Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, good morning. I'd like to call this meeting to order. And if everyone could join me in the flag salute.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. If we could get roll call, please.

Commissioner Watts. Commissioner Jewell.

Here.

Commissioner Dahlgren is absent. Commissioner Runtine.

Here.

Commissioner Johnson.

Here.

Commissioner Alves.

Here.

Commissioner Beckler.

Here. Thank you and good morning everyone. Welcome to today's Planning Commission hearing. Today's meeting is open to both in-person and virtual participation and may also be viewed online through the Placer County website. If you'd like to make public comment on any item today the Planning Commission clerk will announce when it's time for that public comment for that particular item. For those participating on Zoom please use the raise hand feature at the bottom of the screen. If you're calling in via telephone you can use star 9 to raise your hand. Please be prepared to speak when I open public comment for the specific item that you'd like to address. This does include public comment for items not on today's public agenda or individual hearing items. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comment and we'll have one opportunity to speak on each item. I really appreciate your cooperation as we work to ensure that everyone gets equal opportunity to share their feedback and comments. Please be advised that today's meeting is being recorded and will be available on the Planning Commission webpage following the hearing. So I will now move on to our consent agenda. There is one item today, item number five. It's the minutes from the Planning Commission's August 13th, 2026 meeting. Would any commissioner like to remove this item from the consent agenda for discussion? I see none. Would any member of the public like to take this item from the consent agenda for discussion? I see none in person. Do we have anyone online?

No hands raised.

All right. I see none. I'll close public comment. And if I could get a motion for this item.

Motion to approve.

I have a first.

Second.

Who's seconding? I got that way. Okay. Jeff? We're quick to the draw today. All right. We have a first and second. If I could get a roll call, please.

Johnson? Yes. Runtine? Yes. Watts?

Yes.

Jewell?

Yes.

Alves? Yes. Bechler?

Yes. Great. Next item on today's agenda is a report from Planning Director Chris Pahuli. Welcome. And good morning, Chris.

Good morning, Chair Beckler, commissioners, Chris Cahouly, your planning director. I have a report that's being passed out to all of you and extra copies will be made available at the counter for members of the public. I wanted to start by noting that it was a big day at the board just a couple of days ago on Tuesday with several significant items that were considered by the board. First, they did take up the Planning Commission's June 25th recommendation to adopt amendments to the zoning ordinance aligning the county's ADU regulations with state law. The board approved that recommendation from the Planning Commission by unanimous vote. The board also took up two funding requests for two affordable housing projects representing nearly 500 affordable units. First, they took up the Hope Way apartment project, the first phase of that project, and approved a funding commitment for the first phase of 132 units. That funding commitment was for up to $7.26 million. They also considered a request from Maricor Development for a project called the Destination at Placer One Affordable Housing Project. That is a 360-unit apartment development at Placer Ranch. And it was approved last week by the zoning administrator. The board agreed to provide a preliminary funding commitment of up to $8.9 million for that project. I should note that that project in specific is going to deliver on more units than what is required in their development agreement for the project, as well as more units than are identified in the housing element. for the two sites that are identified as affordable housing in our housing element. So those are positive developments in terms of moving the needle on our RHNA commitments. Looking ahead on September 8th, the board is scheduled to take up the CEDRA fee schedule, which we've been working on for a couple of years. I know that the commission isn't involved under your purview to review the fee schedules, but I know that that might be of interest to some of you, and so I wanted to note that that's coming up on September 8th to the board. In terms of upcoming planning commission meetings, we do have items lined up for the next few meetings. On September 10th, which is your next meeting, we have One item tentatively scheduled, that's the Cabin Creek Biomass Project in the Tahoe area. On 9-24, we're looking at four potential items, including the Alchemy Surf Park in Placer Ranch. And then on 1015, that number might look a little shocking on the report. We have seven items that we are preliminarily looking at for that meeting, including the zoning text amendments that were continued at your last meeting coming back on that date. So I wanted you to be aware of some of these upcoming items. I also wanted to mention that The staff is working on an application to renew our pro-housing designation. That pro-housing designation that we currently have expires at the end of the calendar year, and there is the opportunity to apply for a three-year redesignation. We are holding a community meeting, a virtual community meeting on September 1st at 6 p.m. I've provided a link to the webpage so that you can register for that if you are interested. And then also the application should be posted on that webpage today or tomorrow at the latest. In terms of the general plan update, we are continuing to make progress with community meetings. I've included a schedule for you with upcoming meetings, including the Granite Bay MAC next week and North Auburn MAC the following week. and Sheridan and Horseshoe Bar Penrhyn will round out the trips to the MAX to talk about the general plan update and the community plans. I should note that we are in the process of scheduling community workshops for the general plan update. Those will be held in October and November, and once those dates have been solidified, I'll send out an email to all of you to let you know about the details for those meetings. I also wanted to let you know that your next quarterly report will be provided to you on October 29th and I continue to provide you with a link on these reports to our project viewer which gives you information on the projects currently in our queue for processing so that you can take a look at those at your leisure. And then last, just wanted to note that I did send out an email to all of you letting you know about a training opportunity through the California County Planning Commissioners Association. They're holding their general conference coming up in October. It's the 23rd and 24th in Hollister. I've heard back from two members that are interested in attending that event, but if any additional commissioners are interested in attending, please let me know. That concludes my report. Happy to answer questions from the commission.

Thank you, Chris. Any questions?

I did not receive that invite or the information on that. If you can resend it to me. Thanks. Will do.

Okay. Other comments or questions? I see none. Thank you so much, Chris. Appreciate the report. Alright, the next item on the agenda is Planning Commissioner Reports. Does anyone have anything they'd like to share with the Commission in public? I see none. Moving right along. We will now move on to the public comment period for items that are not on today's agenda. As a reminder, each speaker will have up to three minutes to provide comments. So if there's anyone in person that would like to make public comment, you can come to the podium. I see none. Do we have anyone via Zoom? We have a hand raised. Okay.

Caller, unmute your mic and give your comments.

Greetings Commissioners, Diane Louise Alisi, CPPRC Director Domiciliary in Placer County for more than six decades. I'm urging you to develop pilots which captures counties and other corporate health surplus and underutilized lands. The tools are in this room. The land is under our jurisdiction. The need is critical. Blossard County should identify surplus lands that could be utilized for community land trusts, cooperative housing models, and the THRW or tiny home on wheels communities that incorporate appropriate off-grid capabilities. Look and consider the PG&E habitat for humanity model as an example of what can be accomplished when available land and resources are put into partnerships that create affordable housing. PG&E donated 13.6 acres to Nevada to Habitat for Humanity for development of 80 affordable homes. That is quite the kind of practical community serving use of surplus land that deserves consideration here. A community land trust keeps land in permanent community stewardship and helps preserve affordability over time. The 55-year deed restriction does not. Cooperative housing gives residents stability and meaningful stake in their community. Those units were lawfully appropriately developed can offer a lower cost option. particularly where conventional construction and utility infrastructure creates barriers. Off-grid or resilient capabilities may further reduce long-term costs and support self-sufficiency. Let's stop planning for the average and above and start building for the most vulnerable, those who do the most disagreeable jobs for the lowest wages in our communities. These are workers who clean, cook, care for children and elders, maintain essential services, and keep the county functioning. Yet too many cannot afford stable housing near communities they serve. I urge this Commission to direct the Planning Department to identify county-controlled surplus or unreutilized parcels suitable for these approaches, evaluate community land trusts, cooperative, though, and appropriate off-grid models. explore partnerships with qualified nonprofit and community organizations that return with practical recommendations for action. The tools are here, the land is here, the need is here. Please direct the planning department to move this opportunity from discussion to implementation. CDPRC has worked up scenarios that are executable There are no excuses for thinking outside the failed system. Thank you.

Do we have anyone else on Zoom?

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

Hi, this is Laura Bullard. I'm a lifelong Placer County resident and a former high school teacher. Last year, my son and his fiance moved to Placer County from San Diego to be a teacher and a school psychologist. The very type of people that you all keep saying that you're trying to make Placer County home to. When they got here, they rented an apartment and then they searched for a house to buy. They had lots of money for a down. The problem was... They could not find any houses on any acreage or lots with a backyard big enough for their year-old lab or without HOA fees. The problem is that those types of houses aren't available because the county keeps violating our community plans and allowing developers to cram five to six to seven to eight houses to an acre in places where the community plan allowed for much less. The county also keeps allowing developers to build communities with HOA fees, which strap new homeowners with additional costs and make it so that they will never really own their house. And those HOA fees will increase. My son and his fiance finally found a house with a small yard in Lincoln. As a result, my son has to bring his lab every workday to my mom's one acre lot in the Dry Creek area or to our three acres in Sheridan. Sadder, if they remain in their Lincoln house and have children, their children will be bused over 10 miles out of Lincoln to Sheridan because Lincoln has not taken into account the issue of school crowding caused by their continued development. So Sheridan is the only Lincoln school site big enough to put those portables. Even sadder, if they take over my mom's house in the Dry Creek community, their kids will be forced to go to schools across the baseline, which is really busy, and will be forced to go five and a half miles through 14 stoplights to Oakmont High School rather than to Wood Creek, which my son attended and which is less than two miles and two stoplights away from home. What the county is doing by allowing the violation of our community plans is the destruction of any sense of community within this county. Every time the county chooses to go against community plans which schools were built around, they are destroying the communities which counted on those plans. As the Planning Commission, you all are on the first line of defense of our communities. Please stop voting in favor of developers who are tearing our county apart. Stop allowing developers to keep violating community plans which were well thought out plans to keep our communities together and to allow for long-range planning for things like schools and where they're going to be built. And stop allowing the excuse that the state is forcing us to do it. Our county is now the fastest growing county in the state because developers know that the county will allow them to do whatever they want. So they gobble up the land and make it too expensive for anybody else to get. Please stop the madness. Stop going against community plans. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else on Zoom or phone? No other hand raised. Thank you. Okay, seeing no further speakers, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. So now we will move on to our hearing items. And I'd first like to ask Chris, our planning director, if there's any items being considered or recommended for continuance.

Yeah, thanks, Chair Beckler. Yes, staff is recommending that item two, the Bigford Ranch specific plan phase one small lot vesting tentative map modification and fifth amendment to the corrected, amended, and restated development agreement be continued to the September 24th meeting. So prior to today's meeting, the applicant identified several additional conditions that will require minor modification And as the legal notice posted for this request identified specific conditions, we will need to re-notice the item to reflect those additional conditions that need modification. Therefore staff is recommending that the item be continued to September 24th and re-noticed. I should also note that the correspondence received for this item will be included in the September 24th administrative record for that for the hearing.

Okay. Thank you, Chris. Are there questions for Chris on the continuance? I see none. I'm going to go ahead and open public comment for this item and the public comment should be addressing specifically the continuance request only. So do we have anyone in person that would like to make comment on this? I see none. Do we have anyone online?

No hands raised.

Yes? This is for Bickford Ranch. It's being continued to a future planning commission meeting. Yes, correct. Okay. Do we have anyone online?

No hands raised.

Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close public comments since there are no speakers. And if I could bring it back to the commission and ask for a motion for this continuance.

I'll motion to continue the Bickford Ranch specific plan to September 24th meeting.

Okay, I have a first.

Second.

We have a second. Alves, roll call please. Jewell. Yes. Alves. Yes.

Watts.

Yes.

Runtine. Yes. Johnson. Yes. Becler.

Yes. Okay, moving on to the first item for our hearing today, which is number one on the agenda. This item is a subdivision modification and variance in Alpine Meadows area. The Planning Commission is the decision body for this item, and the staff presentation will be given by Senior Planner Heather Beckman. Good morning, Heather.

Thank you. Good morning. As you said, my name is Heather Beckman, and today I'm presenting the Ranieri Subdivision Map Modification and Side Setback Variance. The property is located at 2250 Bear Creek Drive, and as you said, it's in the Alpine Meadows area. The project site is zoned RS for single-family residential. It's 0.46 acres in size. It's developed with a single-family residence, a three-story single-family residence, and an attached one-car garage, all of which was built in 1981. The Bear Creek Association subdivision is, the Ranieri property which is within the Bear Creek Association subdivision is surrounded by developed single family residences. And the Bear Creek Association subdivision has a required 30 foot front setback that is recorded on the final subdivision map. So on this slide, the red line in both of the exhibits is representing that mapped 30-foot front setback, whereas the hatched pink area shows the development that is encroaching into that setback. So as you can see in the left or existing conditions exhibit, portions of the single-car garage and covered front entry, which exists today, do encroach into that front setback. And as was addressed in the staff report, This was permitted as part of the original 1981 construction and was specifically permitted under what we refer to as the steep slope exception. And this can allow for front setback exceptions or encroachments into the front setback on steeply sloping lots. And although this is a steeply sloping lot, unfortunately setback exceptions cannot be applied when there's a mapped setback on the subdivision map. So the exception that was applied in 1981 was applied incorrectly. So the project that is before you today, the only way to modify a map setback is through a subdivision map modification, which is before you today. The specific project, as shown on the right-hand exhibit, is an expansion of the one-car garage. So they intend to keep the one-car garage, expand it to the south to accommodate two cars. And this garage expansion triggers some modifications to that covered front entry. So specifically, the proposed project proposes an increased encroachment of 1 foot 7 inches beyond what exists today. They're seeking a 19 foot 7 inch setback to the face of the garage and a 13 foot 7 inch setback to the covered front walkway. And again, this is where 30 feet is otherwise required. It's also important to note that these structures, particularly to the face of the garage, there's 28 feet from the edge of pavement to the face of garage. The Department of Public Works requires 26 feet to allow for ample space for snow storage and snow removal activities. So this project is exceeding that DPW requirement. Moving on to the variance request, the red line on this slide is showing the required seven and a half foot side setback. So as I mentioned previously, this project is primarily a garage expansion. The applicant is intending to keep the existing one-car garage and wing wall that's associated with it, and that's shown in green on this slide. They're intending to keep that. And although the footprint of development that is constructed on the property does match that which was permitted in 1981, it appears to have been built in the wrong location and six inches closer to the side property line. than is otherwise allowed. So as part of the entitlement that's before you today, the applicant is also requesting a side setback variance to recognize the existing conditions. So specifically they're seeking a side setback of 7 feet whereas 7.5 feet is otherwise required. I'd like to point out that there's no additional work or expansion being proposed in the side setback so it's for existing conditions only. As I mentioned, it has existed since 1981 and in the county records we don't have any sort of documented complaints or concerns about that encroachment. So moving on to the analysis, in addition to the Ranieri map modification on Lot 21 that is before you today, there have been three previous map modifications that have been approved on Lot 17. 19 and 20. Those approvals ranged from the years 1981 to 2001. They allowed for encroachments of both residential living area and garages. And those approvals had setback approvals ranging from 9 to 17 feet from the front property line, again, whereas 30 feet is otherwise required. And then moving on to the side setback of Again, it's an existing condition that has gone without complaint. So specific to the Ranieri request, the front setback modification is really driven by two reasons. The first being the irregular semicircular shape of the property. So that really limits where the development can go. The property is constrained based on its shape. And then secondly, based on the location of the existing development of the single-family dwelling and the one-car garage, it really limits where the expanded garage can go. That's what's driving the front setback map modification request. And then for the side setback is to recognize that existing condition. As I mentioned previously, the project's still maintaining 28 feet from the edge of pavement, so again, very critical for snow storage and snow removal purposes. The proposed encroachment is very modest. It's one foot seven inch beyond what exists today, so there are no anticipated impacts to the light, air, and open space to surrounding properties. And then finally, staff did determine that the project is consistent with all planning and zoning, applicable planning and zoning documents, specifically looking at the fact that the project does not change the residential use or density on the property and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. And then finally, I'd just like to point out that there's been no public comment on the project. So with that, staff would like to make the following recommendations for the Planning Commission to take action on. The first is to determine that the requested actions are categorically exempt from environmental review in accordance with Sections 15.303 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and Placer County Code Section 18.36.050 Class III New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Next would be to approve a subdivision map modification to the Bear Creek Association Subdivision Final Map to reduce the mapped 30-foot front setback as measured from the property line of Lot 21 to 19 feet 7 inches to the face of the proposed expanded 528-square-foot garage, 14 feet 9 inches to eaves, and 13 feet 7 inches to the edge of a front-covered walkway subject to the recommended conditions of approval and direct the county surveyor to record a certificate of compliance. And then finally is to approve a variance to allow a side setback of 7 feet, whereas 7 feet 6 inches is otherwise required to recognize an encroachment of the existing garage in accordance with Placer County Code Section 17.60.100 variants subject to the recommended conditions of approval. So that concludes my presentation. The applicant is online if you have any questions, and I'm of course here to answer questions as well. Great. Thank you, Heather.

Does the Commission have any questions? No? Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to share any comments?

Okay. Applicant, go ahead and give your comments.

Hi, this is David Burke of David Burke Architecture and Design, and I would just say that the angle of the existing garage line to the property line and our expansion just within that same face of the garage you know makes a slightly additional um reduction to the setback from what's existing that's all i wanted to say okay which is uh noted in the staff report that the The length that the staff report is asking for is correct. I'm just saying that the angled nature of the garage means we're encroaching slightly more than the existing, but otherwise we wouldn't be. There's also a very large tree there, which affects sort of the approach to the garage and sort of keeps us from otherwise sort of stepping it back.

Okay. And I assume you are agreeable to the conditions? that are stated?

Yes.

Okay. Does the commission have any questions for the applicant? I see none. Okay. Thank you for your comments. I'm going to go ahead and open it up to public comment. Is there anyone here in person that would like to make comments on this item? I Oh, you can go ahead and come forward to the podium. You have to come forward to the podium if you'd like to make comments. And please state your name for the record.

I'm like Santa Marie Tucker and I just had a question because I love that you guys are worried about the tree that's really unique to here. However, I was wondering is there a design preference that's also driving this that would require a special like parcel treatment or is there also I heard earlier that there was already like a little, I don't know what you would call it, but a change of what was normally allowed on the property. What caused the first change? And I know there's been no complaints, that's all right, but what was the purpose in the first part to have it different than what was allowed?

Okay. Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else in person that would like to make comment on this item? I see none. Do we have anyone online? No hands raised. OK. I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. Heather or anyone from staff like to make any address the questions that were raised.

Thank you. So I'll start with the second question first. What was the purpose of the motivation for the first front setback encroachment in 1981? So the project was first built in 1981. So it was new construction at that time for the single family residence and the garage. And the same reasons that are driving the map modification today are what drove the request for the front setback request back in 1981. So again, it is that irregularly shaped parcel. So with it being a semicircle, you can see that the front setback is along the entire curvature of the road. So it's reducing the buildable area. of the property. And although I could look it up in the staff report, I do have the square footage indicating that there is a minimal square footage. It's also a steeply sloping lot, particularly as it reaches the Bear Creek Drive. And so in snow country in particular, it is preferred to get the development a little bit closer to the road, and especially on a steeply sloping lot so you don't have a steep driveway in snowy conditions. And so that's really what drove the original request and approval. The second question was regarding the tree and any sort of design preferences driving the the project design. I will in a moment defer to the applicant, but I would say that what is being proposed is relatively modest. So there is a standard for two parking spaces for the RS zone district. And although in its current configuration, the project does have two parking spaces, one in the garage and one in a stacked fashion in the driveway. Again, in snow country, having that protected ingress and egress into the property and into the residence really critical and so and again it's the location of the existing development that's driving where this garage expansion could go.

Okay thank you Heather. Would the applicant like to address anything further?

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yeah, I would say I think that Heather covered it pretty well. I mean, the original encroachment into the setback was determined by planning staff at the time to meet the exceptions. So there wasn't really something that was normally allowed, except for the fact that setback is mapped in the subdivision map. Otherwise, you know, design wise, we're just trying to minimize any work to the existing foundation and provide the least amount of impact on that tree. And so that just made us decide to just keep everything in line with the existing front face of the garage.

Okay, thank you. I'm gonna bring it back to the Commission for deliberations. Are there any comments or questions that anyone has? Okay, if not, can certainly entertain a motion.

I move the Planning Commission take the following actions that were read into the record by Ms. Beckman.

We have a first.

Second.

Jules, second. Can I get a roll call, please?

Runtine? Yes. Jewell? Yes. Watts?

Yes. Johnson?

Yes. Alves? Yes. Becler?

Yes. Okay, the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by anyone who appeared at today's hearing and provided comment or anyone that submitted written comments on this item. An appeal must be filed within 10 days of today's date and shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $752. We will now move on to item number three, an entitlement package for the Sierra Nevada Olympic Winter Museum and Community Cultural Center. As this project includes legislative actions, the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the requested entitlements, and the staff presentation will be provided by senior Planner Patrick Dobbs. Welcome, Patrick.

Good morning, Madam Chairman and Commissioners. Patrick Dobbs from the Planning Services Division. And if IT could help pull up my PowerPoint here, that would help me out. I'm here to present. Maybe I'll just give it a moment. I'm here to present the Sierra Nevada Olympic Winter Museum and Community Cultural Center project. The project, there are co-applicants. The project applicants are the non-profit Snow Museum Foundation. Sierra Nevada Olympic Winter is abbreviated as snow. And this is on county property, so the county is a co-applicant represented here today by the Department of General Services. And the applicants are requesting that the Planning Commission recommend the Board of Supervisors approve the General Plan amendment, rezone amendment to Chapter 12 of the Placer County Code, and the Conditional Use Permit for the project. The site is located in eastern Placer County in the community of Olympic Valley. It is located within the Olympic Valley General Plan and Land Use Ordinance, which is a community plan. The proposed project site is within Olympic Valley Park, which is located at 101 Olympic Valley Road, just southwest of the intersection of Olympic Valley Road and State Route 89. Within the Olympic Valley General Plan, the land use designation and zoning is one and the same. And the Olympic Valley Park is currently designated and zoned for forest recreation land uses. Museums are not a permissible land use within the forest recreation zoning or any other zone district within the community plan. This is a view of the park overhead. The park is approximately 26.8 acres. It's outlined in red. It's a little faint there, but it is a very popular public park. Portions of the site are developed and improved with various recreation facilities. Let me get my pointer here. So starting with these photos on the left, they're kind of in this area of the park, what I'd kind of Consider the upper terrace. There's an artificial turf sports field, which is really in a state of deterioration at the moment. Near the field are some public restrooms. These have vault toilets. There's no sewer connection currently to the park. And adjacent to those restrooms, there's an existing children's playground area. The photos on the right-hand side of the slide, I'd kind of characterize this as the lower terrace area of the park. The tower there with the rings on top is collectively part of what's called the Tower of Nations Monument with the tower that's across the street that has the Olympic flame. So those towers kind of flank the entrance to Olympic Valley. There are three pickleball courts within the park, and there's a class one bike and pedestrian trail that goes through the park and connects Olympic Valley to Tahoe City along the Truckee River. The park entrance is off of Olympic Valley Road. The circulation pattern is kind of a semi-horseshoe there. There's a loop on the lower terrace on the bottom portion of the parking lot. The proposed museum and community center would be located in this undeveloped area of the park. It's a forested setting with rock outcroppings located in between the Olympic Valley Park entrance above and the pickleball courts below. The proposed project is a museum celebrating the 1960 Winter Olympics and the history of winter sports in the Sierra Nevadas. There's also a community center component that will have meeting space for civic, educational, and recreation activities. The proposed development includes construction of a new, approximately 20,000 square foot, two-story building. There are various site improvements. There's some outdoor gathering spaces. There's a little bit of accent landscaping, but otherwise it's a pretty natural setting. There would be a short trail connector to the Tower of Nations monument that I mentioned. Currently, there are three vegetated islands here in this lower portion of the parking lot. You can see the photo of one of those islands. That island will be paved, and it results in a small increase, but there will be some additional parking at the park as a result of this project. There will be ADA public restrooms on the lower level of the museum. These were accessible from inside the museum as well as from the exterior. So if a pickleball player wanted to use the restroom, they wouldn't have to go through the museum to get there. Grading and site preparation for the project would require about 1,500 cubic yards of excavation or cut. About 300 cubic yards of that would be backfilled for a net export of 1,200 cubic yards hauled off site. uh... these are the elevation exhibits on the top of the slide in the uh... lower left and right corners are uh... some photo simulations uh... but it is a uh... contemporary architectural design the building height is just under thirty feet as we measure uh... buildings on slope sites the exterior would be comprised of naturally appearing earth stone uh... building or naturally appearing building materials in earth tone colors. It would have battened seam, copper siding, and roofing. There would be a formed concrete base and foundation that are low reflectivity windows and timber accents. I just learned this. To be an official United States Olympic Paralympic Committee designated museum, you need to have separate spaces from the Olympic exhibits and the non-Olympic exhibits. And so that's something to think about as you're looking at this building design and these floor plans and these kind of distinct wings. And so the first floor of the building, the lower floor, most of that would be dedicated to the Sierra Nevada ski history exhibit space. There's offices on the lower floor, the restrooms that I mentioned on the lower level. And as kind of highlighted in the slide there, there's a delivery truck loading dock that is on the lower level. But the primary museum entrance is on the second floor. The majority of the second floor will be dedicated to the Olympic history displays. There is community meeting space here, 1,400 square foot community room. There's a 600 square foot south facing deck off that room. There's a library and classroom and a small museum store and coffee bar. The museum is anticipated to operate daily from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. There was an EIR prepared for this project that analyzed and assumed up to six special events annually. So there will be fundraisers, unveilings of new displays. I think they'd like to create an Olympic Hall of Fame. So it is anticipated that there will be some after-hours special events at the museum. It's estimated that between 60 and 70,000 visitors and an additional 10,000 student visitors would come to the museum annually. So that's an overview of the project here, and I'm just going to transition to the entitlements being requested. I do have individual slides on these entitlements, so I'll go into some more detail, but this is just kind of an overview of the entitlements. The Commission may recall previously making a recommendation that the Board certify the project's EIR back in 2024, but not requested to make a recommendation on the project entitlements. There's a deed restriction on the property that I'll be discussing further in the presentation. But for now, I'll just say that the Board of Supervisors previously certified the environmental impact for the project in February 27th, 2024. Just the EIR was certified. There was no project approval. And because of that, the mitigation monitoring reporting program and the CEQA findings of facts that are part of the EIR weren't adopted previously in 2024. The second entitlement is a general plan amendment, which is effectively a community plan amendment to the Olympic Valley General Plan and Land Use Ordinance, and this includes both text and map amendments. The text amendment would create a new section, section 261. This would establish a cultural amenities land use designation, and museums are permissible primary use within this new cultural amenities land use designation. The map portion of the amendment would redesignate 2.37 acres, so a portion of that property from its current designation of forest recreation to this new cultural amenities designation that we just established. The rezone accompanies the general plan map amendment and it would rezone that same approximately 2.37 acres of the park area from forest recreation to cultural amenities. There's a proposed text amendment to Placer County Code Chapter 12. This is regarding public recreation areas. The applicants are requesting to modify the Olympic Valley Park hours of operation to allow some evening and nighttime activities to occur at the museum. And the final request is a recommendation we're recommending that you recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of the conditional use permit to allow construction of the proposed museum and community center within the new cultural amenities zone district. Included in the recommended conditions of approval there's a requirement for design review approval so the final design details will be presented to the Olympic Valley Citizens Design Review Committee prior to permit issuance. The last line down under conditional use permit is regarding permit expiration. And typically, the initial permit exercise period is three years. You as the commission may establish a longer time frame through the conditional use permit when warranted. And so the proposed project is a development partnership between the county and this nonprofit snow museum foundation. They've indicated that there's pretty significant fundraising needed to finance the construction. There's certainly details that need to be worked out between the county and the nonprofit in terms of long-term operations. And so given the project's unique funding structure, the public benefits that may result from the park enhancement of recreational, cultural, and education amenities that this museum could bring to the park, staff does find that there are an extended exercise period is appropriate to provide sufficient time for this fundraising and coordination and implementation. So staff is recommending an initial exercise period of 10 years. And I will go into a little bit more detail on these entitlements. So you're accustomed to staff bringing forward the environmental document, in this case it's an EIR, bundled with the project entitlements. In the lead up to the prior hearings back in 2024, the U.S. Forest Service and some members of the public raised questions about consistency between the project, the snow museum, and this Forest Service deed restriction. So as it relates to the project entitlements, at that time, the county needed more time to resolve this POTENTIAL INCONSISTENCY WITH THE FOREST SERVICE. SO THE ENTITLEMENTS WERE SET ASIDE. THE COUNTY DIDN'T WANT THE EIR ANALYSIS AND IT'S SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS TO BECOME STALE OR OUTDATED. AND SO ON FEBRUARY 27, 2024, THE BOARD DID CERTIFY THE PROJECT'S EIR APART FROM CONSIDERING THE PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS. THERE WERE NO SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS IN THE EIR. EVERY POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CAN BE MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures in the EIR as well as the initial study. So again, in 2024, just the EIR was certified. There was no project approval to tie the MMRP, the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, and the Findings of Facts to. And so one of today's requested actions, because now the entitlements are being considered, is a recommendation that the Board adopt the project's Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program and CEQA Findings of Facts and make a finding that the project is within the scope of the previously certified EIR and that there are no changes have occurred in the project or to existing circumstances that would warrant additional environmental analysis. The text portion of the general plan amendment, as I mentioned, would amend the Olympic Valley general plan to create and add this new section 261, the cultural amenities land use district. This lays out the principle permissible land uses and structures, the permitted accessory structures. It includes development standards and design guidelines. This is where this requirement is for approval of any project within this new cultural amenities land use district requires conditional use permit approval from the Planning Commission. So this is the text amendment. This new cultural amenities district was modeled off of the other land use districts that are in the community plan. The mapping portion of the amendment is outlined in the green area. It is approximately 2.37 acres of Olympic Valley Park. This would be redesignated and rezoned from its current forest recreation to the new cultural amenities. This new cultural amenities land use district would only be applied to that 2.37 acres of the project site. It does not commit the county towards any particular course of action regarding future rezones into cultural amenities. Placer County Code Chapter 12 talks about roads, highways, and public places. Article 12-2440 discusses public recreation areas and their hours of operation. Subsection B of that section states that the county public recreation areas, like Olympic Valley Park, are closed during the nighttime from 30 minutes after sunset to 30 minutes before sunrise. But this subsection B lists some exceptions. And you can see there's exceptions at a park in Forest Hill, at a park in Sheridan. So this would add new section 12-24-40-B-6. And before I read it, I'd like to swap. It's shown in red at the bottom of the screen. I'd like to swap the words. community and cultural and You know when I get to the ordinance on this I'll reflect that as being amended But the new section would say at Olympic Valley Park this year in Nevada Olympic Winter Museum and Community Cultural Center hours of operation are for 7 a.m. To 9 p.m. And may extend to 11 p.m. For events when authorized by the enforcement official so it'll change there, but that is the amendment to chapter 12 of the county code regarding park hours of operation and So. I guess it seems a little late in the slide deck to transition to the history of the parcel, but I do want to discuss the deed restriction. I want to discuss what it means for the county to be a co-applicant here. So Olympic Valley Park was purchased from the Forest Service in the year 2000. As part of that transaction, there's a deed restriction recorded against the property that says the use of the property for a community park does not include the use of the property for private development of a commercial residential or industrial nature. Now, this museum concept is not a new idea. It first was brought to the board from the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association, now called the North Tahoe Community Alliance, but back in 2008. And, I mean, the Board of Supervisors has previously approved funding for public outreach, the development of a museum master plan and business plan. There's been a fundraising capital campaign. There was a site evaluation and selection process. There was an environmental questionnaire completed, the architectural design that you've seen, they hired sub-consultants for the lighting, water, and sewer plans. As I mentioned, EIR was prepared and certified, and there's been project management along the way. So the county is invested. In the past, this board funding has been supported by the public, indicating an enhancement to the park and furthering county initiatives like the Tourism Master Plan. Let's see, and let's see, who is the, as far as who we're partners with, there are several representatives today here, board members from the Snow Museum Foundation, and following staff, they do request the opportunity to address the commission and briefly talk about their mission and their hopes of consolidating some of these collections and showcasing Placer's rich snow sports history in a building that signifies its importance. So back to the deed restriction. Over the years, there have been different interpretations regarding this project's consistency with the deed restriction. As I mentioned back in the lead up to 2024, the US Forest Service has previously indicated that the project may be inconsistent with those commercial restrictions and the deed restriction. What's changed since 2024? And it's really this letter dated January 20th, 2026 from the Forest Service. It's included as attachment I of your packet. And it's really been the Snow Museum Foundation engaged with the Forest Service on this issue. So I'll leave it to the FOUNDATION BOARD MEMBERS TO KIND OF RECOUNT THEIR DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE OCCURRED WITH THE FOREST SERVICE MORE RECENTLY. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS JANUARY 2026 LETTER, THE LOCAL FOREST SERVICE OFFICIALS ELEVATED THE ISSUE TO FOREST SERVICE OFFICIALS IN WASHINGTON, D.C. And the current direction from the Forest Service says the Forest Service careful review of the proposed or the project proposal as described in the 2023 draft EIR has not identified any obvious violations of the deed restriction. So the county may proceed with construction, albeit the letter does leave the door open for further discussions on this issue of consistency with the deed restriction. But this is the current direction from the Forest Service. The project, as it was analyzed and proposed, is not inconsistent with the deed restriction. has been presented to the Olympic Valley MAC numerous times over the years, most recently on June 4th earlier this year. And I'd say there's general positive sentiment for a museum. There certainly were some clarifying questions about ownership and operation of the building itself in the future. If you've had a chance to read the January 2026 Forest Service letter, you'll understand there were some clarifying questions regarding that letter. Again, what it means for the county to be a co-applicant on this project. And the Village at Palisades Tahoe specific plan is also required to bring the sewer connection to Olympic Valley Park and make improvements to those restrooms. So there was a discussion on kind of the timing of, depending on which project comes first, how that sewer connection would be made and any reimbursements and such associated with that. But there were certainly some concerns raised. There are some that are just opposed to the idea of the museum location in a public park. There were discussion about the expenditure of public funds getting to this point and one of the MAC members thought we should dedicate some parking specifically to the pickleball players because they were there first. The public hearing, today's public hearing was properly noticed. The site was properly posted. We did receive three public comment letters and letters of correspondence. You've received copies of all those letters. They're related to the deed restriction. They're related to public funding and, you know, the museum and the park and alternate sites. So before I read the actions into the record, I do have, let's see, one change regarding the sixth action. This is regarding the conditional use permit and the recommended conditions of approval. Condition of approval 26 in the packet we'd like to delete the words that say of development of the single-family residential lots, a residential lot, that was a carryover from, that was a mistake. And so I will just, the rest of the condition would stay the same and I'll read it into the record. Prior to issuance of building permits, design site review application shall be reviewed for compliance with the requirements of the design review standards and guidelines of the Olympic Valley general plan and land use ordinance. Recommendation from the Olympic Valley Design Site Review Committee and approval by the planning director. So, again, when I get to that action, I will introduce that as amended. But staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend the Board of Supervisors take the following six actions. Adopt a resolution determining that the project is within the scope of the previously certified Sierra Nevada Olympic Winter Museum and Community Cultural Center Environmental Impact Report. That's State Clearinghouse Number 2022-030511. prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and adopting the findings of fact and adopting the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The second action is to adopt a resolution to amend the Olympic Valley General Plan and Land Use Ordinance to add section 261 to establish the cultural amenities land use designation and amend the land use designation for the project site approximately 2.37 acres from forest recreation to cultural amenities. The third action is the accompanying ordinance to adopt an ordinance to amend the Olympic Valley General Plan and land use ordinance to add section 261 to establish the cultural amenities land use designation and amend the land use designation for the project site approximately 2.37 acres from forest recreation cultural amenities. Letter D there, adopt an ordinance to rezone the project site approximately 2.37 acres from forest recreation to cultural amenities. Let's see, the fifth action there. Adopt an ordinance to amend the Placer County Code Chapter 12 Roads, Highways, and Public Places Ordinance, Article 1224, Public Recreation Areas, Section 122440 to modify the Olympic Valley Parks hours of operation as amended when I switched the words community and cultural earlier in the presentation. And the final action we ask of the commission is to approve the conditional use permit to allow the Sierra Nevada Olympic Winter Museum and Community Cultural Center project within the cultural amenities land use zoning district subject to the recommended conditions of approval and as amended in what I just read in the record regarding the change to recommended condition of approval 26. And so that concludes staff's presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair. I can answer your questions. And as I mentioned, there are some members from the Snow Museum Foundation that would like to address the commission.

Great. Thank you so much. I'll first ask the commission for questions that you might have.

Yes, go ahead. All right. Thank you, Patrick. That's very thoroughly done. The only question I have at this point is the, relates to the letter from the U.S. Forest Service where they refer to potentially considering purchasing additional parcel, remainders, remainder parcels?

Right, I mean, well, I... you know, in my words, the letter kind of says there's a buyout option. You could buy out the deed restriction for these 2.37 acres, but the current direction is that the project is not inconsistent, but they did, you know, kind of open that door for future discussions if

Different determination is made sure and I guess I get that and I understand that I appreciate that it just I was just wondering if you knew what the remainder of the potential land that they're talking about beyond They're they're just talking about the museum and its associated parking and project site, which we have You know create put a polygon around representing government Other questions

Patrick, I maybe just have a couple questions for now. It sounds like the U.S. Forest Service letter clearly articulates that they see no concern at this point. How would the county maybe just clarify how the county would evaluate if the use of the concessions, the cafe, were to expand into something that is deemed commercial? So if it isn't now, but then what are the standards that the county would use to sort of make sure the operations don't go further?

Thank you for the question. You know, frankly, I don't know what that threshold is. Like I said, the discussion about operations, I mean, will the museum require a payment when you go in, or will it be donation? We just don't know some of those things at this time, so money being transacted or, you know, the cafe, you know... what has been proposed, as long as the project is consistent with that, the Forest Service says that it's consistent with the deed, the deed restriction. So, you know, obviously, if there were any changes in the final design, we would look at that and evaluate that against where we're at. But the current direction is to proceed.

I would also, maybe Chair Beckler, just to supplement what Mr. Dobbs has mentioned, and perhaps we may hear later during this item's proceedings from county Department of General Services or CEO staff, but there will be subsequent agreements entered into between the county and the foundation and it's likely that those sort of operational issues and how that will work will be ironed out as part of those subsequent agreements.

Okay, so there'll be a base established set of agreements and then If there were to be an expanded use later, I'm assuming it would go through a typical process for modifying a CUP to expand the use. Like they would technically probably have to go through the process if they wanted to expand the use to something that's more restaurant scale versus cafe. I'm just using that as an example.

Yeah, I mean, while that is not anticipated, you know, sorry, I kind of lost my train of thought on that. But, yeah, currently as proposed, the direction from the Forest Service is that, you know, they don't see any obvious violations of the deed restriction.

I think the applicant may be able to Expand a little bit on the 501c3 organizational formation and how that might address those concerns.

Maybe I would just also supplement that, you know, in terms of any expansion of use or any modification, As long as it's consistent with the current use permit, there may not be any planning review necessary, but again, it may be subject to the subsequent agreement that will be entered into between the county and the foundation. There may be some provisions within those agreements. Okay.

Yeah, I just remember you know one of the things again since we just don't know those details and frankly based on the current letter don't Anticipate having to address that in the future one of the things that EIR did evaluate was a minor land division there's so there is we have analyzed what it would look like to Make that two point three seven acres a standalone parcel. And so again there, you know, there's a pathway forward I think if that arises but at this point we're moving forward with the direction that they've given us.

Okay other questions Go ahead just a quick one you had mentioned somewhere along the proposal about the Six special events that would extend the time and be an exception On the text amendment it seemed a little open-ended. It didn't specify six It just you reread that language or go back to it. It just kind of said It's kind of open-ended. So I just want to make sure that you know You're saying six on one hand and then it's open-ended on the other. I just want to clarify that. Thank you It was on one of the Slides, it was text.

It was that item six under the text amendments and back up here But the items sorry, what did you say the slide six I I'll huddle up with my coworkers here as the proceedings go on, and we'll take a look at that and see if we need to make any adjustments.

Okay. Anything else? Thank you so much, Patrick. Appreciate it. Thank you. If the applicant is here in person or online, yes, go ahead and state your name for the record, please. Good morning.

Thank you very much. Good morning. My name is Mike Lavock, and I'm the Vice President of the Sierra Nevada Olympic Winter Museum Foundation and the Chairman of the Building Committee. Patrick Dobbs thoroughly explained the project and the technical details, but I'd like to take just a few moments to remind the Planning Commission about the organization behind the idea of building a museum recognizing Sierra winter sports history and the 1960 Olympic Games. Members of our community established a 501 organization over 15 years ago to pursue this goal. And some of the original members, including our President Bill Clark and our board member Gary Davis, and our board member David Antonucci, who's participating by Zoom, are here with us this morning. Significant contributions from Placer County, Nevada County, from our board members, Organizations and generous individual donors have provided significant support along the way this past 15 years. And following extensive initial design, the project completed the environmental review in 2024 when the board adopted the environmental impact report and the required mitigation elements. Today, the foundation continues to operate a winter sports museum that is open daily in the Boat Works Mall in Tahoe City. The association website is thesnowmuseum.org and it contains a wealth of information. I encourage you to check it out if you haven't seen it. Now the county is prepared to make the final technical adjustments to the maps and to issue the permits. These steps and further coordination with Placer County Museums will really accelerate our foundation's ability to conduct fundraising and capital development for construction. Organizationally, we have a strong board and capacity, especially important for what remains ahead for our all-volunteer organization. Some of our additional board members include Eddie Encinas, David Antonucci, who, as I mentioned, is online, Ron Parson, Nancy Cushing, Christine Horvath, Elissa Hambrecht, Becca Levanowicz, Tim Hauserman, and John Wilcox, all involved and committed community members. We're very proud to have Olympic athlete ambassadors who completely support this effort. These are local Olympians, Osvaldo Encinas, Jamie Anderson, Travis Ganong, Eileen Gu, Jeff Hamilton in memoriam. Bill Hudson, Julian Mancuso, Johnny Mosley, Eric Polson, JC Schoonmaker, Anna Sullivan, and star Walton Hurley. Truly luminaries in sports. I want to briefly address just a couple issues that came up. One is this concept of commercialism. And it's hard to imagine a nonprofit museum that could ever be considered commercial. That is not our mission. The findings as described in the EIR describe the intention of our operations and it was the EIR that the Forest Service made its conclusion that at this time it agrees this is not a museum, this is not a commercial activity. And we have every intention of following the operations that are outlined in the EIR. So I don't think there's going to be any conflict there. You may hear from folks who are concerned about the location. I'd just like to point out that some of the best museums in the world are located in parks, and you don't have to look very far to find an example. Even here in the Bay Area in Golden Gate Park or in a number of other revered museum locations throughout the world, parks are a great place to put museums. They go very well with the public benefit. Regarding the location, I also would like to remind the Commission of the findings in the EIR. It's page 98 in your packet of Mr. Dobbs' presentation. The certified EIR found, and I'm just going to read a very brief quote. Taken together, the final EIR, the mitigation measures, and the mitigation and monitoring and reporting program provide an adequate basis for approval of the Snow Sports Museum and Community Cultural Center project. Based on the findings and information contained in the record, it is determined that, one, all significant effects on the environment due to the approval of the project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible. And very importantly, item two, feasible alternatives to this proposed project which would mitigate or substantially lessen the impacts do not exist. And that includes the alternative locations that were examined and others. That's a very important finding in the EIR. With that, I'd like to briefly introduce our president, Bill Clark, just to tell you a little bit more.

Thank you. Thanks, Mike.

My name is Bill Clark. Thank you. I'm the president of the foundation. I grew up in Auburn, member of Auburn Ski Club my entire life. I just want to emphasize a little bit more about what this means. Placer County has a special role in the snow sports world as an Olympic site. It's up to this point has not been fully recognized. And that's the whole reason for our foundation is to bring this to life, to place Placer County squarely in the world stage of where it belongs with the history. The 1960 Olympics arguably were the best ever because of all the firsts that happened there. And so in terms of what our vision is and what we do, this is – we're not a private – this is community. This is about the heritage that Placer County holds to share with the region, with the residents of Tahoe, California, nationally, even internationally. International Olympic tourism is a really big thing, people visiting different sites. So it's a big thing, and it's something that will – it will enhance the community it has connections from everybody from just local residents to visitors to uh... being recognized on the world stage like i said and in terms of the location we've been at like mike said we've been at this for fifteen years we've done multiple studies we've done multiple site location studies and we really looked long and hard uh... the last study with placer county to look at some alternate sites and it always circles back to that location because in and of itself it's almost a historical landmark without a museum because it's at the entrance to where something it's the gateway to where something very special happened it's the gateway to visitors to north lake tahoe so in a If you were to look at this from 10,000 feet and you wanted to come up with the most perfect location that would represent the very special Olympics that happened in 1960, the rest of the snow sports community up and down the Sierra, you couldn't dream of a better spot. On public land, it'll be there for generations. So I just want to emphasize that in no way could this be considered commercial. This is the community's history. This is all about educating the community. Any of these ancillary things we're going to do, like a little snack bar and a little bookstore kind of thing, is all to enhance the experience of the people coming to visit. Their kids go home with a classic poster or a book about the Olympics or some other kind of ski history. It's all part of the educational program we intend to do. We intend this to be accessible. We're going to have a huge program of school kids coming and visiting as field trips to learn about the heritage of where they live. It's kind of amazing that a lot of folks don't appreciate, a lot of kids, I don't think, appreciate what actually happened there in 1960. So I just wanted to emphasize that. Everything is in place, the collections, the history. It's a history that it'll represent a history like nowhere else in the world. When you combine 1960 with the California gold rush gold caps in the 1850s when the gold miners came to California and they brought with them skis and they started racing down the hill at 80 miles an hour in the 1860s. to the Olympics, and so many special things about this Olympics, the involvement of Disney and other firsts that you can read about in Dave Antonucci's book, Snowball's Chance, to the development of the best skiing region in the world. Maybe I'm a little biased there. And it's a living history, the last thing I'd say. This is not static. Every year, athletes go out into the world from our region, compete at the World Cup, compete at the Olympics, and they come home with stories. And so this will be a place to celebrate that, a place where the community can gather, Recognize those people a place where there'll be a Hall of Fame or with an annual induction ceremony to recognize the people that helped build this and from Alex Cushing to athletes to everybody so That's my pitch. I'd love to answer any questions you have about it and what our vision is Thank you so much for your comments.

I lost the Commission if you have any questions I Not at this time. So thank you so much. I appreciate you sharing the broader vision. I appreciate that. That makes sense. It does. Thank you. Chris, did you have anything else to share before I open public comment?

Just one additional comment Paul Beck Breckenridge with our Department of General Services would also like to address the good morning chair Beckler commissioners Paul Breckenridge deputy director for general services and We're excited to be here.

Obviously. It's been a couple of years since You know, the action was taken by the board for the certification the EIR so a lot of work has been happening behind the scenes including with the the Forest Service and getting to that you know that potential process and the agreements moving forward and we continue to it to enjoy our partnership with the Snow Museum Foundation and as Patrick outlined a large commitment so far from the board on the various activities to get to this point so we're excited about the the opportunity and as was discussed It's not just the museum, but an amenity for the community with the community spaces and room to come and enjoy that location at the park there. So with that, yeah, we urge your approval of the actions requested today. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anything else from staff before I open it up?

JUST BEFORE WE GET INTO PUBLIC COMMENT, JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO COMMISSIONER RONTIN'S QUESTION ABOUT THE EVENTS AT THE PROPERTY. IN YOUR STAFF REPORT PACKAGE ON PAGE 5 IS WHERE IT REFERENCES THE ANTICIPATED OPERATIONS OF THE MUSEUM AND NOTES THAT UP TO SIX EVENTS MAY OCCUR AT THE PROPERTY. What that's referencing, or what our intent there is, is that if they were to hold special events outside of their normal operational hours, that they would be able to apply for a temporary event permit, which provides for up to six temporary or special events per year. So it isn't built into the conditions of approval to authorize those six events. They would need to be permitted separately.

Okay, that clears it up. I just didn't want a conflict. Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you. Any other questions before I open it up? Okay, I'm going to go ahead and open up public comment. If there's anyone in person that would like to speak on this item, you can go ahead and step forward to the podium now. Go ahead and come on forward.

Hi.

Can you maybe just pull the microphone down just a little bit? There you go. Hello.

Oh.

Hi. Like Santa Marie Tucker, I would recommend you don't move forward with this. Right off the bat, at the beginning it shows a general plan still being used and enforced as a general plan in this specific area as a community plan, except there isn't anything that's going to magically rebrand that as a community plan. So it's just a legislative action that's going to permanently change something. And as they've said, they don't have a lot of the details worked out, just a lot of direction. And they are working really hard with the first department. But it appears they might be meeting with them in a way that is to get out of deed restrictions that they have been fighting significantly. Also, the public comment on this is not positive. There's many, many, many, many, many, many, many multiple comments that are negative. And museums don't have to be commercial. They don't have to sell anything. And my friend Ali went to the Olympics and tried to compete. You know what? She came from a family with nobody and nothing. So she wouldn't even be able to afford to go buy a tea at this place. So I think slowing down until we have a lot more details and either finding a way to work with the land we do have before trying to make the land change for what we don't might be better.

OK. Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else in person that would like to speak?

Good morning. I'm Ed Henneveld. I've lived in Olympic Valley for 48 years, and I was involved in securing this park site from its inception. including the federal legislation in 1999 that allowed the Forest Service to sell this land to the county. And I was also involved in the subsequent deed restriction intended to preserve the land for recreation only purposes. I've opposed this snow museum in the park, its location in the park, since it was first proposed in 2009. But throughout all this discussion over the last 15 years, I've deferred to the Forest Service as the original federal landowner and holder of this retained interest in the property. What is that? The deed says community park use does not include private development of a commercial, residential, or industrial nature. For years, the meaning of commercial has been disputed. In 2022, the Forest Service said, the cafe, the museum shop, and the event rentals, they were in direct conflict with that deed restriction. And now the Forest Service position seems to have changed. In January 2026, the letter that was referred to, it said that the proposed commercial activities may be permissible if they remain ancillary to the museum. It didn't say it was approved, it just said may, but It also said it cannot predict how those activities will evolve. The Forest Service will continue to monitor the project, and they acknowledged that a definitive interpretation of this deed may require a court. So what was that original intent of the deed restriction? There remains a lot of uncertainty. I'm not asking you all to decide the legal meaning of this deed and its restriction. I'm asking for one step. before permanent construction obtain an independent appraisal properties fair market value with and without that the restriction for services offered plastic under the opportunity to purchase it's retained interest at fair market value and potentially limiting it to this two point seven acres an appraisal commits the county to nothing it simply tells us what the public property interest is worth what it would cost to resolve that uncertainty. If removing the restriction creates an additional value, then that value is a public asset, and it should be protected. And resolving this restriction would benefit these folks, the museum proponents, as well as providing greater certainty about the permanent home and its future operations. After nearly five decades of living in Squaw, the Olympic Valley, excuse me, I believe this is ultimately a matter of trust of stewardship and respect For the purpose for which this park was built if you could wrap up your determine the value Listen determine the value resolve the ambiguity protect the public interest Then make your decision.

Thank you for your comments Is there anyone else here today that would like to speak on this item? I? Go ahead and come forward. You do have three minutes to make your comments. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name's Gary Davis. I'm the former owner of Gary Davis Group Civil Engineers and Architects. We've been involved in this process from the very beginning. First, I was a board member of the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association, which approved the funds to do the initial studies that have gone on for those first years. That was with the full approval of the board and then of course went to the Placer County supervisors which also got a unanimous approval to expend those funds. There's been a lot of process over these 12-15 years. I'm currently a board member of the museum now that I'm a volunteer and I have worked on the building committee since the origin of this process. I've been to all the MAC meetings where we've had nominal opposition to this, all the public meetings that we've held for the public. And I've got to say, in the valley, and I live in the valley, I'm a neighbor, I'm with the closest residential unit subdivision, which is Tavern Inn, which is about 1,500 feet away. I'm president of that board, and we have no opposition on our board to this project. So I think the public is... highly highly Impressed with the project what it will do for Placer County But it will do for our community and what it will do for the sports in general ski sports so I would just say that the opposition is minor and These things have been worked out and maybe one of our other members will talk about the previous letters from Placer County Council from the earlier manager of the Forest Service unit that said Placer County Has the control over what is approved here and whether it's commercial or not. So that's all I want to say long history It's a great project for the county and a great project for the public. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments Is there anyone else here in person that would like to speak on this item? I See none. Do we have anyone online?

No hands raised

Okay. With that, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment and bring it back to staff first to see if there's anything you would like to share addressing any of the public comment, and then we'll bring it to the commissioners.

I don't think staff has any additional information to add. There was quite a bit of discussion both in the staff presentation and in the applicant comments about the deed restriction in the county and the foundation's position on the deed restriction.

Okay, thank you bring it back to the Commission questions or comments Okay, yeah, I'd like to make a comment because I have to state that I had a career with the US Forest Service so culturally I Have a little bit of understanding of what we're talking about here and basically This area was transferred to the county for a park because the Olympic Valley area didn't really have a public park, a place where you could play baseball and that kind of stuff. And so basically, the Forest Service doesn't issue permits for baseball fields, but the county's desire to have a baseball field on this particular parcel, the Forest Service transferred it to the county. And of course, you know, the transfer itself, you know, of course the conditions are based on the fact that the transfer was to accommodate recreation and the recreation that the county was desiring. And so basically that was purpose of the transfer. Now the conditions, you know, if the county wanted for recreation, the Forest Service would have been reluctant to transfer to them if they were going to do it for commercial or some other use. And so basically, for recreation purposes, the transfer went through. And this is really national forest land, not Forest Service land. And so basically, the conditions are there. And I would also mention that a museum on public land, if you look at the national forest, they don't support baseball fields. But they do if you look at all the natural, the lands their organizations like the Park Service the BLM the Forest Service all those agencies do have visitor centers and they are supported by nonprofits and they do sell things like baseball caps and t-shirts and and maps and books and that kind of stuff for information so a museum on this particular land is consistent with recreation, but it's also consistent with what the natural resource agencies really do on their own land. So basically on that basis, I don't see where discussions to work with the Forest Service to reduce the conditions is necessary. I think basically the agency wants to monitor what's going on in case changes happening that get outside of the range of what's been proposed, but I don't really see any changes coming in the future other than just the monitoring activity. So that's my little 32 cents on the process.

Okay, thank you. Other comments? I have a brief one.

I kind of come to this whole question about the confluence of a museum setting in a park area. From my perspective in Southern California, we have Expo Park where the Memorial Coliseum hosted the 32 Olympics. My father attended that. attended the 84 Olympics in several places and they have parks all throughout that commemorate the activities of the Olympics in those areas so it's not foreign to me to say we had a very historical Olympics here in Northern California it not only did the things that were described by Mr. Clark and Mr. Levack. It also prompted the construction of Interstate 80, as we all know, or expanded to the condition it is today. So that Olympics has been front and center for Northern California life. So I come to this with that perspective, and when it's appropriate, I'd like to make a motion. If there are no other comments, I would make it now.

just add a couple comments, but first ask other commissioners if they have any comments.

No?

The only thing I would add is the question about ancillary use. I agree with both commissioners that it's really common to have museums, whether it's natural history museum type amenities in national parks. I attend them often, and they do have ancillary uses to those museums where they sell hats, you know, I buy magnets on all the national parks that I visit everywhere. So I do think it's a pretty common standard. I don't know why the US Forest Service changed their position. I'm not sure, but it does seem like that it, you know, they support it. And as long as the county has the mechanism to make sure that, you know, if there were any plans in the future to expand that ancillary use to something more, It sounds to me like there are the checks and balances in place to monitor that. So I'm very supportive of the project too. And I do think it would be a great cultural amenity for the area. So any other comments or I would take a motion.

Chair Bechler? Yes. If I could just suggest for this item that you take the motion separately.

Okay. Great. Mark, would you like to kick us off?

Sure. My motion would be to accept the staff recommendation that the Planning Commission make the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, and there's a list of several. So the first one would be recommendation to adopt a resolution determining that the project is within the scope of the previously certified Sierra Nevada Olympic Winter Museum and Community Cultural Center environmental impact report SHC number two zero two two zero three zero five one one prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and adopting the findings of fact and mitigation monitoring and reporting program

Okay, we have a first. Okay, and a second. Roll call, please.

Watts?

Yes.

Runtine?

Yes.

Jewell?

Yes.

Johnson?

Yes.

Alves? Yes. Beckler? Yes.

Chair Beckler? Yes. Staff may suggest that for the future motions that you can just reference the lettered recommendation.

That they were already read into the record. Oh, as already read into the record.

Okay, I was just going to ask that question. You can save yourself. At some point, though, don't we need to point out that there was a correction provided by Mr. Dobson? That's correct.

And Mr. Dobbs actually read into the record as modified.

All right. Then I recommend that the staff recommendation that the Planning Commission make, I'm sorry, I move that the staff recommendation that the Planning Commission make the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors relative to Item B.

Second that.

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

Watts? Yes. Runtine?

Yes.

Jewell? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Alves? Yes. Becler?

Yes. All right, I move the staff recommendation relative to item C as read into the record.

Second.

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

Watts? Yes. Runtine?

Yes.

Jewell? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Alves? Yes. Becler?

Yes.

I move the staff recommendation relative to item D. Second that.

First and second. Roll call, please.

Watts. Yes. Runtine. Yes. Jewell. Yes. Johnson. Yes. Alves. Yes. Beckler.

Yes.

I also recommend the staff recommendation as read into the record under item E. Second.

Have a first and second. Roll call, please.

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

Johnson? Yes. Alves? Yes. Bechler? Yes. Today's action by the Planning Commission. One more. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Forgot that third page.

I move the staff recommendation as related to section F as read into the record.

Second.

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

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

Yes. Okay, now today's action by the Planning Commission will be forwarded as a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration at an upcoming meeting. We will now move to item number four, public meeting to receive comments on the draft EIR for the Estia Dry Creek and Placer Creek residential project in the Dry Creek community. The staff presentation will be provided by Supervising Planner, Kara Conklin. Welcome, Kara.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair Beckler. Good morning, commissioners. I'll let everybody get settled real quick before we start. All right. So I am Kara Conklin with the Planning Services Division. And before you this morning, we are holding a public meeting on the draft environmental impact report for the Estia Dry Creek and Placer Creek residential project. All right. So California Environmental Quality Act guidelines recommends that the lead agency hold public meetings on environmental impact reports. And in the past, it's been Placer County's practice that the Planning Commission conduct the public meetings on the draft environmental impact reports. So that's kind of the purpose of our meeting today is to solicit comments on the draft environmental impact report and discuss the adequacy of that draft environmental impact report and is not necessarily an opportunity to discuss the merits of the proposed project at this time. That will come at later Planning Commission hearings. All right, and so the county did release a notice of availability to review the, I'm going to refer to it as the DEIR to save some words. We notified property owners within 300 feet of the project site that amounted to about 103 property owners, as well as anyone who commented on the notice of preparation at our, we had a public scoping meeting and then a notice of preparation was released. We had 15 commenters comment on the notice of preparation. We also notified the Placer County Public Library's Community Development Resource Agency and county clerk's offices, state federal agencies and tribes, as well as public agencies that include the local school districts, other county departments, and the Dry Creek West Placer Municipal Advisory Council, as well as notification in the Sacramento Bee newspaper. So the project site is located just south of Baseline Road and the city of Roseville limits. It's also located east of the Placer Vineyard specific plan, most notably the Heritage Oaks age restricted community right here on the west side of the project site. It's also located west of the single family residences of the Sun Valley Oaks neighborhood. and south of the Morgan Creek residential neighborhood to the south. The project is bisected by Wallerga Road, and it is one parcel totaling about 92 acres, a little over 92 acres, and is currently zoned residential single family combining agriculture, combining a minimum building site of 40,000 square feet, combining a planned residential development of one unit per acre, and open space, combining a planned residential development of one acre. All right, so the project site is located within the Dry Creek West Placer Community Plan area, and its land use designation currently is about 80 acres of rural low density residential, one to 2.3 acre minimum. and then about a little over 12 acres of greenbelt and open space. The project's existing zoning, as I previously mentioned, is residential single family, combining agriculture with a minimum building site of 40,000 square feet, and combining a planned residential development of one acre. And then it is also open space combining a planned residential development of one acre, and that's about 12 acres of that open space area in the southern portion of the project site. So these are just some images of the property as it exists today. On the left, you'll see the project site from Baseline Road. So that's its existing topography there. And then this is facing northwest of the project site from Willurga Road up on the right. And then the east side of the project site facing from Willerga Road. And then the southwest portion of the project site from Vineyard Road. And that is the end of Vineyard Road right there. All right, so the proposed project is proposing two residential communities. The first community is called Estia Dry Creek. It's a multi-family, single-story apartment-style community with 220 units. And that is proposed in the north portion of the property up here. And that is located in phase one of the project site, so directly south of Baseline Road. The next portion of the project is Placer Creek Residential, and that is a 212 single-family residential lot proposal within three phases. So phase two would be just south of the phase one Estia project and has the potential to be broken up into two phases, phase 2A and phase 2B. And then phase three, just south of Willurga Road, and phase four, south of Phase 3, which is bisected with the open space and a tributary of Dry Creek, which this project is calling Placer Creek. The project site also includes a 2.1-acre public neighborhood park and 9.9 acres of open space, which would include a public trail that connects down on Willurga Road and also connects to the existing trail connection over here. Hold on just a moment.

I was going to say, we still see it, but the public does not. Oh, you guys see it on your computers?

Yeah, we do. Oh, OK. Sorry about that.

There we go.

We were doing so good today, Kelsey. I know, make it interesting, right?

I think we're good. Okay, so we were, I was talking about the entire project. Okay, I'm going to expand onto Estia. All right. So Estia Dry Creek. This is a kind of closer up image of that phase one project, and it includes 81 bedroom units and 142 bedroom units. They can be both detached or duet duplex like configurations. The proposed square footage ranges of these units ranges from 700 square feet to about 1100 square feet. They will include private fenced backyards, and it also includes a 3,500 square foot community center building that will include fitness rooms, a club room, leasing offices, and storage area. There will also be an outdoor pool with patios and grill areas, a dog park, pet washing stations, and car washing stations. The project will also include covered garages and storage areas, as well as covered surface parking within the project area. There will be frontage improvements on Baseline Road. So it includes a Class 1 meandering trail and improvements to the Baseline Road entry to the project site, as well as widening of Baseline Road. Placer Creek Residential consists of phases two, three, and four, 212 single family lots ranging in size from about 6,036 square feet to up to 1,500, 673 square feet. The 2.1 acre public neighborhood park is located in phase two, and it would include a half basketball court, pickleball courts, a pollinator garden, Trails around the park, open turf areas, covered play structures, and a covered patio with barbecues and picnic tables and things like that for the residents. And then between phases three and four is that 9.9 acres of open space that's bisected with Placer Creek. There will be a class one trail located on the south side of the creek here that kind of traverses along phase four. And then there will be provided a pedestrian bridge connection that will connect from Phase 4 to Phase 3 or from Phase 3 to Phase 4, however you look at it. And then also traverses across to the connection on the east. I also wanted to note that, and maybe I'll go back just a slide, on the west side of the project, in between Placer Vineyards and the Estia project, is Old Willurga Road. It's an abandoned roadway, and it's currently paved, but it's kind of overgrown with weeds and such, and people do walk through that area and bike through that area. And so the project, although it's not required, has proposed that if they do obtain approval from the property owner, that old road was abandoned by the county. So it's owned by, I believe, Lennar Homes owns it. And so if they obtain approval from that property owner and obtain the easements for easement rights from the utility companies, they would like to go in and make some minor improvements to that trail which would consist of possibly like slurry seal and then striping and signage for pedestrians and bicyclists traversing. And there would also be some connections to that trail. The first connection would obviously come from Baseline Road up here, and then they're proposing another connection down. There would be a path here between Estia and Phase 2 that would connect into the railway, or I'm sorry, trailway, and then down here at Town Center Drive, where it connects from Phase 2. So folks can walk through there. All right, affordable housing. So the Estia Dry Creek project is exempt from the inclusionary housing ordinance, and that is due to the unit sizes all averaging less than 1,600 square feet. Therefore, they are inherently affordable by design. However, the Placer Creek residential portion is subject to the inclusionary housing ordinance. And it has over 100 units. So they must provide 10% affordable housing units or 22 affordable housing units of their project. So this project has proposed two equivalency proposal options that are evaluated within the draft environmental impact report. The first equivalency proposal option that the DEIR evaluated is 22 ADUs on site. They would be less than 750 square feet and by our county housing element would be considered affordable by design. But the other proposal that they are offering is to transfer in fee title to the county a four acre vacant parcel which is located in the Riolo Vineyard specific plan and it is located on the northeast corner of PFE Road and Watt Avenue. So this is in image here of the proposed off-site affordable housing parcel that the applicants would like to dedicate towards their affordable housing obligation. All right, so let's discuss the project entitlements. So they are asking for a community plan amendment to the Dry Creek West Placer Community Plan to change the land use designations to high density residential. for a total of 23.2 acres for the Estia Dry Creek portion. And then medium density residential, a total of 57.8 acres for the Placer Creek residential portion. And then open space of 11.2 acres for that open space Placer Creek area. They're also requesting a specific plan amendment and development agreement amendment. And this is for the offsite affordable housing parcel. to change the land use designation of the four acre site in the Riolo Vineyard specific plan from commercial to high density residential and also include development standards and design guidelines for HDR as well as enabling a land in lieu strategy for the affordable housing component of the project and amending that development agreement to include the HDR land use of that project. They are also requesting a rezone of the project site from residential single family combining agriculture, combining a minimum building site of 40,000 square feet with a planned residential development of one dwelling unit per acre and open space planned residential development of one unit per acre to residential multifamily combining design scenic corridor And that's for the 23.2 acres for the Estia portion. They're also requesting to rezone the Placer Creek residential portion to residential single family, combining a minimum building site of 6,000 square feet for a total of 57.8 acres and open space for a total of 11.2 acres. And then going back to the affordable housing site, that rezone request would be to rezone that four acre parcel site from residential single family, combining agriculture, combining a minimum building site of 20,000 square feet, combining development reserve, combining a planned residential development of two dwelling units per acre, and specific plan, sorry, and specific plan, Rio Lo Vineyard specific plan, to the RM residential 30, residential multifamily 30 units per acre, combining design scenic corridor. They're also requesting a large lot vesting tentative map to subdivide the 92.2 acre project into seven large acre parcels or large lot parcels that correspond to the five phases, the open space lot and the park lot. They're requesting a vesting phase small lot tentative subdivision map to subdivide the large lots phase 2A, 2B, 3 and 4 into the 212 single-family residential lots. We're requesting a design review for the Estia Dry Creek project to determine consistency with the applicable requirements of the Placer County Multifamily and Mixed-Use Design Manual. And they're also requesting a variance to the design standard within the Multifamily and Mixed-Use Design Manual DS21H1. which is in relation to required landscape islands. And that is to allow up to 12 consecutive parking spaces between the landscape parking islands, where a maximum of six consecutive spaces are typically required. So with that, I will go to the timeline. So the notice of preparation was published April 7th of 2025. And the comment period for the notice of preparation of an EIR was April 7th, 2025 through May 7th, 2025. The county held a public scoping meeting on April 24th, 2025. And the draft EIR was released for public review and comment on August 10th of 2026. We are currently in the public comment review period for the draft EIR, and that comment period is August 10th through September 4th, 2026. So the draft environmental impact report analyzed the following environmental topics, aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning and population and housing, noise, public services and utilities, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. So the following resources were determined to be found as less than significant. And that is agricultural resources, energy, hazards and hazardous materials, land use planning, population and housing, public services and utilities, and wildfire. But the following resource areas were determined to be less than significant with mitigation measures. I do want to make a quick note and identify in the staff report on page 16. There's a little misleading language there, so I just wanted to call it out. It states that all project impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures as identified in the draft EIR. And this is a little misleading. I think it was meaning to talk about only the sections that require mitigation. However, the draft environmental impact report did determine that there was one significant and unavoidable impact. So I will talk about that, but I just wanted to note that not all of the impacts have mitigation. One is considered significant and unavoidable. So with that, I'm going to talk about the impacts and summarize, very high-level summarize, the required mitigation measures for those impacts. So for aesthetics, the impacts that it kind of talks about are substantially degrading the existing visual character and if the project would create a new source of substantial lighter glare not just for the project but also cumulatively. And so I want to also note that this table kind of breaks up the mitigation measures based on the proposed project site and then also the off-site affordable housing parcel because we also had to evaluate that for environmental review. So for the project site, the project site would be required to submit a lighting plan prior to the issuance of their improvement plans or during the improvement plan phase. And then the affordable housing parcel would be required to implement a landscape buffer between the project site and the existing cemetery that is to the north of that site. And it would also be required to minimize contributions to area-wide light pollution and establish lighting guidelines within the Riolo Vineyard specific plan. For air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, it asks if the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan during project construction and then during project operation. And so the off-site affordable housing parcel would be required to submit to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District an emission and dust control plan, a list of construction equipment, and a construction schedule. They must maintain construction equipment, reduce idling time of diesel-powered equipment, prohibit any vegetation burning, and are required to implement an off-site mitigation program in coordination with the Air District. These other impacts are in regards to a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant and a generation of greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. I already read all the mitigation measures for air quality, so it's all of the previous stuff that I stated that they have to kind of work with the air pollution control district to work through. For biological resources, these include impacts to special status plant species, Crotch's bumblebee, impacts to special status birds, ranked geopods, and then impacts to the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. And the project site, the required mitigation measures for the project site include conducting pre-construction surveys for the special status plant species, crotches, bumblebee, and velve, and that the project is also within the Placer County Conservation Program mapped area, and therefore will be subject to applying for PCCP land conversion authorization and payments for impacts to special status species or habitats. The mitigation for the off-site affordable housing parcel includes providing a pre-construction survey for potential mitigation for special status brachiopods. Other biological resource impacts to western spadefoot, northwestern pond turtle, or have a substantial adverse effect on substantial habitat modifications for Swainson's hawk. The project would be required to conduct pre-construction surveys for western spadefoot, western pond turtle, and Swainson's hawk. and potential mitigation if presence of those species are detected. The project would be required to implement a number of PCCP conditions for avoidance, minimization, and mitigation for stream system impacts. And for the offsite affordable housing parcel, the project must implement and maintain best management practices, BMPs, for aquatic resources, habitats, and wetlands, and must also coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, CDFW, to protect and preserve the Swainson's hawk. The biological resources section also reviews impacts to burrowing owl and nesting birds, as well as roosting bats. And mitigation measures for the project site would include conducting pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls, tricolored blackbird, nesting birds, and acoustical surveys for bat habitat and presence, and potential mitigation for the presence of these species, which could include installing buffers for nesting habitats and also biological monitoring. For the affordable housing parcel, the offsite The off-site affordable housing mitigation, affordable, oh my gosh, off-site affordable housing parcel mitigation measures would be required to survey for burrowing owls, swainson hawk, and bat habitats, and potentially mitigate for any presence of those species. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, or have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands? And so the project site would be required to implement PCCP conditions for impacts to riparian habitats and wetlands, which includes applying for a lake and stream bed alteration agreement, receive water quality certification, comply with the Clean Water Act, as well as compliance with the County Aquatic Resource Program, which is CARP conditions. For the off-site affordable housing parcel, they would be required to implement construction BMPs and install drainage facilities outside of any identified jurisdictional waters of the U.S. And would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as tree preservation policies or ordinances? And for this one, the project would be required to just provide environmental training for construction workers as well as obtaining PCCP land conversion. And for the affordable housing site, the mitigation would include contributing to the tree preservation fund for the removal of any protected or significant trees and to implement protection and preservation measures for trees that are identified to be preserved. Cultural resources. So would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? And so the project, in order to mitigate for any potential impacts, the project would need to conduct awareness training to construction workers. Outline buffer areas and implement procedures should resources or human remains be found on site. And same for the affordable housing parcel for any potential impacts that could happen as a result of the development on the affordable housing parcel. Mitigation measures include outlining buffer areas and implementing procedures for recovery should resources or human remains be found on site. And that's the same for these mitigation measures as well. All right. For geology and soils, would the project result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil or be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable or become unstable as a result of the project? The project would be required to submit improvement plans, provide a WDID number from the Water Board, obtain approval of improvement plans, install BMPs prior to ground disturbance, and the project would also need to submit final geotechnical engineering report and soil investigation report for pad graded lots. The future offsite affordable housing parcel would be required to submit improvement plans that identify staging areas away from protected resources and residential units. They would need to obtain a stormwater pollution prevention plan, otherwise called a SWPPP, prepare a final geotechnical engineering report, and comply with the NPDES phase two general permit requirements, which is a federal clean water regulation that controls polluted stormwater runoff. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource? or unique geological feature, or would it result in significant disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcrowding of the soil? Both the project and the off-site affordable housing parcel are required to retain a paleontologist to conduct training for construction workers and outlines the procedures for construction managers and developers to follow should paleontological resources be discovered on site. For hydrology and water quality impacts, would they violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements that would degrade the surface or groundwater quality? And mitigation measures for the project site include some of the other required mitigation measures, such as implementing improvement plans, Providing the WD ID number and showing all locations of stormwater infrastructure on the plans and implementing source controls to reduce and treat runoff The off-site affordable housing parcel would require as well submittal of improvement plans showing all on-site disturbance all project specific BMPs and requires drainage to be routed through specially designed stormwater facilities and The affordable site must also adhere to county standards for water and wastewater designs. And would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site by increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff, expose people to structures or risk of loss, injury or death by flooding? Mitigation measures for these impacts include that the project site must show the limits of the 100-year floodplain on the improvement plans, requires that the final drainage report doesn't show an increase in the limits of those floodplains, and that the project would be required to receive a CLOMR if deemed necessary. The off-site affordable housing parcel would be required to submit a final drainage report analyze off-site drainage facilities and upgrade as necessary, as well as pay drainage fees. For public services and utilities, would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, telecommunications facilities that could cause significant environmental effects? if they have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project, or would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment plant provider which serves the project that it doesn't have adequate capacity. There were no mitigation measures required for the project before the offsite affordable housing parcel. They would be required to pay connection fees for water services, adhere to specific standards to reduce any leaks that would affect service to the water supply. wastewater transmission pipelines and they would also be required to obtain will serve letters for water and wastewater services all right for transportation impact would it conflict with a program plan ordinance or policy except for level of service addressing the circulation system during the construction activities the mitigation required for the project site was that they will need to be They will need to implement a signage and striping plan on the improvement plans. The off-site affordable housing parcel will be required to submit a traffic management plan. And then for tribal cultural resources, would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resources? The project requires mitigation that outlines procedures in the event of a tribal cultural resource find and requires that the contractor or developer contact the United Auburn Indian Community and conduct worker training awareness. For the off-site affordable housing parcel, it's required that they outline procedures in the event of a tribal cultural resource find and requires the contractor or developer to immediately stop work in the event of a discovery. So those were all the resource areas that were considered less than significant with the inclusion of mitigation. The following impact in relation to noise was considered significant and unavoidable. And so it is the generation of substantial temporary increases in ambient noise levels in noise sensitive locations. And so there is mitigation that is required, but it still makes this impact significant and unavoidable. The mitigation that is required for this is that the project include installation of six foot tall temporary sound walls on the eastern site boundary of phase two lots and on the southern site boundary of the phase four lots. The construction contractor shall have a construction noise coordinator who would be responsible for addressing any noise complaints or construction complaints. It also requires them to notify residences within 500 feet of construction site no later than three weeks prior to the construction happening and that staging areas would be located as far away from sensitive receptors as possible. Project objectives. So I am going to read through the project objectives because as part of CEQA process is determining alternatives, evaluating alternatives, and how those alternatives may align or not align with the project objectives. So number one is to create a high quality neighborhood environment containing a mix of residential open space and recreational land uses. Develop a well-designed, economically feasible residential community that consists of a variety of residential products and unit types. Offer an amenity-rich residential community that offers modern amenities and open spaces for residents such as trails, parks, recreational areas, and gathering spaces. Number four, provide a comprehensively planned project that protects sensitive environmental habitats and resources which includes existing riparian and oak woodland areas on the project site with a permanent greenbelt area that provides a significant public benefit. Number five, use land resources efficiently by providing a well-planned development on an underutilized vacant site. Number six, promote pedestrian-oriented development, providing medium and high density housing on a major transportation corridor and within walking distance of places of businesses and employment. Number seven, provide a well-designed residential community with neighborhood identity in close proximity to jobs and services both in Placer and Sacramento counties. Increase the supply and diversity of housing types in the Dry Creek West Placer Community Plan area that can support a wider range of lifestyles consistent with the goals and policies of the county's housing element. Assist in providing affordable housing and complying with regional housing needs allocation requirements by conveying a four-acre affordable housing site within the Riolo Vineyard Specific Plan in Placer County. Create a development of density, scale, and character that complements and is supportive of surrounding development. And number 11, design a residential neighborhood that complements surrounding existing neighborhoods by incorporating compatible land uses, lot sizes, and street layouts while providing smooth transitions to adjacent neighborhoods through the appropriate setbacks, landscaping, and open space features, and establishing a logical roadway and pedestrian connections that are consistent with the county's design principles. So with that, the California Environmental Quality Act does require that the EIR analyze a reasonable range of alternatives that will meet most or all of the project objectives while reducing the magnitude of or avoiding more of the significant environmental effects of the project. So the following project alternatives were considered, a no project, no build alternative, a reduced project alternative, and a resource avoidance alternative. So the reduced project alternative includes the multifamily element, the Estia project in the north. It would include 105 fewer residential units. So it would have 327 units total versus 432. As I mentioned the HDR site would remain and then only phase two would be constructed So it will be reduced from two hundred and twelve units to a hundred and seven units The park acreage would be reduced to one point four acres and phases three and four would not be developed But will be kept as open space the density would be nine point five dwelling units per acre for The estia portion and then the MDR density would be 3.17 dwelling units per acre.

And this is for the reduced project alternative.

The next is the resource avoidance alternative. And what this does is it avoids some of the major vernal pools that are on site. So there would be no HDR units on this alternative. So they would not have the SDA portion of the project. They would include 267 medium density residential units, 165 fewer than what is currently proposed. It avoids the largest onsite vernal pool within the park area and another small vernal pool over here on the east. And the public park would increase by 1.2 acres to 3.3 acres. The open space would be increased by 1.9 acres. And the MDR density would be 3.81 dwelling units per acre for the resource avoidance alternative. So this is a comparison of the proposed project and the no project, no build, the reduced project alternative, and the resource avoidance alternative. And what it means is are there fewer impacts, are there similar impacts, or are there no impacts, or are there greater impacts than the proposed project? And so it was determined that obviously the no project, no build alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, but that the next best is the reduced project alternative. Oops. Go back. So the reduced project alternative would satisfy Objective 8 to a lesser extent than the proposed project, but the resource avoidance alternative would eliminate the multifamily component and would not satisfy the project objectives 2, 6, or 8. Opportunities for public input. So opportunity is obviously allowed here today at the Planning Commission. That's the purpose of today's hearing. The draft EIR is circulated for a 45-day public review period, which ends on September 24th. So any person who submits a written or oral comment on the draft EIR will receive a formal response to their comments in the final EIR. Future Planning Commission entitlement hearing is expected in the first quarter of 2027 and Board of Supervisors entitlement hearing in the first or possibly second quarter of 2027. And how folks can submit comments. So they can submit in writing by September 24th, the end of the comment period, to our Environmental Coordination Services. The address is listed on the screen here. They may also submit via email to CDRAECS at placer.ca.gov. We do have a project website where they can download the draft environmental impact report and have information about the project. And with that, I am here for any clarifying questions. We also have our environmental consultant here, Nick Papani with Rainy Planning and Management. And we also have Chris Dickinson with Homes by Town, who is the project applicant.

And with that, I will open it up for questions. Thank you, Kara, for the presentation. Questions from the commission. Go ahead.

Kara, this is primarily a procedural question. It's not necessarily an environmental question. Phase one, when you look at the one- and two-bedroom homes that are under 1,500 square feet, would appear to qualify as affordable housing. But phase two through four have a separate affordable housing requirement associated with them. And so obviously, I guess they're considered to be two projects. But why? I guess my question is, why is phase one not really part of the affordable housing accountability with the project?

Yes. So let me go to my notes here. I do have more elaborate. So the affordable housing inclusionary ordinance, it is Placer County Code Section 15.65.050, exempted development. And so the Estia project is under exempted development. It states a residential project with a majority, so that is 51% or greater, of the primary units for full-time occupancy that have habitable square footage of less than 1,600 square feet. So the largest product that SD is offering is 1,100 square feet. And I think the lowest is 700. So all of the units actually are less than that 1600 requirement and is therefore exempt from the inclusionary affordable housing. But the rest of it, the single family development, because they're proposing 212 units and it's greater than 100 units, they are subject to the inclusionary housing ordinance. And so they have to provide 10% affordable housing.

Okay, thank you.

Does that answer?

Yeah, that was, you know, it needed to be clear on that to really look at the evaluation of the alternatives. Yeah, thank you.

So do those units in Phase 1 not count against our housing needs?

I'll let you answer, Chris.

Yeah, so in terms, they will not count as a lower income unit. UNIT. THEY WON'T COUNT AS MODERATE INCOME EITHER OR LIKELY NOT TO COUNT AS MODERATE. THERE MAY BE SOME POSSIBILITY OF COUNTING SOME OF THE UNITS. WE'LL WORK WITH OUR HOUSING TEAM ON THAT. BUT THEY DON'T PROVIDE ANY BENEFIT AT THE LOWER INCOME LEVEL IN TERMS OF OUR REPORTING OF OUR PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS.

SO AS A GROUP THEY'RE EXEMPT BECAUSE OF THEIR SIZE BUT THEY They're exempt against our...

Correct. They're exempt per our affordable housing and workforce or employee accommodation ordinance, but they do not count as lower income in terms of our reporting to the state.

Right. And so phase two through two, three, that's where the requirement for those additional units to cover the 10% of that quantity. And then the proposal for... potentially assuming ownership of that four acre parcel would then offset those numbers would be the Requirement would be built there to compensate for the requirement of those other phases But there's still no guarantee those would be built.

They would just be zoned to meet our requirement Correct the project would not build those affordable housing units They would just dedicate the land for a future developer to build them

Just a quick follow-on to that. For the four-acre parcel versus the 22 ADUs, I know the EIR evaluated both options. But in the project objectives, it looks like it is intended that we do that fee title transfer for the four-acre parcel. So is that really the intention once the project comes forward versus using the ADUs to satisfy the requirement?

Yes, I think the intent is to give the land in lieu, but it's ultimately a decision that needs to be made by the board. But I believe this land in lieu is one of the first options that we've seen outside of ADUs, so we're excited about it.

Yeah, I'm glad to see it in there as well. And then one other quick clarifying question, Kara. For the... Where was it? For the... The mitigation monitoring program on the affordable housing parcel, I noticed for the biological resources, for the most part, there was basically like a ABC so that you'd have to do the surveys on the primary project and then surveys for the affordable housing. But there weren't requirements for the crotches bumblebee surveys or the special plant, special status plant species for the Affordable housing project in your slide. So I was curious why those two elements aren't required on the affordable housing site You'll have to forgive me.

I don't recall when the real low vineyard specific plan was approved Maybe Alex knows the year, but I think it was before number one that crotches bumblebee was considered a right it was recently Yeah, I think the the adoption year was 2009 2009, so even prior to PCCP. So that was when that EIR was adopted. So it's not subject to any PCCP conditions, really, and also crotches bumblebee, but only the mitigation measures in the Rio Lo Vineyard specific plan apply to.

Apply here. Okay, that makes more sense. All of the other ones are in there. Yes. Okay, because even the other biological... requirements are in there, but you're saying the special status plant species surveys weren't a requirement in the Riola vineyards? Because I think one has been around for a long time.

Yeah, it might have been identified that there weren't any on the site.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Did you have a question, Chad?

I have another one. Yeah, go ahead. So the four-acre parcel would be in lieu of ADUs within the phase two and three, that means ADUs would not be built in two and three?

Correct. If the board decides to go with the off-site affordable housing option, so then the entitlement package includes a request to rezone that site to the RM30, which would be up to 30 dwelling units per acre. So on a four-acre site, they could construct up to 120 dwelling units. And then the 22 ADUs would not be done on the Placer Creek residential.

Would they not be allowed or they would not be...

Commissioner Al, just to supplement that response, although there wouldn't be a requirement for ADU construction, it's certainly possible that the applicant or individual owners may construct ADUs as part of the project.

Yeah, so that was my follow-on is you may have an opportunity to double count where if you develop the 120 units within the four-acre parcel and ADUs, then You have the advantage of increasing your count.

And just to remind the commission, ADUs 750 square feet or less are able to be counted as lower income. ADUs up to 1,200 square feet we have been counting as moderate income for purposes of our annual reporting to the state.

Jeff?

No, I think I'm good.

Okay, thank you so much Kara If anyone from the applicant team or the applicant like to speak or address anything, okay Going to go ahead and open it up to public comment then if there's anyone here in the public that would like to address this item Please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record and you'll have three minutes. I

Hi, like Santa Marie Tucker.

I'm getting like deja vu right now because there were six graves found and it's in the corner of one of those parcels and they used the kind of radar that you shoot in the ground and they discovered it's actually pretty recent but then there's also the fire that went through the cemetery's record which is a lot, it's sad because it's a lot like the radar I'm rescuing right now that's at my hometown which got sold and they're building on two acres that are actually part of a four acre parcel. So these records are damaged too and they're at risk also. And I don't think that that portion of the parcel, I believe it might be mentioned and there should be, I don't think it should be disturbed if they've already found graves there and maybe there might be a way to either honor that or choose a different parcel. I also don't know anybody who wants to live in that kind of place all of my friends and family and some of my grandpa who died ended up living in those kinds of places and like they made 68,000 a year or maybe they made a little bit more and they thought okay well it's going to be temporary and someday I'll move out but then it wasn't temporary and they got stuck and there was no resources around them to like retrain for different careers and there wasn't easy enough transport or something happened or they got old and they retired or things just kind of stacked up and so I don't know if that's correct situation for somebody because I looked it up and it's almost the exact same it's like 60 something a year the baseline was supposed to be making out there I do like dry Creek and I don't know why we have to rename it but I think it's the beginning stages of something that could be good if we worked on those okay thank you for your comments is there anyone else here yes go ahead and come to the podium

Hello. You could state your name for the record.

My name is Mark Baker, and I'm a resident of the HOA Placer community adjacent to the said construction that we look forward to seeing come about. I live adjacent to the old Wallerga Road area. And I was just wondering where that park is going to be located, how close to the residential area that joins that whole area will be in lieu of the basketball and pickleball courts, which I'm not sure if there'll be lighting there. That'll be on timers so there's no after play or a certain time just for sleeping needs at our age. So that's something I just wanted to bring about to the people involved in the planning to take into consideration.

Okay, thank you so much. Appreciate your comments. Is there anyone else here in person that would like to speak on this item? Do we have anyone online? Yes, I have two hand raises.

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

Greetings again, Commissioner Stein-Louise Alessi from up here in District 5. But as I stated in my open comments this morning, that this... This project would be a perfect opportunity to employ a pilot for the community land trust scenario that I outlined for you this morning. And I would also state for that in lieu property or portion of land that the developer is suggesting that part of that would be an obligation by them to also bring infrastructure up to that acreage along with the community land trust for the THR or THOW type of structures that actually could go into perpetuity and serve that surrounding area for the low income and fixed income seniors. So this is a perfect opportunity to actually get really low income or fixed income into housing within probably 24 months this could actually go ahead of their even breaking ground if you make this deal so i just would highly recommend and suggest that this get implemented up front and then that would go a long ways to getting that number down that we are constantly kicking that can down the road to to serve the low and extremely low and acute low which is going into the next arena cycle so with that uh please implement um this pilot program it's completely doable and it would be a travesty and a missed opportunity otherwise so that with that i yield thank you thank you for your comments caller go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments

Hi, this is Laura Bullard, lifelong Placer County resident. And I grew up in the Dry Creek area, used to ride my horse across actually these lands or whatever. And I have several concerns. Again, this is a violation of our community plan. It is going to put five times the amount of housing that was supposed to be there. And the idea of entitlements is ridiculous. You're not entitled to ruin communities, okay? And one of the things that I listen to on the Mac is that a lot of concerns about this particular one. And one of the things is, has the developer made any adjustments for the concerns at the Mac? People are tired, okay? They won't write in all the time because they say basically the county is just going to do whatever the heck they want to do. And that's sad. This one, I believe, keeps all of the exits and stuff off of Crowder and Baseline, which is a huge problem. This one involves three school districts, the Dry Creek School District, the Roosevelt Joint Union High School District, and the Center School District. And again, it's going to have a significant impact. So there needs to be some serious dialogue with these school districts to make sure that this is not going to alter, among other things, the communities that are already here. The idea that they will serve does not mean that they're going to keep communities together. okay and it has an impact on the pre-existing communities this is huge and these these schools were built based on the community plans with it which this is a violation of also fire okay there is no new fire stations planned in this area okay and the 600 per house that they they asked for um it is not sufficient to build the buildings the equipment and the staffing for additional fire Share of protection obviously is also an issue. The idea of this fake grass in those SDA units is disgusting. The idea that you have your dog pooping and peeing on fake grass is disgusting. Thank you, Planning Commission, for going into the low income issue. But there must be a must-do, not the four acres over by the cemetery off of PFE, because that is impacted already. And the reality, those are not necessarily ever going to be built. And in addition to that, the Riolo Vineyard is part of what put us into that rezone crisis because they banked on the idea that they could get an in lieu of situation or whatever, which the state later came back and said no. So there needs to be a commitment within the building itself. So the ADUs, for example, need to be committed to up front. The county needs to make sure that it is not automatically endorsing what the developer asks for. It sounds like there are a couple of other alternatives, including at least the... the lower density one, that would actually be, you know, far better or whatever, okay? Thank you for your comments, Laura. Thank you.

Okay, do we have anyone else online? No other hands raised. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment and bring it back. Staff, is there anything you would like to clarify?

Yeah, thanks, Chair Beckler. CARA IS GOING TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP AND THEN ALSO JUST WANTED TO SORT OF REEMPHASIZE WHAT SHE HAD MENTIONED EARLIER THAT ALL THE COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED TODAY AND ALSO ONES THAT WE'LL RECEIVE DURING THIS PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL BE RESPONDED TO AS PART OF THE FINAL EIR.

YES, THANK YOU, CHRIS. I WOULD LIKE TO BACKTRACK ON WHAT I SAID, AMBER. I AM SO SORRY, CHAIR, COMMISSIONER. CROTCHES BUMBLE BEE AND SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SURVEYS ARE REQUIRED ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE.

OKAY.

OKAY. SO I'M SORRY I MISSED THAT IN THE EIR. NO WORRIES. AND ALSO I WANTED TO KIND OF ADDRESS I THINK THE FIRST COMMENT ABOUT GRAVE SITES AND It was in relation to the affordable housing parcel that's right next to south of the existing cemetery, but that site does not have grave sites on it that we know of.

And Kara, if during the pre-surveys, the cultural assets, if there were grave sites, then the requirements would kick in. Correct. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, are there, does the commission have any other questions? Okay, I just, I did want to make one quick comment and then we can close, which is I do really appreciate. It's unique, I think, and innovative to include the four acre parcel as an option. I think, you know, the best of all worlds would be the ADUs get built. In addition to that four acre fee title transfer, I think it's a good way to proactively plan for our RHNA cycle in the future. So it's my only comment. And if there's nothing else by the Commission, that concludes this item. As is mentioned, once the final EIR is prepared, this item will return to the Planning Commission for consideration of the project and a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final action. That does conclude the business for the Planning Commission today. Thanks, everyone, for attending and participating. The meeting is adjourned.