Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

the board. It was a pretty robust conversation about all of the work being done by the planning division. And importantly, as it relates to our housing part of the program, we did have conversation, as we did here with you, about pursuing a another Housing Element amendment to address the very small surplus of of land that we have zoned appropriately to, to accommodate our lower income arena. The board did provide direction to not pursue a an amendment at this time due to the current surplus that we that we have, as well as the pipeline of affordable housing projects that will add to that surplus. However, they did mention that we should continue to proactively identify potential properties that could be included in our residential land inventory if needed, or as part of our next housing element. Preparation of our next housing element. I should also note that at the meeting. At the meeting earlier this week, the CEO's housing division did provide an update to to the board on their housing on the Housing Action plan. As part of that conversation. They also did speak to the affordable Housing and Employee Accommodation Ordinance. You should all have received an email letting you know that the April 7th Nexus fee study presentation to the board has been postponed, as well as the presentation to the Planning Commission that would have been would have occurred

on April 9th. The Housing Division is going to continue to work with the board's ad hoc committee to really focus on housing funding strategies, and then they will kind of circle back to the ordinance and the Nexus study. And so I will continue to keep you apprized of that progress through my planning director reports. In terms of upcoming board items, the board is scheduled to take up the Shiba Estates at Eden ROC Project in Granite Bay on April 7th. In terms of upcoming Planning Commission meetings, as you can see on the report, we do have three meetings scheduled for April. The first on April 9th. There is one item scheduled for that meeting. It will be a public meeting to receive comments on a draft EIR for the Granite View condo project in Olympic Valley. I have provided the. The link to the to the webpage where you could begin looking at that draft EIR if you. If you choose. On April 16th, we will hold a meeting at the North Tahoe Event Center. We have two items scheduled for that meeting, most notably the village at the village at Palisades Tahoe. Specific plan, the revised revised project, and the entitlements associated with that project. I should also note we will have a 10 a.m. start time for that meeting. And then as you can see on the report, April 23rd, it is looking at this point to be a very full agenda. We have five items, two of which I should mention are consent items. But the three items that are hearing items would or we are

expecting to have quite a bit of discussion around them. So plan for a full morning, perhaps going into the early afternoon. Also wanted to make note that we continue to progress the residential care home zoning text amendment. I'll continue to leave that link on your planning director report so that you can view progress as we post new information to our web page. For that initiative. We do have we have completed five Mac meetings to receive input on that package, and we have two that are upcoming, the Forest Hill Forum on April 6th and the Central Mac on May 20th. And as I mentioned at your last meeting, we will also be taking this to the Placer County Airport Land Use Commission in late May before bringing it to the Planning Commission. In terms of administrative updates, just have two for you. I was tracking that we received three public comment letters. This one this morning, a couple, I believe yesterday, all related to the Gateway Park projects sponsored by the 40 Acres Conservation League. That is a project with a filed application. It's a currently an incomplete application that we're working with the project applicant. It will. Or they're they've just recently signed a. The contract for the preparation of an environmental impact report. And the entitlements for that package include a minor use permit and variance. So as that project works through through its processing. Currently, it would be scheduled to be heard by the zoning administrator. That

decision will be made by me in terms of the hearing body or decision body at a later date. But as you can tell from the letters, there's quite a bit of interest in that in that project, and I suspect that you'll continue to receive some correspondence on it. And then lastly, I wanted to mention that your next quarterly report of items that are in the pipeline to be considered by the Planning Commission will come to you on April 23rd. That completes my director's report, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Chris, I have a question about the. The Nexus study, the completion of task four from the statement of work, which is the local jurisdiction comparison study. How will we get a handle on that? Will there be a second update draft posted to the website before the final draft is released? Because there's still a component of it that's not out there. That's pretty critical to doing, obviously, comparison. And I know they're working on I don't I don't know the answer to that. I will get an update from the housing division and I can provide an update at our next at our next meeting. Awesome. And I also wanted to give a plug again for residential care homes that I would prefer if it comes the larger one, 7 to 16 residents comes to the Planning Commission rather than just the zoning administrator. I've said it before, I just wanted to put a plug in there. Just a quick remind me on the 16th at the North Tahoe Event Center, will there be the sitting chair or a

substitute? So we have my understanding is we have both the chair and the vice chair absent from the hearing on the 16th. And so your self serving as a second vice chair would be next in line. I just wasn't sure where that stood. Yeah. And I would I work with your office to get a more thorough policy briefing in the next week, which is the most convenient for me. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Do we know we have a quorum for that meeting? My understanding is that we do have the other five members for that meeting. And are we staying up there? I'm staying up there separate from. We will work on logistics with with the members. Anyone else? Thank you Chris. Thank you. We'll move on to Planning Commission reports. Does any commissioner have any issue they would like to discuss or report on? Okay. Then I will open it for public comment. First will be public comment for those items that are not on today's agenda. Do we have anyone in the audience, anyone online? We have one online caller. Go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments. Greetings, commissioners. This Di Luisa from Christian Valley Park Community Services District district five six decades in Placer County. Sacramento's housing policy has undergone what is called an in notification. And yes, that's a word in the Webster's dictionary. That's a technical term. Now for how American. The

American dream got systematically hollowed out. Right now, Placer families see nearly 500,000 per door with low income housing tax credit projects. That's likely to become luxury condos after 15 years, developers paying an average of $4,000 in loose fees instead of building the poorest and most needy families homes. And Rina rezoning turning into raw land grabs for the new McMansions. But they. But hey, here's a light bulb moment for you. What if we stopped selling the M30 rezoned properties cheap to developers and instead incentivize those landowners to lease it for the tiny home ownership villages? Imagine a five acre farm, 30 parcel base zoning allowing 150 units, state density bonus lot kicks in for 50 tiny homes, serving the 0 to 45% Ami households unlocking 270 total units. An estimated $92 million project instead of a one and done $2 million land sale. That same landowner gets incentivized with 100% property tax exemption through the welfare welfare exemption, plus 50% off their own personal houses, property taxes and plus approximately 40,000 in a year in passive income from the lease, while retaining land appreciation. Residents buy $75,000 tiny homes. And in Detroit's proven C a S s model, they're paying $800 a month for

the pad occupant owning the home outright in seven years. That's step up housing tent to tiny, home to traditional single family for Placer County contract housing trust. Placer, who then manages everything using your existing in lieu fees to fund the first ten homes. Rena compliance achieved how h c d satisfied no more nearly 500,000 per door with reliance on massive subsidies. This is all legally bulletproof with welfare exemptions, density bonus and Williamson Act precedent. How about 180 days? From dirt to keys? Commissioners, this is your moral imperative, planners. This solves your math problem. Direct staff to draft the MX 30 ground lease Plus density bonus ordinance for the April 7th board consideration, which I just heard got shifted. But the initiative ends with the step up housing. Thank you. Thank you Diane. Thank you. Anyone else online? I see none thank you. We'll now move on to our single hearing item today. Item one is for our only item is a consideration of entitlements for phase two, a E subdivision of the Placer Ranch specific plan. This item, the Planning Commission is the decision body and the presentation will be given by senior planner Kara Conklin. Good morning. Good morning commissioners. Thank you. My name is Kara Conklin with the Planning Services Division. And the item before you this morning is a vesting phase. Small lot tentative subdivision map for phase two A east of the Placer Ranch specific plan and an

administrative modification for a residential unit transfer. I'm just going to check this pointer real quick. I want to make sure I have a pointer available. Okay. All right. So here's the vicinity map for the project area. Placer ranch specific plan is 2213 acres located in the southern portion of the Sunset Area plan. It's north of the city of Roseville, west of the city of Rocklin. Southwest of the city of Lincoln, and then just south of this Lincoln sphere of influence. This is an image of the Placer Ranch specific plan and its districts. So the the plan encompasses about 5636 residential units. It has over almost 300,000ft■!S of commerci. About 637ft■!S of mixed use and. And four point 3,000,000ft■!S of campus park uses. There is a 301 acre university site located in the center of the specific plan area, over 70 acres of parks and recreation, and over 276 acres of open space. Placer Parkway. The future construction of that east west connection is located just on the northern boundary of the specific plan area. So back in August of 2022, phase one A came before the Planning Commission and was approved with 769 single family lots with one four acre neighborhood park, three mini parks, and then the necessary backbone infrastructure to start construction out there. I believe right now, the backbone

infrastructure for phase one A has been accepted as complete. I'm not sure if any of you have had a chance to go out in this area, but there's a lot of development taking place. Homes are being built in phase one A right now, and phase one B and one C are also under construction in June of 2024, phases one B and one C were approved by the board, which includes 1060 single family, low density residential, low density, age restricted residential and then medium density residential lots, as well as 437 high density residential units. It also includes parks and recreation sites, open space sites, a public facility site for a PG E substation, and a campus park. Parcel phases one B and one C also included continuation of the necessary backbone infrastructure out there for Placer Ranch specific plan and beyond their boundaries. The project site encompasses a little over 86 acres and includes 347 single family residential lots. The lots range in size from 2400ft■!S to over 4500ft■!S. This tentative map also includes 15 landscape and roadway lots, one open space Paseo lot, which is located here in between PR 14 and PR 33, and then a large open space Paseo lot or I'm sorry, open space preserve lot. And that is a little over 22 acres of that open space area. The project entitlements for phase two A East include an approval of the vesting phase. Small lot, tentative subdivision map to divide the three large lot parcels into 347 single family lots. 15

roadway and landscape lots, one open space Paseo lot and one open space preserve lot. And the second request is an administrative modification to transfer 17 low density residential lots from phase two east to future phases of the specific plan, and 13 medium density units from other large lot parcels within the plan into phase two A East. So the specific plan allows for some flexibility in transferring residential units between the LDR age, restricted MDR, HDR, and campus mixed use parcels, and so when transferring those, those parcels have to be transferred to like if you're transferring LDR, it has to be transferred to an LDR parcel. So they have to have the same land use designation. And also the requirement is that the cumulative increase or decrease in units resulting from that transfer cannot be more than 20% compared to the allocations that were provided within the specific plan. So originally, well, actually in 2024 with phase one B and one C, there was a specific plan amendment that kind of changed the number of units within each parcel. So within the 2024 specific plan allocation, a total of 351 units were allocated for phase two A east. And with this small map, they are proposing 347 units, which is about four units less than what was allocated in the plan. However, there's also allocation specific to each parcel. So for example, PR 14 has an allocation of 163 units. And with this map they're proposing

146 units. So that's a unit change of 17 units less with a 10% change. So with this table as you can see, none of the percentages exceed 20%. So it is within that unit range to be able to transfer these units. And this is just a more detailed description here. So you can see phase or I'm sorry, PR 34 and 33. Those are MDR parcels. And then. P r 14 is low density residential. But then these crosshatched have some medium density residential intertwined in there with with some smaller lot sizes. So what has happened is PR 14 is transferring out 17 low density residential units to future phases. Of the specific plan, eight units will go to PR zero two, six units will go to PR zero six, and three units will go to PR zero seven. And those are future lots to be developed for PR 14. They're also transferring in 34 medium density residential lots. Ten of those units are coming from this parcel here. 11 units are coming from this parcel here, and then seven units from PR 31 and six units from PR 32, which are future phases. The required infrastructure improvements and phasing for phase two East include an extension of Fiddyment Road. So this blue area is the. Is the improvements for phase two A East. The orange colored lines. Those are improvements that were constructed with phase one

A of the project. So a portion of this Fiddyment road extension that goes beyond the phase one. A terminus is is being constructed here. And then also the extension of Catalyst Boulevard from the edge of the project at PR 14 to the end of construction from catalyst at phase one A, there's also mass grading included in interact roadway improvements, stormwater and multi-purpose basins, treatment swales, trails and landscaping improvements. So with this, with this phase, there is a 0.62 open space Paseo that bisects PR 33 and PR 14 right here. That kind of goes out to this open space lot. And then there's also the 22.6 acre open space lot that bisects the residential lots here, and also connects into this open space lot south of Catalyst Boulevard that's located in phase one A, and then there's also interact trail connections that provide existing trail connections to phase one A. So as far as consistency goes, for the Placer Ranch specific plan, phase two, A East was anticipated for residential and open space uses within the original specific plan, and it's consistent with both the phase one large lot final map. The phase two large lot final map, the Placer Ranch specific plan, design guidelines and development standards. So this area was allocated within the specific plan to have that medium density, residential low

density and open space uses. And that's exactly what's being developed here. So within the sunset Area plan, as we mentioned earlier, Placer Ranch specific plan is located inside the sunset Area plan. The southern boundary has a buffer requirement next to the landfill. So up here is the the landfill. And here are the the buffer sites. As you can see, there is a 2000 foot residential buffer limit. And that buffer limit also drops down into Placer Ranch specific plan. And so the requirement within the Sunset Area plan is that any residential uses beyond 2000ft, but within one mile of the landfill property would require approval of a specific plan, which is the Placer Ranch specific plan. And then also within that are some requirements to notify those property owners about their proximity to the landfill, as well as paying a fair share payment to the West Placer Waste Management Authority for tier tier one capital improvements for odor control. And so as you can see here, phase two A East, although it's outside of that 2000 foot residential buffer, it's still within one mile of the landfill. So those residents there would be required to be notified about their proximity there. Affordable housing. So affordable housing for Placer Ranch specific plan, it's outlined within the development agreement, section 5.12. And I just wanted to note here, it doesn't mention the medium or I'm sorry, moderate units. So I'll talk about that in a minute. But the development

requires that 10% of the total units for Placer Ranch specific plan shall be constructed as affordable. So 10% of the 5636 units is 564 dwelling units. They are required to construct or cause to be constructed 25% of the required low and very low income affordable housing units, no later than issuance of the building permit for the 2,818th market rate unit, which is likely triggered within this proposed phase. Next, their next requirement is to construct or cause to be constructed 50% of the required low and very low income affordable housing units, no later than the issuance of the 3,945th market rate unit, which would likely be triggered in the next phase. Phase two B, and then 100% of the affordable units shall be constructed no later than the 4,059th market rate unit, which is also triggered within phase two B. And then their requirement for moderate income affordable housing units is no later than the issuance of the 1,690th building permit, which is likely triggered at the end of phase one B going into phase one C. And with that, staff recommends that your Planning Commission take the following actions to determine that the proposed Placer Ranch specific plan, phase two, a East project, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Pursuant to CEQA guidelines. Section 15182C residential projects implementing specific plans on the basis that the project is a subdivision of large lots for the purposes of

single family residential development and is consistent with the land uses and zonings identified within the previously adopted Sunset Area Plan. Placer Ranch specific plan, final environmental impact report, mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and the subsequent addenda. Also approve a vesting phase. Small lot tentative subdivision map for the subdivision of 80 of the 86.29 acre property into 347 single family residential lots, 15 landscape lots, one open space lot and one open space Paseo lot, subject to the recommended conditions of approval, as well as approve the Placer Ranch specific plan. Phase two a East administrative modification to transfer 17 low density residential units from phase two east to future phases of the Placer Ranch specific plan and transfer 13 medium medium density residential units from other large lot medium density residential parcels within the Placer Ranch specific plan into the phase two a East area. And with that I am available for any questions. We also have our applicant team here, Anton Garcia and Angelo Obatola, and that I can take any questions. Thank you. Yeah, I have maybe a couple questions. One, the density transfer. How is that managed? So we have a tracking sheet internally. So I believe each phase so far has transferred units either in or out of their respective phases. And so we have been tracking that with each phase to be able to know which parcels have a specific amount of units. Okay, so I'm assuming in this case

it's all one, the whole property is owned by the same entity. Correct. Okay. So the transfer then is going to be handled by the entity where if you had separate owners that would be a problem. Kind of a last, last project out problem maybe. Yeah. So the transferring actually. So we do have different property owners now for phase one A and one B and one C. So those have been those transfers have already been completed. So as we're transferring out we can only transfer to future parcels that haven't been developed. And so they're still under the same ownership of Placer one does. Does that make sense. So I can't we couldn't transfer units into phase one A right now because they're already being built out. And that entitlement is approved and has a separate property owner. So I assume that the, the owner that owns the rest of the property is, is. Managing this. Yes, with the county because it seems like otherwise, if you have several property owners, the last property owner would have to eat all the density changes in. Right? No. Yeah. It's still owned one property. Okay. And then I did have another question here, but I. I'll come back to it. Sure. Thank you. When is phase two B likely to be triggered? Do we have an estimate for. That's when the low and the very low 50% are required to be constructed. So per the development agreement for the affordable housing it's triggered by unit count. Sure. So currently just to give you an update, we have issued 224 building permits for Placer

Ranch specific plan. So we have to get to 3945 to trigger. That's a lot. Well, so the first trigger is 100% of the moderate income affordable housing. And that building permit trigger is the 1,690th building permit. So that will likely be triggered at full build out of phase one B. Okay. That's quite a while ways away. Yes. Okay. Years. Okay. And then I had another question. I don't think it's it might not be for you. It might be for the applicant, but we had a letter from the Native Species Plant Association president, whatever that is about the landscape plan for this whole area. And they had said that only five of the 200 species of plants recommended are native. And do we have a requirement that any teeth to something that we can hold them to? Say, yes, you do need to use native plants because that's beneficial to wildlife and flora, fauna, etc. do we have something in there that holds them to that and that the landscape plan is out of alignment with that? That's a great question. I'm glad you asked. So the specific plan itself has, I believe it's in the design standards. There are materials for landscaping on the main corridors, so we don't have any landscaping direction within the specific plan for interact development, but it's all for the major street landscaping. And so at this point that that specific plan has been approved with those, they have a list of, you know, the required street trees, shrubbery, grass cover, that kind of stuff. And so we just look to ensure that they're following and are compliant

with the specific plan. It's master plan palette is what it's called as far as interact landscaping, we always work with the landscaper to encourage native landscaping and to comply with the Placer County landscape design guidelines. So in track landscaping, we work with them to really focus on using native plants local to the area. Okay, encourage. How do we make them comply? Encourage is one thing. And then how do we make sure that they comply with at least I think the letter recommended 70% native plants, whatever it is, what is what are the teeth or can we make pass something that says, yes, you must, you must do this. So we we do go through a design review process for each of those. It's not necessarily a formal design review process, but we do look at their landscaping plans and we do suggest. And then there are requirements. For example, like each lot has to plant a street tree. And so we have them when they're, when they start constructing those homes. And once they've installed all of the landscaping, we don't sign off, we don't sign off on occupancy of those building permits until they've sent us pictures because we can't go out there and examine every single lot. So they actually send us pictures almost of every single lot and show us the landscaping for it. So that's, that's the best we can do as far as compliance, I would say, Commissioner Dahlgren, the other thing to to make note of is that in addition to that, to those reviews that that Kara's mentioning, we also are required to ensure that they're meeting the state model, water efficient landscape ordinance, the yellow and, you know, that is also performed is is part of

our review, Cara's right to require anything above what's included in the specific plan would require an amendment to those requirements in the design, design and development standards. But we can continue to work with the applicant, and perhaps they can talk about how they approach landscaping as part of their project. That was my question. Not going back to amending the specific plan, obviously, but strongly encouraging the applicant. And since we don't have teeth, I guess that would be the best we could do. Thank you. Yeah, just a quick one definition of cause. Cause to construct. So I believe that means that they would they would have a affordable housing contractor be able to construct it, not necessarily the developer. I'll defer to Michelle Kingsbury on what caused to construct just in the word construct or cause to construct. Good morning, Michelle Kingsbury with the CEO's office. So what we would look for in this is basically with the triggers for affordable housing, every development agreement is different. So for this particular specific plan we would look for initiation of construction of the site and completion of the triggers by those building permit triggers. And so that's what we would look for to satisfy this requirement. Thanks. Anything else for Cara this time? Thank

you with the applicant. Care to comment? Approach. Please state your name. There we go. Good morning, members of the commission, Anton Garcia with Gen California Placer ranch, the developers of the Placer one master plan community wanted to. First of all, thank Staff Cara, everyone in Sidra DPW CEO's office. Not only is it getting to a tentative map, a lot of details that we go back and forth, we collaborate on, but implementing what you all have already approved is a lot of work for everyone. So many thanks to everyone, the county for for helping, you know, implement this vision that has been in the works for at least a couple decades. I wanted to really provide, you know, I'll go into phase two a bit, kind of give you a global picture of the project as well as where it currently sits. But I did want to answer a couple of questions that came up. I think with affordable housing, we do have about 324 units with a developer right now an affordable housing developer. We are working with the county to implement that in the next couple of years, well ahead of any trigger in the development agreement. So that'll be something that will be coming to you. We've been working with the CEO's office on that on that component, so we're excited to get that, get that component going again. It would come in much sooner than what the development agreement requires and would actually exceed beyond the moderate. It would go to the low and the very low. So I think that will be an exciting component for for you all to be able to hear here in the next, I'm hoping in the next 6 to 12 months, there was a question about plants. You know, our landscape architects look at the specific plan and they try to live

within those means. We are always pushing for anything native. As was mentioned, there are water budgets that we have to stay within consistency of from the state level. In other words, you cannot just put any type of plan out there and ignore how much water it needs. We also do submit those. Ultimately, the county parks department does maintain it. So they have a lot of say of what gets implemented. If there's a letter that can get forwarded to us on the species, or that the whoever wrote the letter said it was not, you know, there's not enough of we'd love to see it. And we would look at it and look to implement more. So throughout the the streetscape, the parks and the landscaping. At this point, all of the landscaping that's been implemented or has been approved is going to be maintained by the by the park district through the CFD. So we always encourage try to do everything we can to be tolerant and consistent with the specific plan. With phase two, what's in front of you today? It's it's a continue to. It's another component of the project to deliver more housing in our region. Of the three, four different product types that we have. By that I mean the, the size of lots. Those ultimately drive the type of home. These will provide another housing stock to what's already been approved. There's some of those lots. The widths and the depths are somewhere in the middle or smaller than what we've previously had approved by the commission, and that allows for a different type of buyer as well. We want to be able to deliver homes for first time home buyers to the to the move ups. A couple of years ago, you approved a project that for Placer, one that had an active adult age restricted community as well. And so we want to be able to implement a wide variety of homes for every type

of buyer and additionally with affordable housing as well. And this really complements that as far as the infrastructure, as Cara outlined, there is an improvement on Fiddyment Road that needs to go forward. Not only does it meet the frontage and major improvements obligations of this project, but it addresses development agreement obligation to deliver the roadway to the university where a future fire station would go. The CEO's office is working with the university on that lease agreement, so we're advancing that major infrastructure to this spring. We're hoping to go to construction in the next 2 to 3 weeks. Our PCP fees are being paid right now. In the next few days, that wire will go through. So it's been permitted. And we're very excited to get that component because that will fulfill the balance of fitment to Placer one boulevard, which will help traffic circulation out there, meet the development agreement obligations and get ahead of the the interactive elements that's in front of you today. As Cara mentioned, I think we have a total of 2224 building permits have been issued. I think roughly 55 or so certificate occupancies have been issued. And that means we've got 55 new families in Placer, one that call Placer one home now part of the community. So we're excited to see that. James Holmes, who's based here in Roseville, is one of our merchant builders. We have KB Homes and Pulte Group. So at this point we have three merchant builders out there that are building homes and welcoming families into Placer County did want to chat about just briefly the university with phase one A that was the major public improvements were accepted in November of last year. That fulfills the southern edge of that university parcels major infrastructure. So the university is about 300 acres. We. We completed the major infrastructure to support the

southern end of it. Right now, the county and the CSU is working on a forensics lab that will receive utility from that first phase for your sewer water storm drain. And we're going to be working with them to help build the ceremonial entrance to that forensics lab. And ultimately, over the next couple of decades, that that university starts to mature and become no longer just a CSU classroom campus, but it will become its own CSU as it evolves and gets built out with the fitment. There are some easements that we're working with the university as well to obtain, because now we're going to be building the western perimeter of that university site. So we've been working with our Chancellor's office on those easements, working with ESD based upon prior experience. We feel really good where we are right now to get those easements in time, to be able to deliver the backbone infrastructure needed to support their development. And also phase two, A East. Placer Parkway is a critical component to this project. While it's not immediately adjacent to it, not only does it bring traffic circulation, but it also brings in much needed redundancy in water. There's a 42 inch PS w line that comes with that. So as part of us developing these these villages, we will also be obtaining a will serve from SWA as that project commences. I believe that project for funding goes to the board on April 7th. That will be a major milestone for, I think, for the entire region to get that that development going. So we're very supportive of of that project. We provided the highway easement needed for the balance of Placer Parkway as well, knowing that the first phase is the biggest one to get going. And that hopefully gets going here in the spring, if not summer of this year by the county. With me, I have Angela

of CBG and Curtis, King of King Engineering. If there's nothing that I can answer or care or anyone else on staff, I'm certainly sure that they will be able to answer any questions. Thanks again for your consideration. If any questions for me, let me know and we will patiently wait for your deliberation. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Yeah, I'm not sure it's for the applicant, but I'll put it out there. I'm just looking at the open space and the from the north side of the south side of catalyst, and it seems looks like the only way to connect your human is to go to the corner of the streets and go up and go across. There's no intermediate crossing. And I'm not saying that there should be one. I'm just kind of curious what the thought process goes when you have open space on both sides. Good. Good question. So this when as we come forward with it, I think someone asked about two way west or the two way to be it'll extend catalyst. And so it's just it's a, it's a matter of time as those improvements extend further west to fulfill the balance of the obligation to deliver those open space and pedestrian connectivity. If you look at it just as as it stands alone, it's hard to get to it. But as the project continues to be implemented, as we we come back with future tentative maps, you will see that the routing to get there will be much easier. Thank you. Does Placer Parkway align with Sunset Boulevard West? It's just immediately south of it. Yes. So it's along the same parallel. Okay. Yeah. I think the way it's envisioned is Sunset West would be essentially a frontage road. Okay. And sunset turns into catalyst. So there's a there's some confusion here. So there's so sunset, okay, there's sunset

that comes into catalyst. That's the sunset you see when you drive down highway 65, there is a sunset west, which is just to the north of Placer Parkway. So they essentially ones on the south, ones on the north, easy to get confused. So the sunset, the major one is the one that becomes catalyst. Sunset West is the smaller frontage that will ultimately be a frontage road. Yeah. Sunset is from 65 Sunset Boulevard. West is from Fiddyment. There you go. Exactly. Yeah. Other questions while I have you, are you, as the applicant, agreeable with the recommended conditions of approval? Yes we are. Thank you, thank you, thank you. With that said, any other comments? Any other questions? I'll open it to public comment. Is there any public comment here? None. Any online? I see none. Thank you. We'll close public comment. The staff have any further comments? Recommendations? No we don't. Thank you. I kind of have a question. It's a little bit not necessarily totally related to this, but my memory serves me that at one point in time, the county did have a recommendation for planting native plants. It might have been with the when they were working on the housing program. But somewhere in the background, I've seen something like that. Commissioner Johnson, I think what you're likely recalling, given your time on the Commission is, is probably around 2016, I believe it was, that the county's current

landscape design guidelines came forward as a revision. And that plan does strongly encourage the use of of native drought tolerant plants throughout developing communities throughout Placer County. And as Cara said earlier, it does not specifically require. So that is something that we do work closely with our development community on. During the review of improvement plans and design review agreements to find available nursery stock that will, you know, in many cases, you know, there are there are native plants available at nurseries on a on an increasing basis, because this is becoming a more relevant issue with the water efficient landscape ordinance requirements that. Mr. Julie mentioned. And so we're always looking for those opportunities that's still in play. That's good. Thank you. I'll add on to with what Alix stated as well during the development of the specific plan in and of itself, we worked extensively with our parks Division regarding the backbone infrastructure species list that was there, and there was some back and forth on that with our parks team consideration about the native plant species as well as maintenance, what types of trees or shrubs and things of that nature can we more easily maintain because we're accepting that into our system? I just want to reiterate, we had a significant amount of conversation with our parks division to land on the list that, at least for the backbone that's included within the specific plan documents as well. So would it be fair to say that some native plants are not drought tolerant or harder to maintain, and that's why they're not or are not as available at nurseries currently? And that's why, according to this one letter, don't know that it's accurate. Only five of the 200 are native. Are any of those things true?

Yeah, I think really it it comes down to the availability of of what is available through nursery wholesale suppliers and, and, and what is produced. And as I said, you know, more and more and more, there is a prevailing trend towards plants that are drought tolerant. Those tend to be native to your question about whether or not they're California native plants that are not drought tolerant. Absolutely. We have many climate ecotones is what they're generally called throughout the state. It's one of the most diverse ecological states for for its habitat types, but specifically for, for the purposes of this, this discussion, this is a Mediterranean climate could be also considered semi-arid in terms of, of some of the summer conditions that we experience. And so the trend is towards more drought tolerant, hardy plants that have lower maintenance requirements in water demand environments. Thank you. I had no idea about any of this. I was just asking the question. But that was very helpful. Thank you Alex. Any other questions? I did want to clarify with Commissioner Alves related to the affordable housing. It's constructor cost to be construct. Construct basically means developer constructs. Cost to be constructed can mean that the developer enters into an agreement with another entity to construct it to meet their obligation. So I just wanted to break it down to more simple terms. Great. Thank you. Do we have any deliberation or comment amongst the commission? This is my district, but nothing additional. It was an interesting conversation on the drought tolerant plants and the conflicts with state regulations, and just an ongoing battle of local versus state in the use of those

materials. Any other comments? Entertain a motion. Okay. Yeah. Again, my district, so I'd be happy to do that. And each separately for this, you can take all motions together. Okay. All right. Well then I'll combine that and I'd make a motion that Planning Commission accept item one, a determination two approval and item three approval as read into the record by staff. I'll second that motion and a second roll call, please. Alves. Yes. Watts. Yes. Jewel. Yes. Dahlgren. Yes. Johnson. Yes. Renting. Yes. With that said, the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by anyone who appeared at today's hearing and provided comment, or anyone that submitted written comments on this item. An appeal must be filed within ten days of today's date and shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $752. With that, we are adjourned. Thank you. Great meeting.