Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

No problem, we're having some technical difficulties. Good? There's nothing to push to, there's nothing to push for IT. Okay, okay. I'm gonna call this meeting to order. Good morning, everyone. If you could please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. If I could ask the planning commission clerk for a roll call this morning. Commissioner Watts.

Mark, aye, here.

Commissioner Jewell.

Here.

Commissioner Dahlgren. Here. Commissioner Runtine. Here. Commissioner Johnson.

Here.

Commissioner Alves.

Here.

Commissioner Beckler.

Here. Thank you. Good morning everyone and welcome to today's Planning Commission hearing. Today's meeting is open to both in person and virtual participation. It may also be viewed online through the Placer County website. If you'd like to provide public comment on any item today, the Planning Commission clerk will announce when it is time for the public comment on that particular item. For those participating via Zoom, please use the raise hand feature at the bottom of the screen If you are calling in via telephone, you can press star 9 to raise your hand. Please be prepared to speak when I open public comment for the specific item you wish to address. This does include public comment on matters that are not on the published agenda today, as well as individual hearing items. Each speaker is allowed up to three minutes to provide their comment and will have only one opportunity to do so on each item. Um, thanks for your cooperation as we like to ensure that everyone is able to address the commission and gets an equal opportunity to do so. Uh, please also be advised that today's meeting is being recorded and will be available on the planning commission webpage following the hearing today. So the first item we have on the agenda is our consent items. Um, there are two items on the consent agenda. Um, item three, which is an extension of time for the NIAC batch plant temporary use permit. And then item four, which is the minutes from our planning commission meeting on June 25th, 2026. So is there any commissioner that would like to remove any item from the consent agenda? I see none. Is there anyone from the public that would like to remove an item from the consent agenda for discussion? I see no one in person. Do we have anyone online?

Hands raised.

Okay. If I could entertain a motion on the consent agenda.

Motion to approve the consent agenda.

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

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

Yes. Great. Next item on our agenda for today is a report from Planning Director, Mr. Chris Pahuli. So welcome, Chris, and thank you, and please provide the report. I'm a little rusty since we've been on recess, so bear with me today, everyone.

Good morning, Chair Beckler, Commissioners, Chris Pahuli, Placer County Planning Director, and welcome back from the break. So I have several updates to share with the Commission today, beginning with recent Board actions and upcoming meetings. Since our last meeting in late June, the Board has taken up two planning-related items. On June 30th, the board received an update on the Placer 2050 general plan update. The board expressed interest in having staff return uh... in the spring of twenty seven uh... with recommendations regarding the treatment uh... the county's community plans and provide land use uh... land use alternative recommendations and that would occur following the review and recommendation from the planning commission uh... we also at that meeting reviewed our community outreach strategy uh... that we previously discussed with the commission to get input from the MACs as well as from the general public to inform that work product that we'll bring back next year. So since the end of June, staff have been visiting the MACs to provide information and to solicit feedback on the community plans. To date, staff have visited seven MACs with six more meetings remaining. The meeting dates are, the upcoming meeting dates are included in the report. Sorry, I did not pass that out, right? I'm gonna grab that if you don't mind. Yeah, my apologies. The report is being passed out to you. And that report does, as I was about to mention, does include the upcoming MAC meeting dates for the commission's use if you're interested in attending. I also wanted to note that on July 14th, the board approved the planning commission's recommendation for the approval of the entitlement package for the Sierra Family Meadows project. As a reminder, that one is an eight lot subdivision in Olympic Valley. The project included a general plan amendment, rezone and tentative subdivision map. The next planning item scheduled before the Board of Supervisors is the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance. It's currently scheduled for August 25th. The Planning Commission considered that ordinance on June 25th and recommended that the Board approve that ordinance. So looking ahead to Planning Commission meetings on the next meeting, August 27th, staff are currently anticipating four items for that meeting. One of those items will be the entitlement package for the Sierra Nevada Olympic Winter Museum or the Snow Museum. As you may recall, that project was handled a little bit differently than normal. The project's final EIR was previously certified by the Board of Supervisors back in February 2024. The board's 2024 agenda and supplemental materials are available online. From that date, they're item 3.1, if you wanted to note it. And if the commission is interested in just a refresher, it may not be a bad idea to look back at that board hearing and the materials from it just to familiarize yourself. with the project uh... although the environmental document was certified by the board what will be coming back to the planning commission before going to the board is the entitlement package for the project and it includes a general plan amendment rezone county code amendment and a conditional use permit. So again, that one is scheduled to be before you on August 27th. Also on that meeting agenda, staff anticipate an amendment to the development agreement for Bickford Ranch, as well as a public meeting to receive comments on the Estia, Dry Creek, and Placer Creek residential draft EIR. That draft EIR was released for public review on August 10th. I've included the project webpage on this report for commissioners who would like to review the draft EIR before the materials come to you. For September 10th, staff currently anticipate one item, and for September 24th, we're targeting three items. So if you anticipate being absent for any of these meetings, please do let myself and the planning commission clerk know so that we can plan accordingly. Moving on to some housing updates. The CEO housing team advises me that the board's ad hoc committee continues to Develop a funding strategy to present to the full board They're currently targeting a late fall or winter date for that for that presentation to the board That strategy is expected to include a recommendation regarding updates to the affordable housing and employee accommodation fees any proposed modifications to the ordinance will likely be a subsequent conversation with with the board so that the that late fall early winter is likely not to include any proposed recommendations at that time to the ordinance. I also wanted to mention that based on direction from the board earlier this year planning staff are preparing another pro housing designation program application so as a reminder our current pro-housing designation expires at the end of this year. The application will be seeking a three-year extension of that designation, which would then allow us, as we've talked about at previous meetings, to be more competitive for funding opportunities. Staff is anticipating a virtual community meeting on September 1st. Once we solidify that I'll push out information to you all And that application will be available for public review later this month on our County's web page. I did include that web page on your on your report here as well and we are anticipating bringing forward that request to submit that application and to the board on October 6th. I also wanted to mention that the quarterly project reports are being have been provided to you Today those reports have been a little slight reformatting of them to include an updated Status for the projects. It should make it a little bit easier for the Commission to track the progress of the of the projects I note that the current report reflects 45 Privately initiated projects that are being handled out of both our Auburn and Tahoe offices as well as about half a dozen publicly initiated projects that are being handled by our long-range planning team two of which you'll be hearing about today as their agenda is for our meeting. I do hope that the Commission is finding these reports beneficial, gives you an idea of how these projects are moving through the process and when you're likely to see them on a published agenda. I also wanted to remind the Commission and members of the public that information on current planning projects inclusive of these projects but also all of the projects that are being processed are available on the county's interactive GIS project viewer and that includes information on the projects, the entitlements, the lead project planner and other helpful information. So finally, prior to today's meeting, the Commission did receive several public comments regarding matters not on the agenda. One of those, which we continue to get public comments on, are the Gateway Project in Blue Canyon. I did just want to provide a quick update on that one since the last time we met there has been some activity. So as I've noted previously that project is in a early processing Processing stage it is subject to a minor use permit which would place the project in front of the zoning administrator The project is currently undergoing CEQA review. I've mentioned that before to you, and an EIR is being prepared for the project. A notice of preparation was issued for that EIR on July 31st with a public review period continuing through August 31st. As part of that process, the county will hold an EIR scoping meeting on Monday, August 24th from 3 to 4 p.m. in this room. People can attend in person or virtually. There is a virtual option for the meeting. And information on the project and the scoping meeting is available on our county webpage for the project. So we have, given the amount of interest in this project, we have stood up a project webpage where people can go to get information about the project. And it includes a frequently asked questions section as well.

What is the project called again? I know it's got different names. Gateway Park. Gateway Park.

Yeah. I should also note that we do intend to have a broader community meeting later this fall to provide even another opportunity for public comment. And so I'll keep the commission updated on that as well. So that concludes my report. I'm happy to answer any questions that the commission might have.

Thank you so much. Any questions? Mark.

On the pro-housing, has there been any competitive grants that you've gone up for using the pro-housing designation? Have we been successful?

Yes, we have applied for competitive funding through pro-housing. We have unfortunately not been successful as to yet.

And does it only apply to a county application, or would a county agency like PCTPA be able to point to the pro-housing designation, or do they need their own?

That's a great question. I don't know the answer to that. I would assume that the county would need to be a co-applicant in order to take advantage of the designation, but I can find out and report back to you.

Just the background of why I'm asking these questions is because it's a nice opportunity to go after some of these competitive grants, but on the other side of the coin, the legislature has created pro-housing. has not been funding some of the very major infrastructure grants, like AHSC or the strategic corridors. So it's frustrating to watch as somebody who works on part of that. So that's why I'm kind of interested, because if it doesn't pan out because they're not funding the grants, maybe we don't need to stretch to get the pro-housing unless there's a specific plot that we're really going to be playing in. Just my thoughts.

Yeah, I appreciate that perspective. I will say that we do believe that that there are benefits to having the pro housing designation you know outside of some of those programs and will Likely mean that some of our key housing initiatives and key housing projects Could could be able to tap into that those funds if they are successful But I will report back on that question that you have Thank you other questions No, thank you so much, Chris Okay, next item on our agenda is Planning Commissioner reports do any of my fellow commissioners have anything to comment or share I

No?

What?

Yeah, on our summer recess. Okay, if nothing from the commissioners, I'm going to go ahead and move to public comment. And this will be public comment period for matters that are not on today's planning commission agenda. And as a reminder, each speaker will have up to three minutes to provide comments. First, I will go to in person. So is there anyone here today that would like to make comment? I see none. Do we have anyone online? Okay.

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

Greetings, Commissioners. Diane Louise Alessi from Christian Valley Park Community Services District and also a director of CVPRC. So, you know, this is a little bit touching on what's on the agenda, but virtually, What I'm going to do is more broad. It's a tsunami for the public to try to keep up with the, pardon the expression, crap sandwiches we're all supposed to eat out of Sacramento. And I'm just appalled at what the county is doing in terms of outreach and transparency in terms of both the update for the general plan 2050 and this ZTA text amendment outreach. I participated in the webinars and it's an abysmal show for either both the public and or the stakeholders. And I'm just trying to put out to you that, and I know you're listening, Mr. Povely, You need to consider that the stakeholders, such as Christian Valley Park Community Services District Board, it's not their full-time job, nor is some of our staff, because we are a small, special district. Those meetings and those webinars need to be more accommodating to the stakeholders put out in the evening. Because I know board members on my board, I'm retired. I'm disabled, retired. That's why you always hear from me. But I was the only stakeholder who attended that webinar for the general plan. That's just not doable. When I asked the moderator, there was only 40 RSVPs. So what I'm telling you, and hopefully we'll talk to your board members, is that there needs to be a shift in that. We are the stakeholders. We see what the problems are coming down the line, especially with the ADUs up to four. And I can see that happening here in Christian Valley because we're one acre minimums and we have a lot of constraints in our infrastructure and our ability to provide water. So I'm just saying, reach out to us individually as stakeholders. and have us participate because there's no way, this is gonna be a backlash like you've never seen before. We're trying to do it proactively here in Christian Valley, but everything is reactive up to this point. So I'm just gonna yield with that and hopefully we can make this better going forward. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Do we have anyone else online?

No others.

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment, seeing that there's no further speakers. We are now going to move on to our hearing items. We do have two items on the agenda. Items one and two are legislative zoning ordinance and general plan amendments associated with the implementation of the Placer County housing element. Because these are legislative matters, the Board of Supervisors is the final decision-making body. The Planning Commission's role today is to consider the proposals and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. The first hearing item, item number one, is emergency shelters and supportive housing zoning text amendments. And the staff presentation this morning will be provided by Assistant Planner Santiago Garcia-Martin. Welcome.

Thank you, Chair Becker. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Santiago Garcia-Martin, Assistant Planner with the Long Range Planning Team. The item before you today is HE41 Sonic Text Amendments for Emergency Shelters, Supportive Housing, and Lower Navigation Centers. The purpose of this amendment is to align county code with state housing law and to implement program HE41 from our housing element. These amendments will cover three regulatory texts, including the county zoning chapter, the government center master plan, and the sunset area plan. So the chart that you see here shows the hierarchy of requirements that produces housing element program. There are three levels. Beginning at the top, we have state law, which establishes how local governments may regulate certain uses and includes the Housing Accountability Act, which I will cover on the next slide. Then we have the general plan, which contains the housing element, which was adopted in May 21 and certified by the state and establishes programs to meet local housing needs and to comply with state law. Finally, we have the zoning code, which sets the standards and implements the general plan. This is the level we will be amending today. So how these three steps work together is first we have the general plan. As you all are familiar, the general plan is a required document for every city and county in California. Within that plan sits the housing element. The housing element is updated every eight years and it plans for the county's projected housing need. It is adopted by the board and certified by the state, and each year we report back to the state on our progress. HE 41 is one of the programs inside it. On the right we have the Housing Accountability Act. This is California's main enforcement tool for making sure local governments follow through on their housing plans. Under this act, a city, county, A city or county cannot deny, reduce the density of, or make invisible a housing project, an emergency shelter, or a farm worker housing that is consistent with objective standards. With that framework in mind, let's turn to the program itself. HE 41 is a board adopted program in the county state certified housing element, which the county is required by law to implement. It commits the county to three things. Allow low barrier navigation centers by right in mixed use zones and in non-residential zones that permit multifamily uses. Allow 100% of affordable developments that include supportive housing units without a conditional use permit or other discretionary review in all districts where multifamily and mixed use development is permitted. And removing excessive parking requirements so that emergency shelters provide parking for its staff and no more than comparable uses in the same zone. Since the adoption of our housing element, state law has continued to change. So we included some additional refinements in the zoning text amendments that are related to HE 41 so we can align our code with state law. State law now defines emergency shelters to include a variety of uses, including navigation centers and bridge housing. Based on this, a navigation center is a type of emergency shelter. It also specifies that where shelters are allowed, we may apply only written objective standards. And emergency shelters also must be 300 feet apart from each other, and parking is based on the number of staff. To continue this, State law also requires that low barrier navigation centers and supportive housing must be permitted by right in zones where multifamily and mixed-use development is allowed. So these amendments update two existing definitions in our zoning county code and are adding a new one. First, it's updating the emergency shelter definition to expand to bring navigation centers, bridge housing, and recuperative care under the emergency shelter umbrella. Then we are adding a new definition, which is low barrier navigation centers. This definition includes Sorry, let me go back. So low barrier navigation centers, it's a service-rich temporary shelter. The main difference between a low barrier navigation center and an emergency shelter is that low barrier navigation centers provide more expedited uses and reduce barriers of entry. So users that want to go to a low barrier navigation center may be allowed to bring their partners, they may be allowed to also have their units and this This low burden navigation center, it expedites the process from emergency shelter, from a low burden navigation center to supportive housing. So it's a more service rich type of emergency shelter. Finally, we are updating our supportive housing definition to align with state code. So the following graph you see here, the chart, is an abbreviated version of the land use table that lives in our zoning ordinance. Where you see a C, that means zoning clearance, which is a ministerial staff level review confirming the proposal meets its code objective standards. This zoning text amendments would allow navigation centers and supportive housing wherever a district already allows multifamily housing. So as you can see, this will total for 10 zoning districts that would now allow supportive housing and lower navigation centers by right. And if you see the middle multifamily dwellings, it's aligned everywhere where multifamily is already allowed. The CTA, the zoning text amendment includes a new section for supportive housing and low barrier navigation centers and updates standards for emergency shelters. Supportive housing will be required to be did restricted for affordability. It will have a prescriptive floor area standards and it must include at least one bathroom and a kitchen. The base development standards of the underlying zone district would still apply. Parking will be based on proximity to public transit And specific approval timelines are required as well as a consistency determination if near an airport influence area. Turning now to emergency shelters. Emergency shelter standards will be updated per state law to remove proximity requirements from school and zones where shelters are not permitted while strengthening security requirements. Lighting and staffing requirements are included. The development must prepare a neighborhood relationships plan and a security plan. Parking will be based off the number of staff and proximity to public transit. It will also require a consistency determination if in an airport influence area. Last but not least, low barrier navigation centers. This is a new section for low barrier navigation centers will require connected services plan, a coordinated entry system, a homeless management information system, as well as compliance with state code. It would utilize the development standards in the base zoning district, a security plan is required, and parking is also based on proximity to public transit and the number of staff. This use would also require a consistency determination if in an airport influence area. Now on to the government center master plan and sunset area plan. In addition to amending our zoning ordinance, the county also has some additional plans that establish local zoning regulations in Placer County. Two of them are the two of which are the Government Center Master Plan and the Sunset Area Plan, and these are being amended to match the zoning ordinance changes. With that, I would like to move to outreach, our public outreach. Staff held a virtual community meeting on January 28, covering both HE 41 and HE 42, which will be the next item. For these meetings, more than 90 people attended, During the question and answer period of this meeting, all of the comments and questions were directed at HE42, the residential care home amendment. Also, between March and May, staff presented the draft amendments to eight municipal advisory councils, which are Granite Bay, North Auburn, Sheridan, Newcastle-Opher, Rural Lincoln, West Placer, Forest Hill, and Central Mac. Finally, staff also presented the proposed amendments to the Placer County Airport Land Use Commission on June 24. The Commission unanimously determined that the amendments are consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, subject to the conditions that the ALUC complete its consistency review within 30 days after the County deems an application complete. So before I proceed to read the recommendations, I would like the planning director to provide some comments.

Yeah, thank you, Santiago. As Santiago mentioned, before he reads the recommendations into the record, Just wanted to note a slight modification that staff is proposing to the package. I'd like to call the commission's attention to attachment A, which is the zoning ordinance. And on page 12 of Attachment A, it includes the definition for emergency shelter. And staff is recommending that where it says emergency shelters include but are not limited to traditional shelters, and then it proceeds to say low barrier navigation centers to strike low barrier from that section. And the reason for that modification is that State law is a bit confusing the way that it is structured. State law, as Santiago mentioned during his presentation, does state that navigation centers are included in the emergency shelter definition, but there is also provisions that are specific to emergency shelters, and those are separate then the provisions for low barrier navigation centers. And so as you're aware, as part of this package, the low barrier NAVIGATION CENTERS HAVE A RELATIVELY PERMISSIVE REGULATORY PATH BASED ON STATE LAW. EMERGENCY SHELTERS ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE RESTRICTIVE BASED ON STATE LAW. WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING ANY CHANGES TO THOSE AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PACKAGE, ANY CHANGES TO THE PERMITTING PATH. BUT IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NO CONFUSION ABOUT WHICH about a low barrier navigation center and whether it should be considered an emergency shelter or a low barrier navigation center, we're suggesting that we just strike low barrier from the emergency shelter definition. And so with that, I'd ask Santiago to read the recommendations into the record.

One second, Chris, do we have any low barrier navigation centers currently in Placer County?

I don't believe that the navigations, or I don't believe that our shelters would be considered low barrier navigation centers. I did want to note that we do have a representative from HHS here. If you do have specific questions about shelters and the differences between them, we do have an expert here that can speak to it.

Yeah, I'm really clear on what an emergency shelter is and what it does and how it operates. I am not clear at all on what a low barrier navigation center is and why it exists in this zoning text amendment and what's the purpose of having it differentiated. So that would be helpful.

Yeah, perhaps we'll read the staff recommendation into the record and then perhaps we can have them provide some further clarification for the Commission.

Great. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Chris. With that, staff recommends the Planning Commission to make the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Determine that a proposed amendment, that the proposed amendments are exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15061 of Sections B3. Adopt an ordinance amending Placer County Code Chapter 17 pertaining to emergency shelters, lower navigation centers, and supportive housing to implement Housing Element Program HE41 as amended by the Planning Director. C, adopt a resolution approving an amendment to the Placer County Government Center Master Plan Development Standards and to establish land use types and parking requirements for low-barrier navigation centers and supportive housing. D, adopt an ordinance amending the Placer County Government Center Master Plan Development Standards to establish land use types and parking requirements for low-barrier navigation centers and supportive housing. E, adopt a resolution approving an amendment to the Sunset Area Plan implementing regulations to establish land use types for low barrier navigation centers and supportive housing. F, adopt an ordinance amending the Sunset Area Plan implementing regulations to establish land use types for low barrier navigation centers and supportive housing. With that, staff concludes their presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Great. Thank you for the presentation. We'll first take questions for staff. Any of the planning commissioners have questions?

Yes, I do, and it goes back to your first where some of the MACs, the questions kind of went into the HE42. It seems like there's a little bit of crossover the AG 42 and the AG 41 one of the things that I question is you have supportive housing that's unlimited apparently no no length of stay or anything like that does it cross over into alcohol and drug treatment centers as well then and I know that's separate that's in 42 but it sounds like there's language here that supports the alcohol and drug centers being a supportive housing, which is kind of contradictory, saying 41 and 42 should be completely separate. And it sounds like if we approve the supportive housing, we're also approving alcohol and drug treatment centers as part of that.

Yeah, so if I may clarify, supportive housing, it's It's separate from emergency shelters. Supportive housing, it's entirely a residential use where people stay there permanently, low-income individuals, members of the public. A great example of supportive housing development would be emergency housing, which is right across the street. Retaining alcohol and drug use, you said? Yes. Emergency lower navigation centers could not exclude people that are currently using drugs or alcohol. But it's not a treatment center. It's just a place where people stay in while they get connected to supportive services or supportive housing. So it's not a treatment center within itself. It's just a place of residence while residents get their foot on the ground.

i do understand that under the low barrier navigation center because there is a that's a temporary it's there is a uh you can only stay there for so long but in the supportive housing it's stating that there's no length of stay requirement it they could be there for however long but it also states that they were going to receive some services and all that stuff too and it kinda crosses over into, is that becoming a treatment center? If it is, it's not a temporary center, they can receive services there, and it kinda goes into an alcohol and drug treatment.

So Commissioner Jewell, if I may just, ATTEMPT TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION AND PERHAPS COUNTY COUNCIL MAY ADD INTO. YOU'RE CORRECT IN TERMS OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AT LEAST THE USES THAT ARE PART OF THIS PACKAGE IS REALLY RELATED TO THE LENGTH OF STAY. SUPPORTIVE HOUSING OR PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING TYPE PROJECTS ARE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS. SO THERE ARE NO LENGTH OF STAY REQUIREMENTS. IT IS PERMANENT HOUSING. THE DIFFERENCES THERE ARE THAT THOSE TYPES OF SUPPORTIVE HOUSING apartment developments, if you will, are service rich. Now that doesn't mean that there's only one type of service that might be provided. So it may be that some of the residents within that supportive housing development may need COUNSELING FOR ALCOHOL OR DRUG COUNSELING FOR ALCOHOL OR DRUG RECOVERY BUT THEY MAY ALSO NEED RECOVERY BUT THEY MAY ALSO NEED OTHER SERVICES AS WELL SO THOSE OTHER SERVICES AS WELL SO THOSE SUPPORTIVE HOUSING TYPE DEVELOPMENTS SUPPORTIVE HOUSING TYPE DEVELOPMENTS TYPICALLY HAVE THESE WRAPAROUND TYPICALLY HAVE THESE WRAPAROUND SERVICES THAT ARE PROVIDED TO SERVICES THAT ARE PROVIDED TO RESIDENTS. RESIDENTS. NOW THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENTIATED NOW THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE HE42 AND FROM, YOU KNOW, recovery program where or a facility where they are targeted services for one specific You know issue these supportive housing developments may have a number of services wrapping around and providing support for those residences and

um see if council has anything can i ask maybe a follow-on oh i'm sorry hannah go ahead yes just um to add a couple things to what chris had mentioned um under state law there is a very specific definition for both those alcohol and other drug type facilities as well as residential care facilities and so while there may be overlap in the type of population served If you are meeting those other definitions you wouldn't be meeting the supportive housing definition under state law Do you know if?

Some of these programs can be court-ordered Participation as far as if there's a violation a criminal violation they get probation or they get treatment and they be

sent to a supportive housing or a low barrier you know that so um i i think we're gonna ask um if the commission is is is comfortable with it um miss jamie gallagher from um our hhs uh department she's a program manager and she may be able to provide some be able to answer some of these questions

Okay. Is it Jamie? One of the things I'm struggling with is the difference between the zoning and the housing and the community care licensing and the regulations around these services that are provided in this zoning. Because we're only concerned here with the zoning, but we need to understand the services and the businesses, because these are businesses that operate these nonprofits, and how they operate and how we're supposed to understand the two.

Certainly. I think some of the other experts probably have more information about the zoning requirements in terms of, like, the service delivery, things that are operated under community care licensing. Can you sit? Sorry? Can you not hear me?

There you go. There you go.

So programs that are operated under community care licensing are actual treatment programs as opposed to permanent supportive housing. So permanent supportive housing is where people have leases in the community at, facilities or I should say apartment complexes or with a landlord and so they have a lease that they have to perform on just like anybody else would so if that means that they need to not create problems at their apartment by using drugs or behaving in ways that are disturbing to their neighbors then they would need to perform just like anybody else would the difference between permanent supportive housing and just typically renting somewhere is that that program comes with extra supports to help that person be able to live successfully in the community. So helping them to learn how to be a good neighbor, learn how to navigate being a tenant and things like that. And so that might mean that they would be linking them to services outside of the apartment complex to get treatment if they needed it for substance use or mental health or to learn how to use the bus system or how to access food banks and things like that to support them and being able to stay in housing. So it's two different things. They may have a case manager who would come and see them on site at that apartment complex, but if they needed to go to residential treatment or substance use, then they would leave that place temporarily just like any of us would if we had a medical issue that we needed to have treatment for, and we would go and get that treatment and then hopefully be able to return back to our apartments or the places that we live. And so I think it's a different situation. Folks who are at a facility that's managed by community care licensing, that's like a treatment program or a program that has a different kind of set of rules and classifications and is usually probably more often than not where having folks at a facility like that where they're working on getting more stable and then hopefully being able to live more independently in a place like permanent supportive housing down the line.

Then what's a low barrier navigation system center and do we have any and do we anticipate having them and how do they differ from an emergency shelter? Cause right now an emergency shelter can also be, if I'm correct, a low barrier navigation center. They come in there to the emergency shelter. They don't have a bed perhaps. And that low barrier navigation center can refer them out? Because I know that's sort of how Loaves and Fishes operates.

So I think an emergency shelter and a low barrier navigation center are different in terms of what they look like. So what we have mostly here really is emergency shelter. Probably the closest thing that we might have to a navigation center maybe the mobile temporary shelter only because that has a little bit lower barriers to it so most of our shelters like the shelter down in South Kassar and then the other shelter here the mid placer shelter they have some barriers to entry for example people have to be able to test clean to stay there so they can't be positive for alcohol current intoxication and they have to test clean for substances in order to stay at that shelter site. Unlike at the mobile temporary shelter, folks could potentially have used at some point or maybe be under the influence but can't use at that facility. And so in Placer right now, we don't have a low barrier navigation center. I'm not aware of a plan to necessarily have one. I think that there are usefulnesses in having different availability to provide people with shelter and being able to have them access that right so for the folks who can't access our higher barrier shelters ones that have some of that sobriety standard for example having a place like the mobile temporary shelter where folks can access that that means that they're not out in our communities and other places where maybe members of the public or the community would prefer them not to be and being able to be somewhere where they have linkage to the services to address the issues that have really contributed to their Homelessness and so both of the shelters that are all three of the shelters I should say that we have you know come with supportive case management from the shelter operators as well as Support for the folks who are needing Behavioral health services through the county and so those folks are being linked to those services I think at a low barrier navigation center. It sounds like most of the preconditions would be reduced significantly so that it is come as you are here you are you would still i would given that we don't have one i would assume that they would still need to be able to meet a standard of behavior be safe at that facility right but then they would be linking them to all of those intensive supportive services to help them reduce the barriers that are keeping them homeless and

There is a program in Sacramento County that combines the two. I looked into it. They do loaves and fishes, does emergency shelter, and it does low barrier navigation systems. So in Placer County, there would be nothing stopping us if we pass this to combine the two, to conflate the two.

I suppose we'd have to look at how that would function in a facility, right?

Or it would be multiple facilities, a facility here next to another facility here next to another facility here, all in one campus or compound, if you will. There's just an example of it in Sacramento, so I was wondering if we could ever have an example of it, if the goal here is to have an example of something similar in Placer County. Combined services, combined case managers, those kinds of things.

Well, and really that's what we do, right? And so I think that is what happens in our emergency shelter programs. So our emergency shelter programs right now, while they might have some of those sobriety barriers, with the exception of the mobile temporary shelter, they are coming with. they each have a case manager, they are receiving that intensive support to link them to services, to link them to housing opportunities, to link them to employment if they're capable, to link them to disability benefits and things like that if they're needing that, and to get treatment services. So whether that's for substance use or behavioral health conditions, or for many people it's about that they have other physical health conditions that are preventing them from being able to be in the workforce and afford housing in our community. And so addressing all of those issues that are contributing to people's homelessness can help us work to get them to move beyond that. So I think that's part of what we are definitely providing, but certainly this would be different than what we currently have.

And then to ask Commissioner Jewell's question again, sorry.

I was going to go back to . Sorry, I was going to .

No, it was on your question about court order. This isn't, I don't believe the emergency shelters have court ordered people to, no, it's more alcohol and drug treatment. Okay.

Correct. So, I mean, people may have probation terms and conditions that they are required to meet for probation, but that would be separate. So somebody could be in permanent housing, permanent supportive housing or in a shelter location who also have probation terms that they need to require and we work collaboratively with our probation partners for folks who might be on probation who are at our shelters or maybe in permanent supportive housing to see if we can help move them forward to help sustain them in those placements and get them to move beyond those things but and so probation may be asking folks to participate in treatment and so they may have some legal requirements related to their probation terms but not necessarily from a treatment side. We're really working with building motivation and engagement with folks so that they can engage wholeheartedly in that treatment process. And so having requirements is a little bit more on the law enforcement side.

And how are people referred to this? Or how is the outreach for these programs? they come to you voluntarily seeking shelter, or is there a community outreach, an HHS outreach for the community to get people involved in this program?

Yeah, so like Santiago mentioned, we use a coordinated entry system. So folks call 2-1-1 to access our shelter system, and so then they receive a screening. We make sure that they're a Placer County resident, and then they receive a vulnerability screening. So we look at different factors that make people more vulnerable when they're homeless. And so they get a score at the end of that. And then we serve the highest vulnerable people first. So that's the entry kind of road. In terms of outreach, we definitely have outreach. So I manage some of our outreach programs. So we have clinicians, peer support specialists, which are folks who have lived experience of behavioral health or homelessness. And so they go out with our treatment folks and they engage people in the community and meet people, you know, try to get them connected to services and establish a relationship with them so that we can help them towards treatment and then also towards sheltering. And so they're out in the community in the rain and the heat all day long, right? Working with folks and getting them into those services. And we also partner with probation and the sheriff's office and other local police departments to support when they have come across folks that need engagement. And so then we'll, go out with them to offer some services and try to help them to navigate towards either shelter and then shelter and treatment.

Can I maybe add on, because it's related to the two questions, and I'll come back to you, Trent. And thank you for providing the additional background. So I think, can I just maybe finish? I'll finish this question, and then I'll get to you. So to distinguish between the HE41, which is emergency shelters, supportive housing, and the low barrier navigation, separate from the AODs, the alcohol and other drug treatment centers, and then the community care, residential care facilities, which we'll be covering in the next zoning text amendment, Are these facilities licensed or unlicensed by DHCS or CDSS like the other ones? They're not.

So shelters are not licensed. They're not licensed. We have contracts with them. So they have contract management. So I am the contract manager for our shelter systems. And so they participate in regular meetings with us. We have case conferencing about like how shelter operations are going and addressing any issues that are coming up, looking at what additional supports and services might be needed to help folks be successful. And so they have contract management with us, but there's not a license per se.

Okay. And maybe using an example for behavioral health or medication management sort of advisory, I think what I'm still grappling with, and I think what you said earlier maybe helped to clarify, a emergency shelter or a low barrier navigation center is a housing product, a service for people to get back on their feet to get permanent housing, right? And so there may be services provided, all the wraparound services that you talked about, which is similar when you read on HE42 for some of the group home designations. And so I guess what I'm trying to understand in my mind is when does a client shift from a facility that we're talking about here to a facility that we're talking about in HE42? I think that's what I'm struggling to understand. Because from what I was reading, and maybe the definitions seem very similar. So like an AOD or a non-licensed group home or care facility is a residential option or product for clients to come to. They provide non-medical support services or incidental medical support services, which we'll get to, I know, in the later item. So it sounds similar to this to me. So maybe help me.

I think what maybe you're talking about is different levels of care, right? So when we're looking at where we're placing folks or helping them to live, right, we're looking at what type of level of care they need. So the folks who are needing something that is a licensed facility are needing a much higher level of care. So for in my world, like if they need a boarding care, sometimes that means that they have someone who can do med pass, that they need support in remembering to take their medicine and support with knowing which medicines to take. So there's some different services that happen at those types of facilities that tell us that the kind of person who needs to be there probably needs some help with that kind of tasking. Certainly, if folks can start to get more well through taking medication and engaging in treatment, they might not need that anymore and so then can go to a different level of care. I think that that's within our treatment continuum. We're really always looking at what are the services that each kind of treatment placement provides and making sure that we're placing people in the right level of care that they need. And as they need less or more support, then we move them up and down in that system. The shelter system isn't part of like the treatment continuum. We definitely are infusing treatment options into that, but they're not necessarily providing behavioral health treatment or substance use treatment. Certainly shelters are not providing, you know, medication assistance that would be outside of the scope of what they're really meant to do.

Okay. And I think maybe to the planning staff, because that's super helpful, and I'm trying not to get to the next item, but in HE42, just to clarify this distinguishing point, is that it is non-medical services or incidental medical services with definitions. So there isn't supposed to be prescription management other than like staff providing reminders like, hey, take your medicine or your antipsychotics or whatever it happens to be. So those facilities also don't provide medical support either. So that's why I still don't see the difference. I see the continuum of care and the treatment, but from a land use perspective, that's where I'm struggling. I actually really fully understand it from a client perspective and their continuum and the elevated level of needs and based on where they are, but from a land use, how do you separate a low barrier navigation facility from a group home? WELL, THERE'S GOING TO BE A DIFFERENT ENTRY. DIFFERENT ENTRY.

I THINK JUST THE OTHER THING, I THINK JUST THE OTHER THING, AND MAYBE MS. GALLER CAN ALSO SPEAK TO IT, AND MAYBE MS. GALLER CAN ALSO SPEAK TO IT, BUT IT'S ALSO WHEN YOU'RE IN ONE BUT IT'S ALSO WHEN YOU'RE IN ONE OF THOSE PROGRAMS LIVING IN A OF THOSE PROGRAMS LIVING IN A GROUP HOME, YOU'RE LIVING THERE. GROUP HOME, YOU'RE LIVING THERE. IT'S A RESIDENCE THAT THEY'RE IN IT'S A RESIDENCE THAT THEY'RE IN FOR PERHAPS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FOR PERHAPS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, BUT WITHIN A SHELTER TIME, BUT WITHIN A SHELTER SYSTEM, THEY'RE THERE FOR Um, they're receiving some services, but they're not residents, you know, in the, in the sense that they're, you know, they're all day, um, you know, living at the, at the shelter.

At the shelter or the low barrier entry, but for supportive housing, that is residential.

Supportive housing is separate, right? Supportive housing is a permanent, it's permanent housing.

Right. That's, I think maybe, so maybe set aside emergency shelters and, um, Low barrier navigation, that's more temporary in nature, let's just say it that way. But then supportive housing sounds identical to me to group homes in the definition. What am I missing?

So I think one of the things that might be helpful is kind of built into the different definitions of these various facilities is the purpose that they serve, of the types of services that they're providing to their residents. And so the types of services that supportive homes provide, as we've heard, are different than those types of services that are provided in like a residential care or an AOD facility. which inherent in at least as far as the land use definition goes, that helps distinguish what the difference between those facilities are kind of based on the services that they provide, which will qualify them under each of the varying definitions.

Hannah, what would be an example of a service that's different?

So I know the AOD facilities have been one of the more common ones brought up. And for those, those are specific at their primary purpose is to treat those recovering from alcohol and other drug related addiction and recovery treatments. Whereas if you're looking at the supportive housing types of facilities, those are more of

And like a drug treatment facility would have people who are billing Medi-Cal. They're providing a medical service while they're there. So thinking about it maybe from a perspective of thinking like that this is part of like the treatment continuum in terms of that versus sheltering is not necessarily part of the treatment continuum. It's linking people to treatment. But like a substance use treatment facility is part of treatment. It's part of like a medical facility, right, where they're billing Medi-Cal and they're providing treatment. all of those services and they have staff generally like 24-7, all those types of things that are really treatment-based.

Except I think, I'm not trying to challenge, I'm just truly trying to clarify, except in HE42, the AODs and the group homes actually do not provide medical services. It's specifically, that's how it's defined. So I think what you're referring, my understanding is that when there's medical services being provided, whether it's a psychiatrist or prescription management or things like that, that's actually yet a separate facility type that's not even part of HE42. That's like a licensed facility that has medical staff. So I still don't see the difference between supportive housing in group homes?

I think what might be helpful is, again, if we were to go to the ordinance, because I think that the ordinance does provide information that is helpful, especially if you take it from the lens that supportive housing or permanent supportive housing developments are typically multifamily developments. When you think of these sort of affordable housing developments, you've seen a number of affordable we haven't brought forward. a permanent supportive housing project. But if you look back at the ordinance that's proposed here, I think if you look at it through that lens, it'll start to make sense in terms of the difference. So again, these aren't permanent supportive developments. They're not licensed. They're not licensed facilities, which distinguishes it from the ones that we will be talking about in the next agenda item. in addition you know with those there's we're looking at the uh... in the next ordinance we're looking at uh... developments that are six and under and seven to sixteen uh... we're not looking at larger multi-family developments which are contemplated with this with this with with supportive housing so again when you look at the supportive housing ordinance It includes deed restrictions on the units, so they have to be affordable, which, again, the facilities in the next ordinance don't have any affordability restrictions on them. So, again, taking the lens that these are affordable housing developments that are supportive as opposed to just being affordable, but they all will have deed restrictions on them.

Chris, the criteria that you're describing right now around services, around land use, When this gets to the supervisors, if you put that in a table, it will help all of this discussion that we're having right now. Because I get what you're saying, and I get what you're saying. In a table, what's licensed, what's not licensed, what's land use, what's deeded, what's low income, all of that stuff, would be super helpful.

Right, right. So again, I would refer to page 20 of your item where there's information about the supportive housing developments, which again, I think start to clarify again with that lens that these are typically larger multifamily developments that would be considered under supportive housing.

And I could add one example. Jamie, I know your team has been working on Project Homekey projects, and those count as permanent supportive housing. So you're working on one in North Auburn. I know we have a Project Homekey in Kings Beach. So they are actual permanent low-income housing that do offer services as well.

Correct, and people have a lease agreement just like anybody would in a community. It's just adding supports to help folks be able to be successful in that placement. So honestly, I think most of the time that really helps the community feel like they're getting the support that they need and not creating an impact in the ways that we would want to see.

Yeah, definitely. Rich, did you have a question? Thank you both. I think I have it down. And my question is more, Jamie, is it? are more from a perspective of land use and zoning, nothing to say about the clients or the support, totally makes sense, totally a need. It's more, how do you then, from an applicant, from a community member, from a planning staff, interpret the type of facility and then enforce it? So, okay, Rich.

I see. Yeah, I guess I'm a little bit confused here. But basically, that's probably normal. But at any rate, I can think of a couple organizations here in Auburn that aren't necessarily related to alcohol and drug abuse or pills or that type of thing. But they provide services to women that have been subjected to sexual harassment domestic abuse or are unemployed with a family and need some assistance in getting back on their feet. Is that, are we talking about a situation there that is the low barrier navigation center or what would those qualify as?

It sounds like you're talking about a domestic violence shelter.

Well, I'm talking about, well, I don't know if I should mention the organizations or not, but There's two organizations here in Auburn that are non-profits that service people that are in that situation. You know, they've experienced domestic abuse and they need to get out of the home for a while. Or they are unemployed and have a family and need to find, you know, permanent shelter and a job and that type of stuff. And so these organizations actually help them get back on their feet. Or sometimes they don't work, but that's what they're doing. Is that an emergency shelter or what is it?

So I think a domestic violence shelter and I would need for them to speak more specifically because I don't Manage those contracts, but I think our domestic violence shelters function more like an emergency shelter But I don't know from a land use perspective. There's some clarity in terms of the lines between domestic violence shelter

Yeah, we'll need to kind of look at that a little bit more. We'll do that while you're debating the matter further and provide a response. I'm not sure exactly how we would characterize it in the code right now, but we'll take a look.

Okay, well, I heard you say there weren't any, and I can think of a couple of examples here in Auburn that provide that type of service.

I do think at a basic level, we would look at the minimum nights stayed or the number of nights that somebody would be staying. So if it is temporary, one of those could fall into an emergency shelter type of category. If it's a longer term, that might be a residential care home or a group home.

Okay. Well, both of them could be temporary. One I know of has got a two-year limit, and there's education provided and that type of stuff, but

so per the state when we say temporary we mean less than 30 nights so anything longer than 30 nights is more the state considers long term or permanent so these are probably well one would be one would be temporary probably the other would be a group home yeah okay i'm beginning to see a distinction here um trent i'm going to come back to you did you have other questions we'll go on to a different area

Um, both of these require some type of neighborhood relations plan. Um, is there a specific. Plan as far as if there's existing residential to change that. Supportive housing or emergency shelter. Is there some type of neighborhood outreach of notification of. Residences in the area that this is going to come in or this is coming into an area So your question is if the neighbor relations plan includes noticing to two neighbors or There is a supportive housing or an emergency shelter housing coming in and or being taken over in a residential neighborhood.

Because it's under a zoning clearance.

I'll let Santiago respond to that.

Yeah, so for lower navigation centers, there is a neighborhood relationships plan which would require the provider, the shelter, to create a plan ALONGSIDE WITH THE COMMUNITY THAT NOTIFIES THAT NAVIGATION CENTER IS BEING PROPOSED, ALSO FACILITATES CONTACT, INFORMATION OF THE EMERGENCY SHELTER OR LOBAR NAVIGATION CENTER, AND IT ADDS ALSO SECURITY PLAN THAT THEY MUST HAVE SECURITY FOR ALL HOURS OF OPERATION And, yeah, that's how lower navigation centers include the neighborhood.

Santiago, that leaves it to the provider. That's not like legal noticing that we do now where people get to come before us. 300 feet. Plans are awesome. Plans that are related to or left on the responsibility of the vendor themselves, not a fan.

Okay. Go ahead, Chris.

Yeah, just to respond, based on the ordinance, it does not include notification to the neighbors. A plan must be created, a plan must be provided to the county, but it is not provided to others, not notification to neighbors. I'll let council answer.

So county at this time does not require the provider to make any announcement to the residences?

Not unless there is a discretionary entitlement that's required. So under the permitting path for shelters, depending on the zoning district, there are permits that are required. And in those instances, we would handle it through our standard notification process. OK.

And that's correct. If it's a project subject to zoning clearance, there wouldn't be any announcement to the public unless the operator voluntarily elected to do that. As far as these neighborhood relations plans go, government code section 65652 provides the specific components of that plan that can be asked for. However, that plan is just provided to the county. It's not provided to the public.

So there's no enforcement mechanism for them to notify residences in the area of this coming in?

As far as I'm aware, there's no requirement for that announcement. And as far as the county's process, there's no point in that process where the county would be announcing that if it is one of these projects where it is subject to zoning clearance.

Can I ask a quick follow-on question? Is it Can the county require a noticing process for zoning clearance items? Is it standard or is it standard to not notice? For setting aside emergency shelters, for anything, projects coming through that are zoning clearance permit type, Is there typically a noticing process with the 300 feet or not?

There is not. Not for a zoning clearance. We don't notice for anything. It's a by right ministerial request and we don't notice for those. The only The only thing I might draw some link to, now that I'm thinking about it, is our SB 9 lot splits. Those do not have a, those aren't subject to a public hearing. We do provide notice based on our ordinance to two neighbors to advise them of an application. Again, it's not subject to public and not subject to a public hearing and there's no recourse for any appeal in that instance should it be should it be granted and so Just to provide that additional information Trent did you have any other?

Okay, okay Go ahead.

Yeah, George would ask what the value of the neighborhood relations plan is if there's no notification and

Well, there would be a requirement in enforcement. There's not a requirement to provide it to members within a certain distance of the property, but it is a requirement under the ordinance, so they would need to develop it. They would need to provide it to the county. If there were complaints that were provided and they were not following it, then enforcement would be handled through code enforcement.

Okay, so that would be the value after the fact if there are issues.

Correct.

The fact that they've addressed what those potential items may be and they have a plan to manage them.

But Chris, you don't have the staff to manage a neighborhood relations plan. Barely can do code enforcement. That's just not reasonable to assume that your staff could take that on. Here's this plan. We're going to now manage this plan. Okay.

It would be Yeah, we could suspend Public comment. So did you have a question any other questions Robins? I feel like we're veering a little bit into comment. So Any other questions for staff? Hard regarding the presentation so far Okay, I have just maybe one quick clarification on the table On the presentation, Santiago, that you had on page 8, I think it is, 4 in our packet, it has a star 1 on multifamily dwellings for single-family residential. And I know that's not being changed, but what does star 1 mean? Because there's not a footnote. And that's the only one in this category that's in single-family residential. It's starting to become clear to me now with the other zoning districts. So what does star one indicate?

Give us just a moment. We'll find it in our zoning ordinance.

Okay. Chair? Yes. Quick question. Yes. First, I have to apologize. I stepped out. I had an emergency call to take, and I may have missed something, so if I'm repeating something you've already covered, forgive me. Under the public outreach section on page 7, slide 13 talks about the MAC contact. Was there feedback that was reported here about the MAC feedback?

Santiago provided a summary of the feedback and the concerns raised. Yeah.

Anything different than what we've been talking about here?

Yeah, exactly. It was mostly about HE42. Fair enough, thank you. Yep, yep.

So, Chair Beckler, just in follow-up, that footnote that you referenced, the footnote reads, multifamily dwellings are only permitted through density bonuses, is how the footnote reads.

Okay, gotcha. And then maybe just a quick follow-on. I know emergency shelters aren't being amended per se. Is that, is an emergency shelter use that multifamily dwelling? Or that's the sub, I guess in the table, emergency shelters aren't in here to see the difference between the zoning table for HE42 and HE41. Is that...

Correct. So is there, would you like me to kind of review the permitting path for emergency shelters?

Can you only, because I think I'm wrapping my head around the differences, and it would be nice just to have that one row, if I could, Chris.

There's actually two rows. Okay. So our zoning ordinance differentiates between emergency shelters that are 60 and fewer clients, and 61 or more. And there's a slight difference when it relates to the permitting path. So for emergency shelters 60 or fewer, it is allowed via zoning clearance in the residential multifamily zoning district as well as the residential multifamily 30 zoning district. IT IS SUBJECT TO A MINOR USE PERMIT IN THE C1 COMMERCIAL ZONE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS IN C2, C3, AND CPD. OKAY. AND HIGHWAY SERVICE ZONING DISTRICT SUBJECT TO A MINOR USE PERMIT. It is also subject to a minor use permit in the mixed use zoning district.

Okay.

And subject to a conditional use permit in the industrial zoning district.

And that's IN in the table?

Correct. Okay. And the INP as well. Oh, gotcha. Okay. The only difference with the emergency shelter 61 or more is that it is subject to a minor use permit rather than zoning clearance in the RM and RM 30 zoning districts. Okay in the other zoning districts that I mentioned it follows the same Discretionary permit path.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Yeah, you're welcome.

Okay any other clarifying questions? Okay. We will now move to public comment for this particular item. I would first ask if there's any one in person that would like to make comment on this item, you can go ahead and come forward to the podium now. Yeah, go ahead and come. You have to come forward to the podium and if you could state your name for the record. And this would be on HE41, the hearing item that we're... No, you can comment on each item.

Okay, that's what I wanted to know. You were asking the difference between... And if you could state your name for the record. Oh, I'm sorry, Sherry Larson. I'm a representative for the communities of Newcastle and Ophir, and last night I actually sent public comment with respect to He 42 which is our primary concern and I wasn't planning on speaking on 41 until some of the you know Public notice and other comments came about from the Commission big difference between shelters and and AODs money group homes are a Business a for-profit business that charges anywhere from ten to twenty thousand a month which For these residents, they do not accept Medi-Cal, and they require private insurance, so it's either the individual pays out of their own funds, or they pay by an insurance company. It's strictly a business. It's my understanding shelters are primarily non-profit organizations. They're not in it as a business per se, it's more of a public service type of thing. And so I just want to make you aware that you know that's for us and from 42 from what we've seen money is a big issue. So that's just a point that I wanted to make the other thing I wanted to make with respect to what Robin dog and said about public notice. Even with respect to 42 and a O D facilities and group homes. They often don't advise or let the public know that they're going to plan to, you know, put in a facility. Even like in El Dorado County, I found that one of the parties that applied for a permit in Placer had gone into El Dorado and no notice to the county even of anything that was going to, you know, what they're planning to do. They went ahead and put in a group home. So it ultimately ends up that the individual residents are responsible for bringing up complaints and notification to the county and so on and so forth. There's no proactive notification by the county. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone in person that would like to speak on this item? Yes, go ahead and come forward. And if you could state your name for the record, please.

Well, I'm here mostly 2442, but I see the overlap and that really concerns me that there's a loophole. Diane Davey, I'm sorry. And that there's a loophole. And also I have adjusted primarily when he stated the difference primarily is the wide gap there that I think a lot of this needs to be nailed down. So there isn't a overlap or a loophole that they can use to use 41, right? to you then stayed in these group homes for 42. And I also have a problem of not being notified because I live by the one. And we are definitely impacted by noise, cussing, fights that are happening existing at a group home right now. And it's only seven people. And you want to then move that to 16 individual people. And we're already having an impact. And nowhere, where do we go to voice our complaints for this? I would like to know where our rights are at this point because it is affecting our peace and quiet. And when these guys are cussing, fighting, and all that. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else in person that would like to make any comment on this particular item? I see none. Do we have anyone online?

I have a hand raised. Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments.

Greetings again, commissioners. Diane Louise Alessi from Christian Valley Park. And I wasn't actually going to comment on 41 either. But I really wanted to commend the Commission for their questions, for the clarity, because you were helping me as well. But my main concern here is, as what the prior speakers have already spoken about, is that the current land owners, homeowners, and landlords are the ones getting thrown under the bus constantly. And the state of California is making it even more difficult and more egregious in terms of all of the rights of quote tenants. So they become squatters and then it becomes a point of where you can't get them out. And this is the problem I see even going forward into the next agenda item. But I'm gonna request that this commission reject the staff recommendation because there needs to be more clarifying language in terms of being proactive, letting the community know before it becomes a buy-write, which is what really is annoying to me, because so many of these properties get screened in the background, NDAs get signed, and these whatever nonprofits, it doesn't matter, or companies come in, once they have the the the property then it becomes the buy right and the community is then in this trying to re reject it after the fact and that's where the problem lies so there needs to be language and more outreach to say our board uh like in christian valley and we're going to talk about that more in the next one but we have We get complaints from just people now getting RVs parked on the road because this economy is so bad and families are trying to help people, but we don't have policing powers and we're catching a lot of flack from this stuff. I can only imagine the uptick of what's gonna happen to our district and as stakeholders when we start getting complaints and we cannot, do a darn thing about it. And we have to integrate with the county to try to fix the problem. So we're already experiencing it on a low threshold. I can only imagine when you guys start to interject that here. The special districts and community leaders that are elected here, we need to be part of this conversation. And there's nothing in this language that lets us do it preemptively. before it becomes a buy-write. So with that, I'm going to yield. Keep that in your bonnet, but object. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Do we have anyone else on Zoom? Okay, great. I will go ahead and close public comment for this particular item. And then I would maybe direct towards staff if there are any responses to the comments made, and then we'll turn it to deliberation.

I THINK THE ONLY RESPONSE THAT I I THINK THE ONLY RESPONSE THAT I WANTED TO MAKE IS THERE WERE A WANTED TO MAKE IS THERE WERE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS RELATED TO COUPLE OF COMMENTS RELATED TO NOTIFICATION AND CHAIR BECKLER YOU NOTIFICATION AND CHAIR BECKLER YOU ASKED A VERY INSIGHTFUL QUESTION AS ASKED A VERY INSIGHTFUL QUESTION AS WELL ABOUT NOTIFICATION FOR I THINK I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION THERE AND MAYBE IT DIFFERENTIATES A LITTLE BIT FROM CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ON THE NEXT ITEM WHERE WHEN THERE IS A DISCRETIONARY PERMIT OR AN ABILITY TO HAVE A PUBLIC DISCUSSION ABOUT A PROJECT, THAT'S TYPICALLY WHERE WE ARE INVOLVED IN PROVIDING PUBLIC NOTIFICATION BECAUSE TO THE POINT THAT WAS RAISED BY A COUPLE OF COMMENTERS, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE FEEDBACK AND THAT CAN INFORM THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, GETTING THAT FEEDBACK. I THINK WHEN WE PROVIDE NOTIFICATION FOR MINISTERIAL OR BY RIGHT ITEMS, occurs a lot of dissatisfaction on the part of the public's side as well as on the part of decision makers as well because those are by right, they're ministerial. So there isn't really an opportunity to object to a project that is by right or ministerial. And so again, getting back to the notification and why staff would not propose that there be notification when there's a zoning clearance or buy right item because there really is no recourse to be able to object to a particular use.

Okay. Thank you, Chris. Any other comments? Okay. I'm going to bring it back to the commission. Any other questions or comments that you guys have?

I'll go. Okay. Go ahead, Robin. I think Chris hit on it, at least for me. It's the by-right ministerial nature of it, and I understand HCD's goal. I get it. But we've seen, at least in our role here, that by allowing the neighbors and allowing the applicants to come forward and discuss the plans and their opposition, we've seen a lot of resolution and acceptance in these chambers. I'm not even saying it has to come to us. It could just be a zoning administrator hearing, somewhere that the public gets an opportunity to say their piece, and the applicant or the county or the group home or whatever it is, supportive housing, managers get to talk about their project, and they get to have a better understanding and communicate with each other, and that's what I think is missing in here, and that's just my issue. And my other issue is the low barrier navigation centers. We don't have one, so we don't have a good example of what that would look like, and because emergency shelters and low barrier navigation centers can be conflated and can be under the same umbrella, not necessarily the same roof, but perhaps, That gives me a little bit of concern. I am a huge supporter of supportive housing. I wish we had more of it. We need more of it. I want it in every district here in Placer County. Emergency shelters are a little bit different and low barrier navigation centers in Placer County are a question mark for me. So that's where I'm struggling.

CHAIR BECKLER, CAN I JUST PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION BECAUSE COMMISSIONER DALGRAN'S COMMENT JUST MADE ME BELIEVE THAT I MIGHT NEED TO CLARIFY WHAT SONTIAGO PRESENTED DURING HIS PRESENTATION IS THAT THIS PACKAGE IS ENTIRELY TO BRING OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, THAT FRAMEWORK OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE IN LINE WITH STATE LAW. SO STAFF DID NOT IMPART ANY DISCRETION TO KIND OF TAKE OR TO SUGGEST THAT THESE BE ZONING You know, it's because state law is requiring them to be by right and ministerial. So I just wanted to make sure I provided that clarification.

I also would like to provide an example. It's not in Placer County, but the town of Truckee in Nevada County, and I believe Placer County has coordinated on this, did open a low barrier navigation center in Truckee. It's 10 beds. It's in a shopping center next to a Taco Bell. So that does provide some context and example, like an imagery of what that may look like. Thank you.

Yes, go ahead, Mark. Do any of these supportive housing installations require a business license by the operator?

I don't believe that they would require a business license under our county ordinance. That's something that we can report back on.

But if they file as an LLC without talking, they have their address, we can...

Just trying to noodle through ways to figure out how to get around the state law Thank you Yeah, I still think that there's I understand emergency shelter the low barrier navigation But it seems throwing supportive housing in this in 41 it is too close to what we're going to talk about in the next one. And I understand we've gone over the differences, but there's not that many differences. It seems like they are so closely connected that they are interchangeable. And I have a problem with that because we're talking about emergency shelters and temporary shelters and transitional shelters and supplying people with what they need, and absolutely, 100%, we need that. Um, but then you throw in the supportive housing and it changes the definition a little of that. That's a, there's no limit. There's no limit in stay. There's a, it's just too closely resembles going into our next topic. Um, and on another note, the public notification, um, is, I guess it's disturbing to me that we don't have a requirement to at least notify residences. And either by right or ministerial, they don't have a choice. I don't like that they don't have a choice. And I understand we're talking about state law. But being on the other side of the coin, my previous employment, The city wasn't even notified of one of these shelters and we started Having many calls for service at this area and Come to find out that we do have a shelter that nobody was notified about neighbors are upset city is upset and first responders are upset, um, because nobody knew that this center was placed in a residential neighborhood, um, without any notification at all. And that, uh, I have an issue with that. Um, I would like to see our County require some type of notification and I understand, uh, it's a by right and ministerial, but I still think, Residences in that area or these areas need to have some type of say Whether or not it means anything that's I Think that's a service that our County should provide is in notification so that they at least can voice some type of opinion Whether or not a state law or not. I understand that but it just seems to be a disservice to our communities and by not allowing them to know what's coming into their area.

OK. Thank you, Trent. Jeff?

Yeah, just to follow up on that, would we, and this is probably for Hannah, would we be in conflict with state law if we were to elevate our notification process?

So that's something that I would have to look into and report back to you on. My general sense is that that's probably not something the county could require, but I don't know the actual answer to that.

I think we're all in agreement that, you know, by right is a strong right. However, if there is a method or methodology where we can insert notification processes without being in direct conflict with state law, I think that should be explored.

If there is a desire among the Commission to explore that option you could consider instead of Considering the recommended action today to direct staff to look into that and then Assuming that that is something that can be done that can be added to the CTA and brought back for consideration Yeah, because this is an amendment.

So if there's a possibility of inserting that that would be

that would meet a lot of concerns of everyone i will add that any contracts that hhs enters into for emergency shelters or other types of agreements like that that require county funding do typically go to the board so there is a public opportunity from that perspective from a funding perspective okay

Jeff other rich do you have comments or questions I Guess I'm still a little bit confused.

I read the definition on page 12 And it reads fairly broadly And so we've been talking with a lot of detail, but I don't see it in the definition and I can think of At least two emergency, what I would call emergency shelters that are on the campus of DeWitt. And another one in the Bowman area. I guess the 30-day limit, I don't really see that spelled out in this, but I take your word for it. At any rate, for me it's just... really not clear exactly what an emergency shelter is in terms of what the term sounds like. And let me see, another thing I think I heard, if there's noncompliance, if there's a problem, then that goes to court enforcement?

I think just to maybe respond to your previous question first, I think was mentioned earlier that the mobile temporary shelter here on the DeWitt campus is considered an emergency shelter. It is an emergency shelter. Correct. As to your second question, I think if there's an issue, it would really depend on what that issue was. I mean, that's certainly something that, If there was an issue with the shelter and the county had contracts with the provider, there's certainly recourse there for resolution to an issue. But certainly if there was an issue with compliance with our zoning ordinance, that would be something that code enforcement would get involved in.

I believe there's another facility on the campus, too, that deals more with domestic abuse. Okay, so, yeah, that question probably isn't going to come up, you know. I mean, you're going to have to distinguish what these shelters are and how the new shelters are being proposed relate to the ones that we understand. And then, as far as if there's compliance, and I guess it's code enforcement, or is it a state compliance issue, right?

Again, it would be circumstantial. And so if the county was involved with managing a contract and they were in conflict with the terms of that contract, then there might be some other enforcement mechanisms through that contract. But if the county weren't involved, then it would be a code enforcement situation.

Thank you. You know, just an additional thought. when Trent mentioned that, well, police department was not even notified of something that was coming into their jurisdiction. Perhaps when you investigate how we could increase notifications, we hang our hat largely on public safety. You know, a lot of times it's by right and it's the individuals that are concerned. But maybe look at it from that angle, that the notification is necessary for public safety. Because that's abhorrent that the police department wasn't notified of, you know, or fire would not be notified of something coming into their jurisdiction, which, you know, they could have addressed up front. And so anyway, that was just a thought when you're taking a look at it. Thank you.

George, do you have comments or any questions?

No, nothing beyond what's already been stated about notification. I think that's all all of us is a very important item that These communities I know we went through somewhat similar scenario in the city of Lincoln recently that Because of non notifications and I mean that was just a whole plethora of scenarios that came up and and items and it's still an ongoing debate on people not knowing what's going on and in their neighborhood just sets up a whole lot of confrontations. And although they may not be able to overturn something because it's by right or ministerial, at least they have the ability to make statements and have their voices heard before these things happen.

Okay. A couple sort of hearing the Commission's sort of comments, I wanted to just add a couple things and then clarify a couple things. In the differences between the supportive housing and the other HE42 items, that one, I think Trent mentioned it, that one, it does blur to me a lot. I still, because I look at the supportive housing zoning clearances in multifamily, the RM30 commercial, and when you look over The next item, we have the zoning clearances in RM group homes in six or fewer and seven to 16 by MUP in those same zoning districts. But then what I got clarification about today that was very helpful is that it sounds like the items on HE41 geared towards affordability. So if I read the section 20 about the definition of supportive housing, it says 100% of dwelling units, excluding managers' units, are restricted to lower income households as defined by blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. At least 25 units, whichever is greater, shall be restricted residents to meet the criteria of the target, da, da, da, da, da. So is it true that the other types of facilities that we're going to be talking about next don't have an affordability requirement, and these do. Is that the major distinction?

That is true. And maybe just a little bit of additional clarification. I mean, I... I sympathize with the commission. I mean with with this supportive housing being coupled with the Coupled with the shelters I do believe it is a little confusing it would have been most clear just to have it as a separate standalone Ordinance onto its own the the reason that it's coupled with the shelters is that that's how it was set up in our housing element so HCD or and uh and the county coupled that together we're complying with he41 which puts those together in my opinion the support of housing is more akin to multi-family housing and as this commission is very well aware we have a similar um permitting path with the sites that were rezoned as part of our housing element where if they have 20%, a rezoned site with 20% affordability is also subject to a buy right ministerial processing. So in some ways this supportive housing use category is akin to multifamily development, those affordable housing developments as we were talking these are 100% deed-restricted supportive housing developments that are subject to this permitting path.

And Chris, is it possible, and I'm trying not to talk about HE42, but is it possible that those facility types could also go for deed-restricted affordable housing and apply for credits and grants through the state as well or not? You know what I'm saying?

Is it possible? I'm not sure. I think it's highly unlikely. I think as we've heard before, many of those types of facilities are expensive, and I don't believe their financial model is based on affordable developments. These supportive housing developments, if you're not familiar with them, they're usually YOU KNOW, 100% AFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENTS, THEY HAVE LAYERED FINANCING, MANY TIMES IT'S TAX CREDIT FINANCING, AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, A HIGH LEVEL OF of interaction that the county would have with a potential supportive housing development. And I think it's highly unlikely that the facilities that are contemplated in HE 42, which are small, right? They're seven to 16 beds. I wouldn't necessarily see that as being plausible.

Yeah. Okay. And so with that said, I think the comments from the commissioners about the noticing, I also do understand the desire to do noticing, and I know there is also the balancing act of the fair housing requirements. So you have to be very careful. There's a slippery slope around being discriminatory and requiring more restrictions on these types of units, whether you agree with it or not agree with it, that we would have to make sure we account for. And I know that that would happen. I just wanted to say that is that I do understand the need for noticing, and then if you were to do that, how would you do it in a way that wouldn't sort of trigger other legal issues that are very significant? So that's my only concern that I would want to make sure that is considered. With go ahead so question.

If you're indicating if we make a motion to send it back to you to do research on. Notification does that mean we just put this right now and then. Go with you looking into the notification aspect and then come back to this.

Yes, so essentially what your motion would be would be to direct staff to research that issue if it is allowable to incorporate any changes and bring it back to your consideration. But regardless, this item would come back for your consideration at a later date in order to make a recommendation for the Board of Supervisors.

And if we did make that in the motion, can we add to the notification question What I'd like to see is a, I'm thinking of it as a Venn diagram. It can be a table of the differences between the emergency shelters and the low barrier navigation centers, not just in terms of services. I see the table for zoning. Great, I understand that. But because we don't have one or we have an example of one up in Truckee that's managed by lots of different organizations, I want to understand it from a service perspective. I think it's important to know that even if we're only dealing with the land issues. So a Venn diagram, a table, of two shelters kinds, the emergency shelter and low barrier navigation center. What's the center of that Venn diagram? Where do they overlap in services? I'm sure the client overlaps, but is it just the drug and alcohol active usage? I'm sure it's not, but what is that? And I'd like to see that, because I don't understand it well enough, personally.

Yes. Whatever motion you make, you can provide additional direction to staff to come back with more information. And it sounds like that would be one of the pieces of information you would incorporate into the motion.

Okay, so it looks like we're heading toward a continuance. It sounds like, can I maybe though add to what Robin is saying if we're headed that direction is To me, I'm actually more clear now on the emergency shelter and the low barrier navigation. That is actually pretty clear. It's the supportive housing and then the HE42 types related to services. Because what's still muddy in my head is the medical services, non-medical care, incident medical care. Those are all terms that are clearly defined in HE42. but I didn't see them referenced here. So I'm unclear if that's possible, how that works. So in the Venn diagram or table, I think having the distinguishing like supportive housing versus A odds versus the group homes, six and under and seven to 16 would be extremely helpful as well. And if there are examples in the community, that would be even more impactful that we can sort of not talk in hypotheticals, but actually say like, Here's an example, and here's how it's working, because I think that makes it more real for people, so that would be my add.

Yeah, I strongly support that as well. Ultimately, we're going to make a recommendation or not to the supervisors, and having all of that supporting information is going to make our recommendation easier and then make it much easier for them to consider when it does come to them, whether it comes positively or negatively. So I think those are good points.

And I agree. They might have a lot more experience with this because they do the funding piece of it. They have a lot more social services. We are land, and our limitations are in a box. And you can see where we're struggling and where some of our understanding around these things are. So the supervisors might even have a better understanding, but I still think we need to be clear if it's coming back to us.

Yeah, and one of the things I was sort of toying with in my mind is that, yes, because we are doing a recommendation to the board, do we just add these recommendations and send it to the board? Because, I mean, they have much broader context and depth in the housing element. Then, though, because this is in our jurisdiction, we're Implementing zoning code. I feel like our commission does need to have a really clear understanding of it So that's why I would lean toward the continuance.

Yeah, I agree. I was along your line of thinking I was Assumption that we could just make this as an additional comment or a recommendation to the board But with all these things that have come up all the discussions and all the new items to be considered I love to spend more time really understanding this and drawing the Well, just better understanding and to be able to make better recommendations to the board. I assume there's not a lot of time sensitivity with this, so if we continued this. That wouldn't be an issue.

Yeah, I think from our standpoint, you know, we're working, I think I've mentioned to the commission before that HCD has been kind of tracking progress on housing element programs. I suspect that there will be an inquiry when we submit our next annual progress report at the early part of next year. but we should be able to complete the work that you are requesting in a short amount of time and bring it back to the commission for consideration. However, I would request that if you are going to make a motion to continue this item, that you continue it off calendar. I'm not sure that we'll be prepared on a date certain, so I would request that it be off calendar.

Okay. And then I just wanted to add before I entertain a motion from one of the commissioners is just acknowledging the depth of knowledge and interpretation that you guys have already had to do. Really appreciate it. I think adding this additional clarity just makes it that much clearer to us and then also to the public. So just thank you for what you guys have done so far. So with that, I would entertain. I'm the chair. I'll look to you guys.

There's a lot to that. You want me to try it?

And Chair Bechler. Oh yeah, maybe let's get some direction from Hannah first.

Yes, so I was just going to make a suggestion on a motion you might consider based on your comments, which would be to continue this item off calendar with direction to staff to Research the notice requirement or if the notice requirement is allowable Incorporate it if it is as well as to put together some additional information clarifying Specifically what the different facility types entail what constitutes them And that it would be continued off calendar And specifically supportive housing yes, I will make a motion to adopt a

what county council has just read into the record.

I'll second that.

Okay, we have a first and second. Can I get roll call, please?

Dahlgren?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Alves? Yes. Beckler? Yes.

Okay, thank you everyone. As I mentioned earlier, the Planning Commission's action today, it's not recommended to the board, but we'll go ahead and continue it. And so now we are moving on to item number two, which is a package of amendments related to group homes. Similar to the previous item, these are legislative amendments associated with implementation of the county's housing element. The Planning Commission will consider the proposed amendments and make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors The staff presentation will be provided by Senior Planner Lucy Rollins.

All right, good morning. Let me just get myself set here. Okay, round two. All right. Good morning, Commissioners. Lucy Rollins, Senior Planner on the Long Range Team in the Planning Services Division. I'm here to present HE42 or Housing Element Program 42, which is specific to group homes. And I will just preface, there's going to be a little bit of redundancy with the last presentation that you just heard in the conversation because we're going to go over the housing element background just to get into the record for this one as well. So, as you heard, the housing element was adopted by the board in May of 2021 and certified by HCD in August 2021, giving us the green light that that was compliant with state law at the time. This doesn't, the housing element includes program HE 42, which is the county shall amend the zoning code to treat all residential care homes as family homes consistent with health and safety codes and to allow residential care homes with seven or more clients with approval of a minor use permit in single family residential zone districts. So I will talk about those smaller residential care homes as well that are the six or fewer clients. But the focus of the CTA is really how do we handle the larger facilities, excuse me, the seven or more clients as outlined in HE42. So brief overview. There are several more state laws that went into this. Staff worked really closely with HCD for guidance on state laws specifically as well as county council and reviewed state laws. Few takeaways are largely that anything that is considered a residential care home or group home, any residential facility that has six or fewer clients that is licensed by a state agency has to be considered a residential use, the same as a single family dwelling. So that really takes those out of consideration of how do we move forward because they'll be treated however a single family home is treated. So we're talking about the larger facilities. The other things, we had the group home technical advisory. As we've heard from commissioners and the public and we're well aware, much of this is guidance. It does include specific state laws, but it's guidance that staff use to sort of inform and make decisions on how do we proceed in collaboration with our council as well. So timeline for HE42, it has been a long time coming. The last time you heard this, I believe, was in 2023. the housing element adopted in 2021 this initiated as part of a cleanup zta for the whole development code in 2022 so there's one item as part of that package during that first presentation to planning commission and board it was decided to pull this item out as it's really quite complicated and needed to be a standalone zta In 2023, staff came forward to the Planning Commission and the Board with workshop items. A HCD representative did attend that Board workshop in 2023 to help provide insight on some of the questions that came up. And since then, we've been researching and drafting to make sure we fully understand what's actually required and what is the scope of what we can do with these larger facilities. Last fall, we had a preliminary draft that we sent to HCD for review to determine whether it was compliant with the law and they provided feedback and some additional tweaks were made. In early this year, in January of 2028, we'd revised that draft. We published it and we had a community meeting, a virtual community meeting. As Santiago mentioned, it was very well attended and we received a lot of feedback from community members, a lot of questions. And I have at the end of the presentation a summary of those major themes that we've heard through the outreach process. We've also gone to each of those MACs as requested by the supervisors to provide an overview similar to what you'll hear today. Since that draft that was published in January of this year, we have made additional revisions based on feedback we've heard and additional research to fine tune it. So I want to start by establishing where are we today? What does our code currently allow? How does it compare to single family and multifamily? So it's sort of a context for moving forward. Currently, our code does allow residential care facilities. It does not differentiate between a licensed facility and an unlicensed facility, which we'll talk a lot about. And it includes the language for non-medical care. But one of the things we ran into is that we don't really define what that actually means. And so as I'll get into in the presentation, we provide more clarity in what is medical care versus non-medical care and how does that differentiate from a medical care extended care facility. So right now you can see on this slide, residential care homes six or fewer are treated the same as single family, which is the top row there, with the exception of the ag-exclusive zone. Currently, single family is allowed with zoning clearance or by right in the ag-exclusive zone, but six or fewer is not. And then our seven or more clients, residential care homes with seven or more, is allowed with a minor use permit in our multifamily districts. a residential ag, mixed use, and farm zones. So we have about 65 licensed facilities in the county today. So this is a snapshot from January, end of January this year. I checked it again in July and there were no changes. So they're not coming in quickly, that's for sure. But as you can see, we have 65 in the county. They are, the majority are located in our single family RS district. Although you can see if you cross over to the graph here on the right, about 88% of those have six or fewer clients, so they're small in nature. Anything on the right in blue is six or fewer. The green is seven to 16 residents, and the gray is 17 and above. So you'll see we have the larger facilities in our res ag district, C1, the neighborhood commercial, and office and professional. And this gives you an overview of where they actually are distributed in our county. So you can see where we have clustering. There's a cluster particularly of smaller facilities in the Dry Creek area. In the North Auburn Bowman area, it's the largest concentration of facilities with variation in size and type. There are four types of group homes. There are assisted living for elderly residents, 24-hour residential care for children, adult residential facilities, and residential detoxification centers. We also have a concentration down in Granite Bay, which is, with the exception of one, is elderly assisted living facilities. So you can see where they are. We don't have any outside of this area of the map that are licensed at this time. So bringing this into what the ZTA is actually proposing. So quick summary, one of the things we heard from the planning commission and the board, as well as our residents, is, and we know that 7 plus is just a catch-all, right? Not everything that 7 plus actually operates like a single-family home. So we wanted to find a way to establish what is the difference between something that's operating as a single-family home and what's operating as a multifamily home. And when HCD attended the board workshop back in 2023, they advised staff to look for an objective threshold to determine what the difference is. So they recommended we look at the California Building Code, And I'll go into what we pulled from that, but we were able to establish a threshold that tips over into a commercial or multifamily or even institutional point at that 16 residents. We provide clarity between what is medical, what is non-medical, and we're also addressing instances where perhaps an operator or manager has multiple facilities, either on one property or on adjacent properties that are operating as one. So they have shared staff or services. If I, as a client, can come to this facility and be placed in any of these homes, we're considering that one facility. I will note as well, as you can see, this is the graph from the previous slide, that 23% in the residential ag district that are 17 and above currently, if this ordinance goes forward, they would be considered legal nonconforming. meaning that they were approved legally and they are able to continue to operate as they were approved, but they wouldn't be able to expand or intensify in any way. So there are three currently. So all of our new definitions, and I'm going to mix it up because this is in alphabetical order, but I don't think it's the easiest way to go through it. So we have four new definitions. We have a group home definition, a congregate care definition, alcohol and other drug facilities, and then kitchen efficiency. I'm going to get kitchen out of the way because it's easy. Kitchen efficiency is, we've added this definition to clarify a full-blown kitchen which has appliances such as oven, stove, all of those appliances, versus a kitchen efficiency kitchen can only have plug-in appliances. So you might find those if you have like a granny flat or a junior ADU. Those are the types of things you would find in there. And we added this definition specifically for the congregate care definition. So congregate care is our new definition and land use type for those large facilities that have 17 plus residents. When we looked at the California building code, we found that out of 16 residents, up to 16 residents, these fall into residential occupancy types under the building code. Above 16 residents, they tip over into occupancy types that are commercial or institutional. and are no longer looked at as residential the same way a single family home might be. So that's how we were able to establish that difference. So if you have 17 or more residents, you fall into this congregate care facility, which means you can operate like a multifamily, thus the efficiency kitchen, your residents in their units are allowed to have their own efficiency kitchen. Versus a single family home is allowed one kitchen, one residential kitchen for the first 8,000 square feet. If they're greater than 8,000 square feet, any single family home can have a second. But so largely, that's our delineation there. The group home definition is an umbrella term. So there are multiple types of group homes. Group homes here can include residential care homes, those residential facilities for children, elderly assisted living, as well as the detoxification and alcohol and drug facilities. which I'm going to call AODs to make it easy. So they can include licensed facilities and unlicensed facilities. So an unlicensed or non-licensable means that they provide services that aren't licensed by the state. So we consider those more like a cooperative living style facility. They don't have services that are provided to their residents like that. Versus a licensed facility, our residential care homes, our AODs, They have staff on site that provide services with assistance for daily tasks such as getting dressed, grooming, bathing, those types of activities. The main thing is they do not provide services, their staff do not provide services for medical care. So the staff employed by a facility, a residential care home or an AOD, they cannot provide services that administer treatment or any other medical facilities. The residents are still able to get medical care, it is just not provided by the facility. So one thing that has come up with AODs in particular is this incidental medical services or IMS. This is an additional license that they can get where they can bring outside help in to assist a resident short-term in nature to deal with a specific condition related to detoxification. So while it is a medical service, it is not provided by the facility. It is short-term. It is administered by a physician, an outside physician. So it's not considered a medical service provided by the AOD facility. A few other tweaks we made here. The medical services, hospital extended care, we just clarified those are the facilities that can provide, their staff are trained and qualified to provide medical services. A single-family dwelling and family, we've removed the four-person limit because we are required to allow residential care up to six residents. And the residential care home is not a new definition because we have that definition, but we fine-tuned it into just the ones that provide licensable services. And so anything that's not licensable falls under our land use type of group home at that point. And I think as we walk through the tables defining them, I'm hoping they'll all come together. So big picture, we have four categories here. We have those facilities that do not provide licensable services. So regardless of size, we cannot impose additional regulations than any other residential facility. Licensable services, six or fewer residents are treated as a single family home. Licensable services, seven to 16 residents. So this is where we created the threshold. The HE42 requires seven plus to be allowed with a minor use permit. So we said 16 is our limit as what's considered a single family home or what could be considered a single family home. And those will be allowed with a minor use permit in single family districts. If it has 17 or more residents, then it will be considered a multifamily dwelling and treated the same as a multifamily dwelling. They do have their own standards, which I'll get into, but so that's where the permit Difference comes up and I have I have the whole table. We'll walk through as well One thing I do want to note is that if a facility came forward with let's say ten residents But they have individual units with individual kitchens. They don't qualify as a single-family home They would be a congregate care even if they only have ten residents the function and operation makes it a multi-family home and would fall under that last category and So breaking it down, for our group homes with six or fewer clients, the existing code we have in the middle row there, like I said, the only difference or actually two differences from single family is that currently our code allows six or fewer in mixed use and does not allow them in ag exclusive, which is different from single family. So we're proposing to change that to make them consistent per state law that the six or fewer will be treated the same way as single family. So we're removing them from being allowed in the mixed use district and adding them into the Ag exclusive with zoning clearance. For 7 or more, there's a little bit more going on here. So right now our code just has a bucket category for 7 plus. So we have two new categories we're proposing. Proposed code 7 to 16 you can see has the minor use permit where we've added it to match where single family is allowed. They won't be allowed in the mixed use district, but they will be allowed in all of our residential districts, the resort district, the ag exclusive, and the farm with a minor use permit. And I'll sort of walk through what a minor use permit actually entails. And then our second new category is that proposed with 17 or more, which now matches up with multifamily. So they are not allowed in RS or our single family district. They're not allowed in our residential ag or residential forest district. nor are they allowed in ag exclusive or farm. So they're only allowed where multifamily is allowed in the same manner. So bringing it all together, those 17 plus, that's what we're calling congregate care. So that's that one there. We have renamed the residential care land use type to group home to account for, we have separate definitions for an AOD and a residential care, but the group home land use type is an umbrella term which will help us capture any licensed facility that comes in that doesn't fit under one of those two definitions. And then we also amended the senior housing projects just for consistency. Right now there's an additional burden placed on senior housing compared to multifamily. And our congregate care and staff believe that they have their own standards that they have to comply with, but from a permitting perspective they're generally similar in nature to a congregate care. So the MEP versus CUP, so minor use permit versus conditional use permit. One of the things we've heard pretty consistently is can we allow a CUP or require a CUP instead of a minor use permit, and what's the actual difference? And I'll go into the feedback from HCD about what the process would be if we wanted to do that. But on the whole, the primary differences you can see here between a minor use permit and a conditional use permit are the original review authority and the application fee. So the application fee for a CUP is higher and a CUP is heard before your commission first and is appealable to the Board of Supervisors versus a minor use permit is heard before the zoning administrator and is appealable to the Planning Commission. They both have a public hearing. They both have the same public noticing requirements. They both have the same findings for approval or denial. And they're both appealable under the same fee. So the standards, I think one of the things that everyone had questions about is what can we require for these facilities? So for the 7 to 16, obviously we have that cap of 16 residents. They are subject to the single family standards for design. The one thing in particular, because we heard concerns about parking, is We're going to require two off-street spaces for visitors plus one off-street space for employees at their peak shift. So at their peak shift, every employee needs to be able to park on site. The kitchen requirement that they can't have more than one kitchen, otherwise they fall into the higher category. And the business license. So we are adding a business license requirement for these group homes. They will be required to apply and then renew it annually. And that annual, we've talked with the tax collector's office, and we can have it such that that annual renewal is reviewed by our division. And each year, they'll be required to provide an update to their valid state license to ensure they are still operating or in good standing with the state. They have to have an agreement that they are complying with all of our county codes. And they have to provide contact information for a manager or owner such that if we as the county receive complaints, we have contact information that's been updated within the last year that we can reach out to them. And then just as I mentioned, if a facility becomes nonconforming as part of this, they would be able to continue to operate. They just couldn't change their capacity. So then for the 17 plus, the congregate care, This one's a little bit different. So we turn to all of our multifamily standards. They are subject to the same design guidelines as multifamily. They have to have two spaces per unit, so it's a much higher parking requirement. They are required to have a central dining room, but they do have the option for their residents to have their own kitchens. They are allowed to have facilities that are adjacent, so religious facilities or other small-scale commercials that are serving their residents, similar to what you might find in an assisted living facility. They're also required to have a commercial business license. So as you've heard for HE 41 and 42, or sorry, for HE 41, as part of this, those are all the changes we're making to the development code. However, we all are also proposing changes to the Placer County Government Center Master Plan and the Sunset Area Plan to remain consistent with this Chapter 17 amendments. These two are both relatively new and so we wanted to maintain consistency in our county zoning. If there is a plan that is inconsistent or silent, then it would defer to our Chapter 17. So all of our feedback. We received a lot of feedback from HCD, some guidance, some specific state law, where it was guidance. We worked closely. We had a few versions that went through county council to review sort of what's actually required, where can we tighten the screws, that type of thing. The two I'll dive into here are the implications of noncompliance and the process to modify HE42. So the minor use permit, process is a requirement of HE42. If we were to adopt an ordinance that required a CUP instead, we would need to modify the housing element in order to do so. To modify the housing element before moving forward with the ZTA, we would do that amendment. We would resubmit it to HCD and they would need to certify it. would not be guaranteed certification, and HCD would also have the option to look at other pieces of the housing element while they're doing that review to see if there are other changes they wanted at the same time. If we move forward without doing that and just made a change and we just did a CUP, there are implications. We could lose our housing element certification. We could risk losing pro-housing designation. So there's just other factors to consider, which is why staff moved forward with creating this ordinance that we believe addresses HE 42 within sort of in the tightest bounds that we can. So our public outreach included that virtual meeting in January of this year, as well as the municipal advisory councils. We do have a summary of all the feedback we received towards the end of your staff report. Some of the major concerns that we heard were that the 16 person limit is still too high. water constraints, just general impacts on the neighborhoods. And then, so that was sort of consistent that we heard in both the virtual community meeting and the MAX. We also took this item to the airport land use commission to determine whether the update is consistent with their plan. And they did designate that it was consistent. So this is a summary of all of that feedback, the preference for a CUP over a minor use permit. The one thing I will note is in the January version of the plan, we were addressing two of the minor use permit findings that could be perceived as subjective. And there was a lot of concerns about that, so we've removed that. So you may hear there are differences between the January version and the version you have today. So we want to make sure that we were addressing those concerns where we could. I am going to read this into the record really quick just so we have it, and then I'm going to turn it over to Hannah to make a few comments before we open it up. But just so we have this, staff recommends that Planning Commission makes the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. A, determine that the adoption of the proposed amendments are exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15061B3. B, adopt an ordinance amending Placer County Code Chapter 17. pertaining to group homes to implement housing element program HE42. C, adopt a resolution amending the Placer County Government Center master plan development standards to establish land use types and parking requirements for congregate care facilities. D, adopt an ordinance amending the Placer County Government Center master plan development standards to establish land use types and parking requirements for congregate care facilities. E, adopt a resolution amending the sunset area plan implementing regulations to establish land use types for congregate care facilities and standards for group homes. And F, adopt an ordinance amending the sunset area plan implementing regulations to establish land use types for congregate care facilities and standards for group homes. And then I'll turn it over to Hannah.

Thank you, Lucy. Thank you, Commissioners. As Lucy did a good job explaining, Kind of the structure of the proposed ZTA is having that generalized group home classification. However, both the AOD facilities and the residential care facilities are still specifically defined. Now, some inquiries have come in regarding the treatment of AOD facilities versus residential care homes and whether they're required to be identified or classified identically to avoid discrimination. So, before the Commission gets into questions and comments, I thought it may be helpful to provide just a little bit of legal background related to those issues. So, the short answer is no. State law doesn't require that AOD facilities and residential care facilities we classified under a single category by the county in order to avoid that discriminatory treatment. However, there are specific statutes that indicate the AOD facilities and the other residential care facilities be treated the same. Some of those statutes include sections of the health and safety code including section 1566.3 which pertains to residential facilities and 1569.85, which pertains to residential care facilities for the elderly, and section 11834.23, which pertains to AOD facilities. Now, these statutes contain substantially the same language to establish that these types of facilities with six or fewer residents are considered a residential use of property, as well as imposing limitations on the development standards permit requirements that may be imposed by the county. For those licensed residential care and AOD facilities that serve seven or more residents, while the permitting prohibition may not apply, there are also other state laws that act to restrict the county's ability to regulate those use in similar ways. And so specifically those are the anti-discrimination and land use law, which specifically government code section six five zero zero eight subsection B provides that the county cannot in the enactment or administration of ordinances pursuant to any law prohibit or discriminate against any residential development or emergency shelter or among other reasons, disability or familial status. There's also the Affirmatively Furthering for Housing Law Government Code Section 8899.50. And I will just note that that citation in the staff report had a typographical error. But 8899.50 is the correct citation. And that subsection B requires the county to administer its programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing and take no action that is materially inconsistent with those obligations. These laws are also underscored by the county's housing element, Goal G. which is to promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities throughout the community for all persons regardless of age, race, religion, color, ancestry, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, familial status, or sexual orientation, and the related policy HEG-1. While there's no express statutory requirement for the county to have these AOD and residential care facilities under the same land use category, They are generally treated the same or substantially similarly under state law. I believe there are also some policy and implementation reasons that weren't treating them under a single category. I would defer to planning to discuss those.

Great. Thank you, Hannah. And thank you, Lucy. So first, what I'd like to do is ask the planning commissioners if they have any clarifying questions for staff. Trent?

I know the definitions. Are these state-mandated definitions, or are they new definitions established by the county?

They're not state-mandated definitions. However, for the AOD facilities in particular, that is taken straight from state code. That is the definition as listed in state code. With the last sentence, which defines non-medical, is county's addition to that. For residential care, the language is similar, but we had a definition already in their development code, and so we amended it slightly to provide additional clarification, but it is not a state-mandated definition.

And then the group home definition, that's our county definition? Correct. And the question is, why are we grouping several under the synonym of group home when some of it is temporary housing and some of it is more permanent housing, and there's definitely a difference in those two. Why are we grouping some of those under the same group home title?

Yeah, so with these, and I think this is where it differentiates from HE 41, is that both residential care and AOD are considered under state law residential. And as Emily mentioned in the last one, residential in a longer term sense. So while they can have shorter term leases, the residents in these facilities have leases, have contracts with the operator and manager, unlike someone that drops in for a night or two or even a week. And so because they're considered residential in nature, the group homes cover all of those.

Then why did you break out senior housing specifically?

Senior housing is already a defined separate use with land use within our development code. One of the primary differences is that for AOD and residential care and falling under this larger group home, as Hannah mentioned, they're largely treated the same under state law. So the standards we apply are generally the same versus senior housing is a county definition and has county standards to it.

Other questions? I do have a couple of questions. Let me see here. For the non-medical and the incidental medical services, Lucy, you described that. Can you just clarify for me, incidental medical services are only allowed in the AOD facility type, is that correct?

Correct, they are, and a caveat to that is they're only, incidental medical services are specific to AODs and not all AODs can provide them. It is an additional license or addition onto their license that then they can bring in the outside.

Okay, and then one of the things you mentioned in your presentation was that if they go apply for this license and become licensed to provide the incidental medical services, it still doesn't mean that there's staff on site doing that. It's a contracted arrangement. The question I'm trying to really get to is, how is that incidental medical services in the AODs different from the medical services, hospitals, and extended care land use classification?

So, and I wish I had the website of IMS right in front of me right now, but... The primary difference is, yes, that when they have IMS, or incidental medical services, that is an additional service they bring in. Their staff does not provide the treatment. The physician that comes and attends comes to provide the services, administer the services, and then leaves. And they may come however long the services are required. It's short-term in nature. But they may come daily to administer those, or they may, ah, perfect, thank you. Versus the medical extended care, those are services provided by the facility. So when a resident comes into medical services extended care, they are coming for the treatment provided by that facility. Versus IMS, typically what can occur is a resident comes, they're having medical challenges associated with the detoxification process, and then services are administered by an outside physician.

Okay, thank you. For the group homes that I have some comments, and I just want to won't make comments about that would skew anything But I just want to say that having been part of the history of all this The the effort that you put into distinguishing the group home types is very commendable for the group homes that are 7 to 16 allowed in the residential districts and

My understanding, so they do require an MUP.

And Chris, as the planning director, you are allowed to move those to the planning commission if you determine that that makes sense or is applicable for that particular application. Is that correct?

That is correct.

OK. Thank you. The other question I have is, because this has been a big challenge, and again, I'll preserve my comments for later, in District 4 and in Granite Bay around the larger scale facilities. There's the senior housing project, which is that separate zoning designation. How is that, like the terminology that you guys used, It describes senior independent living center, which is a senior housing project, and then independent living facility that's now classified as congregate care. So is the only difference that there's not support services for the residents of those two housing types? Maybe just help me understand the difference between a housing project like 55 and older type community versus the congregate care?

I'm going to have to pull up the standards for senior housing specifically. With congregate care, they are just a larger group home. They're still licensed by the California Department of Social Services or Department of Health Care Services versus a senior housing project as defined in our code. And I think Emily's pulling up the standards specifically. is an age-restricted facility. They don't necessarily provide, they don't provide those state-licensed services that would be provided through a congregate care facility. There are other, there may be other differences in the standard specifically that we can get for you.

And there's also some beneficial nature, beneficial treatment on the development standards in our zoning ordinance, and that's why there is a deed restriction. As the commission may recall, We did bring forward fairly recently the Wellspring project in Granite Bay. That was characterized as a senior housing development, even though it was proximate to an assisted living facility as well. But the component that was brought forward was a senior project.

Right. Okay. And then I think most the other question I had I believe is answered but just to make sure so in the the question around documentation and licensing I just know from history and district for that there were a couple of facilities that you know there were legal issues legal challenges and a whole number of things going on and whether they were actually licensed or not as that specific allowed use that was approved so I If I understand the permitting process, on an annual basis, the business license that is applied for, then there's an annual monitoring that they have an active business license with the county, the licensing with the state is still compliant, they don't have a whole bunch of issues, they have an expanded use, like there's some sort of checks and balances around ongoing operations of that facility is that correct?

That's correct. The business license addition provides us an avenue to sort of make to your point make sure they haven't expanded or changed their use from what was approved under that minor use permit.

Okay and is that same so that's done on an annual basis is does the county receive that documentation up front through the permitting process before they're actually allowed to move forward with construction of the facility or leverage an existing facility or whatever the situation. So what documentation is provided that the county can say, check, they've got the business license, check, even if they say they're a certain use, but who's verifying that? Is that use, like, is that also done up front to make sure someone's not just saying something and doing something else? Because I think that has been a real concern and I'm not just making it up.

Yeah, great question. As has been mentioned, the project would be subject to a minor use permit, and so the requirement to review that documentation and at what point in that process it's reviewed would be handled through the minor use permit and a condition of approval for the minor use permit.

Okay. So the county would see that during the permitting process?

Yeah, perhaps either the building permit process or certificate of occupancy or some trigger, but it would be a condition of the minor use permit.

Okay, perfect. I wanted to piggyback on that. Kind of stole my question. Sorry, Jeff. But the 7-16 requires a business license, and it says agreement to comply with code. That's kind of broad-based. Is it a self-audit, or does it give you the right to inspect? Right.

So the agreement that will be prepared, we haven't drafted that. Depending on if this ordinance moved forward, that will be drafted to list all of the ordinances that they are required to comply with. they will have to sign and test that they will comply with each of those and so that will be with that contact information if we get Complaints and it shows that they agreed to comply with that code. It's just an extra They are already required to comply with it But it's the ability for us to put it in front of them and have it very visible that these are the requirements that you're required to comply with okay, so there is some teeth from the County side that that's what I was concerned with.

It's sometimes they check the boxes and sign the paper and right and It's never so at least they would be signing acquiescence to do that. But you don't necessarily go. I mean I guess there are other agencies that have the right to inspect code violation or what have you.

Right. So this agreement the purpose of it is to make sure that they're aware of every they're very aware of everything they need to comply with. And then if a complaint comes up or the county becomes aware through another avenue They're not consistent. That is a code enforcement case at that point because they're not complying and that's where the violation would occur if they're not Consistent at that point.

Yes Just and just real quick on that same in your other slide you mentioned for context there were 32 of these 7 to 16 units in the county or single-family units in the county and 13% had more than six Residents do you have a clicker? Back towards the beginning It's back at the beginning Yeah, so 32 and of those 32 13% were greater than six 13% of those have seven so in the entire county there are basically four homes right now that

single family in single family that have more than we have there's I think that says 15% of the residential AG are also that size and 25% in our in our residential multifamily right but most of our facilities are six or fewer right so we're talking about four homes it's not yeah thank you I have a couple other quick questions for the that coat the compliance if there was a

after you get, you know, through the permitting process, the building is done, if there was, you know, a concern from the community and they filed, I'm assuming a code, you know, violation, if they're saying they're, you know, licensed facility and they're actually advertising for senior living as an example, the community member could, you know, submit a code violation, then the county would work with the licensed entity, whether it's DHCS or Department of, I think it's Social Services, or I don't remember the other one, but I know DHCS. So does the county take the lead on bringing them into compliance or just a part of it, or is it a depends answer?

IT'S GOING TO BE A DEPENDS ANSWER. WHAT OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS WOULD BE IS THAT WE WOULD FIRST CONTACT THE PROPERTY OWNER AND INDICATE THAT THERE'S A VIOLATION AND SO WE WOULD BE WORKING THROUGH THAT PROCESS. Depending on what the circumstances are, we might reach out to the licensing agency and have them seek to bring it into compliance. If it was a 7 to 16 facility and they were no longer licensed, then there would be, you know, ISSUES THAT WE WOULD NEED TO WORK THROUGH. AGAIN, WITH A MINOR USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT, THEN AT SOME POINT WE COULD WORK THROUGH A REVOCATION PROCESS. I MEAN, THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY BE IN SITUATIONS WHERE THEY ARE NOT VOLUNTARILY BRINGING THEMSELVES INTO COMPLIANCE. OKAY.

GREAT. AND THEN LAST QUESTION JUST FOR CLARITY. Group homes from that are 6 to 17 and then 17 the congregate facility of 70 more You mentioned and showed that they are evaluated based on objective standards just like any other like facility so setbacks All those types of requirements would still apply as long as it's part of that particular zoning district, correct?

Correct.

Okay. Thank you so much. Are there other questions? I

Can you go to the slide where it shows the fees for conditional use permit and minor use permit? Okay. Since all of these other things are the same, except for the body that it goes to, and we want them to be the same, we don't want to discriminate against, you know, different types of organizations, Why can't we, since we have a new category of 17 plus, the larger congregate facilities, give them, because it's such a special new thing, the same application fee and still make it a conditional use permit? I know you said that if we make it a CUP, it could open up the whole housing element. I think it's so reasonable. I don't think that's going to happen for the 17 plus. We did it for everything, perhaps, but I don't believe that that would be the case. Why couldn't we make these the same fee? up the minor use permit and reduce the conditional use permit and make it all $4,000 or something like that. The county could do that, right? It's a county thing.

I'm not sure I'm tracking. You mentioned 17 and above. Yes. So you're talking about our congregate care designation, not the... Where it doesn't have a CUP currently.

Chris, I can't speak to the fee portion, but the way the HE42 is written, it's that we are required to allow seven or more with a minor use permit. It doesn't have a cap within the HE42 language, and so...

Right, but we always talked about fixing it, which we're doing now. We've always talked about seven plus, what does that mean? And we know we put that forward because we had to, and it got approved, and we always knew we'd be coming back and having these discussions. And so we're having these discussions right now, And that's something we always talked about. That was something that was on the Zoom call with the 90 people that I also listened in on. That's something that I think we're discussing now. And I wanted to make, I'm asking the question, can it be even? This seems like it makes it more difficult to make it a CUP. If we decided we wanted 17 and above congregate facilities to be a CUP, this might be something HCD says, well, it costs them more.

Yeah. So for the congregate facilities, the permitting path that we are recommending is to follow the multifamily use type and the permitting path there. It's certainly, it's not covered in HE 42. If that was a recommendation from the Planning Commission, that's something that could be entertained. Currently what we have it, You know, we don't have it as an allowable use, as Lucy mentioned, in the RS or RA zone districts. It's only in the multifamily zone district. It's by zoning clearance in the commercial.

Which we did a lot of additions when we went through the rezoning, so really aware.

Right.

That's why I've been paying attention to this for two years.

Yeah, so what you're suggesting is that rather than by, rather than allowing via zoning clearance in the multifamily zone districts to require a conditional use permit? Correct.

And to make it even, Stephen, with all the other minor use permit types just for the purposes of HCD seeing that it's all equivalent. It's the same. There's not an adverse, I mean, I know it's a little bit of money. It's just a tiny bit of money. but there's no adverse reason for going after a CUP or having a CUP.

So I, I have a couple of comments on that commissioner Dahlgren. Um, so number one, to the extent you're discussing increasing the fee on the minor use permit, um, to make it even with the conditional use permit. So the County is restricted in the amount they can charge for their services. There has to be a reasonable relationship between, what's being charged, and the cost of the service. So that may play into adjusting those numbers.

Sure, I understand that. But what would be, I guess, the delta between a minor use permit, the work behind the delta of a minor use permit and a conditional use permit?

Right, and as far as that exact difference, I would have to defer to planning on. But then also the difference between the minor use permit versus conditional use permit that may be of issue for the laws that require equal treatment is that the minor use permit may be approved at the zoning administrator level, whereas the conditional use permit under the county code has to come before the planning commission.

Oh, I understand.

Okay.

Okay, other questions?

Excuse me, yeah. On that point you made about the fees, are these fees established pursuant to any studies like a NEXUS study?

Yes, they are. HAVEN'T MENTIONED IT YET, OR I MIGHT HAVE MONTHS AGO, BUT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE AGENCY IS IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING OUR FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE DIFFERENT DIVISIONS, INCLUDING PLANNING. WE'VE UNDERTAKEN A STUDY, WE'VE BROUGHT ON A CONSULTANT, AND WE ARE TENATIVELY SCHEDULED TO BRING FORWARD

item to the board in in early September to consider changes to our fee schedule any other questions yes room what I'm thinking about is the I guess you have to permit is basically what we're talking about is permitting the facility I believe And so oftentimes, particularly if there's a license involved, it's going to be a state agency or some other agency. Or if there's federal or state funding or some other nonprofit funding, what happens actually once the permit is granted, then really as far as the state's involvement, I mean the county's involvement in the process would be if there's a violation of... of the permit that was issued, and otherwise the administration of the building would be up to one of the other agencies. Is that correct?

Correct. The operation is under the jurisdiction of the licensing state agency versus the county would respond to any violations of the development code.

Okay. Thank you.

Jeff?

Not to belabor the fee schedule, but at the bottom it says it's deposit only. So the actual cost of the application is going to be a finite number at some point, right? And this deposit's applied to that?

This is the deposit amount for these use permits. It is billed on a time and materials basis.

Right. So at some point, it costs X, and then you'll credit the deposit. Correct.

or invoice them for the bottles.

Yeah, correct.

I have one other question. For the alcohol and other, I forget, the AODs facilities, when were those, how do I ask this, were those part of the, part of state law as a facility type or use? back when he 42 was crafted around residential care homes or is it a new thing newer i'm uncertain if it was a definition in state law prior to the adoption of our housing element in 2021 okay thank you any other questions no all right um so that um I'm going to go ahead and move it to open public comment. So at this time, if there's anyone in the public that would like to come up and share comments, you can go ahead and do so now. And if you could please state your name for the record when you approach the podium.

My name is Sherry Larson, and I'm representing the communities of Newcastle and Ophir. Just a quick response to what Mr. Jewell said. The California auditor in October 24 published a report on how poorly the state of California enforces rules with respect to group homes. Basically, it's very miserable, very little staffing. Once they grant a permit, they don't look at it again. So I would refer you to that report if you want more information in that area. Basically, we have two issues and they refer to services, but in different areas. One's non-medical versus medical. I asked for some clarification from Lucy with respect to And the thing that I find that's going to be very difficult to enforce and, you know, once a minor use permit is issued, there doesn't seem to be a mechanism for the county then to go out and see what's actually occurring in the group home. So is there medical or non-medical? And she stated it with respect to the IMS that it is short-term with medications self-administered while overseen by the medical professional or administered by the professional that is not directly employed by the facility. So, and this is in with respect to drugs being self-administered by the patient or the resident. So I can't imagine that every time a resident needs to take a drug, which could be four times a day, do they have to have a doctor there, an outside doctor, to oversee that process? I mean, how is that actually going to happen? Generally, what I've seen in references to group homes and how they operate, especially with respect facility in Ophir is that someone has to store the facility or store the drugs and then provide them to the resident. Now, who's going to do that? I mean, obviously, the facility is already storing and providing essentially the drugs. Is an outside doctor going to be there 24-7 to look at what 16 people are actually doing? There's no clarification of objective standards on how to determine what is medical versus non-medical with respect to what the facility actually does. And how is that going to be enforced? The other thing quickly is with respect to shared services with group homes on adjoining parcels. How are you going to enforce that? How are you going to know if you have a 16, 16, 16 on three adjoining parcels that they're sharing services? The company is going to want to say they're standalone, we're independent, we don't share. How are we going to enforce that? How are we going to know? If you could wrap up your comments. Okay. And it's all covered in public comment that I made.

Thank you so much for your comments. Yes, go ahead and come to the podium if you could state your name for the record.

Hi, my name is Mary Britton. I'm a licensed real estate broker and an inactive CPA with the State Board of Accountancy in California. My family and I have lived on Bald Hill Road for almost 14 years, and I am speaking on behalf of every Placer County resident. And just for the record, I am, my head is spinning right now. I have no notification of Lucy's report that came out apparently last Thursday or anything that's happening in the house next door to me. which is compromising the life and welfare of my family and my neighborhood. I want to first comment on the notification issue and regarding email versus paper mail notifications. The county may currently be trying to collect owner's email addresses, but those email addresses come voluntarily by the owners. However, the county does have the name of every parcel and every owner in every district as a matter of public record. Therefore, there's no reason that every owner on every parcel cannot be notified of any permit application, MEP, CEP, or whatever, by regular paper mail. And I would assert that I would want my property taxes going towards those notifications as an owner. As I said, we live next door to 1905 Bald Hill Road and have never received any notification about anything that's going on. It's basically by the mercy and kindness of our neighbors that we are even aware that this is happening, as evidenced by the fact that nobody's here. Nobody knows that this meeting's going on or the MAC meetings or anything, and there's no excuse for it. Everybody's known in every county and every parcel. Okay, and then just quickly, Medical versus non-medical services. And again, apologies, this is all new to me, so I've got notes all over the place. As far as I'm concerned, incidental medical services, being short-term related, is just a loophole to let a home outsource the medical services that these residents actually need. The whole point is that residents need the medical services. whether they're coming from external to the home or internal via the staff. They need medical services. Medicine is drugs. So in my opinion, drug detox is de facto a medical service in nature. Residents are detoxing from medicines, and then it's medical in nature. And what I would say is how is having external medical services provided any different than having them provided internally, except that you're going to have an ambulance show up on a regular basis. If you could please wrap up your comments. My last comment is just about complaints. You can't complain about something that you don't know about. Nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors. These homes, nobody knows. Thank you for your comments. Thank you.

Is there anyone else in person that would like to make a comment? Yes, please come forward. And state your name again for the record.

My name is Dan Davey. I live next to the Bald Hill facility. And when we were there, they have lockers that have the medicine. So the staff is to remind them to take their medicine. Isn't that still medical? I mean, well, I mean, that's how they're getting around it. There seems to be a loophole. So if they don't Actually hand it to them. They're considered not medical but they're taking all the detox drugs and everything it's just stored in a locker and The patient needs to get it. So to me that's a loophole It's still medical they're detoxing and using medication. We've already had men Ambulances show up. It's already been a disturbance and of yelling and screaming and cussing that we can hear. And so in some theory, and I've had no notifications, never been sent to me. I'm three parcels. Well, I'm adjacent. And it seems like they're kind of being able to be run under a radar, and we're allowing it. So it's affecting our lives. And what is my protection? Who do I call saying, hey, this is a disturbance? And it's daily. Seven guys. Now, you want to put in 16 guys there. I can only see it upping our unfair to us, the neighbors, and everything. And I don't even know who do I call. Do I call the police every time? You know? And there's nothing really safeguarding us.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else in person that would like to make public comment on this item? I see none. Do we have anyone online?

Yes. Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments. I'm sorry, can you hear me? Yes, we can now.

All right, sorry. Greetings again, commissioners. Diane Louise Alessi and founder and director of Christian Valley Park Residents Coalition. CDPRC supports lawful residential care and equal treatment. However, our concern is not the identity of residents. Our concern is whether Placer County will remove meaningful site review for facilities serving seven through 16 clients in rural communities with limited roads, constrained emergency access, wildfire evacuation risks, water limitations, septic constraints, and infrastructure built for existing residential parcel patterns. State law clearly protects qualifying facilities serving six or few Fewer persons, but the county's own housing element program, HE42, states that the facilities serving seven or more clients in single family residential districts are to be allowed with a minor use permit. Please retain that safeguard. A minor use permit should require objective review of water, wastewater capacity, fire protection, emergency access, evacuation parking, traffic staffing, operational intensity and consultation with affected districts and service providers. We ask that you continue this ZTA until the county identifies the exact legal authority for each change, demonstrate in the general plan consistency, completes appropriate sequel review and adopts enforceable safeguards for rural communities. And I would just leave with a question. How does a homeowner that is facing devaluation of their property deal with the disruption and the downgrade of their home's values because they have these, or maybe Oreo'd in between them? It's very disturbing. If these clients are disturbing the public, is there an expeditious eviction right by the landlord because the state's tenant laws are now encouraging squatting. So I gave you a very extensive package and CVPRC is asking you to continue this and to get back to us with the requisites. So thank you.

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

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

Hello, this is Muriel Davis from Penryn. And first I want to say that I agree with, I think it was Amber that said, Robin suggested a CUP for the seven plus units, but here's my comment. Because of the major impact on underground water, septic systems, and traffic situations, especially if drugs are used, the seven plus care homes should not be allowed in res ag zoning areas. Because these commercial businesses will have a major impact on drinking water, sewer, and traffic, All seven plus care homes in any residential area should be required to have an EIR done, even if it is a mitigated death negative declaration, the MNDs. Deceptive well water and road traffic impacts require an EIR. The county has a responsibility to follow its designated goal to protect rural areas, and rural areas have the most of the Res Ag zones. An MUP is approved by a single family person, and that is not acceptable. These homes that are seven plus are such a major impact. An ERR must be done, and at the minimum, it should go to a CUP instead. instead of an MUP. The residents have complained about code enforcement in the past. And I don't think there's any confidence in assuming that code enforcement will enforce the rules that these people are supposed to follow. And anyway, I please do not let these seven plus home care homes in res ag areas and if in in other residential areas they have to have an eir too because it's the impacts are major i i don't see my time so i don't know when i'm going to be over thank you very much and like diane said if you can continue this and get better information and a better definition of what's going on with these enforcing the rules that they have to follow I think that would be a big improvement, a good decision to make to continue this.

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

Yes, one more. Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments. Brian, are you able to unmute your mic?

Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, sorry. Brian Mancibo. I live next to the 1905 Bald Hill address. A couple observations I've had and a few of the neighbors have spoke to the issues with the cursing, the loud language going on next door. When I approached the management of the facility via text without even addressing the issue, the first thing she asked was, do you want to sell your house? That to me indicates there's a bigger issue that they're looking at buying properties in these areas. And secondly, living next door to this facility has caused me personally a lot of medical issues that I'm still facing due to the stress and anxiety of living next to a facility such as this. I'm scared for my safety and my kids. I have teenage daughters, and I would just ask you to take that into consideration. Thank you.

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

Yes, one more. Caller go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments.

Hello, this is Catherine Brown. I live just a couple of addresses down from the facility. I know that your responsibility there is limited. In the sense that there are homes that could be put in up to 6 up to 6 patients. I know the state has the right for that, but I do ask for you to recognize the power that you have to be able to limit. the additional potential patient count above seven. This is, I mean, it's critically important to our community and our neighborhood. But also it is a drain on our local resources as well with the amount of the fire department has to go over and check on occasions ambulances are coming through. It is a disturbance to our neighborhood. But most importantly, I'm concerned about the health and safety of those that live in this community. And that is one of the things that we ask of you as our leaders in our community to be receptive to those of us in the greater community to ask for your help in shepherding this in the best way possible. So thank you for your time. Thank you for your attention to this matter. And thanking you for understanding and knowing what you guys are capable of doing to help take care of the greater people of Placer County. So thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else? No others. Okay. I am going to go ahead and close public comment then on this item and bring it back to the commission. But before we do that, staff, is there anything you'd like to add?

Yeah, we do have a couple of responses that we'd like to provide, and I'll start with just a response on notification and processing. We heard a number of commenters today about a specific property over on Bald Hill, so wanted to talk again a little bit about processing and notification. PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS OPERATING CURRENTLY AS A SIX OR FEWER FACILITY, AND THAT'S WHY YOU HEARD ABOUT THE CURRENT SITUATION WITH THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THEY HAVE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR A MINOR USE PERMIT FOR GREATER THAN THE SEVEN PERSONS So that particular one, there were questions about notification. Obviously, a six or fewer facility, as we've established, is allowed by right, state law, and so there's no notification that's provided for those facilities. The minor use permit request, there is notification requirements prior to public hearing. As it's a minor use permit, it would be subject to a zoning administrator hearing, so there will be mailed notice to property owners within 300 feet OF THAT SITE OR FURTHER TO ENSURE THAT WE REACH 30 DISTINCT PROPERTIES PRIOR TO THAT PUBLIC HEARING. SO I WANTED TO KIND OF CLARIFY THAT. I ALSO WANTED TO NOTE THAT FOR THIS ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT PACKAGE, STAFF HAS DONE QUITE A BIT OF OUTREACH TO ENSURE THAT KNOW ABOUT THE PACKAGE. AS LUCY MENTIONED, WE'VE STOOD UP A WEB PAGE TO INFORM THE PUBLIC ABOUT THIS EFFORT. WE'VE ATTENDED MAC MEETINGS. WE'VE HELD A PUBLIC TOWN HALL MEETING VIRTUALLY AND, YOU KNOW, DONE QUITE A BIT OF WORK TO LET PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THIS PACKAGE AND WHEN IT'S COMING TO HEARING. So with that maybe I will hand it over to Lucy to provide some additional additional comment.

If I could real quick before we move on from the noticing issue I also just wanted to give a little more overview on the noticing required for this zoning text amendment. So there is both county code and state law requirements including that notice of this be provided in newspaper And that is required at both the Planning Commission level and again when it goes to the board for their decision on this There's also the noticing the Brown Act related noticing. It's posted in the agenda as well as this CTA went to the various MAC meetings and was posted in their agendas as Brown Act bodies. And so there are various levels of notice that were given to the CTA. And as well, the Brown Act does allow members of the public to request notice. And they can do that through the clerk of the board's office.

So when you notice within the 300 feet, 30 residents, does the MAC get notice of that also?

No, I don't believe we do notice the max.

Okay. Thank you. I guess it's kind of in line with what I was thinking. Now, if it's just a condition of zoning, a C, so they have a by right, there is no notification, but there is a zoning review. make sure that the proposal was consistent with the zoning?

That's correct.

Okay. And then, I guess, unfortunately, there's no public notice, but the decision that's made at that point is still appealable. Is that correct?

No, there would be no appeal of that decision.

I mean, the review of the consistency with zoning is not appealable?

No, it would not be.

Okay, I would have thought it was but I guess not now.

I mean if the property if the Applicant for zoning clearance had a or if it was not approved through zoning clearance The applicant could request a review of the planning directors interpretation and if if following that review um they they would be able to appeal the plan the director's determination would be correct the plan interpretation correct yeah um the the other thing yeah i think i'll just leave it at that i would just add that generally for um those by right decisions the zoning clearance

They're generally not appealable decisions and under the county code in order to file an appeal you do have to have Basically made it comment on the project Yeah, they still have to be certain criteria which somebody has to make a determination that they did or didn't you know if there's a question and I guess a Right. So the the zoning clearance would be that determination that they meet the requisite criteria. I

So are there notifications in the 42 on this? Is that a blanket notification to the residences in the area? Or not all of these programs get notification?

I'm sorry, are you asking about an individual project that would come through?

Well, you just said, you just indicated that there were notifications to residences in the area if these are coming in. Is that true?

So he could talk to an individual, but just if we're talking what happened today.

No, no. When these projects come in, do you announce or give to the neighborhood?

No.

Notify the, then who is notified? You were just saying that there was residences that were notified of.

I DIDN'T. WHAT I SAID IS THAT FOR A PROJECT THAT WOULD COME IN OR THAT WOULD BE REQUESTING ZONING CLEARANCE, THERE IS NO NOTIFICATION. HOWEVER, WHEN THERE IS A REQUEST FOR A MINOR USE PERMIT, THE MINOR USE PERMIT IS PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING, THERE IS NOTIFICATION THAT'S MAILED OUT TO property owners within 300 feet of the site, similar to any item that's coming before the Planning Commission. And they're notified that it's a permit for... A permit for a minor use permit for a residential care facility, or in this case, if this were approved, a group home.

Can you go to that slide that shows M-U-P-C-U-P? It's up. The table.

It's up.

No, no, the table.

Oh, the land.

I think you mean that one.

Yeah. Yeah, the MUP ones are noticed. The C zoning clearance is not noticed.

Are there notifications to the city to where some of these things are going into then, if it's a multiple use permit?

IF IT WERE A DISCRETIONARY ENTITLEMENT AND IT WERE WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF A CITY, THEN WE WOULD PROVIDE NOTIFICATION.

OTHER THAN THAT?

OTHER THAN THAT, WE WOULD NOT PROVIDE NOTIFICATION. OKAY. THE OTHER THING THAT I SHOULD JUST MENTION BECAUSE IT DID COME UP WITH A COUPLE OF THE QUESTIONS AND MAYBE LUCY IS GOING TO COVER IT IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL TOO. As part of our processing of a minor use permit application, we would be routing it to other county divisions and departments. They would be evaluating the request. You know, there were questions about utilities and water availability and so forth. AS A DISCRETIONARY PERMIT, THE PROJECT WOULD BE EVALUATED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL COUNTY CODES AND WITH AVAILABLE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIOR TO MAKING A RECOMMENDATION, DEVELOPING CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL AND TAKING IT TO HEARING.

SO IN A ROUND ABOUT WAY, THE CITIES ARE KIND OF NOTIFIED THAT SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE COMING IN?

WHEN IT'S PROXIMATE TO THEM, YES.

Well, and to sort of tag on to a little of what Hannah was saying, our office does our noticing per Brown Act as well. And when she said you can sign up through the clerk of the board, there are actually many cities that are also signed up. So you receive a notice stating our agendas have been posted. So those are ways that you would be informed immediately an agenda has been posted for you to look at and see. We also do a lot of noticing in the paper as well. a little antiquated, but it does happen.

And just one clarification on the noticing, and then we'll get to Lucy. So for the piece that you just mentioned, actually, Chris, because I know there were public comment about the infrastructure capacity. So in some of the districts where they're still on sewer, like in District 4, that's been one of the concerns that's been brought up for capacity. through the permitting process, whether it's an MUP or a zoning clearance, would that be evaluated by the appropriate county department?

Yes.

Okay. Okay. Any other questions specifically on the noticing? And then we'll get to Lucy. I think you had some additional clarification.

Just a few points, not too many. Okay. I did want to mention, because there was a question about the EIRs for these, on a project level, if WHEN THEY COME IN FOR A DISCRETIONARY PERMIT, THAT MINOR USE PERMIT, THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DEPENDING ON THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT. THAT WOULD DETERMINE WHAT THAT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED TO BE. THE SECOND WAS THE MULTIPLE If there's an adjacent parcel that's already operating and you've got another one coming in, a couple of different sort of checks for that are the, as part of this ZTA, we list if they're under the same owner, the same operator, manager, property owner, licensee, all sorts of different options. So for example, if a project came in on an adjacent parcel, and they had amended their license, this is just one example, that we can see that the license is for 16, but they're only proposing six on this property, for example, we can look at adjacent properties and say, which one is that extra 10 accommodating? Another thing is when a new property comes in as part of the review process, we're looking at what's going on around it. And so if there is a group home that exists on an adjacent parcel, as part of this process, we'll have their license on file. and can see who's listed on that license, who's the contact for it, to determine if they are linked, if they didn't come in at one time. And then I just wanted to clarify the IMS, because I know there are a few questions about that. And if you have any specifics, I'm happy to follow up. With the IMS, as one of our commenters noted, they are required to have any prescription medications in a locked facility on site. As part of the requirements of IMS, they need to provide that plan to the licensing agency that says where and how it will be locked, who has access to it. That access, obviously, the residents themselves do not have access to it. There is an allowance of self-administration of the medication, but that has to be overseen by the physician that's on site. So if it's twice a day administration of that medication, then the physician is on site twice a day to do that. So there are checks and balances as part of the licensing requirements to ensure that medication is not available to residents to have access to outside of when they are administered by that physician. So if you have any other questions on that, I'm happy to answer.

Quick question on that specific one. You mentioned this earlier, Lucy, but just to clarify, the AOD facility types are the only types that allow that IMS licensing avenue or not?

There are psychiatric social group homes right now for children, for teens, that they have a psychiatric social worker that comes in in the afternoon and in the mornings to give out medications. It's not a doctor.

So to my knowledge, one thing about IMS is that is a specific license. We were even looking as that terminology, incidental medical services, is tied specifically to AODs. Whether other facilities can have different licenses that provide them the opportunity to provide services like that, I'm not familiar with that. And we can certainly look into that. But the IMS is specific to AODs and for group homes.

But like you said, other uses could have some type of short-term medical service. You could have in-home hospice, other types of palliative care.

Of course, right. I think that's the challenge, though, Lucy, that we're grappling with is under this medical services hospital extended care category, AODs, to me, stand out as something separate. I want to see them treated separately. You know, we've exchanged emails back and forth. It just, I think it warrants, just like senior housing does, I think it warrants its own category. But... Also, you said the ownership link, residences opening multiple homes. We do have that with children, foster, teen group homes, where they do have multiple homes in the neighborhood. And they have the same ownership under nonprofit. They also share staff. Now, didn't you say sharing staff was that one objective standard, not the ownership piece? Because they can own as many houses as they want in the neighborhood. They can buy them up. Can't stop them from owning them.

Let me pull the language really quick.

Because it happens now with children's group homes, and it's convenient for staff. It's convenient for the nonprofit to be in the same neighborhood, bus the kids to school together, take them to court together, those kinds of things.

So one thing that's specific in this is that we don't call out whether the parcels are adjacent or not. So just for clarity, I'm going to read this section of the code, and then we can discuss it. It says, group homes operating out of multiple structures that are under the control and or management of the same owner, operator, management company, or licensee with shared staff and or services shall be considered one facility or one group home for the purpose of calculating the total resident capacity to determine the permit required.

So it's the and. And shared staff.

Right.

Not the ownership.

OK. Can you say? You're saying it is there. They have?

A facility, Joe's foster care group home, can buy seven homes on a block. Nothing's going to stop them from that. Now, this isn't in the past, but this is now, that it only matters if they share staff, that they're a single entity, that they can be treated like...

Shared staff or services. So, for example, if you have two on a block and the staff are traveling between them, Or if I, as a resident, could be placed in House A or B and get the same services provided, that would be considered one facility.

And there's no feet, like 1,000 feet apart? I know it doesn't have to be adjacent. It could be across the street. It could be diagonal.

The state does have spacing requirements that I can pull. But we can't place additional spacing requirements.

Because the fear is that we cluster a lot of these in the same neighborhood. which is happening and has happened in the past because it is more convenient for the operator. And again, I only know about the foster group homes. I don't know about the AODs.

And I would say that we were pretty intentional with crafting the language due to those concerns. I mean, obviously, we've had some of those potential projects come up in the past, and we are aware of resident concerns about that, and we intentionally crafted this language to address that situation.

And around the parking requirements, because one of the big complaints about the neighborhood, the neighbors, is the parking, especially when we're talking about group homes where all the paraprofessionals descend in the afternoon after school, and there's not a place you could park within a mile. And so I know that that was one of the big concerns of these, so I'm glad that's being addressed.

will be addressed thanks other questions on that otherwise Lucy do you have other clarifications you wanted to provide no the big one was the noticing but if you have anything you'd like us to follow up on I can okay so I would go back to the Commission questions in sorry the public comment is closed so you're not able to come up and provide additional testimony so bring it back to the Commission any other questions comments thoughts on this?

I just know that I wouldn't be able to approve today's recommendations because I really want to see a conditional use permit for the 17 plus congregate care facility. I think it's completely reasonable and I think it's not going to open up Pandora's box with HCD because I do think it's pretty reasonable. The other thing that I want to see before I could vote yes on this would be a separate AOD designation just like we have for senior housing. and there's no state law prohibiting it, as Hannah let us know, and I want the meaningful community input on these things. I think it's important for them to be able to come and talk to us about these individual things as they come along. I mean, I know not everybody follows the newspaper or the Macs, but I do think conditional use permit for the congregate facility and separating out AODs is the way I need to see it.

I completely agree with that 100%. And I would have stated it the exact same way. Okay. It needs to be separated AOD completely.

Okay. Other comments or questions?

Just a quick comment on some of the discussion that I'm hearing is as far as requiring a CUP for these larger, the congregate care facilities, Given the language in the housing element for that HE42, it could possibly be construed by HCD that requiring that for those types of facilities would be inconsistent with the housing element.

I understand. Like I said to Lucy before, we talked about this two years ago and we had to get it done. We pushed it through. We said we're going to come back and talk about this. I don't think that's unreasonable. It's one area that we're talking about, conditional use permit, and only for residential. If I wanted to even clarify it more cleanly, I would say a CUP for RM, RM30, wherever it's just the residential ones, because it's already an MUP for HS and OP. So I think that's very reasonable. I don't think that's something that would blow up the boxes. I know we said what we said. I know we said we'd come back. We're back. Now we're having the discussion.

Can I ask, I don't know if you have anything else, Hannah?

No.

On the point separate from the AOD discussion for right now for the CUP What so from the historical perspective of these large facilities coming into neighborhoods? I just have to say, there's things that I maybe disagree with, but it's a huge step forward that these distinguishing sizes have been addressed. It's literally very significant. And I know from a lot of comments and experience for District 4 in Granite Bay specifically, this actually addresses a lot of the issues. So group homes under six or fewer CLEAR makes sense, group homes, you know, 7 to 16 makes sense. With the congregate care facilities, they're not allowed in single family residential or res ag anymore at all, which is also hugely significant. And I think that was one of the original compelling reasons of all the history of the board and the workshops and back to the planning commission. And I know I was in a different capacity. So I guess, Robin, maybe my question is to you. What would you, I guess, what would you get out of a CUP? Because my understanding is that zoning clearance for these other types, like that's, maybe it's changeable, I don't know, but what are you looking to get out of a CUP versus MUP?

What I'd like to get out of it is it comes to the Planning Commission. If we're going to have a congregate living facility in an RM-30 district, we have a lot more now, after rezone, that they come to us. That's all. To have community input, to have a hearing, to have people noticed, to have not just a zoning administrator, but to have it here, so that the appeal goes to the Board of Supervisors.

For all of these designations on congregate care facilities, or just the two that, because right now...

Right now, RM, RM-30... Maybe just res?

I'm not sure. So it would, but then that would be higher, more stringent, I'm gonna call it, than the actual multi-family type zoning destinations, which only require... Or it would just be the same as medical services, hospital extended care.

If you look at it that way. The one right under it.

Oh, I see what you're saying. I guess for staff, I have a question. I thought that it was required through HCD, please correct me, that you have to allow all residential care facilities, seven or more, through zoning clearance in residential, through RM and RM30, is that incorrect?

The language of HE42 is that we will allow Residential care homes with seven or more residents. It's all the way back at the beginning.

It's like slide number two more Yeah, seven or more clients with the approval of a minor use permit in single-family zone districts Allow residential care homes with seven or more clients with approval of minor use in single-family residential zone district we had so many things that we had to approve and we felt like we had to do this to get it through and

And we said we would come back and talk about how we would parse this out and the different categories, which we're doing now, which is why I'm raising this as something I'd like to see now.

And I would just say what I mentioned earlier is that staff in approaching this took the approach for congregate care of treating it similar to multifamily. And so that's how we brought it forward. But if the direction- It's the 17 plus.

It's the plus that concerns me. You're not concerned about the seven to 16, which already requires an MUP. Chris, were you going to say something?

No. Well, I was going to go back to the table because when Commissioner Dahlgren mentioned you could use the medical services extended care, I just wanted to kind of point out what Chair Beckler mentioned, which was under this proposed amendment, we would not be allowing CONGREGATE CARE FACILITIES IN THE RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL ZONE DISTRICT, MEDICAL SERVICES, EXTENDED CARE IS ALLOWED SUBJECT TO A CUP. THE ONLY OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION WAS JUST TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION ON THE RES, THAT IS NOT RESIDENTIAL, IT'S RESORT.

I HAD TO LOOK THAT UP BEFORE But then it's really just, I would like to see it under RM and RM30 to be a conditional use permit. Is that just my personal?

Because they're residential in nature, is your... And we now have a lot more RM30.

Right.

Other comments or questions that people have, right?

Could I ask a question?

Yeah, go for it, Mark.

I guess to council, and I'm not indicating I support or oppose, just curious if we're to do which Commissioner Dahlgren has mentioned, you would take the staff recommendation and modify CDENF?

So assuming that there's a desire to make changes to the proposed ZTA, Depending on what those changes are, because of how the tables are interwoven throughout the code, it would probably be beneficial to direct staff to make the desired changes and to bring this item back for approval at a later meeting, either to a date and time certain or uncertain. I would defer to staff on that decision.

Yeah, I'd also maybe just add on, I know we've been focused on the zoning ordinance tables, but there's also tables associated with the Placer County Government Center and the Sunset Area Plan that we haven't talked about. So if there is a desire to make changes, we'd need to go through and make sure that the appropriate changes are made in those documents as well.

And I want to know if my other commissioners would even entertain that. And if they would, then Hannah could come up with a motion. But I have two issues. One is conditional use permit for RM and RM30 for congregate care facilities, and the other one was separating AODs out and making it its own category, which is not against California law, for senior housing projects, assuming fair housing is all included into that.

SO IF I CAN JUST ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFICATION AND PERHAPS MY COLLEAGUES HERE MIGHT WANT TO ADD AS WELL. IN TERMS OF THE AOD'S AND OUR RATIONALE FOR INCLUDING THOSE INTO THE GROUP HOME LAND USE ONE, THERE IS STATE LAW THAT REQUIRES FOR SIX AND FEWER TO BE TREATED AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT. SO AOD'S SIX OR FEWER WOULD BE TREATED JUST AS THE GROUP HOMES SIX OR FEWER. SO THERE'S NO PERMITTING OR NO CHANGES THERE. IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SEVEN OR GREATER, YOU KNOW, REALLY THERE WOULDN'T LIKELY BE ANY CHANGES THERE EITHER OTHER THAN PERHAPS IN THE RS ZONE DISTRICT. AND THAT'S WHERE, YOU KNOW, THERE COULD BE SOME CONCERNS, PERHAPS LEGAL CONCERNS ABOUT SEPARATING OUT AOD'S FROM THE GROUP HOME PERMITTING PATH.

And I have no disagreement with Robin's take on this, but it would open the housing element or it would require an amendment to the housing element? Those changes were made?

Depending on what the changes were You know if it were just changes to the congregate care facilities You know suggest as the suggestion was to change those two Zoning district requirements to additional use permits That's something that we need to do a little bit more research on before bringing it back and I agree with her common sense says it shouldn't be a Major issue, but you're dealing with the state and another comment was made along there that it could open up Open you up for other items or other bites at the apple through the HCD and that's more my concern is yeah You know starting to reinvent the wheel a little bit and again that was if we were taking the the language in the in the housing element is residential care homes seven or greater subject to a minor use permit and if it was a if our approach was to require a conditional use permit rather than a minor use permit for residential care homes, then there would be a potential for, or HCD has indicated that that's an amendment to our housing element that opens up their review, whereas this commission is aware from going through the rezone program, once you open up the housing element program, they could add additional programs or make modifications to programs, which is what they did during that process.

And they could also do that when we get recertified. I mean, they can do that literally now at any time. They've got reasons, like a cop can pull you over for anything. HCD can come in and open it up and add stuff all the time. So that's not the threat that it used to be, in my opinion.

I agree with that.

Can we maybe talk about, I have some thoughts on the CUP thing, but just tabling that for a second. The AODs, Chris, it sounds like from a staff perspective, the value in having the AODs as part of the group homes is that it's the broad umbrella. You can handle it sort of in a systematic way. in the public comments that we received is that the AODs are administered and licensed by a different state agency under different law, that kind of thing. Is it possible in the separation of the AOD, I'm just gonna pretend as a separate line in this table, that it could literally be identical to, it would just say AOD, group homes, seven to 16, AOD dash congregate care facilities, AOD dash group homes, six or fewer. Like the permitting process and the requirements in the use, and it could literally just be a copy paste possibly, correct? Or is it a bigger effort? I guess I'm trying to understand what additional analysis is required.

In terms of if it were to not change the permitting path, there wouldn't be any additional analysis. That would also just call into question why change it then if there weren't any changes to the permitting path. If there were suggested changes to the permitting path, then we would need to evaluate whether those will hold up through legal scrutiny or and then sort of again evaluate whether it makes sense given the other land use types and those permitting paths for those other land use types.

Okay. And the one benefit I guess of separating it or doing that analysis that it sounds like it's possible that because it's dictated by different state law and a different state agency administers the licensing, those could change independently and not affect the other one. Like AOD could have different requirements, different law that changes only AOD facilities in the future. So that would be a benefit of separating, even if it's the same permitting cycle here.

Can I give an example of that for children? For children's community care licensing, you can't have more than two children of certain ages, certain genders in the same bedroom, right? There are certain standards under foster care and things like that. Those laws are completely independent of zoning around these homes and how many people you can cram into them. So that could happen for AODs. We don't know. The law could change, but I think it needs to be called out separately for that reason.

Right. So, Jeff, were you going to say something? Do you guys have, I don't want to jump in here, if you guys have things to bridge? Okay. So, if we, and Robin, I'm with you as far as like the compelling reason for the CUP and like the back history, except for, and trust me, like from a being part of this way long ago on the MAC in Granite Bay, the HE42 and how it was designed, no insult to anyone, just unfortunately set it up and literally said it has to be an MUP. So I guess my only concern is if we say let's continue this and then have staff evaluate doing the CUP and those two designations, The implications of it aren't really zoning related. They're board level items. And so is this one a continuance, have staff come back with analysis, or is it a, we agree with everything else and all the other work and make recommendations to the board along with the analysis that staff could do about separating AODs and making CUPs in those two residential areas and then have the board evaluate those changes.

I feel like it's a little bit different than the last one. I'd rather do what we did in 41 and have them come back to us after doing the analysis and thoughts and then we pass it over to the board of supervisors.

Okay. That's just my druthers. Okay. Okay. What do others feel or think about that?

Would prefer to make the recommendation to the board of supervisors consider those Scenarios I'm really not on board You're why I'm not on board with with I'd make a recommendation to the board to the board with that analysis Additional analysis that we're talking about not do a continuance. I Don't know I think I don't know if the additional analysis is going to generate much new information personally.

Okay. Jeff, what's your situation? Yeah, this is...

This whole issue is multi-level. There's a lot involved in this that the county has no control over. And so, basically, a lot of the issues that people are bringing up are issues that really the county can't deal with totally. And so basically it's a complex process. And, you know, I think if you get more analysis going on, that's what you'd find out. It's more complex than just making a change.

Okay. What is your thought?

Yeah, my concern may not agree with others, but I am concerned about We can make some changes without affecting the housing element All for it, but I am concerned about especially for staff. It's no big deal for us, but they It may be another six months to 12 months before we get coordination with HCD so that's the only concern I have is that opening up that can of worms.

But they said may open up the can of worms. May. It's not guaranteed that if we make this one little change.

I agree 100%. It's a risk and that's okay. That's my comment.

And I agree, Robin. I would like to see those be minor use permits. But I don't think we need to bring it back to us. We can make that recommendation to the board and let them staff do the analysis, figure out if this is going to impact housing elements and then let the board make the final decision on how to move forward.

So how would we do that today in the voting process? Would we vote affirmatively for the staff recommendation and then add recommendations that Hannah would craft so brilliantly?

I think the other, the other piece that I just want to make sure I feel like I'm, I'm From a staff standpoint, I think we're tracking on the congregate care conversation. The AOD conversation is a little bit more sort of nuanced, I feel. And that one, I think from a staff standpoint and our professional recommendation, unless we were to unless you were to direct us to have a separate permitting path. The other, then what's currently under group homes and the way that it is structured in the zoning ordinance, there's development standards that are specific to two group homes. And unless we were to then create separate, and if there were reasons to create separate development standards for AODs, then again, I think that that's work that we may need to do and bring back. But from staff's professional opinion, we've done quite a bit of work to sort of work through the distinguishing features between the multiple different types that make up this group home category. We feel comfortable with the way that we've brought that forward. So we'd be looking for further guidance from the Planning Commission if you were interested in separating THOSE OUT. THE CONGREGATE CARE PIECE I BELIEVE COULD BE HANDLED THROUGH A RECOMMENDATION AND THAT WE COULD BRING THAT FORWARD. BUT I'LL LET HANNAH SPEAK TO THAT.

IF THERE'S KIND OF SIMPLE EASY CHANGES THAT COULD BE MADE. I think that can be done today. To the extent that there's a desire to split the AOD facilities out of that group home pathway, I think that that would require a little more work on staff's part. And because of how it touches multiple sections of the zoning ordinance, because staff is taking your recommendation to the board, to not know exactly how expansive those changes are, what areas they'll ultimately touch. I think that it really would need to come back to the Planning Commission before you're able to make a recommendation to the board if you're interested in those types of changes.

For the AOD-specific item? Yes.

Chris, to answer your question about not grouping the AODs with group homes, One of the comments that we got that is stuck in my head that I have in front of me right now is that the desire to use the correct statutory definition and language of what a residential care home says is consistent with County Code and Community Care Facilities Act, and to marry those two and to make them match, to make them the same for future generations, not for right now, but for what AODs are gonna be in 10 years or five years, just to make all of that statutory language and that code language match up. I know we are only dealing with this box It's hard for the public to understand that we're only about land use and permitting and that there's a whole other entities involved in state and local and community organizations that we have nothing to do with. So I'm trying to answer Chris's question, which is to make sure that the correct statutory definition of a residential care home is consistent with county code and community care facility standards before we agree that you all lump them properly.

Yeah, and I think that that's why we have included a definition for AODs in the zoning ordinance and why we also, under the group home definition, reference that AOD definition as well. So we're trying to create, you know, cross-references to those within our zoning ordinance definition framework.

Because AODs are defined separately under Section 11834.02, and they're not covered by the Community Care Facilities Act.

That's correct, and we've identified that in the...

Right, I'm reading it, right. And I think that that bears just making a separate line. Like Amber said, it could be cut, copy, and paste, but it's called out separately. And you could address it that way if there become changes in the law, or there become changes later on about how they're operated or what else under... Section 1183402.

I think we just also want to make sure that we then cross-reference with the development standards that are included, that we would be using the same development standards for both. Agreed. Okay. Okay. I think that's clear.

And I do think, I do believe that the, I mean, for the AOD specifically, I think to understand that one click down about like, are there differences between AODs or non-AOD facilities? And just to say, yep, there's nothing different and it's just copy and paste, great, we're good to go. And then like you said, I think the evolution of AODs in the future could be something completely different and then it's addressed right now. So Hannah, what you were saying earlier were you saying that, and Chris, you mentioned this, you guys feel comfortable with what we're describing about the CUPs for RM and RM30? And so, and I do want to get back to Trent and Mark for a second on their thoughts, but are you saying we could make a recommendation to the board and amend those now based on those recommendations? But if, Hannah, what you just said, if we're really wanting to do that analysis on AODs, you think that makes more sense to continue it and come back to the Planning Commission?

Yes. So just because I think it's hard to fully understand what changes will need to be made to separate out those AODs, I would hate to put you guys in the position of recommending it with that change and then having the changes be Than what you had envisioned. Okay, then that's not really your recommendation, which is what the county code requires, right?

So Trent mark, what are you your thought before we entertain a motion? I'm just curious your thoughts.

Well, I don't know if I can articulate But the group home Title the it just seems like it's a it's an umbrella. I covering a lot of things. And I know it's been said already, the AOD facilities have some intrinsic differences to a group home or to another shelter or anything like that. There is medical components to an AOD, Uh, as it's licensed by the Department of health care services. So, there is, there's differences in that that need to be. Separated out that don't fall under the umbrella of. Group home, but maybe go a little farther than that. Because it is a medical type facility and detoxification of drugs and alcohol. Take some type of medication to get through and that's. That's a whole different facility than a group home. And I don't see AOD falling under that umbrella and should at least be separated out. Whether it falls, it has same criteria and all that stuff, it needs to be separated out so that we do, and they see it, the community can see that we understand that there is a difference between a group home and a care facility versus a detox center, if that makes sense.

Yeah. I'm comfortable with the notion of the congregate care facilities going CUP for both RM and RM30. Very comfortable. I do worry, as Commissioner Lentine mentioned a while ago, about the potential for HCD to come after other elements. And this is not probably the right time in life to do that. Right before there's a change of administration from one guy to one guy minus, in my view, that's what's going to happen. So there is a bigger risk than I think we're all understanding. I'm willing to stand with all of you to make that change. I think the people of this county deserve to know better what's going on. So I'm prepared to support the action that would do that. On the AOD, I don't have a... I've never had any experience with that, so I have no real... comment to make there. Okay.

Chair Beckler, if I can just seek some clarification. There was a lot of conversation about the congregate care facilities and the change in permitting path in the RM and RM30 zoning district. There was conversation about it being potentially subject to a CUP and then also discussion about it being subject to an MUP. I DO THINK FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, AN M.U.P. WOULD FOLLOW THE PATH THAT WAS SET FORTH IN H.E. 42 AND WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T FORESEE ANY CONCERN WITH AN M.U.P. PROCESS FOR CONGREGATE CARE. IT PUTS IT IN A DISCRETIONARY PERMITTING PATH. There's public notification, and there is the ability for it to be elevated if it is a project of concern, and there's a unique situation around the project.

Right, because you still have that right enabled. And I started at a CUP because I wanted to end up at an MUP. This is your BATNA in negotiation. Okay. I should have been there. So what we're saying, but we're not saying change the commercial designations or the resort or the MU, right?

Okay. I have one more question. Show a little bit of my ignorance since I'm the east of the Sierras. When it comes to this particular component, does it affect anything inside the Tahoe basement?

This amendment is specific to chapter 17, Placer County Government Center and Sunset Area Plan. There are no amendments proposed for TBAP.

Thank you.

Other comments or questions? Okay, so what I'm hearing is that we're talking about changing the RM and RM30 classification for congregate care facilities to MUP. That's discretionary. There's noticing. And then Chris still has the ability to bump it up to us if he decides to. And we're saying it's worthy, at least some of the commissioners are saying it's worth doing the analysis to separate out AODs because because from our understanding today, they are different enough or they sound different enough and they're based on different state law that we would want staff to evaluate separating those out from group homes. Is that? Correct. Okay.

So the motion includes changing to MUPs. Is there analysis or what a recommendation or is it a motion?

It would be both so it would be changing The congregate care facilities It from our in RM and RM 30 for congregate care facilities only to an MUP. Yep, and doing the additional analysis in what Hannah said to separate out a ODs that would have to come back to the Planning Commission just because I Probably has tentacles in all sorts of places that we couldn't make that change and recommend it to the board that we would do a Continuance I think is what? where it would land So Okay, this goes to the board as a recommendation what it sounds like the majority is we do a continuance and Yeah, and then it would come back to us. Yeah.

Oh, okay.

Yep.

That's what I wanted clarification. Okay. Can we engage Hannah to craft something? Craft a motion for today's meeting?

Absolutely. All agree? Yeah. Are we all good?

I know he asked it for 41. Is there a time limit on this one that has to be done by or anything? We're not going to jump to any fines or...

In the housing element, the program was to have been completed in 2022. Obviously, we're a little ways from that date. We are aiming to get it done as quick as possible. As I've mentioned to the Planning Commission, we've undergone a midterm review with HCD. I suspect that they are going to... TRACK OUR PROGRESS THROUGH OUR ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT, WHICH IS THROUGH THE END OF THIS YEAR. SO WE WILL AIM TO GET IT BACK AS QUICK AS WE CAN, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT BE CONTINUED OFF CALENDAR JUST SO THAT WE CAN, SO THAT WE'RE NOT TIED INTO A SPECIFIC HEARING DATE.

So knowing that and I think if I'm understanding what the Commission is inclined to do today I would recommend that the motion on this be to continue the item off calendar with direction to staff to incorporate changes to the congregate care facilities requiring an MUP in the RM and RM 30 districts as well as directing staff to revise the proposed ZTA to pull those AOD facilities out and provide an individual pathway for permitting.

Second. I don't think Hannah can carry the motions. I'll make a first. Hannah, you want to change jobs today?

I'll motion what County Council has read into the record.

Second.

We have a first and second.

Can I get a roll call, please?

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

Yes. And I just have to add a comment that, again, kudos to the staff for addressing the longstanding issues of large care facilities in residential ag. Very much appreciated. So with that, I think we are closed for the day. Thank you, everyone, for joining.

And kudos to Robin for bird-dogging us all these years.