City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Tuesday, May 19 2026. Board of Supervisors meeting, we are going to start our meeting this morning with a flag salute led by Celeste with Public Works.

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

We will now move to our consent agenda. I know item 29A has been requested to be pulled. Are there any other items from board members they would request to pull? And is there anyone in the public who would like to pull something off of consent? All right, then I will bring it back to the board for approval of the remaining items.

I'll move approval. And I'll second.

Move by Gustafson, seconded by Gore. Roll call vote.

Supervisor Gore? Aye. Supervisor DiMattei?

Yes.

Supervisor Jones? Aye. Supervisor Gustafson?

Aye.

Supervisor Landon.

Yes. And we will go to item 29A, Supervisor Jones.

OK. Yes, thank you for that. Getting through my pages here. This is regarding a commendation recognizing Karen E. Schwab, our former county council who just retired. Karen knows me if she's watching. She knows. I generally pull these things off because there's every reason to recognize Karen for what she's done for the county and all of us as board members. And so I would like to read this. in the matter of a commendation recognizing Karen E. Schwab for 18 years of dedicated public service to the county of Placer. Whereas Karen E. Schwab served the county of Placer dutifully for 18 years, spending over seven years as county council, and was the first woman to hold the position of county council in the county's 175 year history. And whereas Ms. Schwab commenced her employment with the County of Placer on March 3rd, 2007, as a Deputy County Council IV, after having worked at the County of Sacramento County Council's office and in private practice for approximately 15 years and was assigned to assist with an extensive array of legal services, including environmental law, general government zoning, planning and land use. And whereas in 2015, Ms. Schwab was promoted to senior deputy county council In 2016, she was promoted to supervising deputy county council. Six months later, she was promoted to chief deputy county council. And then in 2018, she was appointed as interim county council. Whereas on November 19, 2019, the board of supervisors appointed Ms. Schwab to county council, where she expertly led the office of the county council through many demanding situations, including a pandemic multiple complicated county executive office transitions, and the onboarding of five new supervisors. Whereas she advised the board of supervisors, department heads, county staff, and the county council office with grace, determination, and sound legal advice, comprehensive research, and insight with her significant experience, approachable manner, compassion, and professionalism. And whereas Ms. Schwab assisted the county in the development of the Placer County Conservation Program, the Placer Conservation Authority and many other pivotal projects that helped shape the county of placer including the sunset area plan and the placer vineyards and riolo vineyard specific plans whereas ms schwab's love of the rolling stones and rolling stones and all things rock and roll is only outdone by her love of animals as she participates in the release of rehabilitated sea lions and seals She volunteers with feline rescue organizations, adopts rescue dogs and cats, fiercely advocates for animal rights, and she also loves travel, concerts, and gardening. And whereas Ms. Schwab has demonstrated the highest standards consistent with the California State Bar, has contributed significantly to the County of Placer as an organization and to its residents, Now therefore let it be known that the above commendation was duly passed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Placer at a regular meeting held May 19, 2026 on behalf of the citizens of Placer County in which we will pass shortly. I just wanted everybody to know her license plate even says something about living for rock and roll. She's quite a character and we owe so much to Karen and so I just wanted to make sure everybody knew how much we appreciate her.

great thank you Supervisor Gore thank you Supervisor Jones and I do want to echo that and I do see Karen's former team back here and although she prefers to not be in the limelight we do want to say thank you we really appreciate her efforts on behalf of the county all of these years and we're very fortunate to have had her I think about when she got and then we had a female CEO and we had an entire female dais up here, which was something else. Not often that you have something like that, but it's not really about her being a female, it's about being a woman who excelled in what she did and that's really what we all strive to do is excel in the work that we have and and she very much did that and she definitely benefited on the county and so I appreciate all of her hard work and I if I don't know where the cameras are but Karen I hope to see you at the SPCA in Roseville because I know she'll be volunteering there thank you Supervisor Gustafson

Well, I'll echo all of that and thank you too for reading that into the record and for her team. I know one of the things that, um, not only did she guide the board in our decision-making, which is often very, uh, Wayne of, of circumstances, but she was so proud of the team that she built with all of you. And, uh, and with Clayton, I had to lean over that way. Um, and, uh, and looking at that succession planning, I know that Karen, um, you are missed, but you've left us in great hands. And we are very, very pleased and privileged to have so many of you supporting us in our decision making up here. So thank you. Supervisor DiMattei.

Yeah, all of that. So it's hard to repeat everything. But anyways, I'd like to thank Karen for her help in my first year here. Because with her guidance of knowing the county and her expertise in law, it was very helpful for me. So thank you.

Mr. Cook.

Thank you.

The commendation says so many great things about Karen, but I just wanted to mention a little bit more. And it's really hard for me to put into words what Karen has meant to the county, to all of our team, and to me personally. She's guided the county and the county council's office through challenges that most people will never fully realize. COVID, leadership transitions, major development projects, complicated legal and personnel issues in so many moments where her steady judgment mattered more than anyone knew. Through all of it, she brought intelligence, grace, and an incredible sense of calm and often a bit of humor. Obviously, one of the most visible achievements is the fact that she was the first female county council in 175 year history. That was an honor she worked extremely hard to achieve, including a one year audition as an interim county council that is certainly worthy of recognition in itself. But there's a bigger part of her legacy that's here and that's in the back room and sitting here in my seat. And that is the people she invested in along the way. She never treated mentorship as just part of the job. She truly cared about helping people grow. So many attorneys and staff in my office, myself included, are better professionals because she took the time to teach, guide, encourage, and support us. She created an environment where people felt comfortable asking questions, where mistakes could become learning opportunities, and where people knew they had someone in their corner. She shared her knowledge freely, but more importantly, she shared her confidence in others. And somewhere along the way, many of those conversations and that mentorship turned into friendship. What made her leadership so special was that it was never just about the work. She did care about the people behind the work, and probably just as importantly, she cared about the pets of the people behind the work. So as long as the Rolling Stones continue touring, which may be for forever, I think we all know what Karen's going to be doing. And as long as seals need rescuing or sheltered animals need walking, her calendar is going to be full. That's actually where she is today. She's in the Bay Area volunteering with marine mammals. So, for Karen, I wanted to thank you personally for your leadership, your friendship, and for the incredible investment you made in this county, the people in the county council's office, and myself. You left behind an organization that is stronger and more prepared for the future, and that, to me, is the biggest legacy.

Thank you. I think we just need a clap.

I was just going to add that she goes to the animal shelter in Auburn and she'll take the dogs out into their little play area and she'll play with them for a couple of hours. How many of us would go to the shelter and let the dogs stretch their legs and play with them? So it really is, truly. And I also, one other thing, too, that I want to thank her for. I won my election when I first ran for this office in May, or April. Well, no, March. It's March. The primary was in March. So I had nine months before I was sworn in to this position. And in those nine months, Karen mentored me. I wanted to learn more about what the board, our responsibilities and our duties. But she also, I told her I wanted to become an expert on land use law. And so she mentored me for nine months before I was sworn in. And that was huge. That was huge for me. And for all of you that have helped me and the board and everything, we thank you very much for that as well. So thank you, Karen. You're out there with your SEALs. And I don't mean Navy SEALs, right? So I will proudly make the motion to approve the commendation.

Just a really quick one. Oh, no, that's fine. There's nothing really to add. And I think Clayton's words, I mean, just really excellent and are just such a great picture of what Karen left behind. And so I just also want to extend my thanks to your whole team and for the work that you do and of course Karen I'm sure you'll be rewatching this and so just want to say thank you for for leaving such a great legacy and for leaving us with such an amazing County Council who is so heartfelt and humble and who is going to do an excellent job carrying on the torch. And I will say Karen and I opened every one of our biweekly meetings by looking at pictures of her dog. Okay, supervisor.

We do need public comment.

Oh, yeah, thank you. Can I do public comment too?

Okay, all right. Karen, I just want to say thank you and show my appreciation when I stepped into this role almost two years ago next week for the support and guidance that you gave to me and to the county executive office for all the years that you've been here. I'm very appreciative of you leaving such a highly skilled professional team and a sense of humor team to work with that makes that part of the job much easier to handle. So for the love of pets and for the sake of all of the marine mammals out there, rock on, Karen. Okay.

I will now open up public comment on this item. Is there anyone here who would like to make a comment on this? Okay, is there anyone online? All right, then I will bring it back to the board.

Yes, I was proud to make the motion to approve the commendation.

And I'll second. Moved by Jones, seconded by Gore. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thank you. All right, we will now open up public comment. This is a time for you to comment on anything that is not on the agenda today. Is there anyone here in the chambers who would like to make a public comment?

Good morning, Chair Landon, Supervisors Daniel and Clayton, Wayne Nader. I wanted to follow up on my comments of last week when you were in Tahoe. I first want to start with an apology. I said something that was incorrect and I want to correct it now. I stated that there are more short-term rentals in Placer County than there are in Los Angeles County. That is incorrect. I discovered that they have close to 9,000 of them. And San Diego County and San Francisco County are also in that category. So I apologize for that error. But I do want to say that Tahoe does have the distinction of having the highest per capita concentration of short-term rentals in California. The county has a cap of around 4,000. This is something you know, 4,000 allowed STR permits currently. There's about 3,000 and most of them are in the Tahoe area. The county has said the need for the STRs is because of the loss of hotel motel rooms. There's been about 400 up in that area that have been lost over time. I'm not sure why we need a cap of 4,000 to replace potentially 400 motel loss of lodging rooms. The county has said that they will lower that cap as there is construction of those lodging facilities, but the challenge with that is that how are these to be financially viable if they have to compete with those STRs? These organizations that are looking at doing it or have to look at occupancy, what they can get as far as room rates, and that's obviously a challenge when you're going up against close to 3,000 STRs. I want to go back quickly. I see I only have a minute left on affordable housing. The last time I mentioned all of the challenges. Aside from the issue of trying to find the financing to do these kind of projects, you've obviously, through Penrin, have found the challenges of pushback from the community as well. So these are very difficult to accomplish. You can't build your way out of this problem. I would again suggest you study what Bonnery County is doing related to freeing up existing homes for long-term rental by limiting STR's visits to no less than 30 days. They also believe that this will bring back those that contribute to the vitality of their community. So again, I would encourage you to look at that. If you want to break out of the headwinds that are holding up progress on affordable housing in Tahoe, it will take some bold action. Thank you.

Thank you.

sorry good morning Jennifer for Placer County this morning I wanted to talk about a little bit about lithium-ion batteries and backup batteries for solar panels on homes we had a fire out in Newcastle Ophir area a little while back and one of the backup batteries either combusted inside and started a fire, the fire made it go, but it creates something called an off-gas and this off-gas is super toxic to anybody that breathes it. It looks like a wispy, maybe white smoke where for firefighters, normally a dangerous looking smoke, something dark and black and ominous, you know, from like the movies or something like that. It's not something that, smoke-wise, you can even tell that it's necessarily dangerous when you see it. Another thing that happens with this off-gassing smoke is if it gets onto the gear, The gear has to either be thrown away or sent somewhere to be cleaned by a specialized proprietary person. And so far, I think there's only really one in the country that does that. So there's these areas of the turnouts or the clothing being porous or non-porous, so things like a helmet, gloves, they would be non-porous, or excuse me, helmet, flashlight, and radio, those would be non-porous, so you could clean those and salvage those. The turnouts, which are the jacket and the pants, boots, helmets, gloves, hoods, those would have to either be thrown away or sent somewhere to be cleaned. Most firefighters have two sets of gear, so if one is having to be sent away or tossed out, we're down to one for them to have. And with all the solar that are on all the different houses now this could be something that's going to be more that's going to be happening more and more putting our first responders in danger it cost about five thousand three hundred and thirty three dollars for all the stuff that has to be replaced each time they get exposed to this kind of stuff so I was thinking maybe it's time that we put some kind of signage at driveways or on houses showing that there's solar or backup batteries on the house to help protect our firefighters so they know to be extra careful ahead of time when approaching these types of fires since the smoke doesn't designate and it can actually really cripple somebody to the point where they have no more career. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments here in the chambers? And is there anyone online?

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

Greetings, supervisors. Diane Louise Alessi, Director for Christian Valley Park Community Services District in District 5. I'm making an urgent request on behalf of Placer County residents, our environment, and our future. We need you to place an immediate five-year moratorium on any and all conditional use permits and zoning changes for all forms of AI data centers in Placer County. Why five years? Because these are massive irreversible industrial projects. We cannot fix a crisis retroactively in a day, nor plan for the next century or more in a year. Five years gives us the necessary time to fully understand what we're potentially inviting into our communities. The numbers and revelations that are coming forth of the harm being experienced is alarming. A single average size data center can consume as much water as 50,000 homes in a drought prone region that threatens our aquifer surface water and literally our survival. Further, each facility average demands over 100 megawatts of power, enough for 75,000 homes, which will strain our grid, raise electricity rates for every resident. and it hits the low income families hardest. Or we get blindsided when power companies remove access to long established power resources such as what Tahoe is facing by May 2027. Polluting our air with backup diesel generators which will emit nitrogen oxides linked to asthma and respiratory illness. We have to refuse turning Placer County into a sacrifice zone for distant greedy multi-billion dollar corporations. A recent Gallup poll shows that seven out of 10 Americans do not want these data centers in their communities. Across the nation, 2026 graduates booed loudly as these out of touch technocrats during their commencement speeches. their vision for the future of AI. Students know AI will rob them more than it will serve them. We value our quality of life, our farms, branches, the neighborhoods over data machines. You're obligated to protect us when 70% of Americans nationwide oppose the devastating scale of development. A long pausing is not just prudent, it is a moral imperative. This is not anti-development, it is pro-planning. A five-year moratorium allows us to complete a comprehensive environmental impact study tailored to our water, air, and grid capacity, analyze true long-term fiscal impacts, engage the community from all districts, and establish long zoning standards before any approvals. Supervisors, communities across the country are pushing back and winning. Placer County can lead with wisdom instead of regret. Please place a moratorium on your next agenda and protect our lives and legacy. Thank you.

Thank you.

No further commenters.

Okay, we will move to board member and county executive reports. Anyone have anything they would like to report supervisor Gustafson?

I had a couple, and one in relationship to the public comment we heard from Jennifer. I serve on the State Fire Services Board, State Fire Marshal Services Board. We met last Wednesday. They have a group called the Battery Energy Storage Systems Work Group. They are looking at all of the regulations that need to come with the lithium batteries. The State Fire Marshal, all of our firefighters are very aware they need advanced PPE. and warning systems and placards, those sorts of issues are all being discussed at that committee and we're looking forward to having that come forward for regulation in the off cycle because the building, the fire codes are only amended every certain amount of time. They're working on it diligently, and it was definitely a high priority for everybody in that group. Also, I wanted to thank all of the staff County DPW CEO's office our board services department On the Fannie bridge celebration on Sunday and supervisor Gore. Thanks for driving up it We got a little bit windblown and very cold out there But what a tremendous celebration for reopening that bridge that has been replaced and now has great pedestrian access on both sides and no more pillar footings in the river, and it's just an environmental win, a pedestrian win, and I know it took a whole lot of partnerships, so thank you all for your help with that.

Mr. Chattany.

Thank you, Chair. Just a couple things. First, just for board and community awareness, Placer County has signed a construction contract to build phase one of Placer Parkway. The initial phase will connect Highway 65 to Foothills Boulevard North, providing improved access to new and existing development in and around the Sunset area of the county, including the thunder valley casino resort so on behalf of the county i want to thank the united auburn indian community for its ongoing support and generous financial contributions to this essential regional transportation project in particular i want to acknowledge the tribe's substantial reimbursable and non-reimbursable funding contributions for the project each is part of the 2022 funding and reimbursement agreement between the tribe and the county These amounts paired with the county's equally significant contributions and commitment of regional traffic mitigation fees will enable the county to begin construction of the project soon with an estimated completion in late 2027, early 2028. Finally, the county deeply values its longstanding relationship, government to government relationship with the tribe and believes the mutual commitment of the tribe and the county to advance this project is an outstanding example of that relationship.

Thank you. I have one more. Yeah.

I do have one more.

So that project's being led by Public Works, and we have quite a contingent of Public Works employees in our audience today. And the reason for that is celebrating Placer County's National Public Works Week from May 17th to May 23rd. So this week, Placer County Public Works is celebrating National Public Works Week. Public works professionals are vital to our communities, focusing on infrastructure, operations, and services that support sustainability, resilience, public safety, health, and a high quality of life for the people of Placer County. This year's theme is Rooted in Service, Powered by Community. And it acknowledges the roots of service that run deep in public works. The work of the Public Works Department would not be possible without the dedication of our diverse team of professionals, including engineers, technicians, managers, field workers, bus drivers, administrative and fiscal staff, human resources personnel, and many others. These individuals are responsible for maintaining, operating, improving, and protecting critical systems such as transportation, water supply, wastewater treatment, solid waste management, and other essential public services. Some of the amazing accomplishments this year include completion of multiple major capital projects. The American River Debris Removal Project removed concrete and steel debris from a fallen bridge and cleaned up the American River near the confluence. The replacement of the iconic Fannie Bridge was completed this year and celebrated yesterday after working cooperatively with regional, state, and federal partners to provide a new multi-use bridge for the Tahoe community. Our road crews continued to keep our roads clear and safe, but this year they also delivered an improved integrated roadside vegetation and tree management program focused on efficiency, safety, and proactive risk reduction across the county's public road system. Our wastewater team worked with developers to advance over 13,000 feet of new sewer infrastructure in West Placer to support new housing, stock, and public improvements. We are all so proud of their efforts and progress. It is in the public interest of residents, civic leaders, and young people across Placer County to understand and appreciate the value of public works and the impact these services have on their communities. With thousands of years of combined experience within our department, we are proud to recognize a representative group of DPW staff here today as part of our incredible team. We extend our heartfelt thanks and appreciation to all Department of Public Works employees for their dedication and service. And we deeply appreciate the important work you do each and every day. So enjoy National Public Works Week and the rodeo tomorrow. You've earned it all.

Thank you.

And we do love our public works department. We don't play favorites here, but I just want to say I really love everyone in your department. They're just super responsive and our roads crew are amazing. And I think one of the most important things that we do in local government is roads and infrastructure. It's our responsibility and it's something that we have to make sure we're doing well and you all really reflect super well on the county. So I thank you for everything that You do for us, and it looks like Supervisor Jones has turned her light on.

Yes, thank you. I want to report out on a couple of things. First of all, I want to report out on my e-bike event that we had last week. It was a really good event. I had about eight Highway Patrol came and attended. And they had a slide presentation that they did all about e-bikes and everything from arresting juveniles for evading the law, et cetera. Anyway, we also had about 20 sheriffs showed up. And so they really support Granite Bay and what we do there. And they also had a slide show that they shared with everyone on e-bikes. And community members, of course, that's why we put it on. And lots and lots of questions, lots of interest. And I will just say, they talked about what e-bikes are legal, which ones are not. The ones that are not legal are not legal anywhere except on private property. And I said, well, how can you tell if it's illegal? First clue is if they don't have pedals, it's illegal. So at least I learned that much. It's kind of hard to tell when they show you all the pictures. And then the other thing I want to report out is that I attended the National Association of Counties conference last week, and they held it in Maui, where we learned about the devastating fire that destroyed the town of Lahaina. And they also had several workshops there, but they had one that was very important on FEMA and how they respond to disasters. And it's undergoing a change right now as to what you have – what you have to do to qualify. And I won't say what you have to do, but it's a result of whatever your disaster is, what requirements for you to qualify for their service, their relief service. And that one was very interesting as well. So local community members made a movie called Lahaina Rising, which was extremely interesting. And they said a lot of the movie were parts of videos that people did with their own phones. He said a lot of people sent him videos that he could not even put in the movie because many of them, they were there talking in their cars with the fire burning right at the lot next to them. It was a hurricane nearby that created 159 mile an hour winds. that a power line that snapped and fell on dry grass first started the fire. The firemen put it out, but I don't think it was not extinguished completely because it came about again, but it was those extremely high winds that just, it moved within seconds. People showed the videos and there were even two firefighters who were in a big, large fire truck that got tangled in all kinds of I don't know what it was it was power lines or whatever and they couldn't even get out and they were calling their family members and telling them how much they love them. Really, it was a very emotional movie. But anyway, so they're going to be supplying a link to the supervisors that attended so that we can share that movie. Hopefully we'll get that link in the fall, and I'm hoping we can share at least part of the movie. It was 90 minutes, so it was quite lengthy. And we had a panel discussion afterwards. But there were several community members that stepped up in this whole thing right after the fire was over. They contacted friends and everybody who had to bring in by boat water supplies and food, clothing. People lost everything. The entire town burnt down. They were able to identify 102 victims. There were a number of them that were never found. The fire was so hot that they couldn't even locate a skeleton in their homes. And so these locals who set up, they set up command stations two days before Red Cross or FEMA ever showed up. And it was amazing what they did and how they responded. and took charge and helped their community to survive. So that's a part of it. There's a lot more to it, but I haven't taken enough time for today. So that's it for me.

Thank you, Supervisor DeMattei.

Well, now to not so sad news. Thank you for that report, though. First of all, sorry I couldn't miss your bridge ribbon cutting. I was a little sore and couldn't move too far, too, because of this trophy here. So first of all, I'd like to thank Jeremy for putting these pictures together for me. This past weekend was the county's 49th annual softball tournament. First, I'd also like to thank Celeste Lowe and all who helped put this softball tournament together. So our team, DPW, to continue their recognition, the Trash Pandas won the championship. I would like to thank all my teammates for their hard work. We had tough games to play against Erica Manequez's team, run EDBC to win the championship at the bottom of the seventh inning with two outs, and we were very fortunate to bring this trophy home again. I would also like to congratulate the PCSO's team, Law and Disorder, who won the championship on Sunday. This is their team as well. I didn't have a chance to get all their names. But I'd also like to thank Supervisor Gore, who was out everywhere this weekend for supporting our staff. And next year is our 50th annual softball tournament. So we were hoping, I was talking with Celeste and with Supervisor Gore about putting something bigger together. Hopefully we can bring out more county staff, maybe have food trucks and have this like a company picnic slash softball tournament as well. So just wanted to shout out to DBW's team for letting me be on their team. And thank you for everybody who participated. So thank you.

Congratulations.

Supervisor Gore. And I do have proof that Supervisor DeMattei looks good in pink and can hit a ball. He was a pitcher, so it was really fun to go out and support our teams. It was a lot of fun. I just wanted to say thank you since we've got CAL FIRE and the Sheriff's Office in the room back there. We had bagels with the badges in West Unincorporated Roseville this weekend. We had members of the Sheriff's Office, CAL FIRE, Placer County, fire and the chp come out and just share with residents who they are as our public safety providers since we aren't in the city we had a great time lots of families came out and i really appreciate just the the community outreach that our public safety teams do because it really matters that they know who their firefighters are and deputy sheriffs are so i really just want to say thank you it's a great time and we look forward to doing it again next year

Alright, looks like we are done with that, so we will move to our 9 AM timed item 2026 fire season updates.

Well, good morning, Chair Landon, members of the board, Mr. Chattany, Mr. Cook. I am Jim Hudson, your Placer County Fire Department Chief and CAL FIRE Nevada Yuba Placer Unit Chief. Today with me, I have our Deputy Chief of Operations, Ryan Wesner, and our Unit Forester and Vegetation Management Program Coordinator, Steve Garcia. Today, I wanted to thank you for the opportunity to present our fire season outlook for 2026, as well as some fire department updates as we move into the year. Setting the stage for this year, I think it's important to look back at 2025 and the trends we see. In 2025, as an agency for CAL FIRE, we hit our average of 8,000 wildland fires. We did not see the significant wildland fires that we saw across the state really into fire season. The most significant activity we actually saw was the LA fires in January. that many of us were present at. But locally here, it was a pretty solid season as far as keeping the acreage to a minimum. As we move into this year, I think it's important, and Steve will be talking about some of our fuels and weather conditions, but we were very nervous moving into this fire season up until about March and April. We had some periods of rain, but we were almost in drought status. So we're hoping that that actually prolongs our winter or shoulder season as we get into our peak burning conditions moving forward. Across the unit, we hit our average of 400 wildland fires. It was actually 400 exactly last year across Nevada, Yuba, Placer County. So if you're doing averages, it's nice to hit the mark to be consistent. No change there. Easy math. What we did experience last year was one of the most significant things we saw across the North State was we had the most significant lightning events across the summer and fall months and had over 146,000, almost 147,000 lightning strikes across Northern California. We did have multiple ignitions across the area, but with aggressive initial attack in our fields conditions, we were able to maintain that. If we would have rewound that to, you know, the 147,000 lightning strikes to the years we saw 2008, 2010, 12, and particularly 2020, it would have been a catastrophic year for sure as we look at acreages across the state. I'm happy to report in Placer County last year, the largest fire that we had was only 80 acres, and that was a grass fire in District 2 in rural Lincoln's area. So great success. We always are striving to hit our mark of containing 95% of the fires, 10% or less, and we were able to do that through aggressive initial attack as well as some help from Mother Nature. We saw some moderation in last year's fuels and weather. As far as dispatch, the Grass Valley ECC did over 38,000 dispatches again last year, which generated over 71,000 responses. We tend to see a three to 5% increase, and some years we have seen up to 7%. That was generated through 89,000 911 call intakes for that. And as CAL FIRE, we continue to do over 600,000 incidents a year up and down the state of California. General department-wide updates, I think the most significant things that we're going to see this year are enhancements in our aviation once again, as well as early detection and artificial intelligence functions. Our Force C-130, we reported last year that we had two at this time. The fourth one will be coming online by early June. It is hitting the target and with more on the way. The newer C-130s for us will be out of the McClellan reload base and will be a big benefit to us as well. And our 17th Black Hawk just came online as an agency. And we're looking at models into the future of how we use our Huey, our fleet that we had in the past, and how those can be utilized. So our rotor wing, our helicopter program is continuing to grow. And a big priority for the department is the continued additions of our emergency technologies and how we can use that for detection. Specifically to this area, we have 86 cameras servicing our region and this county across 58 locations, all with artificial intelligence capabilities. Those continue to grow as a unit and county fire department. We are always looking for opportunities along with University of Nevada, University of San Diego, PG&E, and some of our infrastructure towers on how we can utilize that. It's getting to the point now with the towers where they're detecting 25 to 30% before there's actually a 911 call. So that is a game changer for us on early detection. Last year also we saw the implementation, or we've seen it over two years, of satellite detection. We actually had a fire, it was during the unified command training that we do every year, it was on the east side, and we had a detection from a satellite pick up a fire just below Gold Run in the Bear River drainage, just on the Placer side and along the river. And that was the first report, no 911s, no cameras. It was an inversion day where it kept the smoke down in the canyon. But we're continuing to add those platforms and they will be servicing the area. Right now it's about an hour to 70 minute turnaround time for them to scan an area. But the department is looking at getting and as well as our cooperating agencies getting up to 50 satellites able to serve the area and that'll take it down to a 15 minute potential return time. So just one more tool that we have in the toolbox for early detection and we're very excited about that. we also will continue to have our intel platform cal fire 641 this year along with the oes platforms for sense to do a remote sensing acreage intelligence that we can provide real-time information to your board as well when we get a new ignition or an emerging fire and i'll turn it over to chief garcia for our 2026 forecast

Yeah, thank you. I appreciate having an opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Steve Garcia. I'm the unit forester and vegetation management coordinator here in Nevada Yuba Placer Unit. Chief Hudson asked me to put down some comments on kind of the weather forecast, what we might predict here in the near future. And so my goal is to just kind of relate some of the observations that I've made as I've been traveling around the county, trying to compare that to some of my observations in the past over my now 22 years here in Placer County. I think the greatest concern right now is just the lack of snowpack and typically what we see is that the snowpack will shield some of the the dead large dead fuels on the ground and that will extend much later into the spring and early summer and we're just we're without that competent snowpack right now so what's been happening is essentially all that material has been drying out since March, early March. The only moderating impact that we'll see from that is if we have some summer monsoon that puts precipitation onto the ground and shade, you know, on the shady sides of those hills, we may see some extension of moist, large diameter fuels. But the problem really is that we've had this continuous extensive early drying of the timber fuels That just causes me concern because it could predict a much more aggressive, more hotter, larger fires kind of up in the 4,500 foot elevation zone and up into the higher elevations. Overall in the unit, the department's predicting increased fire potential with above average really predicted from June to August. That's really a reflection of a couple of things, which I'll talk about here in a moment. But it is a function of that. that snowpack issue. There are predictions that we'll see some potential instability from July through September. That's the potential monsoon that would really help. The challenge with the monsoon is that not only does it bring precipitation, it also will bring potentially lightning. So we're going to wait with bated breath to see what the future holds. Next slide. Oh, where are we here? Let's go back to, OK. We're on forecast. So we sustained a significantly dry March. And I think we all probably recognize that. But then as April approached, we were given a bit of a gift. And if you look at the small image closest to the text, you'll see a large purple blob. That is indicating somewhere between five to 12 inches of precipitation that we received in April. And so that really set us back to a point where essentially average for total precipitation. So the soil moistures are good, but now that's impacted the grass growth. So we've seen an increase grass growth with that kind of extended precipitation. Next slide. This slide is indicating kind of where we are statewide relative to drought. We're in just what you would consider to be abnormally dry, and that's abnormally dry for this time of year. It indicates that the precipitation we got in April is beginning to dry out. Next slide. So in NEU, our primary fuels of concern are the woody plants, the brush and small trees. We're currently experiencing what we consider a delayed green-up. And so as the plants are pulling moisture out of the ground and they begin to grow, they really build up a lot of moisture in the canopy. And that's what prevents fires that do get into that material from, you know, immediately catching fire it's essentially cooling the fire as it's burning underneath that fuel we'll see that those fuel moistures reach critical probably in july it's a little bit behind schedule so that's a blessing right now but the uh we did have a little bit of uh an event this year as well as 2022 and 2023 where we got heavy snow there was a lot of tree breakage And now that material is sitting there on the ground. So I'm looking at the 3,000 to 4,000 foot zone as having the most recent current dead material. The dead fuels, however, are really tracking with our historical lows. So it's really going to be a matter of whether we get an ignition and whether we get some precipitation. One note, we are part of a network that collects certain fuel information, and we report that to a national database. One of the measurements that I noticed is that the overall grass crop right now in the front country, which is somewhere around the 1,000 to 2,000 foot zone, is the third highest on record. So 138% of historic average at about 4,514 pounds per acre. That is a lot of grass sitting out on the landscape right now. We're not measuring the higher elevations, and I'm seeing also really tall grass up at like the 3,000 foot level. So we have heavy grass, lots of dead material out on the landscape, and potentially really dry fuels up in the higher elevations. And I'm not gonna predict what that means for fire season, but these are the indicators that we use that give us concern. That's where we are right now. Okay, next slide. So what do you do about it? Well, we're working on our fuels projects. and a lot of our cooperators are as well. The North Fork fuel break phase two and a half was funded and the phase three application is gonna be due in June 2026. So that is the North Fork fuel break that extends from Colfax to Auburn. It's been worked on continuously now since about 2018 and we're continuing to receive funding for that and so we'll continue working on that one over the next probably 10 years. The Immigrant Gap Demonstration Forest, which is our new CAL FIRE acquired demonstration forest, it's scattered from Alta to Immigrant Gap. We've conducted 115 acres of cut, pile, and burn up there, which I'm really proud of being able to do management on that forest. We've got 2,590 acres overall that's CAL FIRE-led work that's occurred since July 1 of 2025. So that's our fiscal year number right now. So that's almost 3,000 acres that we've conducted. And then we have 10,611 defensible space inspections that have occurred over the last 12 months. So that's kind of where we're at. we do see the overall funding is still a little bit tight even though prop 4 is now in play and I did see an announcement for the wildfire prevention grants those are out now and some of the cooperators here are working on applications that will be due in July so we're just going to continue trying to get that funding, work collectively with the counties and some of our other local entities, and continue to try and mitigate some of the risks that we see out on the landscape.

Thank you, Steve. Brian? Good morning, everybody. My name is Ryan Wessner, Operations Chief for Cal Fire Placer County Fire. And my responsibility is to maintain an aggressive initial attack. I'm also responsible for staffing and wings and wheels. And part of that staffing is our frontline engines. So as of right now, we're at peak staffing. We have 22 frontline engines, 3-0 staffed, seven hand crews, four dozers. We'll have three fixed wings and our UAS operations are currently going. We have approximately eight UASs that do a lot of our recons and help out with our rescues. Our fixed wings, when they come online, there'll be two air tankers and one air attack. And then 1st of June, we'll get our Type 2 helicopter at Auburn and our Type 1 helicopter up at Truckee. Our new additions for this year is we added an East Division Assistant Chief, and he'll be responsible for all of the Tahoe Truckee area. And we also added year-round engines at Auburn and Forest Hill stations. Continuing on our east side, With those engines, we got year-round staffing, additional firefighter staffing, and on the first part of June, we'll get the CH-47 helicopter that'll be at the Truckee Airport. For those of you, that's the two-rotor helicopter, and it will have night flying capabilities. We're continuously working with our VMPs in Waddle Ranch area, like we were at the end of last season. And we're in the planning process for a new station at the Burton Creek Park area. Continuing on over to the west side, we've transitioned North Auburn, so that's the station 71 and 72, and Ophir Station to ALS. We've upgraded our stations to 3-0 staffing throughout the county to reflect the five-year cooperative agreement. And last but not least, we finished the renumbering and reorg of all the stations in Placer County. And what that did is it changed the three-digit numbers to allow us for growth for future stations and align with our local government partners. And I just want to do a quick shout out for Peter Paulus and our training bureau. He trained 375 people this year in a 12-week training cycle. Of that 375 people, 107 of them were new to the unit. So this training cycle literally ended this week. And, you know, he taught us everything from tourniquets, CPR, hose lays to cybersecurity for all of us staff that are up here. They're always on the late list. So with that, I look forward to our future relationships and to fire season. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ryan. The station numbering really isn't ringing in my head yet either. But for your awareness, Atwood is now station 71. Our Ofer station is now station 72. And Dry Creek, past station 100, is 79. And we also renumbered our volunteer company stations to three digit. And like Ryan said, that is nothing more than expansion. And it aligns with the county numbering system for all the agencies and fire districts. So preparing for the future. you know, I just wanted to say to you know, this this is a picture from our all hands meeting just this past week and Though I presented to this board many times. This is my first time as your fire chief to present to you and I just wanted to You know assure you that I could not be prouder to lead such a robust group of firefighters that because of the complexities in our region in our County the the different disciplines that they need to train in the Diversity of the emergencies that we respond to I would put them up against any firefighting force in the world and I'm super proud to be their fire chief and but I could not do that without some support and and some of those folks are in the room today sheriff Wu and his staff and the collaboration and support uh the the county executive office and really though i'm new as the fire chief i am not new to this county and spent the majority of my career here almost all of it uh serving uh plaster county and the nevada and yuba counties as well but i just wanted to say thank you to this board i am well aware of the support and we could not do it without you if For those who were at the all hands last week, I talked about what are all hands. It's our firefighters, it's our families, it's our cooperators, and it's our elected officials and county governments that provide us the support because we would not be able to do that job without you. So I just wanted to say thank you personally for the first time presenting to you as your fire chief and happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Chief. Questions or comments from board members? Supervisor Gustafson.

Thank you. And it was truly an honor again, to be at the all hands, uh, training and to witness the incredible, I mean, that video every year gets me to see again, um, the situations that your staff are so well-trained to go in and, and save our lives, save our communities. Uh, it's just phenomenal. When I was at the Fire Services Board, we talked a little bit about the satellites that CAL FIRE's invested in, and then hearing about the budget that you have this year that hasn't been cut. Correct? I didn't get all the updates from the May revise, but it sounded like Cal Fire was okay.

Yeah, we're waiting on the departmental analysis and updates. They should be coming out at any time, but all indications are we are looking very strong as a department and are not anticipating anything significant that would impact our operations.

Well it's great to see the technology that's coming into play and the advancements and Cal Fire's partnership and I don't remember the name of the unit, is it FIU? That is working to streamline procurement so that the satellites can go up so we can test out and pilot new technologies quickly and get them into the hands of your staff to help us and so that was a remarkable effort I just want to continue to say whatever we can do to support those efforts moving forward for the department because as you know we have and it was mentioned again the highest number of residences in the WUI and structures in the WUI of any state in the any county in the state, let me get that right, and how critically important it is to all of our members, all of our residents and business owners that we support you. So please keep up the great work, let us know. If there's opportunities for those pilot programs here in the county, we should stand by you in helping test those technologies and make sure that we can put them to good use. I appreciate that, thank you.

Thank you. Supervisor DiMattei.

Thank you, Chief, and thank you guys for your report. I had looked up Proposition 4, and it seems like it's a little backwards that we only get $1.5 billion to go clean up the forest, but we get $3.8 billion to prevent a drought, and we do nothing with it, like build sites down. I was back in Washington with Chief Hudson, and we advocated to try and get more people into our forest to help clean it up. And I was told that we have $24 billion sitting there in a fund just to go put out the fire. And I asked for just a third of that for you guys is just go prevent it. And I don't know where all the guys come from, but obviously they come out of everywhere to go put out this fire. And I'm hoping that you guys at your higher level can go advocate to get those guys to go to work to help prevent this fire, because obviously it only costs us a third to do that and keeps you guys much safer and better air quality and everything under the bus. But I just wanted to say thank you. We're very happy to have you guys, very proud to have you as our fire department. And stay safe. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Supervisor. And I was hoping you were going to draft me to your championship softball team.

I have tryouts next week.

Any other questions or comments from board members?

We are back-to-back champions, so it's hard to replace those guys.

And is there anyone here in the chambers who would like to make a comment or a question on this item? OK, anyone online? No, Chair. All right. I will also extend my thank you to you and your team. You guys are amazing. And I am always blown away by the quick, fast, incredibly robust response anytime there is any issue, at least in my district that I've been aware of. And I know it extends to the rest of the county, too. So really appreciate the partnership and working together to protect our residents.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right, we will now move to our 9.30 timed item, a proclamation recognizing Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month. So I'm going to introduce this one. I am honored today to introduce today's proclamation recognizing the month of May as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month in Placer County. AAPI Heritage Month is an opportunity to celebrate the rich cultures, traditions, and contributions of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders who have helped shape our communities, our state, and our nation. Today we are especially honored to be joined by two outstanding local cultural groups. Okay, I'm going to really try and say this correctly. The Manu'ia Polynesian Review from Rockland and the Halohulapono from Newcastle. And I will go ahead and read the proclamation into the record. Whereas the month of May is nationally recognized as Asian American and Pacific Islander AAPI Heritage Month, a time to honor and celebrate the rich histories, diverse cultures, and significant contributions of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders to our nation, state, and local communities. And whereas Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders represent a wide array of ethnicities, languages, and traditions, tracing their roots to East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, and the Pacific Islands, and have played an integral role in shaping the cultural, economic, and civic fabric of Placer County. And whereas the legacy of AAPI individuals is deeply woven into American history from the arrival of the first Japanese immigrants in the 19th century to the contributions of Chinese laborers in building the Transcontinental Railroad, to the ongoing leadership and innovation of AAPI residents in all sectors of society. And whereas AAPI community members in Placer County continue to enrich our region through their leadership in business, education, healthcare, public service, arts, and community engagement, And whereas this month provides an opportunity to recognize both the achievements and the challenges faced by AAPI communities and to reaffirm our commitment to equity, inclusion, and mutual respect for all residents. And whereas the Placer County Board of Supervisors is committed to celebrating diversity, promoting cultural understanding, and fostering a community where all individuals feel valued and respected. Whereas the Placer County Board of Supervisors does hereby proclaim the month of May as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month in Placer County and encourages all residents to participate in activities and observances that honor the heritage contributions and cultures of AAPI communities. Now, therefore, let it be proclaimed. that the above proclamation was duly passed by the board of supervisors of the county of placer on behalf of the citizens of placer county at a regular meeting held may 19th 2026 proclaiming the month of may as asian american and pacific islander heritage month in placer county i know we have some representatives here from both groups so maybe um i'll go ahead and see if there's any questions or comments from board members and then i'll open it up to the public and then maybe have you come up and just say a few words, so any questions, comments? And is there anyone here in the public who would like to comment on this item? Please come up.

Good morning. My name is Erica Aquino, and I've been a Roseville resident since 2021. I'm speaking on behalf of my husband, Charles Aquino, who could not be here due to work commitments, but please know that he really wanted to be here. In 2021, we moved our family to Placer County from San Jose. Our goal was to raise our young family and establish our roots, ironically, in a place where we knew nothing about, but we just heard rumors that it was great for families. My husband spent nearly 15 years serving and protecting as public services officer with a Bay Area law enforcement agency. He stepped away from his dream career but still had the desire to serve in some way. He began to volunteer with Arcona and really got involved with the community. In such a short amount of time, he has done so much for our community and has met many great community members and elected such as Shanti Landon and her professional staff. He would like to thank Shanti and the entire Board of Supervisors for making this suggestion a reality and making this day come to fruition for AAPI recognition in Placer. These two groups, Manoia Rocklin and Halao Hulapono, They both have a special place in both of our hearts. They represent two sides, the new and the well-established, a great representation of the AAPI footprint here in Placer County. These groups honor the culture in every way, but most importantly, they welcome people from different walks of life. They have provided me and my husband a place where we could build identity, plant our roots, build lifelong friendships, and have a place of belonging in a place that is sometimes still so new and foreign to us.

uh congratulations to manuia and halau hulapono and thank you again to county placer thank you thank you any other comments here in the chambers and is there anyone online oh sorry

Good morning.

Morning.

My name is Alfredo and this is Kristen and we are the owners and operators of Manuia Polynesian Review in Rockland and we are honored to be here today in front of all of you in honoring AAPI month here in Placer County. This is an amazing achievement for us to being here in Placer County. Our group is based in the Bay Area and we've been in operation for 30 years now this year. And in 2022, my wife and I moved up here to Rockland. I'm here in Placer County and it was something that my wife has been doing for over 35 years and she had to continue her roots in dancing. and we're just so blessed to be able to bring the culture of the different Polynesian islands of Tahiti, Hawaii, Tonga, New Zealand, and Samoa here to Placer County, and it's been amazing to be able to see the interest and the love that so many people here have for the culture, and we're just blessed to be able to build the community here. So we thank you for allowing us to be here in front of all of you today.

Thank you so much. And I will say, I did come take a hula class at your location, and we all learned I am not coordinated at all. Other gifts and talents that I have, but not that. So thank you. You guys were amazing teachers, and I appreciate it. OK, with that. The action requested is to receive a presentation from Cal Fire. Oh, not not Cal Fire. Nope. Approve a proclamation declaring the month of May as Asian-American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month in Placer County. With that, I will move approve. I'll move approval. I will. I will go ahead and second then and super move by Supervisor Jones seconded by myself. And with that, all those in favor. Aye. Aye. Any opposed and no abstentions. Okay, we'll come down and take a quick picture with you guys.

On that note, I'd also like to wish Cindy Gutherson a happy birthday.

Oh, yeah, I forgot to say that at the beginning. We can celebrate all kinds of things. Yeah, celebrate.

Do you want us all to come down?

Hey, baby.

Here we go.

And one, two, three.

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for being here.

Okay, with that, we will be moving to our 940 timed item, a commendation honoring Human Services Director Greg Geisler. And as Supervisor DiMattei noted, today is Supervisor Gustafson's birthday, so happy, happy birthday to her.

Good morning, Chair Landon and members of the board, and happy birthday, Supervisor Gustafson. Rob Oldham with Health and Human Services, and I'm here to continue the celebration, asking your board to approve a commendation honoring our former Human Services Director, Greg Geisler, for 30 years of dedicated service and leadership to Placer County Health and Human Services, and I'll add to the whole county, not just to HHS. So now Greg has now been retired out of service from HHS for about three months now, so I'm in a better place to talk about this. We did get to celebrate him before. He took off and did some traveling, and I'm hearing from Celeste's daughter some sleeping in and lunching and other fun stuff over the last three months. I'm honored to be here today along with Greg and his wife Gina and a whole crew from HHS to celebrate Greg. Just a little bit of background on Greg. He began his career with the county in 1996 as a client services counselor in our children's system of care and in employment services. In 2010, he transitioned to a supervisor role with employment services and a few years later was appointed as a program manager and then assistant director of human services. in 2021 in the midst of the pandemic greg assumed the role of our human services director we continued to lead with integrity vision and a commitment to excellence throughout his tenure greg spearhead spearheaded several transformation initiatives that improved service delivery and strengthened our community partnerships among them greg he led for the medical division the application timelines readiness reached 90 so Meeting our state standards for the first time is really critical, especially now when we're seeing potential changes to the Medi-Cal program. That program is a well-oiled machine, right? And so we have really clear benchmarks and standards and a dashboard that helps us to monitor that. So we really appreciate Greg's leadership. Similarly, we're talking a lot about work requirements for Medi-Cal and work participation, but actually, under Greg, our work participation rates exceeded our state mandates. Greg oversaw the award-winning Emergency Rental Assistance Program during the pandemic, providing nearly $7.5 million in rent relief to over 600 households. We just saw a release last month of our point-in-time count numbers where other jurisdictions are seeing numbers of people gone up, people experiencing homelessness going up. during the pandemic ours have gradually our rate of homelessness has gone down significantly in the last five years and so we give Greg and his team a lot of the credit for for that I'm Greg speaking of housing and homelessness Greg guided the Housing Authority through significant programmatic changes added our mainstream vouchers family unification emergency housing vouchers and Veterans Affairs supportive housing vouchers and and expanded the family self-sufficiency program. He also championed new innovative programs such as our volunteer income tax assistance initiative, which returned millions of dollars to low-income families over the past decade. He played a pivotal role in the transition of CalSAWS, one of the most complex eligibility and benefits systems in the nation, I think actually in the world. So this transition of all the data for CalSAWS, that's what I hear, is one of the biggest IT projects in the world. And Greg was at the heart of that, serving as a CalSAWS Joint Powers Authority board member during that transition. He also fostered maybe most importantly, a fun workplace culture in our human services division, really helped to develop staff, which I appreciate his management team, including we have lots of internal promotions, including our new human services director, Lisa Soto, who Greg really helped to guide and prepared her to take to fill his big shoes. He does have big shoes. But also other initiatives like senior master classes, leadership cultivation, really, again, resulting in a strong pipeline of internal promotions and resulting in very few vacancies. So I know we had a report from HR a few weeks ago about our vacancy rate. And so HHS wide, I think we've gotten our vacancy rate down below 4 percent, and a lot of that, you know, Human Services is our largest division with over 250 employees, and right now has consistently over the last year had a vacancy rate below 1 percent. So as soon as they have a vacancy, they, and a lot, you know, this is Greg's leadership, really a culture of let's get interviews going, let's fill, let's have a pool ready to go, and so really appreciate his proactive leadership to meet the need. growing need for services, especially eligibility services, and that's really important. And then finally, Greg's contributions have been recognized not just here locally, where we appreciate him and his leadership, but throughout really national and state awards, at least seven different major honors. Maybe we'll get him a lamp for that for the Christmas Story fans. But from the National Association of Counties, from our CSAC, our California State Association of Counties, and collaborative networks for outstanding programs and partnerships. So I'll just end by saying, yeah, Greg did all this with, he's just always, I've never seen him frazzled. He's just always cool and calm. And I can't imagine retirement, I guess, even more so. So I do want to thank Greg for being here. I'm hearing he's been sleeping in a lot. So I appreciate you getting up early and making an end for the 9.40 timed item, Greg. And congratulations to you, and thank you so much for all your service. And with that, I'll open it up and see if you want to hand it over. There might be some other folks here who have a few things to say. Thanks.

Great. Any comments first from board members? Supervisor DiMattei?

Just congratulations. And Lisa Soto and Erica, I may have to have a chat with you because your softball team is amazing. Fortunately, we luckily beat them. But I'm not sure how they have all this time to be so well and hit so great. But congratulations to all you guys. And thank you again. And congrats on your retirement. And thanks for getting up early.

supervisor gore and i too just want to say um thank you so much for all of your hard work really the work that you do a lot of times goes unnoticed because you're taking care of the vulnerable in our community and that has really mattered and so thank you for just investing your time and energy into this career that's really had a had an impact to our residents but obviously to your team members at the county and enjoy retirement. I was sorry to hear that you've retired, but I'm sure you'll find plenty of things to keep you busy after you get plenty of time sleeping in.

Supervisor Gustafson.

Greg, I just wanted to congratulate you as well and say, you know, we get the benefit of seeing you present at various times on various topics, but to read all of these accomplishments and to understand the magnitude of impact you made on the lives of so many, that's really incredible. Thank you for your service. And enjoy. And don't play softball. Get hurt.

Supervisor Jones.

I'd just like to commend you on a great career and all of your service and working with all of your team. I'm sure you've contributed to making it a great team. And thank you. We all appreciate it very much. Have a great retirement and don't sleep in too much. Enjoy life.

I will go ahead and open this up for public comment. Is there anyone here in the chambers who would like to comment on this item?

Mr. Geisler would you like to comment well thank you board members and thank you to Dr. Rob for some very kind words it was great to hear that I want to thank all my HHS colleagues and in particular my team at Human Services being a lifelong resident of Placer County it's been wonderful to be able to work for for the county that I live in and Placer County has been tremendously good to me it's a great place for for folks to work it's a great community and I really appreciate having been given the honor and privilege of being able to lead such a great team thank you all

thank you greg and i will just echo what all of my colleagues say and say thank you so much for your commitment and your love for our county and for the people that live here and as supervisor gore noted um really your service to the most vulnerable in our community often goes unnoticed and so we are happy to recognize you for your work today with that i will bring it back to the board for a vote i will move approval i'll second move by jones seconded by gore all those in favor aye and none opposed and no abstentions and if you want to just hang out right there we'll come down and do a quick photo i think you guys have a batting cage upstairs

That's what you have all that space for. He's obsessed with the song. You know I don't like to move, so it's really comfortable. Okay, yeah. All right, it's all good. This way, just a little bit. Okay.

Put it right here. One, two.

Congratulations. You want one more picture? You want a picture? You. You had your phone up. You want a picture? Okay. Let's get a photo. One more photo. I won't miss anybody in the crowd.

Thank you.

Congratulations. Congratulations.

all right we will now move to our 9 50 timed item item 4a mental health matters month 2026. good morning chair landon and members of the board i'm amy ellis i'm the director of the adult system of care and i'm joined with twyla abrahamson who's also here she's the director of the children's system of care jointly we'd like to celebrate and bring awareness to may being mental health awareness month And I'd also like to introduce our new Behavioral Health Service Act coordinator, Shannon McEwen. She's gonna be up here in a second, who supports both adult and children's mental health programs. She'll provide background to the importance of mental health awareness, and you will also hear from Sarah, who has some lived experience with mental health services. But we'll start off with Shannon. And before we get started, we did also bring some grab bags for the board members. So Megan, I don't know if we can give them to you. Okay, great. All right. Yeah.

And notice how we are wearing green.

You guys wore green and you didn't even have your swag vans in advance. I'm very impressed. Yeah, but now you have more stuff for next year too. Great. And for the event that we'll tell you about soon. Okay. Okay.

Hi, and thank you for having us today. I am joined by several of our dedicated community partners as we respectfully ask you to proclaim May as Mental Health Matters Month in Placer County. Mental health impacts individuals and families in every community. Yet too often stigma, isolation and fear prevent people from seeking support when they need it most. Through education, awareness, and open conversations, we can help create a community where mental health is treated with the same compassion and importance as physical health. In Placer County, we continue to proactively invest in behavioral health services and supports Last year alone, more than 9,600 residents received services through prevention and early intervention programs, intensive mental health services, crisis response programs, supportive housing, and many other community-based supports. Our Placer for Mental Health campaign was created to help reduce stigma, increase awareness, and connect residents with local mental health and wellness resources. This year, we also launched our Be Seen in Green campaign to encourage residents throughout the county to visibly show support for mental health awareness during the month of May, as many of you have. We are especially excited to invite your board and the community to the third annual Placer for Mental Health Awareness or Wellness Fair on Thursday, May 21st, from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Maidu Community Center in Roseville. This free family-friendly event is hosted in partnership with Campaign for Community Wellness, County Behavioral Health and Human Services Department, and our criminal justice and community partners, with special thanks to the district attorney's office and AMI Housing, who played significant roles in helping plan the event. This year's event will feature more than 80 local vendors, wellness workshops, interactive activities for all ages, free food and live entertainment from local performers. Workshops will include topics such as recognizing mental health crisis, stress reduction and mindfulness, substance use disorders, anxiety and ADHD. The goal is to make support visible, accessible and welcoming for everybody in our community. We also wanna recognize that many community partners and staff who helped to organize the event and continue working year round to promote wellness and reduce stigma across Gloucester County. So at this time I'd like to invite Sarah Barone to share a little bit about her personal journey and lived experiences.

Hi, good morning. My name is Sarah Barone and I work with AME Housing as a certified peer support specialist. I'm on the homeless liaison team connecting the vulnerable and unhoused with available resources. There was a time in my life when I couldn't imagine ever standing in front of anyone, let alone speaking to a group of people about something so personal. But today I stand here with gratitude, strength, and most importantly, hope. Today I speak my truth. My story begins in Fort Worth, Texas. After being born to a teen mother, I was adopted shortly after birth by two very busy, career-driven parents who, to put it politely, truly despised each other. My mother passed away just a few days shy of my sixth birthday. And my father, well, let's just say he was unprepared and completely unsuited for fatherhood. He made no secret of that either. He drank excessively, worked long hours, and was a very angry and distant man. I wish I had more happy memories of my childhood, but to be honest, it was often really scary and extremely lonely. I felt like I didn't belong anywhere, and I didn't matter to anyone. And that's where my foundation was laid, feeling invisible, unsafe, and unwanted. I looked at my classmates and longed for the happiness and security they all seemed to have. My brain kept telling me I was broken and would never be normal like the other kids. I entered into adulthood thinking those same thoughts, that someone like me would never be happy and never be normal. I was born into chaos, so it would only make sense that I would live out my life in chaos. And for the next 20 years, I fulfilled this prophecy. I did everything I could to try and run away from the pain I felt, but of course, that only made me feel more alone and more unwanted. All I wanted was to feel normal, but I'd lost hope that that would ever be possible for me. But here's what I want you to know. No one is too far gone. No one. My turning point didn't come in some dramatic moment. It came in the quiet, in the rock bottom silence when I finally realized I can't do this anymore. The chaos wasn't living, it was dying slowly. So six years ago on Friday, I asked for help and that decision saved my life. Today I live in freedom. I get to be a mother to my children. I get to rebuild relationships I thought were lost forever. I get to work full time as a peer where I get to work with people who are struggling with their own mental health challenges and help them find hope again, just like I found that same hope. When I look at my life now, the laughter in my home, the second chance to be a mom, the privilege of walking beside others in their darkest moments, I truly love my life. My name is Sarah. I'm so grateful to be alive today. Thank you for this opportunity to tell my story.

Thank you. Thank you for sharing.

I just want to say thanks to Sarah for sharing her story with us today and at this time the action being requested of your board is to approve a proclamation declaring May as Mental Health Matters Month in Placer County.

Thank you and with that I will ask Supervisor Gore if she can read the proclamation into the record.

I would be happy to read it, and sorry, thank you for sharing. And I just want to note what you said, which is no one is too far gone. And so as I think about reading this, as so many people struggle with mental health issues, especially since COVID with challenges with family. I just wanna say thank you to our Health and Human Services team, Adult and Children Systems of Care for all that you do to support our residents. We said that to Greg, like the work is done behind the scenes, but goodness, it matters. So I am just pleased to hear of your story. And I know that you are a wonderful example to so many others and an encouragement to others. So now I'm gonna try and read this. so this is a proclamation declaring May 2026 as mental health matters month in Placer County whereas mental health is a fundamental component of well-being and contributes to the resilience and strength of individuals families and communities across Placer County And whereas approximately one in five people will experience a mental health condition in any given year, and about half of Americans will meet the criteria for a diagnosable mental health condition at some point in their lives, with symptoms often beginning at age 14. And whereas approximately one in three children and one in six adults face mental health challenges in California, experience mental health challenges with impacts that extend to their families, friends, and caregivers. And whereas mental health challenges affect people of all ages, backgrounds, and communities, and early intervention and access to care can save lives and improve outcomes. And whereas seeking help for mental health concerns is an act of strength, an increasing awareness about mental health can reduce stigma, improve understanding, and connect individuals to the resources they need. And whereas fostering a community where individuals feel safe and supported in seeking help is essential to promoting mental well-being and ensuring mental health is treated with the same care and respect as physical health. And whereas the residents of Placer County, along with public and private institutions, businesses and schools, are encouraged to continue advancing awareness of mental health challenges, reducing stigma, promoting education on strategies that support mental well-being, and ensuring access to appropriate and accessible services for individuals experiencing mental health conditions, And whereas the Placer County Board of Supervisors urges all citizens to join Placer County Health and Human Services in enhancing public awareness of mental health and dispel the stigma surrounding it in Placer County. Now, therefore, it be proclaimed that the above proclamation was duly passed by the Board of Supervisors on behalf of the citizens of Placer County on today, May 19th, proclaiming May 2026 as Mental Health Matters Month. Thank you so much again for all that you do. I think I can speak on behalf of the entire board that the work you do matters and actually the work that we all do matters as we encourage folks to get help that they need because no one is too far gone as Sarah just shared. Thank you.

thank you supervisor gore and before we move on to a motion i just want to say every year when this comes forward i share that this is an issue very deeply personal for me and having a dad that was schizophrenic and struggled with mental health challenges and and just really seeing how far we've come as a society and it really was a secret when I was little and it was something we didn't talk about and something that I was embarrassed by. And so to be able to have a public meeting and to have someone come share their story really means a lot and just want to echo what Supervisor Gore said about it's never too late and so I'm just thankful for the work that you and your team do. So with that, is there a motion? I'm just, you know what, okay. Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this item? And is there anyone online? Okay, then I will close public comment and then take a motion.

I would like to make another comment.

Oh, sure, Supervisor Jones.

I'd like to thank you and your team for all that you do. And thank goodness that, you know, like you said, it's never too late that you can save some folks. But then again, a lot of times you can't. And I know you know my family history with the loss of my nephew eight years ago. when he was 16, didn't give himself a chance to live through those things. But appreciate all you do.

Supervisor Gustafson.

I just also wanted to thank our whole team for the work you do. You really do represent the most vulnerable and often hidden stories throughout our county that we don't see in front of us. But Sarah, to your courage and the difference you're making in people's lives, thank you.

I'd like to make a motion based on that.

And I'll second.

Move by Jones, seconded by Gore. All those in favor? Aye. And none opposed and no abstentions. Thank you. We'll come down there for a quick photo.

Thank you. You're welcome, thank you. Good job. Thanks for being here. To you as well. This Thursday? Yeah.

We are going to do a quick little swap on the agenda and go to item 21A, which is the clerk recorder. Purchase no ink poll pad solution for vote centers.

Well, thank you. Thank you for accommodating me. I wish I was a little bit sooner. If I could have been before Greg Geisler, I wanted to let him know that he still owes us a leaving office form 700. Didn't quite make it. Good morning, Chair Landon and members of the board, Champion DeMattei, birthday girl Gustafson, Council Cook, and CEO Chatney. I'm Ryan Ronco, your clerk, recorder, registrar, voters. With me today is Lisa Kramer, your Assistant County Clerk, and Phillip Chantry, your Elections Manager. I'm here to request the following. First, I request you approve the purchase of PolPAT equipment, licensing, and software from the company No Ink. Secondly, I request you approve a fiscal year 2025-26 budget amendment, AM-01319, in the amount of $511,638, to increase appropriations, offset with a cancellation of election equipment reserves, And thirdly, I request you authorize the purchasing manager or designee to sign all required documents subject to available funding and department concurrence. As you read in your background information, the state of California requires every vote center in an election to be electronically linked so that in real time our vote center staffers can search and validate the registration of an individual who wants to vote and verify that that voter has not already voted a ballot in the election. so that we can issue a live ballot to that voter or allow that voter to cast their vote by mail ballot as a science scan and go in person ballot. The Placer County Elections Office currently uses laptop computers loaded with a light version of our election management system in each vote center to facilitate that procedure. Our request today seeks to replace the laptops with pull pads essentially an iPad with a customized software interface which will be more user-friendly for Placer County Vote Center volunteers. Our poll workers are amazing. They also tend to be older adults who will appreciate the streamlined interface of an iPad over the much less intuitive interface of a laptop computer. In addition, iPads take a lot less cabling and infrastructure to set up in a vote center, which means that there are fewer cables to tape down, which will make our facilities department happy since they don't want us using gaffers tape on the refinished floors of our veterans halls any longer. And it means fewer cables for our poll workers and voters to trip over, which will make risk management and human resources very happy as well. And furthermore, we have talked to many of the 16 counties in California who use no-ink poll pads in their 2024 election cycle. We believe that when there are lines at our vote centers, the software could help us process voters more quickly and efficiently over the system we currently use. These poll pads are not enhancing, improving, or replacing any of our Liberty Vote ballot tabulation equipment. They're just replacing and enhancing the equipment we currently use to check in voters at our vote centers. And as I mentioned, the total cost of the purchase of the equipment, software, and first year support is five hundred eleven thousand six hundred thirty eight dollars ongoing costs will be around fifty five thousand dollars a year for fiscal years twenty six twenty seven and twenty seven twenty eight uh lisa phillip and i are here to answer any questions you might have thank you questions or comments from board members supervisor dimite

Thank you for that presentation. The $57,000 you're predicting annually, is that for support? Or is that still licensing fees? Or what is that $57,000?

Yeah, it's primarily the licensing fees. And there is support. We do have an IT department that offsets a lot of our support costs because we usually maintain our own equipment. But for break and fix and for PM, preventative maintenance. But yeah, that's mostly just the support costs. is there warranties with this and how long does it how long is it um i actually have to defer to somebody else on the warranty i don't know if uh my team who's abandoned me abandon you in my time of need know anything about the warranties there's a one-year warranty on it oh great thank you thank you clayton to the rescue i probably should have read that so that's okay no it's not your fault and i should have known no you should know it's my fault supervisor jones

Yes, I have several friends who are poll watchers, and on behalf of them, thank you for making things easier for them. And we all appreciate it, too. Thank you. Thank you.

And is there anyone here who would like to comment on this item? And anyone online?

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

Greetings again, Supervisors Stein, Louise, Alessi from Crystal Valley Park. Ryan, I do appreciate you greatly. I think your department and your overseeing of our elections is stellar. However, my only comment here or question is, is this software battle hardened? And what is the indemnification for us if it is hacked or abused? and what the ramifications would be for us to have to what are the backups for us to be able to recount or validate in that scenario where it the system is compromised but I'm mostly interested in how long and how many times or how many years this software has been in use in battle hardened so with that thank you Ryan for everything you do I yield thank you

no further commenters okay i'll close public comment and bring it back all right thank you i'll just take a moment to say that um this is uh first of all thank you miss leslie for your comments we i appreciate that greatly and um the it is battle-hardened many counties in california 16 currently have been using the pull pad equipment for uh quite a while I would say that at least we've been looking at this product on and off for at least 10 years. And it's not just in California, but it's also nationwide where many counties and many states also use this equipment. This doesn't touch the ballot counting process at all. This is essentially moving our rosters that people sign, changing the electronic format that we have for a different electronic format. So it's not, so hardening it is going to be part and parcel of what we do, what we currently do, and we're just gonna change it over to a different system. I know of, in our research, we didn't see any issues of hacking. Where we do see issues, though, are connectivity issues. There are times where there are connectivity issues with a vote center not being able to communicate directly with the mothership, with my office. And those exist currently, and those are not necessarily part of the system that we're looking at. We have redundancy in the system currently and we will have redundancy if you approve this system where every vote center has a list of the registered voters that is updatable, that is offline so that they can continue to operate if we go down and don't have that connectivity. So we're not seeing this change as being a problem with either hacking into the tabulation system or with somehow complicating the current system. And we recognize that this is the voter database, so it is protected. And California has done a good job, and we here locally have done a very good job, I believe, in ensuring that our database is protected.

Yeah, thank you. Supervisor Gustafson. I was just prepared to make a motion.

Supervisor Gore has a question. So if voter ID actually gets passed this fall, since it's on the ballot, could this system be utilized to scan voter ID or help process that voter ID?

It can. It is used in many other states that have voter ID in place to just take a driver's license and be able to swipe that at the kiosk that's manned, that's stationed with a poll worker, so that the information for that voter comes up automatically. It will process our voters much more quickly if there is a voter ID proposition that's passed in November.

Okay, great. That's good to know. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. And so thank you for answering that, and then I'm happy to move approval. I'll second that. Oh, you were already denied. That's okay. I'll second you.

All right. Moved by Gore, seconded by Gustafson, and this is a roll call vote.

Supervisor DeMattei? Yes. Supervisor Jones? Aye. Supervisor Gustafson?

Aye.

Supervisor Gore? Aye. Supervisor Landon?

Yes.

Excellent. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you.

We will now move to our 955 timed item, agreement with correctional health care partners for inmate medical services.

Good morning, Chair Landon, members of your board, Mr. Cook, Mr. Chatney. I'm Amanda Flo, principal management analyst in the county executive office. I'm joined here today with a great team, by which I would first like to send my sincere thanks. This past year has been a monumental feat, and it would not have been done possible without everyone here today. With me here today are Sheriff Wayne Wu, Assistant Sheriff Dane Powers, Auburn Jail Captain John Schofield, Administrative Services Manager for the Sheriff's Office Jerry Rogers, HHS Director Dr. Oldham, Chief Probation Officer Brian Passenheim, Assistant Chief Probation Officer Joe Nettemeier, Greg Warner, Supervising Deputy County Counsel, and our Purchasing Manager, John Manning. Online, we also have members from CHP, Correctional Health Care Partners. We have Nicole Lanier, Shannon Matthews, and Mohsin Leosilagi. Today, we're here to ask the board to approve the RFP number 26031, to Correctional Healthcare Partners, Inc. to provide our inmate medical services. We're also here to ask to authorize the county executive officer or designee to sign the agreement with CHP for an amount not to exceed $131,285,980.30 for the period of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2033, and as well as approve amendments up to $100,000 in any required documents consistent with the scope of work and subject to county council and risk management review. As you know, Placer County is required to provide a full range of healthcare services in our jail facilities. Everything from medical and dental care to behavioral health, specialty treatments, hospital care, and services tied to the CalAIM Justice Involved Reentry Initiative. To ensure we're getting the best services for the county we regularly conduct competitive RFPs. The last correctional medical services RFP was conducted in fiscal year 2018-19 and for that RFP our current provider was the sole respondent. Over the last year, the CEO's office worked closely with the Sheriff's Office, Probation, Health and Human Services, and Procurement to develop RFP number 20631. The RFP was released in October, and we received nine proposals this time. The top firms were interviewed on January 28th, 2026, and after interviews, Correctional Healthcare Partners Incorporated was ranked the top firm. CHP is a California-based, physician-owned provider that has been operating since 2018 in both adult and juvenile facilities. They currently work in five California counties, making them the second largest provider in the state. They bring strong local knowledge, good partnerships, and a leadership team with extensive correctional healthcare experience. They also have a strong track record with NCHC accreditation and plan to bring new facilities up to accreditation within 18 months. Over the last three months, staff negotiated a new agreement with CHP that includes several enhancements. Services for a baseline of 1,000 inmates in juvenile wards. We currently sit on average at 126 inmates in our housing units. This will allow for an increase due to the new housing units that just came on board. It also has an increase of 3.6 full-time equivalent staff to improve physical health, mental health, dental services, care coordination, and on-site leadership. Additional clinical capabilities on site, such as IV administration, suturing, seizure management, orthopedic care, and complex withdrawal monitoring, which could potentially reduce off-site medical trips and associated transport costs. Upgrades to the existing core EMR electronic health record system, giving the county real-time dashboards and better visibility into our inmate care. Coordination with DHCS to align CalAIM pre-release and re-entry services so individuals experience continuity of care. Our current provider, CFMG, will continue services through June 30, 2026, and will work collaboratively with our new partner, CHP, to ensure a smooth transition. Following approval of this contract, CHP will host meet and greets with current CFMG staff to share their physician-led care model and to discuss future career opportunities. Sheriff's Office, probation, HHS, and the CEO's office all support moving forward with this agreement. The total for the seven-year agreement is $131,285,980.30. Plus, we're also asking for $100,000 amendment authority. And it's currently budgeted in the Sheriff's Office respective budget. Year one cost of this contract are $17,351,028. This includes a $250,000 startup cost that's only included in year one and a $2.2 million cap pass-through cost. This is for pharmaceuticals, equipment, office supplies, off-site medical care, et cetera, at an actual cost. So that this dollar amount for the first year is a cap cost and not a base amount. That includes our presentation, and the whole team is here and available for questions, should you have any.

Great, thank you. Supervisor DeMattei.

No, sorry, that was a great presentation. Supervisor Moore.

I got it all, thank you. Thank you. I can only imagine how much work this was to do an RFP, especially when we had a longtime provider, and with the increased costs. jaw-dropping to me and I'm sure to you all as well I know there was concern about the current employees that are working through the current contractor and maybe them coming to work for this new employer is that something that's

they're working on or i'm just yeah the update there of course great great question and a concern of all of ours as well should your board approve this contract today we have scheduled chp has scheduled a meet and greet with cfmg's current staff tomorrow where they will share their philosophy and current employment opportunities okay great thank you appreciate that

Supervisor Jones Yes I just wanted to mention that you know I experienced this last health care provider with a constituent who had a family member in jail and what a hassle it was back and forth back and forth and and that they felt that their their family member wasn't getting proper care so I'm excited I'm excited about this new company and and what they're going to do so and I think it'll make life easier for all of you So thank you for this very much. Thank you.

Supervisor Gustafson.

Thank you. And I wanted to thank the whole team for the effort that went into this. And I am especially grateful, I know, on behalf of the county on the indemnification provisions that protect the county moving forward. That was critically important. And I really appreciate that that was a lot of hard work on everybody's part, CHP, yourselves as well. So thank you.

And I will echo what everyone said. Really appreciate you all working together so diligently for so long to get this done. We're looking forward to getting it going and moving forward. So I will now open it up for public comment. Is there anyone here who would like to make a comment on this item?

Good morning, board. I want to thank you for asking the question, Supervisor Gore. My name is Rafael Garcia, and I am a union representative with AFSCME, and we have sent some communications over to several board supervisors. Actually, I believe all of you and the whole board, and we've had also members reach out to ensure future employment. I understand what was said. It still did sound a little bit confusing and vague whether the next employer would be taking up everyone they said um they're looking and discussing future opportunities which already implies to me that they have not committed to ensuring that employees will be retained i mean this is a really big issue for everybody that's there they there's a lot of concerns and anxieties Many of them who cannot be here today because they are currently working in the facilities that we're discussing right now since they are 24-hour operation. And what we ask is that you only support if we can guarantee from the future employer that they will retain the employees there. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning Board of Supervisors. My name is Jennifer Schmidt. I am a registered nurse and I currently work at the South Placer Jail in Roseville. I am here representing one of the best healthcare teams I have ever worked with and I feel very blessed and I want to thank you for Finally, coming to an agreement, the uncertainty we have all faced over the last several months has been quite stressful, especially with the increase in patient population that we have seen in Roseville with the opening of the new medium security building and the new four-house unit. It takes a special calling to work in corrections, and I come to work every day feeling safe, thanks to our collaboration and partnership with custody. I've only once ever felt unsafe with an inmate, and she is currently serving a 175 year sentence. When I voiced that I felt unsafe, custody immediately worked with our upper level providers to make changes to how we were providing that individual care. I want to bring your attention today to Exhibit C on page 62 of the agreement, at least what was made available to us. I'm hoping it was a simple error of juxtaposition with the staffing matrixes. However, what was made available to us removes 2.1 FTE of RN day shift at Roseville and adds an FTE at Auburn, which doesn't have the space for another RN as far as I know, but to remove any FTE whatsoever from Roseville in particular will place a particular hardship on the RNs and the LVNs and the MAs and all of us who work together. It has the potential to significantly have a negative impact on patient outcomes. I, for one, am more than happy to up my skills and reacquaint myself with doing IVs and learning how to suture and provide postoperative care. It's exciting to always up my skills, but we can't do it. if we are having any reductions whatsoever in that patient care. So particularly for you, County Council, I ask you to look at that matrix and correct that issue. If there was a desk nurse, a full-time FTE, 12 hours, seven days a week, if that was left off to please correct that before you agree to sign this contract.

Can you tell me again what, did you say page 62?

Page 62, exhibit C, in what I was received from the public, yeah. Oh, 74 of yours. OK. Thanks, Rafa.

Oh, 74.

OK. I still don't see it. Do you?

Nope.

This chart here.

What page is it on it?

74. 74 and 74.

Oh, I'm looking at the other page number. OK.

okay okay thank you thank you so much and i'll see you at the meet and greet on thursday

Amanda, do you want to?

Yeah, so I don't believe that there is an error. Overall, we have increased FTEs in this contract. Some have been shifted from either one GEL or another, and responsibilities will be shifted in some of these positions. CHP sorry I was gonna say the wrong contractor CHP spent a lot of time looking at this and analyzing the needs of Placer County but that doesn't mean that there isn't room for coming in and getting off the ground and recognizing that maybe there needs to be a little bit more shifting and we need to amend it at that point

And so there are opportunities once this gets going for adaptive management when it comes to that question in particular.

Yep, we have amendment authority on this contract, absolutely. Yeah. Our goal, as with the new contractor coming in, is to provide the best care for our inmates. And we will collaboratively work with them to ensure that that is happening.

OK, thank you. Any other additional questions?

Just on the same page, on page 74, where the FTEs are, it shows 2.1 and 2. Is that the same? Is it the other contract, or is it a reduction? I don't know, because I don't have the old contract. Just notice if it's a difference in the FTE. And I guess I would also refer to you guys and the sheriff and your staff if this is adequate for the amount of inmates that we have housed there.

Good morning. My name is Erica Harris. I'm with the CEO's office. I'm the contract administrator over the inmate medical contracts and JBCT contracts. So we also have a provision in our current contract that you guys have that if over 90 days our inmate population were to go above or below what we've agreed upon by 50 in either way that we would have a meeting to discuss the needs to increase staffing I might want to give it up to Nicole and maybe Moses if they want to speak on also what they had talked about during our interviews with them of this is what they're proposing right now but they need to come in and start working and then they have the opportunity that they can move people around add more staff it might not cost the county anything but I would love if Nicole might want to jump in if possible and kind of touch on that And at the same time, I will look up the current FTEs.

Please. Thank you.

Nicole? Absolutely. Thank you, supervisors. Thank you for your time. And thank you for having us on the call. Shannon is also on the call. She's our executive vice president. For some reason, her name isn't showing up there, so she can't speak to the staffing matrix. But she is the one that will be there tomorrow. But as a company, we want to make sure that we aren't disrupting patient care. Patient care is our number one priority. And so they will be in there tomorrow as soon as this is approved to look at that and make sure that we have the appropriate staffing and whether that means we need to add staffing, which is something that we actually already did. We added FTEs. They may have been adjusted a little bit, but that can all be explained when they're on the ground tomorrow and throughout the rest of the week there with the staff. And like Zarek has stated, we're happy to add whatever is needed. Again, we don't want to disrupt patient care our number one priority at the end of the day also with the nurses we want to make sure that everyone is is happy and on board and we're not looking to disrupt that either so as far as the concerns with the nursing staff we want to make sure that we retain everybody that we need to retain we're not looking to cut any of that so we're really we want to get in we want to be a good partner with placer county and we're excited about this partnership in the future and Shannon, it looks like she was just able to log in so she could speak a little bit further to that, but we're really looking forward to this partnership. And again, we're amenable to make sure again that patient care is the number one priority here.

Good morning. I'm Shannon Matthews, Executive Vice President with CHP. I have been serving this population now in correctional facilities and prisons for about 32 years. I agree there is a very uniqueness to nurses that are willing to serve this type of population. And from all the jails and contracts that I've worked at, I do not look to try and replace nurses. If they have fallen in love with corrections like I have, and serving this type of population I'm always looking to take them all on board I do not believe we've decreased any of the FTEs along the way but again part of the assessment tomorrow not only is the meet and greet to alleviate some of the nurses concerns which typically is hey do I have a job insurance what's my schedule going to be we will also be assessing the site and it'll be like boots on the ground with some of my team members and assessing out how some of the processes and operations happens within the facility. Dr. Freeland who owns CHP has very been extremely amicable to adding staff where needed and often to no cost to the county. He did that for me on a whim notice for Monterey County as well. When I can identify a certain process and know that it takes additional FTEs he has been very amicable to just adding that to it and not usually typically affecting the county budget at all. So I am looking forward and excited to meet all those nurses tomorrow at Placer County.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Supervisor DiMattei, you have follow-up?

No, not yet.

All right. Any other questions or comments from board members? Mr. Chatney?

well yeah thank you chair first i just want to extend my appreciation to the team that on the county side that worked with uh correctional health care partners um not only a herculean effort to get this contract done i mean just the dollar amount but these critical services for medical services for the inmates as well so i just wanted to start with that then i'd ask miss flo if she could read the actions into absolutely

So again, today we are here to ask your board to approve awarding RFP number 20631 to Correctional Health Care Partners Inc., also known as CHP, to provide our inmate medical services. We are also here to authorize the county executive officer or designee to sign the agreement with CHP for an amount not to exceed $131,285,000. $980.30 for July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2033, as well as approve amendments up to $100,000 in any required documents consistent with the scope of work and subject to county council and risk management review.

I just wanted to note on that second item, it's also for approval of the contract, not just authorization for the CEO to sign.

And it authorizes the CEO and designee.

Got it. OK. With that, is there a motion?

Move approval.

And I'll second.

Move by Gus Ibsen, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thank you very much. All right. We will now move to our 1015 timed item. which is with our treasurer tax collector adopt a resolution of intention to establish the County of Placer Community Facilities District number 2026 dash one.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Honorable Board, Daniel and Clayton Miss Wood. I am Tristan Butcher, Placer County treasurer tax collector. I must say, I got to love all the ribbons, the green ribbons. He might even say I'm a little green with envy.

Yeah.

Okay, so I got that out of the way. Got everybody excited. Today I have with me Michelle Kingsbury and Sue Compton from the CEO's office for any questions you guys might have. The actions requested for consideration today is accept the Placer County Bond Screening Committee recommendation to proceed with considering the formation of County of Placer Community Facilities District number 2026-1 Placer Commerce Center. Number two, adopt a resolution of intention to establish the County of Placer Community Facilities District number 2026-1 Placer Commerce Center and set a public hearing on the Board of Supervisors agenda for June 30th, 2026 at 9 a.m. or as soon thereafter as may be heard and approve the form of acquisition agreement and authorize the execution subject to concurrence from County Council. And action item number three, adopt a resolution of intention to incur bonded indebtedness to finance costs of public infrastructure and certain public services relating to the county of Placer Community Facilities District number 2026-1, Placer Commerce Center, and set a public hearing on the Board of Supervisors agenda for June 30th, 2026 at 9 a.m. or as soon thereafter as may be heard. so a little background on this project i know you guys probably know this project very well but this project is out in the west placer area it is the buzz oats properties where they are building approximately 6.4 million square feet of flexible industrial uh business park out there in the ever expanding area there in west placer um the uh CFD will help pay for the critical public infrastructure that goes along with it, and then also the services necessary to support the ongoing project after it's built and continues operating. The request before you today follows formal proceedings initiated by the property owner, PW Fund B, Development LLC, and recommendation by the Placer County Bond Screening Committee, which voted unanimously to recommend to the county to proceed with the CFD consideration. The fiscal impact on the CFD, there is no impact to the county. The developer has entered into a deposit reimbursement agreement with the county for all formation-related costs. Staff recommends the board approve all three requested actions and set the required public hearing for June 30, 2026. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from board members? Supervisor Gore.

Thank you. And I just want to say, goodness, we're almost there. Appreciate the hard work. Thank you.

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

I'll go ahead and move approval of the item. And I'll second.

Move by Gore, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thank you so much.

Thank you guys.

We'll now move to our 1020 timed item. Fiscal year 2627 assessment of fee report for county services.

Good morning, board members. Daniel Clayton, Matt Randall, deputy director with the Department of Public Works. And we are going to request a continuance of this item. I believe we're continuing it, asking for June 9th?

Yes, June 9th at 9 AM or soon thereafter.

OK. With that, I will open the public hearing. And is there anyone here who would like to comment on this item? No one online? I will go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Do we have to take a motion on that?

So I will move that we Continue the item until June 9th at 9 a.m. or thereafter.

Correct. Yes. I'll second that.

Moved by Gore, seconded by Gustafson. All those in favor? Aye. And none opposed, no abstentions. Thank you. All right.

Thank you.

We will now move to our 1040 timed item, Agriculture, Parks, and Natural Resources Assessment.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair Landon, honorable board members. My name is Kyle Smith, principal planner at the Department of Agriculture, Parks, and Natural Resources. Here to request your action on the following two items. First, to conduct a public hearing to consider adopting a resolution confirming the diagram and assessment and ordering the levy of assessments for FY 2026-27 for the Granite Bay Parks, Trails, and Open Space Maintenance and Recreation Improvement District. And second, to determine the proposed action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15273. And so for a little bit of background, the Granite Bay Parks, Trails, and Open Space Maintenance and Recreation Improvement District, or the Landscape and Lighting District, as we call it colloquially, was approved by the voters of Granite Bay in 2001. to fund additional maintenance and improvements for park and recreation infrastructure in the Granite Bay community. This includes approximately 8,700 single family equivalent units, which is generally consistent with the Granite Bay community plan area from a land development perspective. There are eight parks within the district, Granite Bay Park, Douglas Ranch, Franklin School Park, Miner's Ravine, Ronald Feist, Tree Lake Park, Tree Lake Vista, and then Sterling Point Park, as well as more than 30 miles of paved multipurpose trails and 20 miles of natural surface recreational trails. So this action today is to levy the annual inflationary update as allowed by the underlying engineer's reports, which allow for an annual cost increase consistent with cost of living adjustments not to exceed 3%. In this last year's December to December Bay Area Consumer Price Index was calculated at just over 3% and so staff is proposing a 3% increase of about $3.10 per single family dwelling unit. bringing the new assessment per benefit unit to $106.10 per year. This assessment would fund a total budget of a little over $1.7 million for the fiscal year, of which these assessments contribute a little over $900,000. So today's action is the third of a three part process to enact this inflationary adjustment. The first came in front of your board in February to direct the development of the engineer's report. the second was in April to adopt the engineer or to approve the engineers report and Set this hearing as an intent to levy and then should this actions be confirmed and approved by the board today the assessments will be submitted by staff to the audit their controllers office and Included on the property tax rolls for next year. Excuse me And so with that I'm happy to respond to any questions or comments from the board of the public. I

Thank you. Questions or comments from board members? Supervisor Jones.

Yes, thank you for that report. I just wanted to ask, it says funding for maintenance, administration, improvements of county-owned and or managed recreational facilities and properties in the Granite Bay area. This won't pay for anything new, the creation of anything new. It's only for maintaining and upkeep.

Yes, Supervisor Jones, that's correct. So this funding mechanism is for maintenance and upkeep of facilities that we create. Our park development impact fee program is our primary vehicle to fund new improvements in Granite Bay and then all other areas throughout the county as well.

Okay, great. Thank you.

You're welcome.

I will go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who would like to make a comment on this item? And anyone online? Okay, I'll bring it back to the board.

I will make a motion to approve. I'll second.

And I'll close the public hearing. Moved by Jones, seconded by Gustafson. All those in favor? Aye. And none opposed and no abstentions. Thank you.

Thank you.

We will move to our, oh. We're ahead of schedule. Yep. We're ahead of schedule. Okay. We'll go to our 22A department item, asphalt paving and patching services.

All right. Good morning. Morning. My name is John Manning. I'm the county's purchasing manager. I'm here before you for a request for an asphalt paving and patching services approval and award of contract. So what I'll do is I'll read the action requested and then give you a brief background on this. The action requested today is one, approve the award of multiple contracts resulting from competitive invitation for bids number 20638 for asphalt paving and patching services to Baldoni Construction Service Incorporated, a California corporation, and Always Paving Incorporated doing business as General Construction, a California corporation, in the maximum aggregate amount of $1,500,000 for the period of May 19th, 2026 through June 30th, 2027. Action number 2 is to approve the option to renew the resulting contracts for two additional one-year terms in the maximum aggregate amount of $1,500,000 annually. action three is authorized change orders in the maximum cumulative amount of one hundred thousand dollars annually consistent with the placer county procurement policy subject to department concurrence and available funding and number four authorize the purchasing manager to sign all required documents and number five determine that the requested actions are each not a project pursuant to california environmental quality act CEQA guidelines section 15378 and alternatively are each exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301C. All right. So the county requires an annual contract for as needed asphalt, hot mix asphalt and asphalt concrete services for asphalt paving and patching. The specific county departments in question are the Department of Public Works, the Department of General Services, and the Department of Agriculture, Parks, and Natural Resources. Procurement Services collaborated with these departments to develop invitation for bid number 20638. for the annual as-needed services. The bid was solicited in accordance with public contract code and the county's procurement policy and procedures. We had several firms register for the bid. However, we did only receive two responsive bids. The bid results showed that awarding contracts to each firm would provide both departments with leveraging their competitive pricing that we received and the ability to schedule projects to meet the department's requirements. as a result no bid protests were received and we're requesting your board's approval to award the contracts as outlined in the staff report and with that I'm happy to answer any questions thank you questions or comments from board members and is there anyone here in the public who would like to comment on this item anyone online all right I'll bring it back to the board I'll move approval I'll second

Move by Gustafson, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. And none opposed. And Gore is absent. Great, thank you. OK, we will move to our 1050 timed item, item 9A, Community Facilities District 2021.

Good morning, board and members of the board and the chair. Sue Compton, senior management analyst with the CEO's office. Staff would actually like to request continuance of this item to a date certain, June 9th or 9 AM, or as soon thereafter. Per county council direction, this would require the board open the public hearing, take public comment on the continuance, and consider a motion to accept the continuance.

Thank you. I will go ahead and open up the public hearing. Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this item? Anyone online? I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board.

Approval.

Second.

Move by Jones, seconded by DiMattei. All those in favor of, or do we need to say continuing to June 9th at 9 a.m.?

Just for clarity, yes, that's the motion, to continue to June 9th or 9 o'clock, June 9th at 9 o'clock a.m. or as soon thereafter.

Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. And none opposed and no abstentions. Thank you. Thank you. We will go ahead and jump over to item 23A, Kemper Oaks Unit 2, Phase 2.

Good morning, Chair and Board members. Sarah Gilmer here on behalf of the Environmental Engineering Division to present the Kemper Oaks Unit 2 Sewer Facilities Payment Agreement. Kemper Oaks Unit 2 is a 47-lot subdivision located in North Auburn, just south of Kemper Road, approved since 2006. This is a tentative subdivision map and a conditional use permit, all approved in 2006 and has been continued on. Some of the requirements related to sewer that were applied to this are a new sewer lift station and decommissioning of an existing aging lift station on the north side of Kemper Road. This decommissioning is identified as a high priority for the environmental engineering capital improvement project list due to its age, capacity constraints, limited accessibility, and elevated operational and maintenance demands. Staff has worked hard towards a cooperative solution with the developer and recommends entering into this sewer facilities payment agreement. and would contribute a maximum total of $600,000 in three yearly payments of $200,000 starting upon completion of the construction and acceptance of the improvements by the county. The actions that staff is requesting today, including the authority for the DPW director or designee to take actions to implement the proposed sewer facilities payment agreement, are related only to that agreement. The requested actions do not involve the project's land use entitlements or other matters associated with those entitlements. The project's entitlements are not before the board today. And so with that, I will read to you the requested actions. Number one, approve a sewer facilities payment agreement to pay 29th Street Capital LLC an amount not to exceed $600,000 for construction of sanitary sewer facility improvements in Sewer Maintenance District 1, North Auburn, and authorize the director of public works or designee to execute the agreement subject to county council and risk management concurrence and take all such actions as may be necessary and or appropriate to implement the agreement. And action two, determine that the proposed actions are consistent with the mitigated negative declaration for the Kemper Oaks Unit 2 project adopted by the Placer County Planning Commission on June 22, 2006. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Questions or comments from board members? And is there anyone in the public who would like to comment on this item? Anyone online? OK, I'll bring it back to the board.

Move approval.

Move by Gustafson, seconded by Gore. All those in favor? Aye. None opposed, and no abstentions. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and do item 24A, which is agriculture, parks, and natural resources, landscape, and park maintenance services agreement.

Good morning, Chair, honorable board supervisors. My name is Erica Seward. I'm your parks administrator. For this item, I'd like to introduce park superintendent Dan Foner. who after 34 years of service will be retiring in a few short weeks from Placer County. I'd like to extend my sincere appreciation to Dan for his partnership and many, many contributions in making Placer County Parks safe, enjoyable, and beautiful. With that, Mr. Dan Foner.

Thank you.

Thank you, board. Mr. Cook, Mr. Clayton. I said that backwards. I meant Mr. Chantney. Not nervous at all, right?

I didn't even catch it, so.

I'm too busy thinking about my camper. I'm here this morning to ask for an action to authorize an increase in an existing agreement SCN103932 with Cagwin and Dorward LLC for additional landscape and park maintenance services for the amount of $180,000 for a new total agreement amount not to exceed $1,712,657 for fiscal year 2526. Approve a fiscal year 2526 budget amendment AM01340 to increase appropriation in the parks, trails, and open space division budget by $180,000. Approve and authorize director of parks the director of agriculture parks and natural resources or designee to execute the third and final agreement renewal with cagwin endured llc for fiscal year 2627 with a total agreement amount not to exceed two million eight hundred and two thousand and twelve dollars upon review and approval by county council and risk management and to take all other reasonable and necessary actions in furtherance of this agreement and to determine the proposed actions are exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301. And I'll take any questions.

All right. Are there any questions or comments on this item? Supervisor Gore.

No questions, but thank you for your long time service to Placer County, 32 years. Thank you. A long career. Really appreciate it, and I hope you really enjoy retirement.

Yes. Thank you.

Supervisor Gustafson.

Agreed. I was just going to ditto that, so thank you.

And is there anyone here in the public who would like to comment on this item? And anyone online? No, Sharon. All right, I will echo what my colleague said and just say thank you so much for your commitment to our parks. It's a super important piece of the puzzle of Flasser County, so we appreciate all the work that you've done. And with that, I will bring it back to the board for a vote. I'll move approval.

I'll second.

It's been moved by Gore, seconded by Gustafson. This is a roll call vote.

Supervisor Jones? Aye. Supervisor Gustafson? Aye. Supervisor Gore? Aye. Supervisor Timotei? Yes. Supervisor Landon?

Yes. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right. We will go ahead and go to our 1055 timed item, annexation number 40 and to CSA 28, zone of benefit 165.

Good morning, Chair Landon, members of the board, Daniel, and Clayton. My name is Misty Edwards, an analyst in the CEO's office, and I would like to start by saying this is my first presentation to the board, so please excuse a bit of nervousness. The item I'm bringing this morning is an annexation into County Service Area 28, Zone of Benefit 165 for Fire and Emergency Services for the Mill Creek Project. The action requested is... One, conduct a public hearing to A, consider all protests, if any, to the annexation of Mill Creek property located south of PFE Road between Cook Riola Road and Antelope Road in West Placer. APNs. 474-130-007-000 474-130-009-000 474-130-010-000 474-130-017-000 474-130-018-000, 474-130-022-000, and 474-130-024-000 into the boundaries of County Service Area 28, Zona Benefit 165, Dry Creek Fire and Emergency Services and determine where written protests to the annexation have been received from a majority of property owners who own more than 50% of the assessed value of all taxable property in the proposed zone. And B, adopt a resolution annexing Mill Creek APNs 474-130-007-000 474-130-009-000 474-130-010-000 474-130-017-000 474-130-018-000 474-130-022-000 and 474-130-024-000 into County Service Area 28, Zone of Benefit 165, Dry Creek Fire and Emergency Services. And two, determine the proposed actions are exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15319. This is a second step of a two-step process and is necessary for this project to meet conditions of approval. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. You're probably going to be dreaming in zeros tonight. Yes. Any questions or comments? Supervisor Jones? Nope. I will go ahead and open the public hearing for this item. Is there anyone in the public who would like to comment on this? And anyone online?

No, Chair.

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

Before we have a motion, we'll need to identify whether any protests were received.

there were no protests received on this item.

Thank you.

Then I would like to move approval of the item, Madam Chair. Now second.

Moved by Gore, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We will go to the 11 a.m. timed item. Annexation number 23 of Placer Commerce Center CFD 2012-1.

Good morning, Chair Landon and members of the board. My name is Gina Olivares with the CEO's office here. The county executive office is requesting to continue this item to June 2, 2026, meeting at 9 AM or soon thereafter as possible.

And that's it. That's my presentation. All right. Is there any public comment on this item? And anyone online? OK. I will bring it back to the board.

Move approval.

I'm continuing.

Second. We need to say continuing it to continue to June 26.

OK, thank you.

Just for correction, that's continuing to June 2nd, 2026 at 9 o'clock a.m. or soon thereafter.

Got it. That's it. Yeah, that's what I said. All righty. All those in favor. Aye. And none opposed and no abstentions. Thank you. We're going to go in and go to item 25 a job order authorization community development resource center HVAC replacement.

Good morning, Chair Landon and members of the board. My name is Mike Taxera, Senior Project Manager for Department of General Services Building Maintenance Division. Today, we are bringing three action items related to the Community Development Resource Center in Auburn. Number one, authorize the director of general services or designee to award and execute a job order authorization with ACCO Engineering Incorporated in an amount not to exceed $2,183,622 for the Community Development Resource Center HVAC replacement project located at 3091 County Center Drive. Number two, authorize any required change orders not to exceed $218,362 consistent with the county purchasing manual and section 20142 of the public contract code as project funding allows subject to county council and risk management concurrence. Number three, determine that the requested actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA review pursuant to CEQA guidelines sections 15301. Little background on it Department of General Services building maintenance division utilizes Vanderwill facilities advisors incorporated software to prioritize Which building systems should be replaced prior to failure based on useful life estimates and is used to estimate funding for building maintenance major maintenance capital projects The Community Development Resource Center is a 97,400 square foot building that houses Placer County Building Services, Planning Services, Code Enforcement, Permit Center, and DGS. The CDRC is heated and cooled by four large boxcar style air handlers that are mounted on the rooftop. These air handlers were installed when the building was originally constructed in 2006. Due to their age and usable life expectancy, VFA has identified this equipment for replacement. To mitigate increasing repairs and future issues and extend the life of the building, the HVAC needs to be replaced. This project presented will add an estimated 20 plus years to the building's life cycle and address issues such as heating and cooling deficiencies and indoor air quality. I'm now happy to answer any questions the board may have.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from board members? Anyone here who would like to comment on this item? And anyone online? All right, I'll bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval. And I'll second.

Move by Gustafson, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll move to item 25B, West Oaks Facility Improvements Project.

Good morning, Chair Landon, members of the board, Mr. Chattany, Mr. Cook, Dan Richard, Capital Improvement Senior Architect. So the item I'm bringing for you today is for the West Oaks Facility Improvements Project Task Order Amendment Number 1. I'd like to read the actions into record right now. So Action Number 1 is to approve Amendment Number 1 to the existing task order SCN 108367 with Hamill, Green, and Abramson, incorporated for the West Oaks Facility Improvements Project Assessor's Office improvements for step two of architectural engineering design services in an amount not to exceed $138,851 for a revised task order amount of $395,851 and to authorize a purchasing manager to execute amendment number one, Subject to county council and risk management concurrence. Item two is to determine that the requested actions are each exempt, each on a separate and independent basis from California Environmental Quality Act CEQA review pursuant to CEQA guideline sections 15301, 15306, and 15061B3. Just briefly, I'll give a little bit of background on the project. So on August 19, 2025, the Board of Supervisors authorized Facilities Management, which is now Department of General Services, to move forward with improvements to the facilities located at 5700 and 5750 West Oaks in Rockland, utilizing a two-step process. And this two-step process is to populate each location with county departments. Step one would allow for the programming, space planning and test fits and existing building systems assessment for both locations. Also as part of step one it would allow for the purchase and installation of county standard primary network and telecommunications equipment. So basically bringing the backbone infrastructure to the campus as a whole. Also, as part of step one, it was to allow for task order under the master services agreement for HGA architects. Step two is a subsequent scope of services that involves architectural engineering design services, preparation of construction documents, construction administration, and this is all efforts to move county departments into each of the buildings. To date, relative to step one, county IT has completed all of the backbone infrastructure to each building on campus, and any of the remaining technology that would have to be run to each of the departments would be populated in the spaces as each department moves in. So also remaining for future work, we're working with CEO's office. DGS will continue to work on step one programming to bring other departments online to the facilities. The first department on campus for step two is for the assessor's office. It'll be approximately 5,695 square feet, and it will be located within the 5,700 building. DGS anticipates using job order contracting as a method of delivery for construction, primarily because that will help save us time. These are contractors that are already pre-qualified on our list, and so that'll cut down time on the delivery of the project during construction. Staff will also return for future step two department uses and fiscal costs as needed. Relative to fiscal on the project, for this step two it's estimated at $539,851. And what this covers is county staff time permitting, fees, overhead, contingency. It also covers the step two task order amendment for HDA architects and also construction estimated value amount. Relative to funding for these costs, it's available in the fiscal year 2025-2026 budget for facilities, capital projects, and there are no impacts to the general fund. So if I have any questions, I'd be happy to answer.

Questions or comments from board members? And is there anyone here in the public who has a comment on this item? And anyone online? All right, I'll bring it back to the board.

Move approval.

Second move by D. Matei, seconded by Gore. All those in favor. Aye and none opposed and no abstentions. Thank you.

Thank you.

We're going to go ahead and plow through these last three department items and then we'll go back to our timed items. We have agreement for recovery residences services.

Good morning, Amy Ellis with the Adult System of Care. I do have two action items for your board's consideration today. The first is to approve an agreement with Advocates for Mentally Ill Housing Incorporated for substance use related short-term recovery residences in an amount not to exceed $800,000 for the period of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2028. And second, to authorize the Director of Health and Human Services or designee to sign the agreement and sign subsequent amendments that cumulatively do not exceed $80,000, consistent with the subject matter and scope of work with risk management and county council concurrence. So AMI operates a 16-bed recovery residence facility. It's called The Harbor. And it bridges some critical gaps in our substance use continuum. The Harbor provides a safe, structured environment for adults who are awaiting residential treatment or who are transitioning from inpatient care to a lower level of support and awaiting for a bed. The Harbor offers stability, daily recovery activities, and connections to ongoing treatment. Since opening in February of 2025, the program has served over 160 Placer County residents with addiction and treatment needs. The harbor has strengthened the entire SUD system of care by maintaining treatment engagement, accelerating movement through levels of care, and making critical residential treatment beds available sooner. It really has been an innovative and successful project. The harbor is located within the larger Sunrose apartment building. It's operated by AMI Housing who also operates that particular project. So co-locating these programs has enabled efficiency into the delivery of services and cost efficiencies in both staffing and administrative costs. The total cost for the agreement is $800,000 with additional amendment authority up to $80,000 for a total cost of $880,000. Funding for this agreement is available in the fiscal year 26-27 requested budget in the Adult System of Care, and there's no additional impact to the general fund. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Questions or comments? Supervisor DiMattei?

Oh, no, sorry. Great. Thank you for that.

Supervisor Jones?

Yes. I mean, Amy. Sorry. It all works.

I answered all.

So you mentioned they're operating within the Sunrose facility. Yes. How's participation among the residents?

So, yeah, so, um, really they are separate programs. And so the Harbor is open to anyone in the community, but it is really great for residents who might have a substance use need and gets identified for needing residential treatment. We have had some residents participate in the program successfully, which has been a nice, but honestly, more often it's the other way around where we'll have members of the community who have first engaged in Harbor, identify a housing need and housing insecurity. and meet the qualifications and go through the process and actually start to live in Sunrose on their recovery journey. So it has been a nice, it works nicely both ways.

How does it get advertised around for other members of the community

Yeah, so the harbor is really part of the drug medical system. So you have to be on medical. It's not real. It's not really a crisis response for anyone in the community like the Lotus is. So our law enforcement professionals know about it. They hear about it at the screening clinics that are really targeted to the medical population who are engaging in SUD treatment. We do have, you know, it's been out on Facebook and other things and it's marketed, but it is for the Medi-Cal population.

Okay, so are the residents there, are they transient somewhat there? Because you said that they need housing.

Yeah, no, it's not necessarily for just individuals who don't have housing. It could be for people who... need a safe place to that wherever they are living isn't conducive to their recovery. So it's just a more structured environment that they can have that extra support as they're waiting to go into residential treatment or to a recovery residence maybe they're living you know have a house and place to live but it's not supportive of their recovery so then they can also come here but we do serve individuals who are unhoused as well okay so do you have a certain amount of rooms available for those people it's 16 beds and there's yeah and the rest are residents in sunrose

yeah so then there's 82 permanent supportive housing units that's a separate program okay great thank you yeah is there anyone in the public who would like to comment on this item anyone online no chair all right i'll bring it back to the board i'll move approval moved by jones seconded by gore all those in favor aye any opposed and no abstentions thank you it looks like you have the next item too

Yes, Amy Ellis, again for the record, Adult System of Care, with an action for your board's consideration to adopt a resolution authorizing the Director of Health and Human Services or designee to submit the application to the California Department of Health Care Services for the Substance Use Prevention, Treatment and Recovery Services Block Grant funding allocation in an amount not to exceed $3,178,998 for the period of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2028 with risk management and county council concurrence and to sign the resulting agreement and any related documentation including any subsequent amendments that cumulatively do not exceed $100,000, consistent with the agreement's subject matter and scope of work with risk management and county council concurrence. So the California Department of Health Care Services, they utilize these revenue agreements to outline our requirements to receive this federal funding source, which is to only be utilized for our mandated substance use services that range across the continuum of services. Placer County has established a continuum of care utilizing this funding. We also use drug Medi-Cal and realignment funds to best meet the required substance use treatment and prevention needs of its residents. So this funds some county staff who offer substance use screening clinics five days a week and do general case management for the population. It also funds some prevention efforts that are housed in our public health department, some specialized services for women and children, and many programs that are contracted. So some county staff, but also a lot of contracted services. So services for women with children, adolescent and youth services, outpatient treatment, Withdrawal management portion of our residential treatment is funded this way. Transitional housing is a big reason we need this funding and other recovery services that we offer. So this sub G federal dollars really helps us deliver great care. The total revenue from this agreement is the $3,178,998, and it's been budgeted in the Adult System of Care 26-27 budget and will be included in future year's budget requests, and there's no additional impact to the general fund, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Supervisor DiMattei.

You're welcome.

Anyone in the public who would like to comment on this item? And anyone online? All right, I'll bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval. I'll second.

Moved by Jones, seconded by Gustafson. All those in favor? Aye. None opposed and no abstentions. Thank you. Thank you. We'll move to our last department item, whatever that number is, 26C, Community Mental Health Services Law Grant.

Good morning. I was so excited to say good morning and not good afternoon to y'all. But anyway, so Supervisors, Chair Landon, Mr. Cook, Mr. Chattany, we have another block grant for you today. So I am Twyla Abrahamson, for the record, and I am speaking on behalf of both systems of care here, because these dollars work for both the adult and the children's system of care. So the Federal Community Mental Health Services Block Grant has funded services to children, adults, and older adults with serious mental illness in Placer County for well over 20 years. The Children's System of Care leverages these resources to help deliver counseling, social skills training, and peer support to youth from either probation or child welfare services who have been at risk of entry into foster care. This includes youth enrolled in wraparound services, functional family therapy team who provides evidence-based short-term interventions. CSOC also has served an average of 225 youth and their families per year over the last several fiscal years using these funds, many of whom would have otherwise required expensive psychiatric hospital-based care or interned foster care. CSOC also provides a full-time clinician at the Juvenile Detention Facility, which provides behavioral health assessments and therapy to our juvenile wards, and a practitioner who serves the Juvenile and Family Treatment Court. The team has expanded their services over time to include screenings for commercially sexually-exploitated children and the Seven Challenges program for adolescents, which meets youth where they are at when they are ready to recover from addiction. And finally, these funds also support counselors at the Crisis Resolution Center, which is run by Koinonia, and works with youth and families to prevent entry into the formal system. For the adult side, in collaboration with AMI Housing, they utilize the funding to provide secure, stable housing to adults and seniors with serious mental illnesses, and also to provide support services such as assessments, referrals, and counseling, This support aids clients in improving skills that allow them to live independently and become financially stable while reducing, again, on the adult side, the need for costly inpatient hospital services. In 2025-26, over 72 adults received housing along with life skills training, and 76 adults had been connected with housing resources. So we're requesting several actions. So the first on this one, a little different than the last block grant, is adopt a resolution authorizing the Director of Health and Human Services or designee to sign and submit a renewal grant application to DHCS for the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant in an amount not to exceed $1,632,154 for the period of July 1, 26 through June 30, 28, and sign the resulting agreements, related documentation, and certifications as required with risk management and county council concurrence, and also authorize the director of Health and Human Services or designee to sign any AMENDMENTS THAT CUMULATIVELY DO NOT EXCEED 100,000 CONSISTENT WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER SCOPE OF WORK WITH RISK MANAGEMENT AND COUNTY COUNCIL CONCURRENCE AS WELL. AND THESE FEDERAL REVENUES ARE IN THE CHILDREN'S SYSTEM OF CARE IN 26-27 AND THE REMAINING YEARS WILL GO INTO THE FUTURE YEARS REQUESTED BUDGETS. AND SO THERE IS ALSO NO ADDITIONAL IMPACT TO THE GENERAL FUND. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION AND I WILL LOOK AT SUPERVISOR DEMATTE FOR ANY QUESTIONS HE MIGHT HAVE TO GO WITH THE THEME.

It's going to be like the boy who cried wolf.

I'm just going to leave my light on all day.

All right. Any questions or comments from board members? And anyone in the public who would like to comment on this item? Anyone online? All right. I'll bring it back for a vote.

I'll move approval. I'll second.

Moved by Jones, seconded by Gustafson. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we are now going to go back to our 1105 timed item, 12A, annexation number 39, the ranch, phases 1 to 3.

Good morning, Chair Landon, members of the board. My name is Gina Olivares, again, analyst here in the CEO's office. The item I'm bringing this morning is an annexation into county service area zone of benefit 165 for fire and emergency service for the ranch project. Specifically, the action requested is, one, conduct a public hearing. Two, A, consider all protests, if any, to the annexation of the ranch, phases one through three property. located east of Cook Riola Road and south of Vineyard Road in West Placer. Portions of APNs 474, 080, 004, 000, 474, 080, 005, 000. 474-080-006-000 474-080-007-000 474-080-019-000 and 474-080-020-000 into the boundaries of county service area 28 zone of benefit 165 dry creek fire and emergency services and determine where written protests to the annexation have been received from a majority of property owners who own more than 50% of the assessed value of all taxable property in the proposed zone. B, adopt a resolution annexing the ranch phases one through three, portions of APNs 474, 080, 004, 000, 474, 080, 005, 000, 474, 080, 006, 000, four seven four zero eight zero zero zero seven zero zero zero four seven four zero eight zero zero one nine zero zero zero and four seven four zero eight zero zero two zero zero zero zero in the county service area 28 zone of benefit 165 dry creek fire and emergency services and to determine the proposed actions are exempt from environmental review pursuant to sequa guidelines section 15319 So this is a second step in a two-step process, and the steps are necessary for this project to meet the conditions of approval, step four. This concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right, any questions from any board members or comments? Anyone in the public would like to comment on this item? Anyone online? OK, I'll bring it back.

I'll move approval.

I forgot to open the public hearing. I'm going to open the public hearing. And there was no comment, so I'm going to close the public hearing. And now it's been moved. Before we move to a motion, I just want to say for the record that we did not receive any protests on this item.

Thank you.

thank you for that and i'll revive my motion for approval okay i'll second move by jones seconded by gore all those in favor aye any opposed and no abstentions thank you so much okay we will move to our 11 10 timed item 25 26 alpine springs county water district cf commit capital facilities and fire mitigation fee

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. I have a brief kind of summary of how the process is going to work because the next seven items actually are related. So I thought it might make more sense to kind of take the process on as a whole and answer any questions before we go into each of the items. So in August of 1990, your board adopted an ordinance levying fire impact fees to provide additional fire protection facilities for new development in unincorporated areas of Placer County, where a local fire protection agency has adopted a capital improvement plan with associated development fees to satisfy that plan and that those fees have been approved by your board. The plan and the fees must conform with the requirements of California government code section 6600 and the responsibility for compliance with the requirements of that government code and for the collection and management of the fees collected from new development projects shall rest with the serving fire protection agency. Government code 6600 includes requirements for development of a nexus study, an associated capital improvement program, fiscal reporting, and inflationary adjustments. Each of these has associated public noticing and hearing requirements. So just to break this down kind of in a simplest form, each of the districts looks at the growth that they have to yet to be served. They look at the facilities that they can justify that are needed to serve that new growth. They look at the costs of those facilities, and then essentially they're free to develop fees based on the different growth factors that best represent their particular special district to develop a certain fee structure. And then they have the opportunity to also include an inflationary adjustment based on whatever index that they feel is most appropriate for their set of facilities. Following approval by the respective fire district boards, any fee adjustments are brought back to your board for approval. And of course, prior to bringing them back to your board, each of these items have been properly noticed in both the Sacramento Bee and the Sierra Sun. so for each item we're going to request that your board conduct a public hearing consider a resolution consider adoption of the associated resolution and if your board adopts a resolution further determine that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA pursuant to the guidelines as stipulated so stop there ask if there's any questions kind of on the overall process before I jump into the first item

Okay, Supervisor Gustafson.

Thank you. Thanks, Dave. I appreciate getting all these at one time, or so many of them at one time we didn't get them all, but we've got most of them. And they range pretty dramatically. Within these, and I support all of them, but I ask ourselves as a county, should we have a policy citing the index? Because I've got one dropping. Olympic Valley is dropping 1.57%. Others are growing significantly. We just heard a presentation, Granite Bay Parks using a different index by 3%. So these range from as low as currently, 94 cents a square foot in South Placer, up to $3 and something in Alpine. Because so many of these fire districts are struggling and asking us for assistance in capital facilities and equipment, I just want to urge publicly those fire districts to really take a look at this opportunity to help self-fund some of the equipment and facilities that they need through this program. And I'd love to see more consistency. So we set an index that we know is keeping up. It's hard for me to believe we're down a percentage and a half in Olympic Valley. We've got others that are up 2.3%. And as I mentioned, Granite Bay Parks, we just did an index of 3%. So just want to make sure that those districts are keeping up with these studies. And bringing them current and really looking at the current circumstances so we can help them help themselves That's just a broad I don't know that there was a question in there other than could the board set a policy of please use this index it's up to their board to consider it and adopt that index but because these range across the board should it be a consistent index and

Mr. Cook?

Yeah, and I can respond to that twofold. The first part I would say is that these inflationary adjustments are set by the Independent Fire District, so we could certainly have a recommendation, but it's really up to that district as to what the fee amount is. specific index. In addition, the, even if they're using the same index, they may actually pull numbers that are different because. At different times. Those indexes change per month and if you're pulling from May to May as opposed to June to June of each year, then the amount could be different. So it's, it is a little difficult but I think we could certainly provide a recommendation but it's really up to the districts independently to determine that and even if they use the same inflationary index, the numbers might be different depending on when they calculate it.

Thank you. And as far as then encouraging them also to take a look at these numbers and make sure it's adequate, because they have facilities that, in most of these situations, either they don't have adequate funding or they don't have adequate capital replacement. I just want to encourage the districts to take advantage of this and look at it. I know it's costly to those building homes and developing homes. Several of these, a number of these are in my district, and they need to help themselves as well as look for us to help them.

I would just add under the Mitigation Fee Act, each of these districts is required to update those nexus studies on an interview, and I believe it's roughly every eight years. These inflationary adjustments are meant to be the interim process, but there is a more comprehensive review that would occur on those intervals.

Thank you, Dave. Sorry. I'm glad Clayton answered for you. So, you know, took you off the hot seat. But I appreciate kind of the broad overview. I just wanted to make those points because I had a chart prepared because we had so many different indexes and costs per square foot. Thanks.

It's definitely more striking when you see them all at the same time than when they came one at a time as in the past. All right, Madam Chair, we'll start with item number 13. Actions requested, conduct a public hearing to adopt a resolution approving the fiscal year 25-26 Alpine Springs County Water District capital facilities and fire mitigation fee expenditure plan annual update and annual inflationary adjustment of 2.17% to the fee. Secondly, determine that the proposed action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15273 and alternatively is not a project pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15378. So just briefly, Alpine Springs County Water District contracts with the North Tahoe Fire Protection District for fire protection services in the Alpine Meadows area. They provide backcountry technical rescue, swift water rescue, hazardous materials mitigation, and emergency medical services in addition to traditional fire protection services. And they are seeing steady growth in the form of small cabins and resort homes, which has increased both the population and the number of structures requiring service. And with that, I'll give it back to you, Madam Chair, for public hearing.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from board members? Any, and I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who would like to make a comment? And anyone online? I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval. And I'll second.

Moved by Gustafson, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. None opposed and no abstentions.

Thank you, Dave. All right. Item 14, conduct a public hearing to adopt a resolution approving the fiscal year 2526 North Tahoe Fire Protection District Capital Facilities and Fire Mitigation Fee Expenditure Plan Annual Update and annual inflationary adjustment of 2.17% to the fee. Determine that the proposed action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines 15273 and alternatively is not a project pursuant to CEQA guidelines 15378. North Tahoe Fire Protection District is one of the many special districts in the Tahoe Basin, although one less now that they've recently completed a merger. It was formed in 1993 following the consolidation of Tahoe City Fire Protection District and the North Tahoe Fire Protection District. And they too are seeing some steady growth, both in population and the number of structures. And with that, I'll bring it back to your board.

All right. Questions or comments from the board? I will go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this item? And anyone online? All right. I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval.

And I'll second. Move by Gustafson, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. None opposed and no abstentions.

Agreed. All right, item 15, conduct a public hearing, adopt a resolution approving the 2025 Olympic Valley Public Services District capital improvement plan fire mitigation fee and annual update and annual inflationary adjustment of 1.57% to decrease the fee. And that's just because of the way that the timing worked and the index that they picked, which is why that one is a decrease. and then determine that the proposed action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15273 and alternatively is not a project pursuant to CEQA guidelines 15378 on behalf of olympic valley fire protection district they're proposing to impose a fire impact fee on new residential and non-residential develops within their service area specifically allocated to fire protection emergency medical services related to the Olympic Valley Public Services District and the fee supports one-time costs required to expand fire department facilities apparatus and equipment ensuring they can effectively accommodate the increased demand for services driven by new development within the district okay I will ask the board are there any comments or questions on this item

I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this? And anyone online? All right, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval.

Second. Moved by Gustafson, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. None opposed and no abstentions.

All right, item 16. Yep. Conduct a public hearing, adopt a resolution approving the 2025 Penryn Fire Protection District Fire Fees, excuse me, Protection District Fire Facilities Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program Mitigation Fee Review and Report, an annual inflationary adjustment of 2.3% to the fee. determine that the proposed action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15273 and alternatively is not a project pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15378 Penrith Fire District is one of many special districts, provides fire protection services within Placer County, established in 1924. It currently covers an area of 10.5 square miles. It provides emergency medical services, fire response and suppression, as well as fire prevention inspections, code enforcement, fire investigation, rescue operations, and hazardous materials response. And I believe we have representatives from the fire district if they wanted to say anything.

Okay. Any questions or comments first from the board? And I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this item? And anyone online? No, Chair. All right. I'll close the public hearing and bring it back.

Move approval.

I'll second. Moved by DiMattei, seconded by Gore. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions? We'll move to item 17A.

Item 17, conduct a public hearing, adopt a resolution approving the 2025 Placer Hills Fire Protection District Fire Facilities Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan Mitigation Fee Review and Report, an annual inflationary adjustment of 2.3% to the fee. Determine that the proposed action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15 and alternatively is not a project pursuant to CEQA guidelines 15378. Placer Hills currently serves about 34 square miles in unincorporated communities of Applegate, Clipper Gap, Meadow Vista, and Weimar, as well as portions of Placer County. Services include fire protection, fire prevention, medical services, technical rescue, and disaster response. And I believe they, too, have a representative in the room if there's any questions.

Okay, any questions or comments from board members? I'll open up the public hearing. Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this item?

Mark Gambrogi, Placer Hills Fire Protection District, also representing Penryn Fire Protection District. If you may notice this year, there's one less fire district that I brought forward to you. That's because as of July 1st, that district no longer exists. It becomes part of the Placer Hills Fire Protection District. so we've actually been waiting for that process of reorganization before we conduct our nexus study i do have an rfp out now that's due july 1st it'll be the first business of our new board to review that nexus study and we we hope and we kind of figure that we'll see those fees go up a little bit for the new reorganized fire district So again, I'd like to thank your staff, Gina, for all the years that she's helped me through this process, and for Dave and Brandy for carrying this forward. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else who would like to comment on this item? And anyone online? I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval. I'll second.

Moved by Gustafson, seconded by Jones. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions? We'll move to 18A. 18A.

Conduct a public hearing to adopt a resolution approving the 2025 South Placer Fire Protection District Fire Impact Fee Nexus Study Update, Capital Improvement Plan, and Consolidated 2024-25 Fire Fee Annual Report adjusting the South Placer Fire Protection District fire impact fees. Determine that the proposed action is exempt from review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15273 and alternatively is not a project pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15378. This item's a little bit different than the others in the fact that there is a nexus studies, which is why you'll see that there are some more significant changes in the fees rather than just the inflationary adjustment. Just a reminder that South Placer Fire Protection District provides all hazard services to the communities of Granite Bay, Loomis, and the southern areas of Pedron and New Castle in Placer County. They provide emergency medical services, fire response and suppression, fire prevention inspections, code enforcement, fire investigation, rescue observations, and hazardous materials response.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from board members on this item? I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this item? And anyone online? I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval.

I'll second. Moved by Jones, seconded by Gore. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions.

right one more for you all right thanks for hanging in there number 19. uh conduct a public hearing to adopt a resolution approving the fy 25 26 truckee fire protest protection district capital improvement plan mitigation fee annual expenditure plan an annual inflationary adjustment of 2.2 percent to the fee determine that the action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to sequel guidelines section one five and alternatively is not a project pursuant to CEQA guidelines 15378. And just a reminder that Truckee Fire Protection District is an all-risk district in response to all incident types, including structural and wildland firefighting, hazardous materials response, search and rescue, and swift water. And they serve the unincorporated parts of the Truckee Fire Protection District located in Placer County.

Okay, any questions or comments from board members? I'll open the public hearing. Anyone here who would like to comment on this item? Anyone online? I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board.

I'll move approval. Second.

Moved by Gustafson, seconded by DeMattei. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And no abstentions. Okay, in about 20 seconds. I'm just fast enough for me to get coffee. We're going to start our 1145. Aye.

10 seconds.

All righty, we are going to move to our 1145 timed item, Winchester Subdivision Stormwater Requirements. Good morning.

Good morning Madam Chair and good morning Supervisors. Jared Peters with the Planning Services Division to present and appeal to the Planning Commission's approval of the Winchester Subdivision Stormwater Requirements Planning Director's Determination. This item was heard at the March 19th, 2026 Planning Commission hearing. The request of determination would affect the entirety of the Winchester subdivision, roughly outlined on screen in blue. The subdivision is located between the Christian Valley and Meta Vista communities and is accessed off of Sugar Pine Road. So the Winchester subdivision was approved by the Board of Supervisors on August 3, 1993. At that hearing, the Board modified and subsequently certified the EIR and incorporated the mitigation measures into the conditions of approval. One such modification was to the findings contained within the environmental impact reports. The board took action to remove a mitigation measure calling for dry wells and filter strips, finding that it was not necessary to determine the project would have a less than significant impact on the water quality. Despite this action by the board, condition of approval four was approved with the language highlighted on screen, seeming to indicate that dry wells were to be used as outlined in the FEIR and mitigation measures. Since the original project approval, the county has adopted the West Placer Stormwater Quality Design Manual, henceforth referred to as the Design Manual, and establishes updated stormwater quality standards. Under the Design Manual, all new structures, including single-family dwellings, must implement on-site stormwater quality treatment facilities. The request for the determination was submitted on August 4. I will apologize. There's a bit of a mistake on the screen. But this request was submitted in August of last year. So acceptable treatment facilities under the design manual include a variety, including but not limited to dry wells, disconnected downspouts, rain gardens, porous pavements, vegetated swales, tree planting and maintenance, and other improvements designed to intercept, treat, and infiltrate stormwater runoff. These measures ensure surface runoff and stormwater are managed effectively, reducing water quality impacts. These requirements are implemented for single-family dwellings through the building permit process. So on screen now is an abbreviated chronology for this specific request. The project was approved in 1993, with staff confirming the drywall requirements to the Winchester Community Association, or WCA, in 2018. The conversations between staff and the applicant began in August of 2024, with staff providing a determination the same year in October. The applicant then submitted a request for a planning director determination in August of 2025. Staff then brought a recommendation to the Planning Commission for their consideration in November of 2025, where the item was continued and subsequently approved on March 19, 2026. An appeal was submitted to that decision on March 27, 2026.

Can I ask a very quick question on the October 3rd, 2024 part that says staff provides initial determination. Can you just repeat, just so I make sure I'm following correctly, what was the initial determination that staff provided?

In 2018?

On October 3rd, 2024.

The determination that was made in October of 2024 was that dry wells were required as a part of the conditions.

Okay, got it. Thank you.

At the November 13 planning commission hearing, the commission heard staff's recommendation, heard from the applicant who had stated a preference for complete removal of the condition, and heard from members of the public who spoke in favor of the project, noting greater flexibility in site planning and that some dry wells had failed on developed sites. The commission ultimately continued the item on the applicant's request to provide an opportunity to resolve the issue through alternative means. At the March 19 planning commission hearing, the commission again heard staff's recommendations, heard from the applicant who noted the determination was a step in the right direction, and again heard from members of the public in support of the determination for the same reasons previously mentioned. The applicant chose to oppose the recommendation so as to retain his rights to appeal the project to the board supervisors. The planning commission approved the project unanimously with two absences. An appeal was filed on March 27th within the allotted appeal period. The letter submitted with the appeal states that during the EIR review of the original Winchester project, it became evident that the soils would not adequately percolate. For this reason, the applicant asserts that he requested removal of the dry well condition at the board hearing in 1993. and that the board approved its removal at the same hearing. The appeal letter further states that county council indicated that while it may have been the board's intent to remove the condition, the board's formal action did not include the removal of this condition. The appellant disputes this conclusion. Additionally, the appellant states that the condition was not enforced until 2018. Finally, the appellant contends that the planning director's determination, as approved by the Planning Commission, is insufficient because it does not eliminate the drywall condition, as he suggests the board instructed the staff to do in 1993. The appellant is correct that the board discussed the drywall requirements, but the action taken was only to remove the requirement as a mitigation measure. As shown in the meeting minutes, a motion by then-supervisor Kirk Euler included findings that roof drain wells and filter strips are not required in order to reduce the water quality impacts of the project to a less than significant level and eliminated the mitigation measure that was agreed upon as being unnecessary. While the board took this action, the final conditions of approval were ultimately adopted with condition of approval for in its current unmodified form. In 2018, the WCA sought clarification from the county regarding whether dry wells were required. At that time, staff determined that the requirement remained in effect, and enforcement has continued accordingly. The appellant is requesting that the drywall condition be removed entirely from the final conditions of approval for the Winchester community. However, pursuant to the zoning ordinance, modifications to an approved project for a residential development, an approved planned residential development that affect the condition of approval applicable to all lots may only be approved by the granting authority pursuant to a new permit application and requires an application signed by all property owners within the development. Such a change cannot be accomplished through a planning director's determination. Finally, while the planning director's determination does not eliminate the condition, it does provide a clear alignment between what appears to have been the board's original intent not to require dry wells on all subdivision lots and current stormwater management practices. As the planning director's determination notes, given the documented intent of the board in 1993 and the availability of alternative BMPs under the West Placer Stormwater Quality Design Manual, staff concludes that the dry wells and filter drips should not be interpreted as mandatory for individual lot development within the subdivision. Instead, adherence to the West Placer Stormwater Quality Design Manual and current stormwater quality design standards is sufficient to satisfy the project's original environmental commitments and conditions of approval. The proposed request is consistent with the previously certified EIR for the Winchester subdivision, which was certified by the board on August 3, 1993, and is on file with the clerk of the board. Based on staff's review, the proposed request does not constitute a substantial change to the project. nor are there any substantial changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts. Accordingly, the request is adequately covered by the previously certified EIR, and no subsequent EIR, supplemental EIR, or addendum is required under CEQA. Staff received one piece of written correspondence since the previous hearing from the Winchester Community Association wherein the WCA expresses their support for allowing compliance with the design manual to satisfy condition four. And with that, I'll move on to my recommendation. Based on the analysis contained in the report, staff recommends that the board supervisors take the following actions. Determine that the request is consistent with the previously certified environmental impact report prepared for the Winchester subdivision project in accordance with public resources code section 21083.3 as it does not trigger any of the conditions in California Environmental Quality Act guideline sections 15162 through 15164. And two, deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission's approval of the planning director's determination that alternate stormwater management methods may be used to satisfy conditional approval for the Winchester subdivision's conditional use permit, subject to review and approval by the county. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions you may have.

Thank you. Questions or comments from board members? Okay. Not yet. So we will go ahead and open it up for public comment. Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this item? Right.

Yes.

Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Yes, I'm sorry. I apologize. Yes, I had the applicant is here. And so why don't you come forward and make your comments? Thank you.

It's still not noon, so good morning. My name is Jerry Johnson. In 1978, I bought the 1200 acres, now known as Winchester. And I then started the design and improvement process. It went so quickly that in 1993, umpteen years later, I met before the board in July and August, and the project was approved. I appealed some of the conditions, and the board denied some of my appeals and agreed with some of them. Conditions were muted. removed. One of the conditions was the dry well condition. EIR clearly stated that through my mitigation process I over mitigated runoff water all water went off in the winchester project i built a dam out there with a step in it and we way over mitigated it that was testified to by my engineer and one of the county's members alan roy who stated in that meeting that he agreed we way over integrated or the condition and that we He agreed then at that point that he didn't like dry wells because they didn't work I pointed out at that hearing that a dry well if you're not familiar with a dry well it's like a septic system for sewer in a leach field. You dig a hole, you fill it with rock, and you put water in it. It's supposed to percolate out underground and disappear. Well, the EIR also pointed out through tests that I was required to do that Winchester, Christian Valley, and Meadow Vista don't perk. They were having all kinds of problems at that time in Christian Valley, septic systems overflowing. Christian Valley, as you know, sits over the Dry Creek and Dry Creek initiates on Winchester property. So given that fact, I extended a sewer line five miles from Winchester, all the way to the Joga road treatment plant. The County required me to oversize that for 1150 homes in the Christian Valley area. with no reimbursement, which is not normal. Usually when a development is required to mitigate other problems, we get reimbursed as people hook up. But that didn't happen. And I finally agreed to it because I just wanted to get going on the project. During the process of that meeting and talking to the board, if you look at one of the exhibits on the back page of the handout that I gave everybody is a picture of a dry well. This one was built in 24. Brand-new house. This is a picture of the first winter as it failed and why as you can see Why they put an overflow pipe kind of is Insane to me, but you can see that it overflowed and it is eroding soil mud directly into or Creek and That's happened numerous times and there's one of the homeowners association meetings that I had one Lady testified that shortly after she had her house finished A few years later. She had a big landslide in her yard and her called her contractor The contractor said that the dry well failed and caused the landslide she ended up having to spend a bunch of money to correct that problem and So it's there's plenty of proof and the fact that it doesn't work. There's plenty of proof out there I've met with other neighbors out there who's their their neighbors dry wells are overflowing and flooding into their yards In 2018 I received a phone call from a builder and in Winchester asking me about this drywall condition. And I said it was eliminated on a four to one vote by the Placer County Board of Supervisors in 93. And I then went and met with the HOA gave them the information on where to find the documentation to do that, to show that. And I sent email to Placer County Planning Department. I do not know who I spoke with at that time. At that point, I had bought property in Idaho and was a second house and rebuilding modeling. So I kind of thought it was taken care of and went on with my life. In 24, I got a call from another builder Asking what the deal was with these dry wells because they're they're failing and they're requiring these homeowners to put these in under and so I recontacted the HOA and the county and Nothing was done in 2018. I did see on a thing that HOA did ask the county but they've never given me that information that they asked the county and So I said, I came here actually, I got from the clerk of the board, the minutes, the audio tapes of both 19 July and August 93 meetings where they clearly state, and there's an exhibit in your thing that talks about the dry well and eliminate it. And I got a letter then from Jared Peters, or an email from Jared Peters, and he quotes, which is your Exhibit A, in there, in the findings is a statement, a finding of fact, page 24. The board incorporates by reference a mitigation measure identified page 219A to 222 in the final EIR, except that the board finds that roof drains and filter strips are not required in order to reduce the water quality impacts from the project to less than significant level. That's pretty clear. So then we, but they wrote back to me stating that because it wasn't taken out of another condition, it was in several conditions, it's still in effect. I'd have to be the stupidest land developer on the planet to have asked the board to eliminate a condition. And because staff didn't get it out of all the conditions that it was in, that would require us to build those dry wells. That wasn't my request, and I'm sure I've asked Kirk Mueller, former supervisor, to come up after me as part of my time and presentation to give his recommendation. But it's not, I never asked for County to add other conditions. I said eliminate that one and the board voted To eliminate that condition that should be in every condition in there, but it was missed It didn't do it. So staff Just didn't get the job done Exhibit B is a letter from then County or net I guess she's gone now Karen swab and My office has conducted extensive research in the history and documents related to the above condition of approval, including listening to the entire tape of the August 3, 1993 Board of Supervisors meeting on the Winchester project. Based on this research, county council has concluded that the Board of Supervisors did not, and not is underlined, take nor intend to take action in 1993 to remove the conditions related to dry wells from the final conditions of approval as a result condition four which wasn't eliminated in it was another final position of approval remains in full force and effect I asked repeatedly for her to explain to me what evidence she used to come to that conclusion. Because the audio and the minutes clearly state that they ordered the conditions eliminated. In exhibit C, I have, these are the minutes. I've abbreviated some of the other stuff and gone to the point down here. But it says, in the findings, there is a statement of finding on page 824 that reads, the board incorporates by reference the mitigation measures identified on page 219A to 222 of the final EIR, except that the board finds that roof drains and dry wells and filter strips are not required in order to reduce the water quality impacts of the project to less than a significant level. And in D exhibit D I got this email from Hannah cruiser another I guess another attorney here Says thank you for your email County Council has concluded the Board of Supervisors has did not take nor intend to take action to remove conditions for dry wells. Final condition of approval during August 3rd Board of Supervisors meeting on the Winchester subdivision. This project was communicated to you on November 2024 by Ms. Schwab.

And Mr. Johnson, are you about wrapped up with your presentation? I just want to make sure your 10 minutes is up. I just want to check in and see if you're almost done with your presentation.

OK, I'm trying. But I mean, this is an important item. People have spent tens of thousands of dollars, over a million, doing something that's not only not required, but is in clear danger to the EIR and water protection. Because I haven't had any results that make any sense. I did file recently a complaint and all the information with the California Water Quality Resources Board. So anyway, this is, I just went over D. The E is from planning director. In the situation with the county staff, I have completed my review of your request to allow alternative stormwater management. Now, that's the key. I didn't request to add alternative mitigations because the EIR and the project design clearly state we don't need to do that. But the county has been persistent and to this date refuses to clearly just do what I've asked, and that's that this current board go over the evidence, and eliminate that condition, not add other ones or have the word may used in there. That's not what I asked for. That's not what would be legal. Well, I'm out of time, so I guess I won't be able to finish. But I'd like to give part of my time to Kirk Uhler. I've asked him to help, and Kirk here.

Okay. Well, public comment is open, so Mr. Euler is welcome to come forward and make a comment on this item.

Can we open the public hearing on this item, Chair?

And public hearing is now open.

Board members, I have a copy for you all. My copy is done. Sorry. I didn't make quite enough. Good afternoon, members of the board. Kirk, you were not in any PBA related capacity, simply in my capacity as a former county supervisor and somebody who participated in the nine and a half hour Winchester hearing that was held in this chamber. that packed this chamber with all kinds of fun signs and things like that. We were about nine and a half hours into it when Jerry Johnson, the project applicant, got up in front of the board with his list of conditions of approval and asked us to consider removing a number of the conditions of approval. And I left in the first one on there where Jerry is asking about a condition in regard to a development notebook. Supervisor Leehouse says it stays. We're basically going through Jerry's request, one after another, hearing his request. and then at the end of that we took one motion on all of the modifications to the conditions of approval but on each condition that was brought before the board by Jerry we had conversations about each one and really what's important here is for you to note that condition 25 JJ was the one you'll see the big highlighted area where Jerry explains what the condition would mean, building the dry wells for each of the homes. And I asked Fred Yeager, Fred was our planning director at the time, Fred, is that what this condition would mean? Each individual house would have to build these empty wells to capture runoff from roofs and everything else and fred says yes i'm not the best person to talk about this but my understanding is that's generally the idea and you can see i highlighted condition everywhere on here i highlighted condition condition condition this was a condition of approval that staff had required so we get down to the bottom uh the next page again highlighted how is it adopted as a condition of approval this particular mitigation requirement how is it adopted as a condition of approval and so that's obviously what we are speaking to we are speaking about the conditions of approval you get to the next page and um Ron Leehouse says, yeah, it's going to do more damage, meaning if we leave dry wells in here because of what Jerry described in terms of the overflow, the soil's not perking, all the rest. Jerry's describing the damage. And Ron Leehouse says, yeah, it's going to do more damage than we'll get. I move, we strike. Started to say something while rose our County Council time said if it's not identified as a significant environmental effect Then it isn't necessarily required. I follow up with mr Lee how and I say I say we get rid of it so two board members at that point said We don't want this as a condition of approval. Immediately, Fred Yeager says, all right, as a part of the findings for the environmental review, it will be necessary to come back and address that this identified mitigation measure in the EIR was found to not be necessary. That's what you have in front of you, was when Fred came back and said, all right, it's not necessary in the EIR as mitigation measure because the board removed it as a condition of approval. Otherwise, why would we be modifying the findings? if we hadn't removed it as a condition of approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other comments in the chambers?

Supervisors, Wayne Nader. I'm a Winchester property owner. I respect that Mr. Johnson wants to set the record straight. And it is regrettable at all these years, it's been a one size fit all method to dealing with stormwater. But we are where we are. The county has proposed what I think is an acceptable approach to this now, giving the county the leeway to decide what's appropriate on these lots based on slope, and soil condition. So they haven't changed that position. It's the right position to go forward with. And so I'm supporting what the Planning Commission has come up with. Again, respecting Mr. Johnson. I know he wants this because it's frustrating to him that this was not taken care of at the time that it was dealt with at the board. So I appreciate your support of the Planning Commission.

Thank you. Other comments in the room?

My name is Jean Merwin, and I'm the president of the board of directors of the Winchester Community Association. We're in support of the county's position. We want to see that there are methods for stormwater waste management, and we really want to be able to offer the undeveloped lots, people that will build on them, alternative measures other than just the dry wells. So we are strongly in support of the county's planning commission's recommendation. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments here in the chambers? And is there anyone online?

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

Greetings again, Supervisors. Diane Louise Alisi from Christian Valley Park Community Services District and sitting on the board here in the special district. Mr. Johnson, you said something that just raised the hair on the back of my neck because you implied that Christian Valley was all on board for that transmission line from Winchester on out. I grew up here. That was a strong arming tactic by you and C.C. Myers and the influence C.C. Myers had on the county. I know that the property owners got strong armed into connection within 300 feet of that line. And there was a buy-in and there still is a buy-in. I looked at the acreage that the school district put up for sale that was Dr. Salamasi had purchased. And when I was looking at that, it was going to be a $5,000 buy-in to hook up to gray water per parcel. And that was split splitable to four. Plus 120, this was back in like 2017. and $123 at that time a month for the pump out for the waste of the septic. So this is, I'm calling out bullshit. Christian Valley helped pay for that line by strong arm measures. And there was not a bunch of failures in septic systems. I grew up here. I've been here since 1965. I heard and I was friends of parents that were appalled at how they got strong armed into the system. So I have to put you on blast. I don't appreciate that. Christian Valley was somehow all on board with that. They weren't. And Winchester, furthermore, off of Bancroft, could have given Christian Valley access to the ballpark. You put up all kinds of roadblocks, yet you did get Christian Valley residents to buy into that system, and Winchester is still doing that. So with that, I yield.

Thank you.

No further commenters, Chair.

All right, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Supervisor Gustafson.

Thank you. So often in government today, we are fixing issues that we know better now than we did then. And this falls into that bucket for me. When I was first approached by Mr. Johnson and Mr. Euler, I saw the records. I saw this documentation. Clearly, I can't speak for what happened in the 30 years in between. and the over 300 homes that were built, relying on the approvals that were incorrectly or correctly done at that time. So I went to the planning director and talked with him about what are our alternatives. Obviously, stormwater is a requirement now for every property. And we would have at some point, it sounds like 10 years later, mandated stormwater provisions, maybe in a less mandatory way for a type, but given more flexibility. And so that's the root of this. I understand and I would defer to county council what we do related to the past record. But moving forward, I really appreciate the planning director coming up with alternatives that allow people to look at their sites and address their stormwater in the most effective and efficient manner to meet the requirements. But I believe over 300 homes in the subdivision have been built relying on the conditions that were placed on them over those years. Moving forward, and I look at the planning director and the planners and county council, You know, we need to make sure if a decision is made by the Board of Supervisors that it is implemented in that manner. But I can't speak to why that happened, why for 30-some years no one raised this issue. But the minute it was raised, with our planning director, he found a solution that I think is supported by the community and the property owners there. So I want to thank you for that. I know that doesn't give Mr. Johnson or Mr. Euler the avenue to say, well, what are you going to say about what happened? It looks clear to me that it was supposed to have been withdrawn, but I'm not an attorney, nor was I here in sitting in this seat at that time. So thank you.

May I ask some questions of clarification? So once, after 1993 up to 2018, homes were built. Was there a requirement for a drywall at that time? Yeah.

The requirement was in place. Whether or not they were actually built with.

The requirements there were like 300 homes built without a drywall.

I'm assuming that some were built with them and some were not.

Somewhere, somewhere, I guess it's okay. Got that. And then in the last 10 years, a new state agency or some entity said these are some other options, correct? It has like five.

The county adopted the West Placer Stormwater Control.

The West Placer Stormwater Quality Management. And that says that it provides options and that was adopted in 2004 is that correct or it was adopted in 2015 2015 okay so currently under the stormwater control ordinance regulations manual whatever property it is has to adhere to some stormwater mitigation so whether or not it's a dry well there still needs to be some type of mitigation on any of these future properties that are being built correct that's correct okay so what what you've done is looked at okay that was a requirement whether or not it was intended to be kept in the record or not there's now a current requirement in the last 10 years that says you have to have some type whether it's the gutters or the porous surface or any of those so you found a way to move forward for future home builders and if somebody wanted to come in and build a home they would come to the county and say the county would say you had all these options to choose to address stormwater that's correct and I should also note there really is for Winchester a two-step process you heard earlier from the community association the community association has CC&Rs that are in place

My understanding, and perhaps they can speak to it if you'd like to hear from them, is that once an action is made on this determination that they would amend their CC&Rs or update their CC&Rs to reflect it. They do review projects before they're submitted to the county, and so they also would review as well prior to submittal to the county.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Cook?

Yeah, thank you. This has been an item that our office has been involved in, as has been noted by Mr. Johnson for a couple years. I wanted to state a couple things with respect to that 1993 action. Our office did review the minutes, the staff reports, the audio files for that hearing, and determined that the audio for that hearing doesn't indicate that the condition of approval was modified. It does not show that. So there certainly was discussion about conditions, as Mr. Euler notes in the audio, but the final action didn't actually modify the condition of approval. The minutes also show that there was no modification to the condition of approval either from that meeting. And then what we have afterwards is staff implementing and using the conditions of approval that had not been modified. And that's been the case for 30 years. So we have information from the hearing that indicates that it wasn't changed as well as a staff practice of 30 years of implementing that condition having been unchanged. So from our office's review of that, we determined that there was no change to that condition of approval. There certainly was discussion about conditions. There was a lot of discussion about removal of dry wells, and it seems fairly clear from the record that dry wells were removed as a mitigation measure during that discussion. The error, as staff noted in the presentation, is that there wasn't an action to remove them from the condition of approval as well. And that may have been accidental. I can't speak to what occurred there. Mr. Euler certainly knows the best of anyone. But that's the result that occurred. And so now we're at a point of how do we fix that. As staff noted during the presentation, if you modify the condition of approval at this point because it is a planned development, it requires approval of all of the property owners. So that's a longer process. And what staff came forward with was the determination to allow other permissible uses as a scenario to resolve the issue. So that's why you see it here. But I also wanted to note that today your board is reviewing the appeal on that planning director determination. So it's either a yes or no on the determination. It's not in front of you today whether or not to add a condition of approval or remove a condition of approval.

got it supervisor Gore well to supervisor Gustafson's point very frustrating and to have it come forward these years later and not the record didn't reflect it whether and it probably should have if that was the discussion of the board it makes me think about how we have to be really careful that if we make changes every document has to be changed because otherwise many years later, you're dealing with an issue like this. And so I certainly understand the frustration, Mr. Johnson, if the intent was something different by the Board of Supervisors and then it played out differently. I do think we have an option in this case, which is to provide other alternatives for people who build on their property. And there are a number of other alternatives to meet the conditions of approval, which probably a lot less expensive and probably more effective than building a drywall. So it's unfortunate that we are at this position, but I appreciate that there would be some other options. Because otherwise, you have to go back and ask 300 or so property owners

to change the condition of approval which that's a long process and instead future owners can build on their property we don't even know if they all put them in because it's a condition but we don't have proof that up to 300 they all put in drywalls they was not it's not clear from what i hear it's not clear if 250 have them 100 have them or 10 have them and To me, I guess there's different options with dry wells. And I guess the dry wells that are in Winchester, are they just straight down perforated pipes that collect water? Or are they septic tanks that are there that could be pumped out and used for irrigation? How are these dry? I mean, there's options for making dry wells. So me just learning most of this this week, what kind of dry wells are set in Winchester? And are they effective? Because looking at this picture, if you have erosion coming out from a piece of pipe, out of the ground, obviously it's a failed drywall system if it's already eroding stuff out of a pipe. So how is, if it's overflowing, how do we fix it? I mean, you're going into non-permeable soils, you're in the hills. It's not like you're in the flat and you're gonna hit some sandbars or stuff like that's gonna drain these things. So how are we gonna make these work better if we have to continue to keep them?

Thanks, Supervisor DeMattei. I might, with your permission, ask Mr. Farina from representing Winchester to speak to that, since he has a little bit more intimate involvement with the projects that are coming forward.

Yeah, if it's OK with chair and county council, I would love to hear from him.

Sure.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, Supervisors, my name is Larry Farina. I am a land development consultant and a consultant to the Winchester Community Association. I was the one who came up with or not came up with but discovered what dry wells were when I was hired in 2018. It's very explicit in the CC&Rs that drywalls are required, but all it says is drywalls and filter strips per the EIR. I had to go look through the 900-page document of the EIR to find the details. So a drywall is essentially a leach field or leach pit. It is a large hole filled with gravel that all of the rainwater from the roofs of the houses only goes into. The objective is twofold. It's supposed to percolate. Yes, it's supposed to slow the water down. Also, when we talk about a failed dry well, just because you see it bubbling out of the top and you see erosion, it's not failed. It actually slowed down I don't know what the volume of water is depending on the storm from all of that water just heading downstream. Just imagine though, if all of that water was not slowed down, we saw a picture you did of a failed dry well. Well, where is all that water going if it's not going in the dry well? All of that erosion is going to take place anyway if there isn't something to slow it down. So this is why we support the planning director's staff, is there are alternatives to the dry well that may work better that didn't exist in 1993. None of this existed in 1993. We have better technology. We have a way to take care of this. And that's why we support what's going on. It's because, yes, the dry wells aren't the most effective way. But we do need to do something, or this erosion that you saw will be on every house that's built. And there are many that have that problem now.

Throughout the development, are there stormwater drains that were put into the development? Oh, yes. That these rooftops could have filtered into there instead of the dry well, which would have probably held a higher capacity of water on non-permeable soils?

So, depending on where the house is, we have houses that are above the streets, we have houses that are below the streets. Many of the houses that are below the streets, the water just runs down to wherever the next property is or the next you know, intermittent stream that might collect it that will take it into some other stream downstream. I mean, every property is different. There is an entire storm drainage system built into the development like any other, but that storm drainage system, based on the mitigation measures, may or may not be adequate to take all that water. That was part of the mitigation measure. Now, Mr. Johnson says they've over-mitigated. I don't know anything about that. I just know that the EIR showed that this is something that they needed. So this is, and we, When I found it, I said, OK, guys, it's in our CC and ours. It's in the conditions of approval. We need to start doing this. So you asked how many houses approximately 70 have been constructed to date with the dry wells. There's several now that are under construction and haven't finished the dry wells yet. So they are in construction right now. There will be a total of 77 plans approved with the dry well feature in them.

How deep are these drywalls?

It depends. What we've done is we did a modification. They were originally designed as two foot wide and two foot deep. And we were given a formula of 10 square feet of surface area per 100 square feet of roof area. So there's a formula to come up with a size. Unfortunately, some of these lots, it was very difficult to find enough room to put them in. So instead of doing the leach field, we decided if we have the same cubic footage volume, then we can create a dry well that will hold the same amount of water. So we've had dry wells that are eight feet deep and eight feet square. That gives us this cubic footage volume to contain that water and slow it down if nothing else. And some of these storms, when you get three inches of water in 24 hours like we did three weeks ago, I don't care which system you got, you're not gonna hold it. I agree 100%. Yes, there is going to be some overflow at times. The majority of these things have worked. That's what I can say. I'm out there almost on a weekly basis. I have seen some that the soil doesn't take much water and yes, they bubble out, but at least we've slowed it down.

Okay. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. You're welcome.

Supervisor Gustafson.

I was just going to say, Welcome to Lake Tahoe and best management practices. We have to do it on every driveway as well as around our homes when we put installed BMPs, best management practices, to slow down the water. Again, I want to go back to I know that the intent of the board seemed clear from listening to the audio tape because I did also listen to the audio. But we're here today. And one of the things, Supervisor Gore, last week at the Palisades hearing, I suggested a change. And wisely, planning staff and county council said, there's too many references. We can't check all the potential references if you were to make that change today. And so I withdrew that proposal. So lessons learned in how we move forward and how we document the intent. into the actions that we require is very important to all of us and I know Mr. Johnson it doesn't help you for what happened between 93 and and now but moving forward we've learned our lesson and I think we will continue to work with staff on how we do better at tracking all those conditions because that's another issue we have many projects with hundreds and hundreds, if not 1,000 conditions as it relates to projects and how we track all those and make sure that the interpretations live on fairly and equitably to everybody. Supervisor DiMattei?

Oh, sorry. So just to clarify and make sure I understand correctly, so if for some reason the board were to go against the Planning Commission's recommendation, and they wanted and we wanted to go back and remove that condition as potentially may have been intended back in the day. Those 300, even the ones that haven't been constructed yet, if they're owned by a property owner, they would need to be contacted and they would need to, is it unanimous support or how does that process work to remove that condition? If you could just explain it a little better. yes all property owners would need to be contacted and they would all need to be supportive of it okay so it's not a percentage okay um yeah it's uh just very it's a very unfortunate situation and i do think um there's been a great level of effort into finding some type of path forward that is a better path. And so I can appreciate staff's work on that. And I don't think any of us like to have to be up here when there have been either mistakes made or negligence in the past. But I think we can do the best that we can now to move forward in the right way. And it seems like that's kind of the direction that we may be going. But is there are there any other comments or questions from board members on this? Supervisor, yes.

Tracking a lot of water in my farming life. I don't think there's either a right or wrong way to being considered in the foothills that now you're telling me you can only go eight feet deep, eight feet across, you're not going to hold a lot of water. I don't care what kind of system you put in. You get three inches of water in an hour and a half, it's going to go everywhere. Maybe when the development was put together, it wasn't done right the first time. I'm not here to do that, but I think Going back to the 93 discussion that they wanted to remove this approval may have been because I don't think every square is going to fit on every piece of property. So I think everything is probably unique there. It's hard for me to make a determination because I don't think everything here gives me the conclusion that everything is the right project for every piece of property, considering the slopes, considering that some are above stormwater, some are below stormwater. I didn't read the whole EIR, but I can't conclude on anything like that. But I think that what is here probably should have been removed in 93 and redone. So it's hard for me to go forward with this, because I think it's a unique situation. You have houses that are on the hillside. You have different soil conditions, obviously, because not everything can go eight feet deep. Dry wells that had probably pumps in them that you could recirculate that water for irrigation for landscaping. I mean, I don't know what that would, I mean, obviously there's a cost to doing that, but maybe there's a way to distribute that water more evenly after it's all collected. I always appreciate what the staff, brings to us because you guys are the experts, but I think there's there's a situation here that probably should have been mitigated or fixed 30 years ago. How do we go back and fix it today? And I guess I would also like to hear from. maybe the rest of the landowners up there because it's not my subdivision and probably go in more depth and detail of the soil conditions up there and what can be fixed or what could be put in to make sure that we don't have erosion problems up there and it runs into somebody else's house and we get bigger storms. We don't know what the weather is going to be. So there's a lot of unknowns here for me to approve or disapprove this appeal. So I have too many questions and too many things that need to be answered. And I kind of go back to the 93 discussion that it probably should have been taken off, because I don't think even then they had the right answer to put these conditions of approval in. So that's my thoughts.

Can I make sure I understand what you're saying? i think if i understand correctly that what the planning commission approved is flexibility in what options any homeowner has so um i think that is fixing the problem moving forward and so i just want to understand what you're saying so are you are you what what are you saying i guess are you saying we should remove that condition or are you saying you um you just want flexibility for the homeowners to be able to do the appropriate whatever the appropriate probably a little bit of both i guess just because i don't have i don't have clarity on probably the soils itself as a souls person

I would like to see them have a flexibility, but there may be houses that don't need it. I don't know what every piece of property has, so you're going to put a condition of approval on a piece of property that either sits lower or higher than the road, and they may not need it coming off their property. So why would we make that a condition of approval if somebody's piece of property is flat, runs right into the storm drain, but they have to go spend the money to put this in, and it's really not necessary? So I guess it's, to me, you're putting a condition of approval that hasn't been done on every piece of property, that may not need it on every piece of property so I I would like to see yes and an option like the planning commission said to give you more options on your dry wells if the piece of property even needs that dry well I guess so it's kind of a mixed bag here for me to say yes on the whole project when I don't know if the whole project actually needs it and do we go back to the other 220 homes that never put it in and make them put it in maybe they don't need it so there's a lot of questions for me to go make an approval to make somebody do something when I don't know all the answers I guess.

Chair Landon if I may I just want to clarify so we're not adding a condition of approval that's not that wasn't part of the planning director determination the planning director determination simply takes the approach of interpreting or reinterpreting the existing condition of approval to allow for alternative, and as you mentioned, Supervisor DeMattei, sort of that property by property analysis of what is the appropriate drainage solution for that property, so it could be no dry well it could be a dry well or it could be some other alternative to it but it really would be that individual project by project analysis to determine what is the most appropriate most appropriate method so again no new conditions are being applied it's the planning director determination is an interpretation of that condition to say that because there's the manual that's now in place that we can do this analysis on a project by project basis and come up with that most effective approach for that property. And that has the same effect as the condition that was originally placed on the project. Okay.

Madam Chair, and I just, I wanted to also address Supervisor DeMattei's concern that the community association I've attended a number of their meetings over the years, and they do an awful lot of homework on their CCNRs and their requirements for property owners to protect the community, to protect each property owner, and they've spoken in support of this as well. So I just wanted to make sure it's well attended and well participated in community assistance.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Okay with that I'd make a motion Could I please speak before you vote That's up to the chair It seems reasonable on this important of issue I'm not going to take a lot of time Okay how about I give you two minutes Okay Mr. Farina pointed out a couple of things are really important number one he said 77 homes I've asked for years from the HOA to give me the number of homes that have been required. They have refused every single time, as recent as a few weeks ago. Say they don't have that number. Well, they do. Number two, Larry Farina is not a soils engineer. He said that if you centralize all that, it's only going to go in one place. If you took a hose and you put connectors on it and spread them 100 feet apart, and turn that hose on, it's gonna spread that water over a whole lot larger area and cause probably zero erosion. That's what, if it was taken care of right at seven or eight locations where the roof is into the downspouts, it wouldn't be a problem. I'm not objecting to what the current conditions are for mitigating this. What I'm objecting to is that you won't follow the direction of Mr. Euler, and clearly you're the executive branch, so was the Board of Supervisors in 93, executive branch. Mr. Cook wrote in a letter to me that clearly stated that may have been what the board intended to do, but that's not what happened. I'm asking you to make that happen, remove that condition. I'm not saying don't apply modern new stuff, but you have to deal with it by removing it. Otherwise, there's a huge problem because 77 people are going to have to do something. And it's obvious by staffing that everybody wants to shove it under the table and hope nobody says anything.

well i'm here to say anything do the right thing remove the condition like the board voted to do it's crystal clear and sorry sorry you're two minutes thank you i we we do hear you and um you know i would i would also point out i think that obviously the association is here in support of the planning commission's recommendation and so if we were to try to remove that condition and go back to the homeowners in that community, I would anticipate that there would be objection to changing that condition since they are here in support of the current recommendation by the Planning Commission. I can't for sure say that, but I would say having to reach out to 300 homeowners and get them to unanimously approve Removing that condition, I think, would be a heavy lift. So we do have a motion on the table, and I don't know if we got a second yet. I don't believe we got a second.

I'll second the motion.

OK. That's been moved by Gustafson, seconded by Gore.

And just for clarity, the motion would be to, as staff read into the record, determine that the request is consistent with the previously certified EIR and to deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission's approval of the planning director's determination.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Nope, and no abstentions.

I will extend.

We have an abstention by Supervisor DeMattei.

With that, Madam Chair, if I could just again say that I understand the desire, I've clearly understood the desire, but trying to get a unanimous support to withdraw that condition of approval, this was the best we could do to repair what I think your intent was. So thank you, and thanks for your diligence in bringing this forward.

Well, I have no choice but to ask the judge to make a determination now, so I'll pursue it that way.

Sir, thank you for your attention.

Okay, we will now move to closed session, and I will have County Council read us out.

The board will now adjourn to close session to discuss four different categories of items. The first is a conference with real property negotiators for parcel number 021-027. Let me start again. 021-274-061-000. The next are two existing litigation items. One for Jason Krasner versus County of Placer. The next for Placer Citizens for Neighborhood Rights versus County of Placer. The third item is the conducting of an annual performance evaluation for the county executive officer. And the last is a labor negotiation conference. That concludes the items that will go to closed session.

All righty. We will be back in a little while. A while.

Great, okay. Okay, that was just it. I was super curious how that worked.

Okay, but you as a neighbor can be the leader of the whole career. 100%. If you just fall in front of this group, you choose not to then.

I was just curious. I really needed to know if I was correct on this. A lot of things are weird if you're not a label.

Yeah. You know? I think it's like bandwidth where you get to just control.

That would be really hard. My brain is like, oh, it's right there. Do you know where that picture was taken?

Take a picture of it first. We'll figure it out.

All right, we are back from closed session. I will have County Council read us out.

Thank you. For the first item, a conference with real-priority negotiators, the board heard a report and provided direction through a 5-0 vote. For the first existing litigation item, Jason Krasner versus County of Placer, the board heard a report and provided direction through a 5-0 vote. For the next item, Placer Citizens for Neighborhood Rights versus County of Placer, the board heard a report. No action was taken. For the next item, the public employee performance evaluation, the board conducted the annual evaluation of the county executive officer and determined that a step increase was warranted based on the evaluation through a 5-0 vote. And for the last one, conference with labor negotiators, the board heard a report and provided direction through a 5-0 vote. That concludes the report out on closed session. Thank you.

Thank you. And with that we will adjourn until our next regular meeting on June 2 2026.