Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Greetings, commissioners. Di Luisa from Christian Valley Park. Six decades in Placer County, district five. I am going to make this pretty brief because I actually sent out that comment and or request to be presented in the board's packet next week. But my point in this, and there's some links there that I'm asking the commissioners to investigate, albeit that some of the examples are from 2023. But it's it's really has nothing to do with a, a pain point for me every time I hear it. And that is that I see representatives of the realtor community and the developer, you know, lobbyist type community always saying that the in lieu fees need to stay low because it would add, you know, I just heard it last week from a realtor representative 35 you know, roughly 35,000 or, and I've heard up to around 50,000 per unit, which is total horse Pucky total horse. Pucky. I've been doing all my homework and the county should not treat affordability as as a paperwork exercise. If the lowest income units can be delayed, substituted or bought out through a week in lieu fee, then the policy is not producing real housing for the very low income, extremely low and or acutely low income houses. So please look at these packets in terms of other jurisdictions in California that have successfully done the subsidy gap for these in lieu fees. And you have to be

cognizant of the fact that there needs to be a division between the in lieu fees for properties that you are addressing through Rina cycles, and you're attributing to our affordable numbers that AC d is imposing upon us. And that creature needs to be totally treated separately because those developers are using all of the schemes, such as the land is zoned or entitled, creating a significant new value before any affordable unit is built. The project is approved with an affordability promise, but the deepest income tiers are pushed to later phases. Financing tools such as the low income housing tax credit raises capital early, while the public is told the project is already helping affordability. If allowed, the developers pays an in lieu fee instead of building the hardest units. Years later, the project returns for amendments, extensions, substitutions or phase shifts. By the time the public notices the obligation has been softened, delayed or converted into cash. Diane, if you could. Yes, I'm going to just wrap up that the rest of the information has been provided. The clerk should be disseminating it to you all. And thank you for your time. Thank you, Diane, for your comments. Do we have anyone else on Zoom? No other hands raised. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. We'll now move on to our one hearing item for today. Item one is a public meeting. To hear a presentation and receive public comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Granite View Condominiums project in Olympic Valley. The presentation will be given by senior planner planner Patrick Dobbs. Welcome, Patrick. Good morning, Madam Chair. Commissioners, I'm Patrick Dobbs, the planning

services division. That's what I was looking for right there. Let me just kind of get my bearings on my instruments here. This item is a public meeting to receive comments on the draft environmental impact report for the proposed Grand View Condominiums project. It is CEQA guidance and county policy to hold public meetings on EIR projects that will be reviewed by the Commission. There will be a future hearing likely this fall, where the Planning Commission will consider the full project merits and entitlements and the final EIR. But the purpose of today's meeting is to receive public comments on the completeness and accuracy of the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Grand View Condominiums Project. Today is not the opportunity to discuss the merits of the project. The publication of the Notice of Availability for the draft EIR was broadly disseminated to adjacent property owners. Those who had previously commented on the IRS notice of preparation, newspapers, county websites, state and federal agencies and tribes, etc. the project is located in eastern Placer County and the community of Olympic Valley, south of the town of Truckee and northwest of Tahoe City off highway 89. The project area is within the 4700 acre Olympic Valley General Plan and Land Use Ordinance, formerly the Squaw Valley General Plan and Land Use Ordinance. This is a community plan. It's a policy document, and unlike some of the other community plans in the county, this includes the zoning ordinance. So this community plan describes permissible uses, development standards, design guidelines. The project site is located at the west end of Olympic Valley. It's undeveloped forested hillside. The project site is adjacent and to the north of the Olympic Village in. Let me see if I can get my pointer.

The Olympic Village in. And Olympic Village Lodge. It is again north of the approved village at Palisades Tahoe. Specific plan that photo in the lower right where I've placed that yellow star. That's kind of the approximate location on the site where these condominiums would be constructed. You know, between the Olympic Village Inn and Lodge below. And then you see up on the hillside above, there's a Olympic Valley Public Service District water tank. Up above there. There are two drainages on site. One is in the west portion of the site. It's a natural drainage channel. One is in the east portion of the site. That's partially in a culvert that runs through an area that was previously graded. There is water infrastructure and sewer infrastructure on site. The photo in the upper right shows a portion of the Granite Chief Trail. This is a United States Forest Service trail that heads west from the project area and the easement and the trail traversed through the southwest portion of the project site. This is the aerial aerial view of the project area outlined in red and the immediate surroundings. As I said, it's at the west end of the valley, two miles west of the intersection of Olympic Valley Road and Highway 89. The parcel is approximately 7.82 acres. It's on the hillside. You can see it's somewhat of an irregular shape in terms of that cutout for the Olympic Valley Public Service District water tank up there in the northeast corner. You can see to the south, the Palisades Tahoe Ski Resort base area. There's other resort residential accommodations to the to the south, there are single family residential development to the east and forested areas to the north and west of the project site. You can see there in the legend on

the exhibit, the proposed building envelopes for the condominiums are in that light green or lime green shaded color. They are on the southern portion of the project site. Southern boundary. The area to the south of the. The building envelopes the shaded area in red. That is an off site access easement that would go through the Palisades Resort lot 16. The white dashed line is is the approximate location, the existing Granite Chief Trail that starts down here behind the old fire station, and then again traverses through the southwestern portion corner of the project site. So part of the project does include a relocation of a portion or a segment of this Granite Chief trail and easement. It's shown in this red dashed line over here. This is, you know, the preferred alignment that's been identified in coordination with Palisades Tahoe and working with the Forest Service. So that is being coordinated with some of the recreation improvements that are part of the specific plan. The there are multiple land use designations on the project area. These have been in place since, I believe the community plan was established in 1983. The family has owned it for 50 years, so nothing new here. The southern portion of the site in red is Village Commercial. That's 1.31 acres of the 7.82 acre site. And that commercial district is designated for this type of hotel condominium development. That's that's proposed. The commercial buildings will be entirely within the village commercial area on site. So entirely

within the red area, north of the commercial area is in Blue Forest recreation zoning and in green Conservation preserve zoning. For the most part, the conservation and preserve and forest recreation are generally left avoided. I will explain a little further in the presentation. There is a meditation hut that that is for the owner's exclusive use that's within Conservation Preserve, and there's an underground propane tank currently located within the forest recreation zone. And again, we'll be discussing that more. The Olympic Valley General Plan establishes the density of 50 bedrooms per acre within the village commercial Zone district. And so the proposal for 66 bedrooms is consistent with the density limitations. So the application for the project originally was submitted in 2021. It has changed. The project has changed in response to community feedback. Not unusual for projects in Olympic Valley. Initially it was much larger. The original proposal was 52 units with 98 bedrooms. It was contained in a single rectangular building with a maximum height of 96ft above average grade comprises seven levels with a basement, so five levels of living above two levels of subsurface parking in a basement below. There were a number of outdoor recreation amenities at that time. A proposed enforced recreation pools, pavilions, hot tub and. And you can see the original access design here through lot 16 was kind of more of a meandering design. And this previous version of the project would have included 121

underground parking stalls. When we presented the proposal to the community back in 2022 as part of the notice of Preparation scoping meeting, some of the comments we received were that there were too many units the buildings, the building was too tall, there was a desire to break up that building into several different buildings to reduce the massing, and there was concern about noise resulting from some of those outdoor amenities. And so in response to those concerns that were raised, the applicant has changed and reduced the project. What is proposed today is a condominium development with 19 units and 66 bedrooms. You can see that the those 66 bedrooms have been divided amongst three detached buildings. The maximum height of the buildings is 35ft at average grade. And these are four stories, basically a garage on the lower level that is partially subsurface, and then three levels of living area above. The project does include the off site access easement through lot 16. As I mentioned, the Granite Chief Trail relocation segment of that. And although I don't have it on the slide here, it's something I will discuss. There are 61 parking spaces proposed with the current development. The requirement is 66 parking spaces, so that aspect of the project would require a variance. So that's what's currently proposed. I'll discuss the four county entitlements and approvals that would be required for this project, starting with the vesting tentative map. This would be a single lot that would divide the airspace above the land via a condominium plan. For these 19 units, you can see

that a little hard to see, but those airspace envelopes are shown in green. On the tentative map. Again, I mentioned the offsite access easement through lot 16 of the village at Palisades Tahoe. Specific plan to the south, shaded in red that would accommodate a 26 foot wide roadway. There are some hammerheads and turnarounds. There's a pedestrian sidewalk on the on the side of the roadway. So this enlargement in the lower left of the exhibit is is from that easement. And so that new road would connect down to Shamone place. Shamone place connects to Olympic Valley Road. So that's the first entitlement vesting tentative map. And in addition to that, there are three additional entitlements commercial development within the community plan. Over 20,000ft■!S requires a conditional use permit. You can see the building footprints are a little under 21,000, with just under 68,000ft■!S of gross floor area. The third entitlement is this request for the variance for parking. As I mentioned, the community plan requires one parking space per bedroom, so there are 66 bedrooms proposed. You can see in the slide there how some of the bedroom counts kind of break down per unit with 12 three bedroom units, 4 or 5 four bedroom units and two five bedroom units. So again, 66 spaces would normally be required. The proposal totals 61 spaces within the garages and within those in front of those driveways, in front of the garages. So it is five less than what would normally be required. And again, the applicant is requesting a variance to consider the parking relief of those five spaces. The fourth entitlement is a requirement for design review and this would be a condition of approval should it get to that point. And the final design would be presented to. And we would receive

comments from the Olympic Valley Citizens Design Review Committee so that those are the required entitlements. Just to delve in a little deeper on on some of the project components, I have a little correction I need to make on this slide, but regarding the portion of the Granite Chief Trail relocation, there is an existing 20 foot wide Forest Service easement. And again, there is the trail that partially traverses through the southwest portion of the site. I've kind of attempted to outline up here in red, you know, to some degree where the the actual trail kind of crosses the, the land there, most of the actual trail treads. So the trail itself is about 10 to 20ft north of the actual easement. Not not uncommon for the, the, the alignment to not necessarily be within the 20 foot wide easement corridor. I mentioned the official trailhead starts kind of behind the old fire station, but that's not a well-marked location. There are a number of user created spurs kind of getting up to to the Granite Chief Trail. So the. The proposal would be to relocate the trail segment. This is where I need to make a correction. This. These are this is the new location. This is the switchbacks that would lead up. But but this star I've got here is in the wrong location. I'm afraid when I when I transposed it to the slides here, that star should be down here, you know, kind of on the north of this parking lot. And again, that is, you know, consistent with the village of Tahoe Village at Palisades Tahoe specific plan. You see that little T there indicating a new trailhead on lot 18. So. You know, this trail leads kind of that Shirley Canyon area. It's a popular hiking location. Again, the relocation of this segment is a coordinated effort with

with Palisades, with the US Forest Service. And because it's Forest Service, it's federal. And so the environmental analysis associated with that piece of it requires Nepa, National Environmental Policy Act allowance. Just kind of looking at some of the site work and the grading and such. As I mentioned, there is a 2500 gallon buried propane tank, and it's a little hard to see in the slide here, but it is, it is that little box up there. It's currently located 50ft away from the building. There are some separation requirements between buildings and propane tanks. But this is, you know, an accessory use that would serve the condo hotel commercial use located within the village. Commercial zoning. And we have received we did receive comments back at the Mac meeting on March 5th. We have received comments from the public during this open comment period on the draft EIR and raising concerns about this accessory use within forest recreation and and saying that, you know, it should be accessory to something that's permissible within forest recreation. It shouldn't be accessory to the commercial. So staff and the applicant, you know, we're exploring feasible alternatives to potentially locate that tank in village commercial. When the project comes back to the Planning Commission for your consideration of the full entitlements, that's an aspect of this that may change between now and then. There are there's an existing water line on the west side of the property that the project would connect with. There's an existing sewer line on the east side of the property. The disturbance area is is 1.31 acres. So they're basically maximizing maximizing that development potential

within that village commercial portion of the site. Almost 6/10 of an acre of off site disturbance associated with the off site access road. It is a sloped site. There is excavation needed to establish the roadway and building pads. So approximately 25,500yd■!T of material would be exported from the site. And in order to stabilize those hillsides and where the cuts are occurring, there are some retainage or retaining walls and and drainage solutions up there on the north side of the of the rear of the buildings. Get organized here. Regarding snow storage and removal, 60% of the impervious surface area is required to be plowed. Some of that snow would be plowed or blown into various on site locations, but the majority of the snow storage will occur on the south side of the roadway. I briefly mentioned this at the beginning, and there's a meditation hut that's that's part of the project. It is intended to be exclusive use of the current owner. In other words, future condo owners wouldn't be able to access this. This is a very basic structure. It consists of a platform walls and a roof no more than 12ft tall. No power, no water, no sewer. It is sited within the Conservation Preserve Zone district, about 100ft north of the condominium buildings. It is considered a recreational feature. It is less than 200ft■. These. This is a permitted use within conservation. Preserve the timing of that and where that may occur. So that's not really a discretionary component. But just in terms of full transparency, transparency and what's what's envisioned. So that's my overview of the project here. And, and now I'll

just transition to the draft EIR. And what we're here to discuss today because of the change from the original project density and intensity to the current proposal, this project has had a few extra steps getting to this point. The notice of preparation. That's a notice that we send out saying we're going to we're going to prepare an EIR. And. And that was accompanied with an initial study was originally published for the 52 unit, 96ft tall back in April and May of 2022. There was a revised notice of preparation and initial study for the reduced project and current proposal that was published in April 22nd of 2025. That public comment period on the revised NLP and initial study ran through May 22nd of 2025. We did hold a scoping meeting for that revised NLP on May 8th of 2025, and the draft EIR was published March 6th last month, and the 45 day comment period runs through April 20th of this month. So as I mentioned, we completed an initial study and that was released with the notice of preparation. This is really an effort for us to try and focus the scope of the EIR and dismiss things that maybe aren't relevant to the particular project. So this initial study, this is a robust document. It does cover the summation of the environmental impacts that the project could contribute to, but those listed on the screen were determined to be less than significant at that initial study stage. This is not prime farmland. There is some tree removal, but the substantial portion of the trees would remain. So impacts to intact forest lands and timberland are determined to be less than significant. There are no known mineral resources

on the site. It's not displacing housing, so there won't be direct population or growth inducing impacts. Again, this project is consistent with the land use regulations that were envisioned for this community plan and the population increase that was anticipated. With that, there are adequate public services. It doesn't generate additional demand for recreation facilities. The project will pay an in lieu fee. So all of the in CEQA environmental resource areas listed on the screen were determined to have potentially significant impacts, and all of those on the screen are addressed in the EIR, except the cultural resources and tribal cultural resources. So this obviously is a historic area that that that has had a lot of activity, Native American occupation and this Washoe territory. So there are those potentially significant impacts regarding cultural and tribal cultural resources would be mitigated to less than significant at that initial study stage with the inclusion of the mitigation measures, Roman numerals five one and five two that basically describe the process for inadvertent discovery of artifacts of human remains, those sort of things where work has to stop the appropriate agencies or tribes need to be contacted. And so while it's not anticipated that there would be impacts to those resources, there's always that possibility. And so those mitigation measures address that. And so, you know, that leaves the remainder of these topics that were analyzed further in the EIR. So starting on chapter four, esthetics, the condominium buildings will be visible from various public viewpoints, including that Granite Chief Trail Olympic Village in below the shaman

place from areas in the Palisades parking lot. So chapter four evaluates the project change of the visual character, the quality of the site and surroundings. As I mentioned, there is a requirement for design review approval from the Olympic Valley Citizens Design Review Committee. But, you know, for various reasons, naturally appearing, building materials, not silhouetted against ridgeline, you know, won't alter distant views. At most, there's adequate screening here on the property. Most of the esthetic impacts would be less than significant. However, there is this one impact identified at impact four three regarding creation of a new source of substantial light or glare. So there is a mitigation measure that addresses that and requires preparation of a dark sky compliant lighting plan. Low reflectivity glass, and implementation of that mitigation measure would reduce those esthetic impacts to less than significant. There was there's a lot of number of reports regarding biological resources. There's a biological evaluation ledger from Live Oak Associates. There's a wetland delineation from Salix. There's an arborist report, there's a study of the off site trail alignment through eco synthesis. So a lot of biological biological reports and analysis was completed there. Again there are a number of potential impacts regarding special status plant species or animals or birds that that have potential to occur within the study area. So this is just a quick summary of some of those impacts and associated mitigation measures. You know, for the plants, the Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare, for the roosting bats, for nesting birds and raptors. These are things. These are pre-construction protocol level surveys where biologists are out there looking for the

evidence of the species and nests. There are, you know, if found, there are subsequent protocols in terms of limited operating periods, buffers from construction equipment and and coordination with the, you know, various agencies to address that. If they are if they are found to be present. There are also requirements regarding the California Fish and Wildlife 1600 stream and Lakebed Alteration Agreement requirements for permits from Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. So a number of mitigation measures to address potential impacts to biological resources and with implementation of those mitigation measures, those impacts would would be reduced to less than significant. The project would include modifications to the project site that would alter the existing topography in areas. So there is, you know, potential for erosion, unstable soils. There are three impact areas identified in chapter seven, and there are requirements for improvement plans. These are things that we would incorporate the geotechnical report recommendations. There's requirements for a final geotechnical report, revegetation of disturbed areas. And so implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce those potential impacts to geology and soils to less than significant, you know, similar in terms of, you know, the construction includes grading, excavation, trenching for utilities, other construction related activities that could cause soil erosion and accelerate that erosion during a storm events. So there is potential to violate water quality standards and waste discharge standards. Again, three impact areas related to hydrology and water quality with several mitigation measures. There are stormwater pollution prevention plan

requirements, best management practices. There will be signage on the drain inlets regarding no dumping flows to creek. They must meet National Point Discharge elimination elimination system discharge requirements. So they'll need to provide a final drainage report. Those drainage facilities need to be designed in accordance with the county stormwater manual. And again, implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce those impacts on hydrology and water quality to less than significant. Chapter nine discusses the existing noise environment of the project vicinity and identifies potential impacts related to noise and vibration associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project. The project would comply with the noise ordinance and the building code. Sacs will be. Acoustics did prepare an acoustic analysis and. And that report did demonstrate that the project would not create permanent or substantial permanent increase in ambient noises in excess of the established standards. However, this impact nine one regarding temporary construction noise, and that would substantially increase at times over the ambient noise. So the mitigation measure nine one has various components to address this. It does require preparation of a it should say construction noise management plan up there. But these are things regarding limiting hours of operation for noise generating equipment. There are temporary sound barriers that will be installed. There is designation of a disturbance coordinator to respond to any noise complaints. And despite the efforts to reduce the decibels associated with the temporary construction noise,

this is the one impact that would remain significant unavoidable for this project. The project generates 69 daily. One way trips are screening criteria is 110, so the project is below the VMT screening criteria. There. There is was an impact identified in the transportation section regarding conflicts with program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system. So this mitigation measure ten one regarding construction signage and traffic control plan would reduce those potential impacts to less than significant regarding wildfire. In chapter 12, Reacts engineering prepared a fire safe plan. It is. You know, Olympic Valley is in the wildland urban interface. It is very high fire hazard severity. It is the Olympic Valley Fire Department. The project site is within the fire department district. And then beyond that is the state responsibility area and the surrounding Forest Service lands. So this impact 12 two was identified related to wildfire regarding conflicts with the program policy or ordinance. I'm not sure if that says the right thing up there, but the the mitigation measure to address these wildfire potential impacts is, is regarding preparation of a comprehensive long term vegetation management and monitoring plan. This includes limbing of trees up to 14ft to, you know, reduce the likelihood of a ground fire transferring to a crown fire. It also requires the use of Cal Fire approved spark arresters on on equipment. So there are no

growth inducing impacts for this project. There are no cumulative cumulative impacts. This includes foreseeable projects. You know, like the village at Palisades Tahoe specific plan. Again, I have a mislabeling there on the slide, but except for that temporary construction noise impact, which would remain significant, unavoidable, all of the project impacts can be reduced to less than significant with the recommended mitigation measures. CEQA requires a reasonable range of alternatives to be considered for projects. This project has this draft. EIR has five project alternatives that were analyzed. The no project, no build alternative that's required for all projects. There's a reduced density granite Chief trail not realigned. There's a reduced density granite. Chief trail realigned. There's a rezoning alternative. And let's see, the 52 unit original project alternative. So chapter 14 describes the project's alternative analysis that compares a comparison of the project, impacts how those alternatives align with the project objectives, and discusses the CEQA environmentally superior alternative. Again, just reiterating, reiterating that in most. In most instances, we are able to reduce these potentially significant impacts to less than significant with inclusion and implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. With the exception of the significant and unavoidable project impact associated with the temporary construction noise. In addition to today's meeting on the draft EIR, there will be opportunities for for public comment. The draft EIR is available online. As I mentioned, the 45 day public comment period closes at 5 p.m. on April 20th. Any person who

submits written or oral comments will receive a formal response in the final EIR and a link to that final EIR. Again, the project entitlements. And finally IR are tentatively scheduled for sometime fall of 2026. But, you know, today we're here to listen. We're not here to debate or defend the analysis. We are accepting comments, and we will respond to those comments. And the final EIR, just a couple of quick introductions here. This is Nick Papagni. Nick Papagni is with rainy planning and management. He's our consultant. My colleague Monica Grammenos is an engineering and surveying. She's on the line and can address questions such as drainage and such. But there is. Madam chairman, there is no formal action requested. The Commission. Today. We request that the Planning Commission accept our report on the draft EIR for the proposed Grand View Condominiums project. Open the meeting for public comment. The Council will consider comments received on the contents of the draft EIR within the public comment period, and we'll prepare written responses to all comments in the final EIR as required by CEQA. Thank you. Thank you so much, Patrick. First, we'll open it up for questions from commissioners. Go ahead. Okay. My question is dealing with biological resources. And I guess what I'm wondering is wouldn't when you're talking about bats and snowshoe hares. Yeah. Wouldn't that be a habitat issue rather than a presence issue? Yes. Thank you. So you're right. It's not just. That's something that doesn't really have to wait to study because if it's habitat, either you got habitat

or you don't, right? If there's potential for habitat, we assume it could be there. And so we want to ensure that those studies are happening close to when construction may occur. So we don't want to necessarily send the biologists out right now if if construction might occur in three years. So these the birds and the bees, you know, these these these move will change between now and the time that. And so I guess my question is why? Why haven't we really looked at the habitat for those. Sorry if I didn't explain that. We did look at the habitat. Maybe my presentation wasn't as complete as it could. It wasn't just physical presence. It is habitat. I think, you know, as as we. Nick might be a good person to address all the. You know, variances or scenarios of that. Do you want to step aside? Absolutely. Good morning. Nick. Vice president with R&D Planning and Management. Morning Chair, Members of the Commission, thanks for the question and response to the comment. Yes. So we retained biological consulting firm to go out and survey the property and map the habitats and based on the habitats, to identify potential presence for special status species, both plants and animals to occur and based on the habitat, based on the potential for presence. That's where the mitigations then come out of that on site habitat, the the species themselves, the ones that we've identified in there as being protected, those are the mitigations are targeting those species. Their habitat per se is not protected. So the mitigation is to protect the species, the habitats that are on site, they're pretty widely available in the

surrounding region. So so, you know, it seems like. You know, you would protect the species with the habitat. You know, if you're going to if you're going to affect the habitat drastically, it's going to affect the species. So basically, you know, going to survey later on, waiting to do a survey to see if you got rabbits there, that if you do or you don't, it won't really change much because that rabbits are dependent upon the habitat, right? But yeah, based on the habitat that's present, there is a limited potential for, for example, the protected snowshoe hare to occur. So is there a mitigation for that then already identified. There's a mitigation that requires prior to any on site construction activities, that biologist has to go out and survey to see if there's any snowshoe hare there. Actually, I'll use the word nesting on site. And then obviously the construction cannot commence until that species is done inhabiting the site. And so the species is protected. There's no offset for habitat impacts because the habitat type is regionally quite abundant for the species. So there's no legal requirement that the habitat is protected. The species itself must be protected and not harmed in any way. And that's what the mitigation provides in the document. Okay. So whether they're nesting on the site is what you're talking about, right? If they're if they're burrowing on the site and breeding, then they're protected. I just kind of question because you can visualize a rabbit, you know, he's going to use a whole hillside for their habitat. And so the impact of this particular project would, would then be based on how much the habitat the rabbit's losing.

Now the impact, you know, that's a question. Maybe, maybe you need to answer that in the eyes. Yeah. We can follow up with some additional explanation. The the impact is based on whether the species itself would be impacted directly by mortality or harm, not loss of habitat, because the habitat is not protected per se. The habitat is reasonably abundant. So there won't be a significant indirect impact associated with loss of habitat. It can move off the site and inhabit other areas that you're looking at it more legally. And I'm looking at it more practically. Can I just maybe ask a follow up? I think is it I think there is a difference in the PCP bound areas. There are mitigation and impact fees for habitat loss. So if we're on the sort of western side of the county, there actually are fees for impacting the habitat, which I totally agree. That's where they live. But for non PCP areas, it's still based on the sort of old traditional way of looking at impacts. And it's to the species itself that would be the habitat basically. But it's not. Yeah. Not the habitat. It's this individual species. And whether they're there. Okay. Yeah. Legally but legally. Yes. The biology is a habitat. Yeah. Okay. So if I dumbed it down, there's, let's say there's lots of those rabbits. The species is fine because rabbits make lots of rabbits. So you can get rid of those rabbits. So those dead rabbits don't matter because it's not PCP. No, the rabbits matter. I thought I had it, thought I had it. Yeah, the rabbits cannot be impacted. That would be a significant impact. Pursuant to CEQA. The mitigation protects the species itself. There can be no harm whatsoever to the species. Yeah, the habitat is sufficiently abundant such that there's no link to say that if the on site habitat here is converted and

the species itself would decline in abundance, there's sufficient habitat elsewhere. So the survey is a survey going to look at the hillside. I mean you have an acre that's being impacted or a little over an acre. And it's very unlikely that you'll see a rabbit there. If you see a rabbit there, it's probably just passing through oftentimes. So I guess, you know, I'm really questioning the logic, I guess with regards to. To the point, where are you going to look? If you're gonna look at the whole hillside to see the rabbits are there, then that would be different. But that would be a bigger impact than just this particular project, if that was the case, right. To the point that there is no. And that's kind of what I was trying to connect those dots. There's no, you know, legal framework like there is in Western Placer County. Yeah. Right. To protect a legal framework and a biological framework. And you're looking at the legal framework, not necessarily the biological. Yeah. And the protective mechanisms in this portion of the county are the IPC laws that protect the species itself and its ability to breed and, and inhabit these these sites. There's no protection for its habitat. Like I said, if, if we could make an if there was an ability to say there's hardly any type of snowshoe hare habitat left in the Sierra region. And so if you lose this habitat, you're going to directly affect the ability for the species to exist. There's no biological evidence to suggest that there's plenty of habitat for the species in the eastern portion of the county. So there's no requirement to protect that. Okay, so so the rabbits just have to move up the hill if you see a rabbit or not, it's kind of superfluous because it really won't drive any action. But if there's

observed hares breeding in that area, then it triggers the CEQA process in the mitigation measures. So like if there's a breeding pair breeding raptors, nesting raptors, then it triggers the CEQA framework, which yes, is a different type of biological framework than the PCP. The Pqc provides, provides protection for the species and habitat loss, whereas traditional CEQA doesn't really cover habitat loss. Is that a good summary? Yeah, yeah. Okay. Well, you know, I'm just looking as as a biological thing and really not the expert on CEQA. So that appreciate. Let me see another question. Thank you. Is there's a couple drainages in the site is does the drainage actually are going to be diverted underneath the development or what is the nature as Commissioner thanks for the question on that. So no, the drainage won't be diverted. The the westerly drainage is not going to be affected at all. It's totally avoided by the, by any of the on site development. The easterly drainage is actually already culverted in a portion, just a portion. The development's actually going to improve that existing drainage. And that's in coordination with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. You're going to replace the existing culvert with a natural bottom culvert, which is going to actually reduce erosion that comes through that drainage. And so that will require some permitting from from the regional board. But it's actually an improvement to the existing condition. But it won't be diverted in any way. Okay. Thank you. One more. The

noise issue, the one that's still left. Outstanding. Yeah. Can you project how long that noise issue is going to occur? I know it's based on construction periods and all of that sort of thing, but is there a is that analyzed as to that? It's going to be six months or 18 months or what have you. Yes. Thank you Commissioner. And it is addressed. I'd have to look it up though, but it would be that short construction duration. I don't recall if it's one year or two years, but we can check. And just just to follow up, just to add, I believe the staff report reference is a 18 month, one phase, 18 month construction cycle. And 18 months is is that concurrent 18 months because it's snowing up there six months out of the year. So is that concurrent or is that cumulative? Yeah, I would I believe it's an 18 month time period. But obviously taking into account the construction cycles, the heavy equipment segment, most likely. Correct. Right. And just as a follow up, we will be responding to all your comments in writing so we can provide additional information with respect to that particular question. When we provide the final EIR to you for review, I have a George. Go ahead. Yes. So the the standard of one parking spot per bedroom is that consistent throughout that area? Is that kind of the norm? And how does that compare the county? I think I remember a recent project, it was significantly less than one per bedroom. Yes. Thank you Commissioner. That is the requirement within the Olympic Valley General Plan. There was a parking study done by Psomas that provides some, you know, anecdotal, anecdotal evidence that that supports that, particularly on these larger

units. It's not anticipated that every bedroom will arrive in its own car. So I, I mean, in terms of consistency with other county standards, I. Yeah, I think I just want to maybe point out a clarification. If you were talking about another condo hotel or commercial development as opposed to any other sort of residential or multifamily development, those parking standards are different. So for as mentioned here, for a condo hotel project or commercial project, yes, one per bedroom that isn't applicable to like a multifamily development that has different parking parking requirements. Okay. And then kind of a two parter, the current access to the Granite Chief Trail, any parking impacts there, consistent or currently. And then if that access is moved, is there going to be any follow up, any issues with parking at that new access? I don't think too many people park in the existing behind the fire station. It's just not well marked. What we see is people parking up in these, and I'm sure there's some residents of the valley here today that can help me explain that. But, you know, the Palisades Resort Specific Plan has on site and off site recreation improvements are trying to improve some trailheads with restrooms, signage and that sort of thing. So, you know, the desire is, is it won't impact parking. And the desire is to bring that connection down here that would connect up to that existing trail. Follow up trail on national forest land. I mean, it runs through I mean, yes, portions of it, portions of it are on private property. There's a there's an easement. No, I mean, the new trail will be on national

forest land. This will, this would go through portion of Palisades property. This is portion of. Yeah. So I mean, I'm saying that correctly, right. That wouldn't be on for that that segment connector majority of it's on Palisades property to where it goes up and connects with the existing trail heading west. Okay. And you say that's going to require a separate environmental document. It does. Yes. I mean, Nepa, I'm not as familiar with it as CEQA, but they have exceptions. They have various levels of analysis. And so that will need to be looked at in coordination with the Forest Service. But if the new access isn't on federal land, then, well, it's not on the existing one is on federal land, the upper portion, but not the specific access. Or is it both the new access again, maybe just offer a little bit. So the project site currently has US Forest Service easement on it for the trail 20 foot wide trail easement. The trail stays kind of within that kind of meanders out. And so the, the objective is to relocate that trail. But the, the Forest Service has to approve that. And so because it's a federal action, there has to be an accompanying environmental review process that goes along with that. Federal Action County has been coordinating closely, as has the applicant with the Forest Service, to get that approval and do that environmental review that's that's still underway. But yeah, the trail relocation would be on the property, and there's been discussions with them regarding that. And so everybody's kind of on board with that. It's just a matter of getting through those steps and really the analysis that is done for that Nepa side of things for the Forest Service, it's really already inherent in

the CEQA document. We're just going to kind of pull from it and provide it in the format of the Nepa document. And so it will require then a new easement through the palisade property, and that's been agreed to, sorry, what that's been agreed to, that's that's in process. In terms of the Forest Service, the Forest Service is indicated with the palisade owners, I believe so, yeah. Yeah. There's been meetings on site. I believe it's already agreed to. But we can we can provide specifics in terms of our responses to your comments. When we do that in the final EIR. Okay. Thank you. On the trailhead, the new trailhead, I've hiked that trail actually. So the, the new location is, is the parking that's just below it. Is that public parking or is that going to be Palisades restricted parking? Understanding that, yes. Behind the firehouse, no one knows. You just park in Palisades parking lot and you walk up to one of the little outlets. So what's the status of parking? I mean, it will be publicly available. I think for the most part, I think some of the employees park back there currently. But again, the the intention is to, you know, consolidate a lot of these spurs, designate official trailheads that have the resources, that have the signage and the facilities to accommodate this public use. Okay. I think one of the one of the public comments we received, I think, said it was going to be private. It would be Palisades Trail, Palisades owned parking. So they didn't they I think I don't think they were assuming that it was open access parking. But again, this is something we'll respond to in the final EIR as we dig into that a little bit more. That would be helpful. So more parking issues. I know. It's always been an issue parking in

those areas. And the the project site is between the Olympic Village in and the Olympic Village Lodge. It looks like that's where the access road would be. And you said it's a new 25 or 26 foot wide roadway. And the parking on site is going to be limited, and you're asking for a variance to lower it a little more. Will there be? No parking on this new roadway? How is that going to be handled? There's a lot of questions as far as access for emergency equipment and all that. So I think parking is probably a larger issue, and there has to be probably some type of shared parking with the lodge. In the end, for people of those condos, it appears because there's always more cars than people for some reason. And that always seems to work out. So I think they're just going to be a little bit more discussion on parking in that area. And it's probably going to be I mean, we may see some of that from the residents in that area as well. Thank you. I wanted to address the questions from the attorney letter, Lawrence Skidmore, about staff's discretion about where the propane tank, which district or area was going to be in because the Olympic Valley doesn't have a utility. There's no public utility, Olympic Olympic Valley that provides gas. And so it said the proposed propane tank would take place at the utility. That was a staff discretion. You know, thank you for the question. This is why I'm grateful we have a commission. You know, staff is not making interpretations like that. I've been in planning for 20 years.

This is a little unusual for me to see an accessory type of use kind of become one of the focal points of the conversation, and to have it in a different zone district on the same side, it is a little unusual. But, you know, again, we're looking at alternatives to that in terms of addressing those those concerns. You know, as far as the the lawyer's letter and such, you know, whether it be him or the public, we appreciate this is why we have this process to highlight these issues and to work through them. And maybe just to maybe just to supplement with. Mr. Dobbs just said, I mean, the zoning ordinance does give staff discretion or the planning director discretion to interpret the code and to make a determination and and certainly recommendations to the Planning Commission, where this item will ultimately be heard by. There was, you know, work done initially to determine how the project could progress and whether or not those uses could be could be placed in that zoning district adjacent to the development site. So as Mr. Dobbs mentioned, there's work being undertaken now to kind of rethink the placement of those of, of, of that accessory structure, and that will be incorporated into whatever comes back for a final recommendation to the Planning Commission. But there is the ability or discretion built into our zoning ordinance for staff to make certain determinations. Sure. And what I thought would happen probably is what you're both saying is that it would come back to us as a as a recommendation that we would make that. Okay. Certainly, that was what I expected. The other question, this is just I'm just interested. Meditation hut is it connected to a trail? Thank

you for the question. The access. Maybe I have a slide. It would be just access by a footpath that is up there by the existing water tank. This family not only owns this parcel, but a couple other properties around it. So again, there wouldn't be parking next to this hut. It would just be very light on the land. Low impact walking to that site. And it's allowed in the Forest Recreation district because obviously meditation is, I guess, recreation. I mean, this happens to be in the conservation preserve, but you know, those are okay, you know, areas that are intended for generally protection and was the construction of this platform and walls, was that permitted back in the day? No. Again, this given the size and the lack of, you know, infrastructure and such associated with it, this is a, you know, as it's a by right type use that is allowed there. And so, you know, it's timing may or not may or may not be, you know, at the same time as the condominium development. I was just curious. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. I have a couple quick follow ups on the the underground storage tank, understanding that that was being evaluated. If that's going to be the final landing place, I would just say that for the county to make sure to clarify what defines a public utilities. Like I did my own quick research and like, it seems like a stretch to me. But again, you know, I'm not, you know, the legal person here, but I just think, yes, if there are other alternatives that could be placed where it's allowed and isn't deemed a public utility itself, since it really would only service those particular units. And it's not, I would think, not covered under the California Public Utilities Code. So I think we

just want to make sure we get really clear on that. The other thing, just back to drainage, it sounds like the drainage there are actually improved improvements. And in the from an EIR perspective, the mitigation measures that are in place today, we feel that they're adequate to cover drainage issues coming from this particular project. Is that true? That's true. Okay. Okay. And and then on the. From an esthetics point of view, it the, the reduction of the height of the, the, the buildings to 35ft, assuming that's actually well within the zoning allowance for height. Is that true? I, I believe that the village commercial zoning district in this Olympic Valley General Plan is the one development zone district I'm aware of in the county that does not have an established height limit. Oh, interesting. But they voluntarily reduced the height based on community feedback. Okay. Okay, great. And then from an esthetics, I know one of the I know we don't want to get into deliberations because we need to open public comment. But one of the comment letters was related to the neighbors that are in, I'm assuming, Washoe Drive. Apache court talked about depending on where ultimately that underground storage tank lives, if it's in the village commercial. I think the question that was brought up has Viewshed analysis been done on that sort of lower portion of the village commercial site, from an impact to the people living over there? I think there were a few significant trees that they identified that would would be impacted. But

I'm just curious what was what was analyzed. So the yellow yellow dots and triangles are the viewpoints where the simulations were proposed that you can find in the in the EIR. Okay. And so yeah, I think that the commenter said that was asking about the view corridor from the neighborhood above. The development was that analyzed from a view perspective, from an EIR point of view, the that from above? I don't believe so. Dear. So as Patrick said, those are the viewpoints that we simulated from a the public viewpoints. You know, as you're well aware, the focus for CEQA is on public viewpoints and not private viewpoints. So, you know, to the extent that some folks may be concerned about impacts to their private views from from their yard, for example, not that those are not important, but they're not CEQA considerations. You know, we're required to focus on public views that are more available to to a larger number of people. And so that's why we focused on those other prominent locations kind of in the valley. And as you're aware as well, of course, the, the site is sloped and and the building is going to be located on the lower portion. So I don't, I don't believe you see the structures from, from that location anyway, but okay, we can provide some. I'm sure you guys will respond to the comments to that degree. Okay. And then I think my last question, I know one of the comments back to parking the 61 versus the 66. One of the I don't know if it's really a CEQA issue or a project review issue, but the concept of lock offs. So if there was a restriction to such and I don't fully understand how condo lock

offs work, but basically not being able to rent out individual bedrooms, then maybe the variance isn't, you know, as doesn't have severe implications from a parking. So is that a CEQA consideration or how will that be addressed or not? It is something that was raised at the Mac concern about, you know, renting out an individual bedroom and the associated parking with that. You know, I don't believe the applicant's family intends to speak to it today, but I don't think there's any intention of, you know, carving off units. And that's the sort of thing that I guess I would expect to be a condition of approval regarding the lock off. So that was an issue that I I'm sure you could make a connection to environmental. Because. But but that is not that is not part of the proposal. Okay. 19 units. They will stay full units. Okay, a quick one. Just for context, do you know what the footprint of the propane tank will be? I, when I first saw that I'm envisioning this giant underground tank, but it's five 500 gallon tanks, right? You know, I don't know. Again, thank you. That's something we can follow up on. You know, currently it's sized at 2500 gallons. I'm not sure if the size of the tank has one one single tank. I googled that this morning looking at that and said just approximately a five by 25 five foot tank by 25ft long is about the size of a 2500 gallon tank. Okay, so it's not huge. No, that's yeah, my first thought process was going to be this big giant underground menagerie. But it's not that not that large. One other question on the assuming

that you changed the location of the grant Granite Chief Trailhead is the old trailhead that's going away. Does that easement get abandoned? I believe so, and yes. Okay. Just curious. Put the tank there. All right. One quick follow up on the the the trail is the trail realignment part of this project or Palisades project. I know they're both in progress going through the process. It's part of this project. It's part of this project. Okay. And one more follow up on the tank. Is it truly completely buried or is it going to be in a dug out swale out of sight or I, you know, again, I think some of the details still need to be prepared for that. It is anticipated to be underground. There are risers and various things associated with propane tanks to reduce for safety issues and to, you know, allow air air transfer. So it it will not be prominently visible. It will be underground. Yeah. And I haven't gotten all the way through the IRR, but going back through the draft EIR back through the, the fire plan and making sure that's considerations for from a safety perspective and access and that's it. Great. Any other questions? Thank you so much, Patrick. Appreciate it. All right. I'm going to go ahead and open up public comment. So we will first start with in-person commenters. So if anyone here today would like to make comment on this topic, go ahead and come to the mic. And if you could please state your name for the record, that would be great. Good morning. My name is Julie J u l I. My last name is Anderson, S o n. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and Commissioners. I'll start by talking about. Well, I've just a little bit about me. I've been in the area, the Reno Tahoe area since 1994, and I've

used I've hiked in Shirley Canyon. I've been around Olympic Valley just to start off with the trail that since we got onto that, the, the trailhead, that's. It's by the old fire station. There is parking right there where people park. The new site that Mr. Dobbs identified. I thought it was more by Auvi, but further over, the only thing I can think of is that there's a school there. The Creekside Charter School is located there, so I don't know how that a trailhead will in parking and all that will implicate. What. What happens there? It's been 34 days since this came out and it's a it's 1150 pages, so I'll quickly go through what I was able to briefly look at. Of course, the propane tank location. Mr. Dobbs identified that it's it's in the forest recreation area, which I think is inappropriate to put it in the forest recreation space. So just keep it in the village commercial on the site project property parking, of course, Commissioner Jewell addressed that. Yes, there are always more cars than rooms and people, and it's defined in the general plan to have one bedroom, one parking spot easy. You know, it's just that just seems like a pretty easy thing to do. We've all seen the Airbnbs where a bazillion cars show up and etc. so parking is always an issue. I know that in the eir draft EIR, it says that it would be very unlikely that all units would have 3 or 4 cars at the units, but I mean, clearly it's a pretty each parent, the nanny, the kids, whatever esthetics you address this that the photos in the esthetics chapter all have like this, the West and South side photos, but nothing from the north or the east side where Washoe Drive, Christie Lane. If you can, just make sure to speak into the microphone so it's captured. No. No worries, I'm over here

dancing. Where there's not there aren't any viewpoints, simulated viewpoints from the northern or eastern side. So that would be nice to see what that has to do, what that looks like. This is called a hotel condominium project. And I think I suspect that's so it has it can they can rent short term rent, but that in Placer County says it has to have front desk and business and business and front desk staff and an on call management after hours. There's no mention of a front desk staff. Oh my God, I'm running out of time. The slope, the average slope is 24.5. That means that there's greater than 25% grade. And in the general plan it says that slopes that exceed 25% should be retained under natural condition, and that all new development should be placed on or near the valley floor. The meditation you've already addressed that. I think the whole the whole Shirley Canyon is a meditation hut. The wildfire area talks about climate and it only talks about 2023. Doesn't even talk about this year in particular. And variances. Variances are unique for unique situations, not so developers can build bigger projects. And what it is an alternative would just to be to shrink the project. And you have room for your parking and propane tank. Thank you so much for your comments. Do we have anyone else in the audience? Please come forward and state your name for the record. Yes. Good morning commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Allen Riley. I'm a longtime resident of Olympic Valley. You know, we talked about this the the large project being, you know, ten acres or so of the site, but really focusing on that 1.3 acre site. So everything should fit on that village commercial site. One of the big things, I think a big issue, they talk

about the 26 foot road and five foot sidewalk, which is all fitting on the Altaras lot 16, which my understanding is that that's being proposed to be changed to either conservation preserve or forest recreation in the village specific plan. So is that even feasible to do that? And that's the same issue with propane tank being up in the Forest Service recreation zone as well. I mean, that shouldn't be there. All that stuff should be on that village. The designated village site plan. We talk about. The environmental impacts and the impacts to the site. You know, they're asking for a conditional use permit for over 20,000ft■!S. That's it's pretty substantially over 20,000ft■!S. They're asking for, you know, variance on the parking spaces. That's fairly significant as, as we heard, you know, the we always see with short term rentals now it's always a parking issue or just general ski area days. The proposed propane tank. I mean, that, as you said, that's a pretty substantial size tank that's going to take substantial size digging and excavation for that tank. And it should be 50ft from setbacks, buildings and property lines. You're talking about 25,000 over 25,000yd■!T of removal with a 38 foot retaining wall. I mean, that's pretty substantial. When we talk about substantial effects on the site. And I believe they were talking about 66 trees coming down. We talk about habitat and whatnot. So, you know, this is a pretty substantial effect on the environment. And I hope you keep a look at all that. And thank you for letting me talk.

Thank you so much for your comments. Anyone else here today that would like to speak? Good morning, Madam Chair and Commissioners. Thank you so much. My name is Jen Rosser. I'm one of the applicants with my family. I've got my brother Mike Carvell, and my father, Phil Carvell here with me in the audience today, there are about five family members who are part of this project. We have owned this property for over 50 years or approximately 50 years. We've been working on the project for about ten years. It's been quite the endeavor for our family. We did get the feedback from the larger project. We substantially reduced the size by over 70%. So we're making a quite a large effort in terms of expense to go through the reconfiguring of the entire project. Five years of delay. And as I mentioned, significant expense. So basically, I just wanted to stand up before you and give you a face to the project. We are a family. We grew up in Olympic Valley. I don't live there now. I hope to move back to the Valley at some point in the future, but we are local to Olympic Valley and just wanted to say hello. Thank you. Thank you so much for your comments. Do we have anyone else that would like to share comments here in person? I see none, how about online? Kelsey? We have one hand raised. Color. Go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments. Hi, my name is Elisa Adriani. I'm a resident of Olympic Valley. Your former speaker, Mr. Riley, was our fire chief for many years and didn't say that. I wanted to pass that on to you. I did submit comments in writing, but just wanted to follow up with a personal

comment as well. I wanted to remind the commission that every bit of village commercial is being covered with this parcel. The driveway and access is not even on the parcel, so they are squeezing every last drop, plus some out of the size of this parcel. Mr. Dobbs made a comment that some of the parking was in the driveway and that I'm confused about, because previous presentations, I understood all the parking to be under the unit. So hopefully he can clarify that when I'm done speaking. I did want to also let the Commission know that everybody in Olympic Valley, whether it be commercial development or a single family residential development, has to contend with the fact that we don't have natural gas or any public utility distributing gas to home sites. Exceptions aren't typically made for a propane tank. It's a part of building and developing in our area. You have to design your house with the idea that a tank is going to have to be on your lot, it's going to have to be a certain distance from your residence to meet fire code. You're going to have to figure out a way to put it somewhere where it doesn't get excessively buried with driveway snow removal, but where the propane company can still access it with their trucks in the winter time. So propane is is something we all live with to go ahead and make an exception to zoning for one entity to put a tank on their site is inappropriate. If they want to change the zoning, they need to go through official zoning processes. I did want to further comment that it's frustrating as a public member, to feel that one has to retain

legal counsel to protect the zoning laws of our community or specific plan. When you speak to planning staff and you are told that, you know, we have chosen to take the stance and comments like that, it's it's quite frustrating and it feels like it's a lose situation unless you hire an attorney, because otherwise you have a bunch of planners ganging up on you and misinterpreting a plan collectively and presenting it to the commission with their recommendations, which can often outweigh the public. So I, I feel that was inappropriate that a public member had to, to get legal counsel for that. As Mr. Riley said, the driveway lot 16 getting rezoned to Conservation Reserve for forest Recreation could very much change this project. This property was for sale on and off for 30 years. It never sold because of all of the difficulties of developing it and the very small village commercial area. They're paying about 12,000 in taxes a year because of the low value of the property. It's they're very fortunate to have been granted an easement to put their driveway, not just access to the property, but this is the driveways to each individual unit on another piece of land. It's a huge windfall for this piece of property. When it went from very little developable land to now more because they have driveways on a different parcel. So hopefully you can look at all of this collectively. Again, I made comments on what I felt the ire was or d e I r was was missing in their studies like view corridors from the public roads above, because people do walk around the neighborhood a lot in the winter time. There's people walking through the

neighborhood from the village just to get out and stretch their legs. So every angle should be analyzed. Thank you very much for your time, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Thank you for your comments. We have one more hand raise caller. Go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments. Hi, my name is Sarah Davidson. I'm a resident of Olympic Valley for most of my life, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. I would like to cosign the comments of Elisa Adriani, Alan Riley and Julia Anderson, and also the comments in the Skidmore letter. I have a question regarding discretion in interpretation of statutory and regulatory language, whether it's allowed when there's seemingly no ambiguity. I'd also like to expand on Julie's comments regarding Creekside. I'm wondering how people will access the trailhead without going through the school campus. Full disclosure I'm a mom of two kids who attend school there. And I would like to ensure the safety of children even when my kids are no longer at school there. So I'd like to know more about the parking proposal. And finally, I would like to comment on something I saw in the Placer documents that said that very few people access the trailhead. On the Granite Chief side, it may be far fewer people that access the trailhead on the Granite Chief side than access the Shirley Canyon trailhead, but

it's a disproportionate number of local residents who access the trail. On the Granite Chief side, who would be impacted by the trail move. So it's significant to almost entirely local residents. And thank you for hearing my comments. I will follow up in writing as well. Thank you for your comments. Comments. Do we have anyone else? Elisa, I'm sorry you've already made your comments. We can't pull you up a second time. Okay? No others. Okay, great. I'm going to go ahead and close public comment and then ask staff if you'd like to come up and respond to any of the questions or comments that were made. So, Commissioner Beckler, I don't think that we have many that we want to or that we're planning to respond to. I did want to thank the Commission for your comments, as well as the members of the public that showed up here, and that provided a comment via Zoom. As was mentioned earlier, we do intend or we will be incorporating responses to the comments that were received as part of the final EIR. We do want to provide just a couple of points of clarification for some questions, or for some comments and questions that came up. I did want to note that the condo hotel definition in our county code, the commission may not be as familiar with that definition just because it doesn't live within the zoning ordinance, it

actually lives within chapter nine of the of the county code. There have been some recent modifications to that definition. So I did want to clarify something that was stated earlier that condo hotels are required to have 24 over seven on site management. That is no longer the case. Condo hotels are required to have 24 seven management, but it does not have to be on site and that 24 seven is during business 24 seven management includes that a staffed front desk has to be available during business hours. And so again, it doesn't have to be on site. It could be at a different location. If they're using a property management company. So again, that was a change that was made. It didn't come through the Planning Commission because again, it doesn't live within the zoning ordinance. I believe Mr. Dobbs wants to provide some clarification as it relates to parking. Some of the questions that came up. Yes. Thank you. As far as the parking for the project, again, it's a combination of spaces within the garage and within the driveways in front of those garage, the heated driveways to to Commissioner Jules question and to Elisa's comments. There is no parking allowed on the roadways regarding the circulation requirements. So again, I appreciate everyone's comments today. There are some other questions regarding parking and trailhead, and we'll be looking into all these and providing those responses in the final year. Great. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the commission? I see none. Okay, that is it for this item. Since we're not taking action, I'm going to go ahead and thank everyone for

attending today's meeting. The meeting is now adjourned. Thank you.