Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

To order, if you could all join me in the allegiance.

Allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the Republic where it stands for a nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. If I could please, ask the planning commission clerk to do roll call.

Commissioner Dahlgren, absent. Commissioner Alves? Yes. Commissioner Jewell? Here. Commissioner Beckler?

Here.

Commissioner Runtine?

Here.

Commissioner Watts, absent. And commissioner Johnson?

Here. Alright. 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 that testimony.

For 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, please press 9 to raise your hand. Be prepared to speak, at the time I open public comment for the specific item you would like to address, which may also include, general public comment for matters not on the published agenda. Each commenter is 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 a fair opportunity to share their comments.

Please be advised also that today's hearing is being recorded and will be available on the Planning Commission webpage following the hearing today. So with that, I will move on to, a next item on the agenda, which is the consent calendar. We have three items on the consent calendar, which are Planning Commission meeting minutes for April. Is there any commissioner that would like to remove any items from the consent calendar? I see none. Is there any member of the public that would like to remove an item from the consent calendar? Anyone on Zoom?

None online.

Okay. And the there are three separate meetings, which I know, Jeff, you and I weren't at you were you and I were absent for April 16, so I'm gonna take them separately. So we have the April 9, April. So let's go ahead and do the April, if I can get a motion.

So move to approve.

Do I have a second?

Second.

There's a second.

Roll

call. Runtine? Yes. Alves?

Yes. Jewel?

Yes.

Johnson?

Yes.

Beckler? Yes. For the April 16 meeting minutes.

Move to approve.

I have a first. Do I have a second? I'll second.

Second, roll call.

Alves?

Yes.

Jewell?

Yes.

Brantine?

I was absent.

Johnson?

Yes.

And Beckler?

Abstain because I was absent. And for

Yep.

Chair chair Beckler? Yes. So there there wasn't a quorum on that vote. So, essentially, it would have failed. Yep. Okay. So just because you weren't at the meeting does not necessarily mean you can't vote on the meeting minutes, if you're familiar with what occurred. I don't know if that's the case, but you can

It's gonna matter.

Yeah. Move again if you so choose.

Can I then bring it back for a motion? Because I think both, Commissioner Rontine and I are familiar with the meeting, so we'd feel comfortable voting on it.

Yes. So you could bring it back for another motion.

Okay. Great. Okay. Bring it back to the commission. Can I get a motion for the April 16 meeting minutes? Second. Second. Second. Oh. First George, second Trent. And, roll call, please.

Alves? Yes. Jewel?

Yes.

Runtine?

Yes.

Johnson?

Yes.

Beckler? Yes. Okay. April 23, meeting minutes. Do I have a motion?

Move to approve. Second.

First and a second. Roll

call. Alves?

Yes.

Jewel?

Yes.

Runtine?

Yes.

Johnson?

Yes.

Beckler? Yes. Alright. Great. So we will now move on to our next item on the agenda, which is the planning our planning director report by, mister Chris Pahouli. Welcome, Chris. Good morning.

Good morning, chair Bechler. Commissioners, the, you should be receiving a copy of the planning director report, and there should be extra copies, that can be at the planning table, should anyone want a copy of it. I'll start with, providing an update on, past and upcoming board of supervisor meetings. I'm happy to report that earlier this week, the board took final action on the Village At Palisades Tahoe specific plan. They approved the amended specific plan and associated entitlements, on a four zero vote.

I should note that the package was, unchanged from the package that was recommended by the planning commission with with one exception. There were some minor modifications handled through an errata to the resolution for the for the addendum to the to the EIR. So that was addressed during the hearing. However, the recommendations that the, planning commission made, the errata that you, considered regarding the the school site and, and other matters were taken up and approved by by the board. In general, a lot of positive comments about the about the project, the revised project.

There was some conversation about the the school site on Lot 16. However, as I mentioned, the board approved it unchanged from what the planning commission considered. In terms of upcoming board hearings, next week on May 19, the board is, scheduled to take up the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Winchester subdivisions, storm water requirements. As you may recall, that is the item where, mister Jerry Johnson, brought forward a request, for a planning director's determination, but has, subsequently appealed the planning commission's approval of that of that determination. So again, that will be picked up by the board next week on the nineteenth.

As far as upcoming Planning Commission meetings, I I did want to spend a little bit of time going over this because you'll see that there's some changes in your report to what I previously mentioned, at at your last meeting. We are looking to or we are going to be canceling, both the May 28 as well as the June 11, planning commission meetings. We had items that were queuing up for those meetings, but, there's been some, changes to those items where we, need a little bit more time to get them ready to bring those forward to the Planning Commission. So, as you can see on your, report, both the June 25 and the August 13 meetings are shaping up to be very impacted. And and partly that's due to there is a planning commission break that sort of coincides also with the board of supervisors break in that July, for that July month.

And so I I'll mention that, for both of those meetings, we should assume that we're we're gonna be, you know, going well into the afternoon for for both of those, both of those dates. For June 25, we have, an appeal, that is is is teeing up for that meeting. We have an an ordinance related to accessory dwelling units, so the complete sort of repeal and replacement of our ADU ordinance. And then we also have a couple of other other, entitlement projects that are coming forward at that hearing. And then on August 13, we're looking at an item that you have heard quite a bit about in the past.

It's that residential care home, zoning text amendment. We also, are likely to have a hearing on the draft EIR for the SDL project and a couple of other, entitlement projects. So, again, if these items hold, which, I'm expecting them to, we should plan for, meetings that go well into the afternoon. So if there's any impacts, to your, schedules, please let, myself and let the planning commission clerk know, so that we can, plan accordingly. Wanted to provide just a couple of additional updates.

I just mentioned, the residential care homes zoning text amendment, that we're continuing to work on. In addition to that one, we're also, progressing that emergency shelter zoning text amendment. We do have a couple of upcoming meetings over the next couple of weeks for those, those zoning text amendment packages. We're attending the Central MAC next week. We are also taking a visit to the airport land use commission on May 27 for a recommendation on those packages.

And then as I mentioned, coming to you on August, August 13. Last set of updates, just a minute more administrative. I wanted to let you know that your next quarterly report of, projects is, will be coming to you at that August 13 meeting. And then I I also wanted to reference that, or make note that you received three public comments for items that weren't on the agenda. I just wanted to note those for you very quickly.

One was related to, the Machado conditional use permit or temporary use permit, for their, fruit shed, off of Bowman Road. That is a project that will be coming to you. I'm anticipating that that item comes to you on August 13, so you received a letter in support of that project. You also received a, a letter in support of the residential care home zoning text amendment, which I also mentioned is, likely to come to you on August 13. And then lastly, you received a letter in opposition to the Granite View condos, project.

As you may recall, you heard a, or you conducted a hearing, to receive comments on that draft EIR. Once the final EIR is prepared, it will be brought back to the planning commission for, final final action. That concludes my planning director report. I'm happy to answer any questions that the commission might have.

Thank you so much, Chris. Questions?

No. We're good.

Thank you

so much.

Okay. The next item on the agenda is Planning Commissioner reports. Do any of my fellow commissioners have any information they'd like to share? I see none. Okay. We'll move right along. So we'll now open it up to, public comment for matters not on the Planning Commission agenda today. As a reminder, you do have three minutes to provide comment. So is there anyone here in person that would like to provide public comment? I see none. Do we have anyone via Zoom?

One online.

Okay.

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

Greetings this morning, commissioners. I'm Lisa Lemisey in Christian Valley Park Community Services District, district five, six decades, and Placer County. As a concern, special districts water purveyor board director, I urge you today to protect our rural, suburban, and urban communities from the looming water and power crisis driven by ill conceived placements of AI data centers. California's water woes are real. Special districts like mine operate our pot potable water enterprise on a shoestring.

We cannot raise enough funds to replace our 16 miles of aging infrastructure, which at current PCWA project estimates is $4,500,000 per mile of transmission line. Prime example of our raw water insecurities, PG and E outages that took two years to fix became critical. PCWA forced slashing of plastered, deliveries by 43% last year and drought conditions hitting 12.8% of our people. AI data centers guzzled water on average 30 to 50,000,000 gallons per day for cooling. This water is lost.

It's evaporated forever. Further in our arid zones, adding further insults, these AI centers are devouring grid power as seen in Nevada where they took 22% of our electricity, blacking out Tahoe homes, and passing cost onto the communities. AI corporate tech giants lobby hard, overriding local voices like in Arizona and several other states, rezoning battles continue. You hold the power. You are the first line of our defense.

We need to enact a moratorium now, industrial land sales and rez and or rezoning of rural land for industrial use that is intended for AI operations facilities. You have to stop the planning department's pre evaluation and feasibility of land approvals for these resource hogs. Once the land is purchased, everything becomes reactive, and then the buy right overrides local voices and limits actual power to stop it. Bay Area cities did it in moratorium for two years to study impacts, prioritized people over profit, our private property rights, quality of life, and preserving water for farms and ranches, food and job security, and families over data. It is imperative to demand water power disclosures in their entirety and long term.

No more sustained canals, strained canals because our farm belt is competing with AI centers. And by combined, they are sucking down the groundwater so fast, and the land is sinking feet per year. The canals are sinking and breaking, and power demands result in blackouts. Placing the moratorium today preserves plaster for tomorrow. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else?

No others.

Okay. I am gonna go ahead and close public comment then. So we will now move on to the hearing items on the agenda. There are two items. The first is to request, a request to consider an entitlement package for the Sierra Family Meadows subdivision in Olympic Valley. The entitlement package does include a general plan amendment and rezone. Therefore, the board of supervisors is the decision making body, and the planning commission will provide a recommendation to the board. Today's staff presentation will be given by principal planner, Stacy Weidra. Good morning,

Stacy. Good morning. How are you guys? Good morning, chair Beckler, fellow commissioners. Thank you for having me. I'm here before you this morning to present to you the Sierra Family Meadows subdivision, and the the entitlements that you just listed. So I'll go ahead and move us forward. There we go. So to quickly get you oriented as to where the project site is located, it is located in Olympic Valley, specifically at 325 Olympic Valley Road, somewhat closer to the entrance, of the valley. If you see here, I think I can there we go.

And it currently is, developed with an existing single family residence, which has a, two access points, one off of Olympic Valley Road and one off of Resort Road, which I'll go into a little bit later in my presentation. But it again, it is at the entrance of the valley, which leads into the ski resort, which is located down at this end. And then also on the opposite side of off of Resort Road is the Everline Resort Spa. And, let me oh, I think I went too far. So the existing general plan and zoning and, uniquely in this area, the Olympic Valley general plan and land use ordinance is one in the same.

So the general plan designation and the zoning is all the same. So the general plan designation and the zoning is high density residential of a density factor of 20 bedrooms per acre. And then the site also contains a bit of forest recreation as well as conservation preserve. The entitlements requested before you today are, a general plan amendment and a rezone to that Olympic Valley general plan land use ordinance, for consideration of a planned residential development application to the high density residential zone district. So, again, only the portion of high density residential is being requested for that general plan and zoning amendment, to apply a planned residential development to it.

Should that get approved, then that would also help support the vesting tentative subdivision map and a conditional use permit for the subdivision, which would have the PD, requirements applied to it. So, excuse me, the general plan amendment and rezone, as I just mentioned, is specifically being requested for, the consideration of parcel sizes less than three acres in size. So I'll go into that a little more detail in a bit, but, that is the request for the planned residential development. And then the vesting tentative subdivision map consists of, the creation of eight single family lots and then open space, right of way lots, and homeowners association lots, which, again, I'll go into more specific details throughout my presentation. So, specifically, the tentative subdivision map, would create eight single family residential lots.

That's including the existing single family. And it would consist, within this area of 9.4 acres. And the lot sizes would range from half an acre to 2.73 acres, and then would be, developed and or excuse me would be recorded in two phases. So phase one would be lots one through three and then all of the lettered lots which I will go into on my next slide. And then phase two would be lots four through eight.

So the letter lots, as you see here, excuse me, the here we go. Lot a, is a rather large parcel. It's 18.41 acres in size, and it has a lot of, unique sensitive resources on it. It has wetlands. It has Washeshoe Creek, which flows through it.

There's also some cultural and tribal resources that are out there that we know about. And so with this subdivision, a lot a would be preserved in perpetuity through a conservation easement. Then Lots b and c, which are highlighted. This is it's hard to see, but this is Lot B, which is Resort Road, which is approximately point seven nine acres. And then Lot c, which is over here, which is a portion of Olympic Valley Road, is actually the, applicant's parcel.

So the roads that exist today, actually are over private property. So these will continue to maintain as Olympic Valley Road and Resort Road, but will just be designated on this, map through the lettered lots of b and c. And then homeowners association lots, excuse me, which will consist of Lot D. I've lost my oh, no. Okay.

Lot Lot D is the, access road providing access internally. So let me try to get nope. So Lot D is the access road, which will provide access to all of the proposed lots. And then Lot E, which is just above where the subdivision lots are proposed, is a stormwater drainage infrastructure that is designed for the project. Oh.

Oh, sorry. So in 1983, the Olympic Valley general plan and land use ordinance was adopted. And, again, it the project site takes on, three different zoning districts, high density residential, forest recreation, and conservation preserve. And through this, request for an amendment and rezone to that document is the consideration of a PD permitting mechanism. The design of a PD is to allow for flexibility in that site design while achieving community objectives, including environmental protection, preservation of scenic and cultural resources, efficient land use, and provisions of diverse housing types of which, this proposal does all of that.

So the PD request, specifically, as I mentioned, is is asking for a reduced parcel lot size. That is the only request for, the PD consideration, whereas PDs could consider, reduced setbacks and and others. But, in this case, it is only requesting the minimum lot size be reduced to the allowance of half an acre to 2.73 acres in size. And so, the project site, while zoned high density residential, is only proposing single family residential lots, not townhomes or condominiums of the sort of which high density residential could could consider. And so with that, the projects and in its design is really consistent with the surrounding residential development, and I'll specifically go into it, with this overview in this slide.

So the site, is with the big blue star on it, and so I just kinda wanted to give you guys some context, on what this site, while it's surrounded by roads on both sides, as a as you enter into the village or into the valley. Located to the north are, property zoned low density residential. So they they contain parcel sizes from a third of an acre to an you know, half an acre. They're the smaller sized, parcels. And then to the south of the of the parcel, let's see if I can oh, there we go.

Down in here, we actually have condominium and townhome development, which then leads into this road leads into, Everline Resort. And then up in, back in this area are then again single family residences with larger sized lots. But, again, ranging from a third of an acre to an acre and so forth. So really just trying to give that context. And then all while preserving and maintaining the natural, character of the areas, that exist today in that brown brownish color.

So as I mentioned, the proposed project has been designed to comply with all of the development standards, with the exception of the PD request. And, future development will have to comply with that, and we have applied conditions of approval that will help guide that future development because there's no development proposed with this tentative map. It is just a tentative map, for future development if approved. And so, the density and intensity, of the Olympic Valley general plan land use ordinance is unique and that, again, it does, determine its density by bedrooms per acre versus units. So in this case, the act the Olympic Valley general plan actually went ahead and has defined what bedrooms, meant back in 1983.

And within the general plan land use ordinance for Olympic Valley, bedrooms could be counted as also dens, studios, lofts, libraries, or studies. And so when we calculate the density that could be considered for this site, approximately 377 bedrooms could be considered. The applicants are proposing, a maximum of 80 bedrooms, so 10 bedrooms per unit, to so for each single family. So to ensure compliance with all of these standards, the Olympic Valley general plan also has the requirement of the consideration of this, proposed construction by the Olympic Valley design review committee. So each single family residence and or subsequent structures, to be built on those sites have to go before the Olympic Valley design review committee to ensure, compliance with the standards and guidelines of the Olympic Valley general plan, and to also further ensure that that commune that communication is communicated to future residences or future owners of those lots.

There's a condition of approval which requires a development notebook. Development notebook will design, or provide, I should say, guidance for how that lot should be developed. So in other words, it will denote the setbacks, and just, you know, some some design, requirements relative to to this tentative map. So in summary, the, proposed, plan PD rezoning, is of a minimum reduced minimum size is consistent with the intent of the general plan land use general plan land use ordinance of Olympic Valley and the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. The project also provides a reduced development intensity relative to the maximum allowable density while maintaining compliance with applicable design and development standards with the exception of the requirement to the minimum lot size.

So, while we have to, also consider the Placer County general plan, and staff did review the general plan and consistency with the project with that. And, it does comply and and it's continued to be consistent with those policies. I won't read them all, you know, specific to, relationship to surrounding uses, density, and lot patterns, the avoiding environmentally sensitive areas, and so forth. And then, of course, as I mentioned, but, I I just want to to summarize it, but the project is consistent with the Olympic Valley general plan land use ordinance. It's been designed as in a less dense residential development, and it's creating continuity of the residential neighbors, protecting the natural resources on-site through that permanent conservation easement, which will be held in perpetuity through the homeowners association to implement the Olympic Valley land use general plan and land use policies.

And a mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the project, for its environmental consideration. And, specifically with reference to the biological resources, there were couple mitigation measures that have been applied to the project to address sensitive plant communities relative to the riparian and wetland communities that are even though they're, proposed to be, preserved in a conservation easement, we still needed to guide development into how that is maintained. And so we have applied mitigation measures, identifying requirement for preconstruction surveys for Sierra Nevada yellow legged frog, Northwestern pond turtle, nesting birds, and raptors. So, also, uniquely with this project site, there was a survey done and, has found that there were some archaeological sites found, on on the site. And, as such, outreach was conducted to the affiliated tribes, And, the project has been designed to avoid all identified cultural resources, by buffers, exclusion from development, protection during construction with temporary fencing, again, that permanent conservation easement that I spoke of, and tribal monitoring is part of the mitigation measures that will be required to be on-site during ground ground disturbing activities.

So specifically to, one portion of the project, there is existing driveway. See if I can find ah, here we go. That it's hard to see here, but it does come in through here, and then it goes out to Resort Road. But in this general area, there are known cultural resources. So in an effort to ensure that those resources, are not disturbed, The let me back up.

The original proposal from the applicants was they were going to remove and revegetate this driveway, because all of their access is solely coming off of Resort Road. And so as a result of the surveys and the, archaeological reports and cultural reports, it was found that there are cultural resources in there. So in an effort to ensure that none of that is disturbed, mitigation measures have been applied to ensure that to avoid these sensitive areas that, only portions of that existing driveway that are outside of that boundary area can be removed. So the driveway that exists today will remain. And in efforts to ensure that, you know, it is not driven on, there'll be, boulders placed at both ends.

And then outside of those areas that are known, the, existing driveway oh, gosh. Sorry. I went too far. So portions here we go. Like, from this section here, we know that there are no cultural resources in there, and so portions of the driveway will be removed, and decommissioned.

But the techniques of which that portion of the driveway will be removed, are spelled out in the mitigation measures. So in other words, restricting any equipment off of that existing paved area. So, basically, like, walking it backwards to to remove that existing driveway, or paved areas. And then, again, tribal monitoring will be on-site, to to ensure during during this construction because there there may be some, resources that inadvertently can be found. So but as always, we we we consulted with the tribal consultation also in accordance with a b 52 and s b 18.

Specifically, the for assembly bill 52, so a b 52, the tribes were noticed that were listed here. And, while we did receive one response, they did refer to the local tribe of Washoe, and, we have not received any responses or requests for consultation. In accordance with senate bill s or SB 18, which is required because of the general plan amendment, Tribes, the request for consultation has been submitted and and, will end on June 15. So we are any responses, they need to be submitted to us by June 15. And the, action or the board's consideration of this project cannot go before June 15.

So we wanna make sure we've exhausted that time period, but we also distributed to, the tribes listed here, and no responses to date. So, with regards to CEQA compliance, the mitigated negative declaration that has been prepared and the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan, has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. There was a thirty day public review period that concluded on May 7, and we only received letters from Olympic Valley Fire and then PG and E. Unfortunately, PG and E is not the serving, utility company. It was just sort of a standard notice.

And then the Olympic Valley Fire was, just reiterating that the applicants will have to continue to work with them, and we also have conditions that they need to comply with any of the Olympic Valley Fire Department requirements. So it's been determined that the project is not expected to have any significant adverse effects on the environment and that in with implementation of all identified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, all the potential impacts have been reduced to less than significant level. And, should your commission, recommend approval to the board of supervisors, the board of supervisors will have to also, determine that the mitigated negative declaration is adequate. So we presented to the Olympic Valley Municipal Advisory Council on 11/06/2025, and received public, community input relative to positive sentiment regarding, a well planned subdivision thoughtful project that addressed a range of issues, including environmentally sensitive considerations, relative carefully considering the existing drainage and runoff from other on off-site properties, and that the residential use and the potential density that could have been considered, for example, condominiums, they really appreciated that it was just single family residences. However, with those single family residences, they did raise concerns of short term rentals, Airbnbs, or timeshares, and a need to consider regulation of the STRs.

This project, will be subject to the STR ordinance. So they would if they wanted you know, should the residence be developed, they would have to comply with the short term rental ordinance, and get a a short term rental permit as well at the time of construction, or operation of that use. And two members of the public were also present and addressed similar concerns. So before I, provide staff's recommendation, I did wanna bring to your attention the errata that was I I believe you guys received right right before this meeting. And I'll quickly go through oh oh, maybe not. Sorry.

I'll give

you guys a second. And while you're considering that, I can, I think I think, mister Pahuli addressed, the new format of our conditions of approval, what I which I believe are in your your staff report? And, I just wanted to point out, I know a little bit different, but condition number three of the conditions of approval reference the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan. So, I just wanted, you know, a new format. So, hopefully, just a a friendly reminder.

But with regards to the errata, there were five conditions of approval that, we are requesting for your consideration. And, condition number one in the under phase one title of fire protection and the third bullet, we are proposing to strike the word only. And the request for this is that the existing fire hydrant, there were a number of discussions with the applicants as to whether or not the existing fire hydrant was going to be removed completely. And then they can they can speak to it more, but I I believe that they realized and maybe even working with the fire department that that fire hydrant can remain. And so, but they are going to only use it for, common area irrigation or fire suppression.

So we just didn't want to limit it to just fire suppression, and that the HOA could use it for other purposes of maybe, like I said, landscaping or other options. And then moving on to condition number 24, under roads and trails, of the existing driveway that I spoke of, we added language for consistency. We we recognize that engineering and surveying had provided a condition of approval that actually I just wanted to clarify that the requirements of the removal of that existing driveway has to comply with the mitigation measures that I talked about in its decommissioning and the you know, just to ensure the cultural resources are protected. And then condition number 32, relative to vegetation and natural areas with regards to a tree permit, we are recommending that we eliminate the portion referencing, quote, that they that are located within 50 feet of such activity. Unfortunately, we missed this that these this that condition is for much larger parcels.

50 feet would be, in fact, maybe on someone else's property. So we kinda created a condition that, wasn't intending. It was intended for any trees to be removed on the actual parcel itself will be required to get a tree permit, not 50 feet in either direction onto someone else's property. And they're also not allowed to remove trees on someone else's property. So, and then condition number 35, relative to vegetation and natural areas, and this is specific to the wetlands.

And, we realized that we mistakenly wrote the word easement, in this condition, when in fact on the tentative map, it's actually an offset. The easement or the wetland is actually going to be, protected and conserved with the Lot A conservation preservation easement. However, there is a 50 foot offset that is also required, to ensure no disturbance within that area. And as such, a small portion of it extends onto Lot 2. So I just wanted to make it very clear for the development of Lot 2 that that offset, while not not an easement, it does not need to be an easement, but it is a 50 foot offset, that cannot be developed within, and then takes on the same requirements that are listed in that, condition of approval.

So none of the, requirements have changed. It's just changing the word from easement to offset. And then, condition 40, was just a typo, where it references the Olympic Valley Community Service District where it should be public service district. So with that, I'm gonna lead into my recommendation, and staff recommends that the planning commission recommend the board of supervisors take the following actions. Adopt a resolution adopting the mitigated negative declaration and mitigating monitoring and reporting program, state clearinghouse number 2026040350, prepared pursuant to section one five zero seven zero of the California Environmental Quality Act and section eighteen point one six point zero one zero of the Placer County Environmental Review Ordinance.

Also, adopt a resolution approving amendment to the Olympic Valley general plan and land use ordinance to modify the land use designation for the project site, assessor parcel number 096 Dash2 30 Dash062 Dash0 00 and 096 Dash 290 Dash 050 Dash000 from high density residential density factor of 20 bedrooms per acre to high density residential density factor of 20 bedrooms per acre plan development. Adopt an ordinance rezoning the portion of the project site from high density residential density factor of 20 bedrooms per acre to high density residential density factor of 20 bedrooms per acre plan development. Approve the vesting tentative subdivision map to subdivide the existing 32.02 acre site subject to the recommendation recommended conditions of approval, approve a conditional use permit to allow for planned residential development for the Sierra Families Meadows subdivision subject to the recommended conditions of approval, and approve a planned residential development for the single family Meadows subdivision consistent with Placer County code section seventeen point five four point zero nine zero b. That concludes my presentation. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Chair Beckler, if I Yes. If I may just interject, really quickly just to supplement with what miss Wydra, read into the record, I should note that, recommendations four and five, they're subject to the recommended conditions of approval and errata Mhmm. That she, presented. So wanted to note that for both recommendations four and five.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation.

Thank you.

Questions from the commission? No? No? Okay. Great. I would like to ask, if the applicant is here, if you could come to the podium. And if you could state your name for the record and share any comments, that you'd like to make.

Absolutely. First of all, good morning. Pleasure to be here. Truly, it's been, years in the making, this project, so we're really excited to be finally here. My name is Jackson Rialo. I'll introduce kind of our whole team here that we have. I work as a a a land use planning consultant for the project. I also have broad Brad Altman here who, has been working on, some of the planning aspects as well as project management on the project. Next to him, we have Kimberly Brannell, who is one of the property owners of the property the applicant, one the applicant. We also have on Zoom, should we need it at all, Cammy Jackson from Lumison Associates, who's the engineer of record on the project.

So if we get into any technical issues or questions that I'm unable to answer, then we can we can refer to Cami. Okay. I'd also like to thank, Stacy for a great in-depth thorough, overview of the project. I don't want to, waste your guys' time by restating any of the project details necessarily. So I'm just gonna use my, time here to basically highlight some of the aspects of the project that we think are important for you guys to, to to know.

The on this presentation front, I have basically, the entire presentation is essentially just our project plan set, which I think you guys should have in your staff report anyway. It's just so that we have a blown up version. So should we get any questions, I can flip through the plan set, and we can kind of refer to those documents as well on a on a big screen. Okay. Yeah.

So a really quick recap. The project is or the property is 32 approximately 32 acres right now with one single family residence on it. The project is to essentially subdivide the land and create seven new developable single family residential lots. There are some associated HOA lots, as we talked about, as well as the public right of way lots, and then largely the 18.4 open space lot for proposed for permanent conservation easement on it. On the phasing plan, just wanted to kind of give you guys some context as to why there proposed phasing of the project.

As Stacy outlined, we do have phase one and phase two proposed within the project, phase one being lots one through three as well as all of the lettered lots. And then basically Lots 4 Through 8 would become a remainder lot for the first phase until such time that the applicants would like to develop one of, you know, those future lots, Lots four Through eight, in which case we would go through a phase two improvement plan and then phase two final mapping, would convert that remainder lot into the lots 4 Through eight that are shown on the tentative map. The reason for that phasing is essentially that this project you probably noticed that there are no actual homes proposed right now as a part of this PD. This is a family owned property. The purpose of subdividing the land is really to kind of keep it in the family for future generations.

If if their kids wanna have you know, develop a house one day, they can kinda have this this family oriented property. So the reason to phase it is essentially they they really are unsure as to when what time frame these these other lots might even get developed at all. And so there's no real reason to overdevelop the property with unneeded infrastructure and kind of, you know, unnecessary disturbance to the land as well. So we're phasing the project to essentially limit it to just these lots one through three to ensure that any lots that are needed in the near term are there. And then in the future time, if they really wanted to develop any of the future lots, they could do that during phase two.

The next topic that I have for you guys is, why we are proposing a PD. Miss Weidra also did discuss that we are only proposing to deviate from the prescribed development and design standards, as it relates to the minimum lot size. So under the HDR, zoning of the property, there is a minimum lot size of three acres, per lot. We just felt that that was unnecessary, for this property. I think, you know, realistically, that that was probably more in relation to a condo type development.

And so for single family residential uses, we felt that three acres was not necessary, and so that's why we've proposed this this PD mechanism. I do wanna just quickly highlight that the Olympic Valley General Plan section two forty six, which is the high density residential, section of the Olympic Valley General Plan, does actually intend for this PD concepts to be utilized within that zone district. So specifically, it reads, in creating this district that is the intent of the county to provide for a variety of residential development relying on the planned unit development concept to create desirable living environments. The majority of residential construction outside of village commercial areas is expected to take place in this district. This district allows for the greatest flexibility in the design of residential projects.

So again, the project is zoned for 20 bedrooms per acre. There is that unique kind of density factor in the Olympic Valley general plan as it relates to every other kind of zoning, ordinance in the county. But with that, you know, so basically, the we're using this PD mechanism, to to deviate from just the minimum lot size. The the general plan, amendment slash rezone application is really kind of a particular nuance of the historic kind of outdated nature of the Olympic Valley General Plan. Under today's Placer County code, which would be 17.5408 o to to 100, this property would already be eligible to use a PD concept without any type of amendment or reason.

But because the general plan references the old Placer County zoning ordinance, the language is just outdated, and it requires an actual, you know, PD combining district zone district label to be attached to the property as well. So just wanted to quickly highlight that, that we're not trying to gain any special privileges or allowances. This is just a unique logistics scenario that that unfolded given the the nature of the of the zoning ordinance. As miss Widro also highlighted, just quickly wanted to to highlight this. The PD calculations would allow for up to three seventy seven bedrooms to be developed on this property.

There are a maximum of 80 bedrooms proposed as a part of this project proposals, which represents a 21.2 use of that allocation. So it's a dramatic reduction of what is potentially possible on the property. And again, that goes back to kind of the intent of the applicant, which is to to really kind of subdivide this land for their family. And I think actually that's oh, one other quick thing I just wanted to highlight was on the biological resource elements that that Ms. Weidra highlighted for the MND, the Mitigated Meg Meg Deck, none of those, there were no nest there were no raptors or nesting birds or the yellow legged, or sorry, the Sierra Sierra Nevada totally blanking on the actual the yellow legged frog.

There it is. Yeah. Or the the, pond turtle. None of those were found on the property. However, Habitat is suitable for those for those species. And so we're we're obviously happy to comply with any surveys that need to be done before construction, but just wanted to quickly highlight that as well. And then just besides that, I'm here to answer any types of questions. Use me as a knowledge resource as much as you need to for project information. So thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you so much. Are there questions? Questions? Just one quick question. During the phase one, will the conservation easement be recorded? I know that lot is part of phase one, but would it be recorded?

Correct. Yes.

Okay. Yes. Great. And then with that, if there are no Just

just for my curiosity, the you have the two right away easements, b and c, I think

Correct. Yep.

That are on private property.

Mhmm. So you're creating new easements?

So there are already existing easements across this gets into a kind of a whole different, world of of a mess. There are already existing easements on both frontages. So where lot b and c are, they're not considered separate lots right now. They're just a part of the overall property. But there are a a bunch of different easements.

Okay. I'm just curious how they have been maintained to date.

Absolutely. Yeah. We're we're essentially trying to clean up the situation because it's kinda messy. We're trying to clean it up by lumping them all cleanly into separate dedicated lettered lots. That way, you know, it's just all the easements are in these lots in the public right of way. You know, there's no crossing boundaries of different areas, etcetera. So

Okay. Thank

you. Absolutely.

Okay. And then have you read and are you agreeable with the conditions of approval included the errata stated today?

Absolutely. Yes. We've we've we've read through everything, we are agreeable to all those conditions of approval.

Okay. Great. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Absolutely.

K. With that, I am gonna go ahead and open public comment for this item. Do we have anyone here in person that would like to make public comment? I see none. Do we have anyone via Zoom?

No hands raised.

Okay. I will go ahead and close public comment. Staff, is there anything else you would like to share? No. Okay. I'll bring it back to the commission for any comments or deliberations.

Yeah.

Okay. That seems like a straightforward object. Okay. Can I ask for a motion then if there's no comments?

Yeah. I would entertain a motion to, recommend to the Board of Supervisors Item A as read into the record by Mrs. Whitera?

Item one, you mean?

Item one, yes. Looking at my

yellow The lots.

Item one, okay. Borrow that.

Yes. Okay. I have a first. We have a second.

I'll second.

First and second. Roll call, please.

Runtine?

Yes.

Jewell?

Yes.

Johnson? Yes. Alves?

Yes.

Beckler?

Yes. I would further recommend of the, the Planning Commission recommend of

the Board of Supervisors item two as read into the record by Ms. Swidegroom.

I have a first.

Second.

Second. First and second roll call, please.

Runtine?

Yes.

Jewell? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Alves?

Yes.

Beckler?

Yes.

I move the, Planning Commission recommend of the Board of Supervisors item number three as read into the record by missus Weidra. Second.

First and second. Roll call, please. Runtine?

Yes.

Jewell? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Alves?

Yes.

Beckler? Yes.

And I would move that the commission recommends the Board of Supervisors item number four and associated errata as read on the record by missus Wydra?

Second.

First and second. Roll call, please. Grundtien?

Yes. Jewell? Yes.

Johnson? Yes. Alves?

Yes.

Beckler? Yes.

And I move the commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors item number five and associated errata as read in the record by miss Wydra? Second.

First and second. Roll call, please. Prontin?

Yes.

Jewell? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Alves?

Yes.

Beckler?

Yes. And I

move the commission recommends the board of supervisors item number six as read into the record by mister Byrd. Second.

I have a first and second. Roll call, please.

Frentine? Yes. Jewell?

Yes.

Johnson?

Yes.

Alves?

Yes.

Beckler? Yes. Okay. As mentioned, this item is a recommendation to the board, and the Planning Commission's recommendation will be considered by the Board of Supervisors at a future hearing. Thank you for coming for that item. The next item on the agenda is the presentation, on the Placer 2050 general plan update. This is an informational item, and no action is being requested of the Planning Commission. Today's staff presentation will be given by senior planner, Lucy Rollins.

Good morning.

Myself set up here. Alright. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Lucy Rollins, senior planner with the long range planning division. So I'm here today to provide an overview of the current status of the general plan. It's been a while since you heard from us what we're what we've been working on for the last six months or so. So see if I can there we go. So I just want to reintroduce you to the team. We don't have all of us here today, but the general plan update is, supported by the entire long range planning team. There's five or six of us, as well as our consultant, PlaceWorks, who has guided us through this process that we'll go over today to really shape where we're at right now.

I will give an overview of the schedule, as well as the deep dive. The meat of this presentation is going to be the current phase. There's a lot of information to cover about land uses, community plans, and our engagement proposal for this summer. And then open it up for any discussion or questions you have. So going back to the vision statement it's very long, so I don't have it all here. But these are some of the key phrases that got pulled out of that vision statement that was adopted by the board in October 2025. And so I'll make reference to these throughout our presentation today because they're really the lens of moving forward. How are we looking at land use? What are we thinking about with our planning efforts for each community? We're gonna hart back to safe suburban neighborhoods, rural care communities, all of those different topics.

So overview of our schedule. You can see where we're at in q two twenty twenty six. If you remember, we

have this last schedule. It used to be a

little bit shorter. It's gotten a little bit longer. And that is because we are we have done really extensive community outreach through the visioning process. Again, this summer and fall, we'll be doing more outreach because there's a lot that goes into this. We want to make sure we get everyone's input.

So right now, after the visioning process, we kicked off an audit or evaluation of the community plans and reviewing the land uses in the county. So we're not making any suggestions specific to land use at this stage, just how we want to think through land use moving forward. We are also this summer going to be releasing the Notice of Preparation, NOP, for the environmental review, which will come later in 2028. But the purpose of that is to establish a baseline of the existing conditions and start engaging on the environmental impacts. So I'm gonna start off by discussing land use opportunity areas.

So the purpose of the land use opportunity areas, the general plan is an opportunity for us to open that land use element, look at our designations, saying look at what's working, what's not. So we're looking, are there any vacant sites that maybe they're not developing because their land use designation is not correct? Is there type are there types of development that the county wants to encourage that we aren't supporting through our land use designations? It also gives us an opportunity to plan ahead for that in that coming regional housing regional housing needs allocation, that RINA, the state housing requirement. The general plan anticipated adoption of twenty twenty nine does align really well with the next housing element cycle due in 2029.

So this is an opportunity for us to, get ahead on that one a little bit. And then just looking at where our job centers are, where our housing is, and making sure it all makes sense. So opportunity areas. So what do I mean by opportunity areas? These are areas, and I have a map I'll show you in a couple of slides, that identifies nodes where staff has identified there are there's currently available infrastructure or readily available infrastructure.

There's development pressure or there's an interest in development. And these these opportunity areas are ways for us to encourage and facilitate change while protecting our rural communities, sort of improving that buffer. So the like I mentioned, these are not opportunity areas themselves are not recommending specific change, just where we want to study further. So before I show them to you, I want to walk through the process of how did we get here? How did we identify an area as an opportunity?

So the first thing we did is we looked back at that vision and guiding principles and said, where do we not want to facilitate change? Where do we not want to encourage development? And so that's our areas of conservation, as well as planned areas of conservation. Our non urban high and very high severity zones, we don't want to increase any intensity in those areas. And then also, anything that is currently designated agriculture, timberland, greenbelt open space, resorts and recreation, water influence, or that rural residential 10 plus acres.

You're really focusing on those rural and open space areas. We're not looking at any changes in those. So through that first step, these pink areas is all that's left of the county for us to look at further. So this is urban areas, suburban areas. You can see the concentration in West County in particular, but also the Tahoe Basin.

And the Tahoe Basin, while it is a high and very high fire hazard severity zone, a lot of it is considered urban. So maybe there's small tweaks for us to consider, but it's just an area for us to look at further. So the next phase of figuring out our opportunity areas was balancing development pressure with the feedback we've heard from commissioners, supervisors, and the public about what they wanna see. So we know that there's a development community out there that is seeking to expand housing, jobs, things like that. We know we need to plan for the seven cycle arena, but we also want to protect and preserve our rural communities, our open space, and we really want to respect the urban and suburban patterns that have been developed over decades of planning in Placer County.

So on this map, and I do have two that focus in on them, but you can see those little green circles are those nodes or opportunity areas that through those two steps we've identified for further study. The stars are the employment centers just for reference. These are places where the census data shows we've got a lot of Placer County residents traveling to and from. So really focusing our opportunity areas close to where those are. And I will note, these are not in opportunity areas, but we are also accepting any requests from property owners, landowners that want the land use change to be considered for their property as part of this general plan update.

And we'll also be looking at the specific plans to make sure their capacity makes sense. Is there anywhere else we should be increasing capacity for any use in particular? So we've got East County here. You can see they are mostly along the eighty nine and two sixty seven corridors. We've also got Soda Springs because we know there are there's interest there for expanding, especially workforce housing, as well as Homewood, Sunnyside, and Lake Forest along the lake itself.

And these were developed in coordination with staff that's on the ground, knows what the public is saying, knows what's working, knows what's not. But through our engagement process this summer, we're going to go to the community and say, you know, are changes appropriate here? Are there other things we should be looking at? What what do you know that we don't know? So this is not like I said, this is just a starting point to focus the conversation.

And then in East County here, there I think most of these areas are ones we would expect. So along the the Douglas Corridor, Auburn Folsom from Eureka to Douglas, the Dry Creek area, North Auburn, Downtown Newcastle. We do have Downtown Newcastle on here. I think we all know there's not a ton of capacity there. But a perfect example of looking at misalignments is Downtown Newcastle has a designation of ag Timberland with a 160 acre minimum.

Currently, most of those parcels are 6,000 square feet or less. So we know that that's a misalignment. So that's an example of something we know we wanna look at further and figure out what's appropriate. That doesn't necessarily change what's happening there, but making the land use match what's occurring. So that is where we're at with land use. Not specific recommendations, just how we wanna funnel this conversation. Before I go into community plans, I just wanna stop, see if there's any questions. We're gonna have plenty of time at

the end as well. Okay.

I have no questions.

Cool. So our community plans. So for anyone listening that isn't familiar with the community plans, Placer County has 12 community plans. They range in age significantly. The oldest was adopted in 1968 and has not been updated since. We've got more recent ones as well, but even 2015 is the newest. They are considered localized general general plans. So they establish a vision. They establish goals, policies, the planning horizon for their community boundaries. They do go a step further than the county well, some of them go a step further than the county wide plan by establishing design standards.

So some have street sections, some have setback requirements, things like that, where typically a general plan is a guiding document, and then you've got your zoning code or your design manual for those implementation tools. There are some community plans that house both. Plaza excuse me. Plaza County also has two area plans, the Tahoe Basin area plan and the Sunset area plan, as well as the Plaza County govern government center master plan where we are right now. The difference between the community plans and the area plans and master plans is typically the area plan and master plan are looking at a parcel level build out guidance versus the community plans even with their design standards are higher level.

They're community wide planning. So we've got them all here just so you can see where they're all at. You can see the different ages. Their structures while most of them include the same chapters or topics as the general plan, their structures are all different. You can see Alpine Meadows in the middle there is our oldest at 1968. Sheridan is our newest in 2015. But it's a lot of documents, and so the challenge we've encountered with them is maintaining them over time. So with these community plans, one of their implementing tools is like the county wide plan. They have their own land use designations. So we have a county wide land use designation menu, and we have 12 additional land use designation menus.

So through this process, through the general plan, we were looking at this as an opportunity to clean this up a little bit potentially. On the right here, I apologize it's small, but this table is quite large, is an example of, on the left, you've got the generalized land use categories from, the general plan, and then you've got the next general plan land use designations. And then the right column is all of the designations from the community plans that align with that. So for example, in the green belt and open space for the county wide plan, there are seven different designations that match with that from community plans. The biggest box is high density residential twenty thirty.

That's the new designation. Every single land use designation and every single community plan currently matches with that. So and that's that was to make sure that it applied. We didn't this is an opportunity for us to clean it up. So what we're proposing as part of this update is to create one menu countywide.

So if you're in Sheridan, general commercial or medium density residential means the same thing as it does in Forest Hill or Mardis Valley. So, for example, currently, medium density residential means a maximum of four units an acre in Granite Bay, eight units an acre in Forest Hill, and 10 units an acre in Auburn. So we're not necessarily proposing changing their maximums, but creating a terminology that's consistent. So you don't have that same maximum, use the same terminology. So with the community plans, so that's one reason we wanted to evaluate them.

The main reasons is, like I said, is they're old. A lot of them have not been updated or maintained. They may not reflect current conditions, current visions for those communities, or current, technology and development. And the challenge with them is that updating a comprehensive update to each community plan can take about two years. So if we started today on working on all of them, by the time we finished the last one, the first one would already be over twenty years old.

So maintaining them has become very challenging. So we wanted to look at how can we plan for our communities more efficiently. We have a guiding principle. I can't remember the exact terminology, but it's like engagement in government, and it's about clear, efficient decision making. So how can we be more efficient with planning for our communities without losing the intent of these community plans and reflecting the current preferences of our residents? Maybe they're the same as they were when that plan was adopted, but maybe they've changed. And like I said, aligning the terminology. So we went through all of the community plans. We pulled out all of the goals and policies from each of them. And our goal through this process of evaluating them was to remove any outdated, obsolete, or redundant policies.

So maybe it's been completed. Maybe that thing doesn't exist anymore. Whatever it may be. We also wanna retain any area or specific, planning that is really tailored for implementing a certain certain area within a community. And then bringing those opportunity areas in, how do we plan for that? So with this, we went through each goal and policy. There were thousands of them. So that's why it took us so long to get back to you. As we were checking, has it been completed? Is it a requirement of state law?

Because if it's a requirement of state law, we don't necessarily need to reiterate it within our document because we'll be implementing it regardless. Does it address a topic unique to the community? So that's really that was our key thing here is with these documents, a lot of it wasn't unique to the community. It was important for the community, but it wasn't unique. And I'll get into that in a second. And so with all these goals and policies, we put them in three categories. Either retire it. It's outdated. We think that it's not relevant anymore. Not a ton of those, but there are a few.

The second would be keeping keeping it in community planning. Whatever community planning looks like moving forward, keep it with that. And the second is moving it into the general plan, the design manual, or the development code, or any other document that planning has that's more efficient in implementing it. So going back to that sort of redundancy I mentioned, in the review, on average, nine out of 10 goals and policies were not specific to their community. So for example, every single community plan has a goal or policy that says preserve open space.

And that's super important, but it's not specific to that community. So having it at the county general plan means it will still be implemented. It is still important, but it starts to can restructure these plans to be really tailored to what is important. What are the landmarks? What are the visions? What are the things that are unique to that community that we should focus on in the community planning effort and sort of decluttering it? So for example, you can see that our newer plans had a lot more of their own unique aspects. Our older plans were really reflective of the countywide general plan. So with that in mind, we started to think through what what can we do to be more efficient in our community planning moving forward. So three options came to us.

The first one is to just maintain our community plans, update them, continue business as usual. The benefit of that is that it's familiar. We know what they look like. The challenge is, like we found, we have forty year old plans, and that may continue. Area plans was another option.

So like Sunset or Tahoe Basin, really focus our planning efforts on where we want change or we see change occurring so that we can guide that build out really deliberately. And then a new option, which is staff's preference at this point, a recommendation but not a formal recommendation, is a community profile. So a community profile, and then the next slide will go into it, is an opportunity to tailor our community planning on those unique aspects. So focusing, for example, in Auburn, what the stuff that's going on around the airport is really specific to Auburn. No other community is experiencing that.

It provides the consistent framework. It makes sure it's tailored to what's unique. And then it takes all of the pieces that are maybe not so unique and make sure they're implemented another way. So there's the goal here is no loss of content, just restructuring of content. So what is a community plan? The vision is we would create a new element in the general plan, and we call it the community element for ease. And inside that element, we would have subchapters for each community. So that could be the same communities as they are defined in their geographies by their community plan. We could restructure them. We have options there.

But anyway, in their profile, for example, we would take all of those really tailored and unique goals and policies from their community plan. And through our outreach process, maybe there's new ones. Identify new things that are important and bring them in there. So the community profile would have the vision for that community. It would have their goals and policies.

It would have any narrative or analysis that is specific to them. Then anything that is, for example, the preserve open space, that ends up in the general plan. So it's still implemented, but it's not taking up space within that profile. So we believe this is an opportunity to really highlight what's important and make sure we're focusing on that and we don't get lost in the weeds. And those design standards, we foresee doing a, update to the design standards and the design manual down the road and making sure all of that does get pulled in so it's not lost.

So if your community has a specific design sand standard for something, that still exists. It's just in a different document. So that is community profiles, community plans. I just have two more slides relatively brief I'll run through. So with all of this, this is the first workshop of our community outreach this summer and fall. So we will be going to the board in June with the same presentation. Then over the summer and fall, we plan to go to each MAC and present the tailored conversation about their community plan, their land use opportunity areas, really get community feedback that way. We'll also hold a virtual town hall. We'll hold in person open houses regionally. And then we're gonna have a stakeholder virtual workshop to get those stakeholders involved as well.

We also have Engage Plasters, our online platform. Yesterday, we went live with, new maps and a survey for a poll for people to share what gaps they see in their community or land use. Where do they want to see more housing? Where do they want to see more parks? May where do they want to see more jobs or services? So we have a lot of options for convenience, whatever works for people, online, in person, Mac. You choose it. We've got it. And then we're gonna bring all of that back next spring in 2027 to the commission and the board with the feedback and a formal recommendation for direction on where we wanna go with land use and community plans at that time. So right now, it's just where are we at in getting the feedback.

So our timeline, like I said, June, we're going to the board. July through December, we'll be doing all of that engagement. We will be releasing that CEQA notice of preparation, I believe, in July, but it'll be summer. And then early twenty twenty seven, we'll be coming back to your commission and the board. So that is a lot of information. And if you have any questions, let us know.

Thank you, Lucy. Questions? Have maybe just a couple questions, Lucy. Yeah. So with the community profiles, if there are specific differences in because some community plans like the Granite Bay has like a circulation element. Right. There's specific design standards. And so would those then get, you reflected in the other documents? So like, let's say there's a specific design standard. And I know both in the Penryn one, which came up in the Hopeway project and in Granite Bay, there's specific level of service requirements too on that. So how do those get handled? Would they yeah.

Can you talk a bit It's a great question. And so I think I think the thing here is there will be a couple of phases to this, like, if this move forward. Is the first step would be pulling goals, policies, those are into this profile. For those implementation design elements or setbacks or what whatever it may be, I believe what we expect is in the interim, it would stay within the the Granite Bay community plan, and we just implement that until we update the design standards to make sure that piece gets pulled in. I see.

So the design standards are county wide, but there may becomes, like, a section that is things that are specific to Horseshoe Bart Penryn, things that are specific to Granite Bay. So we def we're not intending to lose anything. It's just methodically making sure it ends up in a document where it is it can be implemented really efficiently and maintained. And I think the other thing that's important with that is during those updates, we'd be reviewing, does this still make sense? Do we want to change it? Do we want to keep it the way it is?

Okay. So it's almost like a similar approach of the community profile. When it comes time to make updates to design guidelines, it would be evaluated whether those specifics make sense. And if they do, maybe there is some subsection subsection that's specific to that.

Right. That's sort of what we're envisioning.

Okay.

It is the process for getting the content that makes most sense. So there are some community plans that have, a plan for trails. Right? They've got their local plan for trails. Making sure that's reflected in the parks and trails master plan, for example. Right. We're figuring out what is the best spot for it and then making sure it's there.

Okay. Yeah. Because I know that's a very hot topic also in, in the Granite Bay area is trails. And so those all of the specific elements would then get sort of placed Right. In the appropriate

Right. On the If the appropriate spot for it is in a general plan element, we can do that as part of this general plan update. If the appropriate spot for it is in a different document, that would come secondary to this, but we would make sure it's maintained until that time.

It's sunsetted. Right. Yeah. Okay. Okay. And then, the last piece on the, for the land use opportunity areas, for, private property owners that sort of opt in their property, because I know that was part of how the RINA process worked for rezone, I'm assuming planning, though, would be evaluating like, if I let's say, I live on Res Ag. I say, I wanna build, you know, a huge, structure that's gonna house hundreds of people. My neighbors probably aren't gonna be real happy with me. Right. So I'm assuming even if private property owners opt their properties in, you're still gonna do the consistency analysis Right. For surrounding land use.

Yes. So there'll be we've had a few people reach out to us. And we start with, would the county recommend this? Right? Because we're

now Okay.

Now be taking it as a county initiated land use change. So so that's the first conversation. But any land use change that comes forward, it's going to go through the same vetting process as any other change. So if we take the parcel a parcel on the corner of A And B, and we're recommending that for change, it's going to go through the same evaluation whether the county recommends it or whether the property owner has requested it. And then, ultimately, the board will decide what changes happen where.

Okay.

And if I might, chair Bechler, just because that's, you know, came up quite a bit in in terms of the rezone

Right.

Process where there was quite a bit of discussion about a more, comprehensive, intentional, approach as it as it related to what properties do we really feel like are appropriate for higher density residential development in particular? And we referenced numerous times during that process that, you know, we really were going to undertake that more deliberative approach as part of this, general plan update. And so even though we may have private property owners indicate their interest in a change in land use designation, it may not be residential, it may be commercial, it may be industrial, All of that, is going to be evaluated and vetted through this more comprehensive and deliberative intentional process. And so just because they're indicating an interest doesn't mean that that will be something that staff recommends, and there could very well be in instances where a property owner isn't maybe necessarily interested. But from a comprehensive planning process that we're undertaking here, we may be recommending, changes in in land use designation.

Correct. That's helpful because I do know that was a a challenge, so that that's good. And then, two other quick, they're probably more comment related, but in the in the in the at least since I've been on the planning commission and then prior to that, you know, there's and it's very true in Granite Bay, Dry Creek, others. So for those areas, like, in this opportunity area analysis for land, especially land use, it's a common theme where things get rezoned to higher density. They were intended to be, you know, let's say, low density or medium.

So is there gonna be a realistic review of, like, for Granite Bay, Dry Creek, those areas identified, what the future looks like? Because I think it'd be better to address it now in a holistic fashion even if people and I'm not advocating to make it higher density, but doing it now in a in a general plan perspective versus creating, it's just so much abrasion from the community when we say, okay. This is low density, but then it gets rezoned and gets approved, rezoned and approved. And that's been a pattern in Granite Bay for many years. And so I just hope that, you know, both the planning commission and the board are bold in the sense of if we think there's going to be more development than we're saying is there now, like, let's address it now versus sort of creating mistrust from the public in saying, well, you've got this plan, but no one follows it anyway.

So it's more of a general comment, but I I hope that that's evaluated in this especially in the land use, opportunity area. Does that make sense?

Yeah. And I'll I'll say it's like, I think this is the opportunity, like Mr. Pahuli said, to be really deliberate about what changes we want to make. And once those decisions have been made, be reluctant to make any additional changes in the near future. Because we've gone through this process to be like, yes, we wanna make this change, or no, we don't wanna make this change today. Right. So it's not coming down the line. Yeah. At least not in the near future.

Okay. And then the last thing I'll say is on, the outreach, stakeholders. Are you guys outreaching to, like, the real estate industry? Because I think one of the I see as the I'm gonna call it the systemic challenges is that even if, you know, with set especially with setbacks in, you know, conditions around, natural areas Mhmm. There's a lot that happens, especially in sort of the semi rural areas where, you know, this is not a dig to real estate people at all.

But that houses are sold or properties are sold with, like, hey. It's you can do anything you want here. And so is there anything being done proactively to, like, engage the real estate community, to, like, make sure they're aware and somehow make it more enforced that people in the real estate industry have property owners be more aware of what the requirements are on the land. Because we've seen multiple issues come before the planning commission where people are like, well, I didn't know this before I bought the property. So is that part of your outreach approach?

So we will be reaching out to the Realtors Association and other organizations through this for this conversation. But I think that's a really good point for us to know whether this is, you know, the general plan is the appropriate venue or another one is to share the information about what is land use and what can you actually do with your property. So we'll certainly take that to note what is the best way

to engage with them on that.

Okay. Thank you.

Chair Bechler, I may, just to expand a little bit more, I know Ms. Rollins mentioned it during her presentation, but we are going to be conducting a, a stakeholder workshop, and that's going to be a very broad based outreach. We're gonna, contact is and you may recall as part of the community engagement strategy, there were a number of organizations, environmental organizations, you know, business, groups, and the like that we'll be outreaching to and then providing a forum following that outreach for us to, perhaps go out and make presentations to, you know, Rotary, Phillips and and Right. Business organizations. So we really want, even though we'll do one large stakeholder outreach, the intent really there is to then establish a a, ongoing relationship through the general plan update, which may sort of bear fruit in other ways as well, maybe to your point about, you know, kind of a more frequent communication with the Realtors Association or maybe other groups as well.

But wanna maybe point that out because I that is gonna be a big part of our outreach program this, this summer and fall.

Okay. Great. Thank you so much for entertaining my questions. Anything else? So I will go ahead and open public comment at this stage. Is there anyone here in person? I don't see any. Do we have anyone online?

We have three hands raised.

Okay.

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

Good morning. This is Muriel Davis. Can you hear me okay? It

helps? Yes.

Okay. Great. In my opinion, this proposal is bait and switch, a slide of hand, or a goal to remove community plans and to make it more complicated for communities to preserve their character. These probes, quote, profiles, unquote, will get lost in the community plan. There is no proof that the community plans are working are not working now.

They are working. Unfortunately, this powers that be do not always follow them and then violate the plans. I'd like to to I'd like to know who decided to propose this change of the community plans and incorporating the the information in a general plan. Is it was it the five or six planned employees that proposed this? I don't understand why this is even in the process of part of the community the general plan.

We need the community plans. The communities need to be built to have their own identity and their own goals. And I really am concerned about this proposal. Thank you for letting me comment.

Thank you for your comments.

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

Greetings again, commissioners. Diane Louise Alessi from Christian Valley Park Community Services District. My my major comment was made an open comment this morning, but in terms of the general plan, I think something that's being overlooked by the county and because this 800 to $1,000,000 per door for meeting our arena goals is absolutely it it's obscene as chair Shannon Shanti Landon had stated before. The county really has to roll in somehow, some way to be able to do long term land leases so that tiny home communities or I had suggested to the board when they were up in Tahoe to bring back Quonset hut structures, especially in high fire, high snow load. I I as growing up here, all of DeWitt's center was Quonset huts.

Everywhere you looked, it was post World War two Quonset huts because the army corps of engineers could pop those things up in, like, no time. There's a lot of sophistication that's gone into that now, and they are extremely cost effective in other states and being implemented. And in some more high fire districts or even arid zones in Arizona, they're doing three quarter submersion to these in ground, and they're doing in ground parking structures. This is the type of thing that we should be doing with Rina because it could be done under, like, a Habitat for Humanity type structure where people have skin in the game. And the only cost that they're incurring is the cost of the structure, and the long term lease is through a cooperative.

So I would like to see that type of thing being introduced into community plans where we can meet arenas, but we do it in a creative and affordable way, a true affordable because I hate that term. But the point being is that we are not looking into the future of what we have to do here because we will never ever meet our low and extreme low and now coming forward acute low requirements. And plus the this county, the public needs to understand the parsing between what happens when a a property gets rezoned to its arena or r m 30. The developer doesn't have to do the infrastructure like they do with market rate. And I think that's a piece that the job blow public just doesn't understand, and they don't understand the game of using the low income housing tax credits and the in lieu fees.

So I think that needs to be really put out in front so people really know what the game is. And so with that, Aiyil, thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

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

Hello. This is Donna Delano from Penryn, twenty five year resident, always fighting for appropriate development. So, of course, we thank the planning commission, what, last year for declining the Hopeway project, but yet it gets to the supervisor and everybody does a supervisor's board. And, of course, it gets voted as a yes, and then we just find that, you know, the community plan kinda gets glossed over by all this crazy stuff. So I feel like the county, you know, this engaged classroom, follow Northern Star, and all the stuff you talk about doesn't matter because you guys come in and do whatever you wanna do and, you know, you're about to double our population in one tiny town.

So the public is upset and now aware of it and, you know, watching more closely. So we just want to stress that, you know, you need to think about if we're the taxpayers, we're here. We're owners. You know, we bought houses in these areas that are our legacy homes. We've, you know, looked at the community plans and realized, okay.

This is where I wanna live and invest my money. And then things come in and, you know, make these whopper massive life changing, you know, changes that can't be undone. So I I feel things should stay as they are, and we need to really adhere to appropriate development only and then holding the developers to their 10%. Like both Muriel and Diane Louise said, which are great voices for us, for the whole county, not just us, that, you know, if the if the builders had been putting their 10% in for the last twenty or thirty years of any development over a 100 units, we wouldn't be sitting here with 1,200 units short and 1,219 families that don't have a place to be. It would be more sprinkled, you know, you'd have smaller projects sprinkled in throughout the neighborhoods or brand new construction would have their sections where they're sprinkled in and it would all be very cohesive.

But what you're doing now is you see, we've made national news. We've gone viral. We're all over the place with the the whole way mess. You just need to just really have a better plan that will protect the existing communities and all the people that help form these communities and just be more realistic with what we go forward with. We just feel like no matter what we say, it's not gonna work and it's very frustrating. The public is kinda onto it now. So that's my opinion. Thank you for listening.

Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else?

No others.

Okay. I'm gonna go ahead and close public comment. Staff, is there anything you would like to respond to that came up?

No. We don't.

Okay. Any other commissioner comments? No? And since we do not have a vote on this, that concludes our business for today. Thank you, everyone, for attending. This meeting is now adjourned.