>> good morning.
the october 11th, 2016 placer county
board of supervisors meeting will come
to order.
will you please join me in the flag
salute.
[recitation of the pledge of allegiance]
>> thank you.
we'll now have our meeting procedures
read by the clerk.
>> clerk: welcome to the placer county
board of supervisors meeting of tuesday
october 11th,2016.
agendas are available outside this
meeting room.
please note that the board is not
permitted to take action on items
addressed under public comment.
all items on the agenda will be open for
public comments before final action is
taken.
when you speak, clearly state your name
for the record and be aware there is a
three-minute time limit per speaker.
keep in mind the chairman has discretion
of limiting the total discussion time on
any item.
please place all cell phones in silent
mode.
if you're hearing impaired, we have
listening devices available.
thank you for your listening and
cooperation.
>> next is our consent agenda.
this is a list of routine items intended
to be all considered in one motion.
we'd be happy to be pull anything for
individual discussion if any of my
colleagues or anyone from the audience
would prefer that.
are there requests for consent items to
be discussed individually?
seeing none.
moved and seconded to approve the
consent as is.
roll call.
>> clerk: supervisor holmes,
supervisor duran.
supervisor uhler, supervisor montgomery,
chairman weygandt.
>> yes.
now is the time for public comment when
anyone can approach the board and
address anything not on the agenda.
please come forward and state your name.
>> placer county 4-h, I want to invite
you to the "you make it you take it"
expo october 29th from 9:00 to 3:00 at
the sierra building at the fair.
it's open to the public.
anyone can come.
there is no cost to come in but we
charge for the materials to make the
crafts.
we have about 30 crafts and it's from
9:00 to 3:00.
>> supervisor weygandt: thank you.
>> good morning.
thanks for listening to me.
I'm scott von. I live next to the park
in south placer.
if you look before you, I've provided
some materials for -- complaint that
we're issuing.
I have signatures from 50 different
households to talk about expansion of a
facility going on in our residential
neighborhood.
this facility was -- is a new facility.
there is a storage facility in the area
built in 1986.
we've raised concerns it doesn't belong
in the enabled.
it's to add r.v. Storage and parking in
the neighborhood next to the park.
that goes down a local street 25 feet
wide and we have a lot of kids and we're
concerned about the safety.
when we talk to the planning department
and asked how it was permitted in this
zone, we were told there was a vested
right in 1986.
we put in a public records act and
haven't seen any information.
our concern is that this is not properly
been studied or the public is not
considered in putting this storage
facility in this neighborhood.
my colleague or fellow neighbor will
talk a little bit about some of the
different violations that we see in
players code.
but the questions vested from 1986 and
when we were asked again it was 1998
then 2007.
no one can find how this was permitted
in a residential zone.
in addition, we were told that ceqa was
to be invalidated because it was vested.
the applicant blew through a creek.
he'll be issued a notice of violence and
he has to redo the plans in ceqa.
we'd like it to be stopped and public
comment to be heard and understand why
this commercial facility is being put in
a residential neighborhood.
it doesn't belong there.
we don't want it there.
and it's supposedly supposed to be built
for residents of my neighborhood.
there are 1100 homes in my neighborhood.
this adds 100 to 200 already existing
r.v. Storage spaces and another 600
spaces.
we're talking about roughly 8, 900
spaces per 1100 homes.
it doesn't make much math for our
community.
so my concern is there are violations of
law ceqa.
we'll see other agencies and what I'd
like to see the board of supervisors
take some sort of action in the future
or on the agenda point to review it.
something from 1986 or 1998 does not
have perpetuity ability to develop that
lot in a residential neighborhood.
>> we've referred this to the community
development resources director upon
receipt and we'll get feedback from him.
>> will you contact my staff or anybody
else?
we have the contact information there.
>> I think the best bet is to have
that --
>> that's good.
I think jim was going to bring up other
issues.
>> good morning.
thanks for the opportunity.
again, realizing that you can't take
action on these things but I wanted you
aware of them.
>> can you state your name.
>> jim cook.
I live in tree lake village.
I have young children and I'm concerned
with the level of tract.
this tried to expand in 2007 and we were
able to get them to stop.
we were not notified on this expansion
and we were curious on how this
occurred.
we see this as a violation of section 17
zoning.
this was created in 1986.
if you look at the tables and zoning
tables, there are no conditions under --
under which a storage facility was
allowed.
we don't know how that was allowed and
for a permit that shouldn't be in
existence for a storage facility.
we see a violation that the -- assuming
that first complaint is valid, the
second complaint is that the conditional
use permits only says boats and r.v.s,
but gardening, storage units holding
furniture and other items in that
facility that is not zoned appropriate
for that.
the third item is waste disposal.
there is a tree disposal service there
carving up trees and putting woodchips
all over the property.
it's a fire hazard.
we've already had one fire out there.
the fourth item is section 17 zoning
that you're he not allowed to have
hazardous materials.
we have gardening organizations running
the businesses out of there.
a lot of fuels and chemicals and poisons
in that facility.
that shouldn't be allowed.
our ask was that we treat this as a
nuisance because it's in violation of
code and the planning department take
action to abate the nuisance.
you know it's a crime to allow such a
thing to occur as a zoning violation.
we'd like that looked into.
realizing you can't take action but we'd
like to get on a formal agenda to file
the complaint.
once we have more data from the planning
department, we're almost 10 days in and
we haven't received any the documents we
requested.
so we come in relatively unarmed with
the information we need to make more
detailed arguments.
thank you for your time.
>> good morning ellie wahler tahoe
resident.
at the board hearing in tahoe.
you suspended and ended comment on
martis valley west.
I wasn't sure when it was appropriate to
ask.
I researched the development agreement
you're proving today and there are
amendments that should be required of
that.
I hope you'll open public comment.
thank you.
>> good morning reservation alliance,
I'm requesting public comment be open
for the martis valley west hearing.
in addition to what ellie wahler said,
there is more new information.
the martis valley operating agreement
which was the preservation of the land,
the land conservation entities for
public lands and trukee [inaudible]
pulled out of the agreement.
they will not be negotiating on it since
it's so contentious with the environment
groups and the fire life safety and
evacuation report came out for that
lawsuit and that settlement.
what it says is without the approval of
that project, the [inaudible] budget
approved a couple of years ago, there is
not enough protection existing in our
area that people cannot get out.
unless they build a new fire station on
the west shore, unless they hire more
people.
they hire new trucks.
do a study of the lake.
rolling your eyes, really, we all share
three roads, 89, 28 and 267.
that's it for everybody.
our population goes up to over 150,000
on weekends.
we need you to hear this.
this is from the north lake tahoe fire
department from this report.
it says we don't have enough protection.
I hope you'll open the hearing so we can
address these things with the public.
thank you.
>> is there anyone else that would like
to address the board on something not on
the agenda?
>> good morning chair weygandt and
supervisors.
I'm [inaudible] with preservation.
we did address the land trust partner
and our recent submittal to you on
friday and the homewood safety report.
I think those are two important things
that could affect mitigation from martis
valley west and recommended approval for
the project.
also I think one of the things we
addressed in our letter are the findings
in the staff report and we would like to
comment on that as well if possible.
thank you.
>> anyone else like to address something
not on the agenda?
seeing none.
we'll move on to board committee
reports.
kirk.
>> I wanted to report some supervisor
holmes and I serve on the board.
we were delivered exciting news in our
last meeting by the executive director.
that is all the advanced planning that
has been done for the 8065 interchange
construction has cleared environmental
review.
we have a project that is now truly
shovel ready if we have the funds to
build it.
the design work is on and environment
work is done.
if we have the funds to build the
project, we can build it.
I wanted to let the board know.
>> supervisor weygandt: jim.
>> thank you, mr. Chair.
I need to address the board about the
transient population in north auburn.
over the last several weeks have been
increasing number of confrontations
between transients, people shot in
parking lots, community members and
members.
there was a fire started that threatened
a deer ridge community in north auburn
started by a transient.
last two weeks there are dramatic
increases in confrontations.
two transients were hit by a car on
atlee road killing one of them.
last week one of our employees was
harassed as he came back from lunch
going back to work.
we have employees who wait in their cars
before going into the workplace to make
sure there are no transients hanging
around.
last thursday three county -- employees
were attack and one knocked down.
now we have employees arming themselves
with pepper spray.
then a violent confrontation with a
transient demonstrating violent and
threatening behavior.
thankfully the sheriff's department was
able to subdue him and arrest him.
I thank the sheriff's department for
providing safety for the community of
north auburn.
though we're not providing our employees
a safe workplace.
I've been to three homeless shelters in
different counties.
those shelters have been away from
population centers.
we're trying to put a square peg in a
round hole and it's not working and I
want to see the shelter overflow closed
as soon as possible then take a hard
look at the shelter itself.
that shelter is in the wrong place.
thank you, mr. Chair.
>> jennifer.
>> thank you, I wanted to report that
supervisor holmes and I attended the
rcrc general conference in squaw valley.
there were a number of interesting and
valuable presentations.
I'm sure that supervisor holmes took
away from additional information in some
of those presentations.
very interesting presentation
particularly on the very murky future
for cannabis in california.
which really enforced my belief this is
an issue that we're probably going to be
revisiting multiple times over the next
few years.
supervisor holmes, was there anything
else on that you wanted to add?
>> supervisor holmes: regarding the
marijuana issue the state has been
putting into your laps.
it's like opening the door to toon town.
it's going to be bizarre when all this
rolls out.
I think we should put off our discussion
regarding the marijuana issue until
after november 8th.
that will be up to the rest of the
board.
very concerning about how it's rolling
out and all kinds of different
perspective from different people and
organizations.
>> supervisor montgomery: we had
someone from public policy ppic --
institute of california.
I knew I'd get it.
the increases in crime that we've been
seeing in california.
interestingly across the nation.
particularly as it related to ad-109 and
trying to it determine if there was
tracking that could or gate increase in
crime with ab-109.
the general consensus we seem to see
crime on the rise throughout the nation.
that in states that have not adopted
ab-109 style reform, and I use is that
word knowing what it means.
we've seen very, very similar increases
in crime.
I think there is a lot of follow-up to
do.
there is still a great deal of question
around proposition 47.
we didn't have enough data so the
passage of prop 47 to draw any
conclusion about increases in crime as
it relates to prop 47.
but within the next year, that data
should exist and there will probably be
some conclusions that could be drawn at
that time.
it was a worthwhile expenditure of our
time.
it was at squaw valley so I got to sleep
in my own bed each night which was nice.
but rcrc has been a terrific platform
for vetting the issues.
I wanted you to know we were
well-represented and we had a great
basket as well for the raffle.
>> I want to who shout out for marra
rowe from the placer county visitor's
bureau.
every county brings a basket and we buy
raffle tickets to raise funds for the
president of the rural county
representatives of california.
that's rcrc.
but, so usually when supervisor wins a
basket, they give it back and we auction
it off.
the one that mora from placer visitor's
bureau, no one was going to send that
back.
it was tremendous.
and supervisor from tahama county won it
and he said my wife has been looking for
something like this for a long time.
so go mora rowe.
that was great.
rcrc is a great organization.
there are 32 rural counties that are
into that.
it's a great organization.
I'm proud to be a part of it.
>> okay.
if there are no more supervisor reports,
we're going to take up our 9:05 timed
item where supervisor holmes is going to
present accommodation to kara sutter on
her retirement from the youth
commission.
>> there she is.
come on down.
kara sutter.
it's my great honor to present this
accommodation to kara.
this is recognizing kara sutter in her
contribution to the community in her on
going dedication to the placer county
youth commission.
where as kara retired in august after
nearly 20 years of service.
in addition to working as a health
educator, kara has served as staff
person for the placer county youth
commission since the inception in 2009.
whereas kara has consistently devoted
her time and skill to educating
residents throughout placer county on
how to make improvements to their lives
in addition to giving 110% in service to
the youth commission.
kara is known for her support,
involvement and ability to help youth
arrive at creative solutions to issues
and my, how you've done that!
whereas under the direction of the
placer county -- under her direction the
youth commission passed social host
ordinances in rocklin and roseville to
hold accounts more accountable for allow
youth to consume alcohol and established
the youth commission's annual youth
impact awards which recognize the
positive contributions and
accomplishments of placer county youth.
whereas kara is known to coworkers,
which many are here, youth
commissioners, family and friends for
her consistently optimistic outlook and
dedication and wise approach to ensuring
that the focus remains on the positive
attributes of our youth.
multiple youth commissioners past and
present credit kara for the high set of
standards that will help to assure that
they have the skills they need to become
happy and successful adults.
let it be known that the above
accommodation passed by county of placer
on behalf of the citizens of placer
county on tuesday october 11th and
recognizes kara sutter for her
consistent invaluable service to the
youth of placer county through her work
with the youth commission and wishes her
all the best on her future endeavors.
congratulations and I will miss you.
[applause]
>> I wasn't expecting this.
it's like -- I like being behind the
scenes and thought I'd sneak out
silently.
but thank you very much board of
supervisors and thank you back in 2009
of approving the placer community youth
commission.
it's been an honor to work with my
placer county coworkers in a number of
divisions.
that was fun with the commission, I got
to work with different departments as
well as our community partners.
we have a great community and most of
all, the young people of this county.
I would say to maybe now more than ever,
listen to our young people.
ask them their opinion and consider
their input and their best interests in
our decision making.
here and everywhere.
that's the best way to ensure an engaged
positive active community.
so thank you very much.
>> if I may, first of all, I want to
thank you for turning that youth
commission into something that is such a
focal point of pride, not only among
this board and our county, but people in
the community.
it's fun when I have parents who talk to
me and say, my kid got on the youth
commission and they're excited about it.
it's because of the environment that you
help create in making kids realize they
can be impactful.
that by getting engaged, they can be
impactful.
I want this board to know not only have
you done a great job there, but I had
the pleasure of knowing your son gavin
for a number of years as one of my
daughter's best friends.
I see what I magnificent job you've done
at home with youth in raising such a
fine young man.
it's no wonder that our youth commission
became the wonderful institution that it
is today.
because of the way that you personally
model that in your life.
so thank you very much for your
commitment.
jim, you're not done yet, kara.
>> when the youth commission was started
in 2009, it was a collaborative effort.
I have to recognize a couple of people
that worked closely with the youth
commission and keeping my office
informed and apprized, one is ruth
aisles and now my girl friday.
I need to thank them for what they've
done in putting this youth commission
together to make it such a success.
thanks again, kara.
>> I need to thank supervisor holmes'
support and championing.
it wouldn't have happened without you
and the support we get in your staff.
and all of you that have listened to the
commissioners.
they're going to be knocking at your
door this year so welcome them again.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> kara, you're not quite done.
I wanted to take the opportunity to say
thank you as well.
today you're aware today is the
international day of the girl.
you have been a wonderful role model for
young women and girls in placer county
and have created an opportunity for them
on the commission to really explore and
expand their horizons and their
opportunities and so I think that timing
of this accommodation from supervisor
holmes to you in conjunction with the
international dave the girl is
absolutely perfect.
thank you so much for your hard work on
behalf of both girls and boys.
best of luck and enjoy all your time in
retirement.
I'm sure you're ridiculously busy
already.
thank you.
[applause]
>> supervisor weygandt: we'll now take
up our 9:10 timed item which is to
receive an update on the fairgrounds and
consider authorizing the director of
public works and facilities to negotiate
an agreement with the south placer
tourism.
mark.
>> thank you mr. Chair.
mike riedel from public works and
facilities.
I'll try to be brief today.
we're here to provide an update on the
fair association and revitalization
committee.
and chairman weygandt stated you
authorized to negotiate agreements with
players valley tourism which would lead
to their operation of the fairgrounds
and through that to look at feasibility
analysis for indoor sports and events
center.
the intent there is to receive direction
from your board with the idea that we'll
return for a future date for your
consideration and potential approval of
the agreements.
as you are aware, the fair property is
located in roseville 61-acres near
washington boulevard and junction.
it's been operating since 1937.
next year will be the 80th fair held at
this site.
through the economic downturn in 2010,
the state withheld their traditional
annual support of fairs statewide.
the placer county fair lost $200,000 a
year in operational support through that
action.
some of the money starting to come back
after the hiatus three years.
that doesn't go far to support their
operations.
they had to make a number of difficult
choices regarding staff.
nationwide fairs and entities that
operate them rely on rental.
the fair is four days.
the rest of the operations year around
support that.
the aging facilities, many of these are
80 years old.
the sewer and electrical infrastructure
are aging.
jones and johnson hall were built in the
50s.
it's interesting to note that jones hall
is 11,000 square feet and it's the
largest facility for rent in the county.
johnson hall, the other is about 6,000
square feet.
as we started to talk about the
challenges, your board awarded a request
contract with the rch group to help us
know what it means to revitalized site
or close the fairgrounds.
we through an rfp progresses.
they also -- process.
they recommended a committee.
your board about that in the beginning
ever 2015.
there are 11 citizens from diverse
backgrounds who met with us 19 times to
discuss many items regarding the
fairgrounds.
there are a number here in the audience
if they could raise their hands, the
committees represented here by a number
of members and members from placer
valley tourism.
people from the fair association and
fair spray in the audience that may
speak later in conclusion.
with the rfp not being successful, your
board extended the fairgrounds pcfa, the
operating agreement through the end of
2018.
I talked a moment ago about the state
bringing back funding.
the state required some financial
auditing.
your auditor controllers office
conducted an audit and did the work
earlier this year.
the audit identified some deficiencies
in record keeping.
they were low-staffed.
it was recommended earlier this summer,
and it was centered around better
record-keeping, training for staff and
reporting budget actuals and the fair
board wholeheartedly endorsed the
recommendations and working to make
improvements.
the fair ground has continued to operate
successfully this year.
they've had an uptick in interim event
rentals and ran a race series that
continues to implement operating
restrictions to be good neighbors to the
community.
the fair shows a bit of a net loss due
to entertainment expense and marketing.
the report talks about a loss in the
speedway although they haven't had one
of their large events yet this year.
the 2016 financials are still
incomplete.
I'm just going to skip ahead.
because the meat of the discussion today
is it about the future of the
fairgrounds site.
just to talk a little bit about -- you
know -- the fair was well-attended this
year.
the agricultural events that our youth
are engaged in were successful.
there was a lot of community
involvement.
the pageant provides opportunities for
young women in the community to take
leadership roles and support our
community.
there were lots of community members
that came out with the arts and crafts.
I think the strawberry jelly took first
place this year.
we had a wine garden that some of the
staff helped develop for the fair
association where we had placer county
wines available for sell for the first
time this year.
there were lots of attractions to amuse
people.
entertainment opportunities.
there was a race on saturday.
it was generally well-attended although
the heat was a challenge this year.
to kind of jump back the fair
revitalization committee has provided
staff -- a lot of advice.
your board allocated 200 hundred
thousand dollars for fair ground repairs
last year.
we've done a lot of brainstorming about
what are the best ways to employ the
dollars.
partnering with local boy scout troops
and the northern california training
group and we made a lot of repairs
before the fair this year.
this year with the fairgrounds
revitalization committee focused on were
the operations repair and vision.
I want to talk about vision.
they step and looked about why we have
the fairgrounds.
the purpose is to promote our youth and
positive values.
work ethic.
building connections and understanding,
voluntaryism in our community and
provide stimulation for the minds.
there are values that are, you know,
endorsed by us all.
identity needs to be authentic and
quality.
we need to bring the quality up in
attitudes and in facilities.
they talked about different concepts and
how could you do that.
what are the existing uses on site that
can further emphasize community.
I talked about the size of jones and
johnson hall.
there are lots of community
organizations that rely on those.
folks have weddings out there.
the revitalization committee wants those
opportunities to continue.
looking ahead, what is the vision.
what are some of the things like
culinary common demonstrations, an urban
farm and local festivals surrounding the
agricultural products that can draw
people to the site.
one of the challenges that this air
particularly faces is that you look at a
25-mile radius, you have the state fair
and yellow fair.
nevada county fair.
six flags further away.
how can you draw people to this site?
the fairgrounds committee believes it's
the authentic vision they want to drive.
they had some difficult discussions
looking at the opportunities that rch
put forward, the one that nobody likes
to talk about is so close the fair
grounds.
it has benefits.
if the property were we purposed, there
would be profit from sales from that.
but would the fair continue or not?
the there are a lot of things I talked
about earlier that would suffer if the
fair did cease to exist.
if we kept the existing site and it were
sustainably operated, it's in a central
location.
there are opportunities to revitalize
the property.
but the facilities are aged.
it is a constrained site.
rch's analysis to relocate the fair.
they looked at a plug and play model.
this facility could be customed designed
but it is expensive and we don't have it
a site in mind.
and some of the ones that have been
talked about in the west, their
infrastructure timing issues that would
take five to 10 years to deliver such a
site.
if we were to do that, you have the
existing site and that community support
we want to continue.
there are difficult discussions the
committee had.
so through all of this, and the
interesting thing is, we'll talk about
placer valley tourism.
as the committee was deliberating on
what to recommend to your board in this
annual report, players valley came
forward with an opportunity to provide
stimulus to the site.
the committee voted on the
recommendation and reaffirmed at the
meeting in september.
they believe that keeping the
fairgrounds at the existing site could
best service today.
it's the center the community.
it has existing facilities and can
continue on.
they think that players valley tourism
seems to support the vision, the
tradition, the identity, the
authenticity.
through this idea of a new event center,
they believe it could be an exciting
partnership.
they endorse these concepts.
before I go on, I want to talk about
placer valley tourism.
david attaway, the c.e.o. Of placer
valley tourism, I'd like him to speak to
talk a little bit about his
organization.
they're a california nonprofit
corporation.
their mission is to bring people to our
communities and support the hotel
industry.
and that organization is currently
supported by an assessment on each hotel
night.
they have mechanisms set to raise that
support in january to do something
visionary.
and they looked at their expertise is
bringing tournaments to the region.
they identified sort of november to
february as the period where they have
[inaudible] and what would be the events
they bring in in the winter months.
they hired a nationally recognized
company in 2015, hunt and strategic
partners to look at this concept and
found that you could have a
sustainability that brings cheer and
volleyball and girls flag and indoor
sports to the region and drive a lot of
economic development.
it was presented to the community.
given some of placer valley commitments
at that time they were saying it was a
five to 10 year vision.
they subsequently came back and said
there may be an opportunity to -- for
the fairgrounds for 100,000 square foot
building on the site.
I want to detail that before I turn it
over to mr. Attaway.
the concept is to revitalize the
fairgrounds with a new center and place
that could be a home for these sorts of
things to drive economic development.
a statistic that is interesting, 65% of
our residents live within a 10-mile
radius of the fairgrounds today.
that concept of quality, it would be a
first-palace site.
something that people would be drawn to.
it would really carry the quality into
the county fair.
partnering with the existing network of
volunteers that drive that event.
partnering with experts that could run a
sustainable racing series with fewer but
more successful events.
quickly, some of the physical concepts
would be this building that could
support the indoor sports.
revitalizing the two large halls on site
which have restroom and kitchen
challenges.
looking at ways to reconfigure the
traffic flow on and off site to reduce
the impacts to neighborhoods.
repairing the parking lots which are
aged asphalt that needs tree cover,
adequate lighting.
one of the things a lot of folks talked
about is the streetscape along
washington.
there is a concept you could build a
berm and clean up and enhance that
public face to the fairgrounds.
the speedway is in need of a facelift.
the r.v. Campground provides -- it's
interesting to think about this with my
involvement I've come to understand that
the r.v. Campground provides an
affordable place for folks visiting
family members at sutter or kaiser.
when they support their families they
can stay at the campground.
in this instance it would be cleaned up.
livestock barns cleaned cup.
we want to look at them for corporate
events or family gatherings.
you could have a company picnic there
and really have that connection with the
community.
continue to be a good neighbor.
looking at light and sound containment.
pulling out some of the buildings that
are past the end of their useful life
that need to be taken out.
I understand small animal people in the
audience, there would be provisions made
for those.
one of the exciting things as an
architect I'm excited about the concept
because enhancing the pedestrian
experience.
reducing the asphalt.
providing landmarks so people visiting
fairgrounds can enjoy the site.
there are some exciting potential
concepts in this that will be explored
the idea of a small commercial kitchen
where farmers could can their fruits and
put players grow out there.
to look at the performance spaces and
have smaller venue that can have
advanced acoustics to support some of
the pageants and interim events.
with our climate and to give visual
interest and relief from the heat, some
sort of water feature as a concept.
placer valley tourism has capacity to
bond for $30 million.
the interesting thing on the collateral
for that because there is an improvement
district.
it would be funded through the increment
on the hotels.
there are no buildings or land that
requires collateral.
placer valley tourism is looking for
partners.
they're looking at partners with the
county and city.
I'd like to say it could be costly.
I hesitate to put numbers out there.
is it 10%?
20%?
county match?
several million dollars?
we don't know.
we haven't had the conversations.
I want to put out a large number to you
-- as I said earlier, placer valley
tumor is a marketing expert.
they have a strong record in this.
they have exciting new ideas.
to look at other agricultural, there
aren't rice or almond or nut festivals.
to capture those and tie our agriculture
back to our urban communities.
the idea of revitalizing the existing
buildings and looking at new ways to
market them but still hit the price
point for the community organizations.
some of the financial projections that
we've seen from placer valley tourism
that we're vetting with the economic
development division of the county.
they're saying there could be 40,000
room nights.
you could have $15 million coming into
the community.
some large numbers over 20 years.
you could have 300 full-time equivalent
positions operating the site.
then the construction jobs too is
important.
that initial -- because we revitalized
the site, it has a significant impact on
the community.
to run through the concept quickly.
this is where I'll segue mr. Attaway.
the building to the left is a place
where the building center could go on
the west side.
I know it's hard when you're using the
pointer.
the idea about bringing a new entrance
perhaps off-junction.
you could funnel perhaps 60% of the
traffic on to the site without coming
through the existing neighborhoods.
the idea is it would be about the same
number of folks there today.
if you did have a number of buildings on
the site.
those people would be indoors -- they'd
be enjoying the site.
same number of park -- parking places.
I guess I'm hesitating because it's hard
to point at the screen and the folks at
home can't see what I'm doing.
basically the white buildings are
existing.
yellow ones are the new buildings
conceptually.
yellow building at the top ask where the
culinary building would go.
that's the ag industry north end.
race district to the east.
one of the exciting things is this sense
of entry and arrival.
you know that you have the berm along
washington boulevard that would screen
is to the community and provide cleaned
up marquee events.
you have a sense of arrival coming on to
the site.
the race district where you remove some
of the asphalt and you have -- one of
the interesting things about the
way-finding concept.
you could have the icons.
meet me by the checkered pole at
3:00 p.m. To make it work cohesively for
pedestrians and visitors.
this is a view from inside the barns.
the concept of cleaning them up.
looking over towards the new events
center where that could be in the
future.
this is what the building may look like.
if it were to go forward.
there is example at myrtle beach they
studied and this is kind of this vision.
from the moment people park in this new
facility to have that sense of arrival
and really the feeling of quality that I
think we've been looking for at the
fairgrounds.
with that, again, I'd like to reiterate
that we recommend that you direct our
department to talk with placer valley
tourism to explore this concept further
to come back to the board.
and then this is the annual point at
which I recommend that your board not
exercise its option to non-renew the
fairgrounds agreement but to let them
pass this year end of december.
that would give the placer county fair
association the ability to run the 2017
county fair and contract for interim
events through 2018.
what I'd like do is ask mr. Attaway to
give his remarks.
>> thank you.
david.
david, just for the audience and public,
if you could give a brief background of
your organization.
we know who you are but you -- if you
could frame it.
>> placer valley tourism is a business
improvement district.
it's not tax funded.
it represents the 23 hotels.
and as mark pointed out, there is an
assessment that was requested that the
hotels put on themselves to draw
overnight stays.
our primary vision was to how do we fill
a business hotel on the weekends.
most of it has been sports.
february/march has been successful in
outdoor sports now we need to move on to
the winter to solidify that.
again, mark did an excellent job.
I could cut this down and go through it
quickly.
on behalf of placer county tourism board
that supported this proposal.
I'll proud to be in front of you this
morning to discuss this most exciting
public/private project.
the committee has gone through a
comprehensive study to find out what the
best future options for the fairgrounds
is.
originally they were looking for a
private business to come in and
refurbish and operate the complex.
a for-profit solution didn't exist.
what was needed was an organization that
loved our county as much as you.
and have the business acumen to bring
this event site into the 21st century.
placer valley is one of the leading
economic drivers of the capital region.
we believe this proposal will continue
to strengthen that position while at the
same time provide a phenomenal resource
for which all of our citizens can be
proud.
to that and, players valley tourism
hired people to do the designs as you
saw today to help us conceptualize what
an overall site plan may look like.
it would establish or maintain what we
call a "placer place" home for events,
fairs, meetings, festivals and
tournaments that enrich the lives of our
county residents creating community.
and driving economic development and
impact.
unique site as mark put it out, 65% of
the placer county residents within
10 miles of this site.
this number only grows as our county
continues to grow.
the major components are one, be a good
neighbor.
this entailing significant cleanup which
you've seen.
removing traffic land, reduces the
impact of egress and parking on the
local neighborhood.
improvements to sound and light
containment.
these are important issues and since I
live blocks away from the site, I
recognize how critical they are to our
neighborhoods.
second, the fair board and other
committed parties are creating a
argument-focused fair that continues to
attract residents and visitors to enjoy
the heritage and future of players
county.
the creation of a new 125,000 square
foot event center along with meeting
spaces and the raceway.
this will be a catalyst for the
revitalization of the site making it
ideal to suit the needs of our growing
county.
perfect for indoor sport tournaments,
meetings, trade shows and more.
along with the modernizations asphalt
will be removed to create a less
vehicular campus.
the players place will be ideally suited
to meet the needs whether it's racing,
festivals, concerts, circuses meetings
and most importantly our fair.
working with the racing series.
there could be few -- would be fewer for
better events.
we've been researching our capacity and
worked with our financial adviser to
ensure that we have the capabilities of
obtaining at least $30 million in bond
proceeds.
equally important, none of the land,
buildings or over improvements are used
as collateral.
our assessment flow is used for
collateral for the bond structures.
economic impact mark laid out to you.
it's strong over the course of time
period.
it will certainly add to the enhancement
of our community and values.
while we don't know the entire impact of
the site in terms of economics, we know
it's estimated to bring $369 million
over 20 years.
new earnings are projected to be
$106 million over the same period
supporting 308 full-time equivalencies.
the instruction impact entails more than
$11 million and from local materials
spent as well as the $11 million in
spending from earnings as well as 70
construction jobs.
as we all know, there is much more work
to be done if we're going to bring this
vision to reality.
we're requesting the opportunity to work
with staff to quickly define the details
and agreement including operations,
lease development, financing for both my
board and for to you review.
before closing, if I might take one more
minute, I want to express my extreme
gratitude to the county staff.
they've been extremely responsive.
weave he done a lot of work in a short
period of time to this to this point.
I want to thank my board who invested to
bring williams on to provide you with
this concept and option. Also wendy
gehrig here from my board and worked
tirelessly as well as our vice chairman
heather hilton is also in the audience.
even though jack patten is out of town
today, he did a lot of work in a third
of the amount of time they're used to
working on this.
I truly believe this will be a
remarkable addition to placer county.
thank you for the opportunity.
>> supervisor weygandt: thank you.
>> I could conclude my remarks.
thank you.
>> supervisor weygandt: are there any
questions or comments by board members?
kirk.
>> supervisor uhler: as we discuss
facilities, knowing that our placer
county clerk registrar of voters also a
member of the fair board and he's
looking for a warehouse, think we could
sneak one on here?
no, it's close to his house.
I -- I had the chance to meet with david
and wendy and I want to thank wendy for
her help in facilitating a number of
conversations.
as the former fair board member myself,
my attitude about this has long been
let's either be all in or all out.
liked this limp ago long that we've been
doing -- limping along that we've been
doing.
I had thoughts about a different
location, but with a partner like this
that is willing to come forward and
invest a significant amount of capital
in ungrading that facility in terms of
working with the neighbors to reduce the
impacts, primarily of the racing, maybe
fewer races but those races that we have
being of a grander statue.
I'm -- stature.
I'm thrill with this opportunity and I
appreciate not only david bringing this
forward, but the way the fair
revitalization committee has embraced
this idea and is encouraging us to take
a deeper look at it and the fair board
itself because as a former member of the
fair board, we can be territorial about
our fairgrounds.
yet, I think and I don't pretend to
speak for the president of the fair
board right now, but I think they
realize this is a great opportunity to
keep the fair going in a location that
is central within the county and we know
that with the ancillary uses going on
throughout the year provide that stable
platform for the fair to be able to
continue in perpetuity in this location.
I want to say thank you for getting us
to this point.
>> I echo the words of supervisor uhler.
the fairgrounds has been challenging
since I came on to the board of
supervisors in 2010.
or actually beginning of 2011.
I think we've done quite a bit of work
to alleviate a lot of the noise
concerns.
I know one of the first things we did in
2011 was have a forum where we brought
the neighbors together along with the
racing folks to kind of talk through
some of the issues that were happening.
and moving forward from that, this will
is a very unique opportunity because it
comes from the community.
it's something that all of the folks
that have been utilizing the fairgrounds
and have vision for the fairgrounds to
take it in a different direction.
it doesn't mean we can't do other things
outside in different areas.
but this is the type of opportunity that
we need to look into and see what that
potential could be.
I know that they've scratched the
surface of what the potential of the
fairgrounds is.
and I think with a little bit more work
in collaboration between the interested
parties and our community, the groups as
well as the county and the city and
players valley tourism and other
interested parties, it could be
something that we can all be proud of.
so I'd be very supportive of taking a
look at what the possibilities could be.
>> supervisor montgomery: I want to
amplify on kirk and jack's comments.
I think this is a great vision.
I think we've all struggled with what
the future of the fairgrounds would like
and the committee has come up working
with placer valley tourism with
something that I think has really
benefit for everyone in players county
including the city of roseville.
we've been working closely with the city
of roseville and none of this will come
as a surprise to them.
>> they have.
and one of the nice things placer valley
tourism spent quite a bit of time
speaking to the different people and ag
folks.
>> supervisor montgomery: a second
clarification, item 2-a-2 on this says
that we're being asked to authorize the
director of public works and facilities
to designate negotiations etc.
can we clarify that those -- this is to
enter into negotiations on these
agreements.
not enter into actual agreements.
>> exactly.
the idea is that we would come back and
potentially provide you with something.
>> supervisor montgomery: the language
wasn't there so I wanted to make sure
this was not an action that type may
have more implications than expected.
I want to apologize, I am dog sitting
for my inlaws.
if you hear barking, I apologize, it's
the dog in my office.
he's fine!
>> supervisor weygandt: we're used to
it.
maybe we should ask the dog.
jim.
>> thank you.
mark, I want to thank you for your
leadership on this project.
this great presentation that you gave
us.
I want to thank lisa worthington for her
leadership and the revitalization board
and those out there have kept this fair
going through the years.
thank you, greg. And I appreciate
mr. Mcnally and mr. Attaway bringing
this presentation to me.
I'm excited about it.
it's going to put placer county fair on
the map plus an event center and be a
great amenity to roseville too.
let's move forward.
>> we're asking the public --
>> I know that.
>> is there any comment from the public
or questions?
>> good morning chairman weygandt and
supervisors I'm david henry, the current
president of the placer county fair
association.
I've been through mr. Attaway's
presentation twice once with the
committee and once with the board last
month.
first I want to thank him for his
presentation.
it was very excellent.
excellent design.
I think it's perfectly designed for the
fair.
it's a shot in the arm the fair needs to
continue to exist in the current
location.
I want to thank mark and the county
staff.
they worked with us in the
revitalization committee for the last
couple of years.
he's been to I don't know how many
committee meetings and we've had city
staff from roseville there.
they're well aware of the issues.
I know you've hay tough decision ahead
of you of whether to address the
infrastructure issues with the
fairgrounds, electrical, sewer, it seems
daily we come up with another challenge.
I think this would be a catalyst for not
only the fairgrounds but for the
community and calendar and county itself
to see it go forward with negotiations
through the county staff.
I want to thank both mr. -- supervisor
uhler and duran for their support.
I know kirk is out there every year
helping to judge the pageants and I hope
to see him in the future doing it.
I hope to see you all out there, our
80th fair next year.
I urge you to support the item on the
agenda today.
thank you.
>> supervisor weygandt: anyone else
want to address the item?
>> good morning.
I'm rick lawrence.
I'm a resident of roseville.
born and raised in placer county, I'm a
fifth generation placer county resident.
I didn't know a lot of what was going on
with the fairgrounds until two weeks ago
when I met with mr. Macnally.
I left roseville in 1989 and went in the
military.
I returned home in 2004.
traveled all over the country, lived in
different towns and states.
there was never a sense of community
like I felt in placer county.
that's why when I got out of military I
decided to move home to placer county.
I purchased a home on grove street.
one of the biggest reasons for that is
because it was near the fairgrounds.
fairgrounds and my family goes back
several generations.
some of my best memories as a child were
at the fairgrounds.
I was almost born at the racetrack.
really I was.
my mom went into labor as my mom was
watching the races.
I want to support what you guys are
doing for the fairgrounds.
it sounds like there are a lot of people
on board to make the fairgrounds a
better place.
not only for my children, and their
children and future generations but for
the community of placer county.
thank you very much for the work you're
putting into this.
I would encourage to you leave it where
it's at.
>> good morning.
I'm michael eman.
I'm the director of the roseville
community preschool.
I'm here today not only behalf of the
current students but the thousands of
students and parents that have passed
through our doors during the course of
the last 60 years that we've been in
operation on the fairgrounds.
we're happy to see that the current
master plan would allow for our
continued operation, by our, I mean our
school and sister school.
roseville community school.
as long-term tenants on the fairgrounds,
we support pbt's efforts and we hope the
board will move forward with discussing
with pbt the plan that is going to be
considered.
the school I'm referring to is the life
work of bev boss my mother and mentor
who passed away this last february.
as a school, we want to carry on her he
legacy and work with pbt in doing so.
thank you very much.
>> supervisor weygandt: thank you.
next speaker, please.
>> good morning supervisors.
my name is kim delgado hoskinson.
I've been a business owner in roseville
for 33 years.
and over my tenure, I was reflecting on
how many events I've been to'
fairgrounds which have been everything
from pageants to sports to a lot of
racing especially when I lived a couple
of blocks away.
and to the fairs.
and I am so glad this is coming forward.
this is the shot in -- shot in the arm
that the fairgrounds needed.
because some of the buildings are not
being utilized like they have been in
the past because of the wear and tear
that has been on them.
with this moving forward and some help
along the way, I think a lot of the
events that we had with the chamber,
with the different organizations will
come back to the fairgrounds and it will
be utilized more.
and once again, we get to keep our fair.
I think this is just great.
thank you.
>> please come forward and state your
name.
>> good morning I'm john [inaudible]
I'm the producer of berry-fest.
I live on baseline road.
I'm also the general manager and
promotor of dire world scare park which
is open until october 31st at the
fairgrounds.
I am in support of the program that
david and the county is looking at.
I had the opportunity to meet with
david.
I was grateful he looked at festival
input while planning this and thank you
for that.
I want you to know I support this great
idea.
I assume that is asphalt in the parking
lot.
it wasn't mentioned verbally.
but I hope --
>> thank you.
anyone else?
>> good morning I'm lisa worthington,
I'm a member and chair of the
fairgrounds revitalization committee.
like supervisor uhler said, we were also
all in as a committee.
we worked for 19 meetings tirelessly
meeting without compensation.
you appointed a very diverse and
interested group of folks county
residents that came from all aspects,
walks of life but we were automatic
equally committed to this mission and
vision.
the partnership with placer valley
tourism changed everything for us.
we did go through a storming and norming
phase which is normal.
we appreciate that you gave us an
extended period of time as you did this
summer to continue to work through that
in ordered to for the county to present
the most appropriate vision and
alternative to remain on site and
revitalize.
the values of placer county are
well-represented here.
I am one of the members that live
outside of a 10-minute drive to this
location.
I did informally think to myself does
this represent a place I want to go with
my family?
it definitely does.
there are aspects of opportunity here
that are unique to placer county that
can be built on, specifically the
agricultural educational center and
culinary center as well as the corporate
events that could bring in funds and
also represent community and civic
needs.
meetings for boy scouts and other civic
organizations or special events that
families might need meeting space for in
addition to the sports indoor complex,
tourism drive.
we are very pleased as a committee that
you will support this vision or
hopefully you'll support this as we
unanimously do.
thank you for appointing us and giving
us the opportunity to help drive this
forward.
>> supervisor weygandt: thank you.
anyone else?
>> I'm the vice chair of the community
and animal barns superintendent.
so I'm looking forward to a new small
animal barn.
I spent 20 years in that old one out
there.
I look forward as you to continue the
recommend to go forward.
>> good morning, I'm terry grage.
I'm a community leader from 4-h.
I'm here representing the 4-h'rs in
players county many of whom when they
found out this, they wanted to be here
but considering their school needs, they
couldn't.
the 4-h youth are excited.
on I separate note, I work for the
agricultural aircraft association.
I'm involved in the ag industry and I'm
so excited that this particular vision
would expand our agricultural per taj
here.
fairs have been challenged not --
through the reception, all the fairs
across the state are challenged and
changing the concept of the fair and
making it an event center I think is
really going to be a very beneficial
driver for the entire county and for our
youth.
so I really encourage you to give this
full consideration.
sounds like you have it, but there you
go.
thank you.
>> anyone else?
>> good morning, I'm travis.
I reside in roseville california.
I wasn't privy to this, but I heard, if
you build it, they will come.
you could be placer's only mini
disneyland.
going back to the youth, what I heard is
children are not ready to learn when
you're ready to teach.
I grew up in 4-h.
I didn't know at the time I was learning
all these things how much is the feed
cost.
budgeting, projecting out.
all this stuff.
I was absorbing but I didn't know it at
the time.
all this was through the fairgrounds.
it turns out 20 years later I own my own
business and it was a huge learning
experience I didn't get through regular
schooling.
this was through community projects like
this.
you got to keep it.
thank you.
>> supervisor weygandt: next speaker,
please.
>> hello, I'm dennis johnson.
I'm currently on the placer county fair
board.
I'm currently in my second term.
I'd like to thank you all of you for
helping to support the fair and giving
us an opportunity to continue to run the
fairgrounds for you.
mark has been wonderful.
he's been at all the meetings, our
relationship with the county I hope is
greatly improved.
with we are aware of the economic
downturn hurt us bad as far as us as a
fair board.
I find it absolutely amazing that we
have managed to do so well even though
we may not have a profit right now, but
I believe it will by the end of the
year.
it's quite amazing how few people have
stepped up and went to bat for the
fairgrounds.
myself as a volunteer, dave henry, it's
nice to see that will the community has
come together.
this opportunity is great.
I hope it happens.
if not, we'll still be there to run the
fair and to provide a fiduciary
responsibility to you and the community
to do the best we can.
thank you again for all your support and
have a good day.
>> good morning, I'm sandy brian.
I'm a business owner in roseville.
I started producing antique shows for
the city in 2009 in downtown roseville.
in 2014 because of the development of
city, I'm an antique producer and I had
to move my show from outside when they
rebuild and through a lot of research
and time, like mark said, I had to find
a facility that was large.
the largest facility in placer county
within roseville is johns all.
I've been there since 2014 and my show
is nationally recognized as one of the
large -- from coast to coast flea market
in different magazines.
I'm a huge advocate for the fairgrounds.
I produce that show three times a year
in jones hall because it is the largest
facility and I want to expand it and go
bigger but there is constant threat of
the fairgrounds closing, so I don't want
to expand knowing I would have to be a
disservice to my customers and vendors.
I'm excited about the opportunity that
you guys are presenting because it is an
opportunity for me to be able to expand
my business to create something more
even larger to the fairgrounds.
great presentation, mark.
your staff down at the fairgrounds has
been awesome and tremendous doing with
what little they have.
I want to commend them too because they
are great partners for me to work with.
my business is family-owned.
we've worked together on the streets in
2009 starting at 3:00 in the morning me
and my husband and kids and the trailer
all the way down to the fairgrounds.
now the kids are in college and it's me
and my husband.
high school volunteers.
any how, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to speak.
I congratulate you on keeping it up.
I'm a resident of loss cerritos.
I live two blocks from the fairgrounds.
thank you for bringing this to the
community that we can be proud of.
thank you.
>> I'm debbie anderson.
I happened on the agenda for this board
of supervisors and I'm here because of
this presentation that I didn't know
what was going to be presented.
but I am the chairman of the friends of
nra for roseville rocklin.
my biggest challenge is finding a
location, a venue that we can have our
main event our yearly event in and grow.
so when I hear this presentation today,
I am ecstatic.
I am very, very pro this whole
presentation.
and I will through the nra very much
promote the new buildings and this whole
deal.
thank you very much.
>> supervisor weygandt: there will be
sponsorship opportunities.
I think a gun range out there on the
south side.
>> good morning supervisors I'm rebecca
desmond the executive director of the
fair services authority.
I'm director of the department of food
and agriculture.
I was the director when the funding was
pulled -- not my fault.
I have to clarify that.
we became involved not in this
particular project but the fairgrounds
in the county talking about risk
management issues.
I come to you today as a resident of
roseville, a parent of a child who
participants in the placer county fair.
just to let you now with my background
in the industry, a public/private
partnership like this is the envy of all
fairgrounds in the state of california.
it's awesome.
it's a beautiful plan.
I think it helps the fair.
long term tenants like the schools are
the reason that the fairgrounds is still
in business and so I would like to see
them still be included in the whole
plan.
as a roseville resident, I think it's a
wonderful proposal as a fair
professional, I think it's a better
proposal.
and I'm happy to see the county and the
city and fair association and everybody
just all getting along and holding
hands, making this project move forward.
thank you.
>> supervisor weygandt: I'll just add
my comments to my colleagues echo all of
my colleagues -- come on down, please.
>> good morning, greg heggward general
manager of the placer county fair
association.
I want to thank all of them with the
county for all their hard work.
I think there are a lot of people in
this room that just -- it's been two
years now.
thank you.
a lot of people in this room that really
didn't understand what fair operations
were all about.
I think now they do.
we have a lot more support, I have a lot
more support from the county.
I want to thank you for that.
I do want to express that the placer
county fair association that's been
there all 80 years is extremely
interested in continuing on with the
operations of the fair.
like rebecca, I'm a fair guy.
I enjoy the fair.
I love the fair.
basically throughout the fair I'm a
facility management person.
I take care of all of that stuff.
with hardly any money.
this is an incredible opportunity not
only for the county, but for the fair
association and tourism and I want to
thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
with that I want to echo a lot of the
folks that spoke here but I want to
thank the fair association and
revitalization committee.
mark, especially you, tremendous passion
as we've limped along these years but
held on to the opportunity as a former
4-her who used to show my jersey cows
there, I'm pleased to see that we have
this great opportunity to hang on to the
history and embrace what the future
looks like for these facilities.
we need a motion.
>> two quick things that I do want to
address.
first of all, to greg's point, I think
there is an on-going role for the fair
association.
I've spoken to david about that.
tremendous expertise among members of
the fair board on the particulars of
what goes into putting on a good fair
from coordinating with the livestock
folks to working with the community
groups to get them out there for -- with
their food booths and all the rest.
I think that the fair association itself
will continue.
you'll be able to off-load a lot of the
things that keep you up at night that
will keep david up from this point
forward.
to clarify one quick thing.
mr. Henry was kind in his remarks,
however, I do need to clarify while I
have been an emcee for the miss placer
county pageant.
two years ago the fair board did an rfp
for a pageant producer.
that contract was awarded to my wife and
it would be quite the conflict of
interest for me to serve as a judge for
my wife's pageant.
I do serve as the emcee which is an
obligation that I undertake gladly.
I wanted to clarify that.
with that, mr. Chairman, I defer to the
supervisor the district to make a
motion.
>> the motion and seconded.
all those in favor say aye.
opposed?
that carries unanimously.
thank you all very much.
[applause]
we'll now take up our 9:40 timed item
which is community development resources
and it is the martis valley west
specific plan.
we'll let the dust settle here a little
bit.
then you can kick it off.
>> would all the exciting fair-going
input having left are the room, there is
lots of seats for people.
please feel free to come in and find a
see the and sit down.
waiting for a little bit of the hubbub
to subside.
please come in and find I see the.
we'll move to the 9:40 timed item.
this is the martis valley west specific
plan.
we are not yet if he park at granite
bay.
we'll moving to the 9:40 item.
martis valley west par excel fiscal
plan.
perfect timing.
our chairman is back.
so far, we have everyone seated.
>> I'll carry on.
>> good morning chair weygandt and
fellow supervisors.
greg and jeremy, do you have any
presentation?
it's more exciting with pictures.
all right.
I'll start again.
good morning chair weygandt and fellow
supervisors.
I'm stacy with the tahoe city office in
tahoe city.
in -- on september 13th, I presented to
you the martis valley west parcel
specific plan.
of which at that hearing, you guys
considered the project which consists of
two components.
there is a west parcel and east parcel
located off 267.
which is in between the town of truckee
and kings beach.
the project itself consists of the
transfer of development rights from the
east parcel to the west parcel.
the martis valley opportunity plan
slated for 1,000 units.
transfer 706 opportunities and take the
6.6 acres commercial also from the east
parcel to the west parcel.
then with that transfer, the east parcel
would then be conserved in its entirety
not only the amoeba portion slated for
development but the 600-acres of the
east parcel for open space.
this would either be through a
conservation easement or purchased by a
land trust.
at the september 13th hearing, the
requested entitlements consisted of a
plan, amendment for the two components,
land use diagram for the specific plan
together with the emergency preparedness
and the supporting documents of the
specific plan development standards and
design guidelines.
two rezones I spoke of from the west and
west parcel.
development agreement and approval of
the large lot vesting tenant amount for
the sole purpose of sale, lease and
finance.
at the september 13th board hearing, the
applicants made their presentation of
which at that time they announced a
modification to the workforce housing
proposal.
at the september 13th hearing, the board
considered public testimony which
consisted of folks in favor of the
project and those that oppose the
project.
in summary, the reasons why are listed
on the slide here.
the chair of the board at the
september 13th hearing did close the
public hearing to further testimony and
during deliberation considered the
project and tentatively took action to
certify the martis valley west specific
plan e.I.r. And approve the specific
plan in the associated entitlements.
the board separately took incentive
action to approve the martis valley can
community plan amendment for the
emergency preparedness and directed
staff to come back with the required
resolutions and ordinances for your
adoption at today, october 11th final
action.
as we mentioned, the applicants
announced at the september 13th meeting
that he modified their affordable
housing proposal.
the original affordable housing proposal
consisted of two options outlined in the
original d.a. Either of constructing the
required on site or pay the in lieu fee.
they asked that they construct the
equivalent of 47 ftees so full-time
employee eye equivalents which is 16
units and pay for the remaining five
units in $585,000.
the applicants will be required to
provide a housing plan outlining when
and how the units will be constructed.
the regional housing contribution of
$125,000 will continue to remain and
there were no changes proposed to that.
all of the modified workforce housing
proposal is contained with your d.a.
which is part of your pact.
and -- packet and staff further supports
the housing as well.
senate bill 610 requires that water
supply assessments be analyzed in the
e.I.r.
as -- as such, a water supply assessment
was prepared by stan tech consulting
services in 2016.
it was analyzed to determine if there
was sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project.
as a result, the water supply assessment
was analyzed within the draft e.I.r. And
further incorporated into the specific
plan.
the water supply assessment as I
mentioned demonstrated that -- there are
adequate water resources and to further
that, that the northstar community
service district also has the adequate
water resources to serve the project
should the project choose or be annexed
into the northstar community service
district or it could have wells drilled
on site which could service the project.
there are water supply assessment made
two determine nations -- one determine
nation that is there is adequate water,
however, whichever route anything if
they provide for their own on-site water
supply or get annexed.
either will be -- either one will be
able to service it.
they ask the board consider the approval
of the water supply assessment through
the resolution of the certification of
the final e.I.r.
with that, staff is here today as
directed by the board on september 13th
to ask that the board take final action
on the following actions of the martis
valley west specific plan to adopt the
resolution to certify the specific
plan -- the specific plan's e.I.r. With
the errata and findings considerations
and adopt the mmrp.
adopt a resolution to approve the martis
valley specific plan.
adopt and ordinance to approve the
development standards of the specific
plan.
adopt a resolution to approve the
specific's designed guidelines ad adopt
the resolution to approve the amendment
to the land use diagram for the specific
plan and also for the text amendment
approve a resolution for that for the
emergency preparedness.
adopt a resolution to approve the
remediate rezones of the west parcel
rand rezones of the east parcel as well.
adopt an ordinance to approve the
agreement and approve the large lot
vesting tentative map.
with that, that concludes my
presentation and I'm available should
you have any questions.
>> any questions or comments for board
members at this time?
so the public hearing has been closed.
>> I was going to ask that the chair
while recognizing that the public
hearing has been closed, that the chair
take public comments on this item as to
new items.
>> supervisor weygandt: that's where I
was headed.
the board heard this project on
september 13th as mentioned and the
public hearing lasted in excess of five
hours.
many requests to not redo that.
the public hearing will not be reopened.
however, particularly in light of the
fact that some folks came down from lake
tahoe.
what the chair will entertain is public
comment.
but the chair is requesting that those
comments be new information, or
information that the board has not yet
been privy to because we had lengthy
deliberations and there was a huge
amount of investment in time and thought
and the staff were leading up to is
that.
if you'd like to make a public comment,
please come forward and state your name
for the record and keep your comments
within three minutes.
>> good morning. I'm ellie wahler.
thank you for the opportunity.
I'd like to bring to your attention that
no major development, I'm not talking
about signage, conditional use permits
and such has been overturned in last 10
years when a planning commission has
recommended them.
the staff report summarizes public
concerns one of which was the support of
the conservation easement.
the development agreement states
developer represents and warrants that
it is entered into an option agreement
with the conservation organization for
the asset of the east parcel.
that has changed, so the development
agreement should be amended to reflect
the proper information.
I'll say a couple of other issues in the
development agreement should be amended
before you approve it.
the martis valley west parcel specific
plan violates the general plan criteria.
I won't do the definitions much all
these but your people will look them up
and public facilities hra-1.
h-6 fire hazards 8-c-1 and 8-c-3 and
3-a-7 and 3-a-8.
I will backup details.
the development agreement which also
affects the specific plan approval needs
to also be updated and corrected.
so all your process and information is
correct before you approve it.
in the development agreement, based on
the flawed analysis of those things I
mentioned in the general plan, the
community hereby 7.2 county findings,
the county hereby finds the execution of
agreement is in the best interest of the
public safety and general welfare
consistent with the players valley plan
and martis valley plan.
extensive comment was supplied.
I want to thank commissioner nader for
his extensive information on calfire.
the development agreement must be
amended to reflect the workforce housing
plan.
the current development agreement that
is provided to the public on line has
not been corrected.
that needs to be amended.
there is no mention of the secondary
evacuation route in the d.a. When the
[inaudible] campground was suspended.
that needs to be fixed.
there is a lot of information that needs
to be reviewed.
process and documentation must be
consistent and correct.
I respectfully request you continue to
your meeting october 25th.
I've added some information from the
national policy analysis of 2008 on
conservation easements, the good, bad
and ugly.
>> supervisor weygandt: any other
speakers?
>> good morning.
I'm a second homeowner up in tahoe.
I live in santa rosa california and I
pay placer county taxes and I have
children in rocklin area.
my concern is how does the public -- how
do you listen to the public?
many people that I have friends that
have places in tahoe do not even know
about this.
so the hearing I was in october, you
know, a lot of people spoke.
I feel I'm not sure if you're listening
to the public versus the money from
developers.
my question is how do we make an impact?
do we do petitions?
coming from the bay area is, you know,
we come up to tahoe for relaxation and
stress-free type of thing.
the beauty -- I have grandchildren and I
worry that gee, if they want to come up
here, it's going to be a boondoggle
problem driving up to this.
as bad enough if you drive through you
want it to be nice up here.
how do we make an impact this is not the
right thing do?
>> state your name.
>> trish hunstock.
>> supervisor weygandt: people like us
are voted to make the decisions.
we vote our conscience, but the key
point is we had over five hours of
public comment.
they were well-taken.
the board is going to restrict this
public comment to new information that
has not yet been heard.
thank you for your comments.
I appreciate it if future speakers would
accommodate that.
>> I'm alex aler of preservation.
I want to say that the findings in the
staff report are not substantiated by
facts.
they're not outweighed by the benefits.
you made your approval based on the
project having real meaningful
conservation.
this is what brought many of us to the
table over 10 years ago.
more recently, the land trust partners
did submit a letter to the supervisors
outlining that the project won't have
meaningful conservation.
they will not be purchasing the
property.
now we're looking at limited
conservation easement to be held by
maybe another entity or landowner as is
today.
I think that is important.
I think that changes some things with
your decision making power.
also, the number of outlined issues that
ellie brought up in the development
agreement.
but the plan doesn't ensure proper
analysis for mitigation to address the
specific plan impact.
we've continued to state that the e.I.r.
is also not complying with ceqa and
threatens the well-being of the
community in truckee and north lake
tahoe.
when I asked to speak this morning, I
brought up the life safety report
released on september 25th, 2016.
sierra watch attached it to the last
letter we sent you.
wildfire is still an issue with this
project.
we have little assurance on how to
address wildfire safety.
the homewood settlement couldn't make a
finding on non-exacerbating.
they now need new staff and equipment.
it would be negligent of the project to
be approved knowing the lack of
additional mitigation proposed by the
project.
this will probably likely provide a path
forward to mitigate future development.
that's an issue we need to deal with
prior to the project being approved.
we've continued to outline issues and
concerns.
we've demonstrated that in our letters.
but we do ask you to take these issues
into account today.
delay, approval until further analysis
and feasible mitigation can be applied
to the project that tips the scales such
as martis valley west and we continue to
oppose the project.
thank you.
>> supervisor weygandt: thank you.
anyone else?
>> good morning, I'm nicky ryley, I'm
development director for mayor stan area
preservation.
I know you are in receipt of a letter
from perry norris highlighting their
inability to raise money and raise the
funds and fully move forward as part of
this proposal would have entailed to
purchase the land and preserve it in
conservation which would create the
benefits of which this proposal is based
on and the environmental review focused
as the mitigation.
this was based on a negotiation years in
the process.
six parties at the table during the
martis valley opportunity agreement and
work four of these parties are opposed
or not willing to move forward with the
project as proposed.
I think this speaks volumes.
I think all of you need to consider that
today as you consider what you're
looking at and whether or not you're
making the same proposal or issuing an
approval as you did in september.
things are not as you may have once
thought.
there is no moving for conservation for
this deal and no public access
guaranteed with the approval of the
prompt.
the land likely on the east side of 267
would remain in the hands of sierra
pacific industries.
mountain side would be able to develop a
terrain not suitable for development and
everyone else including the environment,
land and people are the losers.
please reconsider this decision from
september and support the planning
commission.
thank you for your time.
>> my name is tom morse.
I'm executive director of sierra match.
I did bring a copy of the aforementioned
letter from the land trust.
if I could hand that to somebody.
the letter makes it painfully clear
there is no deal purchase the east side
at this time.
I think there are a lot of big picture
issues that need to be addressed.
many of which were hammered out by the
plans commission including impacts on
traffic and fire safety and impacts on
lake tahoe whether or not we can agree
on those, I think we can agree there is
a lot of new information that's been
coming fast and furious in the last
hearing and then this hearing today and
the common sense and prudence would
dictate we'd all slowdown and better
understand the new information and even
have a better opportunity to come back
to the table to see if an agreement can
be worked out.
my recommendation today is if you
consider continuing the item so we can
better understand the project and
hopefully reach some long term agreement
on it too.
thank you.
>> anyone else?
is there anyone up in lake tahoe who
would like to address the board?
>> I don't know if you can see it.
I'm jennifer derich.
>> we have two speakers.
if people want to speak, I appreciate it
if you could woman up.
first we'll hear from the speaker in
lake tahoe with new information.
>> good morning.
sue daniels north lake tahoe resident.
I'm happy to speak to you as a board.
thank you so much for considering what
you are doing for your people in the
county.
this is something that you said you're
taking to your conscience and voting on.
thank goodness we have humans and not
computers making decisions.
so, on the affordable housing component,
I don't think that the mitigation
allowing $100,000 per mitigated unit
would build anything substantial for
anyone to live in.
that is to me a -- a new point that I
would say you should consider.
it's not adequate.
and I would like you to please list
tonight people, again, you represent the
people's wishes and not the statistics
that a computer could decide on.
thank you very much.
>> my name is jennifer derich and I'm
here today about this project and the
project to follow.
I don't think there would be so much
opposition to what is going on with this
board of supervisors if there weren't so
many projects being fast tracked.
I got back from denver yesterday.
and their community has actually filed
injunctions, moratorium against rezones
against any type of use permit because
they felt that things were getting out
of control.
there are 16 projects in the pipeline.
they are being almost offered as a fire
sale.
that is opening the door to anyone who
is wanting to grab a piece of the pie.
and I think that if this goes forward,
the people who are concerned about our
concerns falling on deaf ears should
consider opening up an investigation as
to who is benefiting from this project
being approved over the objections of
the planning commission.
>> any other speakers?
make your comments specific to new
information.
>> absolutely.
I'm friends of the north american river
group, my name is michael.
I want to address the east parcel
conservation proposal.
I believe that any land trusts or
conservancy that gets involved in
purchasing for fee or donated easement
conservation easement in any way, I
believe they cannot do that because of
the internal revenue code section 178
that defines the conservation purpose of
these kinds of transactions.
170-h does not permit the destruction of
conservation value on one property for
the purpose of protecting another
parcel.
it's problematic, especially for an
accredited land trust to do that.
if spi expects to get some value out of
this -- they have the same 170-h
obstacle.
second, the plan itself has a very
bizarre and unusual planning process
built into it.
even the development agreement has a
role, a key role for the county exec.
the specific plan has a strong county
exec role.
so different from the normal planning
process that it creates an island sort
of special planning process proceeders.
I hate to see the county vulcanized into
the different mechanisms that depart
from the normal way and I think you
should be relooking at that and seeing
what kind of a potential problem you're
creating for consistency in planning
around the county.
thank you.
>> supervisor weygandt: are there any
other speakers?
>> yes.
>> supervisor weygandt: state your
name for the record.
>> mila borhany on the bay in placer
county.
I'm a year-round resident.
good morning supervisor montgomery and
fellow supervisors and chairman.
I was unable to attend the
september 13th meeting as I was out of
town with family and extremely
disappointed to hear of your tentative
vote of approval at the time especially
given the planning commissions
recommendation that you deny the project
for the many obvious flaws in the e.I.r.
and or aspects including affordable
housing.
at this point, to reiterate what a
previous speaker mentioned, I have a
right as a citizen to say it that your
process and documentation must be done
correctly, everything -- everything
about this project and the other big
projects in the pipeline that the
previous speaker mentioned, the 16
projects has been way too fast-tracked
and it does not feel to quote your words
back to you, chairman weygandt, that the
conscience of the people of this part of
this county that will you are honoring
that or respecting it.
our will has been made clear in our
countless numerous public comments and
letters and showing up at your meetings
and yet our will of the public is being
ignored by our representatives who are
you and if this is a public process and
this is a democracy, you should be
honoring what we express and yet our
will has been expressly ignored.
that is an incredibly painful
heartbreaking concern for me.
you need to listen to the public an not
the developer.
the board of supervisors are
representative.
not the representative of the money you
see sparkling behind your eyeballs.
there is the land trust being able to
purchase this trade off-land.
if that's -- off the table is changes
your projects so I beg respectfully you
table this and reopen the public
comments and the whole process but that
you certainly don't have a vote today on
this given new information that the
public by our legal right has not yet
had an opportunity to significantly and
in the right timeframe comment upon.
the other issue that is huge and has not
been addressed is the fact that our
ability to coming in and out of the
county on 267 or 89 and over 267 will
never handle the traffic this project
will bring in.
you ignored that in your conscience of
voting to approve this project
tentatively on the 13th.
hopefully your conscience will now work
better and guide you to realize that the
citizens of this county have told you
they do -- they do not want this
project.
you need to honor what we've asked.
the final thing that has been said --
>> supervisor weygandt: I'm sorry,
your three minutes are up.
>> the proclamation has been proposed
and further analysis is necessary.
thank you for remembering to honor the
will of the people that you represent.
>> supervisor weygandt: with that, I'm
going to close public comment.
bring it back to the board for any
further questions or comments or
dialogue and a vote.
one thing I want to throw out first is
that I've been in on going conversations
with the trust for public lands.
it's my understanding as I sit here that
they have not backed out of a
willingness to try to complete a
conservation deal.
they are still willing do that.
but it will require that the parties
come together and work out whatever
issues may still be unworked out among
all of them.
if that can happen, I would agree that
the conservation will result in a much
greater value amenity to the community.
if that can't be done, it will be a sad
circumstance for all of us because we'll
not have realized our fullest potential.
I would admonish those parties to try to
sit down and get together and do
everything they can to resolve that.
either way, there will be conservation,
but the quality of it is going to be
better if it can go into private
ownership that has been discussed as it
relates to the communication we've in
from the trust for public lands and
truckee land trust.
with that, jennifer.
>> supervisor montgomery: I wanted to
take the time to thank everyone that
came down from tahoe particularly today
to raise comments questions and concerns
in response to the first woman who
spoke, I think she left, but I do
believe it is our responsibility to
listen to our constituents and by
constituents, I mean not just in the
district I represent but throughout
placer county.
I will tell you that this project is on
a lot of people's radar, not just in the
fifth district but in other districts.
and I have taken very seriously their
concerns, and comments and input
throughout this process.
today I remain very skeptical that we're
going to achieve the conservation that
we all hoped for as part of this
project.
I've said and I'll say it again, the
only reason I was engaging in the
conversation of the units is because of
the conservation we hoped to achieve.
while I think chairman weygandt is
correct that the truckee donor land
trust and trust for public lands are
going to continue to try to engage in
conversations with mountain side
partners, their letter does say pretty
clearly, despite this notable and
reduction, it's not feasible to raise
the amount of funding while a project is
embroiled in controversy.
our organization also not be engaged in
this effort until they've reached a
settlement.
given these considerations we'll not be
signing the amendment.
that doesn't make me hopeful that we're
going to get meaningful and achievable
conservation out of this.
I will be in opposition to this project.
>> I wanted to clarify there was a
comment that was interpreted as the fact
that they had withdrawn and they were no
longer willing to have the conversation
and that's contrary to my understands.
any other questions or comments?
or the pleasure of the board?
>> supervisor uhler: am I
misunderstanding something in terms of
the requirement that the 6300-acres on
the east side be placed or a
conservation easement placed over it?
I'll ask planning staff or somebody.
is that not a condition?
>> that is correct.
it is part of the d.a., development
agreement section 3.11 that -- that
should the land trust not be able to
purchase the property, it would go the
entire 36 plus hundred acres would be in
permanent conversation.
>> regardless of whether it's owned --
permanent conservation.
>> correct.
>> supervisor uhler: okay.
>> supervisor montgomery: is that
public access?
>> it would not be public access through
the conservation easement.
>> supervisor montgomery: thank you.
>> if the parties could get together,
and find scale and scope of the project
that will is acceptable noting that
there is going tab a commitment by all
of them to consider that, the quality of
conservation and the kinds of amenities
that occurred at waddell ranch where
there is public access, trail
maintenance and public notice, fondness
and use by all the developments around
it, we're going to have a higher level
of quality in our community if those
parties can get together and shake hands
on something.
>> one follow-up question.
today on the 6300 acres, there any
public access requirement?
>> no there is not.
>> supervisor uhler: interest is there
extensive public utilization of the
parcel?
>> yes.
>> supervisor uhler: is there any
indication that the historic public
access to the public has enjoyed on the
6300-acres is intending to be terminated
by the property owner with this
conservation easement?
>> I do not believe so.
but if you'd like to ask --
>> supervisor uhler: while it's been
in their private hands, they have
allowed public access the entire time.
so past practice would seemingly --
common sense would indicate if they're
putting conservation easement over it
anyway, they wouldn't take steps further
than to somehow for some reason limit
public access while they've allowed it
historically.
>> that's my understanding.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Chairman I would begin to make
the motions that council makes in order
for us to move this project on.
I will begin by moving that we adopt
resolution to certify the martis valley
west plan.
errata as well as adopt the findings and
fact -- doesn't the mitigation
monitoring reporting program.
>> supervisor weygandt: it's been
moved and seconded regarding the
resolution.
all those in favor say aye.
>> opposed?
>> no.
>> I move the adoption martis valley
west specific plan.
>> a second?
moved and seconded.
resolution regarding the martis valley
west specific plan.
all those in favor say aye. Opposed?
>> supervisor montgomery: no.
>> approve the martis valley west
specific plan standards.
>> moved and seconded, all those in
favor say aye. Opposed?
>> supervisor montgomery: no.
>> I move the parcel specific plan
guidelines.
>> supervisor weygandt: moved and
seconded. All those in favor say aye.
opposed?
>> supervisor montgomery: no.
>> I move to amendment used diagram to
incorporate martis valley west specific
plan land use designation.
>> supervisor weygandt: moved and
seconded.
moved and seconded all those in favor?
opposed.
>> supervisor montgomery: no.
>> I move resolution to amend 6-j and
6-j-1 and 2 related to emergency
preparedness.
>> supervisor weygandt: all those in
favor say aye. Opposed?
>> supervisor montgomery: no.
>> I move to the rezone of 662-acres
from west parcel to svlpsp.
>> all those in favor say aye. Opposed?
>> supervisor montgomery: no.
>> I move the adoption of the ordinance
to rezone the remaining acreage from
west to psp and rezone of 670-acres of
the east parcel from rs to c-1 to tpz.
>> supervisor weygandt: all those in
favor say aye. Opposed?
>> supervisor montgomery: no.
>> I move to approve the development
agreement to the martis valley west
specific plan.
>> supervisor weygandt: moved and
seconded. All in favor say aye.
opposed.
>> supervisor montgomery: no.
>> approval of the large lot subdivision
map.
>> supervisor weygandt: all those in
favor say aye. Opposed.
>> supervisor montgomery: no.
>> we'll now move on to our 10:30 timed
item which is community development
resources also.
which is the mark at granite bay.
>> can I ask for a clarification.
>> supervisor weygandt: sure.
>> recently I reviewed the initial
project application and the major
application.
I notice they're all with regard to six
parcel on 13 acres.
this is about a project for seven
parcels and 16-acres.
missing are the added parcel seems to be
the critical parcel that requires
emergency access.
it doesn't appear that the owner of that
parcel signed on the applications.
I'm wondering if we're ready for this
hearing.
>> supervisor weygandt: that would
come normally under public hearing.
I will ask staff to address that as we
kick off the project.
these are the kinds of comments that
should come up under public hearing.
e.j.
>> good morning chairman and members of
the board.
e.j. Ivaldi with planning services to
present this item today.
>> good morning.
george rosasco.
nice to be with you this morning.
before you today is the project park at
granite bay.
it is a 56-lot subdivision and a public
park.
beside it is 16.3-acres which a minimum
site -- it is comprised of seven
parcels.
one of them has a house and barn on it
at this time.
to give you a sense of where it's at,
this is what is referred to as island
area in granite bay.
the orange area is the actual project
site.
it's about 1.2-miles from the
intersection of douglas and sierra
college.
it's surrounded by the city of roseville
on three sides.
east, west and north and to the south is
the county of sacramento.
excuse me.
this is actual project layout 56 lots.
you can see -- wait a second -- you can
see here this is the largest parcel that
I referred to as .81-acres.
give you a sense of the project, this is
what it would look like when it's
landscaped.
you see the front, there are separate
lots for landscaping.
there will be a two foot berm in front
of the landscaping with a 6-foot high
block wall.
it will be 15 feet landscape buffers all
the way around the perimeter of the
property as well as good neighbor
fencing.
so, what entitlements do you need to do
this?
you need to rezone the site from -- to
single family.
you need to do the general plan
amendment to change the existing rural
density to immediate density
residential.
there is a variance which I'll discuss
later to 50% where 40% is allowed.
you need to approve a vesting tentative
subdivision map.
that's the entitlement.
we've prepared an environmental impact
report for the project.
the thing I'd like to you take away from
this, I'm not going into detail about
it, the environment impact report did
not require any overriding findings to
be made from the project.
so, the biggest question that's come up
with this property is that it's
requesting a general plan amendment
rezoning and that it does not in a lot
of people's opinions seem to be
consistent with the granite bay
community plan.
I can tell you it's an island area.
it's surrounded by high density areas in
the city of roseville.
the lots to the east, west, and north
vary anywhere from five units per acre
all the way up in some instances when
you get up to near eureka are 25 units
per acre.
most of the lots outside the area are
8,000 square feet.
even more than that, this would locate
higher density land uses.
we have sewer, water, the main
thoroughfare that goes through here.
which makes an area suitable for high
density.
the residents would be of a consistent
size and scale with adjoining
properties.
the area has 122 parcels in it.
of those 122 parcels.
24% of a consistent size with what is
proposed by the project.
it will provide recreational
opportunities for kids in granite bay
and it will also have -- it's
well-buffered from the larger parcels
that exist right on the borders.
this is to give you an idea of zoning
that's there rural residential zoning.
excuse me, rural low density residential
is in most of the area.
there is one rural recreational piece on
the corner auburn and sierra college.
I already hit on this.
122 parcels.
this is the zoning map.
pretty consistent with the community
plan map.
with regard to aesthetics.
this is a higher density residential
development in what is sort of -- people
were concerned that a newer high density
residential development would 23409 be
consistent with the feel of the island
area of granite bay.
what they did is they went around the
ones with the stars, those are 14-deep
restricted lots to one storey to lower
the mass of the prompt so it doesn't
stick out a lot to adjoining property
owners.
they've gone quite -- well they've done
a lot with fencing.
block walls in front for sound
attenuation and landscaping.
the black is good neighbor fencing.
and the red for reference is front
decorative fencing.
with regard to's -- with regard to
aesthetics, you can see on view one,
two, three, four, five.
they took those views one on havoccal,
annabelle and the college to see what
the project would look like in 10 years
to surrounding properties.
with regard looking from the boulevard
west now is on the top is what you see
now.
on the bottom is what you'd see at 10
years of buildup.
it looks pretty much the same.
looking northwest.
that's what you see on top.
10 years ever build-out, really, you see
landscaping.
from havoccal way looking north, the
view, -- the upper is the view.
lower is what you'll see in 10 years.
tree and landscaping.
eckerman road looking east.
you see the fencing.
this is anna bell avenue looking south.
top is what you see now.
10 years from now is what you'll see.
so, as I said, these are for your own.
you see the actual entitlement amendment
rezone.
subdivision map and variance.
that's all I have unless you have any
specific questions.
>> supervisor weygandt: questions or
comments by board members?
>> supervisor uhler: george, would you
go back to the -- I think it was the
aerial view that you had of the project
site.
>> yes.
>> supervisor weygandt: thank you.
so I think I heard you correctly, but I
want to clarify.
you said in the island area bordered by
roseville to the west and north and
sierra college to the east and old
auburn to the southwest of 120 parcels
of which you said I think 25 percent or
a quarter acre or less something along
those lines?
>> 24%.
there is 122 parcels.
I believe if my memory serves me right,
29 of them are consistent with what is
being proposed.
it works out to 24% of the island areas
consistent from what is proposed by
park.
>> supervisor uhler: so with the
adoption of the 1989 plan.
we have the land use designation of .9
to 2.3 for this.
yet, by my count, 70 of the existing
parcels out there don't meet the land
use designation.
>> right.
correct.
they fall below that.
>> supervisor uhler: they fall below.
so when we adopted the community plan in
'89, we had allowed for zoning to be put
on that that automatically created half
of the lots as nonconforming lots.
>> correct.
>> supervisor uhler: any idea why that
was done?
>> I wasn't working here.
I was still a year out.
>> supervisor uhler: likewise, when
this was adopted in 1989, the city of
roseville had built that project to the
west right up to the property line.
that project homes have been of -- homes
having been built in the mid '80s.
I see property sizes parcel sizes of
8400 square feet on the boarder of this.
we adopted a zoning knowing that we had
less than a quarter acre lots a density
of five to the acre.
immediately adjacent to the city of
roseville.
we have over half of the existing lots
not in conformance with the zoning
designation yet we put the zoning
designation on their anyway?
>> yes.
>> supervisor uhler: then you
mentioned since then, roseville has
built to the north that area has built
with lots as small as 6900 square feet
and roseville annexed the remainder of
the part that got pulled into the
southeast specific plan area that's the
part that is now known as hillsborough
and ashley woods and east ridge, those
subdivisions.
over there, we have lots in the 8,000
square foot range.
>> correct.
>> supervisor uhler: if as a planner,
if there were no land use designation
assigned to this area, what in your
opinion is an appropriate land use
designation for an area on a main
arterial surrounded by high density
residential on three sides, what do you
think is an appropriate land use for
this area?
>> um, well, it's no secret, I said this
at the planning commission as well.
it's my opinion that, you know, as a
planner when you look at this, you have
to look at surrounding uses and look at
consistency and that sort of thing.
this has all the -- what I was saying is
this came up in the plan commission and
I'll tell you what I told them.
you have to look at what is around it.
I think if we would have in 2012 looked
at land use updates with regard to the
granite bay community plan, this is an
area that we'd have to look at high
density maybe even commercial zoning
look apartments at 21 units per acre.
it's not out of question.
roseville last 25 units per acre.
this is one of the areas where you would
look at high density and roseville would
have something to say about it because
it's within their sphere of influence.
>> supervisor uhler: to that question
I've been curious about the creation of
this island in the first place and how
we've ended up in this position.
with roseville coming across even though
those people on the east side of sierra
college, many of them have a granite bay
zip code but they're in the city of
roseville people on the west side are a
roseville zip code but they're in
granite bay.
the question for council, I know this
was done a while ago, but is this kind
of thing even allowed by law today where
you can leave an island like that cut
off from services by existing
jurisdictions?
>> the law would discourage such
annexation.
the commission shall deny city
annexations that create areas surrounded
by a city.
>> if the city had come across and
claimed they would have been forced
under today's law to take that into the
city as well.
>> yes.
>> supervisor uhler: correct.
I think that's all the questions I have
for now, thank you.
>> george, is this island and parcel in
the city of roseville?
>> no.
>> supervisor montgomery: and do we at
placer county use the city of
roseville's zoning regulations
requirements?
>> no.
>> supervisor montgomery: thank you.
>> supervisor weygandt: any other
questions or comments?
boards members?
at this time?
okay.
we'll now turn it over to the applicant
for their presentation.
>> marcus leduca from roseville.
I'm pleased to be before you today with
the recommendation for approval from
your staff and the near unanimous
recommendation from the planning
commission on an infill project and
infill area of placer county.
it's pleasing for us to come before you
after a project with an e.I.r. Has no
significant environmental effects.
once mitigation measures have been
applied to the project which measures we
are in agreement with as well as all
conditions of approval being applied in
the project to your staff as recommended
to you by the planning commission.
the staff report and presentation here
and the planning commission have done a
thorough job summarizing the project and
the various issues and concerns raised
during the lengthy planning process on
this project.
I wanted to provide additional
background and a history not only of
this project -- but in this area.
you touched on the fact that the island
area was created by a series of
annexations that left this area
surrounded on three sides by the city
and fourth side by sacramento county.
the last few annexations I've been
allowed with, it's not allowed.
they were permitted to go forward in
1988 when roseville plan east of sierra
college was added.
after that time, you would not be able
to proceed forward on that basis.
again, as you highlighted, the area is
mostly built out.
102 developed.
there are very few undeveloped parcels
left.
as mr. Rosasco just mentioned, a quarter
of the lots are of the same size or less
than the prompt before you with a
density of 3.4 units per acre.
you hear this is a much more dense
project, I would be hard pressed to say
that 3.4 units per acre is dense.
project that you have before you,
however, is very different from the one
first submitted to the county and
presented to the community.
in the fall of 2014 this project was
presented to the granite bay map as
information item.
it had 94 units.
it had a minimum lot size of 3,000
square feet and average size of 4400
square feet.
the project's park was just about
1.5-acres in size.
it included a trail, a rose garden, and
10-foot landscape buffer on north, south
and west sides of the project.
all homes in the project at that time
were to be two-storeys in height.
so again, for in november 2014 after
that meeting, mr. Tattersall took those
issues and comments he had heard,
revisited the project, reduced the
number of homes to 84 units basically
lot sizes increased to 7,000 square
feet.
the landscape buffer was increased from
10 to 15%.
all homes in the property remained
two-storey.
this was the version of the project in
the preparation for the e.I.r. That went
out at the end of 2014.
a number of community comments were to
be submitted to the county on the n.o.p.
at that time but rather than relying on
written comments be submitted by
e-mail or letter, my client's team
decided to engage in the community in
face-to-face meetings to be able to have
an opportunity to hear firsthand what
people's issues and concerns and to
address some of the misinformation out
there on the project.
those community outreach efforts
consisted of three community meetings
with those being advertised by mail to
all these 122 parcels northern part of
the island.
at the same time mr. Tattersall
announced those meeting tots granite bay
mac on other occasions so people would
know about head to.
they were held at the granite bay
library.
a total of fewer than 20 residents
including some repeat attendees attended
those meetings in total.
my client met with folks on eckerman
road in a separate meeting.
after several followup conversations
with residents in the area.
the project team took a step back at
that point and based on the concerns
issues and discussion points raised
during the community meetings decided to
relook at the project.
along the lines of not looking at
saying, well, we have a targeted number
of units and targeted density but took a
step back to the view right there and
see what else in the community nearby we
could model this after in terms of what
is already existing in the island as
opposed to proposing something that
doesn't exist, what exists in the
island?
two parcels away sits lots on annabelle
avenue are a quarter acre in size or
less.
rather than telling the planners and
engineers design something based on
this, what can you do looking at that
and the things we want to achieve based
on the comments we heard come up with a
plan and see how you can get to what is
there on annabelle avenue.
what we came up with the project before
you.
the 56 lots represented 40% reduction in
what was presented to the mac in
november of 2014.
the lot sizes again now range from 7100
to over 17,000 square feet.
the average lot size is over 9,000
square feet roughly a quarter of an
acre.
roughly what you have on annabelle
avenue.
looking at adjacency issues.
looking at the homes that are adjacent
to the project, you thought to try to
address some adjacency issue issues and
addressed 14 lots nearest to the houses
on our neighbors properties.
a quarter of the lots in those adjacent
areas.
as you can see from the subdivision map,
one of the lots adjacent to us that has
a long distance immediately to the
northwest only has one house right now
there is a 15-foot landscape buffer.
there is only one house next to that.
actually be deed restricted.
the other aspect is if we could pull up,
george, the actual project.
we're asking for a variance for those
less than 800 square foot -- 800 square
feet.
right now current regulations say that
your coverage for a one-storey house is
40%.
we proposed it for lots less than 8,000
square feet.
if you want a one-storey home, you can
go to 40%.
if you look around the edges of
projects, I believe nearly every one are
8,000 square feet for more.
they'd be subject to the 40%.
if you look at that middle part of the
prompt, those are below 8,000 square
feet.
we could do a mix there.
the idea of this variance we request
would allow that.
we know if terms of setbacks another
issue, that the setbacks we're proposing
for the homes along the edge of the
property are far, far greater than what
the setbacks are of the existing homes
relevant to our property line.
our setbacks for rear yards for
one-storey is 35 feet.
for two-storeys is 42.5 square feet.
the project retains the park, 8/10s of
an acre in side.
it can accommodate youth soccer and
other events.
this was presented at the planning
commission hearing that both granite bay
fc and granite bay youth lacrosse would
be able to use this in practice.
the biggest issue throughout the region
and throughout placer county and granite
bay area in particular are not having
places for matches, you can have places
for matches, it's practice fields.
I'm sure it's in all your districts
trying to find practice fields.
this park site would be open to the
public dawn to dusk.
our gates would be open dawn to dusk.
in essence, the county is getting a
freebie.
a park to be used by the public not
having to pay to own it or maintain it.
the project to achieve the large lot
sizes limit to the rose garden and park
lot.
we have parking on the lot on the one
side of the street.
we did retain a 15-foot wide land buffer
on the north, south and west edges of
the property.
you're going to hear a number of
projects on the -- number of comments on
the project regarding our drainage study
and it has impact on everything from the
school district to traffic impacts and
the claim there should be no changes to
the granite bay community plan should be
made since the update to the community
plan was just adopted four years ago.
I'd like to briefly address each of the
items.
in terms of project drainage, existing
localized flooding issues on eckerman
road are caused by draining by local
residents.
drainage improvements by the same
residents that were not designed under
engineering standards.
comments received last week on the
study, we've had our engineer working
over the weekend and yesterday and
submitted comments in responding to all
of those.
there are no issues raised in that that
would undermine the analysis of the
e.I.r.
looking, however, at the localized
flooding issue, your staff had asked us
was the not just to have a project that
met the typical requirements of don't
make things worse post development and
predevelopment.
our idea was to improve the situation
for our neighbors and so the design of
the project including the stormwater
detention basin in the northwest corner
where the shed flows to will be able to
detain flows during heavy storm events
that will improve situations on eckerman
road.
this is a critical issue for the project
to address and an existing situation
created by others.
the staff report has done a good job
south placer fire district confirmed
both in writing, we have copies of the
letter that eckerman road satisfies the
requirements and the fire district has
full rights to continue using eckerman
road as an eba route as it has for
decades.
that's the secondary route.
primary access is on sierra college
boulevard.
not on eckerman road.
there are a number of comments from the
public that they face client enrollment
for a number of years.
the students from families that will
live in the project will help alleviate
that declining enrollment issue.
young families who cannot afford 800,000
or million dollar homes or simply are
not interested in buying 50 and 60 and
40-year-old homes and trying to upgrade
them.
young families want to look at energy
efficient homes with new appliances, the
greatest technology and new home designs
rather than trying to redo wiring on a
60-year-old home.
as for traffic, as the e.I.r. Showed
there are no significant impacts from
the project.
there was a weaving analysis done and
there are no issues from a traffic
perspective adopted by the board.
as for the proposed changes for the
community plan, typically with every
community plan in placer county and
throughout the greater sacramento region
and throughout the state, when a
community plan is updated, you look at
both the land use plan and policies.
you update both.
that's the typical way of doing things.
if the granite bay community plan
update, that was not the case.
the board decided that just look at
policies and instead, individual
projects will have to come through on
their nickel.
they'll have to process an application
and pay for the environmental review of
that rather than comprehensively looking
at various requested changes that might
come in.
that was a sharp deviation from what the
county has always done.
here we are in an area of the count
which where you have a broad range of
lot sizes including the lot sizes we're
proposing to you today.
on a major transportation corridor.
this is the beltway between 80 and 50
hazel avenue and college boulevard --
sierra college boulevard is the beltway.
it has infrastructure available in terms
of sewer and water.
hence, we have the letter from executive
director mike mckeever to that very
issue.
basically infill properties using assets
on transportation corridors with
provision of housing choices providing
recreational amenities and mix of uses
on the site and that's what you have
before you today.
there was a comment raised by the
planning commission, I didn't see
anything in the staff report, but there
are comments raise that we have we have
400-acres of the mdr and don't need any
more.
that is irrelevant to the application
before you.
those 400-acres are developed.
if you're looking at the issue that you
have mdr property already there isn't
any left in granite bay and haven't
been.
from a land use planning perspective,on
the transportation corridor with all
site amenities, this sound land use
planning as you heard from your planning
staff.
when you compare that with a local long
time resident known for building in the
area, we believe the decision before you
is an easy one.
nearly 1500 granite bay residents who
signed an interest page or on line
petition in support of the project would
agree.
from an feasibility perspective, we took
an economic analysis of the project by a
well-respected economist so see if it
compared and how they ranked relative to
economic feasibility.
that was submitted to you last week.
just looking at the combined off-site
infrastructure cost which is nearly
$1.2 million for sewer whether you do 15
lots for 56 or 94 lots, and you add in
the on site costs ranging from
$5.4 million fending on the alternative,
the cost her unit, including home
development but subdivision costs is
three times higher under the existing
zoning alternative and 50% higher for
the [inaudible]
when you look at all costs and compare
it to the market price given market
prices in granite bay, 16-lot
alternative, would produce a loss of
over half a million dollars per lot.
the 400 lot subdivision is over $55,000
a lot.
I may not be the brightest bulb in the
chandelier, but banks don't loan money
to projects that show losses on a
performa.
that project can be built.
it's at the level that is economically
feasible if the marketplace.
with that our project team will answer
any questions that the board may have.
we would ask mr. Chairman at the end of
the public hearing if there are comments
directed to us that we'd be given the
opportunity to address those comments or
questions that the board might have.
after you've concluded your
deliberations we request that you in
taking actions that you approve the
project presented to you and as
positioned by the staff and recommended
by approval by a majority of the
planning commission.
thank you mr. Chairman.
>> thank you.
are there any questions, kirk?
>> george, a question for you.
mark alluded to the fact that in 2012
this board updated the policies but did
not look at the land use.
in reviewing this project, you reviewed
it against the updated adopted policies
from the 2012 adoption?
>> there is an entire section in the
draft e.I.r. That speaks to it.
there are 20 policies germane to this
and it's consistent with 19.
the one that is not consistent with as I
was talking about the variances.
there is a policy in the granite bay
community plan that says new
subdivisions being proposed should not
need variances for their creation.
the reason they're asking for variances
in this case is to create a more quality
product for the surrounding property
owners.
if the variance was taken out of the
project, I think the only difference
would be in the center where you see the
smaller lots is everything would go up
to two storeys and create more of an
island effect.
inconsistent, technically yes, but for
all the right reasons, I would say yes
and staff supported it because it made a
better project with that variance in
place.
>> that was the only policy you found
inconsistent with the policies that we
adopted in 2012 you found the budget to
be consistent with the other policies?
>> yes.
>> supervisor uhler: thank you.
>> questions and comments.
granite bay community plan originally
was adopted in '88?
>> '89.
>> supervisor weygandt: when did the
roseville annexation occur?
>> that I don't know.
>> the first annexation was in 1985 west
of sierra college boulevard.
the annexation of the eastern portion
has mr. Uhler mentioned east of sierra
college boulevard includes hillsborough,
arclywoods and east ridge occurred in
1988 -- beginning of 1989.
>> supervisor weygandt: jim.
>> supervisor holmes: what are
accommodations for affordable housing?
>> $44,000 per residential building
permit or to put in six affordable
housing units.
it's either a fee of $240,000 or to have
the option of building six units.
that's in condition 102.
>> thank you.
>> supervisor montgomery: rough
estimate, what would it cost to build
six affordable housing units?
>> more than 240, I would guess, if
that's what you're asking me.
>> supervisor montgomery: I'm trying
to understand the feasibility of
actually constructing something.
it's something we discuss as a board
about the fees and what they really
are -- in lieu fees and what they are in
getting us to our goal for affordable
housing.
>> staff is aware and doing an
in-between -- where the board hasn't
actually adopted the new policy, so
we're working off sort of what we have
in effect at this time.
>> supervisor montgomery: but the
board could take an action requiring the
construction.
>> whatever pleases you.
>> supervisor montgomery: whatever
pleases me?
I never heard anybody say that.
>> that didn't sound right.
>> supervisor montgomery: I'll take
it.
>> supervisor uhler: just curious.
the recent projects that have been
before us is this affordable housing
consideration of the feel or the on site
deed restrictive affordable housing.
that option has been put?
>> the most recent project that you guys
considered down here on the west slope
was the victor ranch project.
that was the same $400,000 for the unit
count.
the obligation is to meet the general
plan requirement is to meet the 10%
affordable housing obligation.
that's what the six units does.
the way the condition is build on site
or pay the in lieu fee.
>> supervisor uhler: what you're
saying is that the six on site would be
six of the homes that are being proposed
but they would have to be deed
restricted, is that correct?
>> right.
>> supervisor uhler: what has been for
instance recently with what we're
experiencing up in martis valley?
what has been the success of the deed
restricted homes versus what is staff's
recommendation.
>> I may have a housing specialist in
the room, but success down in the west
slope, you know, probably not as
successful.
>> supervisor uhler: thank you.
>> supervisor montgomery: did we not
just take an action as a board to
require on site construction in the
martis valley west project?
>> yes, we did.
>> on a project that was 700-acres?
>> supervisor montgomery: I don't
think the acreage is germane to the
conversation.
>> sure it is if we're talking about a
affordable housing in area that is
separate distinct and appropriate.
saying yes we can build on site.
>> supervisor montgomery: I see all
sorts of appropriate sites up there.
>> supervisor weygandt: jim.
>> supervisor holmes: george, did you
say there are apartments in the
surrounding area?
>> no, I was talking -- generally
referencing the area as you go toward
sierra college boulevard eureka road.
roseville has high density.
25 units to the acre.
>> supervisor weygandt: I'm going to
check in with my colleagues as to how we
do this.
first of all, I think it sounds like
most everybody is ahead of me on this
issue, but the way we're going to do
public hearing is that people will have
cards put in groups a lot like flying
southwest airlines.
they're going to line up -- line up
here.
when your group is called, you'll be
available to move on up to the podium
and state your name for the record.
anything else I need to say? So in might
what have sounds like a number of people
who would like to testify, the board, I
think we'll want to break for lunch and
I'm thinking that should be about 12:30.
I think we should go and take public
testimony until 12:30 and break for half
an hour and reconvene the public
hearing.
we apologize for the inconvenience.
we're here all day and we're not
immortal.
>> any chance to take the temperature of
the room at 12:30 to see how many folks
we have?
>> supervisor weygandt: we can if
that's the desire of the board.
I want to make sure if that's the
expectations of the folks testifying are
clear so we didn't have any disruption
from that.
all right.
group one.
please line up on my left.
over here against the wall and give your
card to our clerk of the board and come
up to the podium and state your name for
the record.
>> hello, I'm victor becker.
I'm a member of the granite bay
community and a neighbor to the project.
I'm requesting for than three minutes,
please, if you can give me five or six
minutes.
this project has been going on for a
long time.
>> supervisor weygandt: I beg your
pardon?
>> can I request five minutes? Thank
you very much for giving us a chance to
talk about this project.
I wanted to clear out some
misunderstanding in the beginning when
we talk about what could have happened
in the past what should we have done.
this is talk in a vacuum.
this talk doesn't apply to our real life
or issues.
if you want to talk like this, you could
have claimed all the area of eminent
domain.
this project is spearheading the
summation of granite bay and we love it.
clearly we want to maintain the land use
section in it as is because we want to
maintain the rural and agricultural
character of granite bay not because it
was a mistake.
you are quoted in one newspaper about
piecemeal development in one plan to
rezone and submit our community one by
one.
that's not a plan.
that is chaos.
to request all this variances and
general plan amendments and granite bay
community amendments is not a sign of
quality, it's a sign of futurity.
this is a sub quality project.
the only way to go forward is to request
so many variances and amendments.
a quick note about e.I.r.
there are over 47 resonses to --
responses to comments from citizens
saying it's up to the board of
supervisors to decide.
they have no answer.
for this citizens concerns and comments
which means two things.
first, e.I.r. Product is worthless.
second, that this will project -- this
project creates problems.
the next day after the planning
commission approved in august 25th
recommended for approval this project,
there were a major accident and sierra
college and old auburn.
the first time I walked, this has been
happening frequently.
this time I take a picture and I tried
to get information from the city of
roseville and they send me this e-mail
sighting eight accidents happened over
the last 12 months alone.
that doesn't count the -- that does not
count collisions under a thousand
dollars.
this intersection is suffering from
traffic.
and the big problem is that there are
two other projects that have been
recommended for rejoining in the same
intersection and there is no collective.
no human impact study has been done.
this data is not included in the e.I.r.
it's missing.
we any it's intentional.
most of the documents talk about six
parcels.
where there are in fact seven parcels
which means e.I.r. Should have been
corrected and circulated.
the water quality report for the water
drains from all 16-acres could be
drained from one property.
and the water quality report is missing.
what the people fail to state is that
all the contiguous properties from
properties from four sides are one acre
plus.
they're talking about -- more than
300 feet away.
they take it as a pint of reference
where you have never sent them letters
of notified them about these hearings.
they've taken them at the point of
reference.
again, this project does not -- there
are other concerns that I'd like to talk
about.
>> supervisor weygandt: if you could
wrap up your comments.
>> okay.
I will.
the biggest concern is when you approve
a prompt like this, you're rewarding bad
developers and punishing good developers
in the same intersection.
there are three projects that follow the
zoning and start around the same time in
2014.
we didn't hear about them because they
submitted the plans to be approved and
they're selling their homes and making
profit.
this project, good projects are
woodbridge estates building seven homes
on 10-acres.
sierra college, rockwood project they're
all making money, following the zoning,
not coming and buying cheap agricultural
land.
>> supervisor weygandt: you have to
wrap up your comments.
>> just that to reward developers to
taking a gamble and ruining our life and
endangering the safety of us because
traffic would be horrible.
by the way, we can send you a list of 12
violations of this project.
the most important violation is that
granite bay plan states clearly that no
subdivision should have a main entrance
on a main road like sierra college.
that's specific because of the traffic
concern.
thank you, very much.
>> supervisor weygandt: thank you.
>> hello.
my name is jane avery.
the park at granite bay is requesting a
zoning change and amendment to the
community plan and a general plan
amendment for the 50% lot coverage.
for a variance.
if this project was consistent with our
granite bay community plan, none of this
would be necessary.
today you'll hear from your community.
we have over 900 citizens defending our
community plan.
800 signatures that support no changes
to the plan.
I know you've received those letters.
granite bay is growing from a rural
community to a suburban community.
this project changes the current zoning
from 16 homes to 56 single one and
two-storey family homes.
it preserves none of the rural character
of the 16.3-acres.
it eliminates the ag designation.
this property which hasn't been pointed
out is surrounded by one up to four acre
parcels.
those people have sheep, goats, I think
there is a horse there.
what this property is doing, it's
dumping a little bit citrus heights into
granite bay.
it was zoned to fit in with the
surrounding parcels.
what they're doing is taking that away.
the variance that is requested does not
even meet the county zoning ordinance.
that is explained in the letter I sent
to you.
the project will add 600 [inaudible] to
sierra college boulevard.
it takes now two light changes to travel
from east roseville parkway to old
auburn boulevard.
and that's a distance of 4/10 of a mile.
I timed it yesterday because I was stuck
as I always am.
our community plan was written to
protect our rural way of life.
it's been destroyed as you've
continually approved projects that
require massive changes to our granite
bay community plan.
it's called a community plan because
that's what the community wants.
it should not be overridden by a small
number of individuals.
I urge you to consider the voting record
of our planning commission and our board
of supervisors.
several years ago, one of you asked at
one of these meetings why does the
county approve these plans if it's not
going to adhere to them?
I'm asking you that question again
today.
why spend years developing
carefully-drafted award-winning
community plans if you're not going to
defend them for us?
what about our property rights?
this is not progress, it is
urbanization.
[applause]
>> I'm mark guzzen.
I'm the past president of the eureka
school foundation and sit on the board
of e.s.f.
e.s.f. Is a volunteer organization
chartered with raising private funds to
augment the public school budget in the
eureka school district.
there is not much controversy in the
comment that public education in granite
bay is one of the cornerstones of the
community and one of the primary reasons
many -- many people choose -- many
people choose to live there.
it maintains the property values and
economic viability of the community and
in fact, raising great citizens.
I think that this project helps offset
some of the risks that we have to that
quality education by bringing more
families into the district and
offsetting some of the declining
enrollment we've seen over the past 10
plus years.
I think that it also brings in -- is
likely to bring in folks that are more
committed because they are part of the
granite bay community and farming both
volunteerism as well as financially
supporting many opportunities that we
have to augment the public funding of
education.
which are critically important to
maintaining the quality of the
education.
and consequently maintaining the
cornerstone of the community.
so, in summary, I'd like you to approve
this project and help maintain the
quality of education in granite bay.
thank you.
>> I'm paul verassy.
I'm one of the landowners and I keep
getting the information that I graded my
property incorrectly.
all my property was graded per plan, per
the county.
it was all approved by county.
just to clarify that.
I didn't grade anything different than
what the county approved by my grader.
the water is doing what it's supposed to
do.
if the pipe is too small, that's what
the county approved at the time.
my comment is the rezoning for the
greater public necessity and welfare
requires such an amendment.
the property proposed demonstrate none
of the above and destructive to the
convenience and general welfare of the
greater number of residents served by
this project.
800 plus residents signed a petition to
close the park.
the objectives, lots comparable to
eckerman, but they are not.
they were built in the '50s.
24 hours on annabelle and eckerman are
under the half acre lot size.
the lot sizes on annabelle and eckerman.
it's a difference of 250 percent.
that's not comparable.
studies obtain.
this may provide opportunities for
generating new students in the school
district.
we have a loss by having students in our
schools.
they keep saying our schools are
underfunded.
each school costs the district $15,000
yearly for the student funding of $8,000
a year.
increasing to 10,000 in 2017.
the net cost is a loss.
all our outside students are turned away
to recover some of the cost we're losing
in the students.
providing a park.
in 2013 you approved the current level
of park was satisfactory.
in granite bay we currently have park
capacity for 360,000 residents.
it's 26,000 in granite bay.
the park would be underutilized.
providing housing opportunities
accommodated with the activities with
the rhna when over 50% coverage, the
lots cannot accommodate a variety of
activities as per your report filed by
the rhna placer county has enough
capacity and underutilized sites
accommodate the recent housing needs
without rezoning.
according to the government blueprints
they're satisfactory.
the developer can't build the 16 homes
for what the cost is then there is
something wrong with the developer.
there has to be a profit for this
developer if he's going to have homes
that he can't build.
we need to know what his profit is going
to be.
isn't that fair to the community to know
that?
we have no idea what the house is going
to cast because he says they're for
younger families.
they can't afford $700,000.
granite bay is a move-up area into the
downsizing.
we didn't want to be stuck in a house on
pop top of a house that's why we bought
four acres in granite bay.
thank you.
[applause]
>> I'm marianne beckett and I live south
of the project.
our members listened to the crowd.
there was a petition signed by more than
800 citizens.
the mac voted against the park and
granite bay determining there are no
overriding benefits to justify imposing
in project on the community.
in the e.I.r. Section, the board of
supervisors is mentioned 45 times saying
they have authority to approve or not
approve the project.
it says agricultural residents will be
protected by the right to farm
ordinance.
a document that only protects
established activities.
supervisor uhler himself told 10
bordering neighbors that the density
does not make sense here and half acre
lots would be a more reasonable option.
contrary to the mac's decision
proponents claim this project will
generate significant numbers of new
students.
this is not true.
our district's 2016 developer fees
justification studies estimate the park
will only generate 18 new students above
the existing zoning.
that is only a 0.0013% increase in
enrollment.
according to melanie gasby at a funding
rate of $100,000 per in kindergarten to
grade school students, it's
insignificant.
to add the voluntary contributions is
speculative and requesting neither
quantified or guaranteed and not taken
into consideration.
it's stated that our student enrollments
are declining.
k to 8th grade were 9% above projections
this year.
an e.I.r. Letter from the roseville high
school district states that students
from the new development would be
redistributed to under-utilized schools.
according to the study, enrollments
capacity by 268 students.
no existing capacity will be available
for new development.
it further states, the districts that no
available capacity therefore the
projected 9th to 12th grade students
will be considered unhoused.
some students have been sitting on the
floor in classes like a.p. Government
due to overcrowding.
claims that granite bay is an aging
community losing touch with the families
and children are unfounded.
according to our most recent data,
granite bay's per capita population
under age 18 is 26% which is 1 to 2%
more than california and our nation.
we are above par in our [inaudible] to
young families.
with the measurable impacts on us prove
that every day citizens have a voice.
people signed a petition, not anonymous
facebook likes, vote against this
rezone variance and amendment.
thank you.
[applause]
>> good afternoon.
I'm holly johnson.
I live in granite bay and I work in
granite bay.
I am an attorney.
I practice law in the city of california
for 24 years.
I moved my practice to granite bay.
I practice regulatory compliance.
we have to look at what is before us to
see whether or not we're in compliance.
my concern and I'll make it as short and
sweet as possible.
maybe not too sweet, but short.
not just in project.
this project in part but the other ones
that you have that will be come before
you looking to change density and zoning
of the granite bay plan.
I think it sets a terrible precedent.
yes, we want the development, we want it
pursuant to what is already in existence
in the plan.
I don't think you have good cause before
you to deviate from the plan to have all
these amendments, to have all these
variances and zonings that will change
the traffic.
you take it piece and piecemeal.
you combine the number of projects that
you have before.
16, I believe in granite bay.
whatever the number is.
you're going to drastically change the
traffic on douglas boulevard.
I was at the map meeting.
this doesn't show that properties around
do not have the density.
whether the developer can develop it
based upon a cost or quote is not the
concern that should be before you.
that's their issue.
so, what I'd like to you take away is
not just this piece, but what you're
going to have coming before you.
do you have good cause to deviate from
what is the zoning and density of the
particular pieces of property.
are you changing the whole feel of
granite bay?
please listen to the constituents.
I'm one of them.
it's a fundamental problem if you're
going it change the whole nature.
you're my representative.
I ask that you listen to me.
I'm an attorney, I practice law for a
living.
I hope we don't have to get there.
please listen to what is being said
before you.
thank you.
[applause]
>> my name is karma norassey.
there are serious concerns regarding
access required by development exceeding
30 homes and drainage on adjacent
properties.
the project requires eckerman road for
cases of emergency.
the developer has not been granted an
easement to use eckerman road as an eba.
without the secondary eba on eckerman
should not be used.
they have a easement to use eckerman
road for ingress or easement for one
home.
this easement has been in place since
1959.
the use of that not be changed without a
written easement from other current
landowners along eckerman road.
once the owner will lose the right for
ingress and egress.
all other county and south placer fire
say they approve the use of eckerman
road for easement.
the builder must get an easement.
that has not been accomplished.
alternative to, they would not require a
second eba.
california fire code mandates that an
e.b.a. Must meet physical requirements
in the case.
roads shall meet the requirements of
local authority have been jurisdiction
but not less than requirements set in
prc 4290.
current code is for a [inaudible] road.
eckerman does not meet the requirements.
regarding the drainage, the e.I.r.
fails to adequately address the impacts
on the property owners, us.
per placer county land development, 5.11
for drainage easement is required for
required improvement or plan approval to
accommodate flows.
they are not getting a drainage easement
through my property.
thank you.
[applause]
>> group two can come up now if they
choose.
we're almost ready for group two.
>> my name is elaine sokko and I live on
eckerman road.
I'm here to talk about the analysis of
alternative two.
can we trust an analysis where 56 minus
36 is equal to 38 where 32 is greater
than 56?
where fewer residents use more
utilities?
county staff stated the following in
their analysis of the alternative to or
as zoned.
land use as zoned would require no
special entitlements.
aesthetics would be similar though those
of the proposed project.
transportation would result in less
traffic than the proposed project.
air quality results in fewer vehicles
with less than significant air quality
impacts.
greenhouse gas emissions as zoned would
result in fewer residential units and
greenhouse gas emissions would be less
than the project because there are fewer
units.
noise as zoned would not include a park
which would have no impact on new
residents or on existing residents
neighbors related to the noise generated
by park users.
hydrology and water quality.
this project would result in less than
impervious surface and have potential
for flooding.
aesthetics, transportation, air quality,
greenhouse gas.
hydrology and water quality, your own
planning staff has identified as zoned
as superior alternative.
contrary to the analysis of utilities
and service systems, the zoned
alternative provides 40 units less than
the proposal.
this would result in fewer residents.
the 16 units built per staff are of
social benefit since there are almost
500,000 square feet of senior living
proposed.
32 units is less than 56.
so the demand for the utilities and
services systems would be less than
described for the proposal.
total number of units draining to the
waste water treatment system would be
significantly less than provided by the
proposal.
even with six bathrooms for 16 units
total 96, the project would produce at
least 2.5 bathrooms or 340 bathrooms.
so it generates less demand.
if he last mac meeting we were told that
water was not an issue in placer county.
even here two families per acre will use
less than four families per acre for
every alternative.
the alternative is superior and less
impactful and should be supported.
I ask you please do not look at this
proposal and think it's an infill with
high density.
it's a high density project that does
not belong in this neighborhood.
we're fine with developing the land as
the granite bay community proposes.
thank you.
[applause]
>> good afternoon, my name is lora
saberry.
I'm speaking on behalf of a former
planning commissioner who has over 15
years experience as a senior resource
analyst with the state water resources.
after her careful review of the e.I.r.,
it can be concluded they failed to
comply with the requirements of the ceqa
code.
this is not in compliance with the
placer county code.
because did conflicts with several --
approval would go against government
code 65000 and government code 6647345
and 6646474.
the potential to create significant
environmental impacts.
the d.e.I.r. And e.I.r. And drainage
study failed to conduct a complete and
accurate analysis can have the hydrology
and water quality impacts and the
documents do not conform to the own
mandated reporting requirements.
these do not entail the calculations for
complete analysis, omit key data.
the initial hydrology reports are
inconsistent.
the water quality study shows
approximately 30% more impervious
service than the original report and
total runoff volumes.
this is contradictory.
inaccuracies are provided in her
detailed letter which will be attached.
the at the least.
the e.I.r. Must be recirculated since
the program report which is required by
the placer -- west placer storm quality
design manual was not generated envelope
september of 2016 and was not available
for public review as per ceqa.
additionally, the legal grounds for
granting the variance has not been met
by mr. Tattersall it does not constitute
grounds for constituting variance.
the worthiness of a project are not
proper considerations in determining
whether to approve a variance.
once again granting this variance would
constitute a prejudicial abuse of
discretion.
in the present matter, the ceqa find of
facts are not in the record as they
contain incorrect data.
the final e.I.r. Is not legally
adequate.
we also would request the rights to
rebut any new data that is presented.
thank you.
[applause]
>> good morning.
I'm name is dale monson.
I was a member of the committee that
rewrote the granite bay community plan.
I think many of us on that plan
understand that when you have vacant
land that the owner has the ability to
develop that land.
however, the granite bay community plan
is a serious, serious document.
we had developers on that.
there were a lot of compromises made.
and I think one of the things that
causes the community to be so up in arms
over this particular project and I don't
think I've sat in a mac community in the
last 15 years and have somebody stand up
and talk about recall.
that has been unheard in granite bay
because we've been able to compromise on
things like the granite bay plan and you
guys have backed us to a degree.
that's all I want to say about that.
but there is a bigger problem.
the bigger problem is those of us that
live in granite bay take our life in our
own hands when we travel on douglas
boulevard and try to cross douglas
boulevard to go shopping at sierra ponds
or something like that and here again,
you're going to say okay to a project
where people have to come out and can't
even make a left turn.
they can't go north, as I understand.
they have to go right and make a right
turn on over-subscribed roadway that is
dangerous already because of the flow
traffic.
I don't think that's what's his name's
problem.
that is your problem that you need to
sit down, I have a copy of your
transportation plan, there is nothing in
there about, that I saw, I could be
mistaken, nothing I saw about sierra
college.
I saw nothing about douglas boulevard.
just remember, many of us here feel
we're taking our life in our hands when
we cross either one of those and you've
added one project on top of the other
and it's like we have transportation
galore.
we do not.
[applause]
>> so I am speaking on the record here.
I'm ulysses ludwick.
I leave in granite bay.
I moved up here because it's rural and
we love the schools.
don't want to see them blown up.
I want to point out on the proposed
project site, the developer shows it way
back where it looks like it's a dense
area.
you can clearly see that it's completely
rural all around this parcel.
it goes quite far down.
I have a thumb drive we can actually
look at it where we're looking at this
property and three or four of the
properties south, it's quite rural.
it's not a dense area, as they say.
the project is not consistent with the
goal and policies established in the
community plan, including land use
element and design elements.
the e.I.r. Compares the park to granite
bay's annabelle, ovations and hawthorne.
annabelle that will is neither adjacent
or contiguous to the parcel and as
required by the placer county general
plan and granite bay plans, it doesn't
fit, it doesn't belong there.
ovation rejected.
it doesn't feet in the e.I.r.
that you thorn project is not even --
hawthorne prompt is not even proposed
yet.
it doesn't belong in the e.I.r. Sore
we're looking at you to approve this on
an e.I.r. That is not valid.
next thing is that we have facebook.
so I to mr. Deluca was talking about
facebook likes.
I am a programmer.
I run a software company out of the bay
area.
I live here now but I did a little
research.
we have 255 people provided a location.
in the facebook likes.
I can hand them in for the record.
of those 255, 37 mark themselves as
living in granite bay.
37 people that said that's a pretty
picture.
I knew some people that said that.
they took their name off of it because
they didn't want to be associated with
this project.
we have here an effort by developer who
is so compelled to try to garner likes
for his project that they paid for a
campaign on facebook.
by paying for a campaign, there was a
boom in the number of people who liked
the project of about 1600 people and
that boom at the end of the day ended as
soon as they stopped paying for it.
there are no more likes since march, I
believe.
I just want to make another point is
that 600 and some of those were actually
not reelects.
we have 800 wet physical signatures from
people that live in the area around that
property and yet, somehow those likes
are going to transplant those and take
over?
it makes no sense whatsoever.
thank you very much.
[applause]
>> I'm donald sarks.
I'm an active member of the community.
I went to oak hills, ridgeview, was
raised by my parents when I moved to
granite bay when I was a kid.
I have a different approach as to what a
community plan is.
the community plan is to me, I have a
4-year-old daughter.
I want her to be in the same school
district that I grew up in.
be taught by the same teachers that
taught me up through the high school
levels.
I coach at granite bay high school and
have been for the last five years.
I enjoy the community of granite bay.
it's a special place.
for my parents to be able to move in
this area and have that opportunity for
my sister and self and see what a
granite bay community plan looks like.
enrollment is down.
not because of playing football.
there not a lot of young families I went
to school with back in granite bay.
it would mean a lot to me to have people
like that in the same community that
made this a rich environment for me to
love and come back.
I lived sacramento but never lived in
granite bay.
to be able to come back and have the
same advantages that my 4-year-old
daughter could have and have her
experience that with the same teachers
in the third grade or fifth grade it's
special to me.
that's a huge deal for me.
I approve this project and I think the
granite bay community plan is what it
is.
>> could I ask you a question.
are you dallas sarks of university of
southern california?
if you weren't during the texas game
during the championship, I'll account we
would be in the championship.
>> thank you.
I appreciate that.
>> I have no idea what you just said.
>> it's a small community.
>> I like all the humor.
I'm nancy barsell, I live in granite
bay.
we like the rural area of granite bay.
in the final supporting facts of the
e.I.r. For the park at granite bay,
false assumptions are made.
this project does not provide a mix of
housing to survive a mix of families for
the project proponents.
the granite bay community plan provides
a well-thought out mix of housing to
serve a diverse population accommodating
various ages and lifestyles.
this is supported by the county's
housing element report on file with
rhna.
for each housing development described,
there is no need to rezone to
accommodate the housing need.
number two, granite bay was designed as
a unique rural residential community
with a mix of densities established in
the land use elements of the granite bay
community plan.
cumulative impact to changes this
results in a higher percentage of medium
density residential lots and lower
percentage of rural residential lots.
this drastically changes the rural
characteristics of granite bay.
this is not consistent with the analyzed
section of the plan policies in the
section are formulated to enhance the
rural and natural of this community.
this does not provide housing.
houses types and price range.
this type of housing is more than
adequately represented in the existing
inventory of lots and homes.
additional medium density lots and
homes -- will increase available
inventory to 14 months of supply and
flooding the market.
what is currently under represented is
an inventory of one acre and larger home
sites.
four, if this rate of expansion granite
bay will reach the full build-out
sometime in 2018 resulting in a 41%
overbuild over 2,035 projections and
negatively impact the schools, public
services.
emergency responders.
traffic, overcrowding and jeopardize our
rural quality which is ohio lighted in
placer county and granite bay community
plans.
the projects as proposed does not serve
a public necessity or general welfare of
this community.
it is harmful to the welfare of all.
and it does not provide a mix of
housing.
it shifts the range of housing by 49% to
represent 60% of homes for sale.
the small lot type is not in keeping
with the rural nature of our community
and therefore you reject the project as
proposed.
thank you.
[applause]
>> my name is glen wells.
I'm in support of the prompt.
I've been in granite bay for 17 years.
I love my community.
I do a lot for it.
I'm a major sponsor for e.s.f. For the
last 12 years and continue to do so.
I moved from sacramento 17 years ago.
and I have five children.
three are out of the nest.
I have two left at home.
going through the school districts, it's
everything to me.
I really, really believe in my
community.
I think you need projects like this.
I'm on a acre and a quarter.
I have no problem with this whatsoever.
change is good.
this big -- big mean, bad developer, I
know him personally.
he builds nice projects.
I would -- as far as the audience goes,
keep an open mind to change.
it goes well for us.
thank you.
[applause]
>> good afternoon.
I'm chris johnson.
I live in granite bay on shadow brook
drive.
we started looking at homes from '87 but
moved here in 1988.
I worked for the east chicago planning
and redevelopment.
I know a little about what we're talking
about.
this project is pitched as an infill
when it's not.
this is a spot rezone.
basically, you're taking 16-acres
carving 16-acres out of 142-acres.
that is zoned as agriculture.
if the project is built from day one,
there will be a lot of conflicts because
the people with their small backyards
are not going to be happy about the
manure that is happening over the fence
from them.
there is always going to be tension.
another key thing about granite bay and
why I moved here is I don't know if you
know this or not, granite bay has the
highest home ownership percentage of any
city or community in the state at 89%.
you have a lot of people here.
you have 800 some odd people that signed
petitions and everything else.
home ownership means you're invested in
the community.
these are people that care about the
community.
that's why they're here and presenting
the case to you.
I don't know, you may or may not own a
home in granite bay, but it's a pretty
darned good community.
it's not necessarily elitist.
so many aspects of this project are in
complete opposition to the granite bay
plan.
our community developed over the years
since this -- and I've lived here since
the plan was approved in '89, it's the
foundation for why this is a community
that has a high percentage of
homeowners.
people invested and caring about the
community and want to make sure the
right things happen.
to disrupt the granite bay plan could to
build a project that only satisfies
developers wants shows a total disregard
for the community at large.
there is no compelling reason to build
at this density as the population is
only expected to increase at 5% over the
next 10 years, a total of 5%.
that's in the different studies the
county paid for.
if we build this project, it's going to
be the lowest quality, lowest value of
anything built since the plan was
approved.
why are we sacrificing good property for
this?
there is no good reason.
the only -- the only thing that bothers
me about this is our supervisor seems
committed to making this happen.
it's going to benefit his office suite
neighbor john tattersall at the same
address as kirk and damaging to the
entire community.
what I want you to do and think about
this, because we have so many projects
coming through, please reject this
project.
thank you.
[applause]
>> good afternoon.
I'm john bolter.
I never thought I'd have to be up here
and be discussing something like this.
I've lived in granite bay over 20 years.
before that I grew up in the bay area
and I watched every community in the bay
area do exactly what you're talking
about doing here.
taking one small infill project and then
there are more.
what you do is you take a community like
granite bay which is a great place to
live that is not dense, that's not west
roseville or other parts of placer
county, it's granite bay.
granite bay has a certain feel.
this says take one to three acres and
two do it two to four dwellings her ache
or more and put -- acre or more and let
them build 50 to 60% on a house.
I watched that in my lifetime and what
happens is there are more.
and it's like cockroaches.
when you see one there are more.
that's exactly what I see happening
here.
I could go through all the same numbers
that you heard from everybody else and
it doesn't make sense that you need
though hear from people that live here
that have lived here and raised their
kids here and the idea is that the
amount of space that we have doesn't
need to be jammed.
like the project that you're
considering.
so I am requesting that you deny this
project like it appears that most of
community has spoke about through the
process.
thank you.
[applause]
>> good morning, my name is sandy harris
and I live in granite bay.
the granite bay community association
had john come to our board meeting on a
couple of occasions.
we tried working with him.
we were overwhelmed with the density he
was borough posing for the projects.
we told him, talk to the neighbors and
come back with something more
reasonable.
starting with what he started and what
he's ended up with is what a lot of
people think is a development trick.
tell you we'll put in a hundred and
compromise for 50, that's not a win-win
at all.
the community association has supported
john on some of his other projects.
and he does do a nice job.
this isn't personal, john, I like him a
lot.
but this is not consistent with the
community plan.
we did a survey monkey.
the number one reason people move to
granite bay is the low density large
lots.
second reason is the rural character,
the third reason was the quality of
schools.
and surprising to me, folsom lake was
down at the bottom.
I thought most people came to our area
for the lake but they don't.
I'm concerned with the project.
they say they're going to have a 15-foot
landscape buffer.
it's going to be on the inside of the
fence.
how does that buffer the people who live
on the other side and how are they going
to control this easement for 15 feet,
the home owners association going to be
responsible for it?
how will they police it?
that buffer should be on the out side of
the fence.
another concern I have is about this
park.
it's a public park in a private gated
community.
the homeowners will have to pay for the
road.
they'll have to pay for gate.
they had to pay to maintain the park.
what's this going to do to this
affordable housing community when you
were to pay such high homeowners dues
for the maintenance?
the liability insurance will be high on
it and I think it will create parking
problems within this gated community
when the people using that park decide
to park on their streets.
I'm afraid that eventually the home
owners will get together and vote to do
away with that park and part of the
reason for this project is that they're
going to have a public park.
there needs to be a condition and
approvals if you decide to approve this
that that park cannot be voted out.
that is in perpetuity.
I don't think this project is compelling
enough to be awarded all the
entitlements and variances that they're
seeking.
I think the alternative would be a
better project.
we started meet with john in october of
2013 which was a year and a half after
the community plan was adopted.
they knew full well what the expense on
it was and what the costs might have to
be when you take it through an
environment the document process.
thank you anyway.
[applause]
>> good afternoon.
my name is ryan perry smith.
it pains me to say this, but I'm a 40
year resident of granite bay.
soy guess that was before it was granite
bay.
gone through all the schools in the
eureka school district.
went to oakmont high school.
went away for a few years and came back
and I was fortunate to get a house in
tree lake.
I've seen and witnessed the great change
through granite bay and through our
community.
my main focus with all this, I served on
the eureka school board.
I got to see a little bit behind the
scenes of the finances within the
schools and I want to make sure that we
understand the difference between the
high school district which is roseville
and the southern elementary and middle
and junior high schools that the eureka
school district is focused on and the
declining enrollment.
as an esf board member.
we'd walk down douglas and say if you
work here, your kids could go to school
here.
that means you can live anywhere in the
area and if you work near the school,
your kids can go to school here.
a project like this and aim very much
for this project will bring kids, local
kids and we're not necessarily
offsetting declining enrollment but
offset kids that are not in the
district.
your kids are in the district you have a
vested interest in the district.
you're here and you're available and you
would be in a community like this
whether it's soccer practice or the
other things that go on, you're part of
the community.
I appreciate your time and I appreciate
the feedback and the talk that's what
this is all about.
but at the end of the day, I hope this
project is approved for our schools and
for our future.
thank you.
>> my name is jeff sarks.
I'm here in support of project.
I lived in the grant bay community for
25 years.
I moved here for the schools.
my son just talked earlier.
it's been hard for young families to
move in here.
for him to buy a house in the granite
bay area is not going to happen until we
have more projects like this where we
have more affordable housing.
I only live -- well, I'd be close to the
project.
but I drive past the project every day.
it's a field sitting there.
when you go up to the corner of eureka
and roseville there are a lot of
businesses out of business and there
were local people that tried to start
local businesses up and down sierra
college.
I think something like this would help
support more local businesses where they
could actually walk at nighttime or
whatever to get up.
I think the park as I live right by
hillsborough.
the park is a good idea.
hillsborough park is full every day.
team after team.
which is a good thing, but the little
park, if we could alleviate the pressure
off the other -- off the other parks,
that's a win-win situation.
I'm in support of the project and I
think the community needs this.
thanks.
>> I'm veronica [inaudible] c.e.o. Of
placer community foundation.
I'll be brief.
last week it showed that 42% of the
residents are paying more than 30% of
their income on housing.
the county needs housing that is
attainable for the workforce.
while I'm not sure what the basis is for
the fee in lieu, we need to have a
broader conversation on how the county
can work to construct the units.
>> we have a full group three plus more.
I think it would be start in to take a
break.
quick lunch break.
so we'll take a quick --
>> 15 minutes?
>> supervisor weygandt: how about half
an hour quick.
in case we want to take up closed
session -- actually, if you could have
three minutes per person, you have 30
minutes plus we have stuff to come back
to in terms of non-department items.
we have a full board meeting for the
west rest of us.
any compelling feelings one way or the
other?
let's take a lunch break.
okay.
we'll be back in half an hour.
>> we'll adjourn to closed session to
discuss the two workers compensation
items.
the other existing item, gomes versus
[inaudible] is not ready for discussion.
>> hearing, we are reconvening
from lunch and closed session.
county council will report out
as to closed session.
>> the board has returned from
close session where we had a
council on two worker
compensation matters.
the board heard reports on both
items and gave direction to
council on the remaining item as
I noted before.
morgan gomes versus nick boone.
the board did not discuss the
matter, it was not ready at this
time.
that concludes the report.
>> we'll restart the public
hearing with beginning of group
three.
>> I'm a resident of granite
bay.
I walked my dog back here
several times.
come down, I come down sierra
college with my dog.
look at this land and say, what
a great opportunity.
then I turn on to the bike path
and I look over to the meadows
development and say what a lost
opportunity.
the meadows project doesn't do
the job.
in my estimation.
this is the kind of development
we need.
I got a flyer in the mail
posting the project.
I was a little confused.
I looked at this bottom of the
picture and thought that is a
great-looking project.
that's what I'd like to see in
our community.
it was a project of this is the
dire thing that you're going to
see that is going to be defense
your project.
I was taken aback by that
visual.
I have young kids.
you've heard mr. Sarks get up
and talk about how he wants them
to live in granite bay.
I have young kids.
they lived on abilene?
what what's the name of the
street?
anna belle.
they looked on anna belle and
looked at a house and couldn't
afford it.
they bought in downtown
roseville, but they would have
loved to be in our area.
I'm concerned about the lack of
housing in our -- next
generation to come and live in
granite bay -- wondering what is
going to happen to me.
this could be a great
opportunity for my wife and I.
the large lot.
the large square footage is not
getting any easier to take care
of.
having a project like this would
be a fantastic addition to our
community in my estimation.
john, you're doing a great job.
so thank you.
>> good afternoon.
I'm jeff powers.
I live in granite bay.
and resident of granite bay and every
time you make a decision, you make
one person happy and one person
mad and I can appreciate what you do.
you represent the community and I'm a
little league coach and on the board
currently and raised almost $500,000
for the district and run the
tournament, the golf tournament and
live in granite bay and I have two
kids, a wife that works in the county
and I work through the county and
other counties.
I'm for this project because you have
to look at every project as an
individual project.
the location of this project off the
streets it is off and size of the
project and I ask you to look at
project as individuals.
I'm not for every project in granite
bay.
I'm for this project because I feel
it fits the partial and fits the area
and I ask you to approve this project
-- not every project, but
ask you to approve the park project,
thank you very much chair weygandt
and members of the board, I'm here on
behalf of the roseville area chamber
of commerce.
our chamber proudly serves and as
served the community of granite bay
since 1999 when the chamber closed
its doors and we're here today to
support the park at granite bay.
we think one of the key things on
this is the housing option that there
provide.
we have heard about the declining
enrollment at eureka school and will
provide for young family come into
the area and start the
next-generation of people being
involved in the community,
playing sports.
I also think or we think that park is
an added benefit for all of granite
bay to enjoy and embracing their
motto, "live and play in granite bay."
this housing option is critical
for the workforce as we attempt to
bring in no ew jobs and provide
housing options and retain those
employees in the area and give them
places to live close to where they
work infill is in the easiest thing
to do and with that said, the park at
roseville -- park at granite
bay, close to roseville will again
provide housing options.
it also aligns with the blueprint
project that was adopted back in 2004.
and again, one size does not fit all
and I think we need to take that into
consideration.
with that we would encourage you to
adopt the planning commission's
recommendation and support the park at
granite bay, thank you.
>> good afternoon my name is michael
murphy a residence for 13-and-a-half
years in granite bay and thank you
for having me this afternoon and
being able to speak in front of you.
I want to just say I'm here in
support of the project and I'm not
here as a paid person to support the
project, because there have been
people in the audience that have --
I heard whispers that were here --
paid to be here and I'm losing money
for being here.
this is a perfect example of a
granite fill project and you heard it
over and over and I won't go into and
not going to give you statistics and
tell you oh, this is it because xyz,
but it's a great infill project with
smart planning that you already know
about.
so I would encourage you to consider
that as one of your basis of
approving this project.
this will also improve an eyesore.
I don't know if you have been by
there recently, but that whole
section, the island does not look
that great and when I drive by, this
will definitely improve a section of
sierra college that will make us
proud as granite bay residents to
have the improvement there.
it will also, I believe, support more
stable property values in the area,
because a lot of properties in that
area are -- they are not
well-maintained and mismatched will
have a well-balanced approach to
maintenance and keep the resale value
at a level that I think this will
maintain
property values throughout the whole
island area.
the last thing I wanted to say there
are only four houses in granite bay
on an acre or more and each is
over a million-and-a-half dollars for
sale and there is one that is a
rundown house that is under a
million, but the rest are over a
million-and-a-half dollars and I
can't afford that and if I wanted to
move here and they are 1-acre lots I
couldn't afford a home on these lots.
so I think it's important for the
community to bring in other
professionals who want to live in
granite bay and attend the schools.
please support the project.
thank you.
>> good afternoon board of
supervisors I'm suzanne jones a
granite bay resident of 25 years.
the reason people move here is
because granite bay is a premiere
community.
I know you have heard a lot about its
rural atmosphere, but it's mostly
because it's premiere.
that is the reason why everyone wants
to come here.
it took my husband and I more than 20
years to get here.
nobody graduates from high school and
moves into granite bay.
and we certainly don't want to make
at the end of the community that you
can graduate from high school and
move into granite bay.
we are also not a bunch of nimbies
-- not in my backyard, but to
preserve the premiere quality of our
community and hence the granite bay
community plan and why we spent so
much time working on it.
supporters say we should be open to
change.
rather than changing our community,
there is roseville right next door to
us and roseville has gorgeous
communities that are high-density and
school within our school districts.
you don't have to live in granite bay
to be in our school districts.
speaking of schools if every house in
this development had two kids, that
would make 112 children that will not
have an impact on the population of
our schools or declining enrollments.
I'm on the placer county board of
education and I serve on the board
and the reason we have such a high
quality education is not because we
have a lot of students in our schools.
it's because we have quality
communities, and excellent teachers.
speaking of affordable the developer
previously stated at granite bay mac,
this was not an affordable community,
but I heard him say today he did
refer to it being affordable and
referred $800,000 homes.
not quite sure why $700,000 homes why
you referred to $800,000 to $1
million and young families aren't
able to afford these homes.
I understand the builder is a nice
guy and has a high quality product,
but this is a dressing nearly the
extremely high-density developments
that they are trying to just shove
down our throats in granite bay and
the impact it will have on
everything, traffic, people, the
community, the premiere quality.
now he was responsive to us early on
and he did reduce the density of his
project, but at some point in time he
did become unresponsive and refused
once he got to his lowest offer.
it's to say that you have 1500
signatures in support, but you have
the residents and not just a bunch of
secants.
and the commission, the planning
commission, when they argued this,
they said that we need projects like
this.
so the past based on five people
saying we need projects like this as
opposed to listening to all of us.
if I hear the board in your
deliberations say the reason you
think we should pass this is because
it's a good idea, or because we need
projects like this, then I will know
that all of our voices have fallen on
totally deaf ears, and this in our
mind will be substantial evidence
that you, the board of supervisors no
longer represent us.
thank you very much
[ applause ]
>> yes, 11-year resident of granite
bay and I want to commend staff for
the work that they have done.
this is sensible planning, guys.
I get that it's -- this is on
sierra college boulevard, this is a
major thoroughfare between 50 and 80.
this is not stallman and I get that
people went to be on 2-5-acre lot
sizes and this is not that.
this makes perfect sense for this
particular area.
I want to say also about the
developer.
I know him.
I am in the industry and think he is
a fantastic developer as evidenced by
his project on douglas and barton and
that is a first-class project and
expect nothing less an that.
it's a first-class project we can all
be supportive of and feel proud about
in our community here in granite bay
and I ask that you support the
project, thank you.
>> my name is nicole shapel and I
was a resident -- I'm a landowner
and lived next to the project for ten
years.
I'm fully in support of it and I
agree with a couple of the last
people have said, you know this?
this is sierra college boulevard,
major thoroughfare and if you want it
live in the rural area, you move.
I moved recently a year ago to
auburn, ten acres where I can shot
guns and road my horse authentic I
was one of two people that had any
life stock and I'm the ones with the
horse and manure and I don't live
there any more.
one person has a cow.
there are no other people that have
livestock or those type of animals in
this area and I understand that they
will still be able to have that
possibility, because this is not
going to change the zoning of any of
the people outside of this actual
project.
I think this project is a great
infill in my mind, if you look at the
global zoom out a little bit and the
area surrounded by houses.
it's surrounded by major roads and if
you want to live in the rural area,
to live on sneaky backroads and not
major roads that eventually are going
to be like a freeway, connecting the
80 and 50 corridor.
so I'm fully in support of this
project.
and I hope that you guys vote it
through.
thank you.
>> good afternoon jeff kess, 23-year
resident of highland.
there is no compelling need for 56
homes on sierra college as proposed
this infill project on the island is
cobbling together a number of
smaller existing lots into one larger
lot only for the benefit of the
applicant, without substantial
benefit to the immediate neighbors or
the community.
16 homes is identified in the eir as
the superior development alternative,
the right density for this project in
keeping with the principles of the
granite bay community plan and in
hearings prior today we heard
testimony it's in the feasible to
bring out the park at granite bay
with only 16 houses and similar
nearby subdivisions established lower
density zoning standing contradiction
to that assertion and include
rockwood estates and meadows and
sierra college and woodbridge
estates and these subdivision within
the so-called island were recently
built on lands zoned the same the
subject property is currently and
combined represent 22 homes on
approximately 27 acres.
intelligent infill projects meet the
objectives of the granite bay
community plan and if those produced
a viable project within euler
low-density zoning, there is it no
reason to believe that the applicant
cannot have a viable economic project
with 16 homes without entitlements
for rezone community plan amendment
and variance.
in 2006 court case ceqa was
interpreted to the effect "the fact
that an alternative may be more
expensive or less profitable is not
sufficient to show that the
alternative is financially
infeasible." testimony in previous
hearings contend that the 56 homes
are to fill housing demand of
new jobs coming to placer county and
significant new employers such as top
gavel and the university however are
located in west roseville and not
granite bay/east roseville and that
employees will find more affordable
homing than at then park at granite
bay.
other major placer employers do not
provide support for the assertion
that the park at granite bay will
added high-density homes for new
development and, in fact the
september 2016 building industry
associate report shows that will are
at least 734 new home as valuable in
affordable high-density subdivisions
within five miles of sierra college
douglas boulevard crossroad without
jamming 56 homes into a rural setting
where the park at granite bay is
proposed.
members of the board, you are likely
going to hear some very directed and
con triumphed questioning of planning
department staff and others to
justify why this rezone to higher
density should be approved to the
benefit of an applicant who doesn't
even own the land now and property
rights to the proposed parcels being
cobbled together for this application.
instead urban going to be asked to
transfer on the property rights
of existing individual owners
surrounding the subject property and
forever change the character of the
properties that they own.
please make the right and justifiable
vote to deny the recommendation to
approve this project as submitted.
[ applause ]
>> that is all we have for group 3,
but we think we have group 4 people
in the audience or other people with
cards?
>> group 4 michael, representing
placer group sierra club, let's talk
infill and land use policy, one of
our primary orientation s to support
infill development.
you don't need this project to have
infill development and this project
is ready and this land is ready with
services and everything that you
need for infill development and
infill development to develop it
according to the existing plan.
of course we're not only concerned
about infill and keeping things in
urban areas, we're also concerned
about greenhouse gas emissions and
unnecessary addition of greenhouse
gas from overdevelopment,
transportation issues.
everybody is talking about 56 units.
well, secondary homes are permitted
on lots of 5,000 square foot.
square feet.
so you are really talking about
potentially twice as many units on
these properties.
how did that 5,000 come about?
you may remember that a few months
ago it was a 150,000 square foot
minimum and you acted to change it to
5,000 square feet.
this issue came to the sierra club's
attention when someone complained to
us that a variance had been issued
for a secondary home, still when it
was 10,000 square feet and that is
how we discussed it at the placer
group board and got involved.
we have looked at two recent issues
approved by the zoning administrator
on 3-acre parcels and how were they
built?
they were locate where had they would
have the least impact on 3 acres and
the maximum impact on neighborhood
character and the neighbors.
unnecessary, doesn't even meet the
requirements for a variance.
so we are quite concerned that here
you have a situation where people
will come in for variances even on
these tiny to 5,000 square foot
lots and if these are 7,000 square
foot lots will have a lot of
potential for that.
so it is more than that.
you should stick with the plan you
have that protects community
character.
maintaining community character can
be done, can be done for moderate,
low-income and housing units.
you don't have to have this kind of
intensity of development.
thank you.
>> is there anyone else who would
like to address the board?
seeing anyone I will close public
hearing -- excuse me, our protocol is
to provide the developer an
opportunity to redo something if
they think there was a factual error,
>> thank you, mr. Chairman, marcus lu
duca and my client is the owner of
the parcels that are in question,
someone just -- a warrant --
there was a comment about your
conditions of approval need to make
sure that the homeowners' association
just don't vote out of park and
maintenance of the project and
condition 89l, the park shall be open
to the future track dawn to dusk and
recordation a easement is approved
the county shall be recorded
by the developer to ensure public access
to both vehicle and pedestrian and
deed restriction -- also applies
conditions of map and they will then
be in violation of the tentative map
subject to penalties under the
subdivision map act and cr and rs
have to be approved by mr. Cardon has
another condition of approval and cc
& rs are provisions they may require.
did want to mention just a couple
other minor items.
there a comment said, why did we
look at other projects in the area
doing this while not approved?
we did a cumulative impact analysis
and the idea was to try to make sure
there was a thorough analyses from a
cumulative issue as possible, given
the traffic is a major concern of
folks in the area.
finally the only other issue I think
that I had had relative to -- hold
on a second here, going through my
notes.
a comment about the schools.
you have heard a lot of testimony
from people involved in the school
foundation.
currently there is a lot of students
in the school district and granite
bay high school as part of the high
school district, transfers from other
areas.
when high school no. 6 opens in west
roseville, literally a quarter of the
granite bay high school students are
gone.
that is how many people are coming
from the western part of roseville
into the high school and there is
also right now as was mentioned to
you, the fact that there is some
attendance adjustments in the recent
past in the school district is
because they are out of school
district transfers and they are not
getting students in the district.
they have also closed school and
quite frankly as everyone knows with
school funds it's not the fees that
my client pays, but you get money from
the stats on full-time equivalents
and the absence is a long-term trend
that started a decade ago and
continuing in the school district
that does affect funding for actual
operations and the quality of
teaching in the school district.
with that, mr. Chairman, I would be
happy to answer any questions that
the board might have.
>> thank you.
kirk than jim.
>> I think my questions are of staff
as opposed to the applicant.
two questions.
one was brought up earlier the issue
of looking at -- "all of the
proposed projects cumulatively, and
the cumulative traffic impacts." our
board just recently adopted an
updated capital improvement program
for the granite bay community planned
area and added another several
hundred dollars to the traffic impact
fees paid in granite bay.
was that update a result of staff
looking at analyzing the cumulative
impacts of the projects that are in
the pipeline right now?
>> yes, it was.
>> so --
>> including the park at granite bay.
>> okay.
so the fee that they'll be paying
assumes the cumulative impact of not
just this project, but everything
else that staff isa ware of that is
being processed as well?
>> I'm sure correct me if I'm wrong,
but that is correct.
>> the only other question -- I
have a number of comments that I will
reserve for later.
the only other question I have is oh,
it was pointed out rightly so that
the majority of the smaller parcels
off of annabelle and eckerman don't
touch
this project that the majority of the
lots touching this project are larger
in size.
I'm curious how many of the neighbors
immediately adjacent are actually in
opposition to the project filed
opposition with the county?
>> I don't know the exact number --
dr. Bazari is no longer opposing the
project -- I know mr. Becket
touches the property.
he is not in favor.
I believe there is one other neighbor
who has sort of being silent through
the whole thing.
>> mr. Laduca, do you have a number?
>> if we could pull up the map of
the project?
>> I.t..
>> there are six parcels that touch
the project.
there is as mentioned mr. Overisi and
mr. Beckett and dr. Bazari and the
person with what we call the nook
there surrounded on three sides, mr.
meyer, mr. Miller is adjacent to the
south to mr. Beckett and a six
property eastern at the southeast
corner adjacent to the college.
that 6th property owner we have not
been able to reach and submit the no
comments and so there are six
property owners and know that two are
opposed and dr. Bazari just
submitted his letter, so there are
six total.
>> two of whom --
>> correct.
>> thank you very much.
that is all the questions.
>> jim.
>> to get back to the school issue,
having been in meetings with
officials from the roseville high
school district and I know they are
concerned about the declining
enrollment at granite bay high school
and it's going to be even worse when
the west roseville high school is
built.
having worked for the placer county
office of education, I'm familiar
with the schools in the eureka school
district and one that has been there
for 15 years that was never opened,
olive ranch.
the eureka school was remodeled some
time ago and upgraded, but it's
closed as well. So I know there is
much concern within the district that
declining enrollment is a problem in
this kind of project and maybe it's
only 122 kids, but it's a start.
>> any other questions this time?
with that then, I'll close the public
hearing.
[ gavel ]
kirk, turn it over to you first.
>> thank you, mr. Chairman and
george, if I may have the clicker
real quick? And while you are
bringing that up, just a couple --
before I share with not only my
colleagues, but some of the folks in
the community, kind of my thoughts as
I look at well thoughts on land use
changes to the 1989 community plan.
before I get to that however, a
number of things that were brought up
that I do want to address.
somebody made the claim that our
parks are underutilized in granite
bay.
as a father of two very active
youngsters I can tell you that are
for seven years in lacrosse, we have
had to pay to rent light standard so
that the kids can practice at night,
because we have no park availability
during the daytime. So we as a
league go raise the money, have our
fundraisers and move lights out to
cabot school so we can practice at
night.
likewise, my daughter's soccer team,
one of the competitive club teams has
to go to del oreo to practice at
night, because we don't have another
practice space available.
so this notion that our existing
parks are underutilized and it's just
simply flies in the face of reality.
somebody made the claim that the
granite bay build-out has somehow
been accelerated and I will make
comments regarding the 1989 plan and
as I know, as my colleagues know,
even though we adopted an update to
the plan that focused on policies we
did nothing to address land use.
at that time, as my colleagues know,
and members of the community know, I
addressed both the mac, and this
board and said, this is not the right
way to do this.
I think we should have a
comprehensive land use plan update.
however, if the community wants to
continue with the land use that was
put in effect in 1989, please
understand that what we're going to
start to see is a number of
individual requests for general plan
amendments start to come forward.
and here we are today.
so the claim was that build-out had
somehow been accelerated in granite
bay and looking at the 1989 plan and
looking at the community development
specifically the housing l.
the housing element of the '89 plan
assumes 3.6% annual growth rate
within granite bay.
since 2000 we have grown less than
half of what was assumed in this plan.
so the accelerated build-out simply
hasn't been the case.
a couple other things that I would
just like to dispense with: yes,
mr. Tatter sal and I both have
business offices on the corner of
eureka and professional drive, along
with a dentist and optometrist and
owners and 36 other businesses that
are located there. So occasionally I
see john in the parking lot and wave
to him and ask him how is the knee
doing, john?
so yes, we do share a parking lot
together.
the other thing that was raised here,
as well as was raised at the mac
recently is this assertion that
perhaps board members aren't invested
in the community, because nobody on
this board currently owns a home in
granite bay.
that is correct.
as somebody who over the last 23
years has owned five different pieces
of property in granite bay and two of
them concurrently, I paid an awful
lot of property tax.
last year I did sell my house.
I am renting in granite bay right now.
did sell my house last year, but to
say that somehow by not being a
current homeowner in granite bay I'm
not invested in my community flies in
the face of my 46 years' as a
community resident, a volunteer for
sports programs throughout.
so I just wanted to address that and
leave it at that.
now just to explain kind of my
thinking when it comes to these
projects, because I get asked the
question
, why do you even consider -- why
do you even consider any changes to
the granite bay community plan?
and so I think in order to start
addressing that, we have to, again,
in the context of the board not
having done a land use update there
2012, I think we need to go no
further than granite bay community
plan itself.
the granite bay community plan
itself, it page 1, paragraph 1 says
that the plan adopted in 1989 is the
official statement of placer county,
standards, plans proposed that will
be the guide and develop to the area
to at least the year 2000. So the
granite bay community plan itself
speaks to essentially self-limiting
fashion to say this document should
be the guiding document the governing
document until about the year 2000.
that is why nine years after that, or
20 years at the age of the plan, 20
years, I initiated a community plan
update process.
that is why.
so we could comprehensively take a
look at that.
so the first threshold is I come at
it from this perspective: what does
the plan itself say when evaluating
potential changes?
well, the plan itself very clearly
addresses that.
the second thing that I look at when
evaluating any potential change is
consistency with the existing built
environment.
we have discussed this.
what has happened to the east and
north in the city of roseville with
lots smaller than what is being
proposed - excuse me, to the west
and north and the east in roseville
with lots the same size or smaller.
also more importantly for me, was
going through the exercise of the
island area and realizing that 70 of
the 120 plus lots out there are
existing non-conforming use lots
whether the land use for this area
was a higher intensity.
so just for the life of me, don't
understand why the board of
supervisors in '89 allowed for a
zoning that automatically created
half of the lot as existing
non-conforming use.
it just didn't kind of make
sense.
so in looking at this proposal in the
immediate proximity I think is
obviously a key-gating factor.
no. 1 what does the plan say? The
plan says we're about 16 years out of
date.
no. It, how does it look consistent
with what is out there right now in
the built environment?
no. 3, perspective.
perspective of somebody who has been
in the community and I'm not going
say granite bay because it wasn't
granite bay, but been in the
community for 46 years.
when we moved here in 1970 there
wasn't granite bay and loo there was
loomis and roseville to essentially
the lake and no such thing as
granite bay.
so we created the identify of granite
bay over the years.
how did we create the identify of
granite bay over the years? Looking
at this map I have highlighted the
park project in the island area.
and what has happened in the area of
granite bay over the years?
well, we'll begin to the south. It
was referenced the woodbridge ranch
subdivision was previously zoned
20-acre farm. It built out at lot
sizes a little less than 1 unit per
acre.
next to woodbridge ranch is the
castle creek subdivision and castle
creek subdivision was zoned and --
many of the lots are 20,000 square
feet or approximately 20,000 square
feet.
we have already discussed the
annexation in the southeast community
plan area for roseville of the area
that is currently hillsboro, ashley
woods and east ridge.
this area was farm 20 acres before
getting annexed into the city.
when it got annexed into the city, it
was absorbed in the city with a land
use intensity of 2.1 acres per unit.
when it built out, it built out as
dense as 4-5 units per acre.
so almost a 100-fold increase in
intensity in that area from what it
had previously been zoned.
tree lake village.
tree lake village was farm 20 acres
before being general plan amendment
rezoned, development agreement and
very first development agreement in
the history of placer county resulted
in 2-and-a-half lots per acre going
into tree lake village.
folsom lake estates.
folsom lake estates was 2.3 acre,
rezoned down to lots as small as 3/4
of an acre.
los lagos and -- and I want to say 3
to the acre.
we move on down to quail oaks, which
actually built out with the intensity
it had been assigned.
however, in order to build the
subdivision required significant
variances from setbacks and
significant variances to road sizes
and cut down a fairly significant oak
woodland and undergrounded a stream.
so quail oaks is a project that
couldn't be built today and move on
to douglas ranch, built out at 1/2
acre-ish lot and the quarry pond area
was medium-density residential before
it was rezoned to commercial.
the stratford downs subdivision once
again built consistent with zoning
but only because of significant
variances and again, undergrounded a
stream.
the commercial area that was the
jumbo market when they built -- it's
now ace.
when they built jumbo to rezone from
residential immediate up
medium density to commercial and
hidden lakes subdivision one of my
favorites, because it too was built
consistent with the zoning at the time
with interesting variances because
the developer of the project was the
first one to come to the county and
say we know what our road standards
are.
if we build to your road standards
we'll have to remove a heck of a lot
of trees bush they think the trees
are valuable and would like to keep
them for residents and even though we
call it hidden lakes estate there is
no water on the property the
developer is saying to the county at
the time and unlike what most
developers do today to go to the army
corps of engineering for a permit to
take away water, we have to go to the
army corps of engineering to add
water.
so hidden lakes estates this is the
first lake and, in fact it's looked
to by folks in the community as such
a wonderful example of such the
development in granite bay should
happen that a group calling itself
defend granite bay has adopted that
very lake.
on the homepage of their website.
this group is dedicated to preserving
and protecting the unique rural
lifestyle of granite bay.
the developer of this project was my
father.
my dad built hidden lakes estates and
my dad discovered the ground of what
is now hidden lake estates when
my brother and I road go carts on
this property and I'm glad my dad did
such a fine job developing the
project that the folks who now think
they need to preserve and protect
granite bay from me ares you using my
if father's subdivision as the
marquee subdivision that we need
to preserve and defend.
this is just what I was able to do
off the top of my head without digging
in too deeply.
we want to preserve and protect
granite bay, but which of the these
projects would you have go away?
which of these changes to previous
zoning, land use intensity do you
think is bad?
so which we talk about entertaining
any changes, that is kind of
perspective that I look at this from,
as somebody who has been here now 46
years, used to hunt the quail oaks
area, used to ride dirt bikes at
tree village property and I look at
this perspective, it's I an
amalgamation of changes and we have
an opportunity, I believe with this
project to continue to add to what is
a very high-quality of development in
our area.
now people are worried about this
setting a precedent.
well, I think we have already
addressed the fact that granite bay
is built on change butch and I have
heard the number 16, there are 16
projects out there and I can name six
projects, not 16.
; that are being proposed.
when you take into consideration the
fact there are approximately 8600
parcels in granite bay, and I know of
six that want changes, we're not
destroying anything.
are we changing things? Yes.
we're changing things.
but the net sum of this as I look at
it, I say granite bay has grown.
granite bay has essentially almost
built-out.
so why over the last 30 years, since
we adopted that plan with that land
use element associated with it, 27
years, why didn't these properties
build?
why didn't this project already
build-out and think that wes a board
have to say that we have had some
pretty good housing cycles,
particularly there granite bay, maybe
the market is telling us that the
people who assigned that zoning at
that particular point in time in '
86-87, having this conversation
didn't get that one right.
did a good job with an awful lot of
it, but you got a few of them that
maybe they just didn't get right so
to my colleagues, to folks in the
community, I hope that helps you
understand my perspective as I look
at entertaining these you kind of
changes and I do support this request
as a reasonable request for change.
>> other comments, questions?
>> if there are no other comments,
mr. Chairman I will make a motion and
I'm assuming counsel wants us to read
the various items contained in our
staff report?
>> yes.
>> into five separate motions.
>> on pages 7 and 8.
>> yes, 7, 8 and 9 of the staff
report.
>> mr. Chair, before we get to the
motion, if you would?
I have to say that supervisor uhler
makes compelling visual argument, and
while these have certainly not worked
for affordable homes at that starter
point, I recognize that they are
proposed to be less expensive than
what is currently in granite bay.
I will, however, and I don't think
this will come as a surprise to
anyone on the board, I don't vote for
communities with gates.
I don't believe in gated communities.
and they don't add safety and, in
fact a lot of crime statistics show
gated communities have higher level of
domestic violence and spousal abuse
and something about that gate.
so I will be voting against this, and
in the future, I would suggest any
developer who would like my vote come
forward without a gate.
[ applause ]
>> all right.
so asking of counsel, I have item --
I have five separate, distinct items
in our staff report page 1737 of the
staff report are those the five you
need in five separate motions?
>> yes and including the findings
set out --
>> we referenced the findings in the
motion, I'm sure.
>> understood.
>> if not, then I will go ahead and
incorporate and begin with no. 1 and
that is that I move that we certify
the park of granite bay final
environmental impact report pursuant
to the california environment quality
act and mitigation and monitoring
program based on the findings.
>> yes, the findings attached in
attachment e and mitigation
monitoring program report is
attachment d.
>> thank you.
>> is there a second?
>> motion and second.
I think there is a request to have a
comment, but the public hearing is
closed.
so we're not going to be taking any
more public comment at this time. So
with that, all those in favor of
motion say aye?
>> aye.
>> opposed?
>> no.
>> mr. Chair, I move that we adopt a
resolution approve -- it to approve
amending the granite bay community
plan from rural low-density
residential to medium density
residential consistent with the land
use designation in the community plan.
>> move motion and second, all those
in favor say aye?
>> aye.
>> opposed?
>> no, motion carry
mr. Chair, I move adoption of ordinance
to approve rezone of the project site
from rsagb40 to rsbx7,000 currently
-- excuse me, I have to figure out
where that will parenthesis ends.
residential single family combined a
minimum building site of 7,000
square feet motion and second, all
those in favor, say aye?
>> aye.
>> opposed?
>> no.
>> mr. Chair, I move approval of the
variance to allow increase maximum
lot coverage the area cover by the
building and other structures
currently allowed per single story
residences within the residential
single family zoned district from 40%
to approximately 50% on only those
lots that are 8,000 square feet or
less within the project site.
>> and including the findings on
page 1145.
>> thank you, including those
findings as stipulated by counsel.
>> sec.
>> moved and seconded.
all those in favor say aye?
>> aye.
>> opposed in
>> no.
>> and finally move approval of the
vesting map and findings on 1144.
>> second.
>> motion and second, all those in
favor, say aye?
>> aye.
>> opposed?
>> no.
>> motion carries.
thanks.
okay, we'll now take up our
department items.
starting with item 5, health and
human services.
good afternoon, mr. Chairman and
members of the board, department of
health and human services adult
system of care and I bring to you
today an update for the mental
services act for '16-17 the board of
supervisors is required to approve
this plan annually.
and since 2005 we have implemented
the mental health services act in
placer county and providing services
to people able to expand intensive
mental health services and crisis
services and people with severe
mental illness and develop programs
for people that needed prevention
programs.
in addition, we have been able to
have added supportive housing
projects.
we have helped to train staff and
providers, and added services with
facilities and technology
improvements.
the funding has allowed us to manage
during the downturn and used the
funds to get use evenly through the
ups and downs that occur with the
funding and with the economy.
we have five different components of
this plan that each have different
goals.
I'll just highlight a couple of
things about 600 adults and children
received intensive outreach services.
we know those services always result
in reductions in homelessness,
reductions in psychiatric
hospitalization and reduction in jail
bed days and we'll serve
approximately 2500 people with
contracts with 45 agencies to provide
family and use with development and
just to note a few.
so these dollars are not
insignificant, $13,658,035 of
programs in our budget at health and
human services for '16 and 17 and for
that I would be happy to answer any
level of detail about the projects,
but recommend approval.
>> kirk your light is still on.
>> I'm sorry.
>> jennifer?
, you have the microphone, kirk's is
turned off.
>> thank you.
I want to say thank you.
I thank our health and human services
division particularly during the
downturn has done just incredible
things with limited resources.
I would hope our board based on some
of the discussion earlier this
morning particularly in light of what
supervisor holmes raised as concerns
could figure out a way that we can
find more dollars?
and if we do need to spend additional
general fund dollar it's absolutely
critical.
from my perspective we're seeing more
people with mental health issue s and
while we're doing a yeoman's work we
can't keep up with the rising tide of
challenges.
it's something that the county alone
can't do and we need to do with our
partners at the cities and state and
frankly need help from our federal
representatives as well.
if we don't start trying to get out
in front of this rising tide, we're
absolutely going to be subsumed by it.
again, sincere thanks to the greatest
work you have done.
it's absolutely phenomenal and my
commitment to you, I'm going to work
as hard as I can do get this board
and all of our partners to bring more
funding and services to the table.
>> that is great.
thank you so much.
one thing I would say is some of the
challenge is not so much the
traditional services, but services in
the field and again, some of those
people that we're most worried about
are less initially interested in
services and part of the work is not
just the services, but engaging
people into services.
>> absolutely.
>> thank you.
pleasure of the board?
anyone from the public who would like
to address this item?
seeing none, pleasure of the board?
>> move.
>> second.
>> moved and seconded.
>> all those in favor, say aye?
>> aye.
>> opposed?
motion carried thank you maureen.
next item 6 is human resources
position and competition ordinance.
judy.
>> good afternoon, chairman weygandt
and members of the board. Human
resources department and today we're
introducing an ordinance and seeking
approval of related budget revision
and changed reflected in the
ordinance b.s. Abolishing class cage
of chief assistant county executive
officer and changing the salary range
for the assistant county executive
officer, creating civil, legal
secretary class series and abolish
the classification of secretary to
county council.
when the chief assistant
ceo retired earlier this year
additional duties were assigned and
the scope of the position support a
salary increase to align up more
closely with other positions in the
county with a similar scope and level
of responsibility.
the chief assistant ceo
classification is no longer in use
and we would like to have that
abolished.
at the september 12th meeting of the
civil service commission they
approved creation of the new legal
secretary calculation cation series
and corresponding salary ranges for
four new classifications as outlined
in the staff report before you and
also approved the reclassification of
several individuals and
non-competitive promotion of
incumbents, as well as approving the
abolishment of classification of
secretary to county council.
you have an extensive staff report
accompanying this item and in the
interest of time I will skip right to
the conclusion of my presentation and
be happy to answer any questions that
you.
>> any questions? I see none.
thank you.
anyone from the public who wishes to
address this item?
seeing none, I will bring did back to
the board.
moved and seconded, all those in
favor, say aye?
>> aye.
>> opposed motion carries.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> next public works countywide
construction projects.
rob.
>> good afternoon, chairman weygandt
and members of the board, public
works and facilities.
we're of I have three items related
to job order contracting and try to
get through them fairly quickly.
first one we're requesting your
approval of a change order to
increase the job contract with otto
construction by $300,000.
in order to complete a number of
projects that are currently planned
and under city.
august 18, 2015 the board approved
the original contract for $1 million.
the performance-based system rewards
outstanding work with additional
orders and until time runs out or
limit is met otto has approximately
20 days remaining in their contract
time, approximately $397,000 in their
contract amount.
we anticipate the need for additional
job orders to complete projects that
are currently planned in the pipeline
and in progress.
and additional $206,000 is reserved
in this amount for unanticipated
needs until new contracts are in
place.
otto provided excellent construction
services including the sidewalk up
above the garden amphitheater.
some relief valve in the system at
dry creek park and welcome center
egress ramp and they have recently
started on the administrative
building across the street.
the next job order is anticipated to
be the secure parking for building b
in the justice center.
in order to complete these job order
projects, it's recommended that your
board approve the attached contract
change order no. 1 in amount of
$300,000.
the estimated total cost of job
orders will be $1.3 million.
and there are sufficient funds in the
respective capital projects.
I would be happy to answer any
questions?
>> questions?
anyone from the public?
seeing none, what is the pleasure of
the board?
moved and seconded, all those in
favor, say aye?
>> aye.
>> opposed?
motion carries.
>> the second item is asking that
your board award job order with otto
construction for the secure parking
project at building b at santucci
justice center in the amount of
$311,740.11.
and authorize the director of public
works and facilities or designee to
execute said job order and approve
any supplemental job orders
consistent with the purchasing manual
and public contract code.
on august 18th your board awarded the
contract to otto, and authorized the
director of public works and
facilities to execute job orders up
to $250,000.
this job order exceeds that amount.
on april 26th, purchasing manager
approved a contract with mfdbr
architects for the design and
construction documents for secure
parking at building b.
the scope of the project will
provide secure parking environment
for the district of district
attorney, revenue services, the
assessor, and probation.
it will include rod iron fencing, for
new controlled gates, restriping,
relocation of regular and accessible
parking spaces, as well as secure --
in the secure staff area, and the
public area, sorry.
construction documents were completed
and given to otto for pricing.
staff has reviewed and determined
that the proposal is complete and
responsive.
in order to proceed, it's requested
that your board award the job order
to otto construction and authorize
the director of public works and
facilities, to execute the job order
pursuant to the county purchasing
manual.
estimated total project cost is
$510,031 including $342,915 for
construction and construction
contingency. $35,000 for consultant
services.
$132,116 for project management.
project contingency fees and account
-- funding is available in the
project account and capital projects
fund.
>> thank you.
questions?
anyone from the public?
pleasure of the board?
>>
>> second.
>> moved and seconded, all those in
favor, say aye?
>> aye.
>> thank you
>> motion carried.
>> we have one more.
>> yes.
>> this is requesting your board --
that your board approve and award
bid to staples construction
company and pride industries one, the
two lowest responsible and responsive
bidders to the job order contracting
in an amount not-to-exceed $1 million
per contract for 12 -month period,
commencing after the date of their
first notice to proceed on each
contract.
and authorize the director of public
works and facilities or designee to
execute the contracts and to sign job
orders up to $250,000 and approve any
supplemental job orders consistent
with the purchasing manual.
and the public contract code.
on august 23rd your board approved
plans and specs and authorized
solicitation.
bids 16 building and bid were
notified and bid documents reviewed
by 46 trade contractors on public
purchase.
bids were opened on september 15th.
resulting in five responsive bids,
the two apparent responsive and
responsible low bidders are staples
construction company from ventura,
california and pride industries one from
roseville, california.
as you know these job orders will
provide indefinite quantity contracts
for a variety of projects and
maintenance work that are not --
that are non- -- they are remodeled
and not applicable to new
construction.
the minimum contract value is $50,000
per contract.
and the estimated maximum value is $1
million.
the county does reserve the right to
increase that value to $4.6 million
as authorized by the public contract
code.
staff recommends that your board
authorize the director of public
works and facilities to approve the
contracts, the job orders up to
$250,000.
and any supplemental job orders for
funded projects and maintenance work.
staff will return to your board with
any projects that do not meet that
criteria.
the estimated total cost of job
orders awarded is anticipated to be
$2 million, funding is included in
the fiscal year 2016-17 capital
projects fund budget.
with that, I would be happy to answer
any questions that you have on that
one.
>> questions?
anyone from the public?
seeing none, pleasure of the board.
>> moved and seconded, all those in
favor, say aye?
>> aye.
>> opposed?
motion carried.
thank you, rob.
next we have a dial-a-ride agreement.
>> thank you.
will garner, public works and
facilities department.
this item is to extend the
dial-a-ride contract that we
currently have for another year, the
contract awarded in 2013 was done so
competitively, and allows for two
1-year extensions and we're asking
for amendment no. 2 which is the
first one-year extension, amendment
no. 1 by the way was when we added
the city of lincoln a year or so ago
to our dial-a-ride contract.
so this one is extending what we do
now for another year and this
contract the contract mv
transportation drives the buses,
maintains the buss and does the
dispatcher and a lots of paperwork
that we ask them to do.
the increase is about 6.1% over the
current year.
I'm told that this is mostly to do
with labor costs both drivers and
mechanics, and the difficulty in
retaining drivers.
they are trying to make a more
competitive wage in order to do so in
order to recruit and retain drivers
in the dial-a-ride service.
with that cost increase it's still
actually much lower than the previous
contract that we had up until 2013
with pride industries.
so mv, because some of their other
work that this occurring in the area is
able to coordinate the administration
that think do with some other
programs and contracts to keep our
costs low.
there are two different cost
structures.
one for lincoln and one for
everything outside of lincoln and
that is because we added lincoln on.
it's remote and their drivers have to
report there.
and they maintain three buses that
were once lincoln's that are more
expensive to maintain. So we decided
to keep that as a separate structure
to keep the rest of the costs
relatively lower, but still ends up
being a good deal -- in this case
it's cheaper than what he could do
with our own staff because of the
specialty, with the dispatching costs
and with that, we're asking for
authorization for the director of
public works and facilities, or
designee to executive amendment no. 2
do contract no. 1159 with mv
transportation to provide operations
for placer county dial-a-ride not to
exceed $1,040,046 for the period of
november 1, 2016 to october 31, 2017.
if there are any questions?
>> any questions?
anyone from the public, seeing none,
pleasure of the board?
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> moved and seconded, all those in
favor, say aye?
>> aye.
>> opposed? Motion carried, thank
you.
mark command vehicle purchase
consideration for the sheriff's
department.
good afternoon, chairman weygandt and
members of the board, placer county
sheriff's office, back on september
13th your board approved the final
budget including the purchase of the
mobile command vehicle and what I'm
here today is asking to you approve
the purchase of that vehicle and
budget revision to move $49,000 from
the ceo budget into the sheriff's
budget and authorize the puerto rico
manager to execute all of these
documents.
the vehicle will be purchased by a
company named ldv out of wisconsin.
and I really -- whether you put
this into our budget on behalf of the
sheriff I can't thank you enough for
the asset and what it means to the
men and women of the placer county
sheriff's office and placer county.
this will be a phenomenal asset for
command and control of major
incidents throughout the county.
if there are any questions, I'm happy
to answer?
>> jennifer?
>> thank you, mark.
two quick questions.
first I just want to clarify this is
coming out of the criminal justice
pot of the ceo's appropriation?
>> yes, ma'am, $700,000 put into the
sheriff's budget and additional
$49,500 to come from the criminal
justice budget.
>> right specifically from the
criminal justice portion of the ceo
budget?
>> yes, ma'am, it's a completely
different appropriation, 11 02 a
public safety budget within ceo.
>> perfect.
>> part of fund 110.
>> just for the knowledge of all of
us, and anyone who may still be
listening after a very long day.
, what would be the purpose of this?
how would they be utilized?
>> it would serve as command and
control center for all of placer
county, whether it's a fire, whether
it's a critical incident such as
kemper oaks where mike davis was
moved and the forest hill fire is a
perfect example happening in last few
months.
our folks were running command and
control off the hood of a vehicle, to
be honest with you.
>> this is a mobile operation.
>> mobile operation.
>> wireless connectivity.
>> absolutely and put us light years
ahead of the our capabilities now.
>> excellent; I just wanted to make
sure that people heard that.
>> absolutely.
>> jim.
>> what are you going to do with the
old mobile command vehicle?
>> the old mobile command vehicle?
for those who don't know what
supervisor holmes is referring to we
have an old car trailer we tow behind
a pickup struck that actually doesn't
leave our yard, because we can't take
it anywhere.
[laughter ], I appreciate the humor
and I thought you were going to ask
me what I'm doing at 5:30?
>> what are you doing with the
pickup truck?
>> we currently use to sar and to
supervisor holme's point we don't use
it, if you want to take it too tahoe,
you have to try to get it over the
mountain and it takes too long and
quite frankly, we don't use it and we
use the hood of a patrol vehicle.
>> any other questions?
anyone from the public?
pleasure of the board?
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> fantastic, thank you so much.
>> moved and seconded to approve,
it requires a budget revision, so we
need a roll-call vote, please.
>> and which one made the motion?
>> I'm sorry -- I apologize.
>> okay.
>> holmes?
>> duran?
>> yes.
>> uhler?
>> aye.
>> montgomery?
>> yes.
>> weygandt?
>> yes.
>> with that our meeting is
adjourned.
[ gavel ]