Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

If you could all um join me in the pledge of allegiance. Thank you. Um, I'd like to ask uh the planning commission clerk to take a roll call, please. Commissioner Johnson here. Commissioner Watts here. Commissioner Dalgrren here. Commissioner Rentine here. Commissioner Juel here. Commissioner Alves here. Commissioner Beckler

here. Thank you. We have a full house today. So, um I'd like to welcome everyone to today's planning commission hearing. The meeting is open to virtual and in-person participation and also may be observed online through the Plaster County website. If you'd like to make public comment on any item today, the planning commission clerk will announce when you are to line up to provide public testimony. For the members of the public attending via Zoom, um please raise your hand with the hand icon at the bottom of the page. If you are calling in, you can press star nine to raise your hand. Please be prepared to speak at the time I open public comment for the specific item you would like to address address, which may include public comment for matters not on the um published agenda or hearing items. Each commenter will be entitled to three minutes uh and you will only be given one opportunity to speak on each item. Thank you for your consideration as we work to ensure each citizen has equal opportunity to do so. Um, please be advised that today's hearing is being recorded and will be available on the planning commission's web page following the hearing. So, with that, I will move to our first item on the agenda and ask that our uh, county's planning director, Chris Bahuli, um, share his report. Hey, good morning. Uh, Chair Beckler, commissioners, Chris Pahuli, Plaster County Planning Director. Uh, you will, uh, shortly be getting a the planning director report, um, as well as the quarterly project uh, report list as well. Wanted to start with uh, just mentioning a couple of upcoming uh, items that are going to be considered by the board of supervisors. Uh the board will be considering on uh May 12th uh the uh planning commission's recommendation from last week to approve

the village at Palisad's Tahoe specific plan and the uh associated entitlement package with that uh item. Uh the meeting will be held at the North Tahoe Event Center in Kings Beach and will begin at uh 9:00 a.m. Uh the following week on May 19th, uh the board will be considering uh Mr. Jerry Johnson's appeal of the planning commission's March 19th approval of uh the planning director's determination on the Winchester subdivisions uh storm water uh requirements. In terms of upcoming planning commission meetings, uh your next meeting will be on May 14th. Uh we are scheduled to take up two items. Uh the first is a workshop uh on plaster 2050, our general plan update. Uh the workshop will be centered around land use opportunity areas in the unincorporated county. Uh we will have a a a component of the workshop uh centered around uh the community plans and how we will u propose to treat community plans as part of the general plan update and we'll be talking about community outreach that will be conducted over the uh course of the uh summer leading into into the fall. So um anticipating a a very uh robust discussion as part of that workshop. Uh also on the agenda is the uh Sierra family subdivision uh which includes a suite of entitlements for an eight lot subdivision in uh in Olympic Valley. Um I have provided you um uh on the planning director's report with a uh link to the recently released uh mitigated uh negative declaration uh for your use should you um uh look to uh kind of look ahead if you will um for

that uh for that meeting on May 14th before you receive uh the application or before you receive the uh staff report package. Um, we also have a meeting scheduled for May 28th. We have two items uh tenatively scheduled for that uh hearing. And then I also continue to note that on June 11th uh we uh will likely be cancelling that meeting. And so your uh next meeting after that will be in late June. I wanted to provide an update on a few housing uh matters. Uh the first is just to let you know uh that we did submit the uh housing element and the uh general plan annual progress reports to the state by the April 1st uh um requirement. Uh we have not received any comments back from the state on those uh reports or on the midyear housing or midcycle housing element review uh which was conducted by HCD and we have not yet received any comments back from them. Um I also wanted to um provide a a brief update on the affordable housing and employee accommodation ordinance. At last week's meeting, uh, Commissioner Dalgrren asked about a jurisdictional comparative analysis that was being addressed as part of the review of the ordinance and inloo fees and and where it would be um, memorialized is is part of the effort. Um, I did follow up uh with our uh housing team in the county executive's office and they advised me that the work completed included a cursory review of um of affordable housing ordinances in the region and other jurisdictions. That analysis will not be included in the nexus study. uh but it will be included in the staff report package that will

make its way to the board um as part of uh the staff's presentation to them. As I've mentioned previously, they uh that team is continuing to work with the ad hoc committee that the board has formed and um once that work of the ad hoc committee is completed, they will bring that um the uh nexus study and discussion about uh about the inluff fee and the ordinance to the board um later on this year and that will be included in that. So, I wanted to follow up with uh with the commission on that matter. I also wanted to note that we continue to um work on two housing element implementation programs, emergency shelters and the residential care homes ETA. I've continued to include that on your um on your report given the interest that the commission has in that item. Uh we do have an upcoming MAC meeting in um miday, the central MAC. And as I've mentioned before, we do uh plan to uh visit the uh airport land use commission for a recommendation before bringing that to uh the planning commission later on uh this summer for a um for a recommendation to the board. Uh just a couple of administrative updates before I wrap up. Um, I did want to uh take a moment to let the commission know that staff is u been working on a series of improvements aimed at uh simplifying and streamlining our uh development process. One such improvement uh that are that the commission will begin to notice is u uh related to how we condition our entitlement projects. So as the commission is aware many times uh when you're reviewing these uh these projects uh the conditions of approval quite lengthy a number of uh conditions uh you know sometimes in the uh order of

magnitude of 150 200 conditions of approval and as you're also aware many times those conditions include mitigation measures that are found in the uh environmental document and in its associated u mitigation monitoring ing and reporting program. So, one of the changes that you're going to begin to see in the next few months is that uh we are going to be including a standard condition of approval as part of the uh set of conditions that will require um uh compliance with the mit uh with the MMRP, the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. and those mitigation measures will not be included as conditions of approval. So, want to bring this up to the commission because it will require that we look at both the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures in the MMRP. And so, when we're making modifications, sometimes we do that here at the commission. uh you know we'll be making sure to modify the correct document either the MMRP if we're working on mitigation measures or the conditions if it's a condition of approval. So again because it will affect your um your review and how we conduct business um I did want to make sure that the commission's aware that you're going to start seeing that. um we're going to begin uh that transition uh later this summer and so you won't see it immediately but it will be something that you start seeing um in the next few months. And then lastly, I wanted to uh note that you do have a copy of your quarterly um quarterly project report. Again, these are uh the projects that will uh eventually work their way to the planning commission either for final action or for a um a recommendation to the board. I'll just note that the um package currently has uh 42 current

planning projects and 11 uh long range planning initiatives um that uh that are included in the report. So quite a bit that's in quue for eventual uh planning commission review. And of course this doesn't include items that may come to you um on appeal uh from a decision of the zoning administrator or parcel review committee. So, that concludes uh my planning director's report. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. Any questions? No. Thank you so much, Chris. Appreciate it.

Okay. The next item on the agenda uh is the planning commissioner reports. Uh do any of my fellow commissioners have any information they'd like to share? I'm seeing none. Okay, we'll move right along. Um, I will now open public comment for any matters not on the planning commission agenda today. Um, as a reminder, you have three minutes um to provide comments. Um, so is there anyone here today in person that would like to come forward? I see none. Do we have anyone online? We have a hand raise. Okay. Diane, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments. Okay, greetings commissioners. It is my understanding that West Plaster is in the crosshairs for a proposed uh AI data center. CVPRC is asking you to treat this as a land use and public of welfare issue, not a business proposal. Fact, nationwide reports show that large AI data centers have already or are being built have already proven to impose serious and lasting harms on long-term rural communities, including increased noise, nighttime light spill, traffic infrastructure strain, and the permanent loss of rural character. Those impacts are not abstract. They change how people live in their homes. how they sleep, how they use their property, and whether their neighborhood still feels livable. When heavy industrial facilities are placed next to rural residents, the burden falls on the people who already live there. Their quality of life is reduced, their privacy is diminished, and the quiet use and enjoyment of their property is

replaced by constant industrial activity. In many cases, that can also negatively affect property values because buyers are far less likely to purchase homes adjacent to these kinds of operations. This is why the county must require full review, special hearings, and strong conditions before any approval is granted because once the land is committed and the project is moving through the entitlement process, the community's ability to protect itself is much much weaker. At that point, the damage is no longer theor theoretical. It is already underway. Plaster County should not allow rural residents to absorb the long-term cost of industrial development that primarily benefits the interest of the AI companies. Please put the protection of existing communities ahead of that. I beg you. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else on Zoom?

No other hand raised.

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment and move on to our um hearing items on today's agenda. Um I will note that staff is requesting that the commission take items three and four first. Um so before I make a decision on recording reordering the items, um if I could ask Chris Bahuli um to maybe explain the request. Yeah, thank you, Chair Beckler. Um, so as the commission is is aware, typically um requests for extensions of time are placed on your con consent calendar. Uh, county code section 1758160 allows for extensions to be considered by the decision body without a public hearing uh provided that no objection is received um uh for those items. Uh the two extensions of time requests, items uh three and four on your agenda were duly noticed. Um however, they included language in the notice that the items would be subject to a public uh hearing. So they were included on your uh hearing calendar rather than on the consent calendar. Um, as there have not been any objections um, received on those extensions prior to this hearing, staff is requesting uh, that the chair take these two items first on your hearing calendar. Uh, in addition, and you'll hear from staff uh, but I also wanted to let you know that staff has prepared presentations for these items um, that we are prepared to provide. Um however in the alternative if the uh commission chooses we can forego those presentations and move directly to questions of staff and the applicant. So with that I'd like to reiterate uh staff's request to uh take those items three and four first on your hearing agenda.

Thank you so much. Does anyone have any objections to moving three and four up on the agenda? Um, do I open it up to public comment? You will still open the items to public comment. Each item, but not the reordering. Correct.

Right. Yeah. Okay. If there are no objections, then I'm going to go ahead and take items three and four first, followed by items one and two. Um, so item number three is a request for an extension of time um for the Elpen Glow subdivision. for this item. The planning commission is the decision body. Um today's presentation will be given by principal planner Stacy Widra. Um welcome Stacy. And um I guess I'll first just ask um do the commission would the commissioners like to um hear the presentation or go straight to questions. Most of us have already read it.

Yeah, I don't need to go through the whole unless any somebody wants to. Okay, do a quick summary. Happy to do so. Wonderful. Stacy, thank you.

Good morning. Uh, Stacy Widra, principal planner up in our Tahoe city office. And, um, I am here before you today presenting the Alpenlow subdivision, um, formerly known as Alpine Sierra Subdivision. Um, the vesting tenative subdivision map and conditional use permit extension of time. Um the applicant Chris Nelson um who is here today in the audience um is requesting the third and final uh two-year so 24-month extension of time for the subdivision of a 47.21 acre site into 38 single family residential lots and two homeowner associated lots um all located within the Alpine Meadows area. um uh very close to the Alpine Meadow Ski Resort that's associated with Palisades Tahoe. So, the applicant has been diligent in pursuing. So, I'll just summarize a few things um that they have been doing to vest these entitlements um including but not limited to continuing their work efforts with uh the special agencies and districts including Army Corps, La Huntan Regional Water Quality Control Board. Um, also coordination with our North Tahoe Fire Protection District and our Alpine Springs County Water District, um, specific to the Alpine Springs County Water District, um, a, uh, water and sewer impact study, um, has been prepared by the applicants, um, and has been provided to the Alpine Springs County Water District for their consideration of alternative analysis um, for water and sewer in this area. Um also improvement plans have been prepared and they are diligently applying all the requirements of the conditions of approval and of the special districts and um agencies onto those improvement plans um and working with the county through getting those through the process as well. So these efforts and I could keep talking but I'll summarize it there. Um these efforts do support staff's

recommendation and I'll just pop to that slide really quick. Um which there we go. Um, so these efforts support staff's recommendation and determine that the extension of time for the subdivision's previously approved vesting tenative subdivision map and conditional use permit is within the scope of the adopted final impact report um, state clearing house number 20142028 and the mitigated monitoring and reporting program and that no additional environmental review is triggered pursuant to SQA guidelines section 15162. to um and recommend that the planning commission approve the third and final 2-year 24-month extension of time for the previously approved vesting tenative subdivision map and conditional use permit for the Alpenlow subdivision project to allow the subdivision subdivision construction and operation of a planned residential development consisting of 38 single family homes subject to the modified conditions of approval contained in your staff report.

So, thank you so much. That concludes it, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Are there questions for Stacy? Okay. Um, thank you so much, Stacy. Um, I would like to ask the applicant, um, to go ahead and come to the podium. And if there's any comments you'd like to make, um, feel free to go ahead and if you could state your name for the record.

Hi. Uh, Chris Nelson, property owner. Um, thank you for the brief moment to comment. Um the only thing I would add is that um the the work to advance the project from the last extension that Stacy outlined high level um has been at the expense of over $600,000. So I wanted to emphasize that there's been a lot of time but also a lot of resource invested in advancing the project to the construction phase. Okay. So great. And

oh and and I'd also say that the um a timber harvest plan and permit is in process too. Um so the forester to do um the fuel reduction and all the forest health work that was required as part of the EIR and the project approvals that's moving forward and the hope is that that might start this fall. Okay, great. Um and have you read and are agreeable to all the projects modified conditions of approval? I am. Okay, great. Any questions? Thank you so much. Thank you. Appreciate it. I'm going to go ahead and open public comment for this item. Is there anyone here today that would like to make public comment in person? I see none. Do we have anyone online?

No hands raised. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. Um staff, is there anything else you'd like to say before we move forward? Okay. Um commissioners, any comments? Um if not, I would ask for a motion, please. Sure. U before I I meant to say something. I do appreciate the uh the property owner and the applicant bringing us up to date on some of the activities that have been going ongoing. Anyway, so that was a very important piece. On that basis, I'd like to make the motion if it's timely. Okay, great.

So, I'd like to move the commission recommend the following actions that have been read into the record. A first. Okay, we have first first George. George, I was like, where did it come from? I'll save you for twisting. Thank you. I was like, I know it's back there. Um, first and second. Roll call vote, please. What? Oh, it was John. Oh, correction. The second was Johnson. See, I was like, it was somebody back there. I thought it was Al.

We all got it wrong. All right. Apologies. Here we all go. Watts. Yes. Johnson, yes. Dogrren, yes. Runine, yes. Jewel, yes. Alves, yes. Beckler, yes. I'd also like to make a motion that the planning commission take the um approval of the staff recommendations under B. Second. The first and second. Roll call vote, please. Watts, yes. Johnson, yes. Dolgrren, yes. Run, yes. Jewel, yes. Elves, yes. Beckler, yes.

Okay, great. Um, that closes that item. We will now move on to the next item, um, which is a request for extension of time for the Medina for solar energy and battery storage project in Sheridan. Um, for this item, the planning commission is the decision body and today's staff presentation will be given by assistant planner Rebecca Lizardy. And welcome. I I hear you're new to Pler County. So, um um and with before uh just again, same thing. If you guys want to hear the full presentation, staff can do that. Otherwise, I'll have her give the summary like we did last time. Okay. Welcome.

Thank you so much, Chair Beckler. Good morning, all commissioners. I am Rebecca Lazardi, assistant planner, presenting the Medina 4 solar energy and battery storage conditional use permit extension of time. The applicant Z Global Incorporated on behalf of property owners Troy and Carrie Scott are requesting a two-year extension of time for the previously approved conditional use permit which authorized construction of a solar energy generation and battery storage facility located at 5095 Commercial Place in Sheridan. The applicant has been diligent in pursuing the project, including obtaining design review approval and preparing improvement plans for submission, but has faced materials procurement and financing delays. Staff recommends approval of the first two-year extension of time for the previously approved CUP allowing for the construction and operation of a 5 megawatt solar energy generation and battery storage facility in Sheridan which would allow the entitlement to remain valid until exercise of a building permit or until March 23rd, 2028, whichever comes first. And with that, I will read my formal action into the record. Staff recommends the planning commission take the following actions. One, determine that the extension of time for the project's previously approved conditional use permit is within the scope of the adopted mitigated negative declaration, state clearing house number 2023 010447 and mitigation monitoring and reporting program. and that no additional environmental review is triggered pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act guidelines sections 15162 through 15164. Two, approve the first 2-year 24-month extension of time for the previously approved conditional use permit that allows for the construction and

operation of an up to 5 megawatt energy generation and battery storage facility that includes a solar photovoltaic generation system and battery energy storage system on approximately 1.9 acres of land located at 5095 Commercial Place in Sheridan subject to the modified conditions of approval. Thank you. With that, I conclude my presentation. I'm available to answer any questions and we also have a representative from an applicant to answer any questions as well on Zoom. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Rebecca. Are there any questions for staff? Okay. Um, if I can have the applicant um uh speak um via Zoom if they would like to make any comments. Sarah, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments. I don't know if it's working. Are you able to hear me slightly? Try and fix that. And what about now?

Is that better? It's a little better. Yes. Go ahead maybe and try to speak, Sarah, and then we'll let you know.

It sounds good. Thank you. Um, good morning commissioners. My name is Sarah Khaki and I'm part of the applicant team for the Medina 4 project. Um, I I don't have any um additional information to provide, but I did want to highlight um a few things about this project um that have kind of pushed our timeline um down this this whole process. Um we have done various plans and um submitted landscape plans um all um in in preparation for construction for this project. Um the only little hiccup that we hit was the design review um portion of this project. And so um we were told that this project needed additional time to be um you know reviewed and and approved. And so that's why we decided to move forward for the cop extension. Um but with this approval we are good to move forward for construction and we are anticipating um to have this project um with no issues um but this is our only um item that we are requesting but otherwise we are in good shape um otherwise. And then I also wanted to mention that we do have two other representatives from Z Global um in the crowd to answer any additional questions if you cannot hear me clearly. But thank you so much for your time.

Okay. Thank you, Sarah. Are there any questions for the applicant by the commission? Um, and Sarah, if I could just ask, um, um, have you read and are you agreeable to the project's modified conditions of approval? Um, the initial ones, yes. I don't think we have received the revised conditions of approval for this project. Um, I think staff would just note that the only changes to the conditions are related to the expiration date. Okay, Sarah, with that, since the only changes are related to the expiration date, are you agreeable to those? Yes, agreeable.

Okay, great. Thank you so much. Um, with that, I'm going to go ahead and open public comment for this item. Is there anyone in person that would like to make public comment on this item? I see none. Is there anyone via Zoom? No hands raised. I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. Um staff, any additional comments? Not at this time. Thank you. Okay. Commission, any comments, questions, or thoughts? Okay. I request a motion, please. Okay. Uh make a motion of planning commission accept item one as read into the record.

We have a first. Take a second. Johnson second. Roll call, please. Alves, yes. Johnson, yes. Watts, yes. Dogrren, yes. Runine, yes. Juel, yes. Beckler, yes. And a motion to approve item two as read into the record. First by Al, second by Johnson. Roll call, please. Alves, yes. Johnson, yes. Watts, yes. Dogrren, yes. Brentine, yes. Juel, yes. Beckler,

yes. All right, that concludes this item. Now, we're going to move back to number um item number one on our agenda, which is the residences at Granite Bay Golf Club phase 2 subdivision. The planning commission is the decision body for this item, and the staff presentation will be provided by associate planner Jared Peters. Welcome, Jared.

Thank you, Chair Beckler. Good morning, commissioners. Jared Peters with the planning services division to present the residences at Granite Bay Golf Club phase 2 project. So the site is located north of the Granite of the Granite Bay Golf Club at the northwest corner of the East Roseville Parkway and Barton Road intersection in the Granite Bay area. The proposed project is on a site formally designated to host a caretaker's quarters for that same golf club. A section of Linda Creek and a conservation easement over it run southerntherly through the west end of the site. The site is designated as a density receptor and previously received three additional units under the Granite Bay Community Plans density transfer program. The conservation easement is shown on screen in purple. The site also hosts ephemeral and intermittent drainages which run along the southern boundary into Linda Creek. The site propo the project proposes to completely avoid Linda Creek and the conservation easement. The subject parcel was created as parcel A in the Granite Bay golf club subdivision in 1995 where it was identified to serve as the caretaker's quarters. The original residenc's phase 2 project was approved in 2007 to modify the golf club CUP, designate the site as a density receptor, and approve a four lot plan unit subdivision. An M&D was approved or was adopted with the project to analyze and mitigate the potential impacts. Improvement plans were submitted, but the original entitlement expired for plans could be issued in the final map recorded. On screen is a comparison showing the project site in May of 2007 and February of 2026. The site remains in a in a natural state similar to when the project was initially approved.

The applicant is currently seeking reapproval of the expired entitlement package to permit the four lot plan unit development on parcel A. The conditional use permit and the tenative parcel map expired in 2023. The change in designation and modifications to the Granite Bay golf uh golf club use permit did not expire and do not require reapproval. The proposed conditional use permit and tenative map would enable the subdivision of the parcel into four single family residential parcels between 0.35 and 0.47 acres along with 2.04 acres designated as open space and 0.34 acres for an on-site roadway improvements. staff presented the project to the Granite Bay Municipal Advisory Council on January 8th, 2026 and solicited feedback from its members and the public. The MAC uh asked whether a new cobble wall would be installed, whether a caretaker home was currently on site, why a gate was being proposed, and whether new pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure would be installed, and how many trees would be removed, and if they're removed, how they would be mitigated. The project would install new cobble walls similar to those existing along the frontage currently. The caretaker home is not currently on site and has not been for the lifetime of the project. And the project includes construction of a 6' wide multi-use path along the Barton Road frontage, which would extend and connect to the existing planned uh to the existing and planned trail corridor along Barton Road. Class 2 bicycle lanes are uh currently provided on both sides of East Ro Parkway and west side of Barton Road. The gate and tree impacts will be discussed later in the presentation. On screen is the conservation easement overlaid the proposed tenative map. The northwestern parcel would share a lot line with the uh conservation easement

but there would be no disturbance within the easement area. The resultant parcel would be analogous to those within the existing Granite Bay Golf Club subdivision to the west and those outside the subdivision to the east and would annex into the existing residenc's HOA. The community plan allows density from certain residential zoned parcels along uh located within the 300 foot setback along the south side of Douglas Boulevard to be transferred to a certain density receptor parcels. In exchange, density transfer parcels those south of Douglas are required to be encumbered with an open space easement and or a deed restriction to ensure the property is preserved as permanent open space. The sub the subject parcel is designated as a density receptor parcel um in the Granite Bay community plan and has been part of the and as a part of the original 2007 approval. Density was transferred off of the 2.3 acre parcel uh south of Douglas and onto the subject site where it is today. The original project was approved as a gated subdivision. The current prop the current project was also initially proposed as a gated subdivision. Gated subdivisions in the Granite Bay area are regulated by the community plan. The community plan states that gated subdivisions shall be limited to specific situations to help preserve the rural character of Granite Bay and promote interconnectivity between neighborhoods. Staff reviewed the gate proposal and determined that the proposed subdivision did not fall into any of the identified circumstances where a gate can be approved. Staff discussed this determination with the applicant and the applicant has agreed to remove the gate from the proposal as set out in the conditions of approval. The proposed planned development would include four residential lots ranging from 0.35 to 0.47 acres and two common

lots uh including uh 2.04 acres of open space and 0.34 acres of on-site roads. As demonstrated in the calculations provided by the applicant and verified by staff, the maximum number of dwelling units permitted within the PD is 9.08 units based on the allowable density of 1.1 units per acre and the 3.18 acres of net buildable area. As shown on screen, the maximum number of units permitted under the base zone district is 6.05. The proposal includes four units uh which is below the maximum 6.05 5 units permitted by the base zoning. The development must maintain a minimum of 0.8 acres of open space to achieve the 20% of site area required by the PD ordinance. The proposal includes 2.04 acres of open space. The PD ordinance enables planned residential developments to establish standards different from those of the base zone district through its conditional use permit. The project is proposing the following setbacks. front 20 ft, side 10 ft, street side 15 ft, rear open space 10 ft, and rear Barton Road 30 ft. The proposed setbacks are generally consistent with those established in the neighboring parcels to the west, dubbed the estates, which apply similar front, side, and rear setbacks. A portion of Linda Creek and ephemeral drainage and an intermittent drainage are all located on site. The stream on site is a portion of Linda Creek and would be entirely avoided uh and contained within the open space parcel. The project would result in minor impacts to the ephemeral and intermittent drainages by development of the proposed access from East Roseville Parkway. The project would pay mitigation fees for land conversion and tree removal on the site and special habitat fees for impact to the drainages and grading within the 200 foot 200t

stream setback uh from ordinary high watermark of Linda Creek. The project would include 0.017 acres of impact to an ephemeral drainage and 0.028 028 acres of impact to an intermittent drainage both along the south side of the project to construct the encroachment and access the site. In total, the project would impact 0.045 acres of wetland habitat. The project will participate in the Plaster County Conservation Program and and contribute fees to land conversion and impact uh to the stream system. The mitigation fees identified in the addendum have been uh revised and updated to ensure consistency with the applicable PCCP requirements. Staff prepared an addendum to the approved mitigated negative declaration to analyze the potential impacts from the project. New or modified mitigation measures were included in the following sections. Bi biological resources, cultural resources, hydraology, and tribal cultural resources. as relication or as the relication of the residences at Granite Bay Golf Club phase 2 project proposes to carry out the project in substantially the same manner as originally approved and the environmental conditions on site have not substantially changed. Staff has determined that the sub that that a subsequent mitigated negative declaration is not required to be prepared and that an addendum to the mitigated negative declaration is the appropriate level of subsequent environmental review. staff received no public uh comment on this item prior to this hearing. And with that, uh staff recommends that the planning commission take the following actions. One, adopt an addendum to the previously adopted mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the uh mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared for the project pursuant to section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines and section 181690,

the Placer County Environmental Review Ordinance. Two, approve a conditional use permit to allow for the development of a planned residential development on the Granite Bay Golf Club partial A consisting of 3.95 acres subject to the conditions of approval. Approve a planned residential development on the Granite Bay Golf Club partial A consistent with Pler County Code section 1754090B. And four, approve a tenative parcel map for the subdivision of a 3.95 acre site into four lots ranging from 0.35 acres to 0.47 acres for residential development and two common lots for open space and on-site roads subject again to the conditions of approval. I'm available for any questions you may have and the applicant is here as well.

Thank you so much Jared. Are there any questions from the commission? Yeah,

go ahead Rich. mine is basically just my confusion. I'm sorry, but basically uh the PCCP factors into this proposal in terms of uh fees and that kind of stuff. Now, how does that interaction happen with PCCP? I don't see it in the use permits. So, this would be separate. uh the PCCP. So, uh the project would be required to file an application for or a PCCP application. Um they've already submitted an entitlement review form. That's what gave staff the information required to set the mitigation measures um and update them required as required. Um the there are requirements to pay mitigation fees and to do certain um special species uh surveys. Those are all in the uh new mitigation measures established in the addendum and included in the conditions. So it is in there but there would be a subsequent review process done concurrent with improvement plans to finally um close that uh book end.

Okay, that would be with PCCP directly. Uh yes that the PCA would would work with us um in in reviewing that but it is something that that uh planning staff does issue uh prior to ground disturbance. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? I see none. Okay. Um, if I could have the applicant or representative um, please come forward. And if you'd like to make any comments.

Sure. Um, Madam Chair, members of the commission, Marcus Luca, 1508 Eureka Road. Uh, on behalf of the property owner and the applicant, I'm pleased to be before you with the recommendation for approval for the phase two of the residences at Granite Bay Project. Um as described in the staff report um the project was previously approved in 2007 but the tenative map and the conditional use permit for the plan residential permit uh later expired. So basically what you have before you is reapproval of a previously approved project uh by the commission. Um also as noted in the staff report the lot sizes here are similar to the lot sizes in the existing residences uh project. Um the site uh as noted in Jared's presentation and the staff report over half the site will be left in open space. I would note there is not a conservation easement on the property. There is an IOD for conservation easement as we discussed uh last month with the project uh to the south. Um the applicant is not seeking a gate for the subdivision at this time. So we are in agreement with the conditions of approval that are set forth in attachment D of the staff report. Um, we would ask today for your approval of the project as presented. Um, and our project team is here to answer any questions that you might have or that members of the public might have. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Questions? Um, given it isn't a conservation easement, I'm assuming the HOA would manage the open space. Um, and the conditions so state Yeah. Okay, great. Thank you so much. And then um real quick, Marcus, um have you read and are you agreeable to the recommended conditions of approval? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and open public comment for this item. Anyone here in person that would like to comment? I see none. Do we have anyone online? No hands raised.

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. Um staff, unless there's anything you'd like to share, I'll go ahead and bring it back to the commission for any comments um and deliberations on this item. My only comment is I appreciate um you guys uh didn't include the gate on this one. Makes it makes it a little bit easier. Um but um yeah, I don't have any else. Anyone? And since it's in my district, if you guys are okay, I would like to u make a motion to um go ahead and um uh move forward uh based on the staff recommendation number one as read into the record.

I'll second. We have a first and second. Roll call, please. Beckler, yes. Dolgrren, yes. Johnson, yes. Watts, yes. Run, yes. Juel, yes. Alves, yes. All right. Um, I would uh go ahead and move that the um we move forward with staff recommendation number two is read into the record. A second. We have a first and second. Roll call, please. Beckler, yes. Dogrren, yes. Johnson, yes. Watts, yes. Runine, yes. Juel, yes. Alice, yes. All right. Um, I would go ahead and move that we um uh move forward a staff recommendation number three as read into the record. Second. We have a first and second roll call, please. Beckler, yes. Dolgren,

yes. Johnson, yes. Watts, yes. Runine, yes. Juel, yes. Alves, yes. All right. And finally, the I would move that we move forward with staff recommendation number four as read into the record. Second. First and second. Roll call, please. Beckler, yes. Dogrren, yes. Johnson, yes. Watts, yes. Run, yes. Jewel, yes. Alves. Yes.

All right. Um I'm going to go ahead and close this item since there were no comments. Um I won't share the appeal information. So the next item on the agenda is a public hearing to receive the 2025 annual report on the county's development agreements. Um for this item, the planning commission is the decision body. Today's staff presentation will be given by Deputy County Executive Michelle Kingsbury. Excuse me. Excuse me one moment. I'm going to need to recuse myself. I represent a property owner within Placer Vineyards and I've accused in the past so to maintain the consist consistency and leave early. So, okay, that's your ulterior motive, huh, Jeff? Thank you.

Thank you. And we'll give him a moment to That's fine. Could it bring up the presentation? There we go. Great. Thank you. Yeah, I was gonna say and I see Michelle behind you. I know. We did a We did a switcheroo on you. Yes, I know.

Good. Good morning. Um, so my name is Sue Compton. I'm uh the uh with the county executive office special uh plan admin specific plan administration team with Michelle Kingsbury here, our deputy CEO and Abdul Alcasey who is also on our team as a management analyst. So I will be presenting today. So, thank you for um allowing me to do so. On an annual basis, we come forward before the planning commission to provide an annual development agreement compliance report. And this is going to be for a reporting period calendar year 2025. We send out notices to the property owners um that are located within these areas that are subject to development agreements and we ask them to provide a self-compliance letter on whether or not they've met the terms of the development agreement. But in in addition, we're regularly monitoring these development agreements. That's one of the focuses of our team. And we work closely with other um agencies within SEDRA, including planning and public works um and engineering in order to ensure that the the terms of our development agreements are being met closely. Um this year, all but one are in compliance um which we will go through detail on. And included with the packet, you received a copy of the self-compliance letters. Just a little bit on our team um the specific plan administration team with the CEO's office. We are a little bit unique. Um we focus on the financial side of implementing these largecale developments that are subject to development agreements. Um primarily our specific plans and particularly in our West Plaster County area. Um, we were included in the negotiations of these development agreements and which Michelle Kingsbury as you probably know has been involved in all of these except maybe I think Homewood and CMX might be the the two that we're talking about today that she hasn't. Um, we set up and we track all the fees related to our development agreements which is close to 400 uh different fee codes. We set up community facility districts uh that manage and manage the reporting for

those um and budgeting for those revenue streams and financial tools that help us provide urban levels of service to our communities. Um we closely work with the treasurer's office as well related to these CFDs um specifically for those that are um related to infrastructure financing. We have a total of 65 active development agreements with the majority of those centered with our plaster vineyards specific plan development group um that has about 22 different ownerships and over time um development agreements are amended as you know and refined as these projects are built out and implemented. Uh we'd like to take some time today to go through um a brief update on each of these different projects. um five of which are on our West Plaster County specific plans and then we have Homewood in Tahoe and our CMX mining project and we'll open up the item for discussion at the end and our action items. So our first uh specific plan project that is subject to development agreements is our Placer One specific plan um located west of Highway 65 in West Plaster County in the Sunset area. The plan was approved in 2019 and is moving full forward uh steam ahead. Uh the we did find that the development agreement um terms are in compliance for calendar year 2025. So just a highlight of the full project here which you can see on the screen is uh a little over 2200 acres. It is currently under construction. It is entitled for a total of 5,636 units on and 5.4 4 million square ft of non-residential. Um phases 1 A, B, and 1 C are under construction. And recently we had a tenative map approval for um for phase 2 A east. Um there's various builders which I'll show in the next screen. And this says about 224 building permits have been issued to date for

phases 1 A through 1C. And we're actually at about 239 as of today. Um and this does not include the university parcel that's in the center too. So, we'll look at that one briefly as well. This map is a great illustration of the builders um and locations that are currently involved um in the active development that I just mentioned for Placer 1. Um from an infrastructure perspective, there's a few items that we'd like to note. the county the county invested $28 million in backbone sewer infrastructure in both the sunset area area with the plaster karma center project and with the plaster ranch specific plan. Um work is being buttoned up right now on those projects. Um as you know the plaster parkway bid award was just approved at the April 7th uh board hearing for the first phase connecting the Whitney Ranch interchange with Foothills Boulevard. The project also is going to be assisting with the PCWA to bring a 42-in equivalent water line over the railroad track to provide water resources to these growing areas out here. Um we also have connections of four lanes of Sunset Boulevard from Foothills to Fitment which is complete although you will see intermittent closing of these areas as this development continues to progress. Um there's this spring we expect a lot of infrastructure activity um that will probably center around the foothills boulevard with the phase 1C backbone infrastructure under construction and the plaster commerce center project off-site improvements will be under construction and the plaster parkway phase 1A project which will be starting soon as well. um with the phase 1A um that is uh 769 residential units. JMC Homes is the builder for this project. About 75% of the building permits have been issued. Um and most of the occupancies for Placa

Run right now are in this phase. Um this spring we hope to see as you can see actually right by the Lar there there's a 4acre park that's um we're hoping to see under construction which will bring playable ball fields to the community early in the development process. About 177 permits as of today have been issued for this project. Phase 1B and 1 C um is a is a combination of oop sorry fast forward a little too fast. um is a combination of PY and KB homes. Um KB Homes has about 44 permits that have been issued and PY about 18. Um as mentioned earlier, phase 1C backbone infrastructure is underway with work along Foothills Boulevard beginning this spring. Um and uh this is a combination of LDR, MDR, and HDR units. phase 2A east east which currently has a tenative map approved. Um we expect um PR34 which is the red one down in the bottom uh corner there. We expect that one to move forward first with the remaining villages subsequently and that is about 61 um MDR lots in that village. Um the welcome center is under design review. It has a design review application as well. This is on 2.67 acres and is about just under 4,000 square ft. The Alchemy Surf Park um is currently under review, a fourth submitt, and uh specifically staff is working with the applicant through comments. Um this is a 32 acre project, 121,000 square feet with a surf lagoon, beach, surf center, lodging options, and an outdoor recreation area.

and then the university campus or the South Sack Placer campus. Specifically, I wanted to highlight the forensic laboratory, which is a really exciting opportunity that we have in collaboration with the CSU and the county. Um, the board of supervisors allocated 2.5 million to move forward this historic project in partnership with the CSU system. The selection of a designer is currently underway. The lab is going to provide forensic students hands-on experience through a university's criminal justice program while also being a key part of the solution to our criminal justic forensic forensic needs. The lab will be designed to serve counties around the region similar to the model used for the county's corner uh facility. The lab's anticipated to be approximately 30,000 square feet spread across one to two floors and include dedicated university space for academic, administrative, and other associated functions. The lab itself will have 24 stations, about 120 seats in the classrooms and 8 to 10 laboratories. Placer Vineyard specific plan, another um West Plaster County specific plan um located in the Dry Creek Community Plan area, is also under construction. Um we found Plaster Vineyard specific plan development agreements to be in compliance for calendar year 2025. We did not receive self-certifications from three of the properties 10, 15, and 21, but we do deem them in in compliance. There has been no development activity on those properties. uh Placer Vineyard. Oh, excuse me. And just as a as a whole, which I didn't mention, um the entire Placer Vineyard specific plan project is over 5,230 acres and has a residential capacity of 14,350 units. 1A is our project that is currently under development um with LAR

communities as an active adult community. 819 permits actually have been issued to date, which is about 75% of its buildout. Um about 89% of those have received their certificate of occupancy. Um we also have um excitingly on this project under development right now a Plaster Creek affordable housing project, 168 unit affordable housing project being developed by St. Anton Partners. Um site construction is currently underway and they're getting ready to pull their building permits. Um we had come to the commission and to the board um with a development agreement amendment to help with the triggers required for building out the affordable housing on the site. Um with that amendment which came through in uh the end of 2025, completion will be required for the affordable housing um requirement for this project by February 2028 or for the overall 1A project at 95% buildout, which is about 1,61 units of their single family residential, whichever occurs first. Um we're expecting this project um aiming, I believe, for completion around spring of 2027. Plaster Vineyard property 1B um improvement plans are currently with staff review. This is on 56 acres um 258 residential units um the majority of which are um mult um MDR medium density residential um and they also have 16 highdensity residential affordable housing lots as well. Property 2 um is 138 acres, 444 units uh 40 of which are highdensity residential and there's a split between low and medium density density residential on this project. This is being developed by Woodside Homes. Subdivision roadways are

being completed and home constructed um construction is expected in the coming months. Um building permits for model homes are currently in final processing for this project. We have, I believe, our phase 2 small lot final map for this project going to the board of supervisors on May 19th. Um, we'll likely see the continuation of our Plaster Vineyard specific plan from east to west as infrastructure continues with each uh development's buildout. Um this slide notes the other activity um that we're seeing currently with some of the other properties along Placer Vineyard's um specific plan and those stars are indicative of where those particular properties are located. Um in addition, there's been other small lot tenative maps that have been approved for um properties such as 4B 7 and some others, but we have not seen any movement on these properties for quite some time. Uh, property 9 and 11, as you can see here, um, has a large lot and small lot tenative map um, submitt. I believe they're on their second uh, submitt for comments with that application. Vickford Ranch specific plan, another one of our West Plaster County specific plans. This one is on 1,927.9 acres located in southwest county between Lincoln, Newcastle, Penin with Roseville, Rockland, and Lumis to the south. It's about four miles north of Interstate 80 and south of 193. We did find Bickford Ranch specific plan development agreements to be in compliance during the reporting period. Bickford Ranch um is expected to be built out in three phases over about 15 to 20 years. It has 1,890

units mostly um low density residential. About 950 of those are age restricted. There's about 1,130 acres of 58% open space parks and recreation with this specific planned community. There's a 27 acre community park and 11 mile trail multi-purpose trail system um that is uh aiming to complete construction here. There's a fire station that's going to be built on site as well. In terms of the current activity, phase one is currently under construction. Um there's been 196 building permits issued to date. U phase one includes 149 units. Um the current builders that we have uh for this project are Toll Brothers Trioint and Shea Trilogy uh for the active adult component. And staff is currently working on relocating the equestrian staging area. So, if you look at the kind of green area to the far west of the site, the very top there, there's currently an equestrian staging area planned to be located next to the fire station, and we're looking at moving that um closer to the community park site on the other side and getting that opened up um in the near term. This gives you an idea of that um current buildout with phase one with Toll Brothers Trioint and Shea Holmes Trilogy. Um Shea is 196 lots. Toll has five different villages, two of which are just coming online and Tri point has 65 lots. the regional university specific plan. Our this is now our fifth specific plan in West Plaster County. Um this one is um also located in Southwest County. It's 1,159 acres located south of Pleasant Grove

Creek between Brewer Road and the western boundary of the city of Roseville. We also found regional university specific plan development agreements to be in compliance for the 2025 review period. regional university was approved in 20058 and amended in 2019. Um, currently staff's coordinating with the city of Roseville and the developer on backbone infrastructure. Um, this is 1,159 acres as I mentioned earlier. It includes 4,387 units. It's expected to have 6,000 students on about a 600 this 600 acre university property with uh multiple mixed uses. Currently, no building permits have been issued um as we're still working on um backbone planning. The regional university specific plan um does have a small lot vesting tenative subdivision map that was approved in 2022. Um there's 973 lots which you can see how that breaks down here on the screen. Um as well as their commercial parks and other types of infrastructure that's going to be included um in that particular phase. And then finally, our Riolo Vineyard specific plan. Um, that would be our fifth for our West Plaster County area. Um, this one is located on the east side of the Placer Vineyard specific plan, also in Southwest Plaster County. It's 525 acres. Um, the specific plan was approved in 2009. Uh we found the Riola vineyard specific plan development agreements to be in compliance for the calendar year 2025 reporting period. Uh currently we don't have a lot of housing activity build out on this site. There's four um four subdivisions that have or three subdivisions, excuse me, that have already been completed.

Mariposa, Mason Trails, and Glen Willow subdivisions um which is a total of 454 units. um that those are the permits that you see that have been issued to date. The entire project is 933 units. There's 398 units located in the southwest uh corner of the project in what's called the Frisvald and Silver Sage subdivisions. And the property owners uh for those projects are currently working right now on right-of-way acquisition along our Watt Avenue area. And then up in our Tahoe area, our Homewood master plan community also has a um is subject to a development agreement. Um Homewood master plan was approved in 2011 with the redevelopment of the existing Homewood Mountain Resort on 12,200 acres. This is located 5 miles south of Taho City on West Shore. We did find the Homewood uh development agreement to be deemed in compliance during the 2025 reporting period. Um this project was approved as mentioned in 2011. It's over 1,200 acres. Um currently there have been seven building permits that have been issued. Uh lot 3 is has been complete with that and the gondola is expected to be in construction in 2026. Um in 2025 the TRPA approved an amendment that relocated the gondola. um reductions in the number of uh residential units, building density. It enhanced wildfire safety improvements and villages and mountain upgrades. And that was approved by the planning director through determination of substantial conformance. Um and that's where our current homewood project stands. And then finally, um our last project that is subject to a development agreement is our CMEX mining project which was approved in 2007. It is

located on 691 acres in the town of Sheridan um on the north side of the town. Um it includes sand and gravel mining operations and reclamation activities with a conditional use permit that does expire in December of 20 oh sorry I have 2024 here but I believe it's 2042 2045. There we go. Um the current owner is Bare River Land Holdings LLC and the operator is Capital Ready Mix. Um, the DA requires a payment of a tonnage fee to Plaster County on a quarterly basis. A portion of these uh fees were previously in a rears, but staff has worked very closely with the owner to bring these up to current. So, we're happy to say that that has been progressing very well. Um, additionally, the DA requires dedication of certain areas for access or com uh conservation, which has not been fully satisfied. Staff have been communicating with the various entities over the years. Um we have various notices that were have gone out in 2024 and a meeting um in 2025 to review the various items that are deemed out of compliance. Um the ownership group did submit irrevocable offers of dedication to the county for an open space conservation easement and an access easement in September. Um they've communicated assurance that they're in the process of gathering the necessary legal documents and exhibits needed to make these dedications. um staff is confident we're continuing to work with the property owners to address these outstanding compliance concerns. So, we would not deem them in compliance during this reporting period, but we're working actively to to get them there. And our actions uh requested of you today, staff recommends the planning commission take the following actions. conduct a public hearing to receive a report on the annual review of development agreements to ensure compliance with the terms and provisions

of the agreements pursuant to the California government code section 65864 65869.5 and section 15.2.12 and 17.58.250 2550 of the Plaster County Code and take the following action. Determine that developer entities for the Big Bford Ranch specific plan, Pler Vineyard specific plan, Riolo Vineyard specific plan, regional university specific plan, Placer Ranch specific plan, and Howood Master Plan have made a good faith effort to comply with the terms and conditions of their respective development agreements during the 2025 annual review period. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you, Sue. Appreciate it.

You're welcome. questions for Excuse me, Commissioner Beckler. We just want to make sure that we read into the record um action number two as well. Okay. Oh, thank you. Determine the proposed action is not a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines section 15378B5. Thank you. Um I just had a quick two quick questions for um Placer Vineyards and Placer One respectively. What's the like time horizon for full build out? Um well for plaster vineyard you're probably looking at 30 40 years. Okay. Yeah. And and the other one was Placer One.

Yeah. Um what would you say 20 to 30 years? Okay. Oh, so sooner than Placer Vineyards. Plaster Vineyard is much larger. 14 Okay. 000 units and there's a lot of infrastructure that would be required for like the buildout to really happen on the far west side of that project. Gotcha. And across those two, if you know the numbers, great. If not, like populationwise, what does that equate to just estimated population growth across those two? Across 20,000 I know 20,000. You could probably I was trying to quickly do the math, but um

Hi, good morning Michelle Kingsbury. So for the Placer Ranch or Placer one specific plan, it was uh over 13,000 was the estimated population of that area. That does not include anything related to the university. For Placer Vineyards, it's abruptly about 35 38,000 was the ultimate population that we were expecting out there. Certainly depending on uses and reszones that may come in the future, that es and flows a bit, but substantial. They're there many cities, I would call them. Yeah, I was going to say they seem like many cities. And then the services like to keep up with it is through either paid for through the fees that they're paying or the county. So like sheriff, public works, like all of that kind of stuff. Um

that's correct. And as Sue mentioned, uh the big focus of our group or team, the three of us, is the financial side of it, which means the collection of fees, um to support capital, facilities, services, and those everything agreed to in the development agreement. But it's also to set up the revenue streams to support the services. Uh we work closely with parks, roads, sheriff, you name it. Every year how many how many officers can we fund? Um we just went through an exercise on that working with CEO's office and sheriff to work with parks as well. I I Abdul just uh reconciled all the figures. We are probably this year cumulative collected about I would say we're up $9 million of additional revenues above t property tax and sales tax revenues in these specific plan areas and over the next several more years cumulative it grows quite a bit with all these units coming online we're well over 20 million in the next couple years that's not annual that's cumulative right

um but our little mini team does enforce and and and fight for the the level it's always a push and pull because you know it's the same funding source that developers compete with us to fund infrastructure as well. And it's what what's that right balance between the two. Um but we are in there and we we certainly support our teams and our groups and and fight for high level of service that's commensurate with the adjacent cities. Okay, great. And then another just quick clarifying question a ma the difference between a master plan and the specific plan. Is the master plan more conceptual? I think one was called the master plan and the other I was just curious is it a Tahoe thing versus western county that to our planning director

I wouldn't say so I mean a specific plan has a specific definition in planning and zoning law so there is a difference there um but um you know we have treated them somewhat interchangeably at times I'd say one that we don't have any development agreements on but is a master plan is also the plaster county government center as well. It largely is treated like a specific plan. It has, as you're very well aware, you know, use and development standards, zoning, um, and so forth. So, um, you know, again, specific plans, very specific definition in planning and zoning law. Uh, master plans, uh, it doesn't have a a definition in in planning and zoning law. Uh, but we have, uh, treated them very similarly. um at least some of the ones in in Plaster County.

Okay, thanks. Yeah, I was just I should also note the Homewood master plan um not adopted by the county. It's a TRPA document. However, we have a conditional use permit uh that was referenced in the uh conditional use permit uh does reference the um the master plan. Okay, great. Thank you. I would just like to add as I I wanted to thank Abdul and Sue um as I'm winding down my final couple of years at the county. You're in very good hands. They are much smarter than I am and and as you can see taking that home and and doing a great job and I just wanted to say that publicly. I say it all the time to them in private. Um but very uh proud of all the work and accomplishments that they've done. Thank you so much for that. Appreciate it.

Okay. Anything else? Yes. Go ahead, Robin. And then Mark, I have a quick question. um the Plaster One Welcome Center. What is the purpose of the welcome center? Is it a community center? What is it? Yeah, if you want to. It's kind of like a marketing um I would I would call it like a marketing center um where they can kind of display the overall themes um of the area as well as I think they want to have some public art attributes to it which enhance kind of what their vision is for the parks and stuff like that. um for those that have been around a while like uh Stanford Ranch I believe Whitney Ranch both had kind of similar in Rockland uh welcome centers but it's more that kind of attribute and feature. What will its long-term use be after they can be commercial? Oh, okay. Stuff like that. Yeah. Just depends.

And then the other question um what is the what are the lodging options for the Alchemy Surf Park? I would I don't know. Um it's enforced cement. I think staff is still reviewing it and ultimately we come back to the the governing bodies. Alex might know a little bit more than I do. Hotel about 100 units proposed for a lodging hotel. There's as well as bungalows as well as an RV

RV component as well. I I will note that project as well as maybe some of the others that Sue had mentioned during her presentation are included in the project report that you have. Uh so those are projects with active um applications that will uh be coming to the planning commission at some point in the in the case of ala that alchemy surf park relative near future um for planning commission consideration. It's just interesting that we'll have two surf parks in West Roseville because there's Wake Park now. It's off of base. Little bit different in terms of this is a surfing uh surfing park. My understanding is the other the other um

water park. Yeah. It's a wake boarding Yeah. Wakeboarding park. And then the other thing is, and I've seen this repeatedly that we call the regional university different things. We call it SAK State Pler campus. We call it CSUS Sacramento Plaster Center. I don't understand why it keeps getting called different. There's three things it's called. Well, so the regional university specific plan is actually separate different.

Um yeah. And so then we have on the Placer one specific plan, the CSU University. And so that sometimes get says the university site and then it it is confusing because then you have the regional university specific plan where there's a a private it's more of a um a private university rather than the CSU system that's going to be at the Placer one specific plan location. Yeah. I think just to supplement what Sue Sue mentioned the regional university is as she mentioned a private uh private university. It's Hillsdale. The the ownership is Hillsdale College out of Michigan, I believe. Um. Yes. So, yeah.

Question and then we'll come back to you. Right. Quick question. The forensics lab. Mhm. So, and that's part of the CSU campus proposal. And it looks like it sounded like what I heard the description in the material I read that it's um maybe kind of bit a bit of a teaching forensics lab but also hard correct usage by neighboring cities, counties, etc. Yes. Correct. Exactly. That's so we have anou so that we can use utilize it for that purpose.

Okay. And if I recall my recent history about forensics labs, and I won't go into why, CSU originally had been looking in the 50 corridor along 59th Street to in in conjunction with some of the apartment complexes they were developing and have developed out there. And that went away. And that was going to be more of a coordinated lab between the state and regional government entities. This doesn't seem to imply state DOJ collaboration at all and which is the question is it is it a new way to bring the state DOJ into the equation or are they separate historical? It's a lot of again Michelle the planned CSU plaster center forensics labs um basically county lab um that we would be doing our own forensic work under um so I don't know I don't believe it's planned with DOJ but we can get more information if you like we're not part of the team

so when you say county work but it would you allow neighboring counties to bring that's the goal is to is to service other counties from a revenue stream but also just a service level thank you that's really what I was trying to hear and understand apprei Appreciate it. Hey, Rich. Okay. Uh maybe three things. Let me see on the university proposal. This would be the one that's a private school, the regional regional university. Yeah. There at one time we heard a uh something from SMUD where they're going to actually coordinated with that proposal to put in some uh uh solar panels. Has that happened? Is it that part of the proposal or

um well it's it's currently not in the project process project's currently under construction. A portion of the country acres project is located um in the country or in the uh region regional university area. Has that happened or is that it's under construction? Under construction. Okay. Answers that question. Yeah. I just didn't see that in the map. So I was just wondering what the status that was. We see also noticed a letter in here. I can't find it now, but a letter from the United Area Indian Group and I think it was with regards to Plaster Ranch. Correct. They have some So what's their what's their involvement there?

They have some properties on the norththeast side of the Placer Ranch specific plan. Um and so they are also subject to a development agreement because those properties do fall within the specific plan area. Okay. So, we don't have anything planned, but they as of right now, we don't have any applications. They're involved. Okay. And then finally, uh I think for about the last three or four years, we've heard about the Bear River gravel operation. Mhm. And I think what I was hearing is it sounds like maybe next year we won't have to hear about that.

Well, that would be the hope. We staff is working diligently with the owners to rectify the the pieces that they're still putting together for those. Um Okay. So hopefully they're being diligent this time. Yeah. Okay. Well, appreciate it. That's my question. Yeah. Other questions? Okay. Thank you so much, Sue. Appreciate it. You're welcome. All right. I'm going to go ahead and open up public comment for this item. Um, I don't see anyone in person, but is anyone here in person that would like to speak on this item? I see none. I'll take Zoom um, comments. We have a hand raise. Okay,

Diane, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments. Diane, are you able to unmute your mic? Dian Luis Allesie, um, director of I am unmuted. Hello. Hello, Dian. Can you hear me? We can hear you now. Oh, okay. Because my mic was unmuted. I don't understand. Okay. So, hopefully we can reset my time. Are we Are we good?

Yeah. I haven't started it yet. So, you're good.

Okay. back to the beginning. All right. Uh so greetings again, commissioners. Dian Louise Allessie, founder of and director of CBPRC in district 5, six decades in Plaster County. As a consistent voice and watchdog for our communities at large, I urge you to look beyond the labels of compliance and good faith and examine the actual public record. Over time, for literally decades, the public has observed the abusive minations for how our low and extremely low housing obligations get stretched out to the latest phase phases amended, restructured, or flat out get offset through fees, timing changes, land substitutions, and other mechanisms that are, I would say, by design extremely difficult or impossible for ordinary ary residents to track given lengths of time and project spans. That is an enormous part of the problem. The public should not have to bird dog and have to audit a shifting maze of development agreements amendments to understand whether plaster county is actually producing the lowincome and very lowincome housing that is promised. When obligations are repeatedly modified, deferred, or converted into substitutes, it is virtually impossible for the public to tell whether the original commitment was fulfilled or they will simply be moved out to out of reach, which as been the case for more than of more often than not, and no doubt the developers game plan from the inception. We are not asking you to ignore the law. We are requiring that you apply it with transparency and accountability. We are owed. Ignoring it. Ignoring this is in itself a serious governance problem.

Plaster County should not treat paper compliance as a substitute for real housing outcomes. Hold developers feet to their original commitments. The public deserves clear answers, clear records, and measurable results of a delivery of genuinely affordable homes. not a not decadesl long pattern of side steps and leave the hardest to house residents waiting in shelters or in tents again and again and again. Thank you for your time. All right, thank you Diane. Anyone else via Zoom? No others.

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment and bring it back to the commission um staff. Is there anything else you'd like to comment on? Maybe just briefly just in response to the public comment that we just received. I I do think that um you know staff is is very well aware that the about the conversation about affordable housing and the need to um ensure that the uh development um agreements and our development partners are complying with their affordable housing requirements. Um the Michelle and Sue and the team um have put together a report that very clearly articulates in the report the affordable housing requirements and compliance with the affordable housing requirements to try to uh make sure that we're being as transparent as possible um and clear as possible about these particular projects and their compliance with their affordable housing requirements as part of their development agreements. So just wanted to make sure to make that point.

Thank you Chris. Anything else? Okay. Um, commissioners, um, any comments, thoughts? These kind of presentations are just super helpful to me personally to get that 500 foot view and then drill down a little because we sometimes end up so in the details and the weeds of specific, you know, small subdivision lot maps. And this really helps to frame what's going on uh, countywide. It certainly helps me a lot. So, I appreciate it and all the time and effort you guys put in. Thank you. I don't have a great sense of question to to throw out there. What I get what I see when I look at that that kind of presentation which is super helpful is I see the proximity to Sacramento County on the south on the west Sutter Yuba and how is the coordination of the provision of uh buildable housing and and commercial properties coordinated with the other counties? Is there an ongoing coordination or does it just by happen stance somebody's got a parcel that straddles both counties and it's probably not gerine to what you were presenting today but it is striking to look at that map

probably Chris and I I mean we work quite a bit with SECOG with all the the regional counties and stuff but every jurisdiction has its own individual jurisdictional land use authority um it doesn't mean though that we're not cognizant about what goes um across the line. Um, and we also notice each other. We sometimes via infrastructure and infrastructure comments back and forth and how we how we coordinate the systems um that go on and about. Um, but again, from a land use perspective, we're all kind of we have our individual authority, but we are aware of what each other does. Um, and but we really do get into the regional coordination when it comes to infrastructure. Um, you know, like baseline road goes all the way out to the 99 through Sutter County. We have lots of coordination, lots of coordination with city of Roseville, lots of coordination with PCWA and I know North Kam as it relates to water in particular. And that's really where that regional coordination I think comes to a head is how do we deliver the services and the utilities um to serve all these areas that we planned for.

So I understand how SEIKOG works. I mean they do the SCS's so the the transportation um quality of life issues. I'll just put it that way. They also assign each county you have this many units of this type county by county. Um and then beyond that it's up to each county to rightfully local control the the zoning within their areas. But then they do recognize that there's extensions and and and I guess what I'm repeating back is there is coordination when it comes to the border borders but up to that point it's all

internal coordination actually goes along

yeah I think you're generally correct I mean as was mentioned though there is coordination that that does happen and there's um you know SEIKOG does provide some framework for for some of those coordinations to occur um but you are generally correct that um ultimately it comes down to local land use um authority and um you know we do provide documents for review that in anytime there's an environmental document it's provided to neighboring jurisdictions so we generally have a sense of what the other jurisdictions have uh that they're working on and there is coordination particularly as Michelle mentioned on the utility infrastructure provision uh but you know outside of those um coordinations generally is uh each jurisdiction uh operating under their local land use authority.

I think it really struck home when I heard the commentary about Watt Avenue because I always think of Watt Avenue when I lived in East Sacramento. Watt Avenue was over there and never go near it. And now it's almost to, you know, Oregon it feels like. So it was it was, you know, wasn't surprising. It was just um um reinforcing that we've got to have um we we have to have good uh inter interreional collaboration. So, thank you very much. I don't want to put you through anymore.

Great comments. Anything else? I also appreciate the macro view of the of of what's going on. It's extremely helpful. So, with that, I would ask the commission for a motion. There's nothing else. Okay, I'll make the motion that we uh guess this is our decision. So, I make the motion that we approve uh item one is right into the agenda. Okay, I'll second that. We have a first and second roll call vote. Johnson, yes. Watts, yes. Dogrren, yes. Juel, yes. Alves, yes. Beckler, yes. Okay, I make a motion that item two is ready in the agenda is approved.

I'll second that as well. We have a first and second. Roll call, please. Johnson, yes. Watts, yes. Dolgrren, yes. Juel, yes. Alves, yes. Beckler, yes. Um, I will state that 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 10 days of today's date and shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $752. That concludes our business of the day. Um so thanks everyone for attending and participating. The meeting is now adjourned.