Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

If you could all join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. I'd like to ask the Planning Commission Clerk to take a roll call, please.

Commissioner Johnson?

Here.

Commissioner Watts?

Here.

Commissioner Dahlgren?

Here.

Commissioner Runtine? Here. Commissioner Jewell? Here. Commissioner Alves? Here. Commissioner Beckler?

Here. Thank you. We have a full house today. So 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 Placer 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, 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 published agenda or hearing items. Each commenter will be entitled to three minutes 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. Please be advised that today's hearing is being recorded and will be available on the Planning Commission's webpage following the hearing. So with that, I will move to our first item on the agenda and ask that our County's Planning Director, Chris Pahuli, share his report.

Hey, good morning. Chair Beckler, Commissioners, Chris Pahuli, Placer County Planning Director. You will shortly be getting the Planning Director report as well as the quarterly project report list as well. Wanted to start with just mentioning a couple of upcoming items that are going to be considered by the Board of Supervisors. The Board will be considering on May 12th the Planning Commission's recommendation from last week to approve the Village at Palisades Tahoe specific plan and the associated entitlement package with that item. The meeting will be held at the North Tahoe Event Center in Kings Beach and will begin at 9 a.m. The following week, on May 19th, the board will be considering Mr. Jerry Johnson's appeal of the Planning Commission's March 19th approval of the planning director's determination on the Winchester subdivision's stormwater requirements. In terms of upcoming Planning Commission meetings, your next meeting will be on May 14th. We are scheduled to take up two items. The first is a workshop on Placer 2050, our general plan update. The workshop will be centered around land use opportunity areas in the unincorporated county. We will have a component of the workshop centered around THE COMMUNITY PLANS AND HOW WE WILL 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 COURSE OF THE summer leading into into the fall. So anticipating a very robust discussion as part of that workshop. Also on the agenda is the Sierra family subdivision, which includes a suite of entitlements for an eight lot subdivision in in Olympic Valley. I have provided you on the planning director's report with a link to the recently released mitigated negative declaration for your use should you look to kind of look ahead, if you will, for that meeting on May 14th before you receive the application, or before you receive the staff report package. We also have a meeting scheduled for May 28. We have two items tentatively scheduled for that hearing. And then I also continue to note that on June 11, we will likely be canceling that meeting. And so your next meeting after that will be in late June. I wanted to provide an update on a few housing matters. The first is just to let you know that we did submit the housing element and the general plan annual progress reports to the state by the April 1st requirement. We have not received any comments back from the state on those reports or on the mid-year housing or mid-cycle housing element review, which was conducted by HCD, and we have not yet received any comments back from them. I also wanted to provide a brief update on the affordable housing and employee accommodation ordinance at last week's meeting. Commissioner Dahlgren asked about a jurisdictional comparative analysis that was being addressed as part of the review of the ordinance and in lieu fees and where it would be memorialized is part of the effort. I did follow up with our housing team in the county executive's office and they advised me that the work completed included a cursory review of of affordable housing ordinances in the region and other jurisdictions. That analysis will not be included in the NEXUS study, but it will be included in the staff report package that will make its way to the board as part of the staff's presentation to them. As I've mentioned previously, 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, uh, they will bring that, um, the, uh, nexus study and discussion about, uh, about the in loo 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 report, given the interest that the commission has in that item. We do have an upcoming MAC meeting in mid-May, the central MAC. And as I've mentioned before, we do plan to visit the airport land use commission for a recommendation before bringing that to the planning commission later on this summer for a recommendation to the board. Just a couple of administrative updates before I wrap up. I did want to take a moment to let the Commission know that staff has been working on a series of improvements aimed at simplifying and streamlining our development process. One such improvement that the Commission will begin to notice is related to how we condition our entitlement projects. So as the Commission is aware, Many times when you're viewing these projects, the conditions of approval, quite lengthy, a number of conditions, sometimes in the 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 environmental document and in its associated mitigation monitoring and reporting program. So one of the changes that you're gonna begin to see in the next few months is that we are going to be including a standard condition of approval as part of the set of conditions that will require compliance with the MMRP, the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. And those mitigation measures will not be included as conditions of approval. 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. 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 review and how we conduct business, I did want to make sure that the commission's aware that you're going to start seeing that. We're going to begin that transition later this summer. And so you won't see it immediately, but it will be something that you start seeing in the next few months. And then lastly, I wanted to note that you do have a copy of your quarterly project report. Again, these are the projects that will eventually work their way to the Planning Commission either for final action or for a recommendation to the board. I'll just note that the package currently has 42 current planning projects and 11 long-range planning initiatives That that are included in the report so quite a bit that's in queue for eventual Planning Commission review and of course this doesn't include items that may come to you on appeal From a decision of the zoning administrator or parcel review committee. So that concludes my planning directors report I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have any questions No.

Thank you so much, Chris. I appreciate it. Okay. Thank you. Okay. The next item on the agenda is the Planning Commissioner Reports. Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any information they'd like to share? I'm seeing none. Okay. We'll move right along. I will now open public comment for any matters not on the Planning Commission agenda today. As a reminder, you have three minutes to provide comments. 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 raised. Okay. Diane, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments.

Okay. Greetings, commissioners. It's my understanding that West Placer is in the crosshairs for a proposed AI data center. CVPRC is asking you to treat this as a land use and public welfare issue, not a business proposal. In 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 theoretical. It is already underway. Placer 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 its 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 hearing items on today's agenda. I will note that staff is requesting that the Commission take items three and four first. So before I make a decision on recording, reordering the items, if I could ask Chris Pahuli to maybe explain the request.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Beckler. So as the Commission is aware, typically requests for extensions of time are placed on your consent calendar. County Code Section 1758-160 allows for extensions to be considered by the decision body without a public hearing, provided that no objection is received for those items. The two extensions of time requests, items three and four on your agenda were duly noticed. However, they included language in the notice that the items would be subject to a public hearing. So they were included on your hearing calendar rather than on the consent calendar. As there have not been any objections received on those extensions prior to this hearing, staff is requesting that the chair take these two items first on your hearing calendar. In addition, and you'll hear from staff, but I also wanted to let you know that staff has prepared presentations for these items that we are prepared to provide. However, in the alternative, if the 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 staff's request to 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? 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. So item number three is a request for an extension of time for the Elpenglow subdivision. For this item, the Planning Commission is the decision body. Today's presentation will be given by Principal Planner Stacey Wydra. Welcome, Stacey. And I guess I'll first just ask, Would the commissioners like to 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 somebody wants to.

Okay.

Do a quick summary. Wonderful. Stacy, thank you. Good morning. Stacey wider principal planner up in our Tahoe City office, and I am here before you today presenting the Alpenglow subdivision formerly known as Alpine Sierra subdivision the vesting tentative subdivision map and conditional use permit extension of time and The applicant, Chris Nelson, who is here today in the audience, is requesting the third and final 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, all located within the Alpine Meadows area. very close to the Alpine Meadows Ski Resort that's associated with Palisades Tahoe. So the applicant has been diligent in pursuing so I'll just summarize a few things that they have been doing to vest these entitlements including but not limited to continuing their work efforts with The special agencies and districts including Army Corps, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, also coordination with our North Tahoe Fire Protection District and our Alpine Springs County Water District. Specific to the Alpine Springs County Water District, Water and sewer impact study has been prepared by the applicants and has been provided to the Alpine Springs County Water District for their consideration of alternative analysis for water and sewer in this area. 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 agencies onto those improvement plans 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. These efforts do support staff's recommendation. And I'll just pop to that slide really quick, which There we go. So these efforts support staff's recommendation and determine that the extension of time for the subdivision's previously approved vesting tentative subdivision map and conditional use permit is within the scope of the adopted final impact report, state clearinghouse number 2014042028 and the mitigated monitoring and reporting program and that no additional environmental review is triggered. PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162, AND RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE THE THIRD AND FINAL TWO-YEAR, 24-MONTH EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ALPENGLOVE SUBDIVISION PROJECT TO ALLOW THE 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. »» Thank you so much. »» That concludes it, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

»» Are there questions for Stacy? Okay. Thank you so much, Stacy. I would like to ask the applicant to go ahead and come to the podium. And if there's any comments you'd like to make, feel free to go ahead. And if you could state your name for the record.

Hi, Chris Nelson, property owner. Thank you for the brief moment to comment. The only thing I would add is that the work to advance the project from the last extension that Stacy outlined, high level, 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.

OK, great.

And I'd also say that a timber harvest plan and permit is in process, too. So the forester, to do 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.

OK, great. And have you read and are agreeable to all the project's modified conditions of approval?

I am.

OK, 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. Staff, is there anything else you'd like to say before we move forward? Okay. Commissioners, any comments? If not, I would ask for a motion please.

Chair, before I meant to say something, I do appreciate the property owner and the applicant bringing us up to date on some of the activities that have been ongoing anyway. So that was a very important piece. On that basis, I'd like to make the motion if it's timely. So I'd like to move the Commission recommend the following actions that have been read into the record, A, first. Okay, we have a first.

First, George. George, I was like, where did it come from? I'll save you for twisting your neck. Say thank you, I was like, I know it's back there. First and second, roll call vote, please. What? Oh, it was John, oh, correction, the second was Johnson. I was like, it was somebody back there.

I thought it was Alves.

We all got it wrong.

All right, apologies. Here we all go. Watts? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Dahlgren? Yes. Brunteen? Yes. Jewell? Yes. Alves? Yes. Beckler?

Yes.

I'd also like to make a motion that the County Commission take the approval of the staff recommendations under B.

Second. The first and second roll call vote, please.

Watts? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Dahlgren? Yes. Brunton? Yes. Jewell? Yes. Alves? Yes. Bechler?

Yes. Okay, great. That closes that item. We will now move on to the next item, which is a request for extension of time for the Medina for solar energy and battery storage project in Sheridan. 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 hear you're new to Placer County, so. And with before, 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 Becler. Good morning, all Commissioners. I am Rebecca Lazzardi, Assistant Planner, presenting the Medina 4 Solar Energy and Battery Storage Conditional Use Permit Extension of Time. The applicant Z Global Inc., 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 five 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 23, 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 Clearinghouse 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 two-year, 24-month extension of time for the previously approved conditional use permit that allows for the construction and operation of an up to five 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. If I can have the applicant speak via Zoom, if they would like to make any comments.

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

Are you able to hear me?

Slightly.

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.

Sara Cackey, sounds good Thank you good morning Commissioners, my name is Sarah Kathy and i'm part of the applicant team for the medina for project I don't have any. Sara Cackey, Additional information to provide, but I did want to highlight a few things about this project that have kind of pushed our timeline down this this whole process. We have done various plans and submitted landscape plans all in preparation for construction for this project. The only little hiccup that we hit was the design review portion of this project. And so we were told that this project needed an additional time to be reviewed and approved. And so that's why we decided to move forward for the COP extension. But with this approval, we are good to move forward for construction and we are anticipating to have this project with no issues. This is our only item that we are requesting. But otherwise, we are in good shape. Otherwise, and then I also wanted to mention that we do have two other representatives from Z Global 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.

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. 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. Staff, any additional comments?

Not at this time. Thank you.

OK. Commission, any comments, questions, or thoughts? OK. I request a motion, please.

Take a motion of Planning Commission to accept item 1 as read into the record.

OK. We have a first. Alex?

I'll make a second.

Johnson, second. Roll call please.

Alves? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Watts? Yes. Dahlgren? Yes. Runtine? Yes. Jewell? Yes.

Bechler?

Yes.

And a motion to approve item two as read under the record.

First by Alves. Second. Second by Johnson. Roll call please.

Alves? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Watts? Yes. Dahlgren? Yes. Runtine? Yes. Jewell?

Yes.

Bechler?

Yes. All right. That concludes this item. Now we're going to move back to number item number one on our agenda, which is the residences at Granite Bay golf club phase two 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 two project. So the site is located north 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 formerly designated to host a caretaker's quarters for that same golf club. A section of Linda Creek and a conservation easement over it runs southerly 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 Plan's 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 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 residence's phase two project was approved in 2007 to modify the golf club's CUP, designate the site as a density receptor, and approve a four-lot plan unit subdivision. An MND 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 natural state similar to when the project was initially approved. The applicant is currently seeking re-approval of the expired entitlement package to permit the four lot plan unit development on parcel A. The conditional use permit and the tentative parcel map expired in 2023. The change in designation and modifications to the Granite Bay Golf Club use permit did not expire and do not require re-approval. The proposed conditional use permit and tentative 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 onsite 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 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 moved, how they would be mitigated. The project would install new cobble walls similar to those existing along the frontage currently. caretaker home is not currently on site and has not been for the lifetime of the project and the project includes construction of a six foot wide multi-use path along the barton road frontage which would extend and connect to the existing planned to the existing and planned trail corridor along barton road class 2 bicycle lanes are currently provided on both sides of east rochelle 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 tentative map. The Northwestern parcel would share a lot line with the 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 residences HOA. The community plan allows density from certain residential zoned parcels located within the 300-foot setback along the south side of Douglas Boulevard to be transferred to certain density receptor parcels. In exchange, density transfer parcels 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 subject parcel is designated as a density receptor parcel in the Granite Bay Community Plan and as a part of the original 2007 approval. Density was transferred off of the 2.3 acre parcel south of Douglas and onto the subject site where it is today. The original project was approved as a gated subdivision. 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 plan development would include four residential lots ranging from 0.35 to 0.47 acres and two common lots including 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, which is below the maximum 6.05 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 feet, side 10 feet, street side 15 feet, rear open space 10 feet, and rear Barton Road 30 feet. The proposed setbacks are generally consistent with those established in the neighboring parcels to the west, dubbed the estates, which applies similar front, side, and rear setbacks. A portion of Linda Creek, an 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 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 it within the 200-foot stream setback from ordinary high watermark of Linda Creek. The project would include 0.017 acres of impact to an ephemeral drainage and 0.028 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 Placer County Conservation Program and contribute fees to land conversion and impact to the treatment system. The mitigation fees identified in the addendum have been 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, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology, and tribal cultural resources. As the reapplication 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 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 comments on this item prior to this hearing. And with that, 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 mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared for the project pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and Section 181690 of the Placer County Environmental Review Ordinance. 2. Approve a conditional use permit to allow for the development of a planned residential development on the Granite Bay Golf Club Parcel A, consisting of 3.95 acres, subject to the conditions of approval. 3. Approve a planned residential development on the Granite Bay Golf Club Parcel A, consistent with Placer County Code Section 1754090B. And four, approve a tentative 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 onsite 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.

Yeah, mine is. basically just my confusion, I'm sorry. But basically, the PCCP factors into this proposal in terms of fees and that kind of stuff. Now, how does that interaction happen with the PCCP? I don't see it in the use permit, so this would be separate.

The PCCP so the project would be required to file an application for a PCCP application They've already submitted an entitlement review form. That's what gave staff the information required to set the mitigation measures And update them required as required The there are requirements to pay mitigation fees and to do certain test special species surveys. Those are all in the 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 close that bookend.

Male Speaker 1 Okay, and that would be with PCCP directly?

Male Speaker 2 Yes, the PCA would work with us in reviewing that, but it is something that planning staff does issue. prior to ground disturbance.

Okay. Thank you.

Other questions? I see none. Okay. If I could have the applicant or representative please come forward. And if you'd like to make any comments.

Sure. Madam Chair, members of the Commission, Marcus LaDuca, 1508 Eureka Road. 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. As described in the staff report, the project was previously approved in 2007, but the tentative map and the conditional use permit for the planned residential permit later expired. So basically what you have before you is reapproval of a previously approved project by the Commission. Also as noted in the staff report, the lot sizes here are similar to the lot sizes in the existing residences. Project on the site 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 a conservation easement as we discussed last month with the project to the south 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 to the staff report We would ask today for your approval of the project as presented, and our project team is here to answer any questions that you might have or the members of the public might have. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Questions? Given it isn't a conservation easement, I'm assuming the HOA would manage the open space on an ongoing basis.

Yeah, and the conditions so state, yeah.

Okay, great. Thank you so much. And then real quick, Marcus. Have you read and are you agreeable to the recommended conditions of approval?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. Okay, I'm going to 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.

OK, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. Staff, unless there is anything you'd like to share, I'll go ahead and bring it back to the commission for any comments and deliberations on this item. My only comment is I appreciate you guys didn't include the gate on this one. It makes it a little bit easier. But yeah, I don't have anything else. Anyone? And since it's in my district, if you guys are okay, I would like to make a motion to go ahead and move forward 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. Dahlgren? Yes.

Johnson? Yes. Watts? Yes. Runtine? Yes. Jewell? Yes. Alves? Yes.

All right. I would go ahead and move that we move forward with staff recommendation number two as read into the record. I'll second. We have a first and second. Roll call, please.

Beckler.

Yes.

Dahlgren. Yes. Johnson. Yes. Watts. Yes. Runtine. Yes. Jewell. Yes. Alice. Yes.

All right. I would go ahead and move that we move forward with staff recommendation number three as read into the record. Second. We have a first and second. Roll call, please.

Beckler?

Yes.

Dahlgren? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Watts? Yes. Brunton? Yes. Jewell? Yes. Alves? Yes.

All right. And finally, I would move that we move forward with staff recommendation number four as read into the record. Second. We have first and second. Roll call, please.

Beckler?

Yes.

Dahlgren?

Yes.

Johnson?

Yes.

Watts? Yes. Brunton? Yes. Jewell? Yes. Alves? Yes.

Alright, I'm going to go ahead and close this item since there were no comments. 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. 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 one moment. I'm going to need to recuse myself. I represent a property owner within Flosser Vineyards, and I've recused in the past, so to maintain consistency and leave early.

Okay. That's your ulterior motive, huh, Jeff?

Thank you.

Thank you. And we'll give him a moment to step down.

Could IT bring up the presentation? There we go. Great. Thank you.

I was going to say, and I see Michelle behind you.

I know, we did a switcheroo on you. You did. Good morning. So my name is Sue Compton. I'm with the County Executive Office Special Plan, Specific Plan Administration Team with Michelle Kingsbury here, our Deputy CEO, and Abdul Alkacy, who is also on our team as a Management Analyst. So I will be presenting today, so thank you for 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 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 addition, we're regularly monitoring these development agreements. That's one of the focuses of our team. And we work closely with other agencies within CDRA, including planning and public works and engineering, in order to ensure that the terms of our development agreements are being met closely. This year, all but one are in compliance, 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, the specific plan administration team with the CEO's office. We are a little bit unique. We focus on the financial side of implementing these large-scale developments that are subject to development agreements, primarily our specific plans, and particularly in our West Placer County area. We're included in the negotiations of these development agreements, which Michelle Kingsbury, as you probably know, has been involved in all of these, except maybe I think Homewood and CMEX might be the the two that we're talking about today that she hasn't. We set up and we track all the fees related to our development agreements, which is close to 400 different fee codes. We set up community facility districts and manage the reporting for those and budgeting for those revenue streams and financial tools that help us provide urban levels of service to our communities. We closely work with the Treasurer's Office as well, related to these CFDs, specifically for those that are related to infrastructure financing. We have a total of 65 active development agreements, with the majority of those centered with our Placer Vineyards specific plan development group that has about 22 different ownerships. And over time, development agreements are amended, as you know, and refined as these projects are built out and implemented. We'd like to take some time today to go through a brief update on each of these different projects, five of which are on our West Placer County specific plans. And then we have Homewood in Tahoe and our CMEX mining project. And we'll open up the item for discussion at the end and our action items. So our first specific plan project that is subject to development agreements is our Placer 1 specific plan. located west of Highway 65 in West Placid County in the Sunset area. The plan was approved in 2019 and is moving full forward, steam ahead. We did find that the development agreement 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 a little over 2200 acres. It is currently under construction. It is entitled for a total of 5,636 units and 5.4 million square feet of non-residential. Phases 1A, B and 1C are under construction. And recently we had a tentative map approval for Phase 2A East. 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 1A through 1C, and we're actually at about 239 as of today. 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 and locations that are currently involved in the active development that I just mentioned for Placer 1. From an infrastructure perspective, there's a few items that we'd like to note. The county invested $28 million in backbone sewer infrastructure in both the Sunset area with the Placer Commerce Center project and with the Placer Ranch specific plan. Work is being buttoned up right now on those projects. As you know, the Placer Parkway bid award was just approved at the April 7th 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-inch equivalent water line over the railroad track to provide water resources to these growing areas out here. We also have connections of four lanes of Sunset Boulevard from Foothills to Fittiment, which is complete, although you will see intermittent closing of these areas as this development continues to progress. And there's this spring, we expect a lot of infrastructure activity that will probably center around the Foothills Boulevard with the phase one C backbone infrastructure under construction. And the Placer Commerce Center project offsite improvements will be under construction and the Placer Parkway phase one a project which will be starting soon as well. With the Phase 1A, that is 769 residential units. JMC Homes is the builder for this project. About 75% of the building permits have been issued, and most of the occupancies for Placid Run right now are in this phase. This spring we hope to see, as you can see actually right by the little star there, there's a four-acre park that 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 1C is a combination of, oops, sorry, fast forward a little too fast, is a combination of Pulte and KB Homes. KB Homes has about 44 permits that have been issued and Pulte about 18. As mentioned earlier, Phase 1c Backbone Infrastructure is underway with work along Foothills Boulevard beginning this spring. And this is a combination of LDR, MDR and HDR units. Phase 2a East, which currently has a tentative map approved, we expect PR 34, which is the red one down in the bottom corner there, we expect that one to move forward first with the remaining villages subsequently. And that is about 61 MDR lots in that village. 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 feet. The alchemy surf park is currently under review a fourth submittal and specifically staff is working with the applicant through comments. 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 SAC 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. 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 justice forensic needs. The lab will be designed to serve counties around the region, similar to the model used for the county's corner 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 West Placer County specific plan, located in the Dry Creek Community Plan area, is also under construction. We found Placer 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 compliance. There has been no development activity on those properties. Placer Vineyard, excuse me, and just as a whole, which I didn't mention, 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 with Lennar Communities as an active adult community. 819 permits actually have been issued to date, which is about 75% of its build out. About 89% of those have received their certificate of occupancy. We also have, excitingly on this project under development right now, a Placer Creek affordable housing project, 168 unit affordable housing project, Being developed by St anton partners site construction is currently underway and they're getting ready to pull their building permits. We had come to the Commission and to the board with the development agreement amendment to help with the triggers required for building out the affordable housing on the site with that amendment which came through in the end of 2025. Completion will be required for the affordable housing requirement for this project by February 2028 or for the overall 1A project at 95% build-out, which is about 1,061 units of their single-family residential, whichever occurs first. We're expecting this project, Amy and I believe, for completion around spring of 2027. Placer Vineyard Property 1B improvement plans are currently with staff review. This is on 56 acres, 258 residential units, the majority of which are MDR, medium density residential. And they also have 16 high density residential affordable housing lots as well. Property two is 138 acres, 444 units, 40 of which are high density residential. And there's a split between low and medium density residential on this project. This is being developed by Woodside Homes. Subdivision roadways are being completed and home construction is expected in the coming months. Building permits for model homes are currently in final processing for this project. We have, I believe, our phase two small lot final map for this project going to the Board of Supervisors on May 19. We'll likely see the continuation of our Placer Vineyard specific plan from east to west as infrastructure continues with each development's build out. This slide notes the other activity that we're seeing currently with some of the other properties along Placer Vineyard's specific plan and those stars are indicative of where those particular properties are located. In addition, there's been other small lot tentative maps that have been approved for properties such as 4B, 7, and some others, but we have not seen any movement on these properties for quite some time. Property 9 and 11, as you can see here, has a large lot and small lot tentative map submittal. I believe they're on their second submittal for comments with that application. Bickford Ranch specific plan, another one of our West Placer County specific plans. This one is on 1,927.9 acres located in Southwest County between Lincoln, New Castle, Penryn with Roseville, Rockland, and Loomis 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 is expected to be built out in three phases over about 15 to 20 years. It has 1890 units, mostly low-density residential. About 950 of those are age-restricted. There's about 1,130 acres of 58% open space parks and recreation with a specific planned community. There's a 27-acre community park and 11-mile multipurpose trail system that is 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 1 is currently under construction. There's been 196 building permits issued to date. Phase 1 includes 1,049 units. The current builders that we have for this project are Toll Brothers, TriPoint, and Shea Trilogy 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 closer to the community park site on the other side and getting that opened up in the near term. This gives you an idea of that current build out with phase one with Toll Brothers, TriPoint, and Shea Homes trilogy. Shea is 196 lots. Toll has five different villages, two of which are just coming online, and TriPoint has 65 lots. The regional university specific plan, this is now our fifth specific plan in West Placer County. This one is 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 2008 and amended in 2019. Currently staff is coordinating with the City of Roseville and the developer on backbone infrastructure. 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 acre university property with multiple mixed uses. Currently no building permits have been issued as we're still working on backbone planning. The regional university specific plan does have a small lot vesting tentative subdivision map that was approved in 2022. There's 973 lots, which you can see how that breaks down here on the screen, as well as their commercial parks and other types of infrastructure that's going to be included in that particular phase. And then finally, our Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan. That would be our fifth for our West Placer County area. This one is located on the east side of the Placer Vineyard Specific Plan, also in Southwest Placer County. It's 525 acres. The specific plan was approved in 2009. We found the Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan development agreements to be in compliance for the calendar year 2025 reporting period. Currently, we don't have a lot of housing activity build out on this site. There's four subdivisions, or three subdivisions, excuse me, that have already been completed. Mariposa, Mason Trails, and Glen Willow subdivisions, which is a total of 454 units. 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 corner of the project in what's called the Frisvald and Silver Sage subdivisions. And the property owners 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, is subject to a development agreement. Homewood Master Plan was approved in 2011 with the redevelopment of the existing Homewood Mountain Resort on 1200 acres. This is located five miles south of Tahoe City on West Shore. We did find the Homewood Development Agreement to be deemed in compliance during the 2025 reporting period. This project was approved as mentioned in 2011. It's over 1200 acres. Currently, there have been seven building permits that have been issued Lot 3 has been complete with that and the gondola is expected to be in construction in 2026. In 2025, the TRPA approved an amendment that relocated the gondola, reductions in the number of 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. And that's where our current Homewood project stands. And then finally, 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 on the north side of the town. It includes sand and gravel mining operations and reclamation activities with a conditional use permit that does expire in December of 20, sorry, I have 2024 here, but I believe it's 2042, 2045. There we go. The current owner is Bear River Land Holdings LLC and the operator is Capital Ready Mix. The DA requires a payment of a tonnage fee to Placer County on a quarterly basis. A portion of these fees were previously in arrears, 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. Additionally, the DA requires dedication of certain areas for access or conservation, which has not been fully satisfied. Staff have been communicating with the various entities over the years. We have various notices that have gone out in 2024 and a meeting in 2025 to review the various items that are deemed out of compliance. The ownership group did submit irrevocable offers of dedication to the county for an open space conservation easement and an access easement in September. They've communicated assurance that they're in the process of gathering the necessary legal documents and exhibits needed to make these dedications. 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 requested of you today staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions a 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 15.20.120 and 17.58.250 of the Placer County Code and take the following action. Determine that developer entities for the Bickford Ranch specific plan, Placer Vineyard specific plan, Viola Vineyard Specific Plan, Regional University Specific Plan, Placer Ranch Specific Plan, and Hillwood 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 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 15378 . Thank you.

I just had a quick, two quick questions for Placer Vineyards and Placer One, respectively. What's the, like, time horizon for full build out?

Well, for Placer 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 placer vineyards much larger 14 000 units and there's a lot of infrastructure that would be required for like the build out to really happen on the far west side of that project yeah and across those two if you know the numbers great if not

Like population-wise, what does that equate to, just estimated population growth across those two specific plans? Across 20,000 units. I know.

I was trying to quickly do the math. Hi. Good morning. Michelle Kingsbury. So for the Placer Ranch or Placer One specific plan, it was over 13,000 was the estimated population for that area. That does not include anything related to the university. For Placer Vineyards, it's roughly about 35,000, 38,000. was the ultimate population that we were expecting out there. Certainly depending on uses and rezones that may come in the future, that ebbs and flows a bit, but substantial. There are 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 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.

That's correct. And as Sue mentioned, The big focus of our group or team, the three of us, is the financial side of it, which means the collection of fees to support capital facilities, services, and everything agreed to in the development agreement. But it's also to set up the revenue streams to support the services. We work closely with parks, roads, sheriff, you name it. Every year, how many officers can we fund? We just went through an exercise on that working with CEO's office and sheriff. to work with parks as well. Abdul just reconciled all the figures. We are probably this year cumulative collected about, I would say we're up $9 million of additional revenues above 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 of years. That's not annual, that's cumulative. But our little mini team does enforce and fight for the level. It's always a push and pull because it's the same funding source that developers compete with us to fund infrastructure as well. What's that right balance between the two? But we are in there and we certainly support our teams and our groups and fight for a high level of service that's commensurate with the adjacent city.

Okay, great. And then another just quick clarifying question, 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? I'll hand that to our planning director. Okay.

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. 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 Placer 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. and so forth. So, you know, again, specific plans, very specific definition in planning and zoning law, master plans, it doesn't have a definition in planning and zoning law, but we have, treated them very similarly um at least some of the ones in in placer county okay thanks i should also know the homewood master plan um not adopted by the county it's a trpa document however we have a conditional use permit that was referenced in the conditional use permit uh does reference the um the master plan okay great thank you i would just like to add as i've

wanted to thank abdul and sue as i'm winding down my final couple of years at the county you're in very good hands they're much smarter than i am and as you can see taking the 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 but very 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. The Placer One Welcome Center, what is the purpose of the Welcome Center? Is it a community center? What is it?

It's kind of like a marketing, I would call it like a marketing center where they can kind of display the overall themes 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. For those that have been around a while, like Stanford Ranch, like Whitney Ranch, we've had kind of similar in Rockland welcome centers, but it's more of that kind of attribute and feature.

What will its long-term use be after they've shown? It can be commercial.

Oh, okay. Stuff like that, yeah. Okay. It just depends.

And then the other question, what are the lodging options for the Alchemy Surf Park?

Hmm.

I would, I don't know. Um, it's enforced the middle. I think staff is still reviewing it and ultimately it would come back to the governing bodies. Alex might know a little bit more like a hotel. Yeah. It's about a hundred units proposed for lodging hotel. Yeah.

There's as well as a bungalows as well as an RV RV component as well. 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. So those are projects with active applications that will be coming to the Planning Commission at some point in the case of that Alchemy Surf Park relative near future 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 baseline.

A little bit different in terms of this is a surfing park. My understanding is the other water park, it's a 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 Sac State University. Placer Campus, we call it CSUS Sacramento Placer 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. Yeah, and so then we have on the Placer One specific plan, the CSU University. And so that sometimes says the university site, and then it is confusing because then you have the regional university specific plan where there is a private, it's more of a 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 mentioned, the regional university is, as she mentioned, a private university. It's Hillsdale. The ownership is Hillsdale College out of Michigan, I believe. Yes.

Yeah. Mark? Quick question.

The forensics lab, So, and that's part of the CSU campus proposal. Correct. And it looks like, it sounded like when I heard the description and the material I read that it's maybe kind of a bit of a teaching forensics lab, but also hard usage by neighboring cities, counties, et cetera?

Yes, correct, exactly. So we have an MOU so that we can utilize it for that purpose.

Okay. 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 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 EOJ collaboration at all, which is the question. Is it a new way to bring the state EOJ into the equation, or are they separate?

It's a lot of that. Again, Michelle, the planned CSU Placer Center forensics labs, it's a county lab that we would be doing our own forensic work under. 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, would you allow neighboring counties to bring?

That's the goal, 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. Appreciate it. Okay. Rich?

Okay. 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 gonna actually uh coordinated with that proposal to put in some uh solar panels has that happened is that part of the proposal or um well it's it's currently not in the

Projects currently under construction. A portion of the Country Acres project is located in the country, or in the regional university area.

Yeah. Has that happened, or is that?

It's under construction.

Under construction? Yes. Okay. That answers that question. Yeah. I just didn't see that in the map, so I was just wondering what the status of that was. You're correct, yeah. You see, also, I noticed a letter in here. I can't find it now, but... A letter from the United Area Indian group, I think it was with regards to Placer Ranch?

Correct.

They have some... And so what's their involvement there?

They have some properties on the northeast side of the Placer Ranch specific plan. And so they are also subject to a development agreement because those properties do fall within the specific plan area.

Okay. So they don't have anything planned, but they... As of right now, we don't have any application. They're involved. Okay. I think for about the last three or four years, we've heard about the Bear River gravel operation. 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. Staff is working diligently with the owners to rectify the pieces that they're still putting together for those.

So hopefully they're being diligent this time. Yeah. OK, we appreciate it. That's my question.

Other questions? OK. 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. 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 comments. We have a hand raise.

OK. Diane, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments. Diane, are you able to unmute your mic?

Diane Luis-Alesi, Director of . Hello? Hello, can you hear me? Diane, 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 good? yeah i haven't started it yet so you're good okay back to the beginning all right uh so greetings again commissioner stein louise alessi founder of and director of cvprc in district 5 6 decades in placer 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 machinations for how our low and extremely low housing obligations get stretched out to the latest 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 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 Placer County is actually producing the low income and very low income 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 of reach, which has been the case for more often than not, and no doubt the developer's 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 this is in itself a serious governance problem. Placer County should not treat paper compliance as a substitute for real housing outcomes. Hold developers' feet to their original commitments. Diane Goldenberg- The public deserves clear answers clear records and measurable results of delivery of genuinely affordable homes, not a not decades long pattern of sidesteps and leave the hardest. Diane Goldenberg- To house residents waiting and shelters or intense again and again and again, thank you for your time.

Diane Goldenberg- Right Thank you diane anyone else is 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 ensure that the development agreements and our development partners are complying with their affordable housing requirements. Michelle and Sue and the team 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 make sure that we're being as transparent as possible and clear as possible about these particular projects and their compliance with their affordable housing requirements as part of their development agreement. So just wanted to make sure to make that point.

Thank you, Chris. Anything else? OK.

Commissioners, 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 in the weeds of specific small subdivision lot maps. And this really helps to frame what's going on countywide. It certainly helps me a lot. So I appreciate it and all the time and effort you guys put in.

I don't have a great sense of question to throw out there, but what I see when I look at 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 buildable housing and and commercial properties coordinated with the other counties is there an ongoing coordination or is it just by happenstance somebody's got a parcel that it straddles both counties and it's probably not germane to what you were presenting today but it is striking to look at that map

probably can Chris and I I mean we work quite a bit with SACOG with all the regional counties and stuff but every jurisdiction has its own individual jurisdictional land use authority it doesn't mean though that we're not cognizant about what goes across the line and we also notice each other we sometimes the infrastructure and infrastructure comments back and forth and how we We coordinate the systems that go on and about. 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. But we really do get into the regional coordination when it comes to infrastructure. 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 the city of Roseville, lots of coordination with PCWA and Cal AM 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 to serve all these areas that we planned for.

so i understand how sacog works i mean they do the scs's for 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 Brett KenCairn, rightfully local control control the zoning within their areas, but then they do recognize that there's extensions and I guess what i'm getting back is there is coordination when it comes to the border orders. But up to that point, it's all internal.

That's a lot of coordination actually. Yeah, I think you're generally correct. I mean, as was mentioned, though, there is coordination that does happen and there's, you know, SACOG does provide some framework for some of those coordinations to occur. But you are generally correct that ultimately it comes down to local land use authority and, you know, we do provide, documents for review. Anytime there's an environmental document, it's provided to neighboring jurisdictions. So we generally have a sense of what the other jurisdictions have that they're working on. And there is coordination, particularly as Michelle mentioned, on the utility infrastructure provision. But, you know, outside of those coordinations, generally is each jurisdiction 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 you'd never go near it. And now it's almost to Oregon, it feels like. So it wasn't surprising, it was just reinforcing that we've got to have we have to have good inter-regional collaboration. So thank you very much. I don't want to put you through any more.

Great comments. Anything else? I also appreciate the macro view 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 a motion that we, this is our decision. So I make the motion that we approve item one as read into the agenda.

OK. I'll second that. We have a first and second. Roll call vote.

Johnson.

Yes.

Watts.

Yes.

Dahlgren. Yes. Jewell. Yes. Elves. Yes. Becler. Yes.

OK. I make a motion that item two as read in the agenda is approved.

I'll second that as well. We have a first and second. Roll call, please.

Johnson.

Yes.

Watts. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. 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. So thanks everyone for attending and participating. The meeting is now adjourned.