for the Placer County residents.

We're paying Placer County. We're paying state and federal for the housing debacle. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the chambers?

I emailed it. I emailed it last week, and it wasn't on the Outlook day. My name is Claire DeCamp. I am a mother, architect, and a Penryn resident. I have given you my latest letters to the board clerk and received confirmation, but for whatever reason, did not get included in the correspondence.

In addition to a new letter submitted yesterday, I sincerely hope you take time to review these letters because I'm not going to stand here and belabor you with the facts and figures. I have brought up four issues that have been unresolved and glossed over at each turn of these meetings. Number one, failure to comply with the California Building Code D106.2, two separate EVA's for 200 plus dwelling units failure to comply with the California Building Code D106.3, remoteness, for emergency vehicle access failure to comply with the Placer County Health And Safety Element, and the Emergency Preparedness Evacuation Guidance Plan, failure to provide proper turn radius for Mutual Aid Partners equipment in conjunction with the California Building Code. I was greatly disheartened and frustrated at the December 16 meeting and how county staff and fire personnel glossed over the details. Unfortunately, county staff and purse fire personnel answered questions correctly because the questions were too open ended for them to be required to answer with the details needed to raise concern about the Hopeway Apartments compliance with the California building code.

So I ask you to consider these questions. I ask you, how can a single access road separately service two driveways? I ask you, how driveways 363 feet apart achieves the remoteness required of 450 feet. That is code. I ask you how a fire truck requiring an internal radius of 36 feet to make a turn with an internal radius of 20 feet.

I ask you how a site identified in the health the county's own health and safety element with limited egress has proceeded without an EPEP. I ask you, why has the mutual aid partner with the ladder truck not been publicly consulted? And why on earth did former fire chief Estes tell me, not my truck, not my problem in the hallway, when I asked him about the radiused application? Does anyone here care about the California Building Code? Not one of these questions has been answered.

As a design professional, it's one thing to be disheartened by a project that is contextually inappropriate, but another to see that the standard of life safety has been chucked out the window for bureaucracy and though by those who are supposed to uphold it. I call on the board of supervisors to get these answers out of respect for the California Building Code and for the safety of potential future inhabitants of Hope Way. Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in the chambers who would like to make a comment?

Hi. My name is Robin Gibson. I've lived in Penryn for almost sixty years. Pretty much grew up here. I've got two tickets. I can sum it up in one word. No. What part of no don't you understand? You work for us. We don't work for you.

You've been against us for everything that comes up. How many meetings have we had? In every meeting, everyone says, no. I've listened to everybody here. We say no. All the arguments are legitimate, they're right, they're correct, they're legal, and you ignored us. We, the people, say no. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Catherine Holt. I was the statewide data manager and the only one in the state of California and Nevada for a Pacific Bell and AT and T. If I got a call at my desk, I had to be on-site within four hours for emergencies. Loma Prieta, Northridge, fires, floods. I personally saw destruction and devastation. I had 65 direct reports and a 110 indirect reports. Our job was to bring back the infrastructure. Nothing prepared me to experience a firestorm of my own. They said it could never happen in the community that I lived in.

At 01:32AM, I woke with my husband and three children to the smell of smoke. We looked out our window when we saw fire surrounding our entire house. My five year old son had Spider Man underwear on. The rest of us also weren't close to run and leave the home. We got out of our house, and we drove through a tunnel of fire.

Propane tanks were blowing to the left and to the right of us. It was unreal. It was something I wasn't prepared for, and I thought I was prepared for anything that could happen. That morning, I got access back to my home. My neighbors' homes were all gone.

There were looters to the homes that were still present, and I got out of the car, there was a horrific smell. My next door neighbor was a deputy, and he informed me that our other neighbor had burned in her vehicle, and they had not been able to remove her body until the area was stabilized. I will never get out of my mind going through a firestorm, saving my family, and the smell of a burning body. Because of what you're hearing, everybody's talking legal stuff, I'm talking heart. Vote no. No. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in the chambers? Yes.

Hi. Again, Carrie Watson, and I've been in Penryn for twenty four years. I live on top of the ridge, and I can't get out of there unless I go down the hill because my road's closed at the very top. I've had a fire below me before, which I was unable to get out. I can't go through the Bickford Ranch because that's all gated off now.

And I couldn't get down the road because there was a fire literally right down the road from me. Where am I supposed to go if that's what's happening now? I'm hearing that, you know, the congestion that will happen on Penryn Road is real. And now I'm hearing that it's over on Sierra College and Del Mar as well, which is another access that I could go. So if I'm stuck both ways, that I can't even get off my bridge, I don't know what to do.

So I implore you to really consider the safety of this. And I didn't know that there was going to be another entrance off of Penman Road into this three ms development. So you're just congesting the whole thing. And it's going to be worse, like she said, the firestorm. So I do ask that you consider this as the safety issue, obviously. And thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

I'm hobbling up. Here I come. Good morning. My name is Jim Reed, Penryn residents. And I'm just hoping that the public and everyone realizes this is a process and they need to get involved with the process. I've seen more and more people come as it gets to the final vote. This started a long time ago with the general plan, and people need to understand the process and get involved with the process.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the chambers who would like to speak? Okay. Is there anyone online?

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

Greetings. Board of supervisors. Diane Louise Alessi from Christian Valley Park in District 5, six decades in the county. And most of you have heard my voice, and I use this via ADA accommodation, and I think it's despicable. And the other groups have asked me to tell you how despicable it was for you not to include the public at large process via that platform.

But with that said, this board, I you need to use your own common sense and your own research because staff is promoting fear porn. And the county and the residents here don't wanna hear it. We wanna fight back. We don't wanna be railroaded. This the state has failed Californians up and down the state for the last ten years.

That's obvious, and you'd be have to be under a rock to not know it. Everything coming out of Sacramento is destructive, and it needs to be stopped. I mean, when this county was first a county seat of government, it coalesced and and syndicated with the other counties to fight back and brought forth a constitutional convention. We're at that point against so that we can repeal and we can, uphold our local rights. In terms of this project, I urge you to look at the facts that are in front of you.

And one of it is the roundabout is not mitigation. Therefore, it does not mitigate the emergency exodus. Every failed town and city up and down the state has killed people because somebody just figured it was something to say as a mitigation. I looked on AI three platforms even globally. I went from local to statewide to globe to nation to globally on roundabouts and whether or not that it would be there was any study whatsoever that

Diane, can you wrap your comments up?

Yes. The roundabout has never been studied in a mass exodus for wildfire, and, therefore, if anything, AI says it will be a pinch point and will cause deaths. So with that, I yield.

Thank you.

Alright.

With that I will now bring it back to the board for questions. Oh yeah, I'm sorry. Yes. I'll go over to staff. Do you need a couple minutes or

Yeah. If the chair is so inclined, staff would request five minutes just to huddle with my colleagues here and get back to you.

Okay. We'll just take a Excuse me. We'll just take a five minute break so staff can gather the answers to make sure they answer your questions. And then we'll be back in five minutes, which would be ten twenty five.

Test one two.

Okay, everyone. I think we're ready to get started. Thank you, everyone, for your patience as staff worked on getting the answers to your questions. And I would just implore you as we go through the rest of this hearing to please remain respectful. I know that there is very strong feelings on this issue, and so please just be respectful of staff and of each other, and try not to cheer or heckle if you can because I really want this place to be a place where everyone gets a voice and we all treat each other respectfully.

So with that, public comment is closed, so I will kick it over to staff to answer questions.

Yeah. Thank you, Chair Landon. I'm going to address a number of the questions and comments that came up. I'm also going to have Ms. Callie Kettinger, CECL, lead planner for the project, talk about the CEQUA conformity review that was completed as well as address some of the questions that came up about the project as it relates to building code compliance and fire access.

Those were questions that were brought up by one of the public commenters. And then lastly, we'll have Clayton Cook talk a little bit about the in response to the questions that came up about the burden of of of proof as it relates to the concessions and waivers that are being requested. There were a number of comments that came up about that. So first, I just wanted to mention that many of the comments that were received today were similar to ones that were received at your December 16 meeting. And included in that were a number of comments made about fire evacuation and the roundabout.

That was, as the board is is well aware, discussed in detail at the December 16 meeting, and staff is comfortable with the analysis that was provided at the December 16 hearing, so we're not going to speak more about the evacuation planning and the the roundabout as part of the our responses here. I did want to spend a moment to talk about traffic and comments that were made about the new information that was mentioned that that commenters believed had been received. I wanna restate what I mentioned during my opening remarks and staff presentation that staff does not believe that there is any new information that was not previously reviewed by staff and provided to the board as part of your consideration of the project back on December 16. I will note that the traffic count numbers that are used in the traffic study prepared by Fair and Peers and reviewed by Department of Public Works are more conservative than what is found in the ITE manual, that there is a layering that was done to, again, be more conservative in approach of traffic count numbers than what the ITE manual includes. I will also restate what I said earlier about the access to the 3 M Plaza property.

The materials that are before the board today, the design review agreement along with the exhibit for frontage improvements is unchanged from what you saw on December 16. As I mentioned earlier, staff is aware that there are comments between or conversations between the project applicant and the property owner, But at this point, we do not have a request to review any revised exhibits. If a request were to come in after the project had been approved, then it would need to comply with our zoning ordinance requirements for consideration of changes to an approved project. There were also questions that were brought up about compliance with affirmative the affirmatively furthering fair housing requirements. I will note that as part of the rezoning of this property that it was included an affirmatively furthering fair housing analysis was completed and provided to HCD for their review of this site at the number of units and acreage that was proposed at the time.

HCD had has reviewed the site and has found no concerns with the projects or with the site at the density and the number of units proposed in being a concern of compliance with the affirmatively furthering fair housing requirements. There were also a couple of comments made about why a smaller project couldn't be considered here. I think we covered this in detail on December 16, but just to mention once again that the project would need to meet the minimum requirements for the RM 30 designation, which is 20 units to the acre. And then last, I just want to mention that there were some some questions about the processing of of this project as a ministerial by right application. I know we talked about it quite at length on December 16, but, again, the state law does require that projects that have a minimum of 20% affordable housing be processed by Wright and ministerial.

Included in that by Wright ministerial processing is that the project would not be subject to a CEQA review. And so to talk a little bit further about the conformity review that we did prepare in abundance of caution for this project, I do want to, ask miss Gedinger Cecil to talk about that as well as, those builder code compliance and fire access requirements.

Thank you, Chris. As it relates to CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, a conformity review was prepared for this project. As was discussed at the December 16 hearing, there were site specific analyses prepared for the project. These include a local traffic analysis, biological resources assessment, cultural record searches, and pedestrian surveys. There was also a preliminary drainage and storm water quality reports that were prepared and these are also posted on the project website and have been available for public review since September.

As it relates to the comment regarding compliance with the California Building Code as well as the applicable fire code, As was noted at the December 16 hearing, this project has been reviewed by the serving fire district and the chief did state at that hearing that the project would provide adequate access and internal circulation review meets the serving fire district. The mutual aid apparatus could circulate the site through mountable curbs and also consistent with all other project review final plans would be reviewed by building officials for California building code compliance. The last thing I'd like to note is that it is my understanding that that letter from Misty Camp was received and provided to the board, but I would like to ask the clerk to confirm that. Thank you.

Yes. I can confirm that we did receive two emails from Misty Camp and I did speak with her. We received one on January 22, which was distributed to the board members on the twenty third and one on January 25, which was distributed to the board members this morning.

Thank you, Ms. Wood. We'll now have Mr. Cook speak to sort of the burden of proof, if you will, for the concessions and waivers.

Thank you. Yeah. There were some public comments that came up talking about making the applicant prove that those density bonus waivers and concessions could be granted. And I think it's important to clarify that there are there are limited circumstances where an otherwise permitted concession or waiver could be granted. We've certainly talked about the public health or safety impacts that are unmitigable.

But I think it is significant to note that court opinions recognize that unmitigable specific adverse health and safety impacts are a rarity, and the statute goes so far to say as they arise infrequently. In addition, the under state law, the county is required to grant those waivers and concessions unless it makes particular findings. So the way it's worded is that the default is that they get granted. The county would have to make findings itself to not grant them, and that that requirement and that burden of proof has been reiterated by case law. I also would wanted to note that there is a restriction in the statute that says a study cannot be required for purposes of granting a concession or incentive.

So some of the arguments about make them provide a study, that's not physically allowed under the law as it is.

So chair Landon, that completes staff's response to the comments. We're happy to answer questions from board members.

Could I ask on the California building code question with the two separate EVA for 200 plus dwelling units that question that came up?

Yes, this question also came up at the December 16 hearing and that question is regards to the distance between those two driveways and the fire code does establish a distance chief d'Ambroshi did state that he had reviewed that and that the plans are sufficient for adequate access

Thank you. Sorry I may have missed it when you were responding. Okay I'll bring it back to the board for questions and comments. I can't see your lights so supervisor Gesserson.

Great I had a quick question thank you. I know you just reviewed the traffic counts but obviously throughout all the emails all the meetings all the correspondence I've had on this item that has been a key concern and my staff and I did go out on peak hours and watch and sit at that area to make sure I was familiar firsthand as best I can be. I don't live it every day, so I can't be there every day. But we did. I think somebody had mentioned that.

There has been a characterization that these numbers were manipulated to benefit the project. When I talk to staff and I want to verify this very clearly You used the most conservative approach. In fact, it was more conservative than what the courts would typically ask us to do, which is the ITE manual. Is that correct For the record. Because I need to make sure the public knows we have asked these questions.

Yes, that is correct. We did talk with our DPW staff, and they did confirm that approach.

And so that the assumptions we made on where children might go to school and where people might drive to go to those schools were more conservative than what you'd be required.

More conservative and refined based on, as I mentioned, the district's will serve letter as well as other information as well. Correct.

Okay. Just wanted to make sure that on roundabout capacity and we shared we talked about this at December 16. Single lane roundabouts are fairly common in our county and in more higher prone fire areas. As I understand it, and as I witnessed evacuations in the Forest Hill area that doesn't have a roundabout, the sheriff were holding traffic at the site. And so holding traffic from entering a main intersection so that they could safely evacuate those that were most in danger, and get those out first, and then allow everyone else to exit.

In this situation, this apartment being type one construction and closer to the freeway and pedestrian friendly, my assumption is and I don't know if you've had these conversations or not we could hold people at the site so that the Penryn residents can safely evacuate those that are most in threat and get out ahead of allowing people to leave this complex if necessary or other complexes.

I

I can respond to that. I think this was also discussed in the at the hearing on December 16. But basically, in the event of a fire evacuation scenario, our sheriff's office and CHP would be the ones that would then perform the traffic control to allow evacuation, which could include, in the instance of a roundabout, holding one portion of the roundabout to let other portions of the roundabout access and leave. And this is also fairly close to Interstate 80.

We also excuse me. Was respectful of all of you. And so please, I just ask that I can question. Thank you. So we have also talked about contra flow because we have very large areas that are served by one lane roads or two lane roads. And so the sheriff has employed and can use contra flow to increase the capacity of those. Now the question of the radius is the one that I haven't had answered yet. So the radius was brought up in the span to camps and others comments. So the ladder truck radius at the roundabout is it can it get through the roundabout?

I think again as was mentioned at the December 16 hearing, the roundabout is mountable. It's a low profile design so that larger vehicles can mount the roundabout if needed.

Correct. Thank

you. I think those were my only technical questions.

Other questions from board members? Supervisor DiMate?

Yeah. Thank you, Chair. I did hear from the landowner of three Ms, so I guess I'm getting mixed answers. Is that USA Properties agreed to have eastbound left turn entrance into his facility. Can that or cannot that be happening without a new traffic study there? Because he told me that the three M agreed to have that cut out because it's supposed to be a curb there. Can that not happen because it hasn't been studied, or can that happen? Or is he not being told the truth that that turnout cannot be there?

Yeah. I can answer this. And and some of these questions came up in public comment too. We understand there have been discussions between the three m commercial center and the applicant about that left turn lane. That is not something that's before the board today. We understand that those discussions have been ongoing, and there may or may not be settlement talks. That's really outside of the county's purview, except to the extent that the applicant does decide that they need a project modification. If they did, then we would analyze that on our side and determine if further studies were needed to evaluate that or and and also the approval mechanism for it. But that is something that is is not before your board today, and it's not something brought before the planning commission.

Right. No. I know it I know it's not here, but it was just an ask for me. And so I just wanted clarification because I heard it was asked here. I know we can't we're not making a decision on that today, but I just want clarification so everybody knows what that situation is. I know we can't. It's not something that's here, but it's something that was addressed. So thank you for that. I don't have anything else right now.

Okay. Any other questions right now? Supervisor Jones. Oh, I'm good to let. Oh, Supervisor Lehman.

Again, probably it doesn't fair to this. But of all of the denials of these projects up and down the state, has the state implemented Builders Remedy? And have they gone to those? And I know Venice Beach just denied it, which is ironic because they voted for this. Has the state come in and shut their building departments down and said, hey. Like, you have told us, there is possibility for permits to not be allowed anymore. So on these projects have been denied, have they gone to the extreme and done that to any of these cities or county?

Yes. I believe that has happened historically. I don't know that it's happened with respect to violations of housing element law. And the reason for that is the remedies provided through builders remedy and lawsuits and fines have been ratcheted up through the state legislature recently. So those are, I would say, more effective mechanisms at ensuring compliance between jurisdictions. But there has been a historic precedent for the state taking over building permit issuance authority.

Okay. Also, if I know this is a huge if, if the builder came to us and said, hey. We'll make the project smaller, but we have to go find more land to accommodate under the housing element. How long does that take for us to go find a piece of property, get it implemented, to go put a 120 units somewhere else if that was to come to fruition? Not that I think it's going to. I like to wish big, like if I won the lottery yesterday. So if that is a if that does come to fruition, what does that look like?

Certainly. Yeah. There's there's some hypotheticals there, Ray. But maybe the first step would be that if a project on the site were proposed to have less affordable units than what is included in our housing element, and that could be you know, could either be, you know, some of the units being market rate or some of the units just no longer being part of the project, staff's first step would be to perform a no net loss analysis to determine whether or not we have adequate buffer to be able to accommodate a less number of affordable units than the two forty that are currently on our housing elements, residential land inventory. If a determination was made that we do not have adequate land to accommodate that reduction, then we would be under an obligation to rezone and to amend the housing element residential land inventory within 180.

Okay. Thank you for that. I got just one other comment. This is just a comment that I had asked for a meeting with our governor and our AG to see if we can amend this or do something for the whole state. And, of course, I've had crickets. I saw him at a funeral this weekend, didn't have the opportunity to talk to him because he was well guarded. But, again, we just let you guys know that we are doing our best to try to figure this out, but we are getting zero responses from the people who implemented this. So that's all I have to say.

Supervisor Actually

Oh. After supervisor asked that question about moratoriums, I was

They would have to comply with community plan requirements but as an affordable housing project they do have the ability to request state density bonus law concessions and waivers.

Okay. So that basically means not necessarily?

If they request concessions and waivers, those as we've talked about must be granted unless

being where this project is located, I know we're showing an area where services and everything are available to the people who are going to move into this neighborhood. Those services are not walkable. So the people in this complex, they're going to have to have an automobile to drive, to buy their groceries. They're going to have to have a car to go and find a job and work a job and possibly to take children to school. So I think if you if you add in the study, a 107 cars was only 23% of the house.

If you took half of that, of course, that raises it to 50%. I think it raises that traffic report to a level that is not necessarily sustainable. So what I want to introduce I know you guys think you get nervous. How do you think we feel? Five of talking to a room full of people.

So forgive me if I sound nervous because I am. So on part of the fears and bear and piers okay tongue twister it says the Penryn Road Hopeway are unlikely to cause a substantial notable adverse effect on traffic during an evacuation event when considering the following factors. So one of the factors says that there's a short drive to I-eighty which is true but I don't think that is applicable because you have to include then the roundabout which is going to change their traffic a bit. Residents may vary their time needed to prepare and evacuate once an order is issued which may distribute even when evacuation trips occur. I think that's kind of unlikely that people, if they're given an evacuation order, that some people are going to take their time.

So now that we have this I think everybody's going to be running home. They're going to be throwing kids and animals, pets and important papers in their car, and they're going to get the heck out. So in this report, it said the estimated number of vehicles evacuating Penryn in this planning level evaluation, nine sixty cars would be less than the planning level hourly capacity of a single lane roundabout, which is 1,300 vehicles per hour. So I think if we add on there another two thirty one vehicles, does that skew now that result? So further I would say given the property's proximity to I-eighty Freeway future residents of Hopeway apartments would be unlikely to use any of the other listed evacuation routes except for the Penryn Road to I-eighty.

That makes sense. So I think that's where your the bulk of your load is going to be because now you've got everybody's going to go that way. And depending on what the cause of the evacuation is, I mean it very likely could prevent anybody from going the opposite direction on Penryn Road. It may be a case where you just have to get out to 80 to get out. So then there's an evacuation assessment.

The PRISM study asserts that the project traffic study did not consider an emergency evacuation scenario. Emergency events that could prompt an evacuation order are inherently unpredictable. Further, the California Attorney General's Office notes that areas in high or very high fire hazard severity zones are at the greatest wildfire risk. Another new piece of information that we did not know of in the first last December sixteenth was the fact that now Penrith has been designated as a high fire hazard. I believe it was PG and E that qualified it but you know they're designating them as a high fire hazard area.

I think we need to consider that. So it says here that the Hopeway Apartments project and most of the surrounding Penryn community is within the moderate fire hazard severity zone indicating a lower risk for wildfire. So having said that they've been designated as high fire, it kind of changes that part of the study, may be helpful here. So in addition to that new information, I understand we've talking about the that left turn lane into the three ms company. So of course emails have been obtained from the proponent and their communications with three ms and they've been talking with three ms since November, the third week in November about the possibility of dedicating a left turn lane there.

In this, they kind of indicate that three ms is going to sue them if they don't. I don't know if that's here or there. So they've been talking about this, but at one point on December 12 they say that they're going to run the concept by their people and but they're not going to get it in prior to the board of supervisors hearing but sometime in January. So now if they were going to bring it forward I mean wouldn't it be better to bring it forward now while we're discussing all this stuff because once we approve it then if they do that do we have to come back here and you know, go back to the drawing board on all of this? That I don't know.

I don't know. And it doesn't seem to make sense. So anyway, it was that was on, like I said, that was December 12, four days before our board meeting. So they knew what they wanted to do and I don't I can't say the intended because I don't know that. However two days after the board meeting they said that they wondered how to best implement and this left in turning movement to the three ms Center from southbound Penryn Road.

And of course southbound is where we just talked about all of the Hopeway people are going to be traveling and with the new break in the with a break in the new median. So so that part there is concern there for me and now I did find some other information. There are responses to sequel related appeal comments for Hopeway Apartments and this memo provides supplemental response information concerning emergency evacuations. First is noted that the Hopeway Apartments evacuation assessment prepared and supported the above referenced appeal states that based on publicly available mapping and known regional conditions, the overall likelihood of a large natural hazard driven evacuation is historically low at this location. So there again the new designation of high fire hazard sort of negates that comment.

The statement is supported by correspondence with the Placer County Sheriff's Office and input they received from local fire agencies. I'm gonna go one step further than that because I looked at I've looked at more things as you can imagine. So first of all, want to point out as far as public safety and evacuation, fire hazards, they there's a whole, listing of everything we've had in the county for for a while. In 2021, the river fire started August 4 by Amber's lighting dried fire I mean dried, grass. Okay, the brush brushing grass.

In Nevada County, it started in Nevada County approximately three miles west of Colfax and surrounding unincorporated areas. Fire was contained in nine days later on August 13 between Nevada and Placer Counties. There was 2,619 acres burned. There were 102 homes destroyed. There were 40 other structures destroyed.

There were 21 more structures damaged and there were two firefighter injuries and two civilian injuries. All that I'm saying is that whoever would have thought hot amber would have lit, you know, a a wild a grass fire like that. So then I started to dig even deeper. And so Placer County's health and safety element is mandatory, a general plan component addressing natural and human made hazards, fire, flood, seismic, climate risks, to minimize injury and property damage it requires emergency evacuation plan which is an EPEP emergency evacuation I think it's emergency preparedness evacuation plan Another tongue twister for you. It requires emergency evacuation plans for new development and aligns with climate adaptation strategies.

So the EPEP, the purpose of that is a document that may be required for developments in Placer County that are in natural disaster areas or has natural disaster hazard areas. So if a project is in an area with only one road for emergency escape or fewer than two ways out so we've just discussed that all of the Hopeway folks they're going to come on to Penryn to get to the freeway. That's one road. And EPEP is needed. EPEP guidance created to assist developers to understand when an EPEP is necessary, how to prepare plan, how to ensure compliance with Placer County's health and safety element, to minimize impacts of local hazards, to reduce likelihood of injury or loss of life and to preserve critical infrastructure.

In addition to that, I looked at the Placer County Sustainability Plan. It's a vulnerability assessment is what it amounts to. In appendix one, it's a complete vulnerability assessment results. Vulnerability scores for each sensitivity in these areas. So V1 is minimal vulnerability, V2 is low, v three is moderate v four is high and v five is severe for wildfire children is a v three which is moderate households in poverty are v four Does this qualify the same as very low income?

I'm not sure. Persons with chronic health problems which might typically be the lower income might have chronic health problems if they don't have health care available that is a V3. Persons with disabilities maybe people who are lower income as well that's a V3. Persons without access to lifelines V3. Senior citizens V5.

And I think we already know that senior citizens in Placer County are especially widows are losing their income and perhaps possibly being more likely to live in an affordable low income apartments. So seniors being alone is also V5, infrastructure, access roads V5, major highways V2 and schools v three grasslands v four public safety response v three communication v three so but the long and short of all this is that I'm just trying to show should we require an EPEP because I didn't see anywhere where OES was involved in any of this. I know we've talked to sheriff, we've talked to fire but in order to have an emergency evacuation preparedness plan isn't aren't our experts OES, our office of emergency services. So that's kind of new for me. I think it's new material.

Do we need to have that here so no no no no thank you but no so anyway let me just go over my notes here so you see it's it's all it's the traffic it's where everybody's got to go it's the possible addition of the left turn lane because the original and the information that I've read is that they showed a complete flow with the roundabout and a full left that lane that's going to go straight down to the freeway. Now will it be interfered with creating this designated left turn into the three ms center. So I think that's all the new information that I wanted to introduce and let me think on that. Thank you.

Chair Linden if I may if staff could have another five minute recess just to coordinate Excuse our

I would ask that if you want a diligent thoughtful decision, I would suggest that we give staff the time to evaluate her questions. I think those are fair questions that need to be addressed and I would like to know what staff has to say to that. So I am more than happy to give you ten minutes to answer to answer her questions sorry

to interrupt, but she's asking these questions for you guys. So realize that for her to get the answers, our staff needs time. I would like the time too because I wanna know not only as a resident, but as somebody who has to make a a decision up here. So please do not boo my colleagues up here for looking out for your best interest.

Or staff. Either

way. Also work with me as well. Yes. Just like I work with you guys when I live in Penryn, I take this hat off. Right?

So just respect to everybody up here to us do our job for you guys. Like somebody said, I work for you because I get a raise and a vacation. That we're these questions are good questions, and for you guys to boo us up here when we're actually looking out for you just doesn't look good. So I just wanted to make that comment. And one other thing before we go close off for five minutes, driving through Penryn all the time and going back to what the board made this decision to have this piece of property rezoned in 1996, I believe it was from mister Holmes who told me that, is that they also had the vision to have five lanes there because they knew that this project would eventually probably come to fruition even before the arena stuff.

So for for me and my thoughts to go have a roundabout, might as well just go put trees there because it does become a roadblock. So I don't think we should if we're if this project does go through sometime or whenever, that we also shouldn't deviate from what they thought about sixty, forty years ago to have this five lanes there as well. I think that if I go put a roundabout there, I might as well just go to put an orchard there because you're not gonna be able to drive through it. If we have to get 400, 500 cars out, I'm not gonna go make people stop at their home in this subdivision go, oh, sorry. We have to wait for the people who've been here before you to get out.

That's ridiculous. Because I'm not gonna allow that to happen. So I think the roundabout needs to go away. If there's a way to make it go away and put the five lanes in there, I will support that traffic because I still don't agree with the traffic study in the real world because now that school started, Penrhyn Road is a nightmare and it has backed up twice that I've been there onto the freeway. So I don't even know how Caltrans could approve that. So those are just my comments and thank you guys for your support.

Okay. With that, we will take a ten minute break and plan on returning at 11:35 and I appreciate all of your patience. Yeah. I know it's rough. I'm sorry.

Fine. Okay. We are back, and staff is back. All right. I will kick it over to Mr.

Pahuli to answer questions.

Okay. Thank you, Chair Landon and board members. Appreciate the opportunity for us to be able to, talk internally and and come back to you with some responses to, the points brought up by, supervisor Jones. For purposes of our response, we are going to have, miss Katie Jackson from our Department of Public Works. She's going to speak to, points raised, regarding the assumptions, and data used in the Fair And Piers traffic study.

From there, we are gonna have, miss Callie Kelly Kettinger Cecil talk about the, PG and E fire mapping that was done and the difference between that and the statewide fire severity hazard maps that were, that were used in evaluating this project as well as other projects throughout the county and explain the differences between those two mapping mapping approaches. I would like to, just mention just at the onset that, we did evaluate the points that miss, or that supervisor Jones mentioned. Staff continues to, assert that there are there's no new information that was not, previously evaluated as part of the December 16, board hearing. And so we're gonna talk a little bit further with the responses that we provide. And I'm gonna, at this point, turn it over to miss Jackson to talk about the traffic study.

Thank you.

Good morning, My name is Katie Jackson, and I'm an engineering manager with the Department of Public Works. I'm also a registered traffic engineer and a registered civil engineer with the state of California. As Chris mentioned, I wanted to address a couple of the questions that were raised earlier. I'll start with the trip generation methodology. This is discussed in a lot of detail in the traffic analysis that was prepared for this project.

There are numbers for the daily trip generation, the AM peak hour trip generation, and the PM peak hour trip generation. Those came out of a hybrid approach where we had the ITE trip generation manual. That's the Institute of Traffic Engineers trip generation manual, which is the standard state of the practice reference book to determine what trip generation should be for any traffic study. I'll note that that's based on observed information at existing land uses all across the nation. So they go out.

They collect, in this case, generation information on existing affordable housing sites. And then they say, per the number of dwelling units in your proposed site, this proposed project is expected to have x number of trips in each of these time frames. And so in the AM peak hour, there are two fifty two trips projected for the proposed project. 73 of those are inbound trips and 179 are outbound trips. Now, do want to note that in addition to the ITE trip generation rates, the AM peak hour was augmented, meaning we added to it to account for school traffic.

And the school traffic information came from the WILL SERV letter that was provided for the proposed project. It stated which schools in the area the students from the proposed project would attend. And we also looked at the Loomis Unified School District Facilities Report, which indicated student generation rates, meaning how many students are generated per unit of different types of residential housing. That study also pointed to another study from Windsor School District that had rates specific to affordable housing projects. And what they found was that the rate of student generation from affordable housing projects is higher than some of the other rates that they had collected for the Loomis area.

And so we used those higher rates to develop the student trip generation for the proposed project. And that was added on top of the ITE rates, which is why it's considered a very conservative analysis. They also looked at the PM peak hour, in which we had 65 inbound trips and 45 outbound trips. Those are standard ITE trip generation rates as described in the traffic analysis. I did want to mention that the number of parking spaces is not indicative of the trip generation for any proposed project.

Those are two metrics that are calculated independently of each other. There was a question again about the left turn lane at the 3 Ms Plaza. I do want to reiterate, as staff mentioned earlier, it's not part of the proposed project at this time. There have been some discussions about it, but it's not part of the proposed project. And if it were to come back in, it would have to be reevaluated and go through the proper process with the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works weighing in and evaluating that analysis.

I also wanted to reiterate some earlier statements that we've made about the roundabout. The five lane section of Penryn Road, as envisioned in the community design elements of the community plan, was not needed as a result of roadway capacity. The circulation element of the community plan found that a single lane in each direction would be sufficient for traffic capacity at that location. I also wanted to mention that as part of the traffic analysis for this study, we looked at a number of different configurations for the intersection of Pope Way and Penryn Road, including a side street stop control, which is what exists there today, where the side street stop and Penryn Road has free flow of traffic. We looked at an all way stop control at that intersection.

We looked at a traffic signal at that intersection. And we also evaluated the roundabout for that location. And it was found that the roundabout was the best solution for overall traffic operations along that corridor. And finally, I wanted to note that the roundabout was projected to operate at level service A, which is very minimal delay in both peak hours under the existing plus project and the cumulative plus project scenario, which means that it would operate with very little delay in the future, even project's with traffic added on. So at this time, I'll hand it over to Kathy.

Just perhaps before Ms. Kettinger Cecil speaks, I just wanted to mention once again that the traffic analysis, and that memorandum, was included in your December 16, board package as part of the conformity review. So that, information was available, including the assumptions and methodology used that miss Jackson just repeated, as well as, again, mentioning the, the design review exhibits, including those frontage exhibit frontage exhibit for Penryn Road is unchanged from your December 16, December 16 hearing. With that, we'll have miss Kettinger Cecil talk about the

I'm sup sorry. Supervisor Gore looks like

she has a quick she jumps to that, can I just ask a question that you a statement that you made at the very end, Katie, about the roundabout

Yes?

And the level of service. Mhmm. And I heard you say primarily level of service a. Yes. Can you clarify that? That when it's not great, when it's not good, like at D is when it's in the AM peak hour for about fifteen minutes. But that's at least my understanding of the report. But

most of the time, it's a level of service A with the roundabout. So roundabout itself would operate at level service A during the peak hours. And level service, as we've discussed previously, is a letter grade, kind of like a report card where it goes from level service A to level service F, A being the least amount of congestion, the least amount of delay, F being the most amount of congestion, the most delay. And so the traffic study that Ferran Pierce provided that was included in the December 16 item indicated that there is level service a traffic operations for the roundabout under the existing plus project and the cumulative plus project scenarios.

Thank you.

Okay. We're going to move on to Ms. Kettinger Cecil, she's going to speak about the hazard mapping, the differences between the PG and E and the statewide mapping.

Thank you, Chris. So it has been raised that PG and E recently issued maps of their own describing high fire areas. The EPEP guidance questionnaire that has been prepared to evaluate whether a project should prepare an EPEP specifically asks responsibility areas. And so these state responsibility areas correspond to those severity areas as mapped by CAL FIRE, the State Department of Forestry. This site remains moderately mapped by CAL FIRE.

PG and E generates maps for their own purposes that are not specifically asked at our EPEP. And it's also important to note that a lot of the mapping that PG and E has prepared, if you look on their website, it appears to be really more about where their hardening projects have been occurring and less about land use decisions. As it relates to the EPEP guidance questionnaire, as I mentioned, it specifically talks about fire severity areas, and those are, again, those CAL FIRE areas. And this site does remain moderate. The other thing I'd like to point out as well is that the questionnaire does ask if the site is within a constrained area, as identified within Figure 13 of the health and safety element.

This site is not identified as being within a constrained area. So those are the two bits of information I wanted to note. The other thing I wanted to note as well, Supervisor Jones, you had asked about the types of population who may be here. The questions that are noted in the EPEP guidance as well as the EPEP document itself, those questions are really getting at, is this project limited to those populations? So for example, would it be a residential care home that is only serving seniors?

This particular project would serve a wide range of populations similar to a standard subdivision. If this project was proposed to be just for the disabled or just for senior citizens, then that falls under a different consideration. So that's what I'd like to offer today, and I'm available for other questions.

And that completes our response to the topics that were brought up by Supervisor Jones.

Okay. And, supervisor Jones, do you have follow-up questions or any clarity? Okay. Supervisor Gustafson.

Thank you. And I wanted to address a couple of things that both supervisor Jones and I think supervisor Demetay were saying. Factually, we are using roundabouts throughout our region for increasing traffic flow and safety. And so Highway 49, the Caltrans roundabouts they've just put in, one in Auburn at Orland Road. We have another one coming at Bell Road and Interstate 80.

They've been proven by traffic engineers to increase traffic safety because you reduce speeds and people moderate in. And so I wanna make sure that's clear. Evacuation protocols are that we do hold people. And I was firsthand at River Fire, Mosquito Fire, and Caldor Fire. We hold people, and we evacuate those most at risk.

It could be one side or the other of a situation, but our sheriffs and CHP and fire predict that fire or that emergency could be a hazmat spill on an Interstate 80, and then you'd be evacuating a different way than maybe out to the freeway. But they get those people and take care of them, and I watch firsthand where the heroes in our community saved people's lives. And I've got a I just don't want any discredit to that, to what they're saying, that we do hold people and moderate their traffic because there really aren't many communities where everybody can get on the road, if any, where everybody can get on the road at one time, and we don't experience congestion. So that's why they have to control that. So all that aside, I I think I see where things are going today.

And I just wanna say on on, on these decisions, we heard a lot from you that you thought we were ignoring public safety and didn't care, and that is the furthest thing from the truth for this board of supervisors. And I speak for my colleagues. We have invested over 51% of our budget in public safety just to the sheriff's DA probation. On top of that, our five year contract with Cal Fire for Placer County Fire. We stand behind those words.

We integrated the sheriff and funded positions for the sheriff and fire to be integrated into our OES department because of situations that occurred, in our OES department with the, communications. We wanted everybody on the same team as we approach those. So when you hear from one, you're hearing from them all that they are dealing with that. I also wanna speak to our staff because I I I know you're very passionate. I understand that passion and emotion and concern for your community.

We hear that. We hear this often. Every major decision that comes before this board is a hard one. The easy ones get resolved earlier on without those controversies. So we do hear it, and we hear you're passionate about the nature of your community.

We, as a board, made a decision a couple of years ago with Rina that we would distribute housing throughout our community as equitably as we could make it possible. We looked at all those Rina sites, and we landed on where we could put people that are gonna perform jobs like being baristas and helping at the clean stalls at the equine center and working at the gas station next door. Those are not necessarily high paying jobs, but they're needed. We need those people. We all need them.

So we made that decision, and this decision on the Penryn site was one. I know you disagree, Brian, but this was one of the best sites for meeting those needs in that District 3. Most of the housing is going to District 5 and District 1 and affordable housing where it can be accommodated. But having people who can work in our communities and all of our communities is essential to me, and that's why I have supported this moving forward. But I wanted to make one other comment.

I hear your skepticism on traffic. And if this project were to move forward, I as one supervisor am willing to work with our county staff as well as the developer to do what we've done in other communities, which is run shuttle buses and vans because people in affordable excuse me, and people in affordable housing are on a very tight budget. And if they don't have to drive and their kids can go to school on a van in a van, they're using that and that is who uses our transit system, ladies and gentlemen. It is not probably most of us in this room. We can afford our cars but not everybody can.

And so the project we most recently built up at or we didn't build, but a developer built in, the Schafer's Mill area, they bought two buses with tax credit financing, and they're shuttling people into town and back to their errands, doctor's appointments, all of that. So I am committed as one supervisor, if this project were to go forward, to getting you the resources if the traffic exceeds the expectations. And I just wanted to put that on the record because I don't know. None of us know how the world is changing. Watching the traffic the other day, you know, at peak hour, there's a lot of traffic at that intersection.

But there's a lot of traffic at almost every intersection in our county. But I do stand committed to that. Please don't blame our staff for doing the job they need to do. They are giving you the facts. Whether you like the facts, whether you're pleased about the changes that may happen to your community, that's a different story.

But please, these people have integrity. Every expert that we have had has had integrity and shared with us their best best information they have. And so whether these changes are changes that you agree with or not, whether the project goes forward or not, I'm just stating what I took into consideration to support this project. I do think it's a fair resolution. So thank you.

Thank you, supervisor, supervisor Demetay.

Yeah. Thank you, everybody. And I getting back to supervisor Gutherson's, comment about transportation. I do sit on the transportation committee, and there is a need at all levels, well, almost all levels of services for people to get from one place to the next. And a project like this would probably incur more of that need.

As I sit on these committees and I sit on first five committees, and I see that the people who have this type of income level need access to get to the kids to get to their dentist. So work we've been working on projects with vouchers and stuff like that for them to be able to pay their own family members who have a vehicle to get them to there so they don't have to wait at a bus stop. We are continuing to, put efforts into getting people who, can't afford two cars and their spouse has to use it to go to work. So that is a concern to let you guys know what we are also doing at other committees that we do. I will always agree to disagree that the roundabout, don't think, is probably the safest thing or not maybe that's the safest thing, but I think putting up a barrier in the middle of the road probably is not the safest thing to do, and I will always argue that.

Is it fun to drive around? Yeah. It's fun. But is it, you know, gonna be a hindrance? And I still think it should be five lanes.

My question to staff that just came up, and I was talking to some people, that both exits coming out of this project go to Hopeway. If people panic and, again, these are hypotheticals like everybody's asking. People are trying to get out of there if there's a fire in this complex, and we have a big fire truck with a ladder truck that has to get in there or possibly is in there. Does it block that roadway? Is it possible on the northeast corner of this project to put an emergency exit for residents to get onto Boynton and then exit so they don't have to use Hopeway.

Is that a possibility where the so visually where the big seventy six sign is, it's dirt and right there. Is it possible to knock that hill out and use it for people to exit there in case of an emergency. So both exits are not on Hope Way.

Thank you, supervisor. As it relates to a separate EVA, there was an emergency vehicle access initially proposed going at the Southeast through the Blaspher Buddhist Church property. And ultimately, that EVA is no longer proposed. Correct. But that is the EVA that that was looked at.

Right. But it's not there. So in reality, it's not there. But, again, people would still have to either go around to Hopeway or cut through their property. But to egress there quickly, could we not put an emergency exit right there where the gates could be opened? They wouldn't be used every day, obviously. But it seems to me, logically, as I go there all the time, that that is not a bad way to funnel people out of there without trying to get them all through Hope Way.

Certainly, an an EVA could be proposed and analyzed.

How would we go about getting that done? I know it's something we can't vote on today, but how do I push forward to make sure that these people not get held up Yep. But can still leave either on foot or by car, most likely by foot. If they have to evacuate to a safer space, maybe even go sit or stand by where the central parking is there for bus route for the bus pickup there?

Sure. Good good good question, supervisor. I think it's similar to the, responses that that I provided earlier about the, the 3 M Plaza access. If there are, any proposed revisions to the to the project, and this would be a revision to the project to modify, project exhibits as part of the design review agreement, those would be submitted, by the applicant. Staff would evaluate it, and then in accordance with our zoning ordinance requirements, for projects that have already been approved, modifications to them, we would process that request.

And how long would a modification take if if we're if we're requesting it at this level and for them to go put it in, how long would that I mean, obviously, we could make it happen, I would imagine, pretty quickly if we have to. But I guess to go through all the hoops, if we request I can't request it now, but if I can request it later, anybody can request it. Or they come to us and say, that's a great idea. Let's implement that.

Yeah. Again, depending on the, depending on staff's review of it and the impacts to, any other part of the project, there are a couple of options for, how that could be could be handled, per our zoning ordinance.

Okay.

So we would have to just evaluate to the, to what extent those changes maybe impact other components of the project and whether or not those might be able to be handled administratively or if they, would require a a subsequent modification entitlement.

Okay. I would think the impacts would be less because now we're funneling people out another rat hole instead of just one. So I'd imagine the impact would be better. So just to throw that at USA properties if this is comes to fruition. So thank you.

That would be part of our analysis.

Thank should also mention is the county is somewhat limited as to how we can condition or require the project to be, developed. In that sense, if this is not a mandatory rec criteria based upon an objective standard within our general plan, community plan, or county code, it's not something that can be imposed on the project. Right. And I mentioned that because we did have testimony at the last hearing that the configuration and the access is sufficient as it's designed. Right. So it's, this would have to be at the applicant's request. It's not, something that the county could require.

Right. That's why I'm throwing it out there and looking at them. So thank you.

Could could I follow-up on that?

Yes. Sure. So

as I said with transit or shuttles, increased services, we can if we see this is our job we do every day in our county. As things change, we have to find mitigations and solve problems whether it's sidewalks in Meadow Vista or roundabouts at certain areas. And so we could prioritize further investment, not just leaving it on the developer to help solve some of the issues that are occurring in these locations. So it could be an EVA and that we believe is helpful to the general community and make those findings or it could be others. So I just you know I think it it is worth our discussion as we talk about how we solve problems in our communities that we're required to do.

Supervisor Gore. Thank you. First of all,

I wanna say thank you to my colleagues. Supervisor Jones, really appreciate you looking to really you've really dug down deep to see, you know, have we done all of our due diligence? And are there things that we still need to address? So I just I really appreciate that. And, Supervisor DiMate, I appreciate you looking at what else can we do, right?

I think that's really important. And I appreciate Supervisor Gustafson's comments as well, and especially sharing that this board doesn't take any of these matters lightly like none of us do. I shared my perspective at the last meeting, but I think the hardest part is balancing the obligations that, I have as a county supervisor that, to represent our residents. I think we all we all have that obligation. And then the hardest part about this job is that the county is an arm of the state of California.

And there are mandates that are given to counties that we must implement. Sheriff off sheriff public health, different services, jails that we have to implement. And, unfortunately, we are in a situation where we now must implement, making allowances for affordable housing. Because in the state of California, there's not been enough housing built at all. And now the state has come down on local jurisdictions, and we've seen that very clearly, how they are forcing our hands.

And we've had local jurisdictions push back and say no, and the state has trumped. The state has won across the board. Elk Grove Elk Grove is a great example. It was a fine of $2,400,000 that they lost. Money that came to and supervisor Jones made this point.

Money that would have been taken out of the taxpayers' pockets, which it was, and they had to do a whole new project elsewhere at a loss to those taxpayers in that community. And we we are in the same situation where HCD is looking at us because we are in their backyard. And we looked at this property, and it may not be ideal to the residents. It's not ideal to anyone. Nobody wants a large development next to their properties.

I understand that. A 100%, I understand that. And we are pushing and pulling between our hearing our residents and your concerns, and then also doing the best we can to mitigate and then addressing the state concerns. So I I want you all to know that this this is the push and pull we are feeling. And in a lot of ways, my hands are tied if I'm looking at what ultimately the state is going to force us to do.

And then if we make a decision to not, approve this project or the project gets reduced by 50% because I hear that it's more, acceptable to folks. Here's the challenge. Then our board is has to make sure we have enough properties in our county to, address affordable housing. Well, then I would look at then where where are those going to be? This is a we're looking at right now, we have very few sites in district, well, three, which is where this actually is.

Right? And we have one affordable housing site in District 2, which is in Sheridan. And so at some point, these have to get dispersed to supervisor point. So do we say no here and put them all in Sheridan in District in District 2 where we don't have any, projects? And I hear people saying make it smaller, make it smaller. But in order to make these projects pencil out, it is so costly. It is so very costly to make these pencil projects pencil out.

Let's let her speak, please.

And so that's where I'm looking at it. We have a affordable housing developer, which is not US homes, it's USA Properties, a different organization, where they focus on doing affordable housing, trying to figure out how to get those state crack tax credits and utilize not for profit dollars and being really creative to get some of these projects built. And this is a project that would ultimately house residents in our community who don't make the amount of money that you and I make. And at the end of the day, we've got to actually find places for people who live in our community, who work in our community to live here too. And I know this is hard for all of us, but that's the decision that I am trying to make.

And so I appreciate your input, I appreciate that folks don't like this. And then there is the other part where my arms are being twisted by the state of California. And you could say that we could go and lobby against the state, but people have been trying to do that for the last number of years, and they have had zero success.

Okay. Any other comments from board members? I will just chime in and say so I've been kind of disappointed, actually. And I know everyone is very as I mentioned, there are a lot of angry feelings about this. People feel like they haven't been heard, they haven't been listened to, that we haven't been transparent.

People have questioned staff and their integrity. And I would just say I really want to stick up for staff here, that they're good people, really doing their job and doing the best they can with the information that they have. And as supervisor Gustafson noted, their job is to bring us the facts as they see them and to give us input and information and to and for county counsel to give us their legal advice. And you can put any issue in front of any two attorneys, and I'm sure you could perspectives and two different interpretations of law. But our job is we rely on county counsel, and we do rely on staff.

And it doesn't mean we don't take input of the public and the community because it is of utmost importance that we hear all of your perspectives. But I was mostly disappointed because I felt like the December 16 hearing, everyone was very respectful. And people listened to everyone else, and they were firm in their decision of what they thought. But really, the way I've seen people treated today has been really just very sad and disappointing, and I think is, just it's not a reflection of who I know we all are. And so I'm I'm sorry that it went that way because I just did not want it to go that way.

Now with that, my position on the project hasn't changed. As I mentioned in the December 16 hearing, I really my main reason for voting no on the Rina rezone was because of this Penryn project. And so I still believe the same. I still understand that we are at a great risk if this project doesn't get approved, And I will have to answer for that, and I will have to answer to taxpayers if that ends up happening. And I really sought out on the kind of new information side of, okay, is there valid new information that was not given to us in a prior hearing that we weren't given that we could continue this item?

And I just can't confidently hang my hat on new information. Again, still feel the same about the project, and I still have the same thoughts on it. So that has not changed for me. I think that's all I'll say. And with that, I guess we will unless anyone has any other further comments, then I will bring it back for a motion and a vote.

Madam chair, I will, move. I guess I need to ask counsel, what we move. I don't know if we actually do we need to read this? Somebody help me out here, please. Remember if you read them.

They were read into the record

at the beginning. Okay? Do have to take them individually.

So you can just reference them as item one a, one b, if that's easier.

Alright. Well, then I will move approval of item one a.

I will second.

Gore? Aye. Steve Mate? No. Jones?

Aye. Gustafson? Aye. Landon?

No. And I will move item, one b. Second.

Gore? Aye. Demetay? No. Jones? Aye. Gustafson? Aye. Landon?

No. And I'll move item one c.

Second. I'm sorry. A second.

Gore? Aye. Demetay? No. Jones? Aye. Gustafson? Aye. Landon?

No. And I'll move item one d.

Second. Gore?

Aye. Demetay?

No. Jones?

Aye. Gustafson? Aye. Landon?

No. Okay. With that, we do still have another item coming before the board. We are going to take a half hour break and come back and hear item two, and we'll expect it to be here back at about 12:45. All right.

Welcome back, everyone. Hope you had a nice little break. We are now going to go to Item two, and this is the proposed loan and funding agreement for the Hopeway Apartments project. The process is going to be pretty much the same as the previous item. Staff is going to first provide a brief report.

I'll ask the board members if there are any questions. And then we will ask for any public comments on the item. Because this is a new item and we hadn't heard it before, I'm going to have three minutes for this public comment. And I am going to ask members of the public to please keep your comments focused on this matter at hand, the consideration of a loan and funding agreement. The board, obviously already heard ample testimony on the previous item, and, that is, I think, all I need to say. So with that, we will now hear item 2a.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Board. Nikki Stregan with your Economic Development and Housing Division. I'm also joined by Marie Maniscalco, our Senior Housing Development Project Planner. I'd like to briefly introduce this item, the loan and funding agreement and promissory note for the proposed Hopeway Apartments project, and cover a little bit of background. So by way of background here, staff is bringing this board item forward pursuant to board policy.

That's direction identified in, one of the board critical success factors and policy within the 2021 through 2029 housing element as referenced in the Board memo. The request is also consistent with the Housing Action Plan, which has a goal to facilitate the creation of 1,300 achievable units by the end of the housing element cycle. And that goal is advanced through the implementation of a number of our housing programs serving a diversity of income levels. The request before you today contributes to a segment of that income spectrum supporting lower income households. Staff has evaluated the funding request, by looking at the Housing Trust Fund program guidelines.

Those provide a framework for requests of this nature. The funds requested for this development, which Marie will discuss in further detail, are dedicated affordable housing funds. These sources include the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund. Those are derived from former redevelopment agency funds, some of which are loan payments that are made to the county for loans that were issued under the former redevelopment agency, as well as Bickford Ranch specific plan affordable housing in lieu fees. Some of those dollars are collected in lieu of constructing affordable housing at that specific plan site.

The in lieu fees, some of which as you'll see in the presentation have already been collected and some have not been collected. The additional future collections would be earmarked for this project as part of the proposed loan, but they aren't advanced and they're not guaranteed, again, as you'll hear in future slides. Importantly, these funding sources do not include general fund dollars and are restricted as I mentioned for affordable housing purposes. So I'll pass the presentation over to Marie

and we'll keep going from there.

Thank you, Nikki. Good afternoon, Chair Landon, members of the board. My name is Marie Maniscalco. I'm the housing development project planner, the CEO's Office of Economic Development and Housing. As we are all very familiar with this project at this juncture, this is a two forty unit affordable rental apartment in Penryn.

The total project cost is anticipated to be over $117,000,000 that's a per unit cost of $490,000 and the developer is proposing county support of up to 10,800,000 in a loan. That is equivalent to $45,000 per unit and represents 9% of the total project cost. There are three sources of funding that are being proposed to be contributed to this project. As Nikki mentioned, the first is the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds. The second is collected Bickford Ranch affordable fees that have already come in as they've been pulling building permits developing that project.

So in total, the cash we have now is about $1,700,000 That would be available to the developer upon close of construction loan and acquisition of the property. And then there's a forward commitment, a pledge of future Bickford Ranch affordable housing in lieu fees. That's if and when they become available. So the developer has proposed to provide a bridge loan for that amount so they can get started on construction. And then as those fees come in, they would make requests of the county to disperse those future funds.

I also want to note that all these funds would go out as a loan and they would accrue interest at 3% I'll talk a little bit more about details in a moment and would be available to be invested in future affordable housing projects. The eligible uses of the funds include site improvements, design and construction, but importantly not eligible for site acquisition, developer fee or overhead. The loan terms, this is consistent with other loans that the County has provided to affordable housing developments. A fifty five year term and 3% simple interest on the amount drawn, and that the county would be paid back with residual receipts payments, which means that after operating expenses and their income, a portion of those proceeds would come back to the county through the life of the project, with the full amount plus interest being due at fifty five years. The agreement would be with an entity called Penryn 721LP.

That's a special purpose entity just for the project. This is common practice and affordable housing. It includes bodies from USA Properties, Housing Trust Placer, and a future tax credit equity investor. I just want to note that Housing Trust Placer's entity, which is H. C. P. Penryn LLC, would be the managing general partner with a point 01% partnership interest. Just to give you some context of how the county has funded affordable housing projects in the past, this shows the total project costs. Again, these range in size, number of units, greatly. But what we're looking at here is the percentage of total project costs.

So you can see that ranges quite a bit. Our most recent project at Sabre City was funded by the county at 33%, in large part because they did not use the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program. They were able to come up with a creative deal there where they didn't need those funds, but it did come with some additional county support. The proposed, well, now approved project at Hope Way is just about five miles from the Bickford Ranch specific plan. And back in 2015, the on-site build requirement for Bickford was removed from their developer agreement.

They otherwise would have had to provide 189 units. They came up with a deal to pay a flat fee on a per unit basis. That was further amended last year to provide what staff believes will actually be more monies than was previously taken in. We anticipate that approximately $11,000,000 in affordable housing in lieu fees will be collected through the life of the project. And again, the reason in the staff report in 2015 for removing the on-site build requirement had to do with a lack of transportation and local amenities that would be needed to serve low income housing project there, Whereas being close to the IAD corridor and as identified with the local amenity map, there are a lot more resources to serve the project at Hope Way.

Again, there's no, as Nikki mentioned, no impact to the General Fund. These are all funds that are dedicated to affordable housing use and they would be repaid at the end of the loan term with interest. With that, the actions requested of your Board today are: one, to consider approval of and authorization for the County Executive Officer or designee to execute a loan and funding agreement and promissory note and associated documents with Penryn seven twenty one l p upon County Council and Risk Management concurrence in the amount of $10,800,000 for development of the proposed Hopeway apartments. And two, determine that the requested action is not a project pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act guidelines section one five three seven eight. And I actually just want to make a quick correction.

It's to execute and implement a loan and funding agreement. Thank you. Happy to take questions.

Thank you. Questions? Okay. And then I will take it to open public comment. And, at this time, if you have a red card, if you would like to come forward, feel free to line up in the aisle to keep things moving. And, once again, please remember to keep your comments to this item that we're hearing now.

Brian Myers, PCNR. We're at a loss here because the first we knew of this was on when the agenda was posted last week. We haven't had time to research this at all. At first blush, it seems ridiculous that you're funding a project that, of this magnitude in this area. It it just why are you having to spend county funds?

I get that there's precedent and that there's housing funds set aside for affordable housing, and if you don't do this, it looks like you're discriminating against them. But you they're asking you for $10,800,000. It wipes out all of your ability to do gap funding for smaller projects from any of the in lieu fees from Bickford Ranch. Now you only have how much you have about 1,600,000.0 in the bank from in lieu fees over the last four years. And so now you're being asked to tie up all the future fees, all the smaller projects that might want gap funding.

You're gonna have to say no to because you're pouring this much money, $10,800,000 into this one development. If you wanna fund it and and and note that it's the developer's proposal. This isn't being written on your terms, the county's terms. It has a 3% interest rate with no COLA. 3% may it looks good right now in terms of getting any kind of loan. What is it gonna look like in the future with no COLAs, no increases in the payments, nothing that protects the county's finances? Your role on your first vote today was as a planner. Your role today is a banker. Your whole fiduciary duty is different. You can't blame the state now.

You can't say we have to do this. You're being asked to fund on the developer's terms an amount of money that's gonna bankrupt your in lieu fee fund from for at least the next ten or twelve years. And it's so contingent upon what happens in Bickford. The sales in Bickford have been very sluggish. We've been told that only 30 houses have been sold in the Bickford Ranch subdivision.

It's very sluggish. It's not an attractive subdivision if you've been up there, so it it has its own issues. And so it's for you to take this amount of county money and say, we're gonna tie $10,800,000 to maybe future growth in Bickford, that's irresponsible. That's a fiduciary duty you're breaching by tying up this kind of money. We would tell you don't give them a dime.

It's not on you to fund it, but I understand the precedent that you have set with funding other projects, and so if you don't give them some amount of money, it's gonna look like you're trying to stop the project by giving by not giving them any money whatsoever. So I get that you're you're in a tough position to say no, but you can be the fiduciaries of the funds you have, and you can say 10.8 is too much. We can do 2,000,000, 3,000,000, and then it's on them to come up with the difference. The county shouldn't be the guarantor of this level of financing for any private developer. It's an irresponsible use of county money, and that's your duty in this decision.

It's your fiduciary duty first and foremost is to our budget, our money, I understand it's not taxpayer money, but this is where your duty lies. So we ask you to either negotiate a much reduced amount or say no today and make your staff negotiate. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm good for saying a little disruptive.

Clapping after is okay. I just don't want you

to interrupt me. Help you.

Cheryl Berkamow. I think that I agree with everything that Brian Meyer said. I didn't quite catch the reason. It sounded like HTP was asking for some type of interest. To is that like to manage the money or something?

I didn't quite catch what she said, but it's I'd like to know what the amount is if HTP is receiving any benefit other than the 10,800,000. HTP, again, I've asked for audits on the housing. We're now in the not only the development business, but now we're in the affordable housing business to make money. 500,000 some of these units are. We've already told you that the number of units for twelve nineteen times what we were told with the county of 400,000 is close to half $1,000,000,000.

Where did it go? Why are they being forgiven? So in Bonnie Gore's district, how many equivalent projects have been put in that ADUs are allowed? That's where the twelve nineteen went. So now we're we're giving money to Hauser Housing Trust Plus or on both sides.

It it doesn't make sense that we're doing that. And I think that the, the fact that we're we've asked the CEO for an audit on the housing. We're halfway through the housing market, and we've just given the and 2,004 is the latest one that's that's out there, and it's zero, very low. The 12% is low, 20% for moderate, and 86% for above. We have the same developer that's getting equivalency, which, by the way, is not equivalent if the buckets don't get filled.

If your bucket is still 012%, then it's not equivalent obviously. So I think that that there should be if the CEO is gonna or designee is gonna be authorized to execute and implement, then where

are

we going to be at the end of the next four years? We're repeating the exact same thing over and over again. So, giving general funds, as Brian said, to someone that we haven't audited. We don't know what their performance is. And I think as a banker, you should have the financial acumen to be able to say, why are we doing this to start with. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. I'm Patti Neifer, Penryn. I have more questions than comments, but my one comment is on the slide two slides back, it says that it's 3% interest, maximum fifty five years. It does not say what you're gonna get the first fifty four years. It could be nothing, And all of it come comes in afterwards.

It's after expenses are done, whatever's left, then the county might get 3% that year or that month. Please get give me a clarification as to how the payback is going to be made. Because if I was lending money, I wanna know how much I'm getting back every month, and this does not show any of that. My other question is, if funding is approved, I've heard that the county has some discretion over project changes. I want to know what kind of discretion you have over project changes that you can still make some changes once the the county comes on board and guarantees some funding.

I also wanna know what other in lieu fees are available. I'm being told, oh, there's other fees also. This looks like it's bankrupting them all, taking everything from now and then with Bickford Ranch into the next fifty five years. So what other in lieu fees are available if somebody comes up with, say, 10, fourplexes in a wonderful area, all affordable housing, how can you help that project, which is a much more desirable pro project if you use all the in lieu fees right now? So I've never spent money that I don't know I have or I know what the loan terms are. This sounds like this is what you're being asked to do.

Thank you.

Yeah. I'm Henry Walter. I'm a local physician. I own some rentals here and then actually a few in some other places. And I'm just wondering, the current, inflation rate is 2.7%. So 3% is basically free. The current treasury rate for a thirty year bond, which is absolutely secure by the US government, we hope, is 4.65%. And I I now is this a loan the county is making to the developers? Do I understand that correctly? Who is making this loan to who?

And why are they giving the money for fifty years? What is it secured by? Is it secured by anything? So it's it's just, you know and what are the terms of the note? 3%. When is the 3% due? It simple interest? It's not even compounded interest. It's simple interest. So it's 0.3% above inflation.

It doesn't even begin to match a treasury note, but the risk is greater. Any market based force in any marketplace in the world would make the cost of this capital to anybody it would being loaned to a lot more expensive than what you're talking about. And you're not representing the people of Placer County very well on this matter as far as I can tell. Perhaps there's something I don't understand. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Sheila Travnikar. And Brian said most of most of everything that I was gonna say. But exactly how many projects do we have right now that are currently paying in lieu of fees? And how much are those fees? And how long is that? So how much are we gonna collect? Because if you give them all of Bickford or any of Bickford, then that's it. There's nothing left. And that's about all I had to say. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, board. I'm mostly addressing those on the board virtue signaling about affordable housing in the last agenda item because this appears to

be a master class. Aaron, can you state your name?

Aaron Rudolph. This appears to be a master class we're all being given in how not to build affordable housing in luxury communities in Placer County. So if hypothetically a developer wanted to ensure that affordable housing never touches another development in this county like Bickford, I think they'd follow a specific five step playbook. Looking at today, I think we're on step four. So step one is builder lobbying around in lieu fees. We all know what these are. It creates a predictable housing shortfall. Step two is the manufacture crisis, which is where we're at now. As shortfall hits, we see the hero moment. The county has a problem.

Builders remedy is scary, so we identify a single isolated site to pack in every low income unit all at once. USA property calls this helping the county on their website. It's actually a containment strategy because we didn't want any of it in Bickford. We're gonna make millions of dollars per year in tax subsidized profit anyways, so we went again. Step three is the crushing mandates. They march in the lawyers, the HCD letters, the paid consultants, and the traffic engineers that don't seem to live in the real world, and we make it look like we're studying the impacts of doubling a community's population. Well, we know what those studies are gonna conclude. There's nothing to see here. It's all safe. Fire department will figure it out.

So the schools, it's really not our problem. State mandates blah blah blah. Now today, step four, the loan in the lock in. So you're gonna contractually obligate the county to pass all of the in lieu fees on to one developer saving the county for the next twenty years. So you end up with the loan for at almost $11,000,000 at an interest rate that would make 2020 blush. You make it contractually impossible to reform any of your housing policy, eliminate or change in lieu fees without triggering a massive lawsuit or a default. So now you've enshrined in lieu fees. And then my last step, you repeat this. So now that in lieu fees are gospel and required, you keep doing this. You build more and more luxury communities.

You never build affordable within them. There will always be an unincorporated area in the county to pack in the low income units. Maybe we can pack them in tighter next time now that we've effectively coerced the county to abandon all of the local safety and community plans and ignore their own fire district's warning. Sky's the limit. So I urge this board to stop following the script. Break the cycle. Reject the funding for this project. Instead, follow HCD's own guidance and policies aimed at avoiding concentrations of poverty. Promote instead the creation of a balanced, healthy, safe community. Don't tie up this amount of money on one unsafe project. Write in Penryn. As the banker now, you can require conditions or outright deny this request. So I urge you to think about that. Thanks.

Thank you.

Donna Delano, Penrune resident twenty five years, Penrune chitchat. But my real job is actually a loan officer for twenty five years. I've been a lender. I've closed over 3,000 loans, and there's no way anyone would ever get a mortgage on future income. It's just not there. We don't have proof of it. So the fact that you're asking for something in advance when Bigford went through twenty nine years of litigation and all kinds of mess, they're only on the beginning phase of ten years of construction, I think this is reckless. That's all I need to say. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Jennifer White. I I think a lot of people out here are just having a really hard time understanding the structure of this loan. And, what what I think we really do need to look at is, are we putting a loan out on futures? Don't we have other in lieu fees?

Because other developers and properties have been paying in lieu fees for a long time. So is there a way to structure that money there without tying everything up for other projects in the area? Because I think that's really key. We would like to see smaller projects, and smaller projects aren't gonna have the driving force to get bigger loans like this project does. This company is a well vetted company that is coming in to do this, and, I think we really need to save these in lieu fees for smaller projects, for other people who are gonna have a harder time getting loans to put in the type of affordable housing that we actually, as community residents, wanna see in our area.

So please let us know if how this is gonna be structured. Is there yearly payouts that have to be reimbursed for the fifty five years? How the interest is going to look? And, if this ties up money so other projects cannot succeed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Claire DeCamp again. Sorry. This is not gonna be as well thought out because I didn't write this in advance. But on page 30 of the loan agreement, there are these words, and I'm going to kind of skip through some of the little dot dot dots. To the best of the developer's knowledge, this is an agreement between the developer and the county.

Right? So there are no actions, ..dot, or any other proceedings affecting the developer or any other parties affiliated with or governmental agency, ..dot, which adversely determined would materially impair the right or ability of the developer to execute or perform. We have heard earlier today from County Council that we cannot include the potential design review or the changes that are being proposed with three ms. So as it stands, we've seen that there is on public record a letter from three ms saying that they will sue if this goes through under its current design. We have been told we cannot include those other conversations.

So you have on record that there is a claim that there will be a legal proceeding. We have on good faith that PCNR will likely take legal action, as well as you guys all have a copy of the code interpretation request form that I filed with the Office of State Fire Marshal back in December that is currently openly being going to be reviewed later this month. I do not understand how the county can responsibly enter in with this loan agreement knowing that the terms of your own contract state, you cannot enter into this agreement if there are other proceedings affecting the developer that could materially, impair their ability or right to execute or perform. If any of those things come through, they do that. I do not understand how this can proceed.

Please deny it.

Thank you.

Hello again. Carol Kawamoto, fourth generation blah blah blah blah

blah, born and raised in Lumos. You know

the story. Okay. So this is also going to be a little rough because I didn't map this out either. But 3% loan for fifty five years on $10,800,000, I'll take it. I can make 3% no problem in fifty five years.

So I'm wondering, why are you guys making this gift to USA Properties Fund? They got deep pockets. The other thing is, is the apartments being collateralized for this loan? I don't know who Penrins seven twenty one LP is, but I highly suspect it's a company very recently formed because it's going to limit the liability and the ability to go back to USA properties or HTP, if anything should go wrong with the development, or the roundabout, or there are big lawsuits, anything like that. So I would like to see any loan that the county issues be underwritten by the property itself.

So now, my written comments said something to the effect of the county the threat of the $2,400,000 fines associated with potentially denying the project weighed heavily on the board as it should. But now you're being asked to consider allocating $10,800,000 in potential future funds from Bickford Ranch development in lieu fees towards the development. That's four times more than the possible fines you avoided by approving the project in the first place. So what if Bickford goes bankrupt or is never built out? I mean, it's taken a long time.

So therefore, the in lieu fees don't happen. Then where's the money really coming from? USA Properties has previously stated that they have a strategy to cover all the capital costs to build their planned project, with state and federal tax credits and whatever affordable housing special financing they get. Now they want, more money from the county. Exactly how many tax dollars do you expect this community to pay as individuals paying their state taxes and their federal taxes and everything else?

How much do you expect them to support this project that they don't want? So my last thing is, so the state may have tied your hands on many decisions regarding this project, but you control this one. So please halt the craziness that big money developers, including housing trust plaster and USA Properties Funds, are promoting for the Hope Way apartment projects. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there comments in the chambers?

Hi. Good afternoon, supervisors, and thanks very much for your careful attention to all of the many agenda items on this. My name is Dan Golub. I'm counsel to the project applicant, and I only wish to speak briefly since I'm primarily a land use lawyer. The only point I wanted to make is that, although this is a very distinct item, it's similar in one respect, which is that this isn't really an ad hoc decision that's not based on standards.

The county has very firmly developed policies for these kinds of funding agreements. As noted in the staff report, there are guidelines, there's a housing action plan, and then there's the housing element. So I think in a a rare moment of potential agreement only along the edges with the project opponents, I I think I heard a little bit of suggestion that it certainly would look odd if this project were disadvantaged relative to others if it complies with the county's guidelines, with the housing action plan, and with the many policies in the housing element that we think it furthers. We think the housing element is, relevant here. There was a commitment to ensure the feasible development of the project.

There's some arguments that I think Gimbi Law made in the record, to that respect. And there are also obligations to affirmatively further fair housing. And that's a statutory obligation that goes beyond simply not getting in the way of housing. The word affirmative means taking reasonable steps when reasonable, feasible, and necessary to move forward housing. So we think a a program like this has been identified by county staff as consistent with the guidelines, would further the housing action plan, and would further many different general plan and housing element policies.

By contrast, I don't see what, if any, general plan or or other policies denial of the funding would further. I think I should also mention, I think there's a preference for the Bickford funds to, as much as possible, go somewhere in the vicinity of that project. So it's an unusual opportunity. And we're not aware of other significant projects ready to go, getting somewhere close to shovel ready that could make use of these funds. So in light of all of that, we think that that's a very good use of funds. I hope I don't need to say again, it's not a grant. This is not money that could otherwise be used from the general fund. We think it's a very solid investment, and we'd like it to be assessed consistent with the guidelines in the housing action plan. Thanks very much.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Leah Walter. I've lived in Granite Bay Loomis area for sixty years. One thing that I would love for my county to rather than spend 2,000,000 or 10,000,000 or whatever you're gonna put on that is to hire a kick ass law firm to fight this thing and tie it up in court forever and ever. I think that you work for us and ultimately the voters have told you in many, different ways and in thousands of emails and phone phone calls and and visits in front of these.

And those of us who watched every single one of these hearings seem to get the impression that certain county employees and certain supervisors didn't work for us. They worked for the county attorney whispering in their ear, pass it, pass it, or else we're gonna get sued, or afraid of the state with fines and repercussions. And the bottom line is you do what the voters want you to do. And we've made it loud and clear that we don't want this, and not in this iteration anyway. With modifications, perhaps, but we don't want it.

And your ultimate job is to fight this. And of course, a little late on that because you have to stab this in the back before lunch. But anyway, going forward, you know, we do remember who votes for us and who doesn't. And in the next election, you know, if you vote for this project, I don't think you'll be around after the next election. And I hope not because I want somebody up there who's gonna represent me in in my county.

And we have the right to fight the state. We have the right to fight certain entities in the county to get what the residents want. And that's how laws get changed, is residents fight the status quo and get back and change laws. And I just would think that your time would be well spent. And by the way, dollars 10,000,000 at three percent, you've got to be kidding me. That's ridiculous. So this is not you're not interested in our finances, and you're not interested in representing us. So I take a hard, long look at that.

Good afternoon, chair Landon and members of the board of supervisors. Jeff Short with the BIA. As usual, not here to speak on any particular project, not this one. But I do want to make a few policy comments. But first, I would like to recognize that this is actually, I think, a big moment in the sense that this is what Housing Trust Placer was created to do, to take the in lieu fees that the development community pays for their market rate projects and put them into smart affordable housing projects in the county.

This project has been approved, of course, and and I would note that as I've been meeting with all of you over the last months and years on on the affordable housing policy in the county, that typically, 55 to $60,000 is what we see in the Greater Capital Region per unit is the amount of subsidy asked for. So this is actually a relatively affordable one, compared to what I see around the region. More importantly, though, what I wanna say is, well, I think that this would be a great first use, of the housing trust plaster in the way it was conceived. I would also agree with a lot of the detractors that there does need to be more money put into the affordable that's coming from the affordable housing in lieu fees. That's why I've been, continuing to ask that those fees be applicable in the specific plans too and allow more development to pay into the affordable housing in lieu fee program so that more projects in this type of vein in other parts of the county, can also be built.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. It's nice to see everyone today, and thank you all for your time and effort in this important matter. Robin Van Ecklenberg, I know you all. It's nice to see you again. I'm a resident of Granite Bay.

I'm also the CEO of Housing Trust Placer. We're an independent nonprofit housing organization formed in 2019 in partnership with the County Board of Supervisors to ensure that affordable housing in lieu fees paid by home developers actually result in affordable housing being built in our county. The Hopeway site was identified by the county's housing task force as a prime location for affordable housing and a place where those in lieu fees could be strategically used to produce affordable housing. County staff and the board advanced the site through the RENA entitlement process to achieve those objectives. Our team clearly articulated our intentions for the site during the county rezone process with you all in May 2024, and that plan has remained unchanged, including the funding for the project we're talking about today.

In response to this clear policy direction, HTP and USA Properties Fund proceeded with site control, predevelopment design and now our funding request. We have invested financial resources and several years of professional and volunteer time to advance the county's objectives for this site and for the affordable housing for our community. Board and county staff have understood from the beginning that the use of the affordable housing in Luffy would be necessary for the project's financial feasibility. Approval of the funding agreement today before you fulfills the county's long standing commitment to affordable housing at this site and to our community. Denying the funding funding would be significant and would set our entire county back in its efforts to achieve these affordable housing goals that we have.

For these reasons and on behalf of Housing Trust Placer and myself as a resident of Granite Bay, I urge you respectfully to support the funding agreement before you today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Jim Bayless, also with Housing Trust Placer, and, we thank you so much for your consideration today. We it's been a long road, four years of work to get us to this point. And as Jeff said, this is our opportunity to do exactly what our nonprofit was created to do in in a collaborative effort between the building industry and the county to find ways to use in lieu fees to produce affordable housing. And I'd like to just clarify two points of concern that were brought up by other speakers.

The first is that we are not tying up all of the county's affordable housing in lieu fee funds. We are only talking about the fees from Bickford Ranch. It's not affecting all the in lieu fees collected for other developments throughout the county. The other is that I think a lot of people didn't catch because this is pretty complex is that there's a loan commitment of $10,800,000, but the county only has 1.7 in funds currently available. The developer, locally based, USA Properties Fund, who is a constituent of Suzanne's district, has agreed to advance over $9,000,000, to cover that remaining gap, the future Bickford fees.

And so, yes, it's possible that Bickford Ranch could go bankrupt. It could never be built out. In that case, the county would never advance those funds. The developer would remain on the hook for that difference, potentially $9,000,000. So it's really it's really a safe position for the county. It's not touching anything other than funds that are exclusively held for affordable housing. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the chambers who'd like to make a comment?

I don't have a written thing. I'm not a good speaker. My name is Johnny Warwick. I've been a printer in residence for about in between seventy five years. If this is going to put a big lump sum into one building, how come we can't find funds for ADUs? There is no grant money for ADUs. How come this money cannot be put towards that so we can put them on our properties and spread it out? Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions in the chambers? Okay. Anyone online?

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

Can you hear me?

Yes. Okay.

Sorry about that. Diana Louise Alessi from Christian Valley Park Community Services District. And like Donna, I did lending, residential lending, and worked with SBA loan officers as well. I can could not even conceive of this in the early two thousands when a lot of really exotic type of lending was going on, which I'm sure she can attest to. This is the most egregious thing ever, so I'm just gonna start out with no.

And I have a question about the promissory note because in governmental, in banking, the promissory note is the money. That's what generates the fund. It it produces cash out of thin air. So it's that promissory note getting shopped, for investments or investors. And two, also, I think that no granting of any MUFI should be dedicated to any one project.

It should be based upon whatever's in the kitty and the total number of projects either going or about to go and that no one project should ever have priority. In other words, it's it's based on what's in the banks. It's just like the rest of us have to do. The only thing governments that's why California's $75,000,000,000 in the red because they spend money and produce money out of thin air that they don't have. Every project from homeless industrial complex to the affordable so called, housing projects is fraught with fraud, waste, and abuse.

And the reason it gets done that way is because through nonprofits and layers of entities, which was brought up earlier, I commend you, it's a shell game, and it's insulation. Even TPUSA is going through that right now because they're getting their skirt blown up. What you're not doing for the public is is that you set up these these insulators, and you don't act as the warehouse pass through for the for the receipts, Not just what you're doing between county and and Housing Trust plaster, but what Housing Trust plaster is doing on the back end with our County Trust and with the developers. And then I'm gonna say, these types of fees should never ever go to any anything both besides low and extreme low income, 100%. And there needs to be a contractual obligation by developers with these projects taking those in lieu fees or whatever, that they have to they have to be completely PRA exposed.

Anybody from the public should be able to pull their documents. And that all those units should be done in

Diane, can you wrap your comments up, please?

Yes. And everything should be done in phase one contractually, and that developers should never be able to come back to you to amend that contract, period. And with that, I yield.

Thank you. Okay. With that, I'll bring it back to the board for questions, comments. I have one question. On the Bickford Ranch fees, is is there a requirement for those fees be used within a certain radius? And if that's the case, what is the radius? Or is there flexibility in where those dollars could go? For instance, could they be used out in West Placer?

The Bickford Ranch fees are dedicated specifically to affordable housing, but to my to my understanding, they're not specific to a certain geographic area.

Okay. Thank you. Supervisor Gore.

Thank you. I wanted to just clarify a couple of things I heard. So first of all, the fees well, let me start with why the 3% interest rate?

Yeah. The 3% interest rate is what is outlined in our housing trust fund program guidelines as a the as shall be lent out at that interest rate. That is common practice. It's in return for the public good and public benefit that affordable housing provides.

Okay. And then, we're not advancing the dollars. There is a proposed amount of money, 1.7, that the county already has. A good portion of that is already the in lieu fees from Bickford Ranch.

Correct.

921,000. And then as in lieu fees come in from Bickford Ranch, then those dollars could go out. Is that correct?

That's correct. They can't go out until they come in.

Okay. And how did we get to that number? How did we get to the $10,800,000 for the gap in funding for this project?

Yeah, that was the number that was proposed by the developer to cover their financing gap for the project. If you'd like, I'm sure they'd be happy to speak a little bit more to their financing plan, but, that was the number that was proposed.

Okay, and my understanding is that a project becomes more, eligible or they have a better opportunity to get the tax credits, if they have different sources of income for the project.

That's correct. Projects receive bonus points for having what are called soft loans,

which is what we're talking

about residual receipts. So if they have soft loans committed to the project, they'll receive tiebreaker points for their tax credit application. The tax credit applications, the vast majority of the time in many recent years, have perfect scores. So those tiebreaker points that are earned through soft loan commitments tend to be critical for achieving those tax credit allocation awards.

Okay. And, as Bickford Ranch builds out, even if it stops, right, if Bickford Ranch stopped tomorrow for some reason, which is not happening at this point and seems to be doing fairly well, then those funds are not coming in. And therefore, the county, we're not guaranteeing funds in lieu of the fees, correct?

That's correct.

All right. So we're not on the hook if Bickford Ranch stopped. That's correct. All right. I think the, the one thing I wanna share is that, I think it's important, and we we actually have an ad hoc group, working together to talk about the in lieu fee and what other things we can do as a county to look for additional funds for affordable housing.

I've spoken about, how do we use funds from Bosch and their personal property tax. We've talked about our EIFD in the Plaster 1 area. And so I hear the concern about us taking away all the funds from right, that we've obtained from the in lieu fees, but that that primarily, that 900,000 is the Bickford Ranch funds, but we are looking for other funds. And as I look at the Bickford Ranch project, which is about five miles from this, when we've been talking about affordable housing, if you're in a specific plan, those, affordable housing, projects have to be built in that specific plan. Like that has to happen.

The board chose back in 2015 to do it differently with Bickford Ranch and this project is five miles away. And it makes sense to utilize the Bickford Ranch in Loughies for a project that's fairly close versus moving it all the way out to Sheridan or some other place. So I think it's actually an appropriate use of the Bickford Ranch in Luffies because we're actually helping affordable housing get built fairly close to that specific plan.

Other questions or comments?

I have a question.

Yes.

There was some ask about Bigford. What is the build out to date there right now?

I don't have that information handy, but let me take a quick look at my spreadsheet. They were anticipating when we talked with the builder last year that it would be a build out over the course of ten years. And so but I don't have that information handy. I apologize. Let me see what I can find.

Has I I was told that housing purchases have slowed down there. I just was wondering what at what rate it has slowed down if obviously this money is coming in to go do that. I have other questions.

I don't

know.

You know. Have an answer?

We don't have that information, but I think we can get it if

That's fine.

You need it. Yeah.

That's no problem. I also have concerns about this loan agreement because it was brought to my attention that if we did something, and I need clarification from counsel with Housing Trust Pastor, I see that they're now involved in this LLC. Does that have any other legal ramifications?

Yeah. Thank you, supervisor. Page one two seven seven of your board packet includes a full summary of the ownership interests in Penrith seven twenty one LP. That includes the role of Housing Trust Placer in a number of affiliated entities. That entity is formed. It's a valid entity in the Secretary of State's office. We have looked at this, and we don't believe that that structure and the provisions in the agreement on the use of these funds for acquisition of the property don't create an issue in our minds. And there's a no conflict provision on the agreement. Okay.

In the past, way before my time, we've given housing trust plaster money for a $19,000,000 project at Sabre City. How is that project coming along with our funds that we've given them? And what's that cost per person? I mean, I have the number here, but I would like to hear it from staff. If we're giving out money to people and projects are not being completed, I'm not too happy giving more money away.

Can can you restate the beginning of that question?

I guess, we've given money to HTP for Sabre City from what I was told. Right? Obviously, way before my time. Of those funds, has anything been built, and how long has it taken to get stuff built? It just seems like we're giving money to an entity. But on projects that are not being completed, we're coming into housing shortfalls. And it just seems like to me, from a business standpoint, I can go get those things built a lot faster with our own people within here at the county. Why am I giving a separate entity taxpayer money? And they are taxpayers. The people who live in Bickford will be taxpayers.

So those people said they're not taxpayers. They are taxpayers, and they're shocker to me that their, Mello Roos fees are $900 a month. So, again, it's probably gonna slow that building down because it's expensive to live there, $12,000 a year just for Mello Roos fees before you even build your house. So I guess I'm looking at where this funding is going, but I don't see results. And if I'm gonna go give out another $10,000,000 of taxpayer money because it's built into the cost of their home because the homeowners aren't gonna the homeowners aren't gonna just give this away, Where is this why are these projects not getting built quick enough?

Sure. Thank you, supervisor. The Sabre City project is nearing completion of 44 units. They expect to have their final certificates of occupancy in the next thirty days, I believe. I'll let the team give a full update, but they're very close to occupancy, to to completion and lease up beginning.

Affordable housing is unfortunately a very complex industry that requires many years of effort to get the appropriate funds lined up to make these projects go. One thing that I wanna note, is that until they have a complete funding project a complete funding package, that none of these funds will be released. So they have to show with signed, notarized, lots of bank statements with their funders that they have a project that is financially feasible and financially viable. I hope I hope that answers your question.

It it does. Thank you.

There was one public commenter who had to leave for a doctor's appointment and came back. And since this isn't a public hearing, I'm gonna go ahead and just take that one public commenter. So if you'd like to come forward and make your comments.

I'm Pam Asai. I live in Penryn. Thank you, supervisor Landon. You always act in integrity as far as I've seen. Thank you for letting me share. I wanna make sure that it's clear that because of the, density of this project, Penryn fire trucks can't fit in there for certain situations.

Oh, I'm sorry. Let me pause you for one second. So the previous item is already closed and voted on, This number is just on the funding.

So if

you want to speak to the funding part, you can.

Okay. Well, I didn't prepare for that, but I can definitely say it's ridiculous that there is even, permission to for the developers to pay for affordable housing developments. It's totally possible that developers are inclusive of affordable and low income housing in their own developments. I've lived in developments such as that, so the use of funds for the Penryn development is an atrocity, and you're putting people in an area where they won't have resources. I know that's been addressed before too.

Spending that much money is absolutely ridiculous. Thank you for hearing my voice. Thank you all.