[0:25] >> good morning.
[0:28] the october 11th, 2016 placer county
[0:30] board of supervisors meeting will come
[0:33] to order.
[0:35] will you please join me in the flag
[0:39] salute.
[0:43] [recitation of the pledge of allegiance]
[0:54] >> thank you.
[0:56] we'll now have our meeting procedures
[0:59] read by the clerk.
[1:00] >> clerk: welcome to the placer county
[1:04] board of supervisors meeting of tuesday
[1:06] october 11th,2016.
[1:10] agendas are available outside this
[1:16] meeting room.
[1:17] please note that the board is not
[1:18] permitted to take action on items
[1:20] addressed under public comment.
[1:23] all items on the agenda will be open for
[1:25] public comments before final action is
[1:26] taken.
[1:27] when you speak, clearly state your name
[1:31] for the record and be aware there is a
[1:33] three-minute time limit per speaker.
[1:36] keep in mind the chairman has discretion
[1:38] of limiting the total discussion time on
[1:42] any item.
[1:43] please place all cell phones in silent
[1:46] mode.
[1:47] if you're hearing impaired, we have
[1:49] listening devices available.
[1:51] thank you for your listening and
[1:53] cooperation.
[1:54] >> next is our consent agenda.
[1:56] this is a list of routine items intended
[1:59] to be all considered in one motion.
[2:02] we'd be happy to be pull anything for
[2:05] individual discussion if any of my
[2:07] colleagues or anyone from the audience
[2:09] would prefer that.
[2:11] are there requests for consent items to
[2:13] be discussed individually?
[2:15] seeing none.
[2:19] moved and seconded to approve the
[2:21] consent as is.
[2:22] roll call.
[2:24] >> clerk: supervisor holmes,
[2:25] supervisor duran.
[2:26] supervisor uhler, supervisor montgomery,
[2:27] chairman weygandt.
[2:31] >> yes.
[2:33] now is the time for public comment when
[2:36] anyone can approach the board and
[2:38] address anything not on the agenda.
[2:40] please come forward and state your name.
[2:43] >> placer county 4-h, I want to invite
[2:52] you to the "you make it you take it"
[2:55] expo october 29th from 9:00 to 3:00 at
[2:58] the sierra building at the fair.
[3:02] it's open to the public.
[3:04] anyone can come.
[3:05] there is no cost to come in but we
[3:07] charge for the materials to make the
[3:09] crafts.
[3:10] we have about 30 crafts and it's from
[3:13] 9:00 to 3:00.
[3:14] >> supervisor weygandt: thank you.
[3:19] >> good morning.
[3:25] thanks for listening to me.
[3:27] I'm scott von. I live next to the park
[3:33] in south placer.
[3:35] if you look before you, I've provided
[3:37] some materials for -- complaint that
[3:41] we're issuing.
[3:42] I have signatures from 50 different
[3:44] households to talk about expansion of a
[3:46] facility going on in our residential
[3:49] neighborhood.
[3:50] this facility was -- is a new facility.
[3:54] there is a storage facility in the area
[3:56] built in 1986.
[3:58] we've raised concerns it doesn't belong
[4:01] in the enabled.
[4:02] it's to add r.v. Storage and parking in
[4:05] the neighborhood next to the park.
[4:07] that goes down a local street 25 feet
[4:10] wide and we have a lot of kids and we're
[4:12] concerned about the safety.
[4:13] when we talk to the planning department
[4:15] and asked how it was permitted in this
[4:18] zone, we were told there was a vested
[4:20] right in 1986.
[4:22] we put in a public records act and
[4:25] haven't seen any information.
[4:27] our concern is that this is not properly
[4:30] been studied or the public is not
[4:33] considered in putting this storage
[4:35] facility in this neighborhood.
[4:38] my colleague or fellow neighbor will
[4:40] talk a little bit about some of the
[4:42] different violations that we see in
[4:43] players code.
[4:45] but the questions vested from 1986 and
[4:49] when we were asked again it was 1998
[4:51] then 2007.
[4:54] no one can find how this was permitted
[4:56] in a residential zone.
[4:58] in addition, we were told that ceqa was
[5:04] to be invalidated because it was vested.
[5:08] the applicant blew through a creek.
[5:12] he'll be issued a notice of violence and
[5:16] he has to redo the plans in ceqa.
[5:22] we'd like it to be stopped and public
[5:24] comment to be heard and understand why
[5:26] this commercial facility is being put in
[5:28] a residential neighborhood.
[5:30] it doesn't belong there.
[5:31] we don't want it there.
[5:33] and it's supposedly supposed to be built
[5:36] for residents of my neighborhood.
[5:38] there are 1100 homes in my neighborhood.
[5:41] this adds 100 to 200 already existing
[5:44] r.v. Storage spaces and another 600
[5:47] spaces.
[5:48] we're talking about roughly 8, 900
[5:51] spaces per 1100 homes.
[5:53] it doesn't make much math for our
[5:56] community.
[5:57] so my concern is there are violations of
[6:01] law ceqa.
[6:03] we'll see other agencies and what I'd
[6:07] like to see the board of supervisors
[6:09] take some sort of action in the future
[6:11] or on the agenda point to review it.
[6:15] something from 1986 or 1998 does not
[6:19] have perpetuity ability to develop that
[6:23] lot in a residential neighborhood.
[6:25] >> we've referred this to the community
[6:30] development resources director upon
[6:33] receipt and we'll get feedback from him.
[6:36] >> will you contact my staff or anybody
[6:39] else?
[6:41] we have the contact information there.
[6:42] >> I think the best bet is to have
[6:44] that --
[6:47] >> that's good.
[6:49] I think jim was going to bring up other
[6:53] issues.
[6:54] >> good morning.
[7:01] thanks for the opportunity.
[7:02] again, realizing that you can't take
[7:04] action on these things but I wanted you
[7:09] aware of them.
[7:10] >> can you state your name.
[7:12] >> jim cook.
[7:14] I live in tree lake village.
[7:17] I have young children and I'm concerned
[7:20] with the level of tract.
[7:21] this tried to expand in 2007 and we were
[7:26] able to get them to stop.
[7:28] we were not notified on this expansion
[7:31] and we were curious on how this
[7:33] occurred.
[7:35] we see this as a violation of section 17
[7:39] zoning.
[7:40] this was created in 1986.
[7:44] if you look at the tables and zoning
[7:45] tables, there are no conditions under --
[7:50] under which a storage facility was
[7:53] allowed.
[7:54] we don't know how that was allowed and
[7:58] for a permit that shouldn't be in
[7:59] existence for a storage facility.
[8:01] we see a violation that the -- assuming
[8:04] that first complaint is valid, the
[8:06] second complaint is that the conditional
[8:10] use permits only says boats and r.v.s,
[8:14] but gardening, storage units holding
[8:18] furniture and other items in that
[8:19] facility that is not zoned appropriate
[8:22] for that.
[8:24] the third item is waste disposal.
[8:27] there is a tree disposal service there
[8:30] carving up trees and putting woodchips
[8:33] all over the property.
[8:35] it's a fire hazard.
[8:36] we've already had one fire out there.
[8:39] the fourth item is section 17 zoning
[8:43] that you're he not allowed to have
[8:45] hazardous materials.
[8:46] we have gardening organizations running
[8:48] the businesses out of there.
[8:49] a lot of fuels and chemicals and poisons
[8:51] in that facility.
[8:53] that shouldn't be allowed.
[8:55] our ask was that we treat this as a
[8:57] nuisance because it's in violation of
[9:00] code and the planning department take
[9:02] action to abate the nuisance.
[9:04] you know it's a crime to allow such a
[9:06] thing to occur as a zoning violation.
[9:08] we'd like that looked into.
[9:10] realizing you can't take action but we'd
[9:13] like to get on a formal agenda to file
[9:15] the complaint.
[9:16] once we have more data from the planning
[9:17] department, we're almost 10 days in and
[9:19] we haven't received any the documents we
[9:21] requested.
[9:22] so we come in relatively unarmed with
[9:24] the information we need to make more
[9:28] detailed arguments.
[9:30] thank you for your time.
[9:31] >> good morning ellie wahler tahoe
[9:39] resident.
[9:40] at the board hearing in tahoe.
[9:44] you suspended and ended comment on
[9:47] martis valley west.
[9:49] I wasn't sure when it was appropriate to
[9:51] ask.
[9:52] I researched the development agreement
[9:53] you're proving today and there are
[9:57] amendments that should be required of
[9:59] that.
[10:00] I hope you'll open public comment.
[10:01] thank you.
[10:02] >> good morning reservation alliance,
[10:10] I'm requesting public comment be open
[10:13] for the martis valley west hearing.
[10:16] in addition to what ellie wahler said,
[10:18] there is more new information.
[10:20] the martis valley operating agreement
[10:23] which was the preservation of the land,
[10:27] the land conservation entities for
[10:30] public lands and trukee [inaudible]
[10:34] pulled out of the agreement.
[10:36] they will not be negotiating on it since
[10:39] it's so contentious with the environment
[10:42] groups and the fire life safety and
[10:46] evacuation report came out for that
[10:49] lawsuit and that settlement.
[10:51] what it says is without the approval of
[10:54] that project, the [inaudible] budget
[10:58] approved a couple of years ago, there is
[11:00] not enough protection existing in our
[11:03] area that people cannot get out.
[11:06] unless they build a new fire station on
[11:09] the west shore, unless they hire more
[11:12] people.
[11:13] they hire new trucks.
[11:16] do a study of the lake.
[11:19] rolling your eyes, really, we all share
[11:23] three roads, 89, 28 and 267.
[11:29] that's it for everybody.
[11:31] our population goes up to over 150,000
[11:34] on weekends.
[11:38] we need you to hear this.
[11:39] this is from the north lake tahoe fire
[11:43] department from this report.
[11:44] it says we don't have enough protection.
[11:46] I hope you'll open the hearing so we can
[11:50] address these things with the public.
[11:52] thank you.
[11:53] >> is there anyone else that would like
[11:55] to address the board on something not on
[11:58] the agenda?
[11:59] >> good morning chair weygandt and
[12:03] supervisors.
[12:06] I'm [inaudible] with preservation.
[12:09] we did address the land trust partner
[12:13] and our recent submittal to you on
[12:17] friday and the homewood safety report.
[12:19] I think those are two important things
[12:22] that could affect mitigation from martis
[12:26] valley west and recommended approval for
[12:28] the project.
[12:29] also I think one of the things we
[12:31] addressed in our letter are the findings
[12:33] in the staff report and we would like to
[12:36] comment on that as well if possible.
[12:39] thank you.
[12:40] >> anyone else like to address something
[12:44] not on the agenda?
[12:46] seeing none.
[12:47] we'll move on to board committee
[12:55] reports.
[12:57] kirk.
[12:58] >> I wanted to report some supervisor
[13:05] holmes and I serve on the board.
[13:08] we were delivered exciting news in our
[13:11] last meeting by the executive director.
[13:14] that is all the advanced planning that
[13:16] has been done for the 8065 interchange
[13:22] construction has cleared environmental
[13:24] review.
[13:25] we have a project that is now truly
[13:27] shovel ready if we have the funds to
[13:30] build it.
[13:32] the design work is on and environment
[13:34] work is done.
[13:36] if we have the funds to build the
[13:38] project, we can build it.
[13:40] I wanted to let the board know.
[13:43] >> supervisor weygandt: jim.
[13:44] >> thank you, mr. Chair.
[13:46] I need to address the board about the
[13:48] transient population in north auburn.
[13:51] over the last several weeks have been
[13:54] increasing number of confrontations
[13:56] between transients, people shot in
[14:00] parking lots, community members and
[14:04] members.
[14:05] there was a fire started that threatened
[14:09] a deer ridge community in north auburn
[14:12] started by a transient.
[14:14] last two weeks there are dramatic
[14:16] increases in confrontations.
[14:18] two transients were hit by a car on
[14:21] atlee road killing one of them.
[14:23] last week one of our employees was
[14:25] harassed as he came back from lunch
[14:28] going back to work.
[14:32] we have employees who wait in their cars
[14:35] before going into the workplace to make
[14:37] sure there are no transients hanging
[14:39] around.
[14:40] last thursday three county -- employees
[14:44] were attack and one knocked down.
[14:46] now we have employees arming themselves
[14:48] with pepper spray.
[14:51] then a violent confrontation with a
[14:53] transient demonstrating violent and
[14:56] threatening behavior.
[14:58] thankfully the sheriff's department was
[15:01] able to subdue him and arrest him.
[15:03] I thank the sheriff's department for
[15:06] providing safety for the community of
[15:09] north auburn.
[15:10] though we're not providing our employees
[15:13] a safe workplace.
[15:14] I've been to three homeless shelters in
[15:17] different counties.
[15:18] those shelters have been away from
[15:20] population centers.
[15:23] we're trying to put a square peg in a
[15:26] round hole and it's not working and I
[15:29] want to see the shelter overflow closed
[15:32] as soon as possible then take a hard
[15:34] look at the shelter itself.
[15:36] that shelter is in the wrong place.
[15:38] thank you, mr. Chair.
[15:40] >> jennifer.
[15:43] >> thank you, I wanted to report that
[15:45] supervisor holmes and I attended the
[15:48] rcrc general conference in squaw valley.
[15:52] there were a number of interesting and
[15:54] valuable presentations.
[15:55] I'm sure that supervisor holmes took
[15:57] away from additional information in some
[16:02] of those presentations.
[16:03] very interesting presentation
[16:06] particularly on the very murky future
[16:09] for cannabis in california.
[16:11] which really enforced my belief this is
[16:16] an issue that we're probably going to be
[16:17] revisiting multiple times over the next
[16:21] few years.
[16:22] supervisor holmes, was there anything
[16:24] else on that you wanted to add?
[16:27] >> supervisor holmes: regarding the
[16:29] marijuana issue the state has been
[16:32] putting into your laps.
[16:33] it's like opening the door to toon town.
[16:36] it's going to be bizarre when all this
[16:38] rolls out.
[16:39] I think we should put off our discussion
[16:41] regarding the marijuana issue until
[16:43] after november 8th.
[16:46] that will be up to the rest of the
[16:47] board.
[16:48] very concerning about how it's rolling
[16:52] out and all kinds of different
[16:54] perspective from different people and
[16:55] organizations.
[16:56] >> supervisor montgomery: we had
[17:04] someone from public policy ppic --
[17:09] institute of california.
[17:10] I knew I'd get it.
[17:14] the increases in crime that we've been
[17:16] seeing in california.
[17:18] interestingly across the nation.
[17:21] particularly as it related to ad-109 and
[17:27] trying to it determine if there was
[17:29] tracking that could or gate increase in
[17:33] crime with ab-109.
[17:36] the general consensus we seem to see
[17:39] crime on the rise throughout the nation.
[17:41] that in states that have not adopted
[17:48] ab-109 style reform, and I use is that
[17:54] word knowing what it means.
[17:55] we've seen very, very similar increases
[17:57] in crime.
[17:58] I think there is a lot of follow-up to
[18:02] do.
[18:03] there is still a great deal of question
[18:07] around proposition 47.
[18:12] we didn't have enough data so the
[18:14] passage of prop 47 to draw any
[18:17] conclusion about increases in crime as
[18:19] it relates to prop 47.
[18:22] but within the next year, that data
[18:24] should exist and there will probably be
[18:26] some conclusions that could be drawn at
[18:29] that time.
[18:30] it was a worthwhile expenditure of our
[18:33] time.
[18:34] it was at squaw valley so I got to sleep
[18:36] in my own bed each night which was nice.
[18:40] but rcrc has been a terrific platform
[18:48] for vetting the issues.
[18:49] I wanted you to know we were
[18:51] well-represented and we had a great
[18:54] basket as well for the raffle.
[18:55] >> I want to who shout out for marra
[18:59] rowe from the placer county visitor's
[19:03] bureau.
[19:04] every county brings a basket and we buy
[19:07] raffle tickets to raise funds for the
[19:10] president of the rural county
[19:13] representatives of california.
[19:15] that's rcrc.
[19:18] but, so usually when supervisor wins a
[19:21] basket, they give it back and we auction
[19:23] it off.
[19:24] the one that mora from placer visitor's
[19:30] bureau, no one was going to send that
[19:34] back.
[19:35] it was tremendous.
[19:36] and supervisor from tahama county won it
[19:41] and he said my wife has been looking for
[19:44] something like this for a long time.
[19:47] so go mora rowe.
[19:49] that was great.
[19:51] rcrc is a great organization.
[19:54] there are 32 rural counties that are
[19:58] into that.
[19:59] it's a great organization.
[20:00] I'm proud to be a part of it.
[20:02] >> okay.
[20:04] if there are no more supervisor reports,
[20:07] we're going to take up our 9:05 timed
[20:10] item where supervisor holmes is going to
[20:13] present accommodation to kara sutter on
[20:19] her retirement from the youth
[20:21] commission.
[20:22] >> there she is.
[20:23] come on down.
[20:28] kara sutter.
[20:31] it's my great honor to present this
[20:36] accommodation to kara.
[20:38] this is recognizing kara sutter in her
[20:42] contribution to the community in her on
[20:44] going dedication to the placer county
[20:47] youth commission.
[20:48] where as kara retired in august after
[20:53] nearly 20 years of service.
[20:55] in addition to working as a health
[20:56] educator, kara has served as staff
[21:00] person for the placer county youth
[21:03] commission since the inception in 2009.
[21:06] whereas kara has consistently devoted
[21:10] her time and skill to educating
[21:12] residents throughout placer county on
[21:15] how to make improvements to their lives
[21:17] in addition to giving 110% in service to
[21:20] the youth commission.
[21:21] kara is known for her support,
[21:25] involvement and ability to help youth
[21:27] arrive at creative solutions to issues
[21:30] and my, how you've done that!
[21:32] whereas under the direction of the
[21:35] placer county -- under her direction the
[21:38] youth commission passed social host
[21:41] ordinances in rocklin and roseville to
[21:46] hold accounts more accountable for allow
[21:51] youth to consume alcohol and established
[21:54] the youth commission's annual youth
[21:57] impact awards which recognize the
[21:59] positive contributions and
[22:01] accomplishments of placer county youth.
[22:04] whereas kara is known to coworkers,
[22:08] which many are here, youth
[22:10] commissioners, family and friends for
[22:12] her consistently optimistic outlook and
[22:16] dedication and wise approach to ensuring
[22:19] that the focus remains on the positive
[22:22] attributes of our youth.
[22:24] multiple youth commissioners past and
[22:27] present credit kara for the high set of
[22:32] standards that will help to assure that
[22:35] they have the skills they need to become
[22:38] happy and successful adults.
[22:40] let it be known that the above
[22:43] accommodation passed by county of placer
[22:46] on behalf of the citizens of placer
[22:48] county on tuesday october 11th and
[22:50] recognizes kara sutter for her
[22:54] consistent invaluable service to the
[22:56] youth of placer county through her work
[22:59] with the youth commission and wishes her
[23:01] all the best on her future endeavors.
[23:03] congratulations and I will miss you.
[23:05] [applause]
[23:08] [applause]
[23:40] >> I wasn't expecting this.
[23:46] it's like -- I like being behind the
[23:49] scenes and thought I'd sneak out
[23:52] silently.
[23:53] but thank you very much board of
[23:56] supervisors and thank you back in 2009
[24:00] of approving the placer community youth
[24:03] commission.
[24:04] it's been an honor to work with my
[24:05] placer county coworkers in a number of
[24:08] divisions.
[24:09] that was fun with the commission, I got
[24:12] to work with different departments as
[24:14] well as our community partners.
[24:16] we have a great community and most of
[24:18] all, the young people of this county.
[24:21] I would say to maybe now more than ever,
[24:26] listen to our young people.
[24:27] ask them their opinion and consider
[24:30] their input and their best interests in
[24:33] our decision making.
[24:36] here and everywhere.
[24:39] that's the best way to ensure an engaged
[24:42] positive active community.
[24:44] so thank you very much.
[24:45] >> if I may, first of all, I want to
[24:56] thank you for turning that youth
[24:59] commission into something that is such a
[25:03] focal point of pride, not only among
[25:06] this board and our county, but people in
[25:09] the community.
[25:10] it's fun when I have parents who talk to
[25:13] me and say, my kid got on the youth
[25:17] commission and they're excited about it.
[25:19] it's because of the environment that you
[25:21] help create in making kids realize they
[25:25] can be impactful.
[25:27] that by getting engaged, they can be
[25:30] impactful.
[25:31] I want this board to know not only have
[25:34] you done a great job there, but I had
[25:37] the pleasure of knowing your son gavin
[25:41] for a number of years as one of my
[25:43] daughter's best friends.
[25:46] I see what I magnificent job you've done
[25:49] at home with youth in raising such a
[25:51] fine young man.
[25:52] it's no wonder that our youth commission
[25:55] became the wonderful institution that it
[25:57] is today.
[25:58] because of the way that you personally
[26:00] model that in your life.
[26:01] so thank you very much for your
[26:03] commitment.
[26:07] jim, you're not done yet, kara.
[26:11] >> when the youth commission was started
[26:14] in 2009, it was a collaborative effort.
[26:17] I have to recognize a couple of people
[26:19] that worked closely with the youth
[26:22] commission and keeping my office
[26:23] informed and apprized, one is ruth
[26:32] aisles and now my girl friday.
[26:36] I need to thank them for what they've
[26:39] done in putting this youth commission
[26:41] together to make it such a success.
[26:43] thanks again, kara.
[26:45] >> I need to thank supervisor holmes'
[26:50] support and championing.
[26:52] it wouldn't have happened without you
[26:53] and the support we get in your staff.
[26:57] and all of you that have listened to the
[27:00] commissioners.
[27:01] they're going to be knocking at your
[27:02] door this year so welcome them again.
[27:05] thank you.
[27:06] >> thank you.
[27:07] >> kara, you're not quite done.
[27:11] I wanted to take the opportunity to say
[27:15] thank you as well.
[27:16] today you're aware today is the
[27:18] international day of the girl.
[27:20] you have been a wonderful role model for
[27:24] young women and girls in placer county
[27:27] and have created an opportunity for them
[27:28] on the commission to really explore and
[27:32] expand their horizons and their
[27:34] opportunities and so I think that timing
[27:36] of this accommodation from supervisor
[27:39] holmes to you in conjunction with the
[27:41] international dave the girl is
[27:43] absolutely perfect.
[27:44] thank you so much for your hard work on
[27:46] behalf of both girls and boys.
[27:48] best of luck and enjoy all your time in
[27:51] retirement.
[27:52] I'm sure you're ridiculously busy
[27:54] already.
[27:55] thank you.
[27:56] [applause]
[28:01] >> supervisor weygandt: we'll now take
[28:06] up our 9:10 timed item which is to
[28:09] receive an update on the fairgrounds and
[28:12] consider authorizing the director of
[28:14] public works and facilities to negotiate
[28:17] an agreement with the south placer
[28:19] tourism.
[28:21] mark.
[28:22] >> thank you mr. Chair.
[28:23] mike riedel from public works and
[28:26] facilities.
[28:27] I'll try to be brief today.
[28:29] we're here to provide an update on the
[28:32] fair association and revitalization
[28:35] committee.
[28:36] and chairman weygandt stated you
[28:40] authorized to negotiate agreements with
[28:43] players valley tourism which would lead
[28:46] to their operation of the fairgrounds
[28:49] and through that to look at feasibility
[28:53] analysis for indoor sports and events
[28:55] center.
[28:56] the intent there is to receive direction
[28:58] from your board with the idea that we'll
[29:01] return for a future date for your
[29:03] consideration and potential approval of
[29:05] the agreements.
[29:06] as you are aware, the fair property is
[29:07] located in roseville 61-acres near
[29:11] washington boulevard and junction.
[29:13] it's been operating since 1937.
[29:16] next year will be the 80th fair held at
[29:18] this site.
[29:19] through the economic downturn in 2010,
[29:22] the state withheld their traditional
[29:24] annual support of fairs statewide.
[29:27] the placer county fair lost $200,000 a
[29:30] year in operational support through that
[29:32] action.
[29:33] some of the money starting to come back
[29:34] after the hiatus three years.
[29:41] that doesn't go far to support their
[29:43] operations.
[29:44] they had to make a number of difficult
[29:47] choices regarding staff.
[29:55] nationwide fairs and entities that
[29:57] operate them rely on rental.
[30:04] the fair is four days.
[30:06] the rest of the operations year around
[30:08] support that.
[30:09] the aging facilities, many of these are
[30:11] 80 years old.
[30:12] the sewer and electrical infrastructure
[30:14] are aging.
[30:15] jones and johnson hall were built in the
[30:18] 50s.
[30:19] it's interesting to note that jones hall
[30:21] is 11,000 square feet and it's the
[30:27] largest facility for rent in the county.
[30:29] johnson hall, the other is about 6,000
[30:35] square feet.
[30:36] as we started to talk about the
[30:37] challenges, your board awarded a request
[30:39] contract with the rch group to help us
[30:43] know what it means to revitalized site
[30:46] or close the fairgrounds.
[30:48] we through an rfp progresses.
[30:53] they also -- process.
[30:56] they recommended a committee.
[30:58] your board about that in the beginning
[30:59] ever 2015.
[31:01] there are 11 citizens from diverse
[31:04] backgrounds who met with us 19 times to
[31:06] discuss many items regarding the
[31:08] fairgrounds.
[31:10] there are a number here in the audience
[31:11] if they could raise their hands, the
[31:14] committees represented here by a number
[31:17] of members and members from placer
[31:19] valley tourism.
[31:21] people from the fair association and
[31:22] fair spray in the audience that may
[31:25] speak later in conclusion.
[31:28] with the rfp not being successful, your
[31:32] board extended the fairgrounds pcfa, the
[31:38] operating agreement through the end of
[31:40] 2018.
[31:43] I talked a moment ago about the state
[31:46] bringing back funding.
[31:47] the state required some financial
[31:49] auditing.
[31:50] your auditor controllers office
[31:53] conducted an audit and did the work
[31:55] earlier this year.
[31:57] the audit identified some deficiencies
[32:03] in record keeping.
[32:06] they were low-staffed.
[32:11] it was recommended earlier this summer,
[32:13] and it was centered around better
[32:16] record-keeping, training for staff and
[32:19] reporting budget actuals and the fair
[32:21] board wholeheartedly endorsed the
[32:26] recommendations and working to make
[32:28] improvements.
[32:30] the fair ground has continued to operate
[32:33] successfully this year.
[32:34] they've had an uptick in interim event
[32:40] rentals and ran a race series that
[32:43] continues to implement operating
[32:45] restrictions to be good neighbors to the
[32:47] community.
[32:48] the fair shows a bit of a net loss due
[32:55] to entertainment expense and marketing.
[32:59] the report talks about a loss in the
[33:01] speedway although they haven't had one
[33:03] of their large events yet this year.
[33:05] the 2016 financials are still
[33:06] incomplete.
[33:08] I'm just going to skip ahead.
[33:09] because the meat of the discussion today
[33:12] is it about the future of the
[33:13] fairgrounds site.
[33:16] just to talk a little bit about -- you
[33:19] know -- the fair was well-attended this
[33:27] year.
[33:28] the agricultural events that our youth
[33:31] are engaged in were successful.
[33:33] there was a lot of community
[33:34] involvement.
[33:35] the pageant provides opportunities for
[33:38] young women in the community to take
[33:39] leadership roles and support our
[33:42] community.
[33:43] there were lots of community members
[33:44] that came out with the arts and crafts.
[33:46] I think the strawberry jelly took first
[33:51] place this year.
[33:52] we had a wine garden that some of the
[33:54] staff helped develop for the fair
[33:56] association where we had placer county
[33:59] wines available for sell for the first
[34:01] time this year.
[34:02] there were lots of attractions to amuse
[34:04] people.
[34:05] entertainment opportunities.
[34:07] there was a race on saturday.
[34:09] it was generally well-attended although
[34:12] the heat was a challenge this year.
[34:16] to kind of jump back the fair
[34:18] revitalization committee has provided
[34:20] staff -- a lot of advice.
[34:23] your board allocated 200 hundred
[34:25] thousand dollars for fair ground repairs
[34:27] last year.
[34:28] we've done a lot of brainstorming about
[34:29] what are the best ways to employ the
[34:32] dollars.
[34:33] partnering with local boy scout troops
[34:36] and the northern california training
[34:40] group and we made a lot of repairs
[34:42] before the fair this year.
[34:43] this year with the fairgrounds
[34:45] revitalization committee focused on were
[34:48] the operations repair and vision.
[34:52] I want to talk about vision.
[34:54] they step and looked about why we have
[34:57] the fairgrounds.
[34:58] the purpose is to promote our youth and
[35:01] positive values.
[35:03] work ethic.
[35:04] building connections and understanding,
[35:06] voluntaryism in our community and
[35:09] provide stimulation for the minds.
[35:13] there are values that are, you know,
[35:18] endorsed by us all.
[35:22] identity needs to be authentic and
[35:25] quality.
[35:26] we need to bring the quality up in
[35:27] attitudes and in facilities.
[35:30] they talked about different concepts and
[35:32] how could you do that.
[35:33] what are the existing uses on site that
[35:35] can further emphasize community.
[35:37] I talked about the size of jones and
[35:39] johnson hall.
[35:40] there are lots of community
[35:42] organizations that rely on those.
[35:45] folks have weddings out there.
[35:47] the revitalization committee wants those
[35:49] opportunities to continue.
[35:50] looking ahead, what is the vision.
[35:52] what are some of the things like
[35:55] culinary common demonstrations, an urban
[35:58] farm and local festivals surrounding the
[36:01] agricultural products that can draw
[36:04] people to the site.
[36:05] one of the challenges that this air
[36:08] particularly faces is that you look at a
[36:10] 25-mile radius, you have the state fair
[36:14] and yellow fair.
[36:15] nevada county fair.
[36:19] six flags further away.
[36:22] how can you draw people to this site?
[36:24] the fairgrounds committee believes it's
[36:26] the authentic vision they want to drive.
[36:30] they had some difficult discussions
[36:32] looking at the opportunities that rch
[36:35] put forward, the one that nobody likes
[36:37] to talk about is so close the fair
[36:39] grounds.
[36:40] it has benefits.
[36:44] if the property were we purposed, there
[36:46] would be profit from sales from that.
[36:48] but would the fair continue or not?
[36:50] the there are a lot of things I talked
[36:52] about earlier that would suffer if the
[36:53] fair did cease to exist.
[36:56] if we kept the existing site and it were
[37:00] sustainably operated, it's in a central
[37:03] location.
[37:04] there are opportunities to revitalize
[37:05] the property.
[37:07] but the facilities are aged.
[37:08] it is a constrained site.
[37:12] rch's analysis to relocate the fair.
[37:16] they looked at a plug and play model.
[37:20] this facility could be customed designed
[37:23] but it is expensive and we don't have it
[37:25] a site in mind.
[37:26] and some of the ones that have been
[37:27] talked about in the west, their
[37:30] infrastructure timing issues that would
[37:32] take five to 10 years to deliver such a
[37:34] site.
[37:35] if we were to do that, you have the
[37:36] existing site and that community support
[37:38] we want to continue.
[37:40] there are difficult discussions the
[37:41] committee had.
[37:45] so through all of this, and the
[37:49] interesting thing is, we'll talk about
[37:52] placer valley tourism.
[37:53] as the committee was deliberating on
[37:57] what to recommend to your board in this
[37:59] annual report, players valley came
[38:02] forward with an opportunity to provide
[38:05] stimulus to the site.
[38:06] the committee voted on the
[38:07] recommendation and reaffirmed at the
[38:09] meeting in september.
[38:11] they believe that keeping the
[38:12] fairgrounds at the existing site could
[38:15] best service today.
[38:16] it's the center the community.
[38:17] it has existing facilities and can
[38:19] continue on.
[38:21] they think that players valley tourism
[38:23] seems to support the vision, the
[38:26] tradition, the identity, the
[38:29] authenticity.
[38:31] through this idea of a new event center,
[38:33] they believe it could be an exciting
[38:34] partnership.
[38:35] they endorse these concepts.
[38:39] before I go on, I want to talk about
[38:42] placer valley tourism.
[38:44] david attaway, the c.e.o. Of placer
[38:46] valley tourism, I'd like him to speak to
[38:50] talk a little bit about his
[38:51] organization.
[38:52] they're a california nonprofit
[38:54] corporation.
[38:55] their mission is to bring people to our
[38:57] communities and support the hotel
[38:59] industry.
[39:01] and that organization is currently
[39:04] supported by an assessment on each hotel
[39:06] night.
[39:07] they have mechanisms set to raise that
[39:11] support in january to do something
[39:14] visionary.
[39:15] and they looked at their expertise is
[39:19] bringing tournaments to the region.
[39:20] they identified sort of november to
[39:23] february as the period where they have
[39:27] [inaudible] and what would be the events
[39:29] they bring in in the winter months.
[39:32] they hired a nationally recognized
[39:35] company in 2015, hunt and strategic
[39:38] partners to look at this concept and
[39:40] found that you could have a
[39:42] sustainability that brings cheer and
[39:46] volleyball and girls flag and indoor
[39:51] sports to the region and drive a lot of
[39:52] economic development.
[39:55] it was presented to the community.
[39:57] given some of placer valley commitments
[40:01] at that time they were saying it was a
[40:05] five to 10 year vision.
[40:07] they subsequently came back and said
[40:10] there may be an opportunity to -- for
[40:14] the fairgrounds for 100,000 square foot
[40:19] building on the site.
[40:20] I want to detail that before I turn it
[40:23] over to mr. Attaway.
[40:26] the concept is to revitalize the
[40:28] fairgrounds with a new center and place
[40:32] that could be a home for these sorts of
[40:35] things to drive economic development.
[40:36] a statistic that is interesting, 65% of
[40:40] our residents live within a 10-mile
[40:43] radius of the fairgrounds today.
[40:46] that concept of quality, it would be a
[40:49] first-palace site.
[40:52] something that people would be drawn to.
[40:54] it would really carry the quality into
[40:56] the county fair.
[40:58] partnering with the existing network of
[41:02] volunteers that drive that event.
[41:06] partnering with experts that could run a
[41:09] sustainable racing series with fewer but
[41:12] more successful events.
[41:15] quickly, some of the physical concepts
[41:17] would be this building that could
[41:20] support the indoor sports.
[41:22] revitalizing the two large halls on site
[41:25] which have restroom and kitchen
[41:29] challenges.
[41:30] looking at ways to reconfigure the
[41:32] traffic flow on and off site to reduce
[41:35] the impacts to neighborhoods.
[41:36] repairing the parking lots which are
[41:39] aged asphalt that needs tree cover,
[41:42] adequate lighting.
[41:44] one of the things a lot of folks talked
[41:47] about is the streetscape along
[41:49] washington.
[41:50] there is a concept you could build a
[41:52] berm and clean up and enhance that
[41:56] public face to the fairgrounds.
[41:58] the speedway is in need of a facelift.
[42:01] the r.v. Campground provides -- it's
[42:05] interesting to think about this with my
[42:07] involvement I've come to understand that
[42:09] the r.v. Campground provides an
[42:12] affordable place for folks visiting
[42:15] family members at sutter or kaiser.
[42:19] when they support their families they
[42:22] can stay at the campground.
[42:24] in this instance it would be cleaned up.
[42:30] livestock barns cleaned cup.
[42:35] we want to look at them for corporate
[42:37] events or family gatherings.
[42:39] you could have a company picnic there
[42:40] and really have that connection with the
[42:44] community.
[42:45] continue to be a good neighbor.
[42:46] looking at light and sound containment.
[42:49] pulling out some of the buildings that
[42:51] are past the end of their useful life
[42:54] that need to be taken out.
[42:57] I understand small animal people in the
[42:59] audience, there would be provisions made
[43:02] for those.
[43:05] one of the exciting things as an
[43:06] architect I'm excited about the concept
[43:08] because enhancing the pedestrian
[43:10] experience.
[43:11] reducing the asphalt.
[43:13] providing landmarks so people visiting
[43:16] fairgrounds can enjoy the site.
[43:19] there are some exciting potential
[43:22] concepts in this that will be explored
[43:26] the idea of a small commercial kitchen
[43:29] where farmers could can their fruits and
[43:32] put players grow out there.
[43:34] to look at the performance spaces and
[43:36] have smaller venue that can have
[43:39] advanced acoustics to support some of
[43:41] the pageants and interim events.
[43:44] with our climate and to give visual
[43:47] interest and relief from the heat, some
[43:50] sort of water feature as a concept.
[43:53] placer valley tourism has capacity to
[43:56] bond for $30 million.
[43:57] the interesting thing on the collateral
[43:59] for that because there is an improvement
[44:01] district.
[44:02] it would be funded through the increment
[44:04] on the hotels.
[44:05] there are no buildings or land that
[44:07] requires collateral.
[44:09] placer valley tourism is looking for
[44:12] partners.
[44:13] they're looking at partners with the
[44:15] county and city.
[44:16] I'd like to say it could be costly.
[44:19] I hesitate to put numbers out there.
[44:23] is it 10%?
[44:24] 20%?
[44:25] county match?
[44:28] several million dollars?
[44:29] we don't know.
[44:30] we haven't had the conversations.
[44:31] I want to put out a large number to you
[44:40] -- as I said earlier, placer valley
[44:46] tumor is a marketing expert.
[44:48] they have a strong record in this.
[44:50] they have exciting new ideas.
[44:52] to look at other agricultural, there
[44:55] aren't rice or almond or nut festivals.
[44:58] to capture those and tie our agriculture
[45:01] back to our urban communities.
[45:03] the idea of revitalizing the existing
[45:06] buildings and looking at new ways to
[45:08] market them but still hit the price
[45:12] point for the community organizations.
[45:13] some of the financial projections that
[45:16] we've seen from placer valley tourism
[45:18] that we're vetting with the economic
[45:20] development division of the county.
[45:23] they're saying there could be 40,000
[45:25] room nights.
[45:26] you could have $15 million coming into
[45:28] the community.
[45:29] some large numbers over 20 years.
[45:31] you could have 300 full-time equivalent
[45:34] positions operating the site.
[45:36] then the construction jobs too is
[45:39] important.
[45:40] that initial -- because we revitalized
[45:44] the site, it has a significant impact on
[45:46] the community.
[45:47] to run through the concept quickly.
[45:50] this is where I'll segue mr. Attaway.
[45:55] the building to the left is a place
[45:58] where the building center could go on
[46:01] the west side.
[46:02] I know it's hard when you're using the
[46:04] pointer.
[46:05] the idea about bringing a new entrance
[46:09] perhaps off-junction.
[46:10] you could funnel perhaps 60% of the
[46:13] traffic on to the site without coming
[46:15] through the existing neighborhoods.
[46:16] the idea is it would be about the same
[46:19] number of folks there today.
[46:20] if you did have a number of buildings on
[46:21] the site.
[46:24] those people would be indoors -- they'd
[46:28] be enjoying the site.
[46:30] same number of park -- parking places.
[46:34] I guess I'm hesitating because it's hard
[46:36] to point at the screen and the folks at
[46:39] home can't see what I'm doing.
[46:41] basically the white buildings are
[46:45] existing.
[46:46] yellow ones are the new buildings
[46:48] conceptually.
[46:51] yellow building at the top ask where the
[46:55] culinary building would go.
[46:58] that's the ag industry north end.
[47:01] race district to the east.
[47:06] one of the exciting things is this sense
[47:08] of entry and arrival.
[47:10] you know that you have the berm along
[47:13] washington boulevard that would screen
[47:15] is to the community and provide cleaned
[47:20] up marquee events.
[47:25] you have a sense of arrival coming on to
[47:27] the site.
[47:29] the race district where you remove some
[47:32] of the asphalt and you have -- one of
[47:35] the interesting things about the
[47:36] way-finding concept.
[47:40] you could have the icons.
[47:41] meet me by the checkered pole at
[47:44] 3:00 p.m. To make it work cohesively for
[47:49] pedestrians and visitors.
[47:50] this is a view from inside the barns.
[47:52] the concept of cleaning them up.
[47:54] looking over towards the new events
[47:56] center where that could be in the
[47:59] future.
[48:00] this is what the building may look like.
[48:01] if it were to go forward.
[48:04] there is example at myrtle beach they
[48:08] studied and this is kind of this vision.
[48:13] from the moment people park in this new
[48:15] facility to have that sense of arrival
[48:18] and really the feeling of quality that I
[48:22] think we've been looking for at the
[48:25] fairgrounds.
[48:26] with that, again, I'd like to reiterate
[48:30] that we recommend that you direct our
[48:33] department to talk with placer valley
[48:35] tourism to explore this concept further
[48:38] to come back to the board.
[48:40] and then this is the annual point at
[48:42] which I recommend that your board not
[48:43] exercise its option to non-renew the
[48:48] fairgrounds agreement but to let them
[48:51] pass this year end of december.
[48:54] that would give the placer county fair
[48:56] association the ability to run the 2017
[48:59] county fair and contract for interim
[49:02] events through 2018.
[49:03] what I'd like do is ask mr. Attaway to
[49:10] give his remarks.
[49:11] >> thank you.
[49:12] david.
[49:14] david, just for the audience and public,
[49:17] if you could give a brief background of
[49:21] your organization.
[49:23] we know who you are but you -- if you
[49:28] could frame it.
[49:29] >> placer valley tourism is a business
[49:32] improvement district.
[49:33] it's not tax funded.
[49:35] it represents the 23 hotels.
[49:38] and as mark pointed out, there is an
[49:40] assessment that was requested that the
[49:43] hotels put on themselves to draw
[49:47] overnight stays.
[49:48] our primary vision was to how do we fill
[49:52] a business hotel on the weekends.
[49:54] most of it has been sports.
[49:57] february/march has been successful in
[50:02] outdoor sports now we need to move on to
[50:05] the winter to solidify that.
[50:07] again, mark did an excellent job.
[50:11] I could cut this down and go through it
[50:14] quickly.
[50:15] on behalf of placer county tourism board
[50:17] that supported this proposal.
[50:19] I'll proud to be in front of you this
[50:21] morning to discuss this most exciting
[50:24] public/private project.
[50:27] the committee has gone through a
[50:31] comprehensive study to find out what the
[50:33] best future options for the fairgrounds
[50:35] is.
[50:36] originally they were looking for a
[50:37] private business to come in and
[50:39] refurbish and operate the complex.
[50:43] a for-profit solution didn't exist.
[50:46] what was needed was an organization that
[50:49] loved our county as much as you.
[50:51] and have the business acumen to bring
[50:54] this event site into the 21st century.
[50:57] placer valley is one of the leading
[50:59] economic drivers of the capital region.
[51:02] we believe this proposal will continue
[51:04] to strengthen that position while at the
[51:05] same time provide a phenomenal resource
[51:08] for which all of our citizens can be
[51:11] proud.
[51:12] to that and, players valley tourism
[51:15] hired people to do the designs as you
[51:17] saw today to help us conceptualize what
[51:23] an overall site plan may look like.
[51:27] it would establish or maintain what we
[51:29] call a "placer place" home for events,
[51:32] fairs, meetings, festivals and
[51:34] tournaments that enrich the lives of our
[51:36] county residents creating community.
[51:39] and driving economic development and
[51:41] impact.
[51:42] unique site as mark put it out, 65% of
[51:46] the placer county residents within
[51:48] 10 miles of this site.
[51:49] this number only grows as our county
[51:53] continues to grow.
[51:54] the major components are one, be a good
[51:56] neighbor.
[51:57] this entailing significant cleanup which
[52:00] you've seen.
[52:02] removing traffic land, reduces the
[52:05] impact of egress and parking on the
[52:08] local neighborhood.
[52:09] improvements to sound and light
[52:11] containment.
[52:12] these are important issues and since I
[52:14] live blocks away from the site, I
[52:17] recognize how critical they are to our
[52:20] neighborhoods.
[52:21] second, the fair board and other
[52:25] committed parties are creating a
[52:29] argument-focused fair that continues to
[52:32] attract residents and visitors to enjoy
[52:36] the heritage and future of players
[52:38] county.
[52:40] the creation of a new 125,000 square
[52:43] foot event center along with meeting
[52:47] spaces and the raceway.
[52:48] this will be a catalyst for the
[52:51] revitalization of the site making it
[52:54] ideal to suit the needs of our growing
[52:56] county.
[52:57] perfect for indoor sport tournaments,
[52:59] meetings, trade shows and more.
[53:01] along with the modernizations asphalt
[53:05] will be removed to create a less
[53:08] vehicular campus.
[53:11] the players place will be ideally suited
[53:14] to meet the needs whether it's racing,
[53:16] festivals, concerts, circuses meetings
[53:21] and most importantly our fair.
[53:23] working with the racing series.
[53:28] there could be few -- would be fewer for
[53:33] better events.
[53:34] we've been researching our capacity and
[53:36] worked with our financial adviser to
[53:39] ensure that we have the capabilities of
[53:41] obtaining at least $30 million in bond
[53:44] proceeds.
[53:48] equally important, none of the land,
[53:51] buildings or over improvements are used
[53:54] as collateral.
[53:55] our assessment flow is used for
[53:57] collateral for the bond structures.
[53:58] economic impact mark laid out to you.
[54:01] it's strong over the course of time
[54:03] period.
[54:04] it will certainly add to the enhancement
[54:06] of our community and values.
[54:09] while we don't know the entire impact of
[54:12] the site in terms of economics, we know
[54:16] it's estimated to bring $369 million
[54:19] over 20 years.
[54:22] new earnings are projected to be
[54:24] $106 million over the same period
[54:26] supporting 308 full-time equivalencies.
[54:30] the instruction impact entails more than
[54:33] $11 million and from local materials
[54:37] spent as well as the $11 million in
[54:39] spending from earnings as well as 70
[54:41] construction jobs.
[54:43] as we all know, there is much more work
[54:45] to be done if we're going to bring this
[54:47] vision to reality.
[54:49] we're requesting the opportunity to work
[54:52] with staff to quickly define the details
[54:56] and agreement including operations,
[54:58] lease development, financing for both my
[55:02] board and for to you review.
[55:04] before closing, if I might take one more
[55:07] minute, I want to express my extreme
[55:10] gratitude to the county staff.
[55:14] they've been extremely responsive.
[55:17] weave he done a lot of work in a short
[55:20] period of time to this to this point.
[55:25] I want to thank my board who invested to
[55:28] bring williams on to provide you with
[55:31] this concept and option. Also wendy
[55:36] gehrig here from my board and worked
[55:40] tirelessly as well as our vice chairman
[55:43] heather hilton is also in the audience.
[55:46] even though jack patten is out of town
[55:48] today, he did a lot of work in a third
[55:53] of the amount of time they're used to
[55:55] working on this.
[55:56] I truly believe this will be a
[55:58] remarkable addition to placer county.
[56:02] thank you for the opportunity.
[56:03] >> supervisor weygandt: thank you.
[56:05] >> I could conclude my remarks.
[56:13] thank you.
[56:14] >> supervisor weygandt: are there any
[56:15] questions or comments by board members?
[56:18] kirk.
[56:19] >> supervisor uhler: as we discuss
[56:23] facilities, knowing that our placer
[56:25] county clerk registrar of voters also a
[56:28] member of the fair board and he's
[56:30] looking for a warehouse, think we could
[56:33] sneak one on here?
[56:37] no, it's close to his house.
[56:43] I -- I had the chance to meet with david
[56:46] and wendy and I want to thank wendy for
[56:50] her help in facilitating a number of
[56:53] conversations.
[56:54] as the former fair board member myself,
[56:57] my attitude about this has long been
[57:00] let's either be all in or all out.
[57:04] liked this limp ago long that we've been
[57:07] doing -- limping along that we've been
[57:10] doing.
[57:11] I had thoughts about a different
[57:13] location, but with a partner like this
[57:15] that is willing to come forward and
[57:17] invest a significant amount of capital
[57:23] in ungrading that facility in terms of
[57:27] working with the neighbors to reduce the
[57:30] impacts, primarily of the racing, maybe
[57:33] fewer races but those races that we have
[57:38] being of a grander statue.
[57:41] I'm -- stature.
[57:44] I'm thrill with this opportunity and I
[57:47] appreciate not only david bringing this
[57:49] forward, but the way the fair
[57:51] revitalization committee has embraced
[57:54] this idea and is encouraging us to take
[57:58] a deeper look at it and the fair board
[58:01] itself because as a former member of the
[58:05] fair board, we can be territorial about
[58:08] our fairgrounds.
[58:09] yet, I think and I don't pretend to
[58:15] speak for the president of the fair
[58:17] board right now, but I think they
[58:18] realize this is a great opportunity to
[58:21] keep the fair going in a location that
[58:23] is central within the county and we know
[58:26] that with the ancillary uses going on
[58:30] throughout the year provide that stable
[58:32] platform for the fair to be able to
[58:35] continue in perpetuity in this location.
[58:38] I want to say thank you for getting us
[58:41] to this point.
[58:42] >> I echo the words of supervisor uhler.
[58:51] the fairgrounds has been challenging
[58:53] since I came on to the board of
[58:55] supervisors in 2010.
[58:57] or actually beginning of 2011.
[59:00] I think we've done quite a bit of work
[59:03] to alleviate a lot of the noise
[59:06] concerns.
[59:07] I know one of the first things we did in
[59:08] 2011 was have a forum where we brought
[59:10] the neighbors together along with the
[59:12] racing folks to kind of talk through
[59:15] some of the issues that were happening.
[59:18] and moving forward from that, this will
[59:20] is a very unique opportunity because it
[59:23] comes from the community.
[59:25] it's something that all of the folks
[59:28] that have been utilizing the fairgrounds
[59:30] and have vision for the fairgrounds to
[59:37] take it in a different direction.
[59:39] it doesn't mean we can't do other things
[59:41] outside in different areas.
[59:42] but this is the type of opportunity that
[59:44] we need to look into and see what that
[59:47] potential could be.
[59:49] I know that they've scratched the
[59:50] surface of what the potential of the
[59:54] fairgrounds is.
[59:59] and I think with a little bit more work
[1:00:03] in collaboration between the interested
[1:00:06] parties and our community, the groups as
[1:00:08] well as the county and the city and
[1:00:11] players valley tourism and other
[1:00:13] interested parties, it could be
[1:00:15] something that we can all be proud of.
[1:00:17] so I'd be very supportive of taking a
[1:00:21] look at what the possibilities could be.
[1:00:23] >> supervisor montgomery: I want to
[1:00:28] amplify on kirk and jack's comments.
[1:00:31] I think this is a great vision.
[1:00:34] I think we've all struggled with what
[1:00:38] the future of the fairgrounds would like
[1:00:40] and the committee has come up working
[1:00:43] with placer valley tourism with
[1:00:46] something that I think has really
[1:00:49] benefit for everyone in players county
[1:00:53] including the city of roseville.
[1:00:56] we've been working closely with the city
[1:00:59] of roseville and none of this will come
[1:01:01] as a surprise to them.
[1:01:03] >> they have.
[1:01:04] and one of the nice things placer valley
[1:01:06] tourism spent quite a bit of time
[1:01:10] speaking to the different people and ag
[1:01:14] folks.
[1:01:15] >> supervisor montgomery: a second
[1:01:16] clarification, item 2-a-2 on this says
[1:01:20] that we're being asked to authorize the
[1:01:23] director of public works and facilities
[1:01:25] to designate negotiations etc.
[1:01:30] can we clarify that those -- this is to
[1:01:34] enter into negotiations on these
[1:01:36] agreements.
[1:01:37] not enter into actual agreements.
[1:01:38] >> exactly.
[1:01:40] the idea is that we would come back and
[1:01:42] potentially provide you with something.
[1:01:45] >> supervisor montgomery: the language
[1:01:47] wasn't there so I wanted to make sure
[1:01:50] this was not an action that type may
[1:01:52] have more implications than expected.
[1:01:54] I want to apologize, I am dog sitting
[1:01:58] for my inlaws.
[1:01:59] if you hear barking, I apologize, it's
[1:02:02] the dog in my office.
[1:02:03] he's fine!
[1:02:04] >> supervisor weygandt: we're used to
[1:02:08] it.
[1:02:09] maybe we should ask the dog.
[1:02:14] jim.
[1:02:15] >> thank you.
[1:02:18] mark, I want to thank you for your
[1:02:19] leadership on this project.
[1:02:21] this great presentation that you gave
[1:02:22] us.
[1:02:23] I want to thank lisa worthington for her
[1:02:26] leadership and the revitalization board
[1:02:29] and those out there have kept this fair
[1:02:34] going through the years.
[1:02:36] thank you, greg. And I appreciate
[1:02:39] mr. Mcnally and mr. Attaway bringing
[1:02:43] this presentation to me.
[1:02:44] I'm excited about it.
[1:02:45] it's going to put placer county fair on
[1:02:48] the map plus an event center and be a
[1:02:52] great amenity to roseville too.
[1:02:55] let's move forward.
[1:02:56] >> we're asking the public --
[1:03:01] >> I know that.
[1:03:02] >> is there any comment from the public
[1:03:06] or questions?
[1:03:08] >> good morning chairman weygandt and
[1:03:12] supervisors I'm david henry, the current
[1:03:15] president of the placer county fair
[1:03:17] association.
[1:03:18] I've been through mr. Attaway's
[1:03:21] presentation twice once with the
[1:03:23] committee and once with the board last
[1:03:26] month.
[1:03:27] first I want to thank him for his
[1:03:28] presentation.
[1:03:29] it was very excellent.
[1:03:33] excellent design.
[1:03:34] I think it's perfectly designed for the
[1:03:36] fair.
[1:03:37] it's a shot in the arm the fair needs to
[1:03:39] continue to exist in the current
[1:03:42] location.
[1:03:43] I want to thank mark and the county
[1:03:46] staff.
[1:03:47] they worked with us in the
[1:03:48] revitalization committee for the last
[1:03:50] couple of years.
[1:03:51] he's been to I don't know how many
[1:03:55] committee meetings and we've had city
[1:03:57] staff from roseville there.
[1:03:58] they're well aware of the issues.
[1:04:03] I know you've hay tough decision ahead
[1:04:07] of you of whether to address the
[1:04:09] infrastructure issues with the
[1:04:10] fairgrounds, electrical, sewer, it seems
[1:04:15] daily we come up with another challenge.
[1:04:21] I think this would be a catalyst for not
[1:04:24] only the fairgrounds but for the
[1:04:26] community and calendar and county itself
[1:04:29] to see it go forward with negotiations
[1:04:32] through the county staff.
[1:04:34] I want to thank both mr. -- supervisor
[1:04:39] uhler and duran for their support.
[1:04:41] I know kirk is out there every year
[1:04:44] helping to judge the pageants and I hope
[1:04:47] to see him in the future doing it.
[1:04:48] I hope to see you all out there, our
[1:04:52] 80th fair next year.
[1:04:53] I urge you to support the item on the
[1:04:57] agenda today.
[1:04:58] thank you.
[1:04:59] >> supervisor weygandt: anyone else
[1:05:01] want to address the item?
[1:05:02] >> good morning.
[1:05:07] I'm rick lawrence.
[1:05:08] I'm a resident of roseville.
[1:05:11] born and raised in placer county, I'm a
[1:05:16] fifth generation placer county resident.
[1:05:19] I didn't know a lot of what was going on
[1:05:22] with the fairgrounds until two weeks ago
[1:05:25] when I met with mr. Macnally.
[1:05:29] I left roseville in 1989 and went in the
[1:05:33] military.
[1:05:34] I returned home in 2004.
[1:05:35] traveled all over the country, lived in
[1:05:38] different towns and states.
[1:05:40] there was never a sense of community
[1:05:42] like I felt in placer county.
[1:05:44] that's why when I got out of military I
[1:05:48] decided to move home to placer county.
[1:05:50] I purchased a home on grove street.
[1:05:53] one of the biggest reasons for that is
[1:05:55] because it was near the fairgrounds.
[1:05:57] fairgrounds and my family goes back
[1:05:59] several generations.
[1:06:01] some of my best memories as a child were
[1:06:03] at the fairgrounds.
[1:06:06] I was almost born at the racetrack.
[1:06:08] really I was.
[1:06:10] my mom went into labor as my mom was
[1:06:13] watching the races.
[1:06:14] I want to support what you guys are
[1:06:17] doing for the fairgrounds.
[1:06:18] it sounds like there are a lot of people
[1:06:20] on board to make the fairgrounds a
[1:06:21] better place.
[1:06:22] not only for my children, and their
[1:06:25] children and future generations but for
[1:06:28] the community of placer county.
[1:06:30] thank you very much for the work you're
[1:06:32] putting into this.
[1:06:33] I would encourage to you leave it where
[1:06:35] it's at.
[1:06:36] >> good morning.
[1:06:46] I'm michael eman.
[1:06:49] I'm the director of the roseville
[1:06:50] community preschool.
[1:06:53] I'm here today not only behalf of the
[1:06:56] current students but the thousands of
[1:06:57] students and parents that have passed
[1:06:59] through our doors during the course of
[1:07:01] the last 60 years that we've been in
[1:07:03] operation on the fairgrounds.
[1:07:06] we're happy to see that the current
[1:07:08] master plan would allow for our
[1:07:10] continued operation, by our, I mean our
[1:07:14] school and sister school.
[1:07:18] roseville community school.
[1:07:20] as long-term tenants on the fairgrounds,
[1:07:23] we support pbt's efforts and we hope the
[1:07:27] board will move forward with discussing
[1:07:30] with pbt the plan that is going to be
[1:07:36] considered.
[1:07:37] the school I'm referring to is the life
[1:07:39] work of bev boss my mother and mentor
[1:07:40] who passed away this last february.
[1:07:48] as a school, we want to carry on her he
[1:07:50] legacy and work with pbt in doing so.
[1:07:53] thank you very much.
[1:07:54] >> supervisor weygandt: thank you.
[1:07:58] next speaker, please.
[1:07:59] >> good morning supervisors.
[1:08:08] my name is kim delgado hoskinson.
[1:08:12] I've been a business owner in roseville
[1:08:14] for 33 years.
[1:08:15] and over my tenure, I was reflecting on
[1:08:21] how many events I've been to'
[1:08:25] fairgrounds which have been everything
[1:08:28] from pageants to sports to a lot of
[1:08:31] racing especially when I lived a couple
[1:08:32] of blocks away.
[1:08:34] and to the fairs.
[1:08:37] and I am so glad this is coming forward.
[1:08:42] this is the shot in -- shot in the arm
[1:08:46] that the fairgrounds needed.
[1:08:47] because some of the buildings are not
[1:08:49] being utilized like they have been in
[1:08:51] the past because of the wear and tear
[1:08:56] that has been on them.
[1:08:57] with this moving forward and some help
[1:09:01] along the way, I think a lot of the
[1:09:03] events that we had with the chamber,
[1:09:06] with the different organizations will
[1:09:09] come back to the fairgrounds and it will
[1:09:11] be utilized more.
[1:09:13] and once again, we get to keep our fair.
[1:09:15] I think this is just great.
[1:09:17] thank you.
[1:09:18] >> please come forward and state your
[1:09:23] name.
[1:09:24] >> good morning I'm john [inaudible]
[1:09:35] I'm the producer of berry-fest.
[1:09:37] I live on baseline road.
[1:09:40] I'm also the general manager and
[1:09:41] promotor of dire world scare park which
[1:09:45] is open until october 31st at the
[1:09:47] fairgrounds.
[1:09:48] I am in support of the program that
[1:09:50] david and the county is looking at.
[1:09:55] I had the opportunity to meet with
[1:09:56] david.
[1:09:57] I was grateful he looked at festival
[1:09:59] input while planning this and thank you
[1:10:02] for that.
[1:10:03] I want you to know I support this great
[1:10:07] idea.
[1:10:08] I assume that is asphalt in the parking
[1:10:10] lot.
[1:10:11] it wasn't mentioned verbally.
[1:10:13] but I hope --
[1:10:14] >> thank you.
[1:10:16] anyone else?
[1:10:17] >> good morning I'm lisa worthington,
[1:10:25] I'm a member and chair of the
[1:10:26] fairgrounds revitalization committee.
[1:10:29] like supervisor uhler said, we were also
[1:10:32] all in as a committee.
[1:10:35] we worked for 19 meetings tirelessly
[1:10:39] meeting without compensation.
[1:10:40] you appointed a very diverse and
[1:10:43] interested group of folks county
[1:10:46] residents that came from all aspects,
[1:10:50] walks of life but we were automatic
[1:10:53] equally committed to this mission and
[1:10:55] vision.
[1:10:56] the partnership with placer valley
[1:10:58] tourism changed everything for us.
[1:11:00] we did go through a storming and norming
[1:11:04] phase which is normal.
[1:11:06] we appreciate that you gave us an
[1:11:08] extended period of time as you did this
[1:11:10] summer to continue to work through that
[1:11:14] in ordered to for the county to present
[1:11:18] the most appropriate vision and
[1:11:20] alternative to remain on site and
[1:11:22] revitalize.
[1:11:23] the values of placer county are
[1:11:25] well-represented here.
[1:11:28] I am one of the members that live
[1:11:30] outside of a 10-minute drive to this
[1:11:33] location.
[1:11:34] I did informally think to myself does
[1:11:39] this represent a place I want to go with
[1:11:41] my family?
[1:11:42] it definitely does.
[1:11:43] there are aspects of opportunity here
[1:11:45] that are unique to placer county that
[1:11:50] can be built on, specifically the
[1:11:53] agricultural educational center and
[1:11:56] culinary center as well as the corporate
[1:11:59] events that could bring in funds and
[1:12:00] also represent community and civic
[1:12:03] needs.
[1:12:04] meetings for boy scouts and other civic
[1:12:06] organizations or special events that
[1:12:08] families might need meeting space for in
[1:12:11] addition to the sports indoor complex,
[1:12:15] tourism drive.
[1:12:16] we are very pleased as a committee that
[1:12:21] you will support this vision or
[1:12:24] hopefully you'll support this as we
[1:12:26] unanimously do.
[1:12:28] thank you for appointing us and giving
[1:12:30] us the opportunity to help drive this
[1:12:33] forward.
[1:12:34] >> supervisor weygandt: thank you.
[1:12:35] anyone else?
[1:12:36] >> I'm the vice chair of the community
[1:12:43] and animal barns superintendent.
[1:12:44] so I'm looking forward to a new small
[1:12:49] animal barn.
[1:12:50] I spent 20 years in that old one out
[1:12:52] there.
[1:12:53] I look forward as you to continue the
[1:12:56] recommend to go forward.
[1:12:59] >> good morning, I'm terry grage.
[1:13:08] I'm a community leader from 4-h.
[1:13:12] I'm here representing the 4-h'rs in
[1:13:16] players county many of whom when they
[1:13:18] found out this, they wanted to be here
[1:13:21] but considering their school needs, they
[1:13:23] couldn't.
[1:13:24] the 4-h youth are excited.
[1:13:26] on I separate note, I work for the
[1:13:29] agricultural aircraft association.
[1:13:31] I'm involved in the ag industry and I'm
[1:13:33] so excited that this particular vision
[1:13:35] would expand our agricultural per taj
[1:13:38] here.
[1:13:39] fairs have been challenged not --
[1:13:41] through the reception, all the fairs
[1:13:43] across the state are challenged and
[1:13:46] changing the concept of the fair and
[1:13:47] making it an event center I think is
[1:13:50] really going to be a very beneficial
[1:13:52] driver for the entire county and for our
[1:13:54] youth.
[1:13:55] so I really encourage you to give this
[1:13:58] full consideration.
[1:13:59] sounds like you have it, but there you
[1:14:00] go.
[1:14:01] thank you.
[1:14:02] >> anyone else?
[1:14:03] >> good morning, I'm travis.
[1:14:11] I reside in roseville california.
[1:14:17] I wasn't privy to this, but I heard, if
[1:14:19] you build it, they will come.
[1:14:22] you could be placer's only mini
[1:14:25] disneyland.
[1:14:26] going back to the youth, what I heard is
[1:14:29] children are not ready to learn when
[1:14:31] you're ready to teach.
[1:14:32] I grew up in 4-h.
[1:14:35] I didn't know at the time I was learning
[1:14:37] all these things how much is the feed
[1:14:39] cost.
[1:14:40] budgeting, projecting out.
[1:14:42] all this stuff.
[1:14:43] I was absorbing but I didn't know it at
[1:14:46] the time.
[1:14:47] all this was through the fairgrounds.
[1:14:48] it turns out 20 years later I own my own
[1:14:51] business and it was a huge learning
[1:14:54] experience I didn't get through regular
[1:14:56] schooling.
[1:14:57] this was through community projects like
[1:14:59] this.
[1:15:00] you got to keep it.
[1:15:02] thank you.
[1:15:03] >> supervisor weygandt: next speaker,
[1:15:08] please.
[1:15:09] >> hello, I'm dennis johnson.
[1:15:13] I'm currently on the placer county fair
[1:15:16] board.
[1:15:17] I'm currently in my second term.
[1:15:19] I'd like to thank you all of you for
[1:15:22] helping to support the fair and giving
[1:15:23] us an opportunity to continue to run the
[1:15:25] fairgrounds for you.
[1:15:26] mark has been wonderful.
[1:15:27] he's been at all the meetings, our
[1:15:30] relationship with the county I hope is
[1:15:32] greatly improved.
[1:15:35] with we are aware of the economic
[1:15:37] downturn hurt us bad as far as us as a
[1:15:40] fair board.
[1:15:41] I find it absolutely amazing that we
[1:15:43] have managed to do so well even though
[1:15:48] we may not have a profit right now, but
[1:15:50] I believe it will by the end of the
[1:15:52] year.
[1:15:53] it's quite amazing how few people have
[1:15:56] stepped up and went to bat for the
[1:15:58] fairgrounds.
[1:16:00] myself as a volunteer, dave henry, it's
[1:16:06] nice to see that will the community has
[1:16:09] come together.
[1:16:10] this opportunity is great.
[1:16:11] I hope it happens.
[1:16:13] if not, we'll still be there to run the
[1:16:16] fair and to provide a fiduciary
[1:16:20] responsibility to you and the community
[1:16:21] to do the best we can.
[1:16:24] thank you again for all your support and
[1:16:26] have a good day.
[1:16:27] >> good morning, I'm sandy brian.
[1:16:33] I'm a business owner in roseville.
[1:16:35] I started producing antique shows for
[1:16:38] the city in 2009 in downtown roseville.
[1:16:41] in 2014 because of the development of
[1:16:45] city, I'm an antique producer and I had
[1:16:50] to move my show from outside when they
[1:16:53] rebuild and through a lot of research
[1:16:57] and time, like mark said, I had to find
[1:17:00] a facility that was large.
[1:17:01] the largest facility in placer county
[1:17:04] within roseville is johns all.
[1:17:08] I've been there since 2014 and my show
[1:17:11] is nationally recognized as one of the
[1:17:14] large -- from coast to coast flea market
[1:17:17] in different magazines.
[1:17:19] I'm a huge advocate for the fairgrounds.
[1:17:22] I produce that show three times a year
[1:17:24] in jones hall because it is the largest
[1:17:28] facility and I want to expand it and go
[1:17:30] bigger but there is constant threat of
[1:17:32] the fairgrounds closing, so I don't want
[1:17:36] to expand knowing I would have to be a
[1:17:39] disservice to my customers and vendors.
[1:17:42] I'm excited about the opportunity that
[1:17:44] you guys are presenting because it is an
[1:17:47] opportunity for me to be able to expand
[1:17:49] my business to create something more
[1:17:52] even larger to the fairgrounds.
[1:17:54] great presentation, mark.
[1:17:56] your staff down at the fairgrounds has
[1:17:58] been awesome and tremendous doing with
[1:18:00] what little they have.
[1:18:01] I want to commend them too because they
[1:18:03] are great partners for me to work with.
[1:18:07] my business is family-owned.
[1:18:08] we've worked together on the streets in
[1:18:11] 2009 starting at 3:00 in the morning me
[1:18:14] and my husband and kids and the trailer
[1:18:16] all the way down to the fairgrounds.
[1:18:18] now the kids are in college and it's me
[1:18:20] and my husband.
[1:18:21] high school volunteers.
[1:18:24] any how, I want to thank you for the
[1:18:28] opportunity to speak.
[1:18:30] I congratulate you on keeping it up.
[1:18:34] I'm a resident of loss cerritos.
[1:18:38] I live two blocks from the fairgrounds.
[1:18:41] thank you for bringing this to the
[1:18:43] community that we can be proud of.
[1:18:46] thank you.
[1:18:47] >> I'm debbie anderson.
[1:18:51] I happened on the agenda for this board
[1:18:53] of supervisors and I'm here because of
[1:18:54] this presentation that I didn't know
[1:18:56] what was going to be presented.
[1:18:57] but I am the chairman of the friends of
[1:19:01] nra for roseville rocklin.
[1:19:04] my biggest challenge is finding a
[1:19:06] location, a venue that we can have our
[1:19:10] main event our yearly event in and grow.
[1:19:14] so when I hear this presentation today,
[1:19:17] I am ecstatic.
[1:19:20] I am very, very pro this whole
[1:19:23] presentation.
[1:19:24] and I will through the nra very much
[1:19:26] promote the new buildings and this whole
[1:19:31] deal.
[1:19:32] thank you very much.
[1:19:33] >> supervisor weygandt: there will be
[1:19:34] sponsorship opportunities.
[1:19:38] I think a gun range out there on the
[1:19:42] south side.
[1:19:43] >> good morning supervisors I'm rebecca
[1:19:48] desmond the executive director of the
[1:19:51] fair services authority.
[1:19:53] I'm director of the department of food
[1:19:56] and agriculture.
[1:19:58] I was the director when the funding was
[1:20:00] pulled -- not my fault.
[1:20:02] I have to clarify that.
[1:20:04] we became involved not in this
[1:20:07] particular project but the fairgrounds
[1:20:09] in the county talking about risk
[1:20:11] management issues.
[1:20:12] I come to you today as a resident of
[1:20:13] roseville, a parent of a child who
[1:20:18] participants in the placer county fair.
[1:20:20] just to let you now with my background
[1:20:23] in the industry, a public/private
[1:20:26] partnership like this is the envy of all
[1:20:29] fairgrounds in the state of california.
[1:20:30] it's awesome.
[1:20:31] it's a beautiful plan.
[1:20:33] I think it helps the fair.
[1:20:34] long term tenants like the schools are
[1:20:37] the reason that the fairgrounds is still
[1:20:39] in business and so I would like to see
[1:20:41] them still be included in the whole
[1:20:43] plan.
[1:20:44] as a roseville resident, I think it's a
[1:20:47] wonderful proposal as a fair
[1:20:49] professional, I think it's a better
[1:20:51] proposal.
[1:20:52] and I'm happy to see the county and the
[1:20:54] city and fair association and everybody
[1:20:56] just all getting along and holding
[1:20:58] hands, making this project move forward.
[1:21:01] thank you.
[1:21:02] >> supervisor weygandt: I'll just add
[1:21:06] my comments to my colleagues echo all of
[1:21:10] my colleagues -- come on down, please.
[1:21:14] >> good morning, greg heggward general
[1:21:19] manager of the placer county fair
[1:21:22] association.
[1:21:23] I want to thank all of them with the
[1:21:29] county for all their hard work.
[1:21:30] I think there are a lot of people in
[1:21:32] this room that just -- it's been two
[1:21:36] years now.
[1:21:37] thank you.
[1:21:38] a lot of people in this room that really
[1:21:40] didn't understand what fair operations
[1:21:42] were all about.
[1:21:43] I think now they do.
[1:21:45] we have a lot more support, I have a lot
[1:21:49] more support from the county.
[1:21:50] I want to thank you for that.
[1:21:52] I do want to express that the placer
[1:21:54] county fair association that's been
[1:21:57] there all 80 years is extremely
[1:22:00] interested in continuing on with the
[1:22:03] operations of the fair.
[1:22:07] like rebecca, I'm a fair guy.
[1:22:10] I enjoy the fair.
[1:22:12] I love the fair.
[1:22:13] basically throughout the fair I'm a
[1:22:15] facility management person.
[1:22:16] I take care of all of that stuff.
[1:22:18] with hardly any money.
[1:22:20] this is an incredible opportunity not
[1:22:23] only for the county, but for the fair
[1:22:25] association and tourism and I want to
[1:22:28] thank you all very much.
[1:22:29] >> thank you.
[1:22:34] with that I want to echo a lot of the
[1:22:38] folks that spoke here but I want to
[1:22:40] thank the fair association and
[1:22:41] revitalization committee.
[1:22:43] mark, especially you, tremendous passion
[1:22:46] as we've limped along these years but
[1:22:49] held on to the opportunity as a former
[1:22:51] 4-her who used to show my jersey cows
[1:22:53] there, I'm pleased to see that we have
[1:22:56] this great opportunity to hang on to the
[1:22:59] history and embrace what the future
[1:23:02] looks like for these facilities.
[1:23:04] we need a motion.
[1:23:05] >> two quick things that I do want to
[1:23:08] address.
[1:23:09] first of all, to greg's point, I think
[1:23:15] there is an on-going role for the fair
[1:23:18] association.
[1:23:19] I've spoken to david about that.
[1:23:22] tremendous expertise among members of
[1:23:23] the fair board on the particulars of
[1:23:27] what goes into putting on a good fair
[1:23:29] from coordinating with the livestock
[1:23:32] folks to working with the community
[1:23:34] groups to get them out there for -- with
[1:23:37] their food booths and all the rest.
[1:23:39] I think that the fair association itself
[1:23:42] will continue.
[1:23:44] you'll be able to off-load a lot of the
[1:23:49] things that keep you up at night that
[1:23:53] will keep david up from this point
[1:23:55] forward.
[1:23:56] to clarify one quick thing.
[1:23:58] mr. Henry was kind in his remarks,
[1:24:03] however, I do need to clarify while I
[1:24:06] have been an emcee for the miss placer
[1:24:15] county pageant.
[1:24:22] two years ago the fair board did an rfp
[1:24:25] for a pageant producer.
[1:24:28] that contract was awarded to my wife and
[1:24:30] it would be quite the conflict of
[1:24:32] interest for me to serve as a judge for
[1:24:34] my wife's pageant.
[1:24:36] I do serve as the emcee which is an
[1:24:39] obligation that I undertake gladly.
[1:24:42] I wanted to clarify that.
[1:24:44] with that, mr. Chairman, I defer to the
[1:24:47] supervisor the district to make a
[1:24:50] motion.
[1:24:51] >> the motion and seconded.
[1:24:57] all those in favor say aye.
[1:25:01] opposed?
[1:25:02] that carries unanimously.
[1:25:04] thank you all very much.
[1:25:05] [applause]
[1:25:06] we'll now take up our 9:40 timed item
[1:25:10] which is community development resources
[1:25:12] and it is the martis valley west
[1:25:15] specific plan.
[1:25:16] we'll let the dust settle here a little
[1:25:19] bit.
[1:25:22] then you can kick it off.
[1:25:23] >> would all the exciting fair-going
[1:26:19] input having left are the room, there is
[1:26:22] lots of seats for people.
[1:26:23] please feel free to come in and find a
[1:26:26] see the and sit down.
[1:26:36] waiting for a little bit of the hubbub
[1:26:41] to subside.
[1:26:50] please come in and find I see the.
[1:26:52] we'll move to the 9:40 timed item.
[1:26:55] this is the martis valley west specific
[1:26:57] plan.
[1:27:16] we are not yet if he park at granite
[1:27:18] bay.
[1:27:19] we'll moving to the 9:40 item.
[1:27:22] martis valley west par excel fiscal
[1:27:31] plan.
[1:27:32] perfect timing.
[1:27:33] our chairman is back.
[1:27:39] so far, we have everyone seated.
[1:27:41] >> I'll carry on.
[1:27:54] >> good morning chair weygandt and
[1:28:00] fellow supervisors.
[1:28:08] greg and jeremy, do you have any
[1:28:12] presentation?
[1:28:21] it's more exciting with pictures.
[1:28:49] all right.
[1:28:51] I'll start again.
[1:28:52] good morning chair weygandt and fellow
[1:28:56] supervisors.
[1:28:57] I'm stacy with the tahoe city office in
[1:29:01] tahoe city.
[1:29:03] in -- on september 13th, I presented to
[1:29:07] you the martis valley west parcel
[1:29:10] specific plan.
[1:29:11] of which at that hearing, you guys
[1:29:14] considered the project which consists of
[1:29:18] two components.
[1:29:20] there is a west parcel and east parcel
[1:29:23] located off 267.
[1:29:25] which is in between the town of truckee
[1:29:28] and kings beach.
[1:29:29] the project itself consists of the
[1:29:33] transfer of development rights from the
[1:29:34] east parcel to the west parcel.
[1:29:37] the martis valley opportunity plan
[1:29:42] slated for 1,000 units.
[1:29:52] transfer 706 opportunities and take the
[1:29:56] 6.6 acres commercial also from the east
[1:29:59] parcel to the west parcel.
[1:30:03] then with that transfer, the east parcel
[1:30:06] would then be conserved in its entirety
[1:30:10] not only the amoeba portion slated for
[1:30:15] development but the 600-acres of the
[1:30:18] east parcel for open space.
[1:30:20] this would either be through a
[1:30:22] conservation easement or purchased by a
[1:30:26] land trust.
[1:30:27] at the september 13th hearing, the
[1:30:29] requested entitlements consisted of a
[1:30:34] plan, amendment for the two components,
[1:30:38] land use diagram for the specific plan
[1:30:44] together with the emergency preparedness
[1:30:46] and the supporting documents of the
[1:30:47] specific plan development standards and
[1:30:50] design guidelines.
[1:30:51] two rezones I spoke of from the west and
[1:30:54] west parcel.
[1:30:56] development agreement and approval of
[1:30:57] the large lot vesting tenant amount for
[1:31:01] the sole purpose of sale, lease and
[1:31:03] finance.
[1:31:04] at the september 13th board hearing, the
[1:31:06] applicants made their presentation of
[1:31:09] which at that time they announced a
[1:31:10] modification to the workforce housing
[1:31:13] proposal.
[1:31:15] at the september 13th hearing, the board
[1:31:18] considered public testimony which
[1:31:21] consisted of folks in favor of the
[1:31:23] project and those that oppose the
[1:31:25] project.
[1:31:26] in summary, the reasons why are listed
[1:31:28] on the slide here.
[1:31:30] the chair of the board at the
[1:31:32] september 13th hearing did close the
[1:31:34] public hearing to further testimony and
[1:31:36] during deliberation considered the
[1:31:40] project and tentatively took action to
[1:31:42] certify the martis valley west specific
[1:31:47] plan e.I.r. And approve the specific
[1:31:49] plan in the associated entitlements.
[1:31:52] the board separately took incentive
[1:31:54] action to approve the martis valley can
[1:31:57] community plan amendment for the
[1:31:59] emergency preparedness and directed
[1:32:03] staff to come back with the required
[1:32:04] resolutions and ordinances for your
[1:32:06] adoption at today, october 11th final
[1:32:10] action.
[1:32:11] as we mentioned, the applicants
[1:32:12] announced at the september 13th meeting
[1:32:14] that he modified their affordable
[1:32:17] housing proposal.
[1:32:18] the original affordable housing proposal
[1:32:22] consisted of two options outlined in the
[1:32:24] original d.a. Either of constructing the
[1:32:30] required on site or pay the in lieu fee.
[1:32:35] they asked that they construct the
[1:32:38] equivalent of 47 ftees so full-time
[1:32:43] employee eye equivalents which is 16
[1:32:47] units and pay for the remaining five
[1:32:49] units in $585,000.
[1:32:52] the applicants will be required to
[1:32:54] provide a housing plan outlining when
[1:32:57] and how the units will be constructed.
[1:33:00] the regional housing contribution of
[1:33:02] $125,000 will continue to remain and
[1:33:06] there were no changes proposed to that.
[1:33:09] all of the modified workforce housing
[1:33:13] proposal is contained with your d.a.
[1:33:15] which is part of your pact.
[1:33:17] and -- packet and staff further supports
[1:33:20] the housing as well.
[1:33:23] senate bill 610 requires that water
[1:33:26] supply assessments be analyzed in the
[1:33:28] e.I.r.
[1:33:29] as -- as such, a water supply assessment
[1:33:35] was prepared by stan tech consulting
[1:33:39] services in 2016.
[1:33:41] it was analyzed to determine if there
[1:33:43] was sufficient water supplies available
[1:33:45] to serve the project.
[1:33:46] as a result, the water supply assessment
[1:33:50] was analyzed within the draft e.I.r. And
[1:33:54] further incorporated into the specific
[1:33:56] plan.
[1:33:57] the water supply assessment as I
[1:33:59] mentioned demonstrated that -- there are
[1:34:02] adequate water resources and to further
[1:34:04] that, that the northstar community
[1:34:07] service district also has the adequate
[1:34:11] water resources to serve the project
[1:34:14] should the project choose or be annexed
[1:34:17] into the northstar community service
[1:34:19] district or it could have wells drilled
[1:34:23] on site which could service the project.
[1:34:26] there are water supply assessment made
[1:34:28] two determine nations -- one determine
[1:34:30] nation that is there is adequate water,
[1:34:33] however, whichever route anything if
[1:34:38] they provide for their own on-site water
[1:34:41] supply or get annexed.
[1:34:44] either will be -- either one will be
[1:34:47] able to service it.
[1:34:49] they ask the board consider the approval
[1:34:52] of the water supply assessment through
[1:34:54] the resolution of the certification of
[1:34:56] the final e.I.r.
[1:34:58] with that, staff is here today as
[1:35:02] directed by the board on september 13th
[1:35:04] to ask that the board take final action
[1:35:09] on the following actions of the martis
[1:35:11] valley west specific plan to adopt the
[1:35:14] resolution to certify the specific
[1:35:17] plan -- the specific plan's e.I.r. With
[1:35:23] the errata and findings considerations
[1:35:28] and adopt the mmrp.
[1:35:32] adopt a resolution to approve the martis
[1:35:33] valley specific plan.
[1:35:36] adopt and ordinance to approve the
[1:35:38] development standards of the specific
[1:35:39] plan.
[1:35:40] adopt a resolution to approve the
[1:35:42] specific's designed guidelines ad adopt
[1:35:46] the resolution to approve the amendment
[1:35:49] to the land use diagram for the specific
[1:35:52] plan and also for the text amendment
[1:35:55] approve a resolution for that for the
[1:35:57] emergency preparedness.
[1:35:58] adopt a resolution to approve the
[1:36:00] remediate rezones of the west parcel
[1:36:05] rand rezones of the east parcel as well.
[1:36:08] adopt an ordinance to approve the
[1:36:10] agreement and approve the large lot
[1:36:13] vesting tentative map.
[1:36:15] with that, that concludes my
[1:36:17] presentation and I'm available should
[1:36:19] you have any questions.
[1:36:20] >> any questions or comments for board
[1:36:23] members at this time?
[1:36:25] so the public hearing has been closed.
[1:36:30] >> I was going to ask that the chair
[1:36:39] while recognizing that the public
[1:36:41] hearing has been closed, that the chair
[1:36:44] take public comments on this item as to
[1:36:46] new items.
[1:36:48] >> supervisor weygandt: that's where I
[1:36:49] was headed.
[1:36:50] the board heard this project on
[1:36:51] september 13th as mentioned and the
[1:36:55] public hearing lasted in excess of five
[1:36:57] hours.
[1:36:58] many requests to not redo that.
[1:37:03] the public hearing will not be reopened.
[1:37:05] however, particularly in light of the
[1:37:08] fact that some folks came down from lake
[1:37:10] tahoe.
[1:37:12] what the chair will entertain is public
[1:37:15] comment.
[1:37:16] but the chair is requesting that those
[1:37:18] comments be new information, or
[1:37:21] information that the board has not yet
[1:37:23] been privy to because we had lengthy
[1:37:27] deliberations and there was a huge
[1:37:30] amount of investment in time and thought
[1:37:32] and the staff were leading up to is
[1:37:34] that.
[1:37:35] if you'd like to make a public comment,
[1:37:37] please come forward and state your name
[1:37:39] for the record and keep your comments
[1:37:42] within three minutes.
[1:37:43] >> good morning. I'm ellie wahler.
[1:37:50] thank you for the opportunity.
[1:37:51] I'd like to bring to your attention that
[1:37:53] no major development, I'm not talking
[1:37:55] about signage, conditional use permits
[1:37:57] and such has been overturned in last 10
[1:38:01] years when a planning commission has
[1:38:03] recommended them.
[1:38:05] the staff report summarizes public
[1:38:08] concerns one of which was the support of
[1:38:10] the conservation easement.
[1:38:12] the development agreement states
[1:38:14] developer represents and warrants that
[1:38:17] it is entered into an option agreement
[1:38:19] with the conservation organization for
[1:38:21] the asset of the east parcel.
[1:38:23] that has changed, so the development
[1:38:27] agreement should be amended to reflect
[1:38:30] the proper information.
[1:38:32] I'll say a couple of other issues in the
[1:38:35] development agreement should be amended
[1:38:37] before you approve it.
[1:38:40] the martis valley west parcel specific
[1:38:43] plan violates the general plan criteria.
[1:38:46] I won't do the definitions much all
[1:38:48] these but your people will look them up
[1:38:51] and public facilities hra-1.
[1:38:56] h-6 fire hazards 8-c-1 and 8-c-3 and
[1:39:05] 3-a-7 and 3-a-8.
[1:39:09] I will backup details.
[1:39:10] the development agreement which also
[1:39:14] affects the specific plan approval needs
[1:39:16] to also be updated and corrected.
[1:39:20] so all your process and information is
[1:39:23] correct before you approve it.
[1:39:24] in the development agreement, based on
[1:39:29] the flawed analysis of those things I
[1:39:32] mentioned in the general plan, the
[1:39:35] community hereby 7.2 county findings,
[1:39:39] the county hereby finds the execution of
[1:39:43] agreement is in the best interest of the
[1:39:45] public safety and general welfare
[1:39:48] consistent with the players valley plan
[1:39:51] and martis valley plan.
[1:39:53] extensive comment was supplied.
[1:39:55] I want to thank commissioner nader for
[1:39:58] his extensive information on calfire.
[1:40:03] the development agreement must be
[1:40:06] amended to reflect the workforce housing
[1:40:08] plan.
[1:40:09] the current development agreement that
[1:40:11] is provided to the public on line has
[1:40:12] not been corrected.
[1:40:14] that needs to be amended.
[1:40:16] there is no mention of the secondary
[1:40:19] evacuation route in the d.a. When the
[1:40:24] [inaudible] campground was suspended.
[1:40:26] that needs to be fixed.
[1:40:28] there is a lot of information that needs
[1:40:29] to be reviewed.
[1:40:31] process and documentation must be
[1:40:33] consistent and correct.
[1:40:34] I respectfully request you continue to
[1:40:37] your meeting october 25th.
[1:40:39] I've added some information from the
[1:40:41] national policy analysis of 2008 on
[1:40:45] conservation easements, the good, bad
[1:40:47] and ugly.
[1:40:48] >> supervisor weygandt: any other
[1:40:53] speakers?
[1:40:54] >> good morning.
[1:41:03] I'm a second homeowner up in tahoe.
[1:41:06] I live in santa rosa california and I
[1:41:10] pay placer county taxes and I have
[1:41:14] children in rocklin area.
[1:41:16] my concern is how does the public -- how
[1:41:19] do you listen to the public?
[1:41:22] many people that I have friends that
[1:41:24] have places in tahoe do not even know
[1:41:27] about this.
[1:41:28] so the hearing I was in october, you
[1:41:31] know, a lot of people spoke.
[1:41:35] I feel I'm not sure if you're listening
[1:41:37] to the public versus the money from
[1:41:42] developers.
[1:41:43] my question is how do we make an impact?
[1:41:45] do we do petitions?
[1:41:47] coming from the bay area is, you know,
[1:41:51] we come up to tahoe for relaxation and
[1:41:55] stress-free type of thing.
[1:41:57] the beauty -- I have grandchildren and I
[1:41:59] worry that gee, if they want to come up
[1:42:02] here, it's going to be a boondoggle
[1:42:08] problem driving up to this.
[1:42:10] as bad enough if you drive through you
[1:42:15] want it to be nice up here.
[1:42:17] how do we make an impact this is not the
[1:42:20] right thing do?
[1:42:21] >> state your name.
[1:42:26] >> trish hunstock.
[1:42:35] >> supervisor weygandt: people like us
[1:42:39] are voted to make the decisions.
[1:42:40] we vote our conscience, but the key
[1:42:44] point is we had over five hours of
[1:42:47] public comment.
[1:42:48] they were well-taken.
[1:42:50] the board is going to restrict this
[1:42:53] public comment to new information that
[1:42:55] has not yet been heard.
[1:42:58] thank you for your comments.
[1:42:59] I appreciate it if future speakers would
[1:43:05] accommodate that.
[1:43:06] >> I'm alex aler of preservation.
[1:43:10] I want to say that the findings in the
[1:43:12] staff report are not substantiated by
[1:43:16] facts.
[1:43:17] they're not outweighed by the benefits.
[1:43:19] you made your approval based on the
[1:43:21] project having real meaningful
[1:43:23] conservation.
[1:43:24] this is what brought many of us to the
[1:43:26] table over 10 years ago.
[1:43:27] more recently, the land trust partners
[1:43:31] did submit a letter to the supervisors
[1:43:34] outlining that the project won't have
[1:43:35] meaningful conservation.
[1:43:37] they will not be purchasing the
[1:43:39] property.
[1:43:40] now we're looking at limited
[1:43:41] conservation easement to be held by
[1:43:43] maybe another entity or landowner as is
[1:43:45] today.
[1:43:47] I think that is important.
[1:43:48] I think that changes some things with
[1:43:50] your decision making power.
[1:43:53] also, the number of outlined issues that
[1:43:55] ellie brought up in the development
[1:43:57] agreement.
[1:43:58] but the plan doesn't ensure proper
[1:44:00] analysis for mitigation to address the
[1:44:02] specific plan impact.
[1:44:04] we've continued to state that the e.I.r.
[1:44:06] is also not complying with ceqa and
[1:44:10] threatens the well-being of the
[1:44:12] community in truckee and north lake
[1:44:14] tahoe.
[1:44:16] when I asked to speak this morning, I
[1:44:18] brought up the life safety report
[1:44:21] released on september 25th, 2016.
[1:44:25] sierra watch attached it to the last
[1:44:28] letter we sent you.
[1:44:29] wildfire is still an issue with this
[1:44:31] project.
[1:44:32] we have little assurance on how to
[1:44:34] address wildfire safety.
[1:44:35] the homewood settlement couldn't make a
[1:44:38] finding on non-exacerbating.
[1:44:49] they now need new staff and equipment.
[1:44:51] it would be negligent of the project to
[1:44:54] be approved knowing the lack of
[1:44:56] additional mitigation proposed by the
[1:44:59] project.
[1:45:00] this will probably likely provide a path
[1:45:03] forward to mitigate future development.
[1:45:05] that's an issue we need to deal with
[1:45:08] prior to the project being approved.
[1:45:10] we've continued to outline issues and
[1:45:12] concerns.
[1:45:13] we've demonstrated that in our letters.
[1:45:15] but we do ask you to take these issues
[1:45:19] into account today.
[1:45:22] delay, approval until further analysis
[1:45:25] and feasible mitigation can be applied
[1:45:29] to the project that tips the scales such
[1:45:31] as martis valley west and we continue to
[1:45:35] oppose the project.
[1:45:36] thank you.
[1:45:37] >> supervisor weygandt: thank you.
[1:45:38] anyone else?
[1:45:39] >> good morning, I'm nicky ryley, I'm
[1:45:44] development director for mayor stan area
[1:45:47] preservation.
[1:45:48] I know you are in receipt of a letter
[1:45:50] from perry norris highlighting their
[1:45:54] inability to raise money and raise the
[1:45:56] funds and fully move forward as part of
[1:45:58] this proposal would have entailed to
[1:46:01] purchase the land and preserve it in
[1:46:05] conservation which would create the
[1:46:06] benefits of which this proposal is based
[1:46:10] on and the environmental review focused
[1:46:13] as the mitigation.
[1:46:14] this was based on a negotiation years in
[1:46:16] the process.
[1:46:19] six parties at the table during the
[1:46:21] martis valley opportunity agreement and
[1:46:23] work four of these parties are opposed
[1:46:26] or not willing to move forward with the
[1:46:28] project as proposed.
[1:46:29] I think this speaks volumes.
[1:46:31] I think all of you need to consider that
[1:46:33] today as you consider what you're
[1:46:35] looking at and whether or not you're
[1:46:37] making the same proposal or issuing an
[1:46:39] approval as you did in september.
[1:46:41] things are not as you may have once
[1:46:43] thought.
[1:46:44] there is no moving for conservation for
[1:46:48] this deal and no public access
[1:46:50] guaranteed with the approval of the
[1:46:52] prompt.
[1:46:53] the land likely on the east side of 267
[1:46:55] would remain in the hands of sierra
[1:46:57] pacific industries.
[1:46:58] mountain side would be able to develop a
[1:47:01] terrain not suitable for development and
[1:47:04] everyone else including the environment,
[1:47:06] land and people are the losers.
[1:47:09] please reconsider this decision from
[1:47:11] september and support the planning
[1:47:12] commission.
[1:47:13] thank you for your time.
[1:47:14] >> my name is tom morse.
[1:47:27] I'm executive director of sierra match.
[1:47:32] I did bring a copy of the aforementioned
[1:47:35] letter from the land trust.
[1:47:36] if I could hand that to somebody.
[1:47:39] the letter makes it painfully clear
[1:47:42] there is no deal purchase the east side
[1:47:44] at this time.
[1:47:46] I think there are a lot of big picture
[1:47:49] issues that need to be addressed.
[1:47:50] many of which were hammered out by the
[1:47:53] plans commission including impacts on
[1:47:55] traffic and fire safety and impacts on
[1:47:57] lake tahoe whether or not we can agree
[1:47:59] on those, I think we can agree there is
[1:48:01] a lot of new information that's been
[1:48:03] coming fast and furious in the last
[1:48:05] hearing and then this hearing today and
[1:48:08] the common sense and prudence would
[1:48:12] dictate we'd all slowdown and better
[1:48:15] understand the new information and even
[1:48:17] have a better opportunity to come back
[1:48:19] to the table to see if an agreement can
[1:48:21] be worked out.
[1:48:22] my recommendation today is if you
[1:48:24] consider continuing the item so we can
[1:48:27] better understand the project and
[1:48:28] hopefully reach some long term agreement
[1:48:30] on it too.
[1:48:31] thank you.
[1:48:32] >> anyone else?
[1:48:33] is there anyone up in lake tahoe who
[1:48:37] would like to address the board?
[1:48:39] >> I don't know if you can see it.
[1:48:47] I'm jennifer derich.
[1:48:52] >> we have two speakers.
[1:48:54] if people want to speak, I appreciate it
[1:48:57] if you could woman up.
[1:48:59] first we'll hear from the speaker in
[1:49:00] lake tahoe with new information.
[1:49:02] >> good morning.
[1:49:05] sue daniels north lake tahoe resident.
[1:49:09] I'm happy to speak to you as a board.
[1:49:12] thank you so much for considering what
[1:49:14] you are doing for your people in the
[1:49:16] county.
[1:49:18] this is something that you said you're
[1:49:20] taking to your conscience and voting on.
[1:49:23] thank goodness we have humans and not
[1:49:26] computers making decisions.
[1:49:28] so, on the affordable housing component,
[1:49:33] I don't think that the mitigation
[1:49:35] allowing $100,000 per mitigated unit
[1:49:36] would build anything substantial for
[1:49:41] anyone to live in.
[1:49:43] that is to me a -- a new point that I
[1:49:48] would say you should consider.
[1:49:50] it's not adequate.
[1:49:53] and I would like you to please list
[1:49:55] tonight people, again, you represent the
[1:49:57] people's wishes and not the statistics
[1:50:00] that a computer could decide on.
[1:50:03] thank you very much.
[1:50:04] >> my name is jennifer derich and I'm
[1:50:16] here today about this project and the
[1:50:18] project to follow.
[1:50:20] I don't think there would be so much
[1:50:22] opposition to what is going on with this
[1:50:25] board of supervisors if there weren't so
[1:50:27] many projects being fast tracked.
[1:50:30] I got back from denver yesterday.
[1:50:33] and their community has actually filed
[1:50:35] injunctions, moratorium against rezones
[1:50:40] against any type of use permit because
[1:50:43] they felt that things were getting out
[1:50:45] of control.
[1:50:46] there are 16 projects in the pipeline.
[1:50:49] they are being almost offered as a fire
[1:50:53] sale.
[1:50:54] that is opening the door to anyone who
[1:50:57] is wanting to grab a piece of the pie.
[1:51:02] and I think that if this goes forward,
[1:51:05] the people who are concerned about our
[1:51:08] concerns falling on deaf ears should
[1:51:11] consider opening up an investigation as
[1:51:13] to who is benefiting from this project
[1:51:16] being approved over the objections of
[1:51:18] the planning commission.
[1:51:19] >> any other speakers?
[1:51:32] make your comments specific to new
[1:51:34] information.
[1:51:35] >> absolutely.
[1:51:37] I'm friends of the north american river
[1:51:40] group, my name is michael.
[1:51:43] I want to address the east parcel
[1:51:45] conservation proposal.
[1:51:47] I believe that any land trusts or
[1:51:49] conservancy that gets involved in
[1:51:51] purchasing for fee or donated easement
[1:51:54] conservation easement in any way, I
[1:51:57] believe they cannot do that because of
[1:51:59] the internal revenue code section 178
[1:52:03] that defines the conservation purpose of
[1:52:06] these kinds of transactions.
[1:52:09] 170-h does not permit the destruction of
[1:52:15] conservation value on one property for
[1:52:18] the purpose of protecting another
[1:52:20] parcel.
[1:52:21] it's problematic, especially for an
[1:52:24] accredited land trust to do that.
[1:52:26] if spi expects to get some value out of
[1:52:29] this -- they have the same 170-h
[1:52:34] obstacle.
[1:52:35] second, the plan itself has a very
[1:52:39] bizarre and unusual planning process
[1:52:41] built into it.
[1:52:44] even the development agreement has a
[1:52:46] role, a key role for the county exec.
[1:52:50] the specific plan has a strong county
[1:52:53] exec role.
[1:52:54] so different from the normal planning
[1:52:57] process that it creates an island sort
[1:52:59] of special planning process proceeders.
[1:53:01] I hate to see the county vulcanized into
[1:53:05] the different mechanisms that depart
[1:53:08] from the normal way and I think you
[1:53:10] should be relooking at that and seeing
[1:53:13] what kind of a potential problem you're
[1:53:16] creating for consistency in planning
[1:53:17] around the county.
[1:53:19] thank you.
[1:53:20] >> supervisor weygandt: are there any
[1:53:23] other speakers?
[1:53:25] >> yes.
[1:53:26] >> supervisor weygandt: state your
[1:53:31] name for the record.
[1:53:32] >> mila borhany on the bay in placer
[1:53:36] county.
[1:53:37] I'm a year-round resident.
[1:53:42] good morning supervisor montgomery and
[1:53:44] fellow supervisors and chairman.
[1:53:48] I was unable to attend the
[1:53:50] september 13th meeting as I was out of
[1:53:52] town with family and extremely
[1:53:55] disappointed to hear of your tentative
[1:53:57] vote of approval at the time especially
[1:53:59] given the planning commissions
[1:54:02] recommendation that you deny the project
[1:54:04] for the many obvious flaws in the e.I.r.
[1:54:08] and or aspects including affordable
[1:54:11] housing.
[1:54:12] at this point, to reiterate what a
[1:54:14] previous speaker mentioned, I have a
[1:54:15] right as a citizen to say it that your
[1:54:18] process and documentation must be done
[1:54:21] correctly, everything -- everything
[1:54:23] about this project and the other big
[1:54:26] projects in the pipeline that the
[1:54:29] previous speaker mentioned, the 16
[1:54:31] projects has been way too fast-tracked
[1:54:34] and it does not feel to quote your words
[1:54:37] back to you, chairman weygandt, that the
[1:54:40] conscience of the people of this part of
[1:54:43] this county that will you are honoring
[1:54:46] that or respecting it.
[1:54:48] our will has been made clear in our
[1:54:50] countless numerous public comments and
[1:54:53] letters and showing up at your meetings
[1:54:55] and yet our will of the public is being
[1:54:58] ignored by our representatives who are
[1:55:01] you and if this is a public process and
[1:55:04] this is a democracy, you should be
[1:55:06] honoring what we express and yet our
[1:55:10] will has been expressly ignored.
[1:55:12] that is an incredibly painful
[1:55:15] heartbreaking concern for me.
[1:55:17] you need to listen to the public an not
[1:55:19] the developer.
[1:55:20] the board of supervisors are
[1:55:22] representative.
[1:55:24] not the representative of the money you
[1:55:26] see sparkling behind your eyeballs.
[1:55:30] there is the land trust being able to
[1:55:32] purchase this trade off-land.
[1:55:35] if that's -- off the table is changes
[1:55:38] your projects so I beg respectfully you
[1:55:41] table this and reopen the public
[1:55:43] comments and the whole process but that
[1:55:45] you certainly don't have a vote today on
[1:55:47] this given new information that the
[1:55:49] public by our legal right has not yet
[1:55:51] had an opportunity to significantly and
[1:55:54] in the right timeframe comment upon.
[1:55:56] the other issue that is huge and has not
[1:55:58] been addressed is the fact that our
[1:56:00] ability to coming in and out of the
[1:56:02] county on 267 or 89 and over 267 will
[1:56:07] never handle the traffic this project
[1:56:09] will bring in.
[1:56:10] you ignored that in your conscience of
[1:56:13] voting to approve this project
[1:56:15] tentatively on the 13th.
[1:56:17] hopefully your conscience will now work
[1:56:21] better and guide you to realize that the
[1:56:23] citizens of this county have told you
[1:56:27] they do -- they do not want this
[1:56:29] project.
[1:56:30] you need to honor what we've asked.
[1:56:32] the final thing that has been said --
[1:56:35] >> supervisor weygandt: I'm sorry,
[1:56:38] your three minutes are up.
[1:56:40] >> the proclamation has been proposed
[1:56:43] and further analysis is necessary.
[1:56:46] thank you for remembering to honor the
[1:56:50] will of the people that you represent.
[1:56:51] >> supervisor weygandt: with that, I'm
[1:56:53] going to close public comment.
[1:56:55] bring it back to the board for any
[1:56:56] further questions or comments or
[1:56:59] dialogue and a vote.
[1:57:00] one thing I want to throw out first is
[1:57:02] that I've been in on going conversations
[1:57:08] with the trust for public lands.
[1:57:09] it's my understanding as I sit here that
[1:57:11] they have not backed out of a
[1:57:14] willingness to try to complete a
[1:57:16] conservation deal.
[1:57:17] they are still willing do that.
[1:57:20] but it will require that the parties
[1:57:22] come together and work out whatever
[1:57:27] issues may still be unworked out among
[1:57:32] all of them.
[1:57:33] if that can happen, I would agree that
[1:57:36] the conservation will result in a much
[1:57:39] greater value amenity to the community.
[1:57:43] if that can't be done, it will be a sad
[1:57:48] circumstance for all of us because we'll
[1:57:49] not have realized our fullest potential.
[1:57:53] I would admonish those parties to try to
[1:57:56] sit down and get together and do
[1:57:57] everything they can to resolve that.
[1:57:59] either way, there will be conservation,
[1:58:01] but the quality of it is going to be
[1:58:02] better if it can go into private
[1:58:06] ownership that has been discussed as it
[1:58:08] relates to the communication we've in
[1:58:11] from the trust for public lands and
[1:58:13] truckee land trust.
[1:58:14] with that, jennifer.
[1:58:16] >> supervisor montgomery: I wanted to
[1:58:17] take the time to thank everyone that
[1:58:21] came down from tahoe particularly today
[1:58:23] to raise comments questions and concerns
[1:58:27] in response to the first woman who
[1:58:30] spoke, I think she left, but I do
[1:58:34] believe it is our responsibility to
[1:58:35] listen to our constituents and by
[1:58:37] constituents, I mean not just in the
[1:58:40] district I represent but throughout
[1:58:42] placer county.
[1:58:43] I will tell you that this project is on
[1:58:47] a lot of people's radar, not just in the
[1:58:50] fifth district but in other districts.
[1:58:52] and I have taken very seriously their
[1:58:58] concerns, and comments and input
[1:59:00] throughout this process.
[1:59:01] today I remain very skeptical that we're
[1:59:04] going to achieve the conservation that
[1:59:06] we all hoped for as part of this
[1:59:08] project.
[1:59:10] I've said and I'll say it again, the
[1:59:15] only reason I was engaging in the
[1:59:19] conversation of the units is because of
[1:59:21] the conservation we hoped to achieve.
[1:59:23] while I think chairman weygandt is
[1:59:26] correct that the truckee donor land
[1:59:28] trust and trust for public lands are
[1:59:30] going to continue to try to engage in
[1:59:32] conversations with mountain side
[1:59:35] partners, their letter does say pretty
[1:59:40] clearly, despite this notable and
[1:59:44] reduction, it's not feasible to raise
[1:59:46] the amount of funding while a project is
[1:59:49] embroiled in controversy.
[1:59:53] our organization also not be engaged in
[1:59:56] this effort until they've reached a
[2:00:00] settlement.
[2:00:02] given these considerations we'll not be
[2:00:05] signing the amendment.
[2:00:06] that doesn't make me hopeful that we're
[2:00:08] going to get meaningful and achievable
[2:00:14] conservation out of this.
[2:00:15] I will be in opposition to this project.
[2:00:18] >> I wanted to clarify there was a
[2:00:22] comment that was interpreted as the fact
[2:00:25] that they had withdrawn and they were no
[2:00:27] longer willing to have the conversation
[2:00:30] and that's contrary to my understands.
[2:00:33] any other questions or comments?
[2:00:35] or the pleasure of the board?
[2:00:40] >> supervisor uhler: am I
[2:00:41] misunderstanding something in terms of
[2:00:43] the requirement that the 6300-acres on
[2:00:45] the east side be placed or a
[2:00:50] conservation easement placed over it?
[2:00:53] I'll ask planning staff or somebody.
[2:00:56] is that not a condition?
[2:00:57] >> that is correct.
[2:00:59] it is part of the d.a., development
[2:01:01] agreement section 3.11 that -- that
[2:01:09] should the land trust not be able to
[2:01:11] purchase the property, it would go the
[2:01:13] entire 36 plus hundred acres would be in
[2:01:17] permanent conversation.
[2:01:18] >> regardless of whether it's owned --
[2:01:21] permanent conservation.
[2:01:23] >> correct.
[2:01:27] >> supervisor uhler: okay.
[2:01:28] >> supervisor montgomery: is that
[2:01:29] public access?
[2:01:30] >> it would not be public access through
[2:01:32] the conservation easement.
[2:01:34] >> supervisor montgomery: thank you.
[2:01:37] >> if the parties could get together,
[2:01:40] and find scale and scope of the project
[2:01:43] that will is acceptable noting that
[2:01:45] there is going tab a commitment by all
[2:01:47] of them to consider that, the quality of
[2:01:50] conservation and the kinds of amenities
[2:01:53] that occurred at waddell ranch where
[2:01:56] there is public access, trail
[2:01:59] maintenance and public notice, fondness
[2:02:01] and use by all the developments around
[2:02:03] it, we're going to have a higher level
[2:02:05] of quality in our community if those
[2:02:07] parties can get together and shake hands
[2:02:10] on something.
[2:02:11] >> one follow-up question.
[2:02:17] today on the 6300 acres, there any
[2:02:21] public access requirement?
[2:02:22] >> no there is not.
[2:02:24] >> supervisor uhler: interest is there
[2:02:25] extensive public utilization of the
[2:02:28] parcel?
[2:02:29] >> yes.
[2:02:30] >> supervisor uhler: is there any
[2:02:31] indication that the historic public
[2:02:34] access to the public has enjoyed on the
[2:02:37] 6300-acres is intending to be terminated
[2:02:40] by the property owner with this
[2:02:42] conservation easement?
[2:02:45] >> I do not believe so.
[2:02:49] but if you'd like to ask --
[2:02:51] >> supervisor uhler: while it's been
[2:02:52] in their private hands, they have
[2:02:54] allowed public access the entire time.
[2:02:57] so past practice would seemingly --
[2:03:01] common sense would indicate if they're
[2:03:04] putting conservation easement over it
[2:03:05] anyway, they wouldn't take steps further
[2:03:08] than to somehow for some reason limit
[2:03:10] public access while they've allowed it
[2:03:12] historically.
[2:03:13] >> that's my understanding.
[2:03:15] >> thank you.
[2:03:17] >> mr. Chairman I would begin to make
[2:03:19] the motions that council makes in order
[2:03:23] for us to move this project on.
[2:03:25] I will begin by moving that we adopt
[2:03:27] resolution to certify the martis valley
[2:03:31] west plan.
[2:03:34] errata as well as adopt the findings and
[2:03:38] fact -- doesn't the mitigation
[2:03:45] monitoring reporting program.
[2:03:46] >> supervisor weygandt: it's been
[2:03:50] moved and seconded regarding the
[2:03:52] resolution.
[2:03:53] all those in favor say aye.
[2:03:56] >> opposed?
[2:03:58] >> no.
[2:03:59] >> I move the adoption martis valley
[2:04:04] west specific plan.
[2:04:05] >> a second?
[2:04:08] moved and seconded.
[2:04:09] resolution regarding the martis valley
[2:04:11] west specific plan.
[2:04:12] all those in favor say aye. Opposed?
[2:04:17] >> supervisor montgomery: no.
[2:04:18] >> approve the martis valley west
[2:04:21] specific plan standards.
[2:04:23] >> moved and seconded, all those in
[2:04:25] favor say aye. Opposed?
[2:04:31] >> supervisor montgomery: no.
[2:04:32] >> I move the parcel specific plan
[2:04:35] guidelines.
[2:04:36] >> supervisor weygandt: moved and
[2:04:37] seconded. All those in favor say aye.
[2:04:40] opposed?
[2:04:41] >> supervisor montgomery: no.
[2:04:42] >> I move to amendment used diagram to
[2:04:47] incorporate martis valley west specific
[2:04:50] plan land use designation.
[2:04:52] >> supervisor weygandt: moved and
[2:04:54] seconded.
[2:04:55] moved and seconded all those in favor?
[2:04:58] opposed.
[2:05:00] >> supervisor montgomery: no.
[2:05:01] >> I move resolution to amend 6-j and
[2:05:07] 6-j-1 and 2 related to emergency
[2:05:10] preparedness.
[2:05:12] >> supervisor weygandt: all those in
[2:05:13] favor say aye. Opposed?
[2:05:17] >> supervisor montgomery: no.
[2:05:18] >> I move to the rezone of 662-acres
[2:05:23] from west parcel to svlpsp.
[2:05:30] >> all those in favor say aye. Opposed?
[2:05:34] >> supervisor montgomery: no.
[2:05:35] >> I move the adoption of the ordinance
[2:05:36] to rezone the remaining acreage from
[2:05:41] west to psp and rezone of 670-acres of
[2:05:46] the east parcel from rs to c-1 to tpz.
[2:05:54] >> supervisor weygandt: all those in
[2:05:58] favor say aye. Opposed?
[2:06:01] >> supervisor montgomery: no.
[2:06:02] >> I move to approve the development
[2:06:05] agreement to the martis valley west
[2:06:07] specific plan.
[2:06:08] >> supervisor weygandt: moved and
[2:06:09] seconded. All in favor say aye.
[2:06:12] opposed.
[2:06:13] >> supervisor montgomery: no.
[2:06:14] >> approval of the large lot subdivision
[2:06:17] map.
[2:06:18] >> supervisor weygandt: all those in
[2:06:20] favor say aye. Opposed.
[2:06:22] >> supervisor montgomery: no.
[2:06:23] >> we'll now move on to our 10:30 timed
[2:06:30] item which is community development
[2:06:32] resources also.
[2:06:34] which is the mark at granite bay.
[2:06:37] >> can I ask for a clarification.
[2:08:01] >> supervisor weygandt: sure.
[2:08:02] >> recently I reviewed the initial
[2:08:06] project application and the major
[2:08:09] application.
[2:08:10] I notice they're all with regard to six
[2:08:12] parcel on 13 acres.
[2:08:15] this is about a project for seven
[2:08:17] parcels and 16-acres.
[2:08:19] missing are the added parcel seems to be
[2:08:21] the critical parcel that requires
[2:08:24] emergency access.
[2:08:26] it doesn't appear that the owner of that
[2:08:29] parcel signed on the applications.
[2:08:31] I'm wondering if we're ready for this
[2:08:34] hearing.
[2:08:35] >> supervisor weygandt: that would
[2:08:37] come normally under public hearing.
[2:08:40] I will ask staff to address that as we
[2:08:42] kick off the project.
[2:08:43] these are the kinds of comments that
[2:08:46] should come up under public hearing.
[2:08:50] e.j.
[2:08:51] >> good morning chairman and members of
[2:08:55] the board.
[2:08:57] e.j. Ivaldi with planning services to
[2:09:07] present this item today.
[2:09:08] >> good morning.
[2:09:13] george rosasco.
[2:09:19] nice to be with you this morning.
[2:09:25] before you today is the project park at
[2:09:28] granite bay.
[2:09:30] it is a 56-lot subdivision and a public
[2:09:34] park.
[2:09:38] beside it is 16.3-acres which a minimum
[2:09:44] site -- it is comprised of seven
[2:09:48] parcels.
[2:09:49] one of them has a house and barn on it
[2:09:51] at this time.
[2:09:52] to give you a sense of where it's at,
[2:09:58] this is what is referred to as island
[2:10:01] area in granite bay.
[2:10:03] the orange area is the actual project
[2:10:06] site.
[2:10:07] it's about 1.2-miles from the
[2:10:09] intersection of douglas and sierra
[2:10:12] college.
[2:10:13] it's surrounded by the city of roseville
[2:10:15] on three sides.
[2:10:16] east, west and north and to the south is
[2:10:19] the county of sacramento.
[2:10:22] excuse me.
[2:10:24] this is actual project layout 56 lots.
[2:10:28] you can see -- wait a second -- you can
[2:10:34] see here this is the largest parcel that
[2:10:37] I referred to as .81-acres.
[2:10:42] give you a sense of the project, this is
[2:10:44] what it would look like when it's
[2:10:48] landscaped.
[2:10:49] you see the front, there are separate
[2:10:51] lots for landscaping.
[2:10:53] there will be a two foot berm in front
[2:10:56] of the landscaping with a 6-foot high
[2:10:59] block wall.
[2:11:01] it will be 15 feet landscape buffers all
[2:11:05] the way around the perimeter of the
[2:11:07] property as well as good neighbor
[2:11:08] fencing.
[2:11:10] so, what entitlements do you need to do
[2:11:14] this?
[2:11:16] you need to rezone the site from -- to
[2:11:24] single family.
[2:11:26] you need to do the general plan
[2:11:29] amendment to change the existing rural
[2:11:31] density to immediate density
[2:11:34] residential.
[2:11:36] there is a variance which I'll discuss
[2:11:40] later to 50% where 40% is allowed.
[2:11:44] you need to approve a vesting tentative
[2:11:47] subdivision map.
[2:11:49] that's the entitlement.
[2:11:51] we've prepared an environmental impact
[2:11:53] report for the project.
[2:11:55] the thing I'd like to you take away from
[2:11:58] this, I'm not going into detail about
[2:12:00] it, the environment impact report did
[2:12:02] not require any overriding findings to
[2:12:05] be made from the project.
[2:12:07] so, the biggest question that's come up
[2:12:13] with this property is that it's
[2:12:16] requesting a general plan amendment
[2:12:18] rezoning and that it does not in a lot
[2:12:21] of people's opinions seem to be
[2:12:24] consistent with the granite bay
[2:12:28] community plan.
[2:12:30] I can tell you it's an island area.
[2:12:33] it's surrounded by high density areas in
[2:12:37] the city of roseville.
[2:12:38] the lots to the east, west, and north
[2:12:44] vary anywhere from five units per acre
[2:12:47] all the way up in some instances when
[2:12:49] you get up to near eureka are 25 units
[2:12:54] per acre.
[2:12:55] most of the lots outside the area are
[2:12:58] 8,000 square feet.
[2:13:01] even more than that, this would locate
[2:13:04] higher density land uses.
[2:13:08] we have sewer, water, the main
[2:13:10] thoroughfare that goes through here.
[2:13:12] which makes an area suitable for high
[2:13:15] density.
[2:13:17] the residents would be of a consistent
[2:13:20] size and scale with adjoining
[2:13:21] properties.
[2:13:23] the area has 122 parcels in it.
[2:13:26] of those 122 parcels.
[2:13:29] 24% of a consistent size with what is
[2:13:32] proposed by the project.
[2:13:35] it will provide recreational
[2:13:37] opportunities for kids in granite bay
[2:13:40] and it will also have -- it's
[2:13:44] well-buffered from the larger parcels
[2:13:47] that exist right on the borders.
[2:13:52] this is to give you an idea of zoning
[2:13:54] that's there rural residential zoning.
[2:13:57] excuse me, rural low density residential
[2:14:02] is in most of the area.
[2:14:04] there is one rural recreational piece on
[2:14:06] the corner auburn and sierra college.
[2:14:12] I already hit on this.
[2:14:13] 122 parcels.
[2:14:19] this is the zoning map.
[2:14:22] pretty consistent with the community
[2:14:24] plan map.
[2:14:27] with regard to aesthetics.
[2:14:29] this is a higher density residential
[2:14:33] development in what is sort of -- people
[2:14:39] were concerned that a newer high density
[2:14:42] residential development would 23409 be
[2:14:44] consistent with the feel of the island
[2:14:48] area of granite bay.
[2:14:49] what they did is they went around the
[2:14:51] ones with the stars, those are 14-deep
[2:14:56] restricted lots to one storey to lower
[2:14:59] the mass of the prompt so it doesn't
[2:15:01] stick out a lot to adjoining property
[2:15:04] owners.
[2:15:05] they've gone quite -- well they've done
[2:15:13] a lot with fencing.
[2:15:15] block walls in front for sound
[2:15:18] attenuation and landscaping.
[2:15:20] the black is good neighbor fencing.
[2:15:24] and the red for reference is front
[2:15:27] decorative fencing.
[2:15:29] with regard to's -- with regard to
[2:15:35] aesthetics, you can see on view one,
[2:15:38] two, three, four, five.
[2:15:40] they took those views one on havoccal,
[2:15:43] annabelle and the college to see what
[2:15:47] the project would look like in 10 years
[2:15:50] to surrounding properties.
[2:15:51] with regard looking from the boulevard
[2:15:55] west now is on the top is what you see
[2:16:00] now.
[2:16:01] on the bottom is what you'd see at 10
[2:16:06] years of buildup.
[2:16:07] it looks pretty much the same.
[2:16:10] looking northwest.
[2:16:12] that's what you see on top.
[2:16:14] 10 years ever build-out, really, you see
[2:16:17] landscaping.
[2:16:19] from havoccal way looking north, the
[2:16:22] view, -- the upper is the view.
[2:16:26] lower is what you'll see in 10 years.
[2:16:29] tree and landscaping.
[2:16:42] eckerman road looking east.
[2:16:46] you see the fencing.
[2:16:48] this is anna bell avenue looking south.
[2:16:53] top is what you see now.
[2:16:55] 10 years from now is what you'll see.
[2:16:59] so, as I said, these are for your own.
[2:17:05] you see the actual entitlement amendment
[2:17:08] rezone.
[2:17:09] subdivision map and variance.
[2:17:12] that's all I have unless you have any
[2:17:14] specific questions.
[2:17:15] >> supervisor weygandt: questions or
[2:17:18] comments by board members?
[2:17:21] >> supervisor uhler: george, would you
[2:17:22] go back to the -- I think it was the
[2:17:25] aerial view that you had of the project
[2:17:28] site.
[2:17:30] >> yes.
[2:17:31] >> supervisor weygandt: thank you.
[2:17:43] so I think I heard you correctly, but I
[2:17:48] want to clarify.
[2:17:49] you said in the island area bordered by
[2:17:56] roseville to the west and north and
[2:17:58] sierra college to the east and old
[2:18:01] auburn to the southwest of 120 parcels
[2:18:04] of which you said I think 25 percent or
[2:18:08] a quarter acre or less something along
[2:18:10] those lines?
[2:18:11] >> 24%.
[2:18:13] there is 122 parcels.
[2:18:16] I believe if my memory serves me right,
[2:18:18] 29 of them are consistent with what is
[2:18:22] being proposed.
[2:18:24] it works out to 24% of the island areas
[2:18:28] consistent from what is proposed by
[2:18:30] park.
[2:18:31] >> supervisor uhler: so with the
[2:18:32] adoption of the 1989 plan.
[2:18:37] we have the land use designation of .9
[2:18:40] to 2.3 for this.
[2:18:43] yet, by my count, 70 of the existing
[2:18:49] parcels out there don't meet the land
[2:18:51] use designation.
[2:18:52] >> right.
[2:18:55] correct.
[2:18:56] they fall below that.
[2:18:58] >> supervisor uhler: they fall below.
[2:19:01] so when we adopted the community plan in
[2:19:04] '89, we had allowed for zoning to be put
[2:19:10] on that that automatically created half
[2:19:15] of the lots as nonconforming lots.
[2:19:18] >> correct.
[2:19:19] >> supervisor uhler: any idea why that
[2:19:20] was done?
[2:19:21] >> I wasn't working here.
[2:19:25] I was still a year out.
[2:19:27] >> supervisor uhler: likewise, when
[2:19:29] this was adopted in 1989, the city of
[2:19:32] roseville had built that project to the
[2:19:34] west right up to the property line.
[2:19:37] that project homes have been of -- homes
[2:19:43] having been built in the mid '80s.
[2:19:45] I see property sizes parcel sizes of
[2:19:50] 8400 square feet on the boarder of this.
[2:19:57] we adopted a zoning knowing that we had
[2:20:00] less than a quarter acre lots a density
[2:20:03] of five to the acre.
[2:20:05] immediately adjacent to the city of
[2:20:07] roseville.
[2:20:08] we have over half of the existing lots
[2:20:11] not in conformance with the zoning
[2:20:14] designation yet we put the zoning
[2:20:17] designation on their anyway?
[2:20:19] >> yes.
[2:20:21] >> supervisor uhler: then you
[2:20:22] mentioned since then, roseville has
[2:20:24] built to the north that area has built
[2:20:29] with lots as small as 6900 square feet
[2:20:34] and roseville annexed the remainder of
[2:20:39] the part that got pulled into the
[2:20:41] southeast specific plan area that's the
[2:20:44] part that is now known as hillsborough
[2:20:47] and ashley woods and east ridge, those
[2:20:51] subdivisions.
[2:20:52] over there, we have lots in the 8,000
[2:20:56] square foot range.
[2:20:59] >> correct.
[2:21:01] >> supervisor uhler: if as a planner,
[2:21:04] if there were no land use designation
[2:21:07] assigned to this area, what in your
[2:21:11] opinion is an appropriate land use
[2:21:14] designation for an area on a main
[2:21:19] arterial surrounded by high density
[2:21:22] residential on three sides, what do you
[2:21:27] think is an appropriate land use for
[2:21:29] this area?
[2:21:30] >> um, well, it's no secret, I said this
[2:21:35] at the planning commission as well.
[2:21:37] it's my opinion that, you know, as a
[2:21:40] planner when you look at this, you have
[2:21:42] to look at surrounding uses and look at
[2:21:44] consistency and that sort of thing.
[2:21:47] this has all the -- what I was saying is
[2:21:51] this came up in the plan commission and
[2:21:53] I'll tell you what I told them.
[2:21:55] you have to look at what is around it.
[2:21:58] I think if we would have in 2012 looked
[2:22:02] at land use updates with regard to the
[2:22:05] granite bay community plan, this is an
[2:22:07] area that we'd have to look at high
[2:22:10] density maybe even commercial zoning
[2:22:13] look apartments at 21 units per acre.
[2:22:16] it's not out of question.
[2:22:20] roseville last 25 units per acre.
[2:22:24] this is one of the areas where you would
[2:22:27] look at high density and roseville would
[2:22:30] have something to say about it because
[2:22:31] it's within their sphere of influence.
[2:22:34] >> supervisor uhler: to that question
[2:22:37] I've been curious about the creation of
[2:22:39] this island in the first place and how
[2:22:41] we've ended up in this position.
[2:22:44] with roseville coming across even though
[2:22:48] those people on the east side of sierra
[2:22:52] college, many of them have a granite bay
[2:22:56] zip code but they're in the city of
[2:22:59] roseville people on the west side are a
[2:23:03] roseville zip code but they're in
[2:23:06] granite bay.
[2:23:07] the question for council, I know this
[2:23:09] was done a while ago, but is this kind
[2:23:11] of thing even allowed by law today where
[2:23:17] you can leave an island like that cut
[2:23:19] off from services by existing
[2:23:21] jurisdictions?
[2:23:22] >> the law would discourage such
[2:23:26] annexation.
[2:23:31] the commission shall deny city
[2:23:34] annexations that create areas surrounded
[2:23:38] by a city.
[2:23:39] >> if the city had come across and
[2:23:41] claimed they would have been forced
[2:23:43] under today's law to take that into the
[2:23:45] city as well.
[2:23:46] >> yes.
[2:23:47] >> supervisor uhler: correct.
[2:23:48] I think that's all the questions I have
[2:23:50] for now, thank you.
[2:23:52] >> george, is this island and parcel in
[2:23:59] the city of roseville?
[2:24:01] >> no.
[2:24:02] >> supervisor montgomery: and do we at
[2:24:04] placer county use the city of
[2:24:06] roseville's zoning regulations
[2:24:08] requirements?
[2:24:09] >> no.
[2:24:10] >> supervisor montgomery: thank you.
[2:24:11] >> supervisor weygandt: any other
[2:24:13] questions or comments?
[2:24:15] boards members?
[2:24:16] at this time?
[2:24:17] okay.
[2:24:18] we'll now turn it over to the applicant
[2:24:20] for their presentation.
[2:24:30] >> marcus leduca from roseville.
[2:24:37] I'm pleased to be before you today with
[2:24:39] the recommendation for approval from
[2:24:40] your staff and the near unanimous
[2:24:45] recommendation from the planning
[2:24:46] commission on an infill project and
[2:24:49] infill area of placer county.
[2:24:52] it's pleasing for us to come before you
[2:24:55] after a project with an e.I.r. Has no
[2:25:00] significant environmental effects.
[2:25:04] once mitigation measures have been
[2:25:06] applied to the project which measures we
[2:25:08] are in agreement with as well as all
[2:25:10] conditions of approval being applied in
[2:25:12] the project to your staff as recommended
[2:25:15] to you by the planning commission.
[2:25:17] the staff report and presentation here
[2:25:20] and the planning commission have done a
[2:25:22] thorough job summarizing the project and
[2:25:25] the various issues and concerns raised
[2:25:28] during the lengthy planning process on
[2:25:30] this project.
[2:25:31] I wanted to provide additional
[2:25:33] background and a history not only of
[2:25:35] this project -- but in this area.
[2:25:38] you touched on the fact that the island
[2:25:40] area was created by a series of
[2:25:43] annexations that left this area
[2:25:47] surrounded on three sides by the city
[2:25:49] and fourth side by sacramento county.
[2:25:56] the last few annexations I've been
[2:26:00] allowed with, it's not allowed.
[2:26:03] they were permitted to go forward in
[2:26:06] 1988 when roseville plan east of sierra
[2:26:10] college was added.
[2:26:11] after that time, you would not be able
[2:26:13] to proceed forward on that basis.
[2:26:17] again, as you highlighted, the area is
[2:26:22] mostly built out.
[2:26:23] 102 developed.
[2:26:25] there are very few undeveloped parcels
[2:26:27] left.
[2:26:28] as mr. Rosasco just mentioned, a quarter
[2:26:35] of the lots are of the same size or less
[2:26:38] than the prompt before you with a
[2:26:40] density of 3.4 units per acre.
[2:26:42] you hear this is a much more dense
[2:26:45] project, I would be hard pressed to say
[2:26:48] that 3.4 units per acre is dense.
[2:26:53] project that you have before you,
[2:26:54] however, is very different from the one
[2:26:56] first submitted to the county and
[2:27:00] presented to the community.
[2:27:04] in the fall of 2014 this project was
[2:27:06] presented to the granite bay map as
[2:27:08] information item.
[2:27:10] it had 94 units.
[2:27:13] it had a minimum lot size of 3,000
[2:27:18] square feet and average size of 4400
[2:27:25] square feet.
[2:27:26] the project's park was just about
[2:27:28] 1.5-acres in size.
[2:27:32] it included a trail, a rose garden, and
[2:27:36] 10-foot landscape buffer on north, south
[2:27:39] and west sides of the project.
[2:27:41] all homes in the project at that time
[2:27:42] were to be two-storeys in height.
[2:27:45] so again, for in november 2014 after
[2:27:49] that meeting, mr. Tattersall took those
[2:27:55] issues and comments he had heard,
[2:27:56] revisited the project, reduced the
[2:27:59] number of homes to 84 units basically
[2:28:03] lot sizes increased to 7,000 square
[2:28:07] feet.
[2:28:08] the landscape buffer was increased from
[2:28:10] 10 to 15%.
[2:28:12] all homes in the property remained
[2:28:15] two-storey.
[2:28:16] this was the version of the project in
[2:28:19] the preparation for the e.I.r. That went
[2:28:21] out at the end of 2014.
[2:28:25] a number of community comments were to
[2:28:26] be submitted to the county on the n.o.p.
[2:28:29] at that time but rather than relying on
[2:28:32] written comments be submitted by
[2:28:33] e-mail or letter, my client's team
[2:28:39] decided to engage in the community in
[2:28:40] face-to-face meetings to be able to have
[2:28:43] an opportunity to hear firsthand what
[2:28:45] people's issues and concerns and to
[2:28:47] address some of the misinformation out
[2:28:49] there on the project.
[2:28:50] those community outreach efforts
[2:28:53] consisted of three community meetings
[2:28:55] with those being advertised by mail to
[2:28:58] all these 122 parcels northern part of
[2:29:02] the island.
[2:29:03] at the same time mr. Tattersall
[2:29:06] announced those meeting tots granite bay
[2:29:10] mac on other occasions so people would
[2:29:15] know about head to.
[2:29:16] they were held at the granite bay
[2:29:17] library.
[2:29:21] a total of fewer than 20 residents
[2:29:23] including some repeat attendees attended
[2:29:27] those meetings in total.
[2:29:29] my client met with folks on eckerman
[2:29:35] road in a separate meeting.
[2:29:38] after several followup conversations
[2:29:40] with residents in the area.
[2:29:42] the project team took a step back at
[2:29:45] that point and based on the concerns
[2:29:48] issues and discussion points raised
[2:29:51] during the community meetings decided to
[2:29:53] relook at the project.
[2:29:56] along the lines of not looking at
[2:29:58] saying, well, we have a targeted number
[2:30:01] of units and targeted density but took a
[2:30:03] step back to the view right there and
[2:30:05] see what else in the community nearby we
[2:30:10] could model this after in terms of what
[2:30:13] is already existing in the island as
[2:30:14] opposed to proposing something that
[2:30:16] doesn't exist, what exists in the
[2:30:19] island?
[2:30:20] two parcels away sits lots on annabelle
[2:30:27] avenue are a quarter acre in size or
[2:30:29] less.
[2:30:30] rather than telling the planners and
[2:30:32] engineers design something based on
[2:30:35] this, what can you do looking at that
[2:30:37] and the things we want to achieve based
[2:30:39] on the comments we heard come up with a
[2:30:42] plan and see how you can get to what is
[2:30:47] there on annabelle avenue.
[2:30:51] what we came up with the project before
[2:30:53] you.
[2:30:54] the 56 lots represented 40% reduction in
[2:30:57] what was presented to the mac in
[2:30:59] november of 2014.
[2:31:01] the lot sizes again now range from 7100
[2:31:08] to over 17,000 square feet.
[2:31:11] the average lot size is over 9,000
[2:31:16] square feet roughly a quarter of an
[2:31:18] acre.
[2:31:20] roughly what you have on annabelle
[2:31:23] avenue.
[2:31:24] looking at adjacency issues.
[2:31:28] looking at the homes that are adjacent
[2:31:30] to the project, you thought to try to
[2:31:35] address some adjacency issue issues and
[2:31:42] addressed 14 lots nearest to the houses
[2:31:45] on our neighbors properties.
[2:31:47] a quarter of the lots in those adjacent
[2:31:50] areas.
[2:31:51] as you can see from the subdivision map,
[2:31:52] one of the lots adjacent to us that has
[2:31:55] a long distance immediately to the
[2:31:58] northwest only has one house right now
[2:32:01] there is a 15-foot landscape buffer.
[2:32:04] there is only one house next to that.
[2:32:06] actually be deed restricted.
[2:32:10] the other aspect is if we could pull up,
[2:32:17] george, the actual project.
[2:32:22] we're asking for a variance for those
[2:32:26] less than 800 square foot -- 800 square
[2:32:33] feet.
[2:32:34] right now current regulations say that
[2:32:38] your coverage for a one-storey house is
[2:32:41] 40%.
[2:32:42] we proposed it for lots less than 8,000
[2:32:47] square feet.
[2:32:48] if you want a one-storey home, you can
[2:32:50] go to 40%.
[2:32:52] if you look around the edges of
[2:32:55] projects, I believe nearly every one are
[2:33:00] 8,000 square feet for more.
[2:33:02] they'd be subject to the 40%.
[2:33:04] if you look at that middle part of the
[2:33:06] prompt, those are below 8,000 square
[2:33:09] feet.
[2:33:10] we could do a mix there.
[2:33:12] the idea of this variance we request
[2:33:16] would allow that.
[2:33:17] we know if terms of setbacks another
[2:33:20] issue, that the setbacks we're proposing
[2:33:24] for the homes along the edge of the
[2:33:25] property are far, far greater than what
[2:33:27] the setbacks are of the existing homes
[2:33:30] relevant to our property line.
[2:33:32] our setbacks for rear yards for
[2:33:35] one-storey is 35 feet.
[2:33:37] for two-storeys is 42.5 square feet.
[2:33:41] the project retains the park, 8/10s of
[2:33:47] an acre in side.
[2:33:49] it can accommodate youth soccer and
[2:33:52] other events.
[2:33:53] this was presented at the planning
[2:33:55] commission hearing that both granite bay
[2:33:58] fc and granite bay youth lacrosse would
[2:34:02] be able to use this in practice.
[2:34:05] the biggest issue throughout the region
[2:34:07] and throughout placer county and granite
[2:34:10] bay area in particular are not having
[2:34:12] places for matches, you can have places
[2:34:15] for matches, it's practice fields.
[2:34:18] I'm sure it's in all your districts
[2:34:19] trying to find practice fields.
[2:34:21] this park site would be open to the
[2:34:24] public dawn to dusk.
[2:34:25] our gates would be open dawn to dusk.
[2:34:28] in essence, the county is getting a
[2:34:31] freebie.
[2:34:32] a park to be used by the public not
[2:34:34] having to pay to own it or maintain it.
[2:34:37] the project to achieve the large lot
[2:34:39] sizes limit to the rose garden and park
[2:34:44] lot.
[2:34:45] we have parking on the lot on the one
[2:34:46] side of the street.
[2:34:47] we did retain a 15-foot wide land buffer
[2:34:52] on the north, south and west edges of
[2:34:54] the property.
[2:34:55] you're going to hear a number of
[2:34:57] projects on the -- number of comments on
[2:35:02] the project regarding our drainage study
[2:35:05] and it has impact on everything from the
[2:35:09] school district to traffic impacts and
[2:35:13] the claim there should be no changes to
[2:35:15] the granite bay community plan should be
[2:35:18] made since the update to the community
[2:35:19] plan was just adopted four years ago.
[2:35:22] I'd like to briefly address each of the
[2:35:24] items.
[2:35:25] in terms of project drainage, existing
[2:35:28] localized flooding issues on eckerman
[2:35:33] road are caused by draining by local
[2:35:36] residents.
[2:35:38] drainage improvements by the same
[2:35:40] residents that were not designed under
[2:35:42] engineering standards.
[2:35:44] comments received last week on the
[2:35:46] study, we've had our engineer working
[2:35:49] over the weekend and yesterday and
[2:35:52] submitted comments in responding to all
[2:35:54] of those.
[2:35:55] there are no issues raised in that that
[2:35:57] would undermine the analysis of the
[2:36:00] e.I.r.
[2:36:02] looking, however, at the localized
[2:36:05] flooding issue, your staff had asked us
[2:36:09] was the not just to have a project that
[2:36:11] met the typical requirements of don't
[2:36:13] make things worse post development and
[2:36:17] predevelopment.
[2:36:18] our idea was to improve the situation
[2:36:20] for our neighbors and so the design of
[2:36:22] the project including the stormwater
[2:36:25] detention basin in the northwest corner
[2:36:28] where the shed flows to will be able to
[2:36:30] detain flows during heavy storm events
[2:36:34] that will improve situations on eckerman
[2:36:39] road.
[2:36:40] this is a critical issue for the project
[2:36:41] to address and an existing situation
[2:36:45] created by others.
[2:36:47] the staff report has done a good job
[2:36:51] south placer fire district confirmed
[2:36:55] both in writing, we have copies of the
[2:36:58] letter that eckerman road satisfies the
[2:37:07] requirements and the fire district has
[2:37:09] full rights to continue using eckerman
[2:37:12] road as an eba route as it has for
[2:37:17] decades.
[2:37:18] that's the secondary route.
[2:37:19] primary access is on sierra college
[2:37:22] boulevard.
[2:37:23] not on eckerman road.
[2:37:31] there are a number of comments from the
[2:37:33] public that they face client enrollment
[2:37:36] for a number of years.
[2:37:37] the students from families that will
[2:37:40] live in the project will help alleviate
[2:37:42] that declining enrollment issue.
[2:37:45] young families who cannot afford 800,000
[2:37:50] or million dollar homes or simply are
[2:37:53] not interested in buying 50 and 60 and
[2:37:57] 40-year-old homes and trying to upgrade
[2:38:00] them.
[2:38:02] young families want to look at energy
[2:38:04] efficient homes with new appliances, the
[2:38:07] greatest technology and new home designs
[2:38:09] rather than trying to redo wiring on a
[2:38:13] 60-year-old home.
[2:38:15] as for traffic, as the e.I.r. Showed
[2:38:19] there are no significant impacts from
[2:38:22] the project.
[2:38:23] there was a weaving analysis done and
[2:38:25] there are no issues from a traffic
[2:38:28] perspective adopted by the board.
[2:38:30] as for the proposed changes for the
[2:38:32] community plan, typically with every
[2:38:34] community plan in placer county and
[2:38:36] throughout the greater sacramento region
[2:38:39] and throughout the state, when a
[2:38:41] community plan is updated, you look at
[2:38:42] both the land use plan and policies.
[2:38:45] you update both.
[2:38:47] that's the typical way of doing things.
[2:38:49] if the granite bay community plan
[2:38:51] update, that was not the case.
[2:38:53] the board decided that just look at
[2:38:55] policies and instead, individual
[2:38:57] projects will have to come through on
[2:38:59] their nickel.
[2:39:00] they'll have to process an application
[2:39:02] and pay for the environmental review of
[2:39:04] that rather than comprehensively looking
[2:39:06] at various requested changes that might
[2:39:09] come in.
[2:39:10] that was a sharp deviation from what the
[2:39:15] county has always done.
[2:39:16] here we are in an area of the count
[2:39:19] which where you have a broad range of
[2:39:21] lot sizes including the lot sizes we're
[2:39:23] proposing to you today.
[2:39:24] on a major transportation corridor.
[2:39:27] this is the beltway between 80 and 50
[2:39:31] hazel avenue and college boulevard --
[2:39:34] sierra college boulevard is the beltway.
[2:39:38] it has infrastructure available in terms
[2:39:39] of sewer and water.
[2:39:45] hence, we have the letter from executive
[2:39:47] director mike mckeever to that very
[2:39:50] issue.
[2:39:52] basically infill properties using assets
[2:39:55] on transportation corridors with
[2:39:57] provision of housing choices providing
[2:40:02] recreational amenities and mix of uses
[2:40:04] on the site and that's what you have
[2:40:06] before you today.
[2:40:10] there was a comment raised by the
[2:40:11] planning commission, I didn't see
[2:40:13] anything in the staff report, but there
[2:40:15] are comments raise that we have we have
[2:40:19] 400-acres of the mdr and don't need any
[2:40:23] more.
[2:40:24] that is irrelevant to the application
[2:40:25] before you.
[2:40:26] those 400-acres are developed.
[2:40:28] if you're looking at the issue that you
[2:40:29] have mdr property already there isn't
[2:40:33] any left in granite bay and haven't
[2:40:35] been.
[2:40:36] from a land use planning perspective,on
[2:40:40] the transportation corridor with all
[2:40:44] site amenities, this sound land use
[2:40:47] planning as you heard from your planning
[2:40:49] staff.
[2:40:50] when you compare that with a local long
[2:40:53] time resident known for building in the
[2:40:56] area, we believe the decision before you
[2:40:58] is an easy one.
[2:40:59] nearly 1500 granite bay residents who
[2:41:03] signed an interest page or on line
[2:41:05] petition in support of the project would
[2:41:07] agree.
[2:41:08] from an feasibility perspective, we took
[2:41:12] an economic analysis of the project by a
[2:41:15] well-respected economist so see if it
[2:41:20] compared and how they ranked relative to
[2:41:22] economic feasibility.
[2:41:23] that was submitted to you last week.
[2:41:26] just looking at the combined off-site
[2:41:29] infrastructure cost which is nearly
[2:41:31] $1.2 million for sewer whether you do 15
[2:41:36] lots for 56 or 94 lots, and you add in
[2:41:41] the on site costs ranging from
[2:41:43] $5.4 million fending on the alternative,
[2:41:47] the cost her unit, including home
[2:41:53] development but subdivision costs is
[2:41:55] three times higher under the existing
[2:41:59] zoning alternative and 50% higher for
[2:42:02] the [inaudible]
[2:42:04] when you look at all costs and compare
[2:42:07] it to the market price given market
[2:42:10] prices in granite bay, 16-lot
[2:42:13] alternative, would produce a loss of
[2:42:18] over half a million dollars per lot.
[2:42:20] the 400 lot subdivision is over $55,000
[2:42:23] a lot.
[2:42:24] I may not be the brightest bulb in the
[2:42:28] chandelier, but banks don't loan money
[2:42:32] to projects that show losses on a
[2:42:34] performa.
[2:42:35] that project can be built.
[2:42:37] it's at the level that is economically
[2:42:40] feasible if the marketplace.
[2:42:41] with that our project team will answer
[2:42:44] any questions that the board may have.
[2:42:47] we would ask mr. Chairman at the end of
[2:42:48] the public hearing if there are comments
[2:42:51] directed to us that we'd be given the
[2:42:53] opportunity to address those comments or
[2:42:55] questions that the board might have.
[2:42:57] after you've concluded your
[2:42:59] deliberations we request that you in
[2:43:02] taking actions that you approve the
[2:43:06] project presented to you and as
[2:43:08] positioned by the staff and recommended
[2:43:09] by approval by a majority of the
[2:43:12] planning commission.
[2:43:13] thank you mr. Chairman.
[2:43:14] >> thank you.
[2:43:15] are there any questions, kirk?
[2:43:17] >> george, a question for you.
[2:43:20] mark alluded to the fact that in 2012
[2:43:25] this board updated the policies but did
[2:43:28] not look at the land use.
[2:43:29] in reviewing this project, you reviewed
[2:43:32] it against the updated adopted policies
[2:43:34] from the 2012 adoption?
[2:43:38] >> there is an entire section in the
[2:43:43] draft e.I.r. That speaks to it.
[2:43:45] there are 20 policies germane to this
[2:43:48] and it's consistent with 19.
[2:43:50] the one that is not consistent with as I
[2:43:53] was talking about the variances.
[2:43:54] there is a policy in the granite bay
[2:43:57] community plan that says new
[2:43:59] subdivisions being proposed should not
[2:44:01] need variances for their creation.
[2:44:05] the reason they're asking for variances
[2:44:07] in this case is to create a more quality
[2:44:11] product for the surrounding property
[2:44:12] owners.
[2:44:13] if the variance was taken out of the
[2:44:15] project, I think the only difference
[2:44:18] would be in the center where you see the
[2:44:20] smaller lots is everything would go up
[2:44:23] to two storeys and create more of an
[2:44:25] island effect.
[2:44:26] inconsistent, technically yes, but for
[2:44:30] all the right reasons, I would say yes
[2:44:34] and staff supported it because it made a
[2:44:36] better project with that variance in
[2:44:38] place.
[2:44:39] >> that was the only policy you found
[2:44:40] inconsistent with the policies that we
[2:44:43] adopted in 2012 you found the budget to
[2:44:46] be consistent with the other policies?
[2:44:49] >> yes.
[2:44:51] >> supervisor uhler: thank you.
[2:44:52] >> questions and comments.
[2:44:55] granite bay community plan originally
[2:44:57] was adopted in '88?
[2:45:00] >> '89.
[2:45:03] >> supervisor weygandt: when did the
[2:45:04] roseville annexation occur?
[2:45:07] >> that I don't know.
[2:45:08] >> the first annexation was in 1985 west
[2:45:12] of sierra college boulevard.
[2:45:15] the annexation of the eastern portion
[2:45:17] has mr. Uhler mentioned east of sierra
[2:45:22] college boulevard includes hillsborough,
[2:45:25] arclywoods and east ridge occurred in
[2:45:29] 1988 -- beginning of 1989.
[2:45:37] >> supervisor weygandt: jim.
[2:45:40] >> supervisor holmes: what are
[2:45:41] accommodations for affordable housing?
[2:45:44] >> $44,000 per residential building
[2:45:48] permit or to put in six affordable
[2:45:50] housing units.
[2:45:51] it's either a fee of $240,000 or to have
[2:45:56] the option of building six units.
[2:45:58] that's in condition 102.
[2:46:01] >> thank you.
[2:46:02] >> supervisor montgomery: rough
[2:46:08] estimate, what would it cost to build
[2:46:11] six affordable housing units?
[2:46:13] >> more than 240, I would guess, if
[2:46:17] that's what you're asking me.
[2:46:21] >> supervisor montgomery: I'm trying
[2:46:22] to understand the feasibility of
[2:46:24] actually constructing something.
[2:46:28] it's something we discuss as a board
[2:46:30] about the fees and what they really
[2:46:33] are -- in lieu fees and what they are in
[2:46:37] getting us to our goal for affordable
[2:46:39] housing.
[2:46:41] >> staff is aware and doing an
[2:46:43] in-between -- where the board hasn't
[2:46:46] actually adopted the new policy, so
[2:46:50] we're working off sort of what we have
[2:46:53] in effect at this time.
[2:46:54] >> supervisor montgomery: but the
[2:46:56] board could take an action requiring the
[2:46:59] construction.
[2:47:01] >> whatever pleases you.
[2:47:03] >> supervisor montgomery: whatever
[2:47:04] pleases me?
[2:47:05] I never heard anybody say that.
[2:47:08] >> that didn't sound right.
[2:47:10] >> supervisor montgomery: I'll take
[2:47:11] it.
[2:47:12] >> supervisor uhler: just curious.
[2:47:16] the recent projects that have been
[2:47:18] before us is this affordable housing
[2:47:21] consideration of the feel or the on site
[2:47:25] deed restrictive affordable housing.
[2:47:28] that option has been put?
[2:47:31] >> the most recent project that you guys
[2:47:34] considered down here on the west slope
[2:47:36] was the victor ranch project.
[2:47:38] that was the same $400,000 for the unit
[2:47:44] count.
[2:47:45] the obligation is to meet the general
[2:47:46] plan requirement is to meet the 10%
[2:47:49] affordable housing obligation.
[2:47:51] that's what the six units does.
[2:47:53] the way the condition is build on site
[2:47:57] or pay the in lieu fee.
[2:47:59] >> supervisor uhler: what you're
[2:48:00] saying is that the six on site would be
[2:48:04] six of the homes that are being proposed
[2:48:07] but they would have to be deed
[2:48:08] restricted, is that correct?
[2:48:12] >> right.
[2:48:13] >> supervisor uhler: what has been for
[2:48:14] instance recently with what we're
[2:48:17] experiencing up in martis valley?
[2:48:19] what has been the success of the deed
[2:48:25] restricted homes versus what is staff's
[2:48:29] recommendation.
[2:48:30] >> I may have a housing specialist in
[2:48:32] the room, but success down in the west
[2:48:36] slope, you know, probably not as
[2:48:38] successful.
[2:48:39] >> supervisor uhler: thank you.
[2:48:43] >> supervisor montgomery: did we not
[2:48:44] just take an action as a board to
[2:48:46] require on site construction in the
[2:48:48] martis valley west project?
[2:48:51] >> yes, we did.
[2:48:52] >> on a project that was 700-acres?
[2:48:55] >> supervisor montgomery: I don't
[2:48:57] think the acreage is germane to the
[2:49:01] conversation.
[2:49:02] >> sure it is if we're talking about a
[2:49:05] affordable housing in area that is
[2:49:09] separate distinct and appropriate.
[2:49:16] saying yes we can build on site.
[2:49:18] >> supervisor montgomery: I see all
[2:49:20] sorts of appropriate sites up there.
[2:49:21] >> supervisor weygandt: jim.
[2:49:24] >> supervisor holmes: george, did you
[2:49:27] say there are apartments in the
[2:49:29] surrounding area?
[2:49:30] >> no, I was talking -- generally
[2:49:33] referencing the area as you go toward
[2:49:36] sierra college boulevard eureka road.
[2:49:41] roseville has high density.
[2:49:44] 25 units to the acre.
[2:49:54] >> supervisor weygandt: I'm going to
[2:49:55] check in with my colleagues as to how we
[2:49:57] do this.
[2:49:58] first of all, I think it sounds like
[2:50:00] most everybody is ahead of me on this
[2:50:01] issue, but the way we're going to do
[2:50:03] public hearing is that people will have
[2:50:07] cards put in groups a lot like flying
[2:50:10] southwest airlines.
[2:50:12] they're going to line up -- line up
[2:50:16] here.
[2:50:17] when your group is called, you'll be
[2:50:20] available to move on up to the podium
[2:50:27] and state your name for the record.
[2:50:29] anything else I need to say? So in might
[2:50:35] what have sounds like a number of people
[2:50:37] who would like to testify, the board, I
[2:50:41] think we'll want to break for lunch and
[2:50:44] I'm thinking that should be about 12:30.
[2:50:51] I think we should go and take public
[2:50:54] testimony until 12:30 and break for half
[2:50:59] an hour and reconvene the public
[2:51:02] hearing.
[2:51:03] we apologize for the inconvenience.
[2:51:04] we're here all day and we're not
[2:51:08] immortal.
[2:51:09] >> any chance to take the temperature of
[2:51:11] the room at 12:30 to see how many folks
[2:51:15] we have?
[2:51:16] >> supervisor weygandt: we can if
[2:51:18] that's the desire of the board.
[2:51:21] I want to make sure if that's the
[2:51:23] expectations of the folks testifying are
[2:51:25] clear so we didn't have any disruption
[2:51:27] from that.
[2:51:29] all right.
[2:51:31] group one.
[2:51:32] please line up on my left.
[2:51:37] over here against the wall and give your
[2:51:39] card to our clerk of the board and come
[2:51:41] up to the podium and state your name for
[2:51:44] the record.
[2:51:45] >> hello, I'm victor becker.
[2:52:16] I'm a member of the granite bay
[2:52:19] community and a neighbor to the project.
[2:52:23] I'm requesting for than three minutes,
[2:52:26] please, if you can give me five or six
[2:52:28] minutes.
[2:52:29] this project has been going on for a
[2:52:30] long time.
[2:52:31] >> supervisor weygandt: I beg your
[2:52:34] pardon?
[2:52:35] >> can I request five minutes? Thank
[2:52:41] you very much for giving us a chance to
[2:52:44] talk about this project.
[2:52:45] I wanted to clear out some
[2:52:46] misunderstanding in the beginning when
[2:52:48] we talk about what could have happened
[2:52:50] in the past what should we have done.
[2:52:53] this is talk in a vacuum.
[2:52:54] this talk doesn't apply to our real life
[2:52:59] or issues.
[2:53:00] if you want to talk like this, you could
[2:53:03] have claimed all the area of eminent
[2:53:09] domain.
[2:53:11] this project is spearheading the
[2:53:13] summation of granite bay and we love it.
[2:53:22] clearly we want to maintain the land use
[2:53:25] section in it as is because we want to
[2:53:28] maintain the rural and agricultural
[2:53:30] character of granite bay not because it
[2:53:33] was a mistake.
[2:53:36] you are quoted in one newspaper about
[2:53:39] piecemeal development in one plan to
[2:53:42] rezone and submit our community one by
[2:53:45] one.
[2:53:46] that's not a plan.
[2:53:47] that is chaos.
[2:53:48] to request all this variances and
[2:53:50] general plan amendments and granite bay
[2:53:53] community amendments is not a sign of
[2:53:55] quality, it's a sign of futurity.
[2:53:58] this is a sub quality project.
[2:54:00] the only way to go forward is to request
[2:54:02] so many variances and amendments.
[2:54:05] a quick note about e.I.r.
[2:54:10] there are over 47 resonses to --
[2:54:13] responses to comments from citizens
[2:54:15] saying it's up to the board of
[2:54:17] supervisors to decide.
[2:54:18] they have no answer.
[2:54:20] for this citizens concerns and comments
[2:54:23] which means two things.
[2:54:25] first, e.I.r. Product is worthless.
[2:54:29] second, that this will project -- this
[2:54:33] project creates problems.
[2:54:35] the next day after the planning
[2:54:37] commission approved in august 25th
[2:54:41] recommended for approval this project,
[2:54:43] there were a major accident and sierra
[2:54:47] college and old auburn.
[2:54:50] the first time I walked, this has been
[2:54:54] happening frequently.
[2:54:55] this time I take a picture and I tried
[2:54:58] to get information from the city of
[2:55:00] roseville and they send me this e-mail
[2:55:02] sighting eight accidents happened over
[2:55:05] the last 12 months alone.
[2:55:07] that doesn't count the -- that does not
[2:55:12] count collisions under a thousand
[2:55:14] dollars.
[2:55:15] this intersection is suffering from
[2:55:18] traffic.
[2:55:19] and the big problem is that there are
[2:55:22] two other projects that have been
[2:55:24] recommended for rejoining in the same
[2:55:26] intersection and there is no collective.
[2:55:28] no human impact study has been done.
[2:55:31] this data is not included in the e.I.r.
[2:55:35] it's missing.
[2:55:37] we any it's intentional.
[2:55:41] most of the documents talk about six
[2:55:43] parcels.
[2:55:44] where there are in fact seven parcels
[2:55:47] which means e.I.r. Should have been
[2:55:51] corrected and circulated.
[2:55:52] the water quality report for the water
[2:55:56] drains from all 16-acres could be
[2:55:59] drained from one property.
[2:56:02] and the water quality report is missing.
[2:56:05] what the people fail to state is that
[2:56:07] all the contiguous properties from
[2:56:11] properties from four sides are one acre
[2:56:15] plus.
[2:56:16] they're talking about -- more than
[2:56:18] 300 feet away.
[2:56:20] they take it as a pint of reference
[2:56:23] where you have never sent them letters
[2:56:26] of notified them about these hearings.
[2:56:29] they've taken them at the point of
[2:56:32] reference.
[2:56:33] again, this project does not -- there
[2:56:36] are other concerns that I'd like to talk
[2:56:38] about.
[2:56:39] >> supervisor weygandt: if you could
[2:56:41] wrap up your comments.
[2:56:42] >> okay.
[2:56:43] I will.
[2:56:44] the biggest concern is when you approve
[2:56:45] a prompt like this, you're rewarding bad
[2:56:49] developers and punishing good developers
[2:56:51] in the same intersection.
[2:56:53] there are three projects that follow the
[2:56:56] zoning and start around the same time in
[2:56:59] 2014.
[2:57:00] we didn't hear about them because they
[2:57:03] submitted the plans to be approved and
[2:57:05] they're selling their homes and making
[2:57:07] profit.
[2:57:08] this project, good projects are
[2:57:12] woodbridge estates building seven homes
[2:57:15] on 10-acres.
[2:57:16] sierra college, rockwood project they're
[2:57:21] all making money, following the zoning,
[2:57:25] not coming and buying cheap agricultural
[2:57:29] land.
[2:57:30] >> supervisor weygandt: you have to
[2:57:31] wrap up your comments.
[2:57:32] >> just that to reward developers to
[2:57:34] taking a gamble and ruining our life and
[2:57:38] endangering the safety of us because
[2:57:40] traffic would be horrible.
[2:57:42] by the way, we can send you a list of 12
[2:57:46] violations of this project.
[2:57:47] the most important violation is that
[2:57:49] granite bay plan states clearly that no
[2:57:52] subdivision should have a main entrance
[2:57:56] on a main road like sierra college.
[2:57:59] that's specific because of the traffic
[2:58:02] concern.
[2:58:03] thank you, very much.
[2:58:04] >> supervisor weygandt: thank you.
[2:58:05] >> hello.
[2:58:12] my name is jane avery.
[2:58:16] the park at granite bay is requesting a
[2:58:20] zoning change and amendment to the
[2:58:21] community plan and a general plan
[2:58:23] amendment for the 50% lot coverage.
[2:58:27] for a variance.
[2:58:28] if this project was consistent with our
[2:58:33] granite bay community plan, none of this
[2:58:36] would be necessary.
[2:58:38] today you'll hear from your community.
[2:58:40] we have over 900 citizens defending our
[2:58:46] community plan.
[2:58:47] 800 signatures that support no changes
[2:58:49] to the plan.
[2:58:50] I know you've received those letters.
[2:58:53] granite bay is growing from a rural
[2:58:56] community to a suburban community.
[2:58:57] this project changes the current zoning
[2:59:00] from 16 homes to 56 single one and
[2:59:03] two-storey family homes.
[2:59:05] it preserves none of the rural character
[2:59:09] of the 16.3-acres.
[2:59:11] it eliminates the ag designation.
[2:59:16] this property which hasn't been pointed
[2:59:18] out is surrounded by one up to four acre
[2:59:22] parcels.
[2:59:23] those people have sheep, goats, I think
[2:59:26] there is a horse there.
[2:59:28] what this property is doing, it's
[2:59:30] dumping a little bit citrus heights into
[2:59:40] granite bay.
[2:59:41] it was zoned to fit in with the
[2:59:43] surrounding parcels.
[2:59:48] what they're doing is taking that away.
[2:59:52] the variance that is requested does not
[2:59:54] even meet the county zoning ordinance.
[2:59:58] that is explained in the letter I sent
[3:00:00] to you.
[3:00:01] the project will add 600 [inaudible] to
[3:00:05] sierra college boulevard.
[3:00:09] it takes now two light changes to travel
[3:00:13] from east roseville parkway to old
[3:00:16] auburn boulevard.
[3:00:18] and that's a distance of 4/10 of a mile.
[3:00:22] I timed it yesterday because I was stuck
[3:00:24] as I always am.
[3:00:26] our community plan was written to
[3:00:28] protect our rural way of life.
[3:00:30] it's been destroyed as you've
[3:00:34] continually approved projects that
[3:00:36] require massive changes to our granite
[3:00:39] bay community plan.
[3:00:40] it's called a community plan because
[3:00:42] that's what the community wants.
[3:00:45] it should not be overridden by a small
[3:00:47] number of individuals.
[3:00:49] I urge you to consider the voting record
[3:00:52] of our planning commission and our board
[3:00:55] of supervisors.
[3:00:56] several years ago, one of you asked at
[3:00:58] one of these meetings why does the
[3:01:02] county approve these plans if it's not
[3:01:05] going to adhere to them?
[3:01:07] I'm asking you that question again
[3:01:09] today.
[3:01:10] why spend years developing
[3:01:12] carefully-drafted award-winning
[3:01:15] community plans if you're not going to
[3:01:18] defend them for us?
[3:01:19] what about our property rights?
[3:01:22] this is not progress, it is
[3:01:24] urbanization.
[3:01:26] [applause]
[3:01:30] >> I'm mark guzzen.
[3:01:39] I'm the past president of the eureka
[3:01:42] school foundation and sit on the board
[3:01:45] of e.s.f.
[3:01:47] e.s.f. Is a volunteer organization
[3:01:50] chartered with raising private funds to
[3:01:54] augment the public school budget in the
[3:01:58] eureka school district.
[3:02:00] there is not much controversy in the
[3:02:04] comment that public education in granite
[3:02:07] bay is one of the cornerstones of the
[3:02:09] community and one of the primary reasons
[3:02:11] many -- many people choose -- many
[3:02:18] people choose to live there.
[3:02:19] it maintains the property values and
[3:02:22] economic viability of the community and
[3:02:24] in fact, raising great citizens.
[3:02:26] I think that this project helps offset
[3:02:31] some of the risks that we have to that
[3:02:34] quality education by bringing more
[3:02:38] families into the district and
[3:02:42] offsetting some of the declining
[3:02:44] enrollment we've seen over the past 10
[3:02:46] plus years.
[3:02:47] I think that it also brings in -- is
[3:02:52] likely to bring in folks that are more
[3:02:54] committed because they are part of the
[3:02:57] granite bay community and farming both
[3:03:01] volunteerism as well as financially
[3:03:03] supporting many opportunities that we
[3:03:06] have to augment the public funding of
[3:03:11] education.
[3:03:12] which are critically important to
[3:03:14] maintaining the quality of the
[3:03:15] education.
[3:03:16] and consequently maintaining the
[3:03:19] cornerstone of the community.
[3:03:21] so, in summary, I'd like you to approve
[3:03:24] this project and help maintain the
[3:03:28] quality of education in granite bay.
[3:03:31] thank you.
[3:03:32] >> I'm paul verassy.
[3:03:45] I'm one of the landowners and I keep
[3:03:47] getting the information that I graded my
[3:03:49] property incorrectly.
[3:03:51] all my property was graded per plan, per
[3:03:53] the county.
[3:03:54] it was all approved by county.
[3:03:56] just to clarify that.
[3:03:57] I didn't grade anything different than
[3:04:00] what the county approved by my grader.
[3:04:04] the water is doing what it's supposed to
[3:04:06] do.
[3:04:07] if the pipe is too small, that's what
[3:04:08] the county approved at the time.
[3:04:10] my comment is the rezoning for the
[3:04:14] greater public necessity and welfare
[3:04:18] requires such an amendment.
[3:04:19] the property proposed demonstrate none
[3:04:22] of the above and destructive to the
[3:04:24] convenience and general welfare of the
[3:04:26] greater number of residents served by
[3:04:28] this project.
[3:04:29] 800 plus residents signed a petition to
[3:04:32] close the park.
[3:04:33] the objectives, lots comparable to
[3:04:42] eckerman, but they are not.
[3:04:45] they were built in the '50s.
[3:04:48] 24 hours on annabelle and eckerman are
[3:04:53] under the half acre lot size.
[3:04:55] the lot sizes on annabelle and eckerman.
[3:05:00] it's a difference of 250 percent.
[3:05:04] that's not comparable.
[3:05:07] studies obtain.
[3:05:09] this may provide opportunities for
[3:05:11] generating new students in the school
[3:05:14] district.
[3:05:15] we have a loss by having students in our
[3:05:17] schools.
[3:05:18] they keep saying our schools are
[3:05:20] underfunded.
[3:05:21] each school costs the district $15,000
[3:05:24] yearly for the student funding of $8,000
[3:05:27] a year.
[3:05:28] increasing to 10,000 in 2017.
[3:05:30] the net cost is a loss.
[3:05:34] all our outside students are turned away
[3:05:37] to recover some of the cost we're losing
[3:05:39] in the students.
[3:05:40] providing a park.
[3:05:42] in 2013 you approved the current level
[3:05:45] of park was satisfactory.
[3:05:51] in granite bay we currently have park
[3:05:55] capacity for 360,000 residents.
[3:06:00] it's 26,000 in granite bay.
[3:06:07] the park would be underutilized.
[3:06:10] providing housing opportunities
[3:06:12] accommodated with the activities with
[3:06:15] the rhna when over 50% coverage, the
[3:06:19] lots cannot accommodate a variety of
[3:06:22] activities as per your report filed by
[3:06:25] the rhna placer county has enough
[3:06:29] capacity and underutilized sites
[3:06:32] accommodate the recent housing needs
[3:06:35] without rezoning.
[3:06:37] according to the government blueprints
[3:06:39] they're satisfactory.
[3:06:45] the developer can't build the 16 homes
[3:06:48] for what the cost is then there is
[3:06:51] something wrong with the developer.
[3:06:53] there has to be a profit for this
[3:06:55] developer if he's going to have homes
[3:06:58] that he can't build.
[3:07:00] we need to know what his profit is going
[3:07:02] to be.
[3:07:03] isn't that fair to the community to know
[3:07:05] that?
[3:07:06] we have no idea what the house is going
[3:07:07] to cast because he says they're for
[3:07:10] younger families.
[3:07:11] they can't afford $700,000.
[3:07:14] granite bay is a move-up area into the
[3:07:18] downsizing.
[3:07:19] we didn't want to be stuck in a house on
[3:07:21] pop top of a house that's why we bought
[3:07:25] four acres in granite bay.
[3:07:27] thank you.
[3:07:29] [applause]
[3:07:30] >> I'm marianne beckett and I live south
[3:07:37] of the project.
[3:07:38] our members listened to the crowd.
[3:07:43] there was a petition signed by more than
[3:07:45] 800 citizens.
[3:07:47] the mac voted against the park and
[3:07:49] granite bay determining there are no
[3:07:51] overriding benefits to justify imposing
[3:07:54] in project on the community.
[3:07:56] in the e.I.r. Section, the board of
[3:08:01] supervisors is mentioned 45 times saying
[3:08:04] they have authority to approve or not
[3:08:08] approve the project.
[3:08:09] it says agricultural residents will be
[3:08:12] protected by the right to farm
[3:08:15] ordinance.
[3:08:16] a document that only protects
[3:08:17] established activities.
[3:08:19] supervisor uhler himself told 10
[3:08:22] bordering neighbors that the density
[3:08:24] does not make sense here and half acre
[3:08:26] lots would be a more reasonable option.
[3:08:29] contrary to the mac's decision
[3:08:30] proponents claim this project will
[3:08:33] generate significant numbers of new
[3:08:35] students.
[3:08:36] this is not true.
[3:08:37] our district's 2016 developer fees
[3:08:39] justification studies estimate the park
[3:08:41] will only generate 18 new students above
[3:08:44] the existing zoning.
[3:08:46] that is only a 0.0013% increase in
[3:08:50] enrollment.
[3:08:51] according to melanie gasby at a funding
[3:08:57] rate of $100,000 per in kindergarten to
[3:09:02] grade school students, it's
[3:09:05] insignificant.
[3:09:06] to add the voluntary contributions is
[3:09:10] speculative and requesting neither
[3:09:13] quantified or guaranteed and not taken
[3:09:16] into consideration.
[3:09:17] it's stated that our student enrollments
[3:09:20] are declining.
[3:09:22] k to 8th grade were 9% above projections
[3:09:28] this year.
[3:09:29] an e.I.r. Letter from the roseville high
[3:09:32] school district states that students
[3:09:34] from the new development would be
[3:09:35] redistributed to under-utilized schools.
[3:09:39] according to the study, enrollments
[3:09:42] capacity by 268 students.
[3:09:45] no existing capacity will be available
[3:09:48] for new development.
[3:09:49] it further states, the districts that no
[3:09:52] available capacity therefore the
[3:09:54] projected 9th to 12th grade students
[3:09:58] will be considered unhoused.
[3:10:00] some students have been sitting on the
[3:10:02] floor in classes like a.p. Government
[3:10:04] due to overcrowding.
[3:10:06] claims that granite bay is an aging
[3:10:08] community losing touch with the families
[3:10:11] and children are unfounded.
[3:10:13] according to our most recent data,
[3:10:16] granite bay's per capita population
[3:10:19] under age 18 is 26% which is 1 to 2%
[3:10:23] more than california and our nation.
[3:10:25] we are above par in our [inaudible] to
[3:10:30] young families.
[3:10:31] with the measurable impacts on us prove
[3:10:34] that every day citizens have a voice.
[3:10:37] people signed a petition, not anonymous
[3:10:40] facebook likes, vote against this
[3:10:44] rezone variance and amendment.
[3:10:46] thank you.
[3:10:47] [applause]
[3:10:48] >> good afternoon.
[3:11:01] I'm holly johnson.
[3:11:02] I live in granite bay and I work in
[3:11:04] granite bay.
[3:11:05] I am an attorney.
[3:11:06] I practice law in the city of california
[3:11:08] for 24 years.
[3:11:09] I moved my practice to granite bay.
[3:11:12] I practice regulatory compliance.
[3:11:15] we have to look at what is before us to
[3:11:18] see whether or not we're in compliance.
[3:11:19] my concern and I'll make it as short and
[3:11:23] sweet as possible.
[3:11:25] maybe not too sweet, but short.
[3:11:27] not just in project.
[3:11:28] this project in part but the other ones
[3:11:31] that you have that will be come before
[3:11:33] you looking to change density and zoning
[3:11:37] of the granite bay plan.
[3:11:39] I think it sets a terrible precedent.
[3:11:41] yes, we want the development, we want it
[3:11:43] pursuant to what is already in existence
[3:11:45] in the plan.
[3:11:46] I don't think you have good cause before
[3:11:48] you to deviate from the plan to have all
[3:11:50] these amendments, to have all these
[3:11:52] variances and zonings that will change
[3:11:54] the traffic.
[3:11:55] you take it piece and piecemeal.
[3:11:58] you combine the number of projects that
[3:12:00] you have before.
[3:12:01] 16, I believe in granite bay.
[3:12:03] whatever the number is.
[3:12:04] you're going to drastically change the
[3:12:07] traffic on douglas boulevard.
[3:12:13] I was at the map meeting.
[3:12:14] this doesn't show that properties around
[3:12:19] do not have the density.
[3:12:21] whether the developer can develop it
[3:12:23] based upon a cost or quote is not the
[3:12:26] concern that should be before you.
[3:12:27] that's their issue.
[3:12:29] so, what I'd like to you take away is
[3:12:32] not just this piece, but what you're
[3:12:35] going to have coming before you.
[3:12:37] do you have good cause to deviate from
[3:12:39] what is the zoning and density of the
[3:12:42] particular pieces of property.
[3:12:44] are you changing the whole feel of
[3:12:45] granite bay?
[3:12:47] please listen to the constituents.
[3:12:48] I'm one of them.
[3:12:50] it's a fundamental problem if you're
[3:12:53] going it change the whole nature.
[3:12:54] you're my representative.
[3:12:56] I ask that you listen to me.
[3:12:58] I'm an attorney, I practice law for a
[3:13:00] living.
[3:13:01] I hope we don't have to get there.
[3:13:02] please listen to what is being said
[3:13:04] before you.
[3:13:05] thank you.
[3:13:06] [applause]
[3:13:07] >> my name is karma norassey.
[3:13:22] there are serious concerns regarding
[3:13:24] access required by development exceeding
[3:13:27] 30 homes and drainage on adjacent
[3:13:31] properties.
[3:13:32] the project requires eckerman road for
[3:13:35] cases of emergency.
[3:13:36] the developer has not been granted an
[3:13:39] easement to use eckerman road as an eba.
[3:13:45] without the secondary eba on eckerman
[3:13:50] should not be used.
[3:13:53] they have a easement to use eckerman
[3:13:58] road for ingress or easement for one
[3:14:00] home.
[3:14:01] this easement has been in place since
[3:14:03] 1959.
[3:14:04] the use of that not be changed without a
[3:14:07] written easement from other current
[3:14:09] landowners along eckerman road.
[3:14:13] once the owner will lose the right for
[3:14:19] ingress and egress.
[3:14:25] all other county and south placer fire
[3:14:28] say they approve the use of eckerman
[3:14:32] road for easement.
[3:14:34] the builder must get an easement.
[3:14:36] that has not been accomplished.
[3:14:39] alternative to, they would not require a
[3:14:44] second eba.
[3:14:46] california fire code mandates that an
[3:14:48] e.b.a. Must meet physical requirements
[3:14:53] in the case.
[3:14:56] roads shall meet the requirements of
[3:14:58] local authority have been jurisdiction
[3:15:00] but not less than requirements set in
[3:15:02] prc 4290.
[3:15:05] current code is for a [inaudible] road.
[3:15:10] eckerman does not meet the requirements.
[3:15:13] regarding the drainage, the e.I.r.
[3:15:16] fails to adequately address the impacts
[3:15:19] on the property owners, us.
[3:15:21] per placer county land development, 5.11
[3:15:25] for drainage easement is required for
[3:15:28] required improvement or plan approval to
[3:15:31] accommodate flows.
[3:15:32] they are not getting a drainage easement
[3:15:35] through my property.
[3:15:37] thank you.
[3:15:38] [applause]
[3:15:39] >> group two can come up now if they
[3:15:43] choose.
[3:15:44] we're almost ready for group two.
[3:15:46] >> my name is elaine sokko and I live on
[3:15:51] eckerman road.
[3:15:54] I'm here to talk about the analysis of
[3:15:56] alternative two.
[3:15:59] can we trust an analysis where 56 minus
[3:16:04] 36 is equal to 38 where 32 is greater
[3:16:07] than 56?
[3:16:09] where fewer residents use more
[3:16:11] utilities?
[3:16:12] county staff stated the following in
[3:16:13] their analysis of the alternative to or
[3:16:17] as zoned.
[3:16:18] land use as zoned would require no
[3:16:21] special entitlements.
[3:16:23] aesthetics would be similar though those
[3:16:26] of the proposed project.
[3:16:28] transportation would result in less
[3:16:30] traffic than the proposed project.
[3:16:33] air quality results in fewer vehicles
[3:16:35] with less than significant air quality
[3:16:37] impacts.
[3:16:38] greenhouse gas emissions as zoned would
[3:16:40] result in fewer residential units and
[3:16:43] greenhouse gas emissions would be less
[3:16:46] than the project because there are fewer
[3:16:47] units.
[3:16:48] noise as zoned would not include a park
[3:16:51] which would have no impact on new
[3:16:52] residents or on existing residents
[3:16:55] neighbors related to the noise generated
[3:16:57] by park users.
[3:16:59] hydrology and water quality.
[3:17:01] this project would result in less than
[3:17:05] impervious surface and have potential
[3:17:10] for flooding.
[3:17:11] aesthetics, transportation, air quality,
[3:17:15] greenhouse gas.
[3:17:16] hydrology and water quality, your own
[3:17:18] planning staff has identified as zoned
[3:17:21] as superior alternative.
[3:17:23] contrary to the analysis of utilities
[3:17:25] and service systems, the zoned
[3:17:27] alternative provides 40 units less than
[3:17:30] the proposal.
[3:17:31] this would result in fewer residents.
[3:17:33] the 16 units built per staff are of
[3:17:37] social benefit since there are almost
[3:17:39] 500,000 square feet of senior living
[3:17:43] proposed.
[3:17:44] 32 units is less than 56.
[3:17:46] so the demand for the utilities and
[3:17:48] services systems would be less than
[3:17:50] described for the proposal.
[3:17:52] total number of units draining to the
[3:17:54] waste water treatment system would be
[3:17:57] significantly less than provided by the
[3:18:00] proposal.
[3:18:01] even with six bathrooms for 16 units
[3:18:04] total 96, the project would produce at
[3:18:08] least 2.5 bathrooms or 340 bathrooms.
[3:18:15] so it generates less demand.
[3:18:17] if he last mac meeting we were told that
[3:18:20] water was not an issue in placer county.
[3:18:22] even here two families per acre will use
[3:18:25] less than four families per acre for
[3:18:28] every alternative.
[3:18:32] the alternative is superior and less
[3:18:35] impactful and should be supported.
[3:18:37] I ask you please do not look at this
[3:18:41] proposal and think it's an infill with
[3:18:46] high density.
[3:18:48] it's a high density project that does
[3:18:50] not belong in this neighborhood.
[3:18:51] we're fine with developing the land as
[3:18:54] the granite bay community proposes.
[3:18:57] thank you.
[3:18:58] [applause]
[3:19:01] >> good afternoon, my name is lora
[3:19:08] saberry.
[3:19:11] I'm speaking on behalf of a former
[3:19:14] planning commissioner who has over 15
[3:19:16] years experience as a senior resource
[3:19:18] analyst with the state water resources.
[3:19:21] after her careful review of the e.I.r.,
[3:19:25] it can be concluded they failed to
[3:19:27] comply with the requirements of the ceqa
[3:19:34] code.
[3:19:35] this is not in compliance with the
[3:19:38] placer county code.
[3:19:40] because did conflicts with several --
[3:19:45] approval would go against government
[3:19:48] code 65000 and government code 6647345
[3:19:53] and 6646474.
[3:19:57] the potential to create significant
[3:20:00] environmental impacts.
[3:20:03] the d.e.I.r. And e.I.r. And drainage
[3:20:07] study failed to conduct a complete and
[3:20:10] accurate analysis can have the hydrology
[3:20:12] and water quality impacts and the
[3:20:14] documents do not conform to the own
[3:20:17] mandated reporting requirements.
[3:20:19] these do not entail the calculations for
[3:20:23] complete analysis, omit key data.
[3:20:29] the initial hydrology reports are
[3:20:32] inconsistent.
[3:20:33] the water quality study shows
[3:20:35] approximately 30% more impervious
[3:20:39] service than the original report and
[3:20:42] total runoff volumes.
[3:20:44] this is contradictory.
[3:20:47] inaccuracies are provided in her
[3:20:49] detailed letter which will be attached.
[3:20:51] the at the least.
[3:20:55] the e.I.r. Must be recirculated since
[3:20:57] the program report which is required by
[3:20:59] the placer -- west placer storm quality
[3:21:03] design manual was not generated envelope
[3:21:06] september of 2016 and was not available
[3:21:08] for public review as per ceqa.
[3:21:12] additionally, the legal grounds for
[3:21:15] granting the variance has not been met
[3:21:19] by mr. Tattersall it does not constitute
[3:21:27] grounds for constituting variance.
[3:21:29] the worthiness of a project are not
[3:21:33] proper considerations in determining
[3:21:35] whether to approve a variance.
[3:21:40] once again granting this variance would
[3:21:45] constitute a prejudicial abuse of
[3:21:48] discretion.
[3:21:49] in the present matter, the ceqa find of
[3:21:53] facts are not in the record as they
[3:21:55] contain incorrect data.
[3:22:00] the final e.I.r. Is not legally
[3:22:02] adequate.
[3:22:03] we also would request the rights to
[3:22:06] rebut any new data that is presented.
[3:22:09] thank you.
[3:22:10] [applause]
[3:22:11] >> good morning.
[3:22:22] I'm name is dale monson.
[3:22:25] I was a member of the committee that
[3:22:28] rewrote the granite bay community plan.
[3:22:32] I think many of us on that plan
[3:22:35] understand that when you have vacant
[3:22:37] land that the owner has the ability to
[3:22:41] develop that land.
[3:22:43] however, the granite bay community plan
[3:22:47] is a serious, serious document.
[3:22:50] we had developers on that.
[3:22:52] there were a lot of compromises made.
[3:22:54] and I think one of the things that
[3:22:56] causes the community to be so up in arms
[3:23:00] over this particular project and I don't
[3:23:05] think I've sat in a mac community in the
[3:23:08] last 15 years and have somebody stand up
[3:23:12] and talk about recall.
[3:23:14] that has been unheard in granite bay
[3:23:18] because we've been able to compromise on
[3:23:20] things like the granite bay plan and you
[3:23:24] guys have backed us to a degree.
[3:23:27] that's all I want to say about that.
[3:23:29] but there is a bigger problem.
[3:23:30] the bigger problem is those of us that
[3:23:33] live in granite bay take our life in our
[3:23:37] own hands when we travel on douglas
[3:23:44] boulevard and try to cross douglas
[3:23:46] boulevard to go shopping at sierra ponds
[3:23:49] or something like that and here again,
[3:23:52] you're going to say okay to a project
[3:23:57] where people have to come out and can't
[3:23:59] even make a left turn.
[3:24:01] they can't go north, as I understand.
[3:24:04] they have to go right and make a right
[3:24:07] turn on over-subscribed roadway that is
[3:24:15] dangerous already because of the flow
[3:24:19] traffic.
[3:24:20] I don't think that's what's his name's
[3:24:23] problem.
[3:24:25] that is your problem that you need to
[3:24:27] sit down, I have a copy of your
[3:24:29] transportation plan, there is nothing in
[3:24:31] there about, that I saw, I could be
[3:24:36] mistaken, nothing I saw about sierra
[3:24:39] college.
[3:24:40] I saw nothing about douglas boulevard.
[3:24:42] just remember, many of us here feel
[3:24:45] we're taking our life in our hands when
[3:24:48] we cross either one of those and you've
[3:24:52] added one project on top of the other
[3:24:54] and it's like we have transportation
[3:24:58] galore.
[3:24:59] we do not.
[3:25:00] [applause]
[3:25:03] >> so I am speaking on the record here.
[3:25:14] I'm ulysses ludwick.
[3:25:17] I leave in granite bay.
[3:25:19] I moved up here because it's rural and
[3:25:22] we love the schools.
[3:25:23] don't want to see them blown up.
[3:25:26] I want to point out on the proposed
[3:25:29] project site, the developer shows it way
[3:25:31] back where it looks like it's a dense
[3:25:34] area.
[3:25:35] you can clearly see that it's completely
[3:25:37] rural all around this parcel.
[3:25:40] it goes quite far down.
[3:25:42] I have a thumb drive we can actually
[3:25:44] look at it where we're looking at this
[3:25:46] property and three or four of the
[3:25:50] properties south, it's quite rural.
[3:25:52] it's not a dense area, as they say.
[3:25:55] the project is not consistent with the
[3:25:57] goal and policies established in the
[3:25:59] community plan, including land use
[3:26:01] element and design elements.
[3:26:03] the e.I.r. Compares the park to granite
[3:26:07] bay's annabelle, ovations and hawthorne.
[3:26:12] annabelle that will is neither adjacent
[3:26:15] or contiguous to the parcel and as
[3:26:18] required by the placer county general
[3:26:20] plan and granite bay plans, it doesn't
[3:26:23] fit, it doesn't belong there.
[3:26:26] ovation rejected.
[3:26:29] it doesn't feet in the e.I.r.
[3:26:31] that you thorn project is not even --
[3:26:34] hawthorne prompt is not even proposed
[3:26:37] yet.
[3:26:38] it doesn't belong in the e.I.r. Sore
[3:26:39] we're looking at you to approve this on
[3:26:43] an e.I.r. That is not valid.
[3:26:46] next thing is that we have facebook.
[3:26:49] so I to mr. Deluca was talking about
[3:26:53] facebook likes.
[3:26:55] I am a programmer.
[3:26:56] I run a software company out of the bay
[3:26:59] area.
[3:27:00] I live here now but I did a little
[3:27:02] research.
[3:27:03] we have 255 people provided a location.
[3:27:06] in the facebook likes.
[3:27:10] I can hand them in for the record.
[3:27:12] of those 255, 37 mark themselves as
[3:27:15] living in granite bay.
[3:27:18] 37 people that said that's a pretty
[3:27:20] picture.
[3:27:21] I knew some people that said that.
[3:27:22] they took their name off of it because
[3:27:25] they didn't want to be associated with
[3:27:27] this project.
[3:27:28] we have here an effort by developer who
[3:27:29] is so compelled to try to garner likes
[3:27:33] for his project that they paid for a
[3:27:36] campaign on facebook.
[3:27:38] by paying for a campaign, there was a
[3:27:40] boom in the number of people who liked
[3:27:42] the project of about 1600 people and
[3:27:45] that boom at the end of the day ended as
[3:27:48] soon as they stopped paying for it.
[3:27:50] there are no more likes since march, I
[3:27:53] believe.
[3:27:55] I just want to make another point is
[3:27:57] that 600 and some of those were actually
[3:27:59] not reelects.
[3:28:01] we have 800 wet physical signatures from
[3:28:04] people that live in the area around that
[3:28:06] property and yet, somehow those likes
[3:28:09] are going to transplant those and take
[3:28:12] over?
[3:28:13] it makes no sense whatsoever.
[3:28:17] thank you very much.
[3:28:18] [applause]
[3:28:19] >> I'm donald sarks.
[3:28:40] I'm an active member of the community.
[3:28:42] I went to oak hills, ridgeview, was
[3:28:46] raised by my parents when I moved to
[3:28:50] granite bay when I was a kid.
[3:28:52] I have a different approach as to what a
[3:28:54] community plan is.
[3:28:55] the community plan is to me, I have a
[3:28:58] 4-year-old daughter.
[3:28:59] I want her to be in the same school
[3:29:01] district that I grew up in.
[3:29:03] be taught by the same teachers that
[3:29:06] taught me up through the high school
[3:29:08] levels.
[3:29:10] I coach at granite bay high school and
[3:29:14] have been for the last five years.
[3:29:16] I enjoy the community of granite bay.
[3:29:19] it's a special place.
[3:29:20] for my parents to be able to move in
[3:29:22] this area and have that opportunity for
[3:29:24] my sister and self and see what a
[3:29:27] granite bay community plan looks like.
[3:29:31] enrollment is down.
[3:29:35] not because of playing football.
[3:29:38] there not a lot of young families I went
[3:29:41] to school with back in granite bay.
[3:29:43] it would mean a lot to me to have people
[3:29:46] like that in the same community that
[3:29:48] made this a rich environment for me to
[3:29:50] love and come back.
[3:29:51] I lived sacramento but never lived in
[3:29:55] granite bay.
[3:29:56] to be able to come back and have the
[3:29:58] same advantages that my 4-year-old
[3:30:00] daughter could have and have her
[3:30:02] experience that with the same teachers
[3:30:03] in the third grade or fifth grade it's
[3:30:07] special to me.
[3:30:08] that's a huge deal for me.
[3:30:10] I approve this project and I think the
[3:30:12] granite bay community plan is what it
[3:30:15] is.
[3:30:16] >> could I ask you a question.
[3:30:20] are you dallas sarks of university of
[3:30:27] southern california?
[3:30:28] if you weren't during the texas game
[3:30:33] during the championship, I'll account we
[3:30:37] would be in the championship.
[3:30:38] >> thank you.
[3:30:45] I appreciate that.
[3:30:46] >> I have no idea what you just said.
[3:30:48] >> it's a small community.
[3:30:49] >> I like all the humor.
[3:30:51] I'm nancy barsell, I live in granite
[3:30:57] bay.
[3:30:58] we like the rural area of granite bay.
[3:31:01] in the final supporting facts of the
[3:31:03] e.I.r. For the park at granite bay,
[3:31:06] false assumptions are made.
[3:31:08] this project does not provide a mix of
[3:31:10] housing to survive a mix of families for
[3:31:14] the project proponents.
[3:31:16] the granite bay community plan provides
[3:31:19] a well-thought out mix of housing to
[3:31:22] serve a diverse population accommodating
[3:31:26] various ages and lifestyles.
[3:31:28] this is supported by the county's
[3:31:30] housing element report on file with
[3:31:33] rhna.
[3:31:34] for each housing development described,
[3:31:36] there is no need to rezone to
[3:31:39] accommodate the housing need.
[3:31:41] number two, granite bay was designed as
[3:31:43] a unique rural residential community
[3:31:46] with a mix of densities established in
[3:31:48] the land use elements of the granite bay
[3:31:50] community plan.
[3:31:54] cumulative impact to changes this
[3:31:59] results in a higher percentage of medium
[3:32:03] density residential lots and lower
[3:32:05] percentage of rural residential lots.
[3:32:07] this drastically changes the rural
[3:32:11] characteristics of granite bay.
[3:32:13] this is not consistent with the analyzed
[3:32:16] section of the plan policies in the
[3:32:21] section are formulated to enhance the
[3:32:25] rural and natural of this community.
[3:32:29] this does not provide housing.
[3:32:32] houses types and price range.
[3:32:35] this type of housing is more than
[3:32:37] adequately represented in the existing
[3:32:39] inventory of lots and homes.
[3:32:40] additional medium density lots and
[3:32:43] homes -- will increase available
[3:32:51] inventory to 14 months of supply and
[3:32:55] flooding the market.
[3:32:56] what is currently under represented is
[3:32:57] an inventory of one acre and larger home
[3:33:00] sites.
[3:33:01] four, if this rate of expansion granite
[3:33:03] bay will reach the full build-out
[3:33:06] sometime in 2018 resulting in a 41%
[3:33:10] overbuild over 2,035 projections and
[3:33:14] negatively impact the schools, public
[3:33:19] services.
[3:33:20] emergency responders.
[3:33:21] traffic, overcrowding and jeopardize our
[3:33:24] rural quality which is ohio lighted in
[3:33:27] placer county and granite bay community
[3:33:30] plans.
[3:33:31] the projects as proposed does not serve
[3:33:33] a public necessity or general welfare of
[3:33:36] this community.
[3:33:37] it is harmful to the welfare of all.
[3:33:40] and it does not provide a mix of
[3:33:43] housing.
[3:33:44] it shifts the range of housing by 49% to
[3:33:47] represent 60% of homes for sale.
[3:33:50] the small lot type is not in keeping
[3:33:53] with the rural nature of our community
[3:33:55] and therefore you reject the project as
[3:33:57] proposed.
[3:33:58] thank you.
[3:33:59] [applause]
[3:34:00] >> my name is glen wells.
[3:34:11] I'm in support of the prompt.
[3:34:15] I've been in granite bay for 17 years.
[3:34:18] I love my community.
[3:34:19] I do a lot for it.
[3:34:21] I'm a major sponsor for e.s.f. For the
[3:34:23] last 12 years and continue to do so.
[3:34:26] I moved from sacramento 17 years ago.
[3:34:29] and I have five children.
[3:34:32] three are out of the nest.
[3:34:34] I have two left at home.
[3:34:36] going through the school districts, it's
[3:34:38] everything to me.
[3:34:41] I really, really believe in my
[3:34:42] community.
[3:34:43] I think you need projects like this.
[3:34:46] I'm on a acre and a quarter.
[3:34:48] I have no problem with this whatsoever.
[3:34:50] change is good.
[3:34:51] this big -- big mean, bad developer, I
[3:34:55] know him personally.
[3:34:57] he builds nice projects.
[3:35:01] I would -- as far as the audience goes,
[3:35:04] keep an open mind to change.
[3:35:06] it goes well for us.
[3:35:09] thank you.
[3:35:10] [applause]
[3:35:12] >> good afternoon.
[3:35:20] I'm chris johnson.
[3:35:22] I live in granite bay on shadow brook
[3:35:26] drive.
[3:35:27] we started looking at homes from '87 but
[3:35:30] moved here in 1988.
[3:35:37] I worked for the east chicago planning
[3:35:39] and redevelopment.
[3:35:40] I know a little about what we're talking
[3:35:44] about.
[3:35:45] this project is pitched as an infill
[3:35:48] when it's not.
[3:35:49] this is a spot rezone.
[3:35:50] basically, you're taking 16-acres
[3:35:54] carving 16-acres out of 142-acres.
[3:35:56] that is zoned as agriculture.
[3:36:00] if the project is built from day one,
[3:36:02] there will be a lot of conflicts because
[3:36:04] the people with their small backyards
[3:36:06] are not going to be happy about the
[3:36:08] manure that is happening over the fence
[3:36:10] from them.
[3:36:11] there is always going to be tension.
[3:36:13] another key thing about granite bay and
[3:36:16] why I moved here is I don't know if you
[3:36:19] know this or not, granite bay has the
[3:36:21] highest home ownership percentage of any
[3:36:24] city or community in the state at 89%.
[3:36:28] you have a lot of people here.
[3:36:29] you have 800 some odd people that signed
[3:36:33] petitions and everything else.
[3:36:35] home ownership means you're invested in
[3:36:37] the community.
[3:36:39] these are people that care about the
[3:36:40] community.
[3:36:41] that's why they're here and presenting
[3:36:42] the case to you.
[3:36:43] I don't know, you may or may not own a
[3:36:46] home in granite bay, but it's a pretty
[3:36:49] darned good community.
[3:36:50] it's not necessarily elitist.
[3:36:53] so many aspects of this project are in
[3:36:57] complete opposition to the granite bay
[3:36:59] plan.
[3:37:00] our community developed over the years
[3:37:02] since this -- and I've lived here since
[3:37:05] the plan was approved in '89, it's the
[3:37:08] foundation for why this is a community
[3:37:10] that has a high percentage of
[3:37:12] homeowners.
[3:37:13] people invested and caring about the
[3:37:15] community and want to make sure the
[3:37:16] right things happen.
[3:37:19] to disrupt the granite bay plan could to
[3:37:22] build a project that only satisfies
[3:37:24] developers wants shows a total disregard
[3:37:27] for the community at large.
[3:37:28] there is no compelling reason to build
[3:37:31] at this density as the population is
[3:37:33] only expected to increase at 5% over the
[3:37:36] next 10 years, a total of 5%.
[3:37:39] that's in the different studies the
[3:37:41] county paid for.
[3:37:42] if we build this project, it's going to
[3:37:44] be the lowest quality, lowest value of
[3:37:47] anything built since the plan was
[3:37:48] approved.
[3:37:49] why are we sacrificing good property for
[3:37:53] this?
[3:37:54] there is no good reason.
[3:37:56] the only -- the only thing that bothers
[3:38:01] me about this is our supervisor seems
[3:38:04] committed to making this happen.
[3:38:06] it's going to benefit his office suite
[3:38:09] neighbor john tattersall at the same
[3:38:13] address as kirk and damaging to the
[3:38:15] entire community.
[3:38:17] what I want you to do and think about
[3:38:19] this, because we have so many projects
[3:38:21] coming through, please reject this
[3:38:25] project.
[3:38:26] thank you.
[3:38:27] [applause]
[3:38:28] >> good afternoon.
[3:38:39] I'm john bolter.
[3:38:41] I never thought I'd have to be up here
[3:38:44] and be discussing something like this.
[3:38:46] I've lived in granite bay over 20 years.
[3:38:52] before that I grew up in the bay area
[3:38:54] and I watched every community in the bay
[3:38:56] area do exactly what you're talking
[3:38:58] about doing here.
[3:38:59] taking one small infill project and then
[3:39:04] there are more.
[3:39:05] what you do is you take a community like
[3:39:07] granite bay which is a great place to
[3:39:10] live that is not dense, that's not west
[3:39:12] roseville or other parts of placer
[3:39:14] county, it's granite bay.
[3:39:17] granite bay has a certain feel.
[3:39:23] this says take one to three acres and
[3:39:25] two do it two to four dwellings her ache
[3:39:29] or more and put -- acre or more and let
[3:39:34] them build 50 to 60% on a house.
[3:39:37] I watched that in my lifetime and what
[3:39:40] happens is there are more.
[3:39:42] and it's like cockroaches.
[3:39:44] when you see one there are more.
[3:39:46] that's exactly what I see happening
[3:39:48] here.
[3:39:49] I could go through all the same numbers
[3:39:51] that you heard from everybody else and
[3:39:52] it doesn't make sense that you need
[3:39:55] though hear from people that live here
[3:39:56] that have lived here and raised their
[3:39:58] kids here and the idea is that the
[3:40:00] amount of space that we have doesn't
[3:40:03] need to be jammed.
[3:40:04] like the project that you're
[3:40:05] considering.
[3:40:06] so I am requesting that you deny this
[3:40:11] project like it appears that most of
[3:40:13] community has spoke about through the
[3:40:17] process.
[3:40:18] thank you.
[3:40:19] [applause]
[3:40:20] >> good morning, my name is sandy harris
[3:40:32] and I live in granite bay.
[3:40:34] the granite bay community association
[3:40:36] had john come to our board meeting on a
[3:40:40] couple of occasions.
[3:40:41] we tried working with him.
[3:40:43] we were overwhelmed with the density he
[3:40:45] was borough posing for the projects.
[3:40:48] we told him, talk to the neighbors and
[3:40:50] come back with something more
[3:40:52] reasonable.
[3:40:53] starting with what he started and what
[3:40:54] he's ended up with is what a lot of
[3:40:56] people think is a development trick.
[3:41:00] tell you we'll put in a hundred and
[3:41:03] compromise for 50, that's not a win-win
[3:41:05] at all.
[3:41:06] the community association has supported
[3:41:08] john on some of his other projects.
[3:41:11] and he does do a nice job.
[3:41:14] this isn't personal, john, I like him a
[3:41:17] lot.
[3:41:18] but this is not consistent with the
[3:41:23] community plan.
[3:41:24] we did a survey monkey.
[3:41:25] the number one reason people move to
[3:41:28] granite bay is the low density large
[3:41:31] lots.
[3:41:32] second reason is the rural character,
[3:41:34] the third reason was the quality of
[3:41:37] schools.
[3:41:38] and surprising to me, folsom lake was
[3:41:41] down at the bottom.
[3:41:42] I thought most people came to our area
[3:41:45] for the lake but they don't.
[3:41:46] I'm concerned with the project.
[3:41:48] they say they're going to have a 15-foot
[3:41:50] landscape buffer.
[3:41:52] it's going to be on the inside of the
[3:41:54] fence.
[3:41:55] how does that buffer the people who live
[3:41:58] on the other side and how are they going
[3:42:01] to control this easement for 15 feet,
[3:42:06] the home owners association going to be
[3:42:08] responsible for it?
[3:42:09] how will they police it?
[3:42:11] that buffer should be on the out side of
[3:42:13] the fence.
[3:42:14] another concern I have is about this
[3:42:15] park.
[3:42:16] it's a public park in a private gated
[3:42:20] community.
[3:42:21] the homeowners will have to pay for the
[3:42:22] road.
[3:42:23] they'll have to pay for gate.
[3:42:25] they had to pay to maintain the park.
[3:42:28] what's this going to do to this
[3:42:30] affordable housing community when you
[3:42:34] were to pay such high homeowners dues
[3:42:37] for the maintenance?
[3:42:38] the liability insurance will be high on
[3:42:40] it and I think it will create parking
[3:42:42] problems within this gated community
[3:42:46] when the people using that park decide
[3:42:49] to park on their streets.
[3:42:50] I'm afraid that eventually the home
[3:42:53] owners will get together and vote to do
[3:42:55] away with that park and part of the
[3:42:57] reason for this project is that they're
[3:43:00] going to have a public park.
[3:43:02] there needs to be a condition and
[3:43:03] approvals if you decide to approve this
[3:43:06] that that park cannot be voted out.
[3:43:08] that is in perpetuity.
[3:43:12] I don't think this project is compelling
[3:43:15] enough to be awarded all the
[3:43:18] entitlements and variances that they're
[3:43:21] seeking.
[3:43:22] I think the alternative would be a
[3:43:27] better project.
[3:43:28] we started meet with john in october of
[3:43:30] 2013 which was a year and a half after
[3:43:32] the community plan was adopted.
[3:43:34] they knew full well what the expense on
[3:43:37] it was and what the costs might have to
[3:43:39] be when you take it through an
[3:43:41] environment the document process.
[3:43:43] thank you anyway.
[3:43:44] [applause]
[3:43:46] >> good afternoon.
[3:43:52] my name is ryan perry smith.
[3:43:56] it pains me to say this, but I'm a 40
[3:43:59] year resident of granite bay.
[3:44:01] soy guess that was before it was granite
[3:44:04] bay.
[3:44:05] gone through all the schools in the
[3:44:06] eureka school district.
[3:44:08] went to oakmont high school.
[3:44:11] went away for a few years and came back
[3:44:14] and I was fortunate to get a house in
[3:44:17] tree lake.
[3:44:19] I've seen and witnessed the great change
[3:44:21] through granite bay and through our
[3:44:24] community.
[3:44:25] my main focus with all this, I served on
[3:44:28] the eureka school board.
[3:44:31] I got to see a little bit behind the
[3:44:33] scenes of the finances within the
[3:44:35] schools and I want to make sure that we
[3:44:36] understand the difference between the
[3:44:38] high school district which is roseville
[3:44:40] and the southern elementary and middle
[3:44:43] and junior high schools that the eureka
[3:44:46] school district is focused on and the
[3:44:49] declining enrollment.
[3:44:51] as an esf board member.
[3:44:54] we'd walk down douglas and say if you
[3:44:57] work here, your kids could go to school
[3:44:59] here.
[3:45:00] that means you can live anywhere in the
[3:45:02] area and if you work near the school,
[3:45:04] your kids can go to school here.
[3:45:07] a project like this and aim very much
[3:45:09] for this project will bring kids, local
[3:45:12] kids and we're not necessarily
[3:45:15] offsetting declining enrollment but
[3:45:18] offset kids that are not in the
[3:45:21] district.
[3:45:22] your kids are in the district you have a
[3:45:24] vested interest in the district.
[3:45:25] you're here and you're available and you
[3:45:29] would be in a community like this
[3:45:30] whether it's soccer practice or the
[3:45:31] other things that go on, you're part of
[3:45:37] the community.
[3:45:38] I appreciate your time and I appreciate
[3:45:39] the feedback and the talk that's what
[3:45:42] this is all about.
[3:45:44] but at the end of the day, I hope this
[3:45:46] project is approved for our schools and
[3:45:48] for our future.
[3:45:49] thank you.
[3:45:50] >> my name is jeff sarks.
[3:46:00] I'm here in support of project.
[3:46:02] I lived in the grant bay community for
[3:46:06] 25 years.
[3:46:07] I moved here for the schools.
[3:46:08] my son just talked earlier.
[3:46:11] it's been hard for young families to
[3:46:14] move in here.
[3:46:15] for him to buy a house in the granite
[3:46:17] bay area is not going to happen until we
[3:46:19] have more projects like this where we
[3:46:21] have more affordable housing.
[3:46:24] I only live -- well, I'd be close to the
[3:46:33] project.
[3:46:34] but I drive past the project every day.
[3:46:36] it's a field sitting there.
[3:46:38] when you go up to the corner of eureka
[3:46:41] and roseville there are a lot of
[3:46:43] businesses out of business and there
[3:46:45] were local people that tried to start
[3:46:49] local businesses up and down sierra
[3:46:53] college.
[3:46:54] I think something like this would help
[3:46:55] support more local businesses where they
[3:46:57] could actually walk at nighttime or
[3:47:01] whatever to get up.
[3:47:02] I think the park as I live right by
[3:47:05] hillsborough.
[3:47:06] the park is a good idea.
[3:47:09] hillsborough park is full every day.
[3:47:12] team after team.
[3:47:13] which is a good thing, but the little
[3:47:15] park, if we could alleviate the pressure
[3:47:18] off the other -- off the other parks,
[3:47:25] that's a win-win situation.
[3:47:27] I'm in support of the project and I
[3:47:28] think the community needs this.
[3:47:29] thanks.
[3:47:30] >> I'm veronica [inaudible] c.e.o. Of
[3:47:40] placer community foundation.
[3:47:41] I'll be brief.
[3:47:44] last week it showed that 42% of the
[3:47:47] residents are paying more than 30% of
[3:47:49] their income on housing.
[3:47:51] the county needs housing that is
[3:47:53] attainable for the workforce.
[3:47:56] while I'm not sure what the basis is for
[3:47:58] the fee in lieu, we need to have a
[3:48:01] broader conversation on how the county
[3:48:07] can work to construct the units.
[3:48:10] >> we have a full group three plus more.
[3:48:14] I think it would be start in to take a
[3:48:17] break.
[3:48:18] quick lunch break.
[3:48:19] so we'll take a quick --
[3:48:22] >> 15 minutes?
[3:48:24] >> supervisor weygandt: how about half
[3:48:26] an hour quick.
[3:48:27] in case we want to take up closed
[3:48:29] session -- actually, if you could have
[3:48:37] three minutes per person, you have 30
[3:48:40] minutes plus we have stuff to come back
[3:48:42] to in terms of non-department items.
[3:48:46] we have a full board meeting for the
[3:48:48] west rest of us.
[3:48:53] any compelling feelings one way or the
[3:48:55] other?
[3:49:03] let's take a lunch break.
[3:49:05] okay.
[3:49:06] we'll be back in half an hour.
[3:49:17] >> we'll adjourn to closed session to
[3:49:21] discuss the two workers compensation
[3:49:23] items.
[3:49:25] the other existing item, gomes versus
[3:49:30] [inaudible] is not ready for discussion.
[4:19:15] >> hearing, we are reconvening
[4:19:19] from lunch and closed session.
[4:19:22] county council will report out
[4:19:23] as to closed session.
[4:19:25] >> the board has returned from
[4:19:29] close session where we had a
[4:19:32] council on two worker
[4:19:33] compensation matters.
[4:19:34] the board heard reports on both
[4:19:37] items and gave direction to
[4:19:39] council on the remaining item as
[4:19:42] I noted before.
[4:19:43] morgan gomes versus nick boone.
[4:19:46] the board did not discuss the
[4:19:47] matter, it was not ready at this
[4:19:49] time.
[4:19:51] that concludes the report.
[4:19:52] >> we'll restart the public
[4:19:55] hearing with beginning of group
[4:19:56] three.
[4:19:57] >> I'm a resident of granite
[4:20:10] bay.
[4:20:11] I walked my dog back here
[4:20:13] several times.
[4:20:15] come down, I come down sierra
[4:20:18] college with my dog.
[4:20:19] look at this land and say, what
[4:20:21] a great opportunity.
[4:20:24] then I turn on to the bike path
[4:20:26] and I look over to the meadows
[4:20:33] development and say what a lost
[4:20:35] opportunity.
[4:20:36] the meadows project doesn't do
[4:20:37] the job.
[4:20:38] in my estimation.
[4:20:41] this is the kind of development
[4:20:43] we need.
[4:20:44] I got a flyer in the mail
[4:20:46] posting the project.
[4:20:48] I was a little confused.
[4:20:49] I looked at this bottom of the
[4:20:51] picture and thought that is a
[4:20:52] great-looking project.
[4:20:54] that's what I'd like to see in
[4:20:56] our community.
[4:20:57] it was a project of this is the
[4:20:58] dire thing that you're going to
[4:21:00] see that is going to be defense
[4:21:02] your project.
[4:21:03] I was taken aback by that
[4:21:05] visual.
[4:21:06] I have young kids.
[4:21:08] you've heard mr. Sarks get up
[4:21:11] and talk about how he wants them
[4:21:13] to live in granite bay.
[4:21:15] I have young kids.
[4:21:17] they lived on abilene?
[4:21:19] what what's the name of the
[4:21:21] street?
[4:21:22] anna belle.
[4:21:23] they looked on anna belle and
[4:21:27] looked at a house and couldn't
[4:21:29] afford it.
[4:21:31] they bought in downtown
[4:21:33] roseville, but they would have
[4:21:35] loved to be in our area.
[4:21:37] I'm concerned about the lack of
[4:21:38] housing in our -- next
[4:21:41] generation to come and live in
[4:21:43] granite bay -- wondering what is
[4:21:47] going to happen to me.
[4:21:48] this could be a great
[4:21:49] opportunity for my wife and I.
[4:21:51] the large lot.
[4:21:53] the large square footage is not
[4:21:55] getting any easier to take care
[4:21:57] of.
[4:21:58] having a project like this would
[4:21:59] be a fantastic addition to our
[4:22:01] community in my estimation.
[4:22:04] john, you're doing a great job.
[4:22:06] so thank you.
[4:22:07] >> good afternoon.
[4:22:14] I'm jeff powers.
[4:22:15] I live in granite bay.
[4:23:21] and resident of granite bay and every
[4:23:24] time you make a decision, you make
[4:23:26] one person happy and one person
[4:23:29] mad and I can appreciate what you do.
[4:23:32] you represent the community and I'm a
[4:23:34] little league coach and on the board
[4:23:36] currently and raised almost $500,000
[4:23:38] for the district and run the
[4:23:40] tournament, the golf tournament and
[4:23:41] live in granite bay and I have two
[4:23:44] kids, a wife that works in the county
[4:23:47] and I work through the county and
[4:23:49] other counties.
[4:23:50] I'm for this project because you have
[4:23:51] to look at every project as an
[4:23:53] individual project.
[4:23:54] the location of this project off the
[4:24:00] streets it is off and size of the
[4:24:01] project and I ask you to look at
[4:24:03] project as individuals.
[4:24:05] I'm not for every project in granite
[4:24:06] bay.
[4:24:07] I'm for this project because I feel
[4:24:10] it fits the partial and fits the area
[4:24:13] and I ask you to approve this project
[4:24:14] -- not every project, but
[4:24:18] ask you to approve the park project,
[4:24:22] thank you very much chair weygandt
[4:24:28] and members of the board, I'm here on
[4:24:30] behalf of the roseville area chamber
[4:24:31] of commerce.
[4:24:34] our chamber proudly serves and as
[4:24:36] served the community of granite bay
[4:24:38] since 1999 when the chamber closed
[4:24:40] its doors and we're here today to
[4:24:42] support the park at granite bay.
[4:24:46] we think one of the key things on
[4:24:48] this is the housing option that there
[4:24:49] provide.
[4:24:50] we have heard about the declining
[4:25:00] enrollment at eureka school and will
[4:25:02] provide for young family come into
[4:25:03] the area and start the
[4:25:05] next-generation of people being
[4:25:06] involved in the community,
[4:25:07] playing sports.
[4:25:09] I also think or we think that park is
[4:25:14] an added benefit for all of granite
[4:25:17] bay to enjoy and embracing their
[4:25:19] motto, "live and play in granite bay."
[4:25:23] this housing option is critical
[4:25:25] for the workforce as we attempt to
[4:25:27] bring in no ew jobs and provide
[4:25:32] housing options and retain those
[4:25:33] employees in the area and give them
[4:25:35] places to live close to where they
[4:25:38] work infill is in the easiest thing
[4:25:46] to do and with that said, the park at
[4:25:49] roseville -- park at granite
[4:25:51] bay, close to roseville will again
[4:25:53] provide housing options.
[4:25:55] it also aligns with the blueprint
[4:25:58] project that was adopted back in 2004.
[4:26:03] and again, one size does not fit all
[4:26:04] and I think we need to take that into
[4:26:06] consideration.
[4:26:12] with that we would encourage you to
[4:26:13] adopt the planning commission's
[4:26:15] recommendation and support the park at
[4:26:17] granite bay, thank you.
[4:26:24] >> good afternoon my name is michael
[4:26:26] murphy a residence for 13-and-a-half
[4:26:29] years in granite bay and thank you
[4:26:30] for having me this afternoon and
[4:26:31] being able to speak in front of you.
[4:26:33] I want to just say I'm here in
[4:26:36] support of the project and I'm not
[4:26:38] here as a paid person to support the
[4:26:41] project, because there have been
[4:26:42] people in the audience that have --
[4:26:45] I heard whispers that were here --
[4:26:47] paid to be here and I'm losing money
[4:26:51] for being here.
[4:26:53] this is a perfect example of a
[4:26:57] granite fill project and you heard it
[4:26:58] over and over and I won't go into and
[4:27:01] not going to give you statistics and
[4:27:03] tell you oh, this is it because xyz,
[4:27:07] but it's a great infill project with
[4:27:11] smart planning that you already know
[4:27:12] about.
[4:27:13] so I would encourage you to consider
[4:27:14] that as one of your basis of
[4:27:19] approving this project.
[4:27:21] this will also improve an eyesore.
[4:27:22] I don't know if you have been by
[4:27:25] there recently, but that whole
[4:27:27] section, the island does not look
[4:27:28] that great and when I drive by, this
[4:27:30] will definitely improve a section of
[4:27:33] sierra college that will make us
[4:27:39] proud as granite bay residents to
[4:27:41] have the improvement there.
[4:27:44] it will also, I believe, support more
[4:27:47] stable property values in the area,
[4:27:49] because a lot of properties in that
[4:27:52] area are -- they are not
[4:28:01] well-maintained and mismatched will
[4:28:02] have a well-balanced approach to
[4:28:03] maintenance and keep the resale value
[4:28:06] at a level that I think this will
[4:28:07] maintain
[4:28:09] property values throughout the whole
[4:28:10] island area.
[4:28:15] the last thing I wanted to say there
[4:28:18] are only four houses in granite bay
[4:28:20] on an acre or more and each is
[4:28:26] over a million-and-a-half dollars for
[4:28:27] sale and there is one that is a
[4:28:29] rundown house that is under a
[4:28:30] million, but the rest are over a
[4:28:35] million-and-a-half dollars and I
[4:28:36] can't afford that and if I wanted to
[4:28:38] move here and they are 1-acre lots I
[4:28:41] couldn't afford a home on these lots.
[4:28:43] so I think it's important for the
[4:28:46] community to bring in other
[4:28:49] professionals who want to live in
[4:28:51] granite bay and attend the schools.
[4:28:54] please support the project.
[4:28:55] thank you.
[4:29:01] >> good afternoon board of
[4:29:03] supervisors I'm suzanne jones a
[4:29:05] granite bay resident of 25 years.
[4:29:07] the reason people move here is
[4:29:09] because granite bay is a premiere
[4:29:10] community.
[4:29:11] I know you have heard a lot about its
[4:29:15] rural atmosphere, but it's mostly
[4:29:16] because it's premiere.
[4:29:17] that is the reason why everyone wants
[4:29:19] to come here.
[4:29:20] it took my husband and I more than 20
[4:29:24] years to get here.
[4:29:26] nobody graduates from high school and
[4:29:28] moves into granite bay.
[4:29:29] and we certainly don't want to make
[4:29:30] at the end of the community that you
[4:29:31] can graduate from high school and
[4:29:35] move into granite bay.
[4:29:37] we are also not a bunch of nimbies
[4:29:43] -- not in my backyard, but to
[4:29:45] preserve the premiere quality of our
[4:29:48] community and hence the granite bay
[4:29:49] community plan and why we spent so
[4:29:52] much time working on it.
[4:29:53] supporters say we should be open to
[4:29:55] change.
[4:30:01] rather than changing our community,
[4:30:02] there is roseville right next door to
[4:30:05] us and roseville has gorgeous
[4:30:06] communities that are high-density and
[4:30:09] school within our school districts.
[4:30:10] you don't have to live in granite bay
[4:30:12] to be in our school districts.
[4:30:17] speaking of schools if every house in
[4:30:18] this development had two kids, that
[4:30:22] would make 112 children that will not
[4:30:25] have an impact on the population of
[4:30:33] our schools or declining enrollments.
[4:30:39] I'm on the placer county board of
[4:30:42] education and I serve on the board
[4:30:44] and the reason we have such a high
[4:30:46] quality education is not because we
[4:30:47] have a lot of students in our schools.
[4:30:49] it's because we have quality
[4:30:53] communities, and excellent teachers.
[4:30:58] speaking of affordable the developer
[4:31:00] previously stated at granite bay mac,
[4:31:01] this was not an affordable community,
[4:31:04] but I heard him say today he did
[4:31:06] refer to it being affordable and
[4:31:08] referred $800,000 homes.
[4:31:10] not quite sure why $700,000 homes why
[4:31:15] you referred to $800,000 to $1
[4:31:26] million and young families aren't
[4:31:33] able to afford these homes.
[4:31:35] I understand the builder is a nice
[4:31:37] guy and has a high quality product,
[4:31:39] but this is a dressing nearly the
[4:31:41] extremely high-density developments
[4:31:42] that they are trying to just shove
[4:31:44] down our throats in granite bay and
[4:31:46] the impact it will have on
[4:31:48] everything, traffic, people, the
[4:31:50] community, the premiere quality.
[4:31:52] now he was responsive to us early on
[4:31:55] and he did reduce the density of his
[4:31:57] project, but at some point in time he
[4:32:01] did become unresponsive and refused
[4:32:02] once he got to his lowest offer.
[4:32:05] it's to say that you have 1500
[4:32:08] signatures in support, but you have
[4:32:09] the residents and not just a bunch of
[4:32:10] secants.
[4:32:14] and the commission, the planning
[4:32:16] commission, when they argued this,
[4:32:17] they said that we need projects like
[4:32:18] this.
[4:32:22] so the past based on five people
[4:32:24] saying we need projects like this as
[4:32:26] opposed to listening to all of us.
[4:32:27] if I hear the board in your
[4:32:29] deliberations say the reason you
[4:32:30] think we should pass this is because
[4:32:33] it's a good idea, or because we need
[4:32:36] projects like this, then I will know
[4:32:40] that all of our voices have fallen on
[4:32:44] totally deaf ears, and this in our
[4:32:46] mind will be substantial evidence
[4:32:47] that you, the board of supervisors no
[4:32:50] longer represent us.
[4:32:52] thank you very much
[4:32:53] [ applause ]
[4:33:03] >> yes, 11-year resident of granite
[4:33:04] bay and I want to commend staff for
[4:33:05] the work that they have done.
[4:33:07] this is sensible planning, guys.
[4:33:10] I get that it's -- this is on
[4:33:13] sierra college boulevard, this is a
[4:33:17] major thoroughfare between 50 and 80.
[4:33:21] this is not stallman and I get that
[4:33:24] people went to be on 2-5-acre lot
[4:33:28] sizes and this is not that.
[4:33:30] this makes perfect sense for this
[4:33:32] particular area.
[4:33:33] I want to say also about the
[4:33:35] developer.
[4:33:36] I know him.
[4:33:37] I am in the industry and think he is
[4:33:42] a fantastic developer as evidenced by
[4:33:47] his project on douglas and barton and
[4:33:49] that is a first-class project and
[4:33:54] expect nothing less an that.
[4:33:56] it's a first-class project we can all
[4:33:59] be supportive of and feel proud about
[4:34:00] in our community here in granite bay
[4:34:04] and I ask that you support the
[4:34:06] project, thank you.
[4:34:13] >> my name is nicole shapel and I
[4:34:18] was a resident -- I'm a landowner
[4:34:23] and lived next to the project for ten
[4:34:24] years.
[4:34:26] I'm fully in support of it and I
[4:34:27] agree with a couple of the last
[4:34:29] people have said, you know this?
[4:34:31] this is sierra college boulevard,
[4:34:34] major thoroughfare and if you want it
[4:34:35] live in the rural area, you move.
[4:34:37] I moved recently a year ago to
[4:34:44] auburn, ten acres where I can shot
[4:34:47] guns and road my horse authentic I
[4:34:49] was one of two people that had any
[4:34:51] life stock and I'm the ones with the
[4:34:54] horse and manure and I don't live
[4:34:56] there any more.
[4:34:58] one person has a cow.
[4:34:59] there are no other people that have
[4:35:02] livestock or those type of animals in
[4:35:04] this area and I understand that they
[4:35:07] will still be able to have that
[4:35:09] possibility, because this is not
[4:35:11] going to change the zoning of any of
[4:35:14] the people outside of this actual
[4:35:15] project.
[4:35:17] I think this project is a great
[4:35:20] infill in my mind, if you look at the
[4:35:24] global zoom out a little bit and the
[4:35:26] area surrounded by houses.
[4:35:29] it's surrounded by major roads and if
[4:35:30] you want to live in the rural area,
[4:35:33] to live on sneaky backroads and not
[4:35:35] major roads that eventually are going
[4:35:36] to be like a freeway, connecting the
[4:35:39] 80 and 50 corridor.
[4:35:40] so I'm fully in support of this
[4:35:42] project.
[4:35:43] and I hope that you guys vote it
[4:35:47] through.
[4:35:48] thank you.
[4:35:50] >> good afternoon jeff kess, 23-year
[4:36:02] resident of highland.
[4:36:03] there is no compelling need for 56
[4:36:06] homes on sierra college as proposed
[4:36:10] this infill project on the island is
[4:36:12] cobbling together a number of
[4:36:14] smaller existing lots into one larger
[4:36:15] lot only for the benefit of the
[4:36:18] applicant, without substantial
[4:36:19] benefit to the immediate neighbors or
[4:36:20] the community.
[4:36:22] 16 homes is identified in the eir as
[4:36:26] the superior development alternative,
[4:36:28] the right density for this project in
[4:36:29] keeping with the principles of the
[4:36:31] granite bay community plan and in
[4:36:33] hearings prior today we heard
[4:36:34] testimony it's in the feasible to
[4:36:36] bring out the park at granite bay
[4:36:38] with only 16 houses and similar
[4:36:41] nearby subdivisions established lower
[4:36:45] density zoning standing contradiction
[4:36:46] to that assertion and include
[4:36:49] rockwood estates and meadows and
[4:36:52] sierra college and woodbridge
[4:36:56] estates and these subdivision within
[4:36:57] the so-called island were recently
[4:36:59] built on lands zoned the same the
[4:37:02] subject property is currently and
[4:37:04] combined represent 22 homes on
[4:37:05] approximately 27 acres.
[4:37:08] intelligent infill projects meet the
[4:37:10] objectives of the granite bay
[4:37:11] community plan and if those produced
[4:37:14] a viable project within euler
[4:37:15] low-density zoning, there is it no
[4:37:17] reason to believe that the applicant
[4:37:19] cannot have a viable economic project
[4:37:21] with 16 homes without entitlements
[4:37:24] for rezone community plan amendment
[4:37:25] and variance.
[4:37:28] in 2006 court case ceqa was
[4:37:29] interpreted to the effect "the fact
[4:37:30] that an alternative may be more
[4:37:34] expensive or less profitable is not
[4:37:35] sufficient to show that the
[4:37:40] alternative is financially
[4:37:41] infeasible." testimony in previous
[4:37:42] hearings contend that the 56 homes
[4:37:43] are to fill housing demand of
[4:37:46] new jobs coming to placer county and
[4:37:48] significant new employers such as top
[4:37:50] gavel and the university however are
[4:37:53] located in west roseville and not
[4:37:56] granite bay/east roseville and that
[4:37:58] employees will find more affordable
[4:38:00] homing than at then park at granite
[4:38:01] bay.
[4:38:04] other major placer employers do not
[4:38:05] provide support for the assertion
[4:38:07] that the park at granite bay will
[4:38:10] added high-density homes for new
[4:38:11] development and, in fact the
[4:38:13] september 2016 building industry
[4:38:14] associate report shows that will are
[4:38:16] at least 734 new home as valuable in
[4:38:20] affordable high-density subdivisions
[4:38:22] within five miles of sierra college
[4:38:25] douglas boulevard crossroad without
[4:38:26] jamming 56 homes into a rural setting
[4:38:28] where the park at granite bay is
[4:38:29] proposed.
[4:38:31] members of the board, you are likely
[4:38:32] going to hear some very directed and
[4:38:35] con triumphed questioning of planning
[4:38:36] department staff and others to
[4:38:37] justify why this rezone to higher
[4:38:39] density should be approved to the
[4:38:41] benefit of an applicant who doesn't
[4:38:43] even own the land now and property
[4:38:45] rights to the proposed parcels being
[4:38:47] cobbled together for this application.
[4:38:49] instead urban going to be asked to
[4:38:52] transfer on the property rights
[4:38:54] of existing individual owners
[4:38:55] surrounding the subject property and
[4:38:57] forever change the character of the
[4:38:58] properties that they own.
[4:38:59] please make the right and justifiable
[4:39:02] vote to deny the recommendation to
[4:39:04] approve this project as submitted.
[4:39:05] [ applause ]
[4:39:14] >> that is all we have for group 3,
[4:39:16] but we think we have group 4 people
[4:39:18] in the audience or other people with
[4:39:20] cards?
[4:39:32] >> group 4 michael, representing
[4:39:37] placer group sierra club, let's talk
[4:39:39] infill and land use policy, one of
[4:39:42] our primary orientation s to support
[4:39:43] infill development.
[4:39:45] you don't need this project to have
[4:39:47] infill development and this project
[4:39:48] is ready and this land is ready with
[4:39:50] services and everything that you
[4:39:51] need for infill development and
[4:39:54] infill development to develop it
[4:39:55] according to the existing plan.
[4:39:59] of course we're not only concerned
[4:40:02] about infill and keeping things in
[4:40:04] urban areas, we're also concerned
[4:40:06] about greenhouse gas emissions and
[4:40:09] unnecessary addition of greenhouse
[4:40:13] gas from overdevelopment,
[4:40:14] transportation issues.
[4:40:17] everybody is talking about 56 units.
[4:40:22] well, secondary homes are permitted
[4:40:25] on lots of 5,000 square foot.
[4:40:27] square feet.
[4:40:28] so you are really talking about
[4:40:30] potentially twice as many units on
[4:40:31] these properties.
[4:40:33] how did that 5,000 come about?
[4:40:35] you may remember that a few months
[4:40:37] ago it was a 150,000 square foot
[4:40:40] minimum and you acted to change it to
[4:40:43] 5,000 square feet.
[4:40:44] this issue came to the sierra club's
[4:40:47] attention when someone complained to
[4:40:48] us that a variance had been issued
[4:40:52] for a secondary home, still when it
[4:40:54] was 10,000 square feet and that is
[4:40:56] how we discussed it at the placer
[4:40:59] group board and got involved.
[4:41:01] we have looked at two recent issues
[4:41:06] approved by the zoning administrator
[4:41:08] on 3-acre parcels and how were they
[4:41:09] built?
[4:41:10] they were locate where had they would
[4:41:12] have the least impact on 3 acres and
[4:41:14] the maximum impact on neighborhood
[4:41:17] character and the neighbors.
[4:41:19] unnecessary, doesn't even meet the
[4:41:20] requirements for a variance.
[4:41:22] so we are quite concerned that here
[4:41:24] you have a situation where people
[4:41:26] will come in for variances even on
[4:41:30] these tiny to 5,000 square foot
[4:41:31] lots and if these are 7,000 square
[4:41:34] foot lots will have a lot of
[4:41:36] potential for that.
[4:41:37] so it is more than that.
[4:41:40] you should stick with the plan you
[4:41:42] have that protects community
[4:41:43] character.
[4:41:45] maintaining community character can
[4:41:46] be done, can be done for moderate,
[4:41:51] low-income and housing units.
[4:41:52] you don't have to have this kind of
[4:41:54] intensity of development.
[4:41:57] thank you.
[4:41:59] >> is there anyone else who would
[4:42:01] like to address the board?
[4:42:03] seeing anyone I will close public
[4:42:05] hearing -- excuse me, our protocol is
[4:42:07] to provide the developer an
[4:42:10] opportunity to redo something if
[4:42:11] they think there was a factual error,
[4:42:22] >> thank you, mr. Chairman, marcus lu
[4:42:26] duca and my client is the owner of
[4:42:28] the parcels that are in question,
[4:42:31] someone just -- a warrant --
[4:42:34] there was a comment about your
[4:42:36] conditions of approval need to make
[4:42:37] sure that the homeowners' association
[4:42:38] just don't vote out of park and
[4:42:44] maintenance of the project and
[4:42:48] condition 89l, the park shall be open
[4:42:51] to the future track dawn to dusk and
[4:42:53] recordation a easement is approved
[4:42:54] the county shall be recorded
[4:42:57] by the developer to ensure public access
[4:42:59] to both vehicle and pedestrian and
[4:43:05] deed restriction -- also applies
[4:43:07] conditions of map and they will then
[4:43:08] be in violation of the tentative map
[4:43:11] subject to penalties under the
[4:43:14] subdivision map act and cr and rs
[4:43:17] have to be approved by mr. Cardon has
[4:43:21] another condition of approval and cc
[4:43:23] & rs are provisions they may require.
[4:43:28] did want to mention just a couple
[4:43:30] other minor items.
[4:43:32] there a comment said, why did we
[4:43:34] look at other projects in the area
[4:43:38] doing this while not approved?
[4:43:41] we did a cumulative impact analysis
[4:43:45] and the idea was to try to make sure
[4:43:48] there was a thorough analyses from a
[4:43:51] cumulative issue as possible, given
[4:43:53] the traffic is a major concern of
[4:43:56] folks in the area.
[4:43:59] finally the only other issue I think
[4:44:02] that I had had relative to -- hold
[4:44:06] on a second here, going through my
[4:44:07] notes.
[4:44:14] a comment about the schools.
[4:44:15] you have heard a lot of testimony
[4:44:17] from people involved in the school
[4:44:19] foundation.
[4:44:20] currently there is a lot of students
[4:44:23] in the school district and granite
[4:44:25] bay high school as part of the high
[4:44:28] school district, transfers from other
[4:44:29] areas.
[4:44:30] when high school no. 6 opens in west
[4:44:34] roseville, literally a quarter of the
[4:44:36] granite bay high school students are
[4:44:37] gone.
[4:44:38] that is how many people are coming
[4:44:40] from the western part of roseville
[4:44:42] into the high school and there is
[4:44:44] also right now as was mentioned to
[4:44:46] you, the fact that there is some
[4:44:50] attendance adjustments in the recent
[4:44:52] past in the school district is
[4:44:54] because they are out of school
[4:44:55] district transfers and they are not
[4:44:57] getting students in the district.
[4:44:59] they have also closed school and
[4:45:01] quite frankly as everyone knows with
[4:45:03] school funds it's not the fees that
[4:45:04] my client pays, but you get money from
[4:45:07] the stats on full-time equivalents
[4:45:09] and the absence is a long-term trend
[4:45:13] that started a decade ago and
[4:45:14] continuing in the school district
[4:45:16] that does affect funding for actual
[4:45:17] operations and the quality of
[4:45:18] teaching in the school district.
[4:45:20] with that, mr. Chairman, I would be
[4:45:23] happy to answer any questions that
[4:45:24] the board might have.
[4:45:25] >> thank you.
[4:45:27] kirk than jim.
[4:45:28] >> I think my questions are of staff
[4:45:31] as opposed to the applicant.
[4:45:33] two questions.
[4:45:34] one was brought up earlier the issue
[4:45:39] of looking at -- "all of the
[4:45:44] proposed projects cumulatively, and
[4:45:46] the cumulative traffic impacts." our
[4:45:49] board just recently adopted an
[4:45:54] updated capital improvement program
[4:45:56] for the granite bay community planned
[4:45:58] area and added another several
[4:46:00] hundred dollars to the traffic impact
[4:46:02] fees paid in granite bay.
[4:46:04] was that update a result of staff
[4:46:08] looking at analyzing the cumulative
[4:46:10] impacts of the projects that are in
[4:46:13] the pipeline right now?
[4:46:15] >> yes, it was.
[4:46:16] >> so --
[4:46:17] >> including the park at granite bay.
[4:46:19] >> okay.
[4:46:20] so the fee that they'll be paying
[4:46:25] assumes the cumulative impact of not
[4:46:27] just this project, but everything
[4:46:28] else that staff isa ware of that is
[4:46:33] being processed as well?
[4:46:36] >> I'm sure correct me if I'm wrong,
[4:46:37] but that is correct.
[4:46:38] >> the only other question -- I
[4:46:40] have a number of comments that I will
[4:46:45] reserve for later.
[4:46:46] the only other question I have is oh,
[4:46:48] it was pointed out rightly so that
[4:46:54] the majority of the smaller parcels
[4:46:59] off of annabelle and eckerman don't
[4:47:00] touch
[4:47:03] this project that the majority of the
[4:47:07] lots touching this project are larger
[4:47:08] in size.
[4:47:11] I'm curious how many of the neighbors
[4:47:14] immediately adjacent are actually in
[4:47:18] opposition to the project filed
[4:47:21] opposition with the county?
[4:47:22] >> I don't know the exact number --
[4:47:31] dr. Bazari is no longer opposing the
[4:47:36] project -- I know mr. Becket
[4:47:38] touches the property.
[4:47:39] he is not in favor.
[4:47:42] I believe there is one other neighbor
[4:47:43] who has sort of being silent through
[4:47:45] the whole thing.
[4:47:50] >> mr. Laduca, do you have a number?
[4:47:57] >> if we could pull up the map of
[4:47:59] the project?
[4:48:00] >> I.t..
[4:48:01] >> there are six parcels that touch
[4:48:04] the project.
[4:48:06] there is as mentioned mr. Overisi and
[4:48:12] mr. Beckett and dr. Bazari and the
[4:48:14] person with what we call the nook
[4:48:17] there surrounded on three sides, mr.
[4:48:19] meyer, mr. Miller is adjacent to the
[4:48:25] south to mr. Beckett and a six
[4:48:29] property eastern at the southeast
[4:48:32] corner adjacent to the college.
[4:48:36] that 6th property owner we have not
[4:48:39] been able to reach and submit the no
[4:48:43] comments and so there are six
[4:48:46] property owners and know that two are
[4:48:50] opposed and dr. Bazari just
[4:48:54] submitted his letter, so there are
[4:48:55] six total.
[4:48:57] >> two of whom --
[4:48:58] >> correct.
[4:48:59] >> thank you very much.
[4:49:00] that is all the questions.
[4:49:03] >> jim.
[4:49:04] >> to get back to the school issue,
[4:49:06] having been in meetings with
[4:49:09] officials from the roseville high
[4:49:10] school district and I know they are
[4:49:11] concerned about the declining
[4:49:13] enrollment at granite bay high school
[4:49:14] and it's going to be even worse when
[4:49:16] the west roseville high school is
[4:49:17] built.
[4:49:18] having worked for the placer county
[4:49:21] office of education, I'm familiar
[4:49:22] with the schools in the eureka school
[4:49:25] district and one that has been there
[4:49:27] for 15 years that was never opened,
[4:49:30] olive ranch.
[4:49:32] the eureka school was remodeled some
[4:49:35] time ago and upgraded, but it's
[4:49:37] closed as well. So I know there is
[4:49:39] much concern within the district that
[4:49:43] declining enrollment is a problem in
[4:49:45] this kind of project and maybe it's
[4:49:48] only 122 kids, but it's a start.
[4:49:51] >> any other questions this time?
[4:49:54] with that then, I'll close the public
[4:49:56] hearing.
[4:49:57] [ gavel ]
[4:49:59] kirk, turn it over to you first.
[4:50:01] >> thank you, mr. Chairman and
[4:50:02] george, if I may have the clicker
[4:50:04] real quick? And while you are
[4:50:06] bringing that up, just a couple --
[4:50:09] before I share with not only my
[4:50:10] colleagues, but some of the folks in
[4:50:12] the community, kind of my thoughts as
[4:50:15] I look at well thoughts on land use
[4:50:18] changes to the 1989 community plan.
[4:50:20] before I get to that however, a
[4:50:24] number of things that were brought up
[4:50:26] that I do want to address.
[4:50:28] somebody made the claim that our
[4:50:31] parks are underutilized in granite
[4:50:33] bay.
[4:50:34] as a father of two very active
[4:50:37] youngsters I can tell you that are
[4:50:38] for seven years in lacrosse, we have
[4:50:40] had to pay to rent light standard so
[4:50:46] that the kids can practice at night,
[4:50:47] because we have no park availability
[4:50:51] during the daytime. So we as a
[4:50:52] league go raise the money, have our
[4:50:54] fundraisers and move lights out to
[4:50:56] cabot school so we can practice at
[4:50:57] night.
[4:50:59] likewise, my daughter's soccer team,
[4:51:02] one of the competitive club teams has
[4:51:04] to go to del oreo to practice at
[4:51:08] night, because we don't have another
[4:51:10] practice space available.
[4:51:11] so this notion that our existing
[4:51:14] parks are underutilized and it's just
[4:51:16] simply flies in the face of reality.
[4:51:20] somebody made the claim that the
[4:51:24] granite bay build-out has somehow
[4:51:26] been accelerated and I will make
[4:51:29] comments regarding the 1989 plan and
[4:51:30] as I know, as my colleagues know,
[4:51:34] even though we adopted an update to
[4:51:36] the plan that focused on policies we
[4:51:38] did nothing to address land use.
[4:51:40] at that time, as my colleagues know,
[4:51:43] and members of the community know, I
[4:51:45] addressed both the mac, and this
[4:51:47] board and said, this is not the right
[4:51:49] way to do this.
[4:51:50] I think we should have a
[4:51:52] comprehensive land use plan update.
[4:51:55] however, if the community wants to
[4:51:58] continue with the land use that was
[4:51:59] put in effect in 1989, please
[4:52:03] understand that what we're going to
[4:52:04] start to see is a number of
[4:52:06] individual requests for general plan
[4:52:07] amendments start to come forward.
[4:52:09] and here we are today.
[4:52:12] so the claim was that build-out had
[4:52:15] somehow been accelerated in granite
[4:52:18] bay and looking at the 1989 plan and
[4:52:20] looking at the community development
[4:52:23] specifically the housing l.
[4:52:25] the housing element of the '89 plan
[4:52:29] assumes 3.6% annual growth rate
[4:52:30] within granite bay.
[4:52:33] since 2000 we have grown less than
[4:52:38] half of what was assumed in this plan.
[4:52:43] so the accelerated build-out simply
[4:52:45] hasn't been the case.
[4:52:46] a couple other things that I would
[4:52:47] just like to dispense with: yes,
[4:52:52] mr. Tatter sal and I both have
[4:52:54] business offices on the corner of
[4:52:58] eureka and professional drive, along
[4:53:00] with a dentist and optometrist and
[4:53:06] owners and 36 other businesses that
[4:53:09] are located there. So occasionally I
[4:53:11] see john in the parking lot and wave
[4:53:13] to him and ask him how is the knee
[4:53:15] doing, john?
[4:53:16] so yes, we do share a parking lot
[4:53:17] together.
[4:53:18] the other thing that was raised here,
[4:53:20] as well as was raised at the mac
[4:53:24] recently is this assertion that
[4:53:26] perhaps board members aren't invested
[4:53:29] in the community, because nobody on
[4:53:32] this board currently owns a home in
[4:53:34] granite bay.
[4:53:35] that is correct.
[4:53:37] as somebody who over the last 23
[4:53:40] years has owned five different pieces
[4:53:43] of property in granite bay and two of
[4:53:46] them concurrently, I paid an awful
[4:53:48] lot of property tax.
[4:53:49] last year I did sell my house.
[4:53:51] I am renting in granite bay right now.
[4:53:54] did sell my house last year, but to
[4:53:57] say that somehow by not being a
[4:54:01] current homeowner in granite bay I'm
[4:54:03] not invested in my community flies in
[4:54:06] the face of my 46 years' as a
[4:54:09] community resident, a volunteer for
[4:54:12] sports programs throughout.
[4:54:13] so I just wanted to address that and
[4:54:15] leave it at that.
[4:54:18] now just to explain kind of my
[4:54:20] thinking when it comes to these
[4:54:24] projects, because I get asked the
[4:54:25] question
[4:54:28] , why do you even consider -- why
[4:54:30] do you even consider any changes to
[4:54:33] the granite bay community plan?
[4:54:36] and so I think in order to start
[4:54:39] addressing that, we have to, again,
[4:54:43] in the context of the board not
[4:54:46] having done a land use update there
[4:54:49] 2012, I think we need to go no
[4:54:52] further than granite bay community
[4:54:53] plan itself.
[4:54:55] the granite bay community plan
[4:54:57] itself, it page 1, paragraph 1 says
[4:55:00] that the plan adopted in 1989 is the
[4:55:03] official statement of placer county,
[4:55:05] standards, plans proposed that will
[4:55:06] be the guide and develop to the area
[4:55:08] to at least the year 2000. So the
[4:55:12] granite bay community plan itself
[4:55:15] speaks to essentially self-limiting
[4:55:17] fashion to say this document should
[4:55:19] be the guiding document the governing
[4:55:21] document until about the year 2000.
[4:55:25] that is why nine years after that, or
[4:55:28] 20 years at the age of the plan, 20
[4:55:32] years, I initiated a community plan
[4:55:34] update process.
[4:55:35] that is why.
[4:55:37] so we could comprehensively take a
[4:55:38] look at that.
[4:55:41] so the first threshold is I come at
[4:55:43] it from this perspective: what does
[4:55:47] the plan itself say when evaluating
[4:55:49] potential changes?
[4:55:51] well, the plan itself very clearly
[4:55:53] addresses that.
[4:55:54] the second thing that I look at when
[4:55:58] evaluating any potential change is
[4:56:01] consistency with the existing built
[4:56:02] environment.
[4:56:04] we have discussed this.
[4:56:05] what has happened to the east and
[4:56:07] north in the city of roseville with
[4:56:10] lots smaller than what is being
[4:56:14] proposed - excuse me, to the west
[4:56:15] and north and the east in roseville
[4:56:17] with lots the same size or smaller.
[4:56:19] also more importantly for me, was
[4:56:21] going through the exercise of the
[4:56:25] island area and realizing that 70 of
[4:56:29] the 120 plus lots out there are
[4:56:33] existing non-conforming use lots
[4:56:37] whether the land use for this area
[4:56:39] was a higher intensity.
[4:56:41] so just for the life of me, don't
[4:56:43] understand why the board of
[4:56:47] supervisors in '89 allowed for a
[4:56:51] zoning that automatically created
[4:56:52] half of the lot as existing
[4:56:53] non-conforming use.
[4:56:56] it just didn't kind of make
[4:56:57] sense.
[4:56:59] so in looking at this proposal in the
[4:57:02] immediate proximity I think is
[4:57:04] obviously a key-gating factor.
[4:57:06] no. 1 what does the plan say? The
[4:57:08] plan says we're about 16 years out of
[4:57:10] date.
[4:57:11] no. It, how does it look consistent
[4:57:13] with what is out there right now in
[4:57:15] the built environment?
[4:57:17] no. 3, perspective.
[4:57:20] perspective of somebody who has been
[4:57:23] in the community and I'm not going
[4:57:26] say granite bay because it wasn't
[4:57:30] granite bay, but been in the
[4:57:32] community for 46 years.
[4:57:33] when we moved here in 1970 there
[4:57:35] wasn't granite bay and loo there was
[4:57:38] loomis and roseville to essentially
[4:57:39] the lake and no such thing as
[4:57:42] granite bay.
[4:57:43] so we created the identify of granite
[4:57:45] bay over the years.
[4:57:46] how did we create the identify of
[4:57:49] granite bay over the years? Looking
[4:57:52] at this map I have highlighted the
[4:57:55] park project in the island area.
[4:57:57] and what has happened in the area of
[4:58:01] granite bay over the years?
[4:58:03] well, we'll begin to the south. It
[4:58:07] was referenced the woodbridge ranch
[4:58:11] subdivision was previously zoned
[4:58:13] 20-acre farm. It built out at lot
[4:58:16] sizes a little less than 1 unit per
[4:58:18] acre.
[4:58:22] next to woodbridge ranch is the
[4:58:25] castle creek subdivision and castle
[4:58:30] creek subdivision was zoned and --
[4:58:31] many of the lots are 20,000 square
[4:58:34] feet or approximately 20,000 square
[4:58:35] feet.
[4:58:37] we have already discussed the
[4:58:38] annexation in the southeast community
[4:58:41] plan area for roseville of the area
[4:58:44] that is currently hillsboro, ashley
[4:58:46] woods and east ridge.
[4:58:49] this area was farm 20 acres before
[4:58:51] getting annexed into the city.
[4:58:53] when it got annexed into the city, it
[4:58:55] was absorbed in the city with a land
[4:58:59] use intensity of 2.1 acres per unit.
[4:59:02] when it built out, it built out as
[4:59:05] dense as 4-5 units per acre.
[4:59:09] so almost a 100-fold increase in
[4:59:12] intensity in that area from what it
[4:59:14] had previously been zoned.
[4:59:17] tree lake village.
[4:59:18] tree lake village was farm 20 acres
[4:59:23] before being general plan amendment
[4:59:25] rezoned, development agreement and
[4:59:26] very first development agreement in
[4:59:27] the history of placer county resulted
[4:59:32] in 2-and-a-half lots per acre going
[4:59:34] into tree lake village.
[4:59:36] folsom lake estates.
[4:59:38] folsom lake estates was 2.3 acre,
[4:59:42] rezoned down to lots as small as 3/4
[4:59:46] of an acre.
[4:59:59] los lagos and -- and I want to say 3
[5:00:04] to the acre.
[5:00:15] we move on down to quail oaks, which
[5:00:20] actually built out with the intensity
[5:00:23] it had been assigned.
[5:00:24] however, in order to build the
[5:00:28] subdivision required significant
[5:00:29] variances from setbacks and
[5:00:31] significant variances to road sizes
[5:00:32] and cut down a fairly significant oak
[5:00:36] woodland and undergrounded a stream.
[5:00:39] so quail oaks is a project that
[5:00:43] couldn't be built today and move on
[5:00:45] to douglas ranch, built out at 1/2
[5:00:55] acre-ish lot and the quarry pond area
[5:00:59] was medium-density residential before
[5:01:00] it was rezoned to commercial.
[5:01:05] the stratford downs subdivision once
[5:01:09] again built consistent with zoning
[5:01:11] but only because of significant
[5:01:13] variances and again, undergrounded a
[5:01:14] stream.
[5:01:16] the commercial area that was the
[5:01:19] jumbo market when they built -- it's
[5:01:20] now ace.
[5:01:22] when they built jumbo to rezone from
[5:01:25] residential immediate up
[5:01:32] medium density to commercial and
[5:01:34] hidden lakes subdivision one of my
[5:01:36] favorites, because it too was built
[5:01:39] consistent with the zoning at the time
[5:01:45] with interesting variances because
[5:01:46] the developer of the project was the
[5:01:48] first one to come to the county and
[5:01:50] say we know what our road standards
[5:01:52] are.
[5:01:53] if we build to your road standards
[5:01:55] we'll have to remove a heck of a lot
[5:02:01] of trees bush they think the trees
[5:02:02] are valuable and would like to keep
[5:02:03] them for residents and even though we
[5:02:04] call it hidden lakes estate there is
[5:02:07] no water on the property the
[5:02:09] developer is saying to the county at
[5:02:13] the time and unlike what most
[5:02:15] developers do today to go to the army
[5:02:16] corps of engineering for a permit to
[5:02:21] take away water, we have to go to the
[5:02:23] army corps of engineering to add
[5:02:24] water.
[5:02:26] so hidden lakes estates this is the
[5:02:27] first lake and, in fact it's looked
[5:02:29] to by folks in the community as such
[5:02:31] a wonderful example of such the
[5:02:34] development in granite bay should
[5:02:36] happen that a group calling itself
[5:02:38] defend granite bay has adopted that
[5:02:40] very lake.
[5:02:41] on the homepage of their website.
[5:02:43] this group is dedicated to preserving
[5:02:45] and protecting the unique rural
[5:02:48] lifestyle of granite bay.
[5:02:49] the developer of this project was my
[5:02:54] father.
[5:02:57] my dad built hidden lakes estates and
[5:03:01] my dad discovered the ground of what
[5:03:03] is now hidden lake estates when
[5:03:06] my brother and I road go carts on
[5:03:11] this property and I'm glad my dad did
[5:03:14] such a fine job developing the
[5:03:15] project that the folks who now think
[5:03:17] they need to preserve and protect
[5:03:19] granite bay from me ares you using my
[5:03:22] if father's subdivision as the
[5:03:25] marquee subdivision that we need
[5:03:28] to preserve and defend.
[5:03:29] this is just what I was able to do
[5:03:31] off the top of my head without digging
[5:03:33] in too deeply.
[5:03:34] we want to preserve and protect
[5:03:37] granite bay, but which of the these
[5:03:39] projects would you have go away?
[5:03:41] which of these changes to previous
[5:03:45] zoning, land use intensity do you
[5:03:46] think is bad?
[5:03:51] so which we talk about entertaining
[5:03:53] any changes, that is kind of
[5:03:55] perspective that I look at this from,
[5:03:57] as somebody who has been here now 46
[5:04:00] years, used to hunt the quail oaks
[5:04:03] area, used to ride dirt bikes at
[5:04:07] tree village property and I look at
[5:04:12] this perspective, it's I an
[5:04:15] amalgamation of changes and we have
[5:04:17] an opportunity, I believe with this
[5:04:20] project to continue to add to what is
[5:04:24] a very high-quality of development in
[5:04:26] our area.
[5:04:28] now people are worried about this
[5:04:30] setting a precedent.
[5:04:31] well, I think we have already
[5:04:34] addressed the fact that granite bay
[5:04:36] is built on change butch and I have
[5:04:41] heard the number 16, there are 16
[5:04:43] projects out there and I can name six
[5:04:45] projects, not 16.
[5:04:46] ; that are being proposed.
[5:04:51] when you take into consideration the
[5:04:52] fact there are approximately 8600
[5:04:57] parcels in granite bay, and I know of
[5:05:01] six that want changes, we're not
[5:05:03] destroying anything.
[5:05:05] are we changing things? Yes.
[5:05:07] we're changing things.
[5:05:09] but the net sum of this as I look at
[5:05:14] it, I say granite bay has grown.
[5:05:17] granite bay has essentially almost
[5:05:19] built-out.
[5:05:20] so why over the last 30 years, since
[5:05:25] we adopted that plan with that land
[5:05:28] use element associated with it, 27
[5:05:31] years, why didn't these properties
[5:05:32] build?
[5:05:34] why didn't this project already
[5:05:36] build-out and think that wes a board
[5:05:38] have to say that we have had some
[5:05:40] pretty good housing cycles,
[5:05:42] particularly there granite bay, maybe
[5:05:45] the market is telling us that the
[5:05:47] people who assigned that zoning at
[5:05:48] that particular point in time in '
[5:05:55] 86-87, having this conversation
[5:05:56] didn't get that one right.
[5:05:57] did a good job with an awful lot of
[5:05:59] it, but you got a few of them that
[5:06:02] maybe they just didn't get right so
[5:06:04] to my colleagues, to folks in the
[5:06:06] community, I hope that helps you
[5:06:10] understand my perspective as I look
[5:06:14] at entertaining these you kind of
[5:06:16] changes and I do support this request
[5:06:19] as a reasonable request for change.
[5:06:22] >> other comments, questions?
[5:06:23] >> if there are no other comments,
[5:06:25] mr. Chairman I will make a motion and
[5:06:30] I'm assuming counsel wants us to read
[5:06:32] the various items contained in our
[5:06:33] staff report?
[5:06:34] >> yes.
[5:06:36] >> into five separate motions.
[5:06:38] >> on pages 7 and 8.
[5:06:41] >> yes, 7, 8 and 9 of the staff
[5:06:42] report.
[5:06:43] >> mr. Chair, before we get to the
[5:06:45] motion, if you would?
[5:06:49] I have to say that supervisor uhler
[5:06:55] makes compelling visual argument, and
[5:06:58] while these have certainly not worked
[5:07:02] for affordable homes at that starter
[5:07:06] point, I recognize that they are
[5:07:08] proposed to be less expensive than
[5:07:10] what is currently in granite bay.
[5:07:13] I will, however, and I don't think
[5:07:15] this will come as a surprise to
[5:07:18] anyone on the board, I don't vote for
[5:07:20] communities with gates.
[5:07:21] I don't believe in gated communities.
[5:07:24] and they don't add safety and, in
[5:07:27] fact a lot of crime statistics show
[5:07:28] gated communities have higher level of
[5:07:31] domestic violence and spousal abuse
[5:07:32] and something about that gate.
[5:07:34] so I will be voting against this, and
[5:07:36] in the future, I would suggest any
[5:07:39] developer who would like my vote come
[5:07:41] forward without a gate.
[5:07:43] [ applause ]
[5:07:46] >> all right.
[5:07:49] so asking of counsel, I have item --
[5:07:52] I have five separate, distinct items
[5:07:57] in our staff report page 1737 of the
[5:08:04] staff report are those the five you
[5:08:06] need in five separate motions?
[5:08:08] >> yes and including the findings
[5:08:11] set out --
[5:08:13] >> we referenced the findings in the
[5:08:14] motion, I'm sure.
[5:08:15] >> understood.
[5:08:16] >> if not, then I will go ahead and
[5:08:18] incorporate and begin with no. 1 and
[5:08:19] that is that I move that we certify
[5:08:22] the park of granite bay final
[5:08:25] environmental impact report pursuant
[5:08:27] to the california environment quality
[5:08:29] act and mitigation and monitoring
[5:08:31] program based on the findings.
[5:08:33] >> yes, the findings attached in
[5:08:36] attachment e and mitigation
[5:08:38] monitoring program report is
[5:08:39] attachment d.
[5:08:40] >> thank you.
[5:08:42] >> is there a second?
[5:08:45] >> motion and second.
[5:08:46] I think there is a request to have a
[5:08:48] comment, but the public hearing is
[5:08:49] closed.
[5:08:50] so we're not going to be taking any
[5:08:52] more public comment at this time. So
[5:08:55] with that, all those in favor of
[5:08:56] motion say aye?
[5:08:57] >> aye.
[5:08:58] >> opposed?
[5:08:59] >> no.
[5:09:00] >> mr. Chair, I move that we adopt a
[5:09:04] resolution approve -- it to approve
[5:09:07] amending the granite bay community
[5:09:08] plan from rural low-density
[5:09:11] residential to medium density
[5:09:13] residential consistent with the land
[5:09:15] use designation in the community plan.
[5:09:18] >> move motion and second, all those
[5:09:21] in favor say aye?
[5:09:22] >> aye.
[5:09:23] >> opposed?
[5:09:24] >> no, motion carry
[5:09:25] mr. Chair, I move adoption of ordinance
[5:09:28] to approve rezone of the project site
[5:09:38] from rsagb40 to rsbx7,000 currently
[5:09:41] -- excuse me, I have to figure out
[5:09:43] where that will parenthesis ends.
[5:09:46] residential single family combined a
[5:09:48] minimum building site of 7,000
[5:09:51] square feet motion and second, all
[5:09:53] those in favor, say aye?
[5:09:54] >> aye.
[5:09:55] >> opposed?
[5:09:56] >> no.
[5:09:57] >> mr. Chair, I move approval of the
[5:10:00] variance to allow increase maximum
[5:10:02] lot coverage the area cover by the
[5:10:04] building and other structures
[5:10:06] currently allowed per single story
[5:10:08] residences within the residential
[5:10:09] single family zoned district from 40%
[5:10:11] to approximately 50% on only those
[5:10:13] lots that are 8,000 square feet or
[5:10:15] less within the project site.
[5:10:17] >> and including the findings on
[5:10:20] page 1145.
[5:10:21] >> thank you, including those
[5:10:24] findings as stipulated by counsel.
[5:10:25] >> sec.
[5:10:26] >> moved and seconded.
[5:10:28] all those in favor say aye?
[5:10:30] >> aye.
[5:10:31] >> opposed in
[5:10:32] >> no.
[5:10:33] >> and finally move approval of the
[5:10:35] vesting map and findings on 1144.
[5:10:37] >> second.
[5:10:39] >> motion and second, all those in
[5:10:40] favor, say aye?
[5:10:41] >> aye.
[5:10:42] >> opposed?
[5:10:43] >> no.
[5:10:44] >> motion carries.
[5:10:45] thanks.
[5:10:46] okay, we'll now take up our
[5:10:48] department items.
[5:10:50] starting with item 5, health and
[5:10:52] human services.
[5:11:09] good afternoon, mr. Chairman and
[5:11:11] members of the board, department of
[5:11:13] health and human services adult
[5:11:14] system of care and I bring to you
[5:11:18] today an update for the mental
[5:11:22] services act for '16-17 the board of
[5:11:23] supervisors is required to approve
[5:11:26] this plan annually.
[5:11:28] and since 2005 we have implemented
[5:11:31] the mental health services act in
[5:11:32] placer county and providing services
[5:11:34] to people able to expand intensive
[5:11:37] mental health services and crisis
[5:11:39] services and people with severe
[5:11:41] mental illness and develop programs
[5:11:43] for people that needed prevention
[5:11:44] programs.
[5:11:45] in addition, we have been able to
[5:11:47] have added supportive housing
[5:11:48] projects.
[5:11:49] we have helped to train staff and
[5:11:54] providers, and added services with
[5:11:57] facilities and technology
[5:11:58] improvements.
[5:12:00] the funding has allowed us to manage
[5:12:02] during the downturn and used the
[5:12:05] funds to get use evenly through the
[5:12:06] ups and downs that occur with the
[5:12:08] funding and with the economy.
[5:12:09] we have five different components of
[5:12:11] this plan that each have different
[5:12:12] goals.
[5:12:13] I'll just highlight a couple of
[5:12:16] things about 600 adults and children
[5:12:19] received intensive outreach services.
[5:12:20] we know those services always result
[5:12:23] in reductions in homelessness,
[5:12:26] reductions in psychiatric
[5:12:33] hospitalization and reduction in jail
[5:12:34] bed days and we'll serve
[5:12:37] approximately 2500 people with
[5:12:39] contracts with 45 agencies to provide
[5:12:47] family and use with development and
[5:12:48] just to note a few.
[5:12:50] so these dollars are not
[5:12:57] insignificant, $13,658,035 of
[5:12:58] programs in our budget at health and
[5:13:02] human services for '16 and 17 and for
[5:13:04] that I would be happy to answer any
[5:13:07] level of detail about the projects,
[5:13:09] but recommend approval.
[5:13:10] >> kirk your light is still on.
[5:13:12] >> I'm sorry.
[5:13:13] >> jennifer?
[5:13:15] , you have the microphone, kirk's is
[5:13:19] turned off.
[5:13:20] >> thank you.
[5:13:21] I want to say thank you.
[5:13:22] I thank our health and human services
[5:13:25] division particularly during the
[5:13:29] downturn has done just incredible
[5:13:33] things with limited resources.
[5:13:34] I would hope our board based on some
[5:13:36] of the discussion earlier this
[5:13:38] morning particularly in light of what
[5:13:40] supervisor holmes raised as concerns
[5:13:42] could figure out a way that we can
[5:13:44] find more dollars?
[5:13:46] and if we do need to spend additional
[5:13:54] general fund dollar it's absolutely
[5:13:57] critical.
[5:13:59] from my perspective we're seeing more
[5:14:00] people with mental health issue s and
[5:14:04] while we're doing a yeoman's work we
[5:14:07] can't keep up with the rising tide of
[5:14:09] challenges.
[5:14:10] it's something that the county alone
[5:14:12] can't do and we need to do with our
[5:14:14] partners at the cities and state and
[5:14:17] frankly need help from our federal
[5:14:20] representatives as well.
[5:14:23] if we don't start trying to get out
[5:14:25] in front of this rising tide, we're
[5:14:28] absolutely going to be subsumed by it.
[5:14:32] again, sincere thanks to the greatest
[5:14:33] work you have done.
[5:14:35] it's absolutely phenomenal and my
[5:14:37] commitment to you, I'm going to work
[5:14:38] as hard as I can do get this board
[5:14:40] and all of our partners to bring more
[5:14:45] funding and services to the table.
[5:14:46] >> that is great.
[5:14:47] thank you so much.
[5:14:48] one thing I would say is some of the
[5:14:50] challenge is not so much the
[5:14:52] traditional services, but services in
[5:14:54] the field and again, some of those
[5:14:56] people that we're most worried about
[5:14:58] are less initially interested in
[5:14:59] services and part of the work is not
[5:15:01] just the services, but engaging
[5:15:02] people into services.
[5:15:03] >> absolutely.
[5:15:06] >> thank you.
[5:15:07] pleasure of the board?
[5:15:08] anyone from the public who would like
[5:15:09] to address this item?
[5:15:11] seeing none, pleasure of the board?
[5:15:12] >> move.
[5:15:13] >> second.
[5:15:14] >> moved and seconded.
[5:15:15] >> all those in favor, say aye?
[5:15:16] >> aye.
[5:15:17] >> opposed?
[5:15:18] motion carried thank you maureen.
[5:15:19] next item 6 is human resources
[5:15:22] position and competition ordinance.
[5:15:23] judy.
[5:15:24] >> good afternoon, chairman weygandt
[5:15:26] and members of the board. Human
[5:15:28] resources department and today we're
[5:15:30] introducing an ordinance and seeking
[5:15:32] approval of related budget revision
[5:15:34] and changed reflected in the
[5:15:36] ordinance b.s. Abolishing class cage
[5:15:38] of chief assistant county executive
[5:15:39] officer and changing the salary range
[5:15:42] for the assistant county executive
[5:15:45] officer, creating civil, legal
[5:15:46] secretary class series and abolish
[5:15:48] the classification of secretary to
[5:15:50] county council.
[5:15:52] when the chief assistant
[5:15:55] ceo retired earlier this year
[5:15:58] additional duties were assigned and
[5:15:59] the scope of the position support a
[5:16:01] salary increase to align up more
[5:16:04] closely with other positions in the
[5:16:05] county with a similar scope and level
[5:16:06] of responsibility.
[5:16:08] the chief assistant ceo
[5:16:10] classification is no longer in use
[5:16:11] and we would like to have that
[5:16:13] abolished.
[5:16:14] at the september 12th meeting of the
[5:16:16] civil service commission they
[5:16:18] approved creation of the new legal
[5:16:20] secretary calculation cation series
[5:16:22] and corresponding salary ranges for
[5:16:24] four new classifications as outlined
[5:16:26] in the staff report before you and
[5:16:28] also approved the reclassification of
[5:16:30] several individuals and
[5:16:31] non-competitive promotion of
[5:16:32] incumbents, as well as approving the
[5:16:35] abolishment of classification of
[5:16:37] secretary to county council.
[5:16:38] you have an extensive staff report
[5:16:40] accompanying this item and in the
[5:16:41] interest of time I will skip right to
[5:16:43] the conclusion of my presentation and
[5:16:45] be happy to answer any questions that
[5:16:46] you.
[5:16:50] >> any questions? I see none.
[5:16:51] thank you.
[5:16:52] anyone from the public who wishes to
[5:16:53] address this item?
[5:16:54] seeing none, I will bring did back to
[5:16:55] the board.
[5:16:57] moved and seconded, all those in
[5:16:58] favor, say aye?
[5:16:59] >> aye.
[5:17:00] >> opposed motion carries.
[5:17:01] thank you.
[5:17:02] >> thank you.
[5:17:03] >> next public works countywide
[5:17:04] construction projects.
[5:17:06] rob.
[5:17:09] >> good afternoon, chairman weygandt
[5:17:11] and members of the board, public
[5:17:13] works and facilities.
[5:17:15] we're of I have three items related
[5:17:19] to job order contracting and try to
[5:17:21] get through them fairly quickly.
[5:17:23] first one we're requesting your
[5:17:25] approval of a change order to
[5:17:27] increase the job contract with otto
[5:17:32] construction by $300,000.
[5:17:37] in order to complete a number of
[5:17:39] projects that are currently planned
[5:17:41] and under city.
[5:17:46] august 18, 2015 the board approved
[5:17:48] the original contract for $1 million.
[5:17:59] the performance-based system rewards
[5:18:01] outstanding work with additional
[5:18:03] orders and until time runs out or
[5:18:05] limit is met otto has approximately
[5:18:07] 20 days remaining in their contract
[5:18:11] time, approximately $397,000 in their
[5:18:12] contract amount.
[5:18:14] we anticipate the need for additional
[5:18:16] job orders to complete projects that
[5:18:19] are currently planned in the pipeline
[5:18:21] and in progress.
[5:18:24] and additional $206,000 is reserved
[5:18:31] in this amount for unanticipated
[5:18:32] needs until new contracts are in
[5:18:33] place.
[5:18:35] otto provided excellent construction
[5:18:36] services including the sidewalk up
[5:18:39] above the garden amphitheater.
[5:18:43] some relief valve in the system at
[5:18:46] dry creek park and welcome center
[5:18:48] egress ramp and they have recently
[5:18:52] started on the administrative
[5:18:54] building across the street.
[5:18:55] the next job order is anticipated to
[5:18:58] be the secure parking for building b
[5:19:02] in the justice center.
[5:19:04] in order to complete these job order
[5:19:08] projects, it's recommended that your
[5:19:10] board approve the attached contract
[5:19:14] change order no. 1 in amount of
[5:19:16] $300,000.
[5:19:17] the estimated total cost of job
[5:19:20] orders will be $1.3 million.
[5:19:22] and there are sufficient funds in the
[5:19:28] respective capital projects.
[5:19:29] I would be happy to answer any
[5:19:30] questions?
[5:19:31] >> questions?
[5:19:32] anyone from the public?
[5:19:33] seeing none, what is the pleasure of
[5:19:34] the board?
[5:19:37] moved and seconded, all those in
[5:19:38] favor, say aye?
[5:19:39] >> aye.
[5:19:40] >> opposed?
[5:19:41] motion carries.
[5:19:42] >> the second item is asking that
[5:19:43] your board award job order with otto
[5:19:45] construction for the secure parking
[5:19:48] project at building b at santucci
[5:19:50] justice center in the amount of
[5:19:54] $311,740.11.
[5:19:55] and authorize the director of public
[5:19:56] works and facilities or designee to
[5:20:00] execute said job order and approve
[5:20:02] any supplemental job orders
[5:20:05] consistent with the purchasing manual
[5:20:08] and public contract code.
[5:20:10] on august 18th your board awarded the
[5:20:13] contract to otto, and authorized the
[5:20:15] director of public works and
[5:20:17] facilities to execute job orders up
[5:20:19] to $250,000.
[5:20:22] this job order exceeds that amount.
[5:20:27] on april 26th, purchasing manager
[5:20:29] approved a contract with mfdbr
[5:20:34] architects for the design and
[5:20:37] construction documents for secure
[5:20:39] parking at building b.
[5:20:40] the scope of the project will
[5:20:42] provide secure parking environment
[5:20:44] for the district of district
[5:20:46] attorney, revenue services, the
[5:20:48] assessor, and probation.
[5:20:50] it will include rod iron fencing, for
[5:20:54] new controlled gates, restriping,
[5:20:56] relocation of regular and accessible
[5:20:57] parking spaces, as well as secure --
[5:21:05] in the secure staff area, and the
[5:21:08] public area, sorry.
[5:21:10] construction documents were completed
[5:21:11] and given to otto for pricing.
[5:21:14] staff has reviewed and determined
[5:21:15] that the proposal is complete and
[5:21:17] responsive.
[5:21:18] in order to proceed, it's requested
[5:21:20] that your board award the job order
[5:21:23] to otto construction and authorize
[5:21:25] the director of public works and
[5:21:29] facilities, to execute the job order
[5:21:32] pursuant to the county purchasing
[5:21:33] manual.
[5:21:36] estimated total project cost is
[5:21:44] $510,031 including $342,915 for
[5:21:48] construction and construction
[5:21:51] contingency. $35,000 for consultant
[5:21:52] services.
[5:21:56] $132,116 for project management.
[5:21:59] project contingency fees and account
[5:22:02] -- funding is available in the
[5:22:04] project account and capital projects
[5:22:05] fund.
[5:22:06] >> thank you.
[5:22:07] questions?
[5:22:08] anyone from the public?
[5:22:09] pleasure of the board?
[5:22:11] >>
[5:22:12] >> second.
[5:22:13] >> moved and seconded, all those in
[5:22:14] favor, say aye?
[5:22:15] >> aye.
[5:22:16] >> thank you
[5:22:17] >> motion carried.
[5:22:18] >> we have one more.
[5:22:20] >> yes.
[5:22:21] >> this is requesting your board --
[5:22:25] that your board approve and award
[5:22:27] bid to staples construction
[5:22:29] company and pride industries one, the
[5:22:32] two lowest responsible and responsive
[5:22:35] bidders to the job order contracting
[5:22:37] in an amount not-to-exceed $1 million
[5:22:41] per contract for 12 -month period,
[5:22:45] commencing after the date of their
[5:22:47] first notice to proceed on each
[5:22:48] contract.
[5:22:49] and authorize the director of public
[5:22:51] works and facilities or designee to
[5:22:54] execute the contracts and to sign job
[5:22:58] orders up to $250,000 and approve any
[5:23:00] supplemental job orders consistent
[5:23:02] with the purchasing manual.
[5:23:04] and the public contract code.
[5:23:07] on august 23rd your board approved
[5:23:09] plans and specs and authorized
[5:23:12] solicitation.
[5:23:15] bids 16 building and bid were
[5:23:18] notified and bid documents reviewed
[5:23:19] by 46 trade contractors on public
[5:23:21] purchase.
[5:23:22] bids were opened on september 15th.
[5:23:27] resulting in five responsive bids,
[5:23:29] the two apparent responsive and
[5:23:31] responsible low bidders are staples
[5:23:35] construction company from ventura,
[5:23:36] california and pride industries one from
[5:23:37] roseville, california.
[5:23:40] as you know these job orders will
[5:23:45] provide indefinite quantity contracts
[5:23:48] for a variety of projects and
[5:23:51] maintenance work that are not --
[5:23:54] that are non- -- they are remodeled
[5:23:58] and not applicable to new
[5:23:59] construction.
[5:24:05] the minimum contract value is $50,000
[5:24:09] per contract.
[5:24:12] and the estimated maximum value is $1
[5:24:14] million.
[5:24:15] the county does reserve the right to
[5:24:18] increase that value to $4.6 million
[5:24:21] as authorized by the public contract
[5:24:23] code.
[5:24:24] staff recommends that your board
[5:24:26] authorize the director of public
[5:24:28] works and facilities to approve the
[5:24:33] contracts, the job orders up to
[5:24:35] $250,000.
[5:24:39] and any supplemental job orders for
[5:24:43] funded projects and maintenance work.
[5:24:45] staff will return to your board with
[5:24:47] any projects that do not meet that
[5:24:50] criteria.
[5:24:52] the estimated total cost of job
[5:24:54] orders awarded is anticipated to be
[5:24:57] $2 million, funding is included in
[5:25:01] the fiscal year 2016-17 capital
[5:25:04] projects fund budget.
[5:25:05] with that, I would be happy to answer
[5:25:07] any questions that you have on that
[5:25:08] one.
[5:25:09] >> questions?
[5:25:11] anyone from the public?
[5:25:13] seeing none, pleasure of the board.
[5:25:18] >> moved and seconded, all those in
[5:25:19] favor, say aye?
[5:25:20] >> aye.
[5:25:21] >> opposed?
[5:25:22] motion carried.
[5:25:23] thank you, rob.
[5:25:24] next we have a dial-a-ride agreement.
[5:25:28] >> thank you.
[5:25:30] will garner, public works and
[5:25:33] facilities department.
[5:25:34] this item is to extend the
[5:25:37] dial-a-ride contract that we
[5:25:38] currently have for another year, the
[5:25:40] contract awarded in 2013 was done so
[5:25:43] competitively, and allows for two
[5:25:45] 1-year extensions and we're asking
[5:25:47] for amendment no. 2 which is the
[5:25:50] first one-year extension, amendment
[5:25:51] no. 1 by the way was when we added
[5:25:54] the city of lincoln a year or so ago
[5:25:57] to our dial-a-ride contract.
[5:25:58] so this one is extending what we do
[5:26:01] now for another year and this
[5:26:05] contract the contract mv
[5:26:07] transportation drives the buses,
[5:26:08] maintains the buss and does the
[5:26:09] dispatcher and a lots of paperwork
[5:26:12] that we ask them to do.
[5:26:15] the increase is about 6.1% over the
[5:26:18] current year.
[5:26:19] I'm told that this is mostly to do
[5:26:23] with labor costs both drivers and
[5:26:26] mechanics, and the difficulty in
[5:26:27] retaining drivers.
[5:26:28] they are trying to make a more
[5:26:29] competitive wage in order to do so in
[5:26:32] order to recruit and retain drivers
[5:26:36] in the dial-a-ride service.
[5:26:37] with that cost increase it's still
[5:26:39] actually much lower than the previous
[5:26:41] contract that we had up until 2013
[5:26:43] with pride industries.
[5:26:46] so mv, because some of their other
[5:26:48] work that this occurring in the area is
[5:26:51] able to coordinate the administration
[5:26:53] that think do with some other
[5:26:56] programs and contracts to keep our
[5:26:58] costs low.
[5:26:59] there are two different cost
[5:27:00] structures.
[5:27:02] one for lincoln and one for
[5:27:04] everything outside of lincoln and
[5:27:06] that is because we added lincoln on.
[5:27:07] it's remote and their drivers have to
[5:27:09] report there.
[5:27:11] and they maintain three buses that
[5:27:13] were once lincoln's that are more
[5:27:15] expensive to maintain. So we decided
[5:27:16] to keep that as a separate structure
[5:27:19] to keep the rest of the costs
[5:27:24] relatively lower, but still ends up
[5:27:28] being a good deal -- in this case
[5:27:30] it's cheaper than what he could do
[5:27:32] with our own staff because of the
[5:27:36] specialty, with the dispatching costs
[5:27:38] and with that, we're asking for
[5:27:39] authorization for the director of
[5:27:41] public works and facilities, or
[5:27:44] designee to executive amendment no. 2
[5:27:46] do contract no. 1159 with mv
[5:27:50] transportation to provide operations
[5:27:54] for placer county dial-a-ride not to
[5:27:58] exceed $1,040,046 for the period of
[5:28:00] november 1, 2016 to october 31, 2017.
[5:28:03] if there are any questions?
[5:28:04] >> any questions?
[5:28:05] anyone from the public, seeing none,
[5:28:07] pleasure of the board?
[5:28:08] >> move approval.
[5:28:10] >> second.
[5:28:12] >> moved and seconded, all those in
[5:28:13] favor, say aye?
[5:28:14] >> aye.
[5:28:15] >> opposed? Motion carried, thank
[5:28:16] you.
[5:28:22] mark command vehicle purchase
[5:28:27] consideration for the sheriff's
[5:28:28] department.
[5:28:33] good afternoon, chairman weygandt and
[5:28:36] members of the board, placer county
[5:28:37] sheriff's office, back on september
[5:28:39] 13th your board approved the final
[5:28:42] budget including the purchase of the
[5:28:43] mobile command vehicle and what I'm
[5:28:45] here today is asking to you approve
[5:28:47] the purchase of that vehicle and
[5:28:49] budget revision to move $49,000 from
[5:28:51] the ceo budget into the sheriff's
[5:28:53] budget and authorize the puerto rico
[5:28:54] manager to execute all of these
[5:28:55] documents.
[5:28:56] the vehicle will be purchased by a
[5:28:59] company named ldv out of wisconsin.
[5:29:02] and I really -- whether you put
[5:29:04] this into our budget on behalf of the
[5:29:07] sheriff I can't thank you enough for
[5:29:09] the asset and what it means to the
[5:29:10] men and women of the placer county
[5:29:14] sheriff's office and placer county.
[5:29:15] this will be a phenomenal asset for
[5:29:17] command and control of major
[5:29:19] incidents throughout the county.
[5:29:20] if there are any questions, I'm happy
[5:29:21] to answer?
[5:29:22] >> jennifer?
[5:29:23] >> thank you, mark.
[5:29:24] two quick questions.
[5:29:26] first I just want to clarify this is
[5:29:27] coming out of the criminal justice
[5:29:32] pot of the ceo's appropriation?
[5:29:35] >> yes, ma'am, $700,000 put into the
[5:29:38] sheriff's budget and additional
[5:29:42] $49,500 to come from the criminal
[5:29:43] justice budget.
[5:29:45] >> right specifically from the
[5:29:46] criminal justice portion of the ceo
[5:29:47] budget?
[5:29:48] >> yes, ma'am, it's a completely
[5:29:51] different appropriation, 11 02 a
[5:29:52] public safety budget within ceo.
[5:29:54] >> perfect.
[5:29:55] >> part of fund 110.
[5:29:57] >> just for the knowledge of all of
[5:30:00] us, and anyone who may still be
[5:30:02] listening after a very long day.
[5:30:05] , what would be the purpose of this?
[5:30:08] how would they be utilized?
[5:30:13] >> it would serve as command and
[5:30:14] control center for all of placer
[5:30:16] county, whether it's a fire, whether
[5:30:19] it's a critical incident such as
[5:30:22] kemper oaks where mike davis was
[5:30:24] moved and the forest hill fire is a
[5:30:26] perfect example happening in last few
[5:30:27] months.
[5:30:30] our folks were running command and
[5:30:31] control off the hood of a vehicle, to
[5:30:34] be honest with you.
[5:30:35] >> this is a mobile operation.
[5:30:37] >> mobile operation.
[5:30:39] >> wireless connectivity.
[5:30:40] >> absolutely and put us light years
[5:30:41] ahead of the our capabilities now.
[5:30:43] >> excellent; I just wanted to make
[5:30:45] sure that people heard that.
[5:30:46] >> absolutely.
[5:30:47] >> jim.
[5:30:48] >> what are you going to do with the
[5:30:50] old mobile command vehicle?
[5:30:51] >> the old mobile command vehicle?
[5:30:53] for those who don't know what
[5:30:55] supervisor holmes is referring to we
[5:30:57] have an old car trailer we tow behind
[5:30:59] a pickup struck that actually doesn't
[5:31:01] leave our yard, because we can't take
[5:31:03] it anywhere.
[5:31:05] [laughter ], I appreciate the humor
[5:31:06] and I thought you were going to ask
[5:31:08] me what I'm doing at 5:30?
[5:31:10] >> what are you doing with the
[5:31:11] pickup truck?
[5:31:13] >> we currently use to sar and to
[5:31:21] supervisor holme's point we don't use
[5:31:22] it, if you want to take it too tahoe,
[5:31:25] you have to try to get it over the
[5:31:27] mountain and it takes too long and
[5:31:30] quite frankly, we don't use it and we
[5:31:31] use the hood of a patrol vehicle.
[5:31:34] >> any other questions?
[5:31:35] anyone from the public?
[5:31:36] pleasure of the board?
[5:31:37] >> move approval.
[5:31:38] >> second.
[5:31:39] >> fantastic, thank you so much.
[5:31:40] >> moved and seconded to approve,
[5:31:45] it requires a budget revision, so we
[5:31:47] need a roll-call vote, please.
[5:31:49] >> and which one made the motion?
[5:31:52] >> I'm sorry -- I apologize.
[5:31:53] >> okay.
[5:31:54] >> holmes?
[5:31:55] >> duran?
[5:31:56] >> yes.
[5:31:57] >> yes.
[5:31:58] >> uhler?
[5:31:59] >> aye.
[5:32:00] >> montgomery?
[5:32:02] >> yes.
[5:32:03] >> weygandt?
[5:32:05] >> yes.
[5:32:06] >> with that our meeting is
[5:32:08] adjourned.
[5:32:09] [ gavel ]