Board of Supervisors – October 8, 2019 Morning Session

Board of Supervisors – October 8, 2019 Morning Session


>>GOOD MORNING. WELCOME TO THE OCTOBER 82019 meeting of the Sacramento board ef supervisor.>>SERNA.>>HERE.>>PETERS.>>HERE.>>NOTTOLI.>>HERE.>>KENNEDY.>>YOU HAVE A QUORUM. THIS MEETING IS CABLE CAST LIVE ON METRO CABLE 14 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS CHANNEL ON THE COME CAST CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS AND AT&T U-VERSE CABLE SYSTEMS. SPEAKING CLOSED CAPTIONED AND WEBCAST AT SAC METRO CABLE TV, WILL BE REPEATED ON FRIDAY OCTOBER 11 AND THIS MEETING IS BROADCAST LIVE ON 96.5 FM ON KUBU RADIO. DVD COPY IS AVAILABLE FOR CHECKOUT FROM LIBRARY BRANCH, MEMBERS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD MAY ADDRESS SPEAKER SLIP AND HAND TO IT STAFF. PLEASE SILENCE YOUR ELECTRONIC DEVICES.>>THANKS VERY MUCH AND PLEASE STAND AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.>>I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.>>OKAY, FOR YOUR CONSENT MATTERS ITEMS 1 THROUGH 35 DO NEED A MOTION TO DROP ITEM 9 INTRODUCING ORDINANCE AMENDING SACRAMENTO COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 6.9 # .265 TITLE 6 RELATING TO LIMITED SERVICE CHARITABLE FEEDING OPERATION.>>MR. CHAIR?>>YES. MOVE TO DROP IT BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT IT. ORR A COH ARE A COMMENT I SHOUL. DURING MY BRIEFING WITH THE CEO ON THIS MATTER I WAS GIVEN SOME RATIONAL FOR WHY WE ARE DROPPING IT TODAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE PUBLIC MENTION OF IT TODAY THAT MY INTEREST IN THIS COMING BACK TO US IS TO UNDERSTAND THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE IMPACT THAT THESE GROWING INSTANCES OF PUBLIC FEEDING AS CHARITABLE AND WELL-INTENTIONED AS THEY MIGHT BE, WHAT THE NEXUS IS TO THE IMPACTS IN TERMS OF THE CLEAN-UP THAT IS REQUIRED. OFTEN TIMES, FROM THOSE THAT ARE FEEDING THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HUNGRY IN OUR COMMUNITY IN MY DISTRICT I KNOW THAT ESPECIALLY IN THE RIVER DISTRICT WE HAVE HAD GROWING INSTANCES OF MASS FEEDING IN SOME CASES THAT ARE LEAVING STREETS COMPLETELY STREWN WITH GARBAGE AND DEBRIS AFTER THESE FEEDINGS. THAT TO ME WILL BE ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT TO SEE WHEN WE BRING THIS BACK. WHAT IS THAT CONNECTION IN TERMS OF THE COST OF ADDRESSING THAT, WHETHER IT BE THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN-UP BY THE COUNTY OR THE CITY.>>CHAIR WILL SECOND AND CONCUR WITH COMMENTS MOTION AND SECOND TO DROP PLEASE VOTE.>>UNANIMOUS VOTE. FOR ITEM 16 ADOPTING ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2, CHAPTER 2.90 SECTION 2ES .90 .400 THROUGH 2.90440, THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY CODE, RELATING TO THE HOME DETENTION PROGRAM AND PRETRIAL RELEASE SUPERVISION PROGRAM. ITEM 22 INTRODUCING ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 6.90 TITLE 6 AND AMEND CHAPTER 16.18 TITLE 16 OF THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY CODE RELATNG TO BUTANE RESALE REGULATION WAIVE READING AND CONTINUE TO OCTOBER 22nd FOR ADOPTION. ITEM 58 THIS IS A TITLE CORRECTION. THIS IS SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING CONTRACT NUMBER 4459 KEIFER LANDFILL 2019 GAS SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT AWARD BID TO CR NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY NOTES.>>OKAY MR. SERNA?>>YES, THANK YOU. I HAD COMMENTS ON 16 AND 22 AS WELL.>>IF I CAN INTERRUPT YOU. I WILL ASK THAT 16 BE AFTER THE VOTE OF THE REMAINDR OF THE CONCEPT, WE DO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON.>>IT TERRIFIC. SAVE MY COMMENTS FOR AFTER THAT PUBLIC COMMENT. TOWARDS ITEM 22, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS, MR. CEO, IS PART AND PARCEL OF WHAT WAS SUGGESTED AND I THINK CONCURRED BY EVERYONE ON THIS BOARD, I BELIEVE AT THE LAST MEETING WITH REGARDS TO HAVING AGENDIZED ITEM THAT IS INFORMATIONAL ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT THE COUNTY IS DOING TO TRY TO REDUCE OUR JAIL POPULATION.>>THAT IS CORRECT, YES. IT IS COMING NEXT MEETING, TWO WEEKS FROM TODAY.>>OKAY. GREAT, THANK PUP.>>SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI.>>WANTED TO SPEAK TO ITEM 8, PLEASE.>>DON’T NEED TO READ IT ENTIRETY.>>AUTHORIZE DIRECTOR OF DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES TO CONVEY COUNTY OWNED ROADWAY SIDEWALK LANDSCAPES TRIP AND UNECONOMIC FEE PARCELS IN RIGHT OF WAY OF EASEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED CITY BOUNDARIES TO LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES INCLUDING THOSE LISTED HEREIN AND ANY SUBSEQUENTLY IDENTIFIED.>>THANK YOU. I TALKED WITH MR. GILL ON THIS EARLIER THIS MORNING AND SUPPORT TRANSFER OF THE PARCELS OUTLINED HERE, BUT THE PORTION THAT I DO TAKE EXCEPTION WITH IS THAT ANY THAT ARE SUBSEQUENTLY IDENTIFIED I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS BOARD TO KNOW IN THE EVENT THAT OTHER PARCEL IDENTIFIED IN THE FUTURE, WHETHER IT IS WITH THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO, CITY OF OF RANCHO CORDOVA OR ANY OTHER INCORPORATED CITY KNOW WHAT THE PARCELS ARE. PART OF THE ISSUE IS THAT SOMEBODY OF THESE PARCELS MAY BE REMNANTS IN THE MAKES GOOD SENSE ADJACENT TO FREEWAYS THEY DO POTENTIALLY MAKE SITES FOR ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS. I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IN THE TRANSFER, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHICH JURISDICTION THEY ARE IN, WE AT LEAST GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THOSE PARCELS. I WANT TO RESERVE THE RIGHT FOR FUTURE ACTIONS THAT RETAINS OR REMAINS WITH THIS BOARD RATHER THAN DELEGATING THE AUTHORITY FOR SUBSEQUENT PARCELS BUT OKAY WITH TODAY’S ACTION.>>WILL DO.>>OKAY THANKS.>>THANK YOU.>>ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? OKAY. WILL ASK THAT WE TAKE ITEMS 13 AND 16 SEPARATELY. SO IS THERE A MOTION ON REMAINDER OF CONSENT CALENDAR.>>SO MOVED.>>SECOND.>>MOTION AND SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.>>UNANIMOUS VOTE.>>ITEM 123 AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE ZERO DOLLAR MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH YOLO COUNTY AND EXECUTE AGREEMENT IN 49,000 TO PAR TASTE INTEREST AND DATA DRIVEN PROJECT TO FA SILL AT THIS TIME COORDINATION BETWEEN CRIMINAL HEALTH AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS.>>COURTNEY HANSEN.>>GOOD MORNING MY NAME IS COURTNEY HANSEN. AS YOU KNOW PART OF THE EFFORTS HERE IN THE COUNTY TO REDUCE JAIL POPULATION AND POTENTIALLY SUPPORT Y’ALL IN MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION AND RAISING CONCERNS AROUND PROJECTS MOVING THROUGH THE PIPES TO EXPAND ELK GROVE TRIPLE C FACILITY AND DOWNTOWN JAIL. WE SUPPORT VERY MUCH SACRAMENTO AND THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT MAKE IT UP THAT SUPPORT THE RECOVERY PROJECT. I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT CONTRADICTION AND CONCERN THAT I KNOW IT WILL TAKE 120 DAYS, THAT IS SORT OF THE TIMELINE TO HAVE A CHARTER. AND THEN THIS DATA COLLECTION WILL CONTINUE MY UNDERSTANDING IS UNTIL 2021. WHICH MAKES SENSE. IT DOES TAKE TIME TO COLLECT DATA AND DO IT RIGHT. AND THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THIS SEEMS TO BE TO LOOK INTO WAYS TO CONCRETELY REDUCE THE JAIL POPULATION. LOOK AT CENTRE SECTIONS WITH HOW PEOPLE WITH BEHAVIORAL OR MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS ARE TIED UP IN THE SYSTEM. HOW TO DO NON INCARCERATION INTERVENTIONS THAT ARE MORE EFFECTIVE CHEAPER AND HUMANE. I WONDER IF THIS COULD BE A REASON TO SLOW JO DOWN JAIL EXPANSION PROJECTS A BIT F WE DO NOT HAVE DATA UNTIL 2021, A BIG REASON OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ELK GROVE EXPANSION FOR EXAMPLE IS TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE JAIL SUITABLE FOR PEOPLE WITH SEVERE PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS WHICH I THINK SHOULD NOT BE TIED UP IN THE SYSTEM TO BEGIN WITH. I WANT TO THROW THAT OUT THERE, CURIOUS ON WHAT WE CAN DO TO HELP TO SUPPORT THIS EFFORT AS YOU MOVE ALONG AND DIG INTO THAT CONTRADICTION A BIT MORE. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OF THE BOARD? IN NOT MOTION.>>MOVE ITEM.>>SECOND.>>MOTION AND SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.>>UNANIMOUS VOTE.>>ITEM 16, PLEASE.>>ITEM 16 ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE TO CHAPTER 2.90 SECTIONS THE .90.400 THROUGH 2.90440 MUCH OF THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO HOME DETENTION PROGRAM AND PRETRIAL RELEASE SUPERVISION PROGRAM.>>AND MISS HANSEN, I SHOULD HAVE SAVED YOU THE TRIP. COURTNEY HANSEN. FOLLOWED LILOS BLUM.>>MY EXERCISE, I ALWAYS RUN DOWN. GOSH, A LOT TO SAY ON THIS TO TOPIC. I UP WITH KEEP IT BRIEF. SO MUCH TO GO INTO WITH SENATE BILL 10 AND I SNOW THIS IS A SEPARATE EFFORT IT IS KIND OF RELATED. KNOW THAT SENATE BILL 10, ENDING CASH BAIL COULD POTENTIALLY NOT GO THROUGH BECAUSE OF THE BALLOT REFERENDUM IN THE WORKS. I WAS PART OF INITIALLY DOING THAT PUSH FOR ENDING CASH BAIL AND WHILE THE HEADLINE LOOKS GOOD THAT CALIFORNIA SENDING CARB CASH BAIL BECAUSE WE KNOW IT IS A CLASSLESS SYSTEM AND EXTREMELY RACIALLY BIASED THIS ALGORITHM SORT OF SYSTEM THAT IS BEING REPLACED WITH IS REALLY CONCERNING. I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT, IN CASE IT IS NOT ON YOUR RADAR. THERE IS A BROADER AND GROWING BODY OF RESEARCH THAT QUESTIONS VALIDITY, ETHICS, EFFICACY OF PRETRIAL RISK ASSESSMENT. SO WHILE MONEY BAIL IS BASED ON CLASS BIAS AND RACIAL BIAS UNFORTUNATELY, THESE ALGORITHMS ARE ALSO BASED ON KIND OF THE STATUS QUO ON A LOOP WHICH WE KNOW THAT THE STATUS QUO IN THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM IS A TENDENCY TO FUNNEL CERTAIN PEOPLE IN, POOR PEOPLE, BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE, PEOPLE WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES. AND SO I KNOW THIS MONEY IS BEING TRANSFERRED AND THIS IS ALREADY IN THE WORKS BUT PRETRIAL SERVICES REALLY BELONG WITH COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS AND EXPERTS AND SHOULD NOT BE PART OF COURT OF THIS CARS EARL LAW ENFORCEMENT WING AND MODELS IN SAN FRANCISCO AND ELSEWHERE THAT WE COULD BE LOOKING INTO. I KNOW THIS IS ABOUT HOME DETENTION. AND THERE IS A GROWING BODY OF RESEARCH AROUND WHAT IS BEING CALLED eCARCERATION, DANGEROUS SHIFT TO GROW INCARCERATION SYSTEM AND MORE INVIABLE WAY. SO MANY PEOPLE WALKING AROUND WITH ANKLE MONITORS AND HOME DETENTION PROGRAMS. I HAVE BEEN IN ONE OF THOSE. IT IS EXTREMELY — IT IS CRIMINALIZATION, YOU ARE INCARCERATED. IT KEEPS YOU OUT OF WORK. IT KEEPS YOU WITH BARRIERS TO HOUSING AND THOSE ARE ALSO THE CRITERIAS THAT ALLOW PEOPLE TO ENTER THE PROGRAMS, THE SHERIFF CAN LOOK INTO YOUR EMPLOYMENT HISTORY, YOUR HISTORY AS RESIDENT. IT IS AGAIN, PART OF THIS CYCLE AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SPEND MORE TIME TALKING WITH YOU ALL ABOUT REALLY MOVING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION THAT I THINK THE DATA TELLS US THAT WE SHOULD.>>THANK YOU, COURTNEY. LIZ BLUM?>>GOOD MORNING. SO UNITED STATES ACCOUNTS FOR 4% OF THE GLOBAL POPULATION. BUT 20% OF THE GLOBAL PRETRIAL JAIL POPULATION. THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE. CURRENT PRETRIAL INCARCERATION RATES DEFY ALL HISTORICAL NORMS. THERE ARE MORE LEGALLY INNOCENT PEOPLE BEHIND BARS IN AMERICA TODAY AND THERE ARE MORE CONVICTED PEOPLE IN JAILS AND PRISONS IN 19 # 0. WHILE WE WANT TO DECREASE RELIANCE ON CASH BAIL IT COULD BE ELIMINATED TOMORROW. AND WE WOULD HAVE A PRETRIAL SYSTEM THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR AND PUTS INTO MANY PEOPLE BEHIND BARS. ENVISION SYSTEM WHERE AT LEAST 95% OF PEOPLE ARE RELEASED BEFORE TRIAL, WHETHER IMMEDIATELY, AFTER ARREST RECORD WITHIN 48 HOURS REGARDLESS OF CHARGE. THE ACOU GOALS IN PRECONTEXT ARE ONE TO DRAMATICALLY REDUCE PRETRIAL DETENTION, TWO ELIMINATE WEALTH-BASED DETENTION AND TO COMBAT BIAS AND SYSTEMIC RACISM OF THIS SYSTEM. WE CAN DO THIS THROUGH DECRIMMIZATION AND DIVERSION EFFORTS, STRONG DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS, AND EXPANSION OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS. AND PROCEDURAL REFORMS THAT ADHERE TO CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES AND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS. AG GO RHYTHMIC ASSESSMENTS SHOULD NOT PLAY A ROLE IN PRETRIAL SYSTEMS. DATA SHOWS THAT THESE DO NOT DECREASE JAIL POPULATIONS. WE ARE AWARE THAT SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT ALREADY DOES FORM OF RISK ASSESSMENT WHICH OBVIOUSLY NOT EFFECTIVE. FURTHER SHOWN BY 9.6 MILLION GIVEN TO PROBATION THIS YEAR AND NOT THE SHERIFF. TO CARRY OUT THESE PRE-TRIAL RELEASE PROGRAMS. WE NEED COMMUNITY OVERNIGHT BOARDS TO ENSURE THAT THIS MONEY IS DECREASING JAIL POPULATIONS. COMMUNITY BOARDS THAT ARE REPRESENTED BY PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY. ACCORDING TO THE ACLU NOT ONLY DO THESE TOOLS NOT PROVIDE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALIZATION OR ADVISE ALED INFORMATION REQUIRED TO JUSTIFY LIMITING PERSON’S PRETRIAL LIBERTY BUT UNDERLYING RACIAL BIAS PRESENTED IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE DATA POINTS MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO RECONCILE HOW EXISTING TOOLS OPERATE WITH OUR VISION OF JUSTICE. THE PUBLIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT PREDICTS THAT 92% OF PEOPLE THAT THE ALGORITHM FLAGS FOR PRETRIAL VIOLENCE WILL NOT BE ARRESTED FOR A VIOLENT CRIME.>>CAN YOU WRAP UP, LIZ?>>YES. SO (INAUDIBLE) CAN KNOW IN ADVANCE WHO AND WHO WILL NOT SHOW UP FOR TRIAL. RISK ASSESSMENTS DO NOT WORK. THEY DO NOT MAKE OUR COMMUNITY SAFER ONLY A DIFFERENT AND RADICAL COUNTY BUDGET WILL.>>THANK YOU LIZ.>>SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI.>>JUST — ON RELATED MATTER, IS IT STILL THE NEXT MEETING ON 22nd OF OCTOBER THAT WE WILL SEE THE RCCC CONTRACT FOR DISCUSSION?>>THAT IS OUR PLAN.>>OKAY. WE WILL ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THAT DISCUSSION I TRUST?>>I WOULD ASSUME TO SO.>>VERY GOOD.>>SUPERVISOR SERNA DID YOU HAVE SNOG.>>I DIDN’T.>>ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OF THE BOARD ENTERTAIN MOTION.>>MOVE ITEM.>>CHAIR WILL SECOND MOTION TO SECOND PLEASE VOTE.>>UNANIMOUS VOTE.>>ITEM 36.>>PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING OCTOBER 2019 AS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY.>>THANK YOU MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. AS THE CLERK SAID, THIS IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH. AND THE REQUEST WAS TO COME FORWARD WITH JUST A RESOLUTION AND NO PRESENTATION BUT MANY OF US FELT LIKE THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH THAT NEEDS TO BE SPOKEN OF HERE AT THE BEGINNING OF OCTOBER. SO I WILL READ A FEW OF THE WHEREASES IF YOU INDULGE ME WHEREAS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS WIDESPREAD AND SERIOUS SOCIETAL PROBLEM THAT EFFECTS 4 MILLION MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN UNITED STATES REGARDLESS OF RACE, AGE AND INCOME AND ONE IN FOUR WOMEN ARE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. ABUSE CAN HAVE LONG-TERM DAMAGING EFFECTS OF VICTIMS AND FAMILIES, FRIENDS AND COMMUNITIES AND CHILDREN WHO WITNESS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFTEN GROW UP BELIEVING THAT PHYSICAL CRUELTY IS NORMAL AND TO CONTINUE TO PERPETUATE THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE. WHEREAS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH IS A TIME TO MOURN THOSE WHO HAVE DIED DUE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND TO CELEBRATE THOSE WHO HAVE SURVIVED. WHEREAS THE SACRAMENTO REGIONAL FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER COLLABORATIVE PROVIDES VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES WITH A ONE-STOP FACILITY TO REPORT A CRIME, PROVIDE A COMPLETE STATEMENT TAKEN BY DETECTIVE OR TRAINED CHILD INTERVIEWER, GET ASSISTANCE TO OBTAIN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, FIND SAFE HOUSING, MEET THEIR PROSECUTOR AND VICTIMS ADVOCATE TO LEARN WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN COURT AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, FIND THE SUPPORT THEY NEED TO KEEP THEM SAFE FROM FALLING BACK INTO THE HANDS OF THE ACCUSED. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO STATE OF CALIFORNIA DOES HERE BY RECOGNIZE OCTOBER 2019 AS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH. I THINK THAT THOSE WHEREASES REALLY POINT TO THE FACT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT IMPACTS ALL OF US AND TO SIMPLY SWEEP IT AWAY AS SOMETHING THAT JUST HAPPENS TO A FEW IS A MISTAKE. AND INACCURATE. WITH THAT, MR. WAGSTAFF WOULD YOU COME AND ACCEPT THIS RESOLUTION ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR ALL OF THE GOOD WORK DONE IN THE COUNTY.>>THANKS VERY MUCH. THANK THE BOARD FOR RECOGNIZING THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE, SURE TO GET THIS PROCLAMATION TO JUSTICE CENTER. THANKS VERY MUCH.>>THANKS, BRUCE.>>ITEM 37 PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BENEFIT CATEGORY CHANGE AND LEAVE WRITE OF INCREASED SERVICE CHARGES FOR THE VINTAGE PARK ESTATES SUBDIVISION WITHIN ZONE 1 OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA NUMBER 1.>>GOOD MORNING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS DOROTHY, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER WITH COUNTY ENGINEERING DIVISION AND HERE TO PRESENT ITEM AS JUST READ INTO THE RECORD BY THE CLERK OF THE BOARD. THE VINTAGE PARK ESTATES SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VINTAGE PARK DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET WEST OF BRAD SHAW ROAD AND THE MAP PROPOSES 81 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. IN RESPONSE TO ENTITLEMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A REQUEST SUBMITTED TO INITIATE BENEFIT CATEGORY CHANGE PROCESS FOR COUNTY SERVICE AREA NUMBER 1 WHICH PROVIDES STREET AND SAFETY LIGHT SERVICES FOR ININCORPORATED PORTION OF THE COUNTY. THEREFORE, A NOTICE AND BALLOT WERE MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNER AUGUST 23rd THIS ITEM PROPOSE AS CHANGE FROM SAFETY LIGHT ONLY CATEGORY WHICH HAS ANNUAL SERVICE CHARGE OF 2.56 TO THE ENHANCED STREET AND SAFETY LIGHT RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY, WITH ITS ANNUAL SERVICE CHARGE OF 49.64. SO UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDER ALL TESTIMONIES, OBJECTIONS AND PROTESTS, CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECT THE CLERK TO TABULATE THE RETURN.>>ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?>>OKAY. NO PUBLIC COMMENT SLIPS OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ANYONE THAT TIME THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NONE, CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD THE CLERK PLEASE TABULATE.>>RECEIVED ONE BALLOT. LEGAL OWNER IS ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SACRAMENTO PARCEL NUMBER 12101100567 SITE ADDRESS VINTAGE PARK DRIVE SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 955829 VOTING YES.>>THANK YOU.>>WITH THAT YOU HAVE CHANGES. THANK YOU. AND SINCE NO MAJORITY PROTEST WE REQUEST THAT BOARD ADOPT ATTACHED RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AS YOU SAID THE CHANGE FOR VINTAGE PARK ESTATES SUBDIVISION AND I CAN READ INTO THE RECORD THE FILL-IN FORCE THE RESOLUTION. STARTING WITH SECTION 2, AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING, THE BOARD HAD RECEIVED ZERO WRITTEN PROTESTS WHICH THE BOARD FINDS AND DETERMINES TO NOT CONSTITUTE MAJORITY PROTEST. SECTION 3 AT THE CLOSE OF TABULATION BOARD RECEIVED ONE PROTEST BALLOT TOTALING 100% OF THE TOTAL SERVICE CHARGES TO BE LEVIED OF WHICH 100% WAS IN FAVOR OF THE CHANGE BENEFIT CATEGORY AND 0% WAS IN OPPOSITION.>>THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?>>WITH THAT CHAIR WILL MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.>>SECOND.>>PLEASE VOTE.>>UNANIMOUS VOTE.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>>ITEM 38, ACTING AS THE HOUSING HORT OF SACRAMENTO ANNOUNCEMENT OF TWIN RIVERS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, RENAMING AND COMMENCEMENT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION.>>GOOD MORNING CHAIR, SUPERVISORS, THANK YOU FOR HAVING US SPEAK. VICTORIA JOHNSON IS MY NAME, PROGRAM MANAGER WITH THE SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. I’M HERE WITH A GOOD NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT. THE TWIN RIVERS LONG KNOWN AS TWIN RIVERS PROJECT IS ABOUT TO BE RENAMED AS THE MIRASOL VILLAGE. AND MIRASOL VILLAGE SELECTED THROUGH A COMMUNITY PROCESS DISCUSSION. THE MIRASOL CAN BE TRANSLATED AS SUNFLOWER HENCE THE SUNFLOWER THEME SO WE ARE EXCITED BY THE NEW NAME. THE PROPERTY WILL INCLUDE SUNFLOWERS AS WELL AS MANY OTHER NATURAL SPECIES CALIFORNIA SPECIES AND POLLENATORS THROUGHOUT THE OVERALL SITE, COMMUNITY GARDEN AND THE PARK AND WE ALSO ARE VERY, VERY HAPPY TO ANNOUNCE THAT SINCE THE LAST TIME WE HAVE BEEN BEFORE YOU WE HAVE SECURED THE FUNDING NECESSARY TO BEGIN THE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION. THE INFRASTRUCTURE WORK WILL BEGIN, WE BELIEVE IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER. AND WILL BE COMPLETED IN THE SPRING AND THEREAFTER THE RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION WILL BEGIN ON THE FIRST 123 UNITS. SO IT IS ALL GOOD NEWS, WE ARE MOVING FORWARD. THANK YOU ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TODAY. YET ONE MORE DOCUMENT WHICH YOU APPROVED WITH THAT AGENDA AND BIT BY BIT, PIECE-BY-PIECE THIS PROJECT IS COMING TO FRUITION.>>THANKS VERY MUCH.>>THANK YOU.>>SUPERVISOR SERNA.>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.>>FIRST OF ALL CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL OF US THAT WE NOW HAVE A NAME TO GO WITH THE SITE. AND I KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, THIS ANNOUNCEMENT. BUT WONDERING IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEON THAT DOESN’T CLAIM TO HAVE A GREEN THUMB AT ALL, BUT IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY HAVE INCORPORATE INTO THE LANDSCAPING SUN FLOWERS?>>YES, INDEED, SIR. SUNFLOWERS AS YOU KNOW ARE SEASONAL.>>I DON’T KNOW THAT.>>SUNFLOWERS ARE SEASONAL. THEY ARE PLANTED IN LATE WINTER AND WILL BLOOM THROUGH THE SUMMER. AND WE HAVE A .66-ACRE COMMUNITY GARDEN AND WE WILL TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY IT WILL BE A CITY-OPERATED GARDEN, BUT WE WILL OPINE THAT WE WANT TO SEE SUNFLOWERS SEASONALLY BLOOMING IN THAT GARDEN, VISIBLE FROM RICHARDS AS YOU DRIVE BY AND THAT WOULD BE VERY APPROPRIATE.>>I ASSUME THE BRANDING FOR ANYTHING ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT WILL MIRROR THE LOGO ON THE UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER SPREAD GOOD. CONGRATULATIONS THANKS FOR YOUR TIRELESS EFFORT TO GET US THIS FAR. I KNOW WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF GOING VERTICAL NOW, BRINGING BACK THE SITE IF YOU WILL, FOR THOSE THAT HAVE DRIVEN BY IT RECENTLY YOU NOTICE THAT IT IS RAISED. I MEAN, THERE IS REALLY NOT MUCH THERE. THERE IS INFRASTRUCTURE GOING IN. AND I KNOW IT IS A LONG-TERM PROJECT BUT ONE THAT I THINK WILL ANCHOR THAT PART OF THE CITY OF OF SACRAMENTO, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO AND CERTAINLY WITH ADVENT OF A NEW LIGHT RAIL STATION THAT WILL SERVE IT, IT IS REALLY GOING TO BE SOMETHING WE CAN BE VERY PROUD OF IN THE NOT TOO BUSINESS TENANT FUTURE, THANKS AGAIN.>>BEFORE SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI GOES, I WILL SAY MICHELE, CHRISTINE YOUR ARMS ARE LOOKING TIRED. FEEL FREE TO PUT IT DOWN. SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI WHY ECHO SOME OF THE COMMENTS BY SUPERVISOR SERNA. AS THIS PROJECT EVOLVED OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS, I THINK IT MAY GET LOST, NOT IN ANYBODY HERE, BUT JUST THE FACT THAT TREMENDOUS UNDERTAKING AND CHALLENGE THIS PRESENTED, I THINK THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT AN OLDER COMPLEX THAT WAS OCCUPIED BY FOLKS AND IN GOING THROUGH WITH THIS TOTAL RECONSTRUCTION AND CERTAINLY ADDITION OF A LIGHT RAIL STATION, TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MOVING PARTS. I WANT TO GIVE CREDIT CERTAINLY TO LEADERSHIP ON THIS BOARD CITY COUNCIL AND TO AGENCY AND ALL OF THE VARIOUS PARTNERS. THERE WERE A LOT OF PARTNERS IN THIS PROCESS. I THINK TO HAVE A NEW NAME OBVIOUSLY TO PRESENT, OBVIOUSLY THE, YOU KNOW, THE ARTIST RENDITION OF WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE WHEN IT IS COMPLETED, IT GIVES A GOOD IDEA BUT ALL OF THE INBETWEEN HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY A TREMENDOUS LABOR WITH A LOT OF FOLKS, YOU KNOW, WORKING AT DIFFERENT LEVELS. I WANT TO END IN AGENCY AND AGAIN, ALL OF YOUR PARTNERS WHEN THIS IS DONE IT WILL BE SOMETHING FOR THE AGES. GENERATIONALLY, PROVIDE HOUSING FOR FAMILIES AND FOR PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT WALKS OF LIFE. BUT CERTAINLY THOSE THAT STRUGGLE IN THE REALM OF HOUSING AND HAVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT ALL OF THE AMENITIES AND CERTAIN CONNECTIVITY TO JOBS THROUGH TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND WORK OUT WITH THE PROMISE ZONE AND VARIOUS PARTNERS. REALLY IT WILL BE WHEN IT IS COMPLETED A TREMENDOUS ACCOMPLISHMENT. BECAUSE IT TAKES SO LONG SOMETIMES PEOPLE FORGET WHAT IT ONCE WAS. AGAIN, AND WHAT IT WILL BE OBVIOUSLY THIS IS THE FUTURE AND CONGRATULATIONS.>>THANKS VERY MUCH. CONGRATULATIONS.>>THANK YOU. NO OTHER QUESTIONS? NEXT ITEM, PLEASE?>>ITEM 39. SENATE BILL 2 BUILDING JOBS AND HOMES ACT. YEAR TWO FUNDING STATUS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.>>GOOD MORNING CHAIR KENNEDY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, ROB LEONARD EXECUTIVE FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES GREAT THE POWERPOINT IS UP. ON SEPTEMBER 24th THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ASKED STAFF TO REPORT BACK ON SB 2, SPECIFICALLY SB 2, YEAR 2 FUNDING AND TO DISCUSS STATUS OF SB 2, YEAR 2 FUNDING AND POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER. TODAY WE BRING FORWARD TO YOU A REPORT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS. I WANT TO SAY THAT ALL OF THE MATTERS RELATED TO SB, 2 YEAR 2 FUNDING, SB 2 AND OTHER HOUSING-RELATED STATE ACTIONS ARE CONSTANTLY EVOLVING. I CHECKED HCD WEBSITE THIS MORNING, ABOUT 9:00 TO SEE IF ANYTHING HAD CHANGED SINCE WE PUT THIS PRESENTATION DATOGETHER AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED. EVERYBODY THAT WILL BE STEPPING THROUGH TODAY IS REFLECTIVE OF THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION FROM HCD. SO AS A MEANS OF BACKGROUND, SB 2 IS THE BUILDING JOBS AND HOMES ACT. IT TOOK EFFECT ON JANUARY 1st, 2018. IT WAS ONE OF 15 BILLS IN A HOUSING PACKAGE THAT WAS SIGNED BY THEN GOVERNOR BROWN. WHAT SB 2 DID WAS CREATE A $75 FEE ON CERTAIN TYPES OF REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS. FOR THE PURPOSE OF A VARIETY OF PURPOSES THAT I WILL WALK THROUGH IN JUST A MOMENT. THE FEE ON A GIVEN TRANSACTION IS CAPPED AT 75 — EXECUTE ME, AT $225. THE FEE DOES NOT APPLY TO TRANSACTIONS RELATED TO OWNER OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL TRANSACTIONS. IT IS OTHER TYPES OF REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS, DEEDS, DEEDS OF TRUST, QUICK CLAIM DEEDS, ARE THE TYPES OF TRANSACTIONS THAT THAT FEE APPLIES TO. ON JUNE 4th, OF THIS YEAR, THE BOARD AUTHORIZED THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO APPLY FOR SB 1, YEAR 1 MONEY AND I WILL EXPLAIN THAT IN A BIT MORE DETAIL IN A MOMENT THOSE ACTIVITIES SPECIFICALLY, THOUGH, WERE TO PURSUE, UPDATED COUNTY WIDE ZONING, REZONE PROGRAM, TO INCREASE OUR SUPPLY OF AVAILABLE PROPERTIES FOR HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS AND TO COMPLEMENT US MEETING OUR REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION. AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN ZONING CODE AND DESIGN GUIDELINES TO COMPLY WITH RECENT LEGISLATION, THOSE 15 BILLS SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR IN PREPARATION OF AN SB-2 FUNDING PLAN FOR APPLICATION AND FUTURE YEARS ALLOCATIONS THAT COME OUT OF SB-2. THE NEXT SLIDE AND I WILL SPEND A BIT OF TIME ON THIS, BECAUSE THIS SORT OF GIVES THE BIG PICTURE OF WHAT SB-2, YEAR 1 AND YEAR 2 FUNDING ARE. I APOLOGIZE FOR ANY DIFFICULTY IN BEING ABLE TO MAKE OUT SOME OF THE FINE PRINT ON THE SLIDE. THIS SLIDE WHICH WAS A PRODUCT OF HCD IDENTIFIES YEAR ONE FUNDING. YOU COULD SEE IN YEAR ONE, THE BLUE PORTION OF THE PIE REFERS TO PLANNING ACTIVITIES THAT I JUST MENTIONED. AND THE OTHER HALF OF THE PIE IS ACTIVITIES RELATED TO TARGET HOMELESSNESS. THOSE FUND ARE NOT INTENDED TO FLOW TO THE COUNTY BUT TO VARIOUS CONTINUANCE OF CARE IN CMMUNITIES AROUND THE STATE. THOSE FUNDS ARE JUST STARTING TO FLOW NOW FROM WHAT WE UNDERSTAND AND WE DID RECEIVE A NOTICE OF AWARD FOR THE BLUE PIECE OF THAT YEAR ONE PIE RECENTLY, $625,000 WILL BE GOING TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR THOSE ACTIVITIES THAT I JUST MENTIONED. MOVING ON, THEN, TO YEAR TWO AND ONGOING, THERE ARE A VARIETY OF ACTIVITIES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THOSE FUNDS. AGAIN, SO IN THE YEAR TWO BOX, THE LARGE PIE ON THE LEFT, IDENTIFIES 10% OF AVAILABLE FUNDING STATE-WIDE WILL GO TO FARM WORKER HOUSING 15% TO CAL FHA MISSING FUND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND 5% FOR STREAMLINING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. BALANCE OR 70% IS TO GO TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, CITIES AND COUNTIES THROUGH THE PERMANENT LOCAL HOUSING ALLOCATION PROGRAM WHICH HAS A VARIETY OF ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES. THOSE ARE SUMMARIZED IN THIS SLIDE. DETAIL LIFTED RIGHT FROM THE SB-2 LEGISLATION IS PROVIDED AS ATTACHMENT ONE TO STAFF REPORT. BUT TO SUMMARIZE THOSE ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES THEY INCLUDE PREDEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT ACQUISITION, REHAB AND PRESERVATION OF MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LIVE WORK, RENTAL HOUSING, THAT IS AFFORDABLE TO EXTREMELY LOW, VERY LOW, LOW OR MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS INCLUDING NECESSARY OPERATING SUBSIDIES FOR DEVELOPMENT. INCENTIVES ARE MATCHING FUNDS, FOR PERMITTING NEW HOUSING. HOME RENTAL AND OWNERSHIP FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES, HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES INCLUDING DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE. HOMELESS RAPID REHOUSING, RENTAL ASSISTANCE, NAVIGATION CENTERS OR EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND PERMANENT AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING OR LOCAL MATCHING FOR REPRESENT AL HOUSING TRUST FUNDS.>>OKAY ROB INTERRUPT THERE SUPERVISOR SERNA.>>I WANTED TO CATCH YOU ROB BEFORE YOU LEFT THE SLIDE, YEAR TWO ONGOING BOX THERE AS THE TWO PIES, WHICH I UNDERSTAND, MY QUESTION IS THIS, LET’S JUST FARM WORKER HOUSING AS AN EXAMPLE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT 10% OF YIER TWO SB-2 FUNDING IS MANAGED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COULD USE THAT 10% WEDGE TO FUND A PROJECT THAT IS INTENDED FOR FARM WORKERS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY, MY QUESTION IS THIS: CAN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT US WITH THE PORTION OF SB-2 FUNDING THAT IS AT OUR DISCRETION TO APPROPRIATE, CAN IT BE USED TO MATCH WHAT THE STATE WOULD BE DOING ON A PROJECT SO THAT WE COULD TUNNEL UP THE SB-2 INVESTMENT IN A PARTICULAR PROJECT?>>I HAVE NOT READ ANYTHING IN THE DRAFT GUIDELINES THAT HAVE COME OUT FROM HCE FOR THE PLHA. THAT WOULD INDICATE OTHERWISE, THAT WE COULD NOT USE THAT. GUIDELINES HAVE COME OUT FOR THE –>>USING THAT AS AN EXAMPLE.>>PLHA MOPE CAN BE USED TO MATCH OTHER FUNDS, INCLUDING LOCAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS OUR HOUSING TRUST FUND WHICH I WILL BE TALKING ABOUT IN A BIT MORE DETAILS. SPECIFICALLY IN REGARDS TO YOUR QUESTION, I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING THAT WOULD PRECLUDE WHAT YOU ARE ASKING ABOUT.>>IS THERE A LIST OR ANOTHER MEANS OF IDENTIFYING WHAT INVESTMENT THE STATE IS MAKING IN THOSE VARIOUS CATEGORIES, THAT MAKE UP THE 30% ACROSS THE STATE?>>NOT THAT I HAVE SEEN TO DATE.>>OKAY. IS THERE ONE EXPECTED?>>CERTAINLY EXPECT WE WILL SEE MORE INFORMATION THE STATE IS PRIORITIZED. CALENDAR PUT OUT SHOWS WHEN DIFFERENT GUIDELINES WILL BE COMING OUT IN DRAFT FORM, FINAL FORM AND WHEN THE NOTICES OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY WILL BEING COMING OUT. AND THE WINDOWS HAVE NOT OPENED THAT I HAVE SEEN ON THAT INFORMATION FROM AMCD FOR THOSE PROGRAMS IN 30%.>>CAN I SUGGEST THAT WE ASK THE EXPRESS QUESTION THAT I’M ASKING OF P RIGHT PEOPLE AT HCD.>>CERTAINLY.>>ABOUT PROSPECT OF USING LOCALLY APPROPRIATED SB-2 ALLOCATION COMBINED WITH STATE ALLOCATION FOR VARIOUS CATEGORIES?>>YES, WE CERTAINLY CAN.>>THANK YOU.>>SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI.>>I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT FORMER HOUSING, BUT A DIFFERENT TAKE ON THAT. IN THAT WHEN I THINK ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR FUNDING CATEGORY AND MAYBE THE MORE TRADITIONAL FARM WORKER HOUSING WHERE IT WAS MULTIPLE UNITS ON RANCHES OR FARMS AND I DON’T KNOW WHO HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, INVOLVED, MAYBE THE AG COMMISSION WORRY KNOW, OBVIOUSLY EMD HAS PERMITTING AND INSPECTION PROCESS FOR SOME OF THOSE DESIGNATED MULTI TENANT UNITS. BUT I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS AND I THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE REFLECTED IN THE WORK AND AGAIN, I’M GOING TO ASK IN A MOMENT ABOUT SOME COUPLING OF FUNDING SOURCES HERE, BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE LAY OF THE LAND AND CERTAINLY IN AREAS THAT ARE ACTUALLY FARMED IN THIS COMMUNITY AND I REPRESENT A GOOD PORTION OF THOSE S THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS BEEN NOTICEABLE TO ME IS THAT IN A NUMBER OF CASES WHERE WE HAVE TRADITIONALLY HAD FAMILY FARMS, OCCUPIED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILIES WHO FARM THERE AND STILL HAVE MANY OF THOSE, A NUMBER OF THE TRANSACTIONS OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES HAVE SEEN A LOT OF LANDS BE TRANSFERRED TO MORE CORPORATE HOLDINGS IN THE HOUSING BECOMES RENTAL HOUSING. IT BECOMES OCCUPIED IN A LOT OF CASES BY MULTIPLE TENANTS AND IN SOME CASES MODULAR UNITS ARE PUT IN PLACE, OLDER MODULAR UNITS. WE NEED A STRATEGY IN THIS COUNTY, LOOK AT FARM ACTIVITY WELL OVER HALF A BILLION DOLLARS, LOOK AT EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND MECHANIZATION BUT I THINK HOUSING FOR FOLKS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHO LIVE AND WORK, AND AGAIN, NOT JUST SEASONAL, I MEAN SEASONAL IN THE SENSE THAT PEOPLE MOVE THROUGH, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE AREA DURING HARVEST OR PLANTING, FOLKS ARE THERE YEAR-ROUND, IN VINEYARDS, TREE CROPS ASSISTING IN DAIRY OPERATIONS. I DON’T KNOW THAT THIS COUNTY HAS DONE AN EXAMINATION OF THAT AND I’M NOT SO SURE THAT THIS WOULD BE A ROLE FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I DO THINK WHEN LIE AT LOW AND MODERATE INCOME DESIGNATIONS UNDER THE PROGRAM WHERE I’M LOOKING AT COUPLING THIS IN DELTA AND CERTAINLY IN PORTIONS OF SOUTHEASTERN AND SOUTHERN PARTS OF COUNTY AND MAYBE IN SOME OF THE NORTHERN PARTS OF THE COUNTY, ALTHOUGH SOME OF THOSE FARMS MAY BE MORE OF A SEASONAL CROP, I GUESS I’M GOING TO ASK THAT I’M LOOKING AT HOW WE MIGHT COUPLE THIS MONEY TOGETHER. BUT TO DO A THOROUGH EXAMINATION, IF WE ARE INTERESTED IN IMPROVING HOUSES FOR FOLKS RESIDENTS OF THIS COUNTY AND PROBABLY LONG-TERM IN A LOT OF CASES THEIR CHURN ATTEND OUR LOCAL SCHOOLS, AND YOU KNOW, CONTRIBUTING MEMBERS IN THE LABOR FORCE, THEN I THINK THAT HOUSING NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED I DON’T KNOW THIS IS A PLANNING EFFORT OR COUNTY EXECUTIVE PEI. I’M THINKING THAT HOUSING AGENCY AUTHORITY SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS AND LOOKING WITH AND WORKING WITH AG AND FARM FAMILIES AND THE COMMUNITY THAT HOUSING STOCK A LOT OF THAT IS MARGINAL, THAT IS MY ASSESSMENT OF IT. OCCUPIED BY MULTIPLE TENANTS, PEOPLE OF ALL AGES AND IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT THIS WHOLE IMPROVEMENT, THESE FOLKS ARE HOMELESS. ABOUT YOU I THINK THAT WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK ATS YOU KNOW THAT ASPECT AND NOT JUST TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT V A STRATEGY TO EMPLOY, PULLED OUT THE FEDERAL DOLLARS, TO COUPLED WITH THE STATE DOLLARS AND LOCAL HOUSING TRUST FUND. THE HOUSING TRUST FUND GOES TO FOLKS THAT ARE IN MANUFACTURING, OR IN A MORE OF A SETTING THAT IS IN A SUBURBAN, URBAN SETTING, RURAL PORTION OF THIS COUNTY. I THINK THAT THIS REQUIRE AS THOROUGH EXAMINATION. BUT WE OUGHT TO UTILIZE THE HOUSING AGENCY. HOUSING AUTHORITY AS A PART OF THIS. AND IT IS NOT JUST A PLANNING EXERCISE OR CENSUS EXERCISE WE NEED TO GET DOWN IN THE WEED AND TALK WITH FOLKS AND FIND OUT WHAT THE LAND OWNERS WITH A PONT TO THEIR EMPLOYEE WAS THE INTEREST IS IMPROVING HOUSING OUT THERE. I CAN TELL YOU IT IS MARGINAL.>>WHAT WE WILL DO BASED ON COMMENTS PULL TOGETHER A TEAM TO LOOK INTO THOSE QUESTIONS THROUGH THE FUNDS THAT YOU MENTIONED. WE WILL RUN THAT OUT OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE. MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS REPRESENTED.>>OKAY. I THINK IT IS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT THAT IS OVERLOOKED MAYBE IN THIS COUNTY BECAUSE HE WOULD DON’T HAVE SOME OF THOSE RURAL CROPS — (INAUDIBLE) CONVERSION IN THE VALLEY AS WELL. OUR HOUSING MAY BE GOING TO MORE OF AN INDIVIDUAL AND/OR A FEW UNITS ON PROPERTIES, NOT IN THESE LARGE, YOU KNOW, SEASONAL HOUSING SEGMENTS.>>WE DO HAVE A LOT OF AG HOUSING.>>WE DO THANKS.>>BEFORE I MOVE TO NEXT SLIDE IN THE PRESENTATION I WANT TO TALK A MOMENT ABOUT 70% FUNDING THAT IS DISTRIBUTED REFER TO THAT AS THE PERMANENT LOCAL HOUSING ALLOCATION SOME OF THE FUNDS ARE ALSO DISTRIBUTED TO NON — WHAT ARE CONSIDERED NON ENTITLEMENT COMMUNITIES AND WHAT THE STATE HAS DONE IN TERMS OF THE DRAFT GUIDELINES IS USED FEDERAL CDBG CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING ENTITLEMENT AND NON ENTITLEMENT COMMUNITY, CITY OF SACRAMENTO IS AN ENTITLEMENT JURISDICTION, OTHERS WITH POPULATION OF #00,000 OR LOWER THAT ARE CONSIDERED NON ENTITLEMENT JURISDICTIONS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE TO COMPETE FOR FUNDS OUT OF THIS POT. BUT FOR SACRAMENTO COUNTY AND ENTITLEMENT JURISDICTION CITIES, THERE IS IDENTIFIED ALLOCATION. IT IS F FORMULA BASED BASED ON E PERCENTAGE OF CDBG THAT THAT CITY OR COUNTY RECEIVER’S RELATIVE TO STATE-WIDE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS. AND SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS MOVING TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THAT SACRAMENTO COUNTY WILL SEE APPROXIMATELY $2 MILLION, BASED UPON THE ESTIMATE THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BY HCD TO THIS POINT.>>THANK YOU. 200,000 IS AN IMPORTANT THRESHOLD NUMBER TO KEEP IN MIND IN TERMS OF THE POPULATION. AND THE CATEGORIZATION OF ENTITLED VERSUS NON ENTITLED JURISDICTION. WHAT IF ANYTHING IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN AFTER THE NEXT CENSUS, WHERE JURISDICTION LIKE ELK GROVE WHO I BELIEVE IS RIGHT NEAR THE CUSP OF TURNING TO 200,000 PLUS, WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN IN TERMS OF THE SB-2 ALLOCATION FOR THE COUNTY? ANYTHING?>>WHAT — IT IS MORE OF — IT COULD MEAN THAT COUNTY COULD SEE A SMALL REDUCTION BUT IT REALLY GOES INTO STATE-WIDE, DISTRIBUTION OF THE STATE-WIDE FUNDS. SO ELK GROVE IN YOUR SCENARIO WOULD MOVE INTO THAT GROUP OF ENTITLEMENT JURISDICTIONS.>>STATE-WIDE ROB, ANY JURISDICTION THAT MOVES FROM ONE CATEGORY TO THE NEXT VIS-A-VIS POPULATION GROWTH AND THE CENSUS, THAT GOING TO HAVE A WHOLESALE EFFECT ON THE AMOUNT OF SB-2 FUNDING THAT CURRENTLY ENTITLED JURISDICTIONS ENJOY?>>I WOULD SAY YES, BASED ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAVE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE WAY THE PROGRAM WOULD WORK.>>OKAY.>>ANOTHER VARIABLE BETWEEN IS THE TRANSACTION ACTIVITY STATE-WIDE IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS RECORDED. WILL ALSO AFFECT THE SIZE OF THE POT THAT IS DISTRIBUTED AND ALLOCATED OUT.>>OKAY.>>WHAT DO YOU MEAN TRANSACTIONS?>>GETTING BACK, I TALKED ABOUT THE REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION RECORDING FEE OF $75 PER TRANSACTION. SO IT IS AN ACTIVITY BASED –>>POOL OF FUNDING. AND WE ARE FOCUSING A KEY POINT ALSO IS WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT DISTRIBUTION OF YEAR 2 FUNDS, THIS WILL BE THE METHODOLOGY FOR ALLOCATION MOVING BEYOND YEAR 2 ALSO. SO THERE WAS DEFINED METHODOLOGY FOR DISTRIBUTION OF YEAR 1 FUNDS FOR HOMELESS ACTIVITIES AND CERTAIN PLANNING FUNCTIONS. AND THEN THIS ENTITLEMENT ALLOCATION PROCESS OR COMPETITIVE ALLOCATION PROCESS, THAT APPLIES FROM YEAR 2 MOVING AHEAD. THE — AS I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, BASED UPON THE CURRENT ESTIMATE WE WOULD SEE ABOUT $2 MILLION A YEAR COME US TO. THE GUIDELINES FOR THE FINAL GUIDELINES AND THE NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY FOR THE YEAR 2 PROGRAM HAVE NOT YET BEEN PUBLISHED. IF YOU LOOK AT THE HCD WEBSITE IT IDENTIFIES THAT CERTAIN THINGS WERE GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, REGARDING RELEASE OF THE NOFA, IT HAS NOT HAPPENED. IT COULD HAPPEN ANY DAY IT HAS NOT YET HAPPENED. AND ESSENTIALLY AS WE ARE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION TODAY, THERE IS NOT A CLOCK RUNNING. WE ARE NOT MISSING ANY OPPORTUNITIES REGARDING THE YEAR 2 FUNDING. OUR EXAMINATION OF SB-2 AS ONE OF THE MULTIPLE HOUSING RELATED BILLS. OUR EXAMINATION FROM THE COUNTY ORGANIZATION STANDPOINT AND SORT OF THE EXTENDED ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR SOMETIME. AND MULTI DISCIPLINARY TEAM HAS BEEN WORKING FOR SOMETIME INCLUDED OFFERS EXECUTIVE, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ASSISTANCE. HOMELESS INITIATIVE DIRECTOR ALONG WITH HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT. AND IT IS A GOOD DISCUSSION AS IT EXAMINED SB 2 AND OPPORTUNITIES HYPOTHESIZING ON WHAT WILL BE COMING AND HOW IT MIGHT BE APPLIED CONSIDERING ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, TALKED ABOUT ALIGNMENT WITH NEEDS WE HAVE, VARIOUS PROGRAM NEEDS. AND WHERE THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES ALSO. AS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION WE WANDERED BEYOND SB-2 ALSO I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO TAKE A MOMENT AND TALK ABOUT THAT. IN THE COURSE OF DISCUSSION WE IDENTIFIED COMING OUT OF LAST YEAR OR CURRENT FISCAL BUDGET PROCESS A NEED FOR THE EMERGENCY SHELTER AT THE MATHER COMMUNITY CAMPUS. AND SO WE WERE LINING UP THAT PROGRAM NEED OF $750,000 WITH POTENTIAL SB-2, YEAR 2 FUNDING. AND IT IS AN ELIGIBLE ACTIVITY. THROUGH THE DISCUSSION WE IDENTIFIED THAT WITH SHRA THAT THERE MAY BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO PLUG THAT GAP, THAT 75,000 GAP WITH A DIFFERENT SOURCE OF FUNDS. THAT BEING ESG OR EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT MONEY, FEDERAL MONEY THAT COMES TO COUNTY TO ADDRESS THAT SHORTFALL AT THE MATHER COMMUNITY CAMPUS EMERGENCY SHELTER. AND SO PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED OCTOBER 22nd IS CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN FOR CDBG AND OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUNDING PROGRAMS. AND SO ADDRESSING THESE FOR HEATHER WILL COME FORWARD WITH A PRESENTATION ON OCTOBER 22nd. STILL A GAP OF ABOUT $50,000 THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO ADDRESS IN THE DISCUSSION COMING IN TO THAT THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF THING THAT COME OUT OF MULTI DISCIPLINARY CLASH ORGANIZATION THAT WE HAVE HAD LOOKING ADD SB-2 AND OTHER HOUSING BILLS.>>SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI.>>JUST ON THAT SEE IT ON THE 22nd AS I READ INFORMATION IN OUR REPORT, THOSE MONIES ARE ADMINISTERED BY SHRA, CORRECT?>>CORRECT, COUNTY FUNDS ADMINISTERED BY SHRA.>>AND SO THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN THE NATURAL TO GO TO ANYWAY. WOULDN’T THEY HAVE BEEN? IRRESPECTIVE OF SB-2 WE WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT THESE AS POTENTIAL SOURCES.>>CONVERSATIONS EARLIER RELATED TO MATHER AND BRUCE COULD STEP IN HERE ALSO COLLABORATIVE SHELTER PLAN, UP IN THE RIVER DISTRICT. AND THE DISCUSSION, EARLIER DISCUSSIONS ON USE OF CDBG AND ESG FOR EITHER THE COLLABORATIVE SHELTER PLAN IN THE RIVER DISTRICT OR MATHER HAD COME UP WITHOUT CONCLUSION OR WITHOUT A FINDING THAT FUNDS COULD BE USED. IT WAS THROUGH THIS CONTINUING EXAMINATION AND LOOKING AT DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCES THAT WE IDENTIFIED WHAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD ON THE 22nd. SO WE HAD LOOKED AT THAT. THE ANSWER WAS NO. AND THEN THE ANSWER AS THE –>>THE ANSWER WAS NO AND THE ANSWER WAS NO FROM THE AGENCY IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME?>>BRAS.>>SUPERVISOR REPEAT YOUR QUESTION PLEASE.>>MY QUESTION IS AS IS IMPORTANT TRADE IS THROUGH CONVERSATIONS ON SB-2 I DON’T WANT TO SAY MAGICALLY, MAY BE FACETIOUS SOMEHOW WE DISCOVERED WE HAVE SBD AND CDBG MONEY TO ELIMINATE SHORTFALLS AT MATHER COMMUNITY CAMPUS AND ROB SAID THE ANSWER WAS NO AND NOW IT IS YES BECAUSE WE HAD THESE DISCUSSION AND I THINK COLLABORATION WHETHER IT IS WITH THE AGENCY AND/OR DHA OR DHSS, COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFERS THAT IS A PRESUMPTION THAT I THINK THAT GOES ON ALL THE TIME.>>YES.>>AND SO I GUESS I’M CURIOUS, THOUGH, I READ THE REPORT ON SB-2, THAT SOMEHOW THOSE MONIES BECAME IDENTIFIED BECAUSE OF THIS PROCESS AND WE KNEW WE HAD A SHORTFALL, ASSUMED THAT THOSE FOLKS WERE AT THE TABLE. I GUESS I WANT TO KNOW.>>YES.>>TELL ME –>>SUPERVISOR IF I MAY GOES BACK TO DISCUSSIONS WE HAD WITH THIS BOARD FEW WEEKS BACK ON COLLABORATIVE SHELTER PLAN WE DEFERRALLED IN CONCERT WITH CITY AND HOW BEST TO USE FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR SHELTERS IN RIVER DISTRICT TO IMPROVE SERVICES, SHELTERING OOPS SERVICES THERE. THAT FOCUSED ON THE HEAT FUNDING THAT BOTH CITY AND COUNTY HAD ACCESS TO AND NOT THE AMOUNT OUT OF SHRA. WHEN THIS SITUATION CAME UP, WE LOOKED AT THAT FUNDING AND WOULD IT NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR THIS, YES IT IS. THIS IS A HIGH PRIORITY NEED THAT WE HAVE.>>OKAY.>>SO THAT DISCUSSION, IF YOU MAY SUPERVISOR, THAT DISCUSSION IS A FLUID ONE. YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK AT WHAT YOU HAVE AND HOW YOU CAN USE IT AND THAT IS HOW WE ARRIVED AT THIS FOR THE MATHER CAMPUS NOT USED FOR COLLABORATIVE SHELTER PLAN ANOTHER NEED TO USE IT FOR.>>FINE WITH THAT BEING IDENTIFIED. IT IS JUST THAT I THINK ROB, SOMEHOW THE ANSWER CAME BACK NO AND NOW IT BECAME YES. IT WAS — WORKING TOWARDS YES ALL THE TIME.>>WE ARE WORKING TO YES.>>WHAT I (INDISCERNIBLE).>>THE FIRST TASK WE HAD WAS LOOKING AT HOW TO HANDLE COLLABORATIVE SHELTER PLAN, BROUGHT THIS TO YOU.>>RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT.>>WAND THE RESOLUTION OF THAT IF FUNDING IS AVAILABLE WE HAVE OTHER NEED WITH MATHER. SO, YES, WE ARE GETTING A YES, GOOD USE FOR THAT FUNDING.>>OKAY. I KNOW WE ARE GETTING YES. THAT IS IN THE REPORT. AGAIN, I THINK THOSE ARE NATURAL SOURCES AND AGAIN WHEN I THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, AGENCY, AND AGAIN — SAY IT OUT HERE REPORT HAS ALL OF YOUR SIGNATURES ON IT BUT I DON’T SEE SHRA ON THIS REPORT. I GUESS THAT CONCERNS ME. IS THAT YOU KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT COLLABORATION. THAT THAT IS NOT REFLECTED HERE. AND THAT WE LOOK TO SOURCES AS BEING IMPORTANT SOURCES. AND SO I DON’T WANT TO READ MORE INTO IT THAN IS THERE BUT THAT SAYS TO ME THIS REPORT COMES FROM YOU KNOW, ROB AND YOU AND ANN AND LEANNE UNDER SIGNATURE SO I WANT TO BE SURE THAT SHRA IS GIVEN THEIR TRUE IN THIS PROCESS. BECAUSE WE LOOK TO THEM AND WHAT THEY ADMINISTER IN THESE PROGRAMS AS BEING CRITICAL. IT IS KEY. IT IS KEY TO WHAT WE DID IN RIVER DISTRICT KEY TO WHAT WE WILL DO AT MATHER AND KEEP TO THIS. I KNOW, AGAIN, I WILL BE VERY OPEN ABOUT THIS, IS THAT I STILL GET THIS SENSE THAT THERE IS THIS TENSION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHO IS GOING TO ADMINISTER MONEY IN MY VIEW UNLESS THERE IS DIFFERENT POLICY DIRECTION AROUND THIS AND TALK ABOUT IT TODAY BEFORE WE ARE DONE, THAT THE AGENCY NEEDS TO BE NOT ONLY AT THE TABLE AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN LOOKING AT THESE FUNDING ISSUES IN THE SHORTFALLS AND HOW WE FIGURE THIS OUT AND MAKE GOOD USE OF DOLLARS TO SERVICE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTY BUT THE AGENCY NEED TO BE A FULL PARTNER. AND AGAIN, I ASSUME THERE IS A REASON WHY SHRA IS NOT ON THIS REPORT. BUT THEY ARE TALKED TO AND YOU KNOW, KIND OF IN THE SECOND PERSON HERE AND THAT IS CONCERNING TO ME.>>I THINK SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI THEY ARE PART OF THE PROCESS. CONTINUE TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM. THERE IS, IF YOU WILL, THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT WHEN WE SAY HAVE COUNTY EXECUTIVE OR DESIGNEE APPLIED WE ARE APPLIENING DIFFERENT PLACES. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY WANTED THEM TO BE APPLICATION I DON’T WANT TO GET INTO THAT KIND OF CONVERSATION. THAT IS WHAT SUPERVISOR SERNA WAS ASKING. YOU TASK MY POSITION TO DO A LOT OF THINGS AND WE WILL WORK WITHIVE WITH DEPARTMENT WE HAVE TO GET THEM TO DO IT. OUR RECOMMENDIZATION IF THE BOARD GOES WITH IT, THROUGH HOUSING FOR SENIOR ASSISTANCE, APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT WILL ADD MINISTER THAT AND HOUSING TRUST, OF COURSE HOUSING TRUST IS DONE BY SHRA AND THAT IS WHO WE LOOK AT TO IMPLEMENT. THERE ARE ISSUES WE NEED TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH SHRA ON CDBG. I THINK THAT AS MR. WAGSTAFF SAID IT IS A FLUID SITUATION. WE CAME UP WITH THAT SOLUTION. BUT WE DID NOT COME UP WITH A SOLUTION IN A VACUUM THAT WAS DONE WITH SHRA STAFF.>>BUT THEY ADMINISTER CDBG? THEY ADMINISTER THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPED BACKGROUND PROGRAM.>>THEY DO BUT A CONTRACT WITH ON DHA TO ADMINISTER BECAUSE OF VOA THAT IS ISSUE ADMINISTRATIVELY WE NEED TO WORK WITH SHRA ON ADMINISTRATION IF THERE IS A CONTRACT WE HAVE RATHER THAN HAVE A CONTRACT WITH SACRAMENTO COUNTY, AND HAVING A CONTRACT WITH SHRA, WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE MORE EFFICIENT TO HAVE ONE CONTRAT THAT VOA COMES TO COUNTY FOR IT. AND THAT IS NOT A CONVERSATION FOR TODAY. CONTINUE WORKING ON THIS ISSUE.>>SO NOW YOU MENTIONED IT IS IN THE REPORT, THAT YOUR DESIGNEE IN THE CASE OF BRUCE OR ANN OR CINDY OR ROB WOULD BE YOUR DIRECT REPORT. BUT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSING AGENCY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IS NOT A DESIGNEE SHE REPORTS TO THIS BOARD.>>I THINK THE MONEY WILL BE COMING TO THE COUNTY. AND FROM THAT POINT WE WILL ADMINISTER THE MONEY OUT. SO EXPECTATION IS THAT SHRA IF THAT IS WHAT WE GO WITH, HOUSING TRUST, THAT IS WHO WILL ADMINISTER THAT. BUT SOMEBODY HAS TO DO IT ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY.>>IF I MAY, SUPERVISOR MAY HELP WITH CLARIFICATION HERE MATHER FUNDING YOU ARE RIGHT SHRA ON OUR BEFORE ADD MINISTERS CBDG AND SDG FUNDING CORRECT AND MATHER ISSUE IN THE BOARD REPORT WE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT FUNDING FLOW TO DHA SO THAT IT COULD BE ADMINISTERED IN A SMOOTH WAY WITH VENDOR OUT AT MIGHT ARE THE WAY WE HAVE DONE IT SO THEY DON’T HAVE SEPARATE OVERSIGHT BODIES WITH RESPECT TO THAT THAT IS WHY YOU SEE THAT REFERENCE THERE.>>OKAY WITH THAT.>>EXCUSE HE?>>YES. BUT I THINK IT STILL GOES BACK TO, ESSENCE OF SOME OF THE DISCUSSION HERE TODAY AND CERTAINLY FINISH THE REPORT AND THEN MORE DISCUSSION AMONGST THE BOARD I GUESS. IS THAT SB-2 IS FLOWING THROUGH THE COUNTY AND THEN WE ARE PART AND PARCELING THAT OUT AND DEPENDING UPON WHAT WE DO INCLUDING $300,000 I DON’T DISAGREE THERE IS A NEED AND EMBODIED IN THE REPORT BY SPENDING 300,000 NOW, POTENTIAL AND I ASK MR. GILL ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY IN MY BRIEFING THEN YOU FOREGO THE ABILITY TO SEEK MATCH ON THAT MONEY AGAIN AND IF THE URGENCY IS SPENDING THE MONEY WHERE YOU NEED IT MOST, IF THERE IS ABILITY AND I DON’T KNOW WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT, THE ABILITY TO MAYBE INTERNALLY ACCOMMODATE THAT NEED FOR SENIOR HOUSING OR THOSE AT RISK OF HOMELESSNESS TO GIVE US A CHANCE TO APPLY FOR THE MONEY BEFORE WE SPEND $300,000, SO WE MIGHT TURN $300,000 INTO $600,000 I DON’T KNOW THAT.>>IF I MAY, SUPERVISOR YOU HAVE A BALANCED APPROACH. ED IN NEED AS YOU KNOW TO ADDRESS SENIOR HOUSING. TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE AS WELL AS IMMEDIATE NEED OUT AT MATHER. SO WE USED YEAR TWO FUNDING TO ADDRESS THOSE IMMEDIATE NEEDS BUT WE HAVE ALSO MAXIMIZING AND ALLOCATING ABOUT 1.7 MILLION OR PROPOSING TO, TOWARDS THE MATCHING THAT YOU JUST REFERENCED. SO WE CERTAINLY ARE USING A LARGE PORTION OF THIS TO MATCH THOSE DOLLARS. ON THE OTHER HAND WE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT THE RECOMMEND A WAY TO USE TO IT ADDRESS IMMEDIATE NEED.>>SO ON THE SENIOR STUFF YOU WERE ASKING IF THERE IS A MATCH POTENTIAL FOR US ABSOLUTELY WE WILL PURSUE IT. BUT.>>WHAT YOU SPEND YOU WILL NOT MATCH IT. IF YOU EXPEND IT I ASSUME YOU WILL NOT GET THE MATCH FOR IT?>>AS YOU SAID, THIS IS FLUID. WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS, KEEP LOOKING AT IT. WE ARE SEEKING AUTHORITY SO BOARD INCLINED TO LOOK AT 300,000 FOR SENIOR LOOK AT FEDERAL OR STATE MONEY SOMETHING WE CAN MATCH BRING IT BACK TO TABLE AND LOOK AT IT.>>LAST POINT MR. CHAIR ASSUMING THAT NOFA COMES OUT ANY DAY AND FAIRLY SHORT TIMELINE ON IT, THAT IT WOULD BE SMART GO WITH A RECOMMENDATION, IS TO HOLD ONTO $300,000 AND FIND OTHER SOURCES THAT WE COULD FILL IN BEHIND SO THAT WE COULD FILE FOR THE FULL 2 MILLION AND MAYBE EVEN MORE TO THE QUESTIONS SUPERVISOR SERNA ASKED.>>WE PLAN ON FILING FULL 2 MILLION FOR NOFA.>>FOR THE MATCH? TALKING ABOUT FOR THE MATCH? PHLA OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU BASICALLY USE THAT MATCH, YOUR ENTITLEMENT TO GO FOR ADDITIONAL, RIGHT?>>TURN 2 INTO 4?>>YOU CAN’T — THE PHLA HAS OR PLHA HAS THERE ARE MULTIPLE ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES. NUMBER OF RELATED TO PRODUCTION EVER HOUSING OR PRESERVATION OF HOUSING AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK. YOU CAN USE THOSE FUNDS TO MATCH CURRENT OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND IN OUR CASE TWO DIFFERENT FUNDS SO WE COULD CERTAINLY MATCH IT THERE. IS IT LEVERAGING OR CONTRIBUTION TO EXISTING FUND BALANCE? IT TRULY IS CONTRIBUTION TO EXISTING FUND BALANCE. TALK ABOUT MATCHING FUNDS ADDITIONAL LEVERAGE THAT INTRODUCES ANOTHER STATE PROGRAM WHICH OUR COLLABORATIVE DISCUSSIONS HAVE ADDRESSED AND IS REFERENCED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT IS TRAILING BEHIND THE SB-2 YEAR 2 FUNDS. AND THAT IS WHAT IS REFERRED TO AS THE LOCAL HOUSING MATCH, MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM. THAT PROGRAM AGAIN NO GUIDELINES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED, THERE IS NOT A NOFA GOING, THE CURRENT HCD SCHEDULE LOOKS TO PRODUCE SOME GUIDANCE OR INSIGHT TO THIS AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR, AROUND THE FIRST OF THE YEAR. WHAT THAT PROGRAM AND IT TIES TO SB-3, IDENTIFIES 57 MILLION STATE-WIDE FOR DISTRIBUTION THAT CAN BE USED TO MATCH PLHA FUNDS AND ANY EXISTING LOCAL US WHOING TRUST FUNDS. SO IT — WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MATCHING GRANT PROGRAMS COMING FROM THE STATE, THIS IS ONE THAT WE KNOW IS ON THE HORIZON IT IS NOT HERE AND NOW. IF YOU DO THE MATH, IF YOU LOOK AT IF THERE IS 57 MILLION AVAILABLE STATE-WIDE, WE DON’T KNOW YET HOW THOSE FUNDS WOULD BE ALLOCATED. IF THEY DO USE SIMILAR METHODOLOGY TO WHAT THEY USED FOR THE SB-2, YEAR 2 MONEY WHICH, BY THE WAY, STATE-WIDE POT WAS 138 MILLION, OUR SHARE WAS RIGHT AROUND $2 MILLION IF YOU USE SAME BASIS FOR METHODOLOGY THIS IS PURE SPECULATION ON OUR PART NOT SEEING ANYTHING OUT OF HCD, LOOKIG AT JUST RIGHT AROUND $1 MILLION IS WHAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE TO US TO COMBINE WITH THE YEAR-2 SB-2 MONEY ALONG WITH BALANCE THAT WE HAVE WHICH IS CURRENTLY ABOUT 6 MILLION IN OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND. SO WE ARE LOOKING AT HOW WE CAN LEVERAGE, HOW WE CAN APPLY DIFFERENT SOURCES OF FUNDS TO MATCH WITH PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT TO CREATE NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PRESERVE OUR EXISTING HOUSING STOCK. TO THE EXTENT THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO USE $300,000 FOR SENIOR HOUSING, THAT IS CORRECT, WE HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED — WHAT I MENTIONED IN TERMS OF STATE PROGRAMS TO MATCH, NOT AWARE IF THERE IS A MATCHING PROGRAM FOR THAT. BUT WHAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED IS THAT THERE IS NEED FOR RENTAL ASSISTANCE FOR SENIORS. IT IS AN ELIGIBLE ACTIVITY AND BELIEVE IT IS A GOOD INVESTMENT.>>I THINK ONE OF THE RISKS THAT ROB IS ALLUDING TO WHEN I WAS BRIEFED ON THIS, IS THAT THE MATCH AGAIN, WE DON’T HAVE ANY OF THIS INFORMATION, JUST MAKING A RECOMMENDATION, SO THE MAXIMUM MATCH WE MIGHT GET IS 1 MILLION, 1.1 STATE MONEY AND WE FELT COMFORTABLE IN PART OF THE DECISION ON IT TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD AND RECOMMEND 1.7, EVEN REALIZING WE MIGHT NOT GET THE LAST 600,000 AS A MATCH. BECAUSE WE DID NOT, WE WANT TO MAXIMIZE THE MATCH BUT DON’T WANT TO LOWER THE NUMBER BECAUSE OF THE MATCH BUSINESS. WE KNOW THERE IS A CRITICAL NEED. SUPERVISOR SERNA HE BROUGHT THIS UP, BROUGHT IT UP, ALL OF YOU MENTIONED WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ON HOUSING THAT IS WHY WE WENT WITH THE 1.7 ON THE SENIOR COMPONENT. WE MIGHT NOT FIND A MATCH, BUT WE DID FEEL STRONGLY COMING OUT OF THE BUDGET SESSIONS THAT BECAUSE OF THE GENERAL FUND SITUATION WE FIND OURSELVES IN ANY KIND OF SOURCE MONEY WE CAN USE TO HELP SENIORS, BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION. AGAIN, REALIZING THAT IF IT COMES OUT THE RULES CHANGE, WE HAVE TO BE BACK IN FRONT OF YOU. IF THEY CHANGE THE RULES AND WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING AND THEY COME BACK WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT WE HAVE TO BE NIMBLE TO COME BACK TO SAY WE HAVE SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT, IF FOR WHATEVER REASON THERE IS MORE MATCH THAN WE THINK WHAT IT IS, IT IS AN INTERNAL DECISION WITH ALL OF THE PARTIES LISTED UP THERE TO COME BACK TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION, DO WE GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.>>IF IT IS OVERMATCHED?>>ONE LAST QUESTION. ON $300,000, YOU’RE GOING TO COME BACK TO US WITH HOW THAT IS GOING TO BE MADE AVAILABLE?>>CORRECT.>>IF I MAY ON THAT SUPERVISOR, THE PLAN WOULD BE CERTAINLY WORK WITH OUR STAKEHOLDERS, THE AGENT COMMISSION AND OTHERS ON HOW BEST TO USE THAT FUNDING A NUMBER OF AREAS IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE USED. RECALL WE GOT HALF OF WHAT WE REQUESTED FROM THE STATE FROM THE STATE PROGRAM SO THAT IS AN INTERESTING POSSIBILITY. ALSO THE NEED FOR RENTAL ASSISTANCE, YOU KNOW, HOUSING SUBSIDIES, A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT AREAS COULD POTENTIALLY USE THAT TO ADDRESS SENIOR NEED BUT TOUCH BASE WITH OUR COMMUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING TO DO WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY SAW WAS THE PRIORITY.>>LASTLY, HAD JUST A CONVERSATION AND YOU KNOW, I TEND TO FOLLOW UP WITH SOME OF YOU HERE TODAY, THAT YOU KNOW, ON SENIOR SAFE HOUSE, RETURNING ONE TO TWO SENIORS A DAY FROM REFERRALS COME FROM VARIETY AND APS AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS AND SO FORTH SAYS TO ME 700 PLUS SENIORS YOU KNOW, IN A GIVEN YEAR THAT ARE NOT BEING ABLE TO BE HOUSED. THEY ARE EITHER VIRTUALLY AND/OR HOMELESS, AND A LOT OF THE SITUATIONS ARE ABUSE, NEGLECT AND UNSAFE SITUATIONS.>>RIGHT.>>SEEMS TO ME THAT JUST VOUCHERING SOMEBODY IN A HOTEL DOESN’T GET TO, DISCUSSION ABOUT HOME SAFE AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A MORE THOROUGH DISCUSSION HERE AT THIS BOARD ABOUT THAT AS YOU LOOK TO EXPEND THESE FUNDS.>>THANKS.>>MR. SERNA?>>THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND FROM THE BOARD LETTER AND FROM ROB’S EXPLANATION THIS MORNING THAT THERE HAS ONLY BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT THE USE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO SATISFY THE NEED AT MATHER CAMP. I DON’T NECESSARILY HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT IN CONCEPT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WILL MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT THAT ON OCTOBER 22nd. WE’RE NOT BEING ASKED TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY ABOUT THE USE OF CDBG IN THAT AMOUNT FOR THAT PURPOSE. BUT MY QUESTION IS GIVEN THE NARROWNESS OF WHAT SB- WHAT WE UNDERSTAND SB-2 FUNDING CAN BE USED FOR, AND GIVEN THE BREADTH OF WHAT WE KNOW CDBG FUNDS CAN BE USED FOR, WHAT IS THE LOGIC BEHIND USING WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER MORE FLEXIBLE FUNDING THROUGH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FOR THAT PURPOSE VERSUS THE NARROWNESS OF SB-2 FUNDING WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY TARGETED TOWARDS HOUSING AND IN THIS CASE, THE ABILITY TO KEEP A VERY SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM ALIVE. SO WHY WOULD WE — WHY WOULD WE USE A QUARTER MILLION OR THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS IN CDBG FUNDING TO BE USED FOR OTHER THINGS COUNTY WIDE IN TERMS OF INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND OTHER CAPITAL FACILITIES.>>IT IS A COMBINATION OF ESG AND CBDG MONEY IN DISCUSSION FOR MATHER. IT IS THE COMMUNITY SERVICE COMPONENT OF CDBG, NOT THE PROJECTS COMPONENT OF CDBG. WITH CDBG WHAT WE ARE DOING VIA STREET LIGHTS OR ADA IMPROVEMENTS OR INFRASTRUCTURE-TYPE PROJECTS. THIS IS COMMUNITY SERVICE COMPONENT OF CDBG OF WHICH FOR EXAMPLE OTHER USES, SORT OF TRADITIONAL USES FOR THAT HAVE BEEN MEALS ON WHEELS FOR EXAMPLE. THIS IS NOT MONEY THAT WE COULD USE FOR –>>SAME QUESTION APPLIES THEN, UNDERSTANDING THAT, WHICH IS — I WILL WANT TO KNOW AND I ASSUME OTHERS ON THE BOARD WANT TO KNOW OCTOBER 22nd WHAT ARE THE TRADEOFFS. WHAT IF WE USE THIS SEGMENT OF FUNDING THROUGH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ALLOCATION, WHAT ARE WE POSSIBLY FORFEITING OR SACRIFICING TO DO THAT FOR THE MATHER CAMPUS? I MEAN THAT IS PART OF MAKING AN INFORMED DECISION.>>WE WILL ABSOLUTELY COME BACK AND — THAT IS PART OF WHAT WE DELIBERATED AND DISCUSSED A LOT. FLEXIBILITY THAT YOU MENTION AND PART OF THE REASON WE ARE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY WITH HAVING THAT KIND OF PROPOSAL WAS THIS MATCHING THING WE KEI KEPT THINKING ABOUT AND WE KNEW THERE IS A NEED FOR SENIORS AND TRYING TO FIT INTO DIFFERENT PLACES IN THERE. BUT WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU ON THE 22nd WHEN THE CBDG, WHAT ARE THE KIND OF PROGRAMS YOU COULD USE THE MONEY IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO USE IT FOR MATHER.>>I APPRECIATE THAT. IN ADDITION TO THAT WANT TO KNOW A SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF THE SB-2 FUNDING — EXPECTED FUNDING AVAILABILITY THROUGH SB-2 AND YOU KNOW WHY DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO SOMEHOW USE THAT SPECIFIC TYPE OF CBDG FUNDING VERSUS SB-2 AND WHY WOULD WE SAVE THAT SB-2 FUNDING TO DO, YOU KNOW, OTHER THINGS.>>I THINK WHAT WE CAN DO SIDE-BY-SIDE, GIVE YOU GUIDELINES AND MORE AFRO BUST CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.>>LASTLY, THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ON THE 22nd IS, YOU KNOW, HOUSING AUTHORITY CURRENTLY ADMINISTERS ALL OF THE TAX CREDITS THAT ARE USED FOR VARIOUS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS, PROGRAMS, ACROSS THE COUNTY AND ACROSS THE CITY. WHAT IS THE EXPECTATION TO SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI’S EARLIER POINT ABOUT SB-2, WHAT IS EXPECTATION IN TERMS OF AVOIDING A MORE COMPLICATED BUREAUCRACY INVOLVING NOW MULTIPLE AGENCIES FOR SOMEONE THAT WANTS TO INVEST IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR MAYBE EVEN HOUSING FOR THOSE THAT WERE FORMALLY HOMELESS, HOE ARE WE GOING TO AVOID ANY POTENTIAL CONFUSION IF YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT AGENCIES NOW, ONE ADMINISTERING SB-2 AND THE OTHER ADMINISTERING TAX CREDITS WHEN THOSE PROJECTS WOULD LIKELY REQUIRE BOTH.>>GOOD QUESTION. WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT LOOK AT WHAT IS PROPOSED TO BE BASED ON 2 MILLION ASSUMPTION, 1.7 INTO HOUSING TRUST FUND, THAT IS A COUNTY FUND THAT IS ADMINISTERED BY SHRA. ON THE 24th BOARD OF SUPERVISOR APPROVED MULTI FAMILY LENDING GUIDELINES, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH DICTATE HOW THOSE FUNDS ARE ADMINISTERED. THESE SB-2, YEAR 2 FUNDS AND ANY FUTURE YEAR WHERE THE BOARD WOULD AUTHORIZE THAT ALLOCATION TO GO INTO HOUSING TRUST FUND, WOULD IT BE ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE EXISTING PROGRAMS UNLESS THERE WAS A CHANGE MADE. SO WE ARE NOT LOOKING TO CREATE DUPLICATE SYSTEMS BUT ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. WE ARE LOOKING TO –>>SUPERVISOR SERNA, I THINK WE CAN ABSOLUTELY ANSWER, BUT THE WAY I LOOK AT IT MORE OF A CLEARING HOUSE, MONEY COMES IN, IT GOES INTO HOUSING TRUST FUND, AND ADMINISTERED IF THE BOARD SO AGREES WITH IT, 300, THEN IT GOES INTO WHATEVER COUNTY DEPARTMENT AND THAT IS ALL WE ARE DOING IS FUNNELING THE MONEY.>>THANK YOU.>>SO, WITH THAT, MOVING ONTO THE LAST SLIDE WHICH ARE THE –>>WE DID ALL OF THAT.>>I THINK WE PRETTY MUCH HAVE DONE THIS. BUT AGAIN IT IDENTIFIES SENIOR PROGRAMS AND THE HOUSING TRUST FUND. IT IDENTIFIES — IT FLAGS FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD WHEN WE KNOW MORE ABOUT THE LOCAL MATCHING FUND OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TODAY REGARDING MOVING FORWARD WITH RECOMMENDATION 1 A AND 1 B, BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW TODAY AND STRUCTURED TO ALLOW US TO BE SORT OF NIMBLE AND MOVE QUICKLY IF THE NOFA COMES OUT FOR EXAMPLE NEXT WEEK WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE AHEAD WITH AUTHORIZATION OF YOUR BOARD. ON THE MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM, THOUGH, SAYING WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE COME BACK TO THE BOARD, DON’T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THAT PROGRAM TORE WAY IT WORKS YET AND THEN NUMBER 3 DEALS WITH SB-2, YEAR 2 AND BEYOND. IN TERMS OF SETTING UP ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE, AND A MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE FOR DEALING WITH THIS MOVING AHEAD. THIS IS GOING TO BE A NEW PROGRAM. THERE ARE GOING TO BE ANNUAL ALLOCATIONS THAT COME OUT. SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS HAVE COUNTY EXECUTIVE BRING FORWARD ANNUAL REPORT ON WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE PROGRAM, WHAT ARE THE USES THAT WE MIGHT PROPOSE FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION FOR THE NEXT YEAR’S ALLOCATION. AND THEN ALSO WHAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED IS AS MORE DEFINITION COMES OUT OF THE STATE, OUT OF HCD AND OTHERS, ON THESE OTHER HOUSING BILLS, THAT WE WILL COME TO THE BOARD TO GIVE THE BOARD A BRIEFING AND GET A DIRECTION AS MAYBE APPROPRIATE AT THAT POINT IN TIME FOR THOSE NEW PROGRAMS AS THEY TAKE DEFINITION AND COME FORWARD. THAT WILL NOT BE PART OF ANNUAL REPORT. THAT WILL BE WHENEVER WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO COME FORWARD AND ENGAGE WITH THE BOARD. THOSE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS.>>SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI?>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE DO ASSESSMENT OF FARM WORKER HOUSING NEEDS, IN OUR COUNTY, IN OUR COMMUNITIES. AND THAT WE TASK APPROPRIATE FOLKS TO DO THAT AND HAVE THAT REPORT BACK SOONER THAN ANNUAL REPORT. I HEARD MR. GILL RESPOND AND SAY THAT COULD BE DONE. UNDERTAKE THAT WITH SERIOUSNESS AND WE LOOK TO COMPETE FOR THOSE DOLLARS AND THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO OUR COUNTY, RELATIVE TO YOU KNOW, FARM WORKER AND FARM LABOR HOUSING. AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO I THINK ARE A PARTICULAR LA IT THAT IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS US TO COMPETE FOR SUFFICIENT DOLLARS TO ADDRESS THAT NEED. BECAUSE I THINK IT IS KIND OF A RELATIVELY INVISIBLE PIECE OF THE HOUSING NEED AND THE COUNTY HAS 1.5 MILLION PEOPLE IN A LARGE METROPOLITAN AREA BUT WE DO HAVE SOME RURAL HOUSING NEEDS IN THIS COMMUNITY. SECONDLY, I JUST WOULD ASK THAT INTENT OBVIOUSLY TO PROVIDE ANNUAL REPORT, I WOULD EVEN SUGGEST I THINK WITH THE DISCUSSION WE HAVE HAD THUS FAR TODAY, THAT WE HAVE A SEMI ANNUAL REPORT, SO THAT IT ALIGNS WITH OBVIOUSLY THERE WILL BE FROM TIME TO TIME, TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT YOU SAY, YOU MAY COME TO US SEPARATELY BUT I THINK GOING POOH THIS AND I THINK FOR AT LEAST THE EARLY YEARS WITH THE COMPETITIVE NATURE OR SOME OF THE UNKNOWNS, BUT ALSO I THINK THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT IT PRESENTS AND THE CHALLENGES THAT THIS COMMUNITY HAS AS IT RELATES TO HOUSING FOR FOLKS FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE, BUT CERTAINLY THOSE THAT YOU KNOW, HAVE SERIOUS CHALLENGES. I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT AND MAYBE ALIGN WOULD ONEWITH THE BUDGET AND ONE WITHE PROGRAM THAT COMES WITH SHRA IN NOVEMBER/DECEMBER TIMEFRAME AND AS NEEDED. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT WE HAVE CLEAR ALIGNMENT WITH THE BOARD OBVIOUSLY WORKING WITH ALL OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTNERS HERE, BUT CERTAINLY WITHIN THE COUNTY AND HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY THAT WE HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING ABOUT YOU KNOW, WHERE WE ARE HEADED AND AGAIN, THIS MAY NOT SOUND LIKE A LOT OF MONEY, $2 MILLION COUPLED WITH OTHER FRONTS CAN BE A SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF FUNDING ON ANNUAL BASIS AND LIKE TO SEE US COMPETE AS WELL FOR OTHER OPPORTUNITIES I WOULD RECOMMEND SEEM EANNUAL REPORT.>>SUPERVISOR CERNE NAHHH.>>THANK YOU. LEARNING FROM THE LESSONS WHAT WE HAVE GONE THROUGH IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS CONCERNING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ACT, MAKE A STRONG SUGGESTION THAT BECAUSE THIS GOING TO BE ANNUAL ALLOCATION, THAT WE ENJOY THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO DIRECT GOOD PORTION OF THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION TO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND FOR EXAMPLE, IN OTHER WORDS F WE , WE EXPECT WE NEED T FUNDING MONEY COLLECT SO WE AMASS AMOUNT FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS AND PLANS WE HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE TO TRANSPARENTLY AND COMMUNICATE TO PUBLIC ESPECIALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVOCATES, WHY WE ARE DOING THAT. SO THAT WE ARE NOT ACCUSED OF NOT USING THE RESOURCES. THAT IS WHY I SAY, PREFACED IT THE WAY I DID. I THINK OTHERWISE, WE STAND A CHANCE OF POSSIBLY BEING ACCUSED OF SITTING ON RESOURCES IN THE MIDDLE OF A CRISIS. SO I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE US TO PUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN PLACE.>>POINT WELL TAKEN AND WILL ABSOLUTELY DO THAT. PAINFUL LESSON BUT LESSON LEARNED.>>THANK YOU.>>SUPERVISOR PETERS.>>THANK YOU. I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT POINT. I THINK WE DO NEED TO DO SOME PLANNING FOR THE TRUST FUND. NOT ONLY FOR PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY BUT FOR US TO CONTINUE TO REVIEW THAT FUND AND MAKE SURE IT IS BEING USED AND IT DOES NOT DISAPPEAR IN TO THE ETHER, OR ATTENTION TO IT. I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT DISCUSSION.>>OKAY. GOING TO JUST CHIME IN AND SAY THAT YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THIS, THIS IS GOOD STAFF WORK, CONSIDERING A LOT OF IT WE ARE BALANCING THE TWO THINGS AS WE TALKED ABOUT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. WANT TO BE POISED AND READY WHEN IT IS TIME. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, A LOT OF MOVING PARTS STILL AND A LOT OF CRYSTAL BALLING. I THINK WHAT YOU PUT FORWARD ADDRESSES MULTIPLE NEEDS, TAKES ADVANTAGE OF SB-2 RESOURCES WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE. I DO APPRECIATE THE $300,000 PROPOSAL FOR VULNERABLE SENIORS. I MET WITH MEMBERS OF THE CONTINUUM OF CARE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR A PROGRAM THAT WOULD PROVIDE SOME RENTAL ASSISTANCE, BECAUSE AS WE KNOW, POINT IN TIME COUNT SHOWED THAT THE FASTEST-GROWING POPULATION PERCENTAGE WISE OF HOMELESS PEOPLE ARE SENIORS. FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. MANY OF WHICH ARE ON SSI AND UNDER OTHER PROGRAMS THAT VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY CAN BE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOUSED AND HOMELESS. WE SAVE A LOT OF MONEY, NOT THAT WE ARE DOING IT FOR FISCAL REASONS BUT DO SAVE A LOT OF MONEY BY BEING UP FRONT AT THE FRONT END AND KEEPING PEOPLE FROM BECOMING HOMELESS, PARTICULARLY THE MOST VULNERABLE WHICH ARE OUR SENIORS. SO I DO APPRECIATE THAT WORK AND THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE HERE SUPERVISOR FROST?>>MY COMMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYONE ELSE’S. I THINK IT IS GREAT THAT YOU’RE FOCUSING ON SENIORS. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS EMERGED AS A GROWING PROBLEM AND A LOT LESS EXPENSE FISH WE CAN HELP THEM WITH HOUSING VERSUS IF THEY ARE HOMELESS AND WE ARE PAYING FOR MEDICAL AND OTHER FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS. SO I’M SUPPORTIVE OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND APPRECIATE ALL YOUR WORK ON IT.>>MR. CHAIR I WOULD MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION BUT I WOULD MODIFY IT TO INCLUDE DIRECTION TO FARM WORKING HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT TO GET SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WILL INFORM THIS BOARD AND COUNTY ABOUT THE NEEDS BUT ALSO HELP US TO BE COMPETITIVE IN THAT REALM AND I DON’T KNOW IF THAT NEEDS TO BE EMBEDDED IN RESOLUTION AND SEMI ANNUAL REPORTS TO BOARD ON SB-2 FUNDING STATUS AND THE VARIETY OF ITEMS THAT COME WITH THAT.>>SECOND.>>PLEASE VOTE.>>UNANIMOUS VOTE.>>THTHANK YOU.>>ITEM 40 ACTING AS SACRAMENTO COUNTY WATER AGENCY AND SACRAMENTO COUNTY WATER FINANCING AUTHORITY, AUTHORIZATION FOR ISSUANCE OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY WATER FINANCING AUTHORITY REVENUE BONDS, ZONE 40 AND 41. 2019 REFUNDING PROJECT AND APPROVAL OF RELATED DOCUMENTS AND CERTAIN OTHER RELATED ACTIONS.>>SUPERVISOR KENNEDY AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD I THINK I INTRODUCED IF I DIDN’T COLIN OUR NEW COUNTY DEBT OFFICER COMES FROM CITY OF SACRAMENTO WORKED AT TREASURY OFFICE FIRST BOND ISSUANCE WITH US COLIN.>>YOU WORKED WITH THE CITY HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH DEBT THAT IS GREAT! [ LAUGHTER ]>>SEND YOUR LETTERS TO SUSAN PETERS! [ LAUGHTER ]>>GOOD MORNING AS MENTIONED I’M COLIN BEDDIS COUNTY DEBT OFFICER ITEM BEFORE YOU IS ISSUANCE OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY WATER FINANCING AUTHORITY SERIES 2019 REFUNDING BONDS. IN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 115 MILLION. THE BONDS ARE INTENDED TO REFUND SERIES 2007 BONDS AND PAY CERTAIN ASSOCIATED COST. SERIES 2007 BONDS ISSUED TO REFUND SERIES 2003 BOND AND PROVIDE PORTION FOR ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF INTAKE FACILITY, PIPELINES FOR DISTRIBUTION AND WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. AND TO PAY FOR COST ASSOCIATED WITH ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS. THE REFUNDING WILL REDUCE THE CURRENT OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF BONDS AS WELL AS FUTURE DEBT SERVICE THROUGH THE FINAL MAJORITY OF THE 2007-A BONDS JUNE 1, 2028. THE BONDS ARE PAYABLE FROM NET REVENUES OF ZONES 40 AND 41 OF WATER AGENCY AND NOT OBLIGATION OF COUNTY’S GENERAL FUND. ESTIMATED NET PRESENT VALUE SAVINGS ARE 17.2 MILLION WITH ANNUAL AVERAGE DEBT SERVICE SAVINGS OF 2.4 MILLION. THE BONDS HAVE BEEN RATED A PLUS BY S&P AND DOUBLE AAA 3 BY MOODY’S UPPER MEDIUM GRADE AND HIGH GRADE RESPECTIVELY. SAVINGS MAY ALLOW AGENCY TO FUND ADDITIONAL WATER AGENCY PROJECTS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE CAPACITY WHEN LOOKING TO ISSUE FUTURE DEBT FOR PROJECTS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS ARE THE FOLLOWING: FOR SACRAMENTO COUNTY WATER AGENCY TO ADOPT RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AGENCY RELATING TO ISSUANCE BY SACRAMENTO COUNTY WATER FINANCING AUTHORITY OF REVENUE BONDS AND APPROVING THE FORMS OF AND AUTHORIZING EXCLUSION AND DELIVERY OF THE THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL INSTALLMENT PURCHASE CONTRACT, BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT, AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT, A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE AND AUTHORIZE OTHER CERTAIN RELATED ACTIONS. SECOND, FOR THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY WATER FINANCING AUTHORITY TO ADOPT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTIONORS OF THE AUTHORITY FOR SIMILAR ACTIONS AS PREVIOUSLY HIS ALREADIED FOR THE AGENCY — LISTED FOR THE AGENCY AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD, CHIEF FISCAL OFFICER AND THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND CONSULTATION WITH COUNTY COUNSEL TO DO ANY AND ALL THINGS TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER ANY DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO CONSUMMATE EXCLUSION SALE AND DELIVERY OF 2019 SACRAMENTO COUNTY FINANCING AUTHORITY ZONES, 40 AND 41 REFUNDING PROJECT. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. WITH ME HERE TODAY ARE JENNA AS BOND COUNSEL, JUAN FERNANDEZ OF JP MORGAN CHASE SENIOR UNDERWRITE ALEX LING COUNTY FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND MICHAEL PETERSON DIRECTOR OF WATER AGENCY AND WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.>>SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI?>>YES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS AND OBVIOUSLY THE PARTIES YOU HAVE MENTIONED FOR BRINGING THIS US TO. CERTAINLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. BUT TIDBIT THAT YOU MENTIONED IN VERBAL PRESENTATION AND CERTAINLY OCCURRED TO ME, AND THAT IS THAT BEFORE WE MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT GOING FORWARD AND FUNDING MORE AND/OR WHAT IMPACT IT MAY HAVE ON FUTURE RATE INCREASES, WITHIN THE REALM OF WATER SUPPLY, WE HAVE HAD ANY NUMBER OF HEARINGS OVER THE LAST DECADE OR SO ABOUT RAISING WATER RATES AND CERTAINLY SOME OF THAT RELATIVE TO WHAT WE TOOK ON IN DEBT TO BUILD PORTIONS OF SYSTEM THAT AGAIN ARE IMPORTANT FOR THE LONG-TERM VIABILITY AND PROSPERITY OF OUR COMMUNITY, NONE LESS AS MEMBER OF THIS BOARD REPRESENTS LARGE SEGMENT OF THE FOLKS WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED BY FUTURE WATER INCREASES, I GUESS I’M INTERESTED TO KNOW AND THERE IS NO ATTACHMENT THIS IS NOT ITEM BEFORE US TODAY, BUT THE NET IMPACT OF THAT AND BEFORE WE GET TOO CARRIED AWAY WITH WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IN THE FUTURE, HE WANT TO KNOW, TALKED ABOUT THIS A BIT YESTERDAY WITH NAV, RATE STABILIZATION AND/OR MODERATING SOME OF WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PROJECTED AND SEEN SOME OF THOSE PROJECTIONS THIS BOARD HAS AND MR. PETERSON AND OTHERS BROUGHT THIS BEFORE THE BOARD. GOOD THOROUGH DISCUSSION BEFORE WE EMBARK ON FUTURE SOLUTIONS.>>ABSOLUTELY WE WILL.>>OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.>>MOVE ITEM.>>MOTION? AND SECOND PLEASE VOTE.>>UNANIMOUS VOTE.>>ITEM 41, AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF BONDS OF THE SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AGAIN OBLIGATION BONDS ELECTION OF 2012 MEASURE R, 2019 SERIES D AND AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 30,9000,000 BY NEGOTIATED SALE AND APPROVAL OF RELATED DOCUMENTS AND CERTAIN OTHER RELATED ACTIONS.>>AGAIN, COLIN BEDDIS COUNTY DEBT OFFICER. ISSUE BEFORE YOU IS AS MENTIONED. ISSUANCE OF SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT OBLIGATION BONDS ELECTION OF 2012 MEASURE R BONDS ARE INTENDED TO FUND ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE CENTRAL KITCHEN FACILITIES LOCATED AT 3051 REDDING AVENUE IN SACRAMENTO AS WELL AS COST OF ISSUANCE BOND INSURANCE AND CAPITALIZED INTEREST. THE BONDS WILL BE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS PAYABLE BY TAXES FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN SCHOOL DISTRICT. THE VOTE APPROVING THESE BONDS WAS HELD IN 2012 AS STATED IN THE NAME OF THE BONDS BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUEST THAT COUNTY AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS DISTRICT RECEIVED NEGATIVE CERTIFICATION IN THE MOST RECENT INTERIM BUDGET REPORT WHICH PREVENTS IT FROM SELLING BONDS ON ITS OWN BEHALF. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WILL ISSUE ITS OWN BRIEF FUNDING BONDS OF PRIOR ISSUANCES OF OF GREATER THAN 5%. FOR ALL SERIES OF BONDS PLANNED TO BE ISSUE, THE COUNTY WILL ACT AS PAYING AGENT. WHILE COUNTY WILL ACT AS PAYING AGENT, NO REVENUES OF THE COUNTY ARE PLEDGE FORD THE REPAYMENT OF THE BONDS. THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS ARE THE FOLLOWING. FOR THIS COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF BONDS OF THE SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, NOT TO EXCEED $30,000,000.900000 PURSUANT TO ONE OR MORE BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENTS. APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF SAID PURCHASE AGREEMENTS, APPROVING THE FORMS OF ONE OR MORE PAYING AGENT AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENT AND CERTIFICATES RELATING TO THE BONDS. SECOND, DIRECT THE CHIEF FISCAL EXPOSERS DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND CONSULTATION TO DO ANY AND ALL THINGS TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS OF THE BONDS. FINALLY, TO AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE IN CONSULTATION WITH COUNTY COUNCIL TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER A REFUNDING AGREEMENT FOR THE CONCURRENT ISSUANCE OF THE DISTRICT’S 2019 GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS AND OTHER RELATED ACTIONS. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION TODAY. TODAY HERE WITH ME ARE JEFF SMALL AND ROBERT OF CAPITAL PFG, THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, AS WELL AS MEMBER OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD AS WELL. SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE’RE HERE FOR –>>SUPERVISOR SERNA.>>THANK YOU. AS YOU’VE NOTED, BOTH ORALLY HERE TODAY AND ALSO IN THE BOARD LETTER, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS CURRENTLY — HASN’T NEGATIVE CERTIFICATION ON ITS INTERIM BUDGET. I THINK WE’RE ALL WELL AWARE OF THE CHALLENGE THAT STILL PERSISTED FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN TERMS OF THEIR FISCAL CONDITION. YOU MENTIONED THAT NO COUNTY OBLIGATION EXISTS WITH THIS ACTION.>>THAT’S CORRECT.>>SO WHAT DOES HAPPEN IF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT FINDS ITSELF IN THE SAME PREDICAMENT IT CURRENTLY IS IN IN A YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF WHEN THE PROSPECT OF A QUOTE UNQUOTE STATE TAKEOVER LOOMS LARGE AGAIN?>>SO THE BONDS THEMSELVES ARE PAID THROUGH TAXES RATHER THAN THROUGH ANY OF THE BUDGET OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. SO EVEN IN AN INSTANCE IN WHICH THE STATE WOULD TAKE OVER, THE COUNTY WOULD STILL MAINTAIN ITS ROLE AS A AGO AGENT, TAXING PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND MAKING PAYMENT ON THE BONDS.>>SO NO — THERE’S NO SCENARIO WHERE THE COUNTY IS SOMEWHERE, SOMEHOW ON THE –>>NO.>>SO WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THE FIRST LIEN, IF YOU WILL, TO PAY WILL BE ON DEBT OBLIGATION IF SOMEHOW PROPERTY TAXES WILL NOT BE DEEFFICIENT. IT WILL DEFAULT AGAINST THE SCHOOL, NOT THE COUNTY. THERE’S NO RESOURCE BACK TO THE COUNTY.>>THANK YOU.>>SUPERVISOR FROST.>>SO IT’S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHATEVER THE COST OF THE BOND IS, THAT IF THE COST GOES UP, THEN THE TAXES ARE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO PAY FOR THE COST OF THE BOND. IS THERE A REQUIREMENT FOR RESERVES IN THE EVENT THAT THERE’S ADDED COST IN ONE YEAR THAT THE DISTRICT DOESN’T HAVE THE MONEY TO COVER? OR HOW DOES THAT WORK?>>SO WHEN THE BONDS ARE ISSUED, THEY’LL BE ISSUED WITH FUNDING FOR A RESERVE AMOUNT AS WELL.>>OKAY.>>THAT WILL ALREADY BE THERE FOR A DEBT SERVICE RESERVE, A TYPICAL BOND DEBT SERVICE RESERVE. USE MENTIONED, YES, IF THERE WAS A SHORTFALL IN THE PAYMENT IN ANY GIVEN YEAR, THE TAXES IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR COULD BE INCREASED ON THOSE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DISTRICT TO PAY TO REFILL THOSE BUCKETS TO ESSENTIALLY PAY BACK THE RESERVE AND THEN TO PAY ANY ADDITIONAL DEBT SERVICE.>>AND DO THEY ALSO HAVE THE ADDED INSURANCE LIKE IF THEY CAN’T SELL IT FOR SOME REASON TO HELP INSURE THAT THEY CAN REFINANCE THE BOND. LIKE IF THE RATES WENT UP AND THEY WERE AT THE — I’M ASSUMING THIS HAS A TERM — THIS ISSUANCE HAS A TERM, AND AT SOME POINT THEY’LL HAVE TO POSSIBLY REFINANCE OUT OF IT? OR THEY WOULDN’T HAVE TO UNLESS THERE WAS AN IMPROVEMENT — A 5% SAVINGS?>>SO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS A POLICY ON THEIR REFUNDINGS THAT THEY MEET A 5% THRESHOLD FOR REFUNDING. SO WHEN THEY LOOK AT REFUNDING THESE BONDS, THERE’S POTENTIAL FOR OPPORTUNITIES IN THE FUTURE TO REDUCE DOWN THE DEBT SERVICE. BUT THAT WOULD BE ON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO END THEIR FINANCIAL ADVISOR TO LOOK INTO THE REFUNDING OPPORTUNITIES AS THE — THIS THIS INSTANCE, THE SCHOOL BOARD DIRECTED THEIR FINANCIAL ADVISOR TO BRING FORWARD TO THEM ANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR REFUNDINGS THAT GENERATED 5% OR MORE. I’M NOT SURE IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.>>LET ME SEE IF I CAN YEP.>>YEAH. IT’S IS THIS A FIXED RATE?>>IT’S A FIXED RATE.>>OKAY. I THINK MY HEAD WAS WRAPPED AROUND WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH INTEREST RATES AND IF IT’S NOT FIXED RATE. SO I’M GOOD. YOU ANSWERED IT.>>YEAH.>>THANK YOU.>>OKAY. IF THERE’S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, THEN I WILL MOVE TO — FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND WITH THE EDITORIAL THAT IT’S ABOUT TIME.>>SECOND.>>PLEASE VOTE.>>UNANIMOUS VOTE.>>FOR ITEM 42, THIS IS THE 4740 NEW YORK AVENUE SUBDIVISION MAP PROJECT. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO DIVIDE ONE POINT WITH 24 ACRES INTO FOUR-ISMS LOTS IN THE RD5 ZONE FOR A PROPERTY AT NEW YORK AVENUE. THE DOCUMENT IS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. LY SAY FOR THIS ITEM WE DO NEED TO TAKE AN OATH.>>AT THIS TIME WOULD ANYBODY WHO INTENDS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND THE CLERK WILL READ YOU THE OATH.>>DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU’RE ABOUT TO GIVE THIS BOARD IS THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? IF YOU DO NOT SWEAR, DO YOU SO AFFIRM? WHEN YOU GET TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND THE STATEMENT I HAVE BEEN SWORN.>>THANK YOU. M>>GOOD AFTERNOON.>>STILL MORNING.>>GOOD MORNING. SORRY.>>JUST FEELS LIKE IT.>>I’M SO USED TO BEING AN AFTERNOON ITEM. [LAUGHTER]>>GOOD MORNING. HERE TO GIFT STAFF PRESENTATION ON 4740 NEW YORK AVENUE. THIS IS A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, AND IT’S AN APPEAL. THE LOCATION IS 4740 NEW YORK AVENUE IN FARE OAKS. THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS AN THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS AN%-úGCOMMISSION’S DENIAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP. THE SITE IS 1.24 ACRES IN SIZE AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FIVE LOTS IN THE RD5 ZONE. THERE’S ALSO A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW MORE THAN TWO LOTS TO BE SERVED BY PRIVATE DRIVE AND DESIGN REVIEW. THIS SLIDE SHOWS AN AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY FRONTING ON NEW YORK AVENUE. THE SITE IS OUTLINED IN RED. IMMEDIATELY TO THE RIGHT OF THE RED AREA ARE FOUR LOTS THAT WERE — ACTUALLY, FOUR LOT AND A REMAINDER LOT THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AS PART OF A PRIOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP THAT ARE ALSO SERVED OFF THE PRIVATE DRIVE. I WANTED TO MAKE REFERENCE TO THAT WHILE YOU HAVE THE AERIAL UP.>>JUST FOR NOTING THAT, THOUGH, THAT RED BOX ISN’T PROPERLY ALIGNED, THOUGH. BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT TAKING OUT THE NEIGHBOR’S HOUSE.>>NO.>>OR THE LIVING ROOM.>>IT’S A COMMON ISSUE WITH OUR GIS SYSTEM. THE FURTHER OUT FROM THE DOWNTOWN YOU GET, A LOT OF TIMES THE LINES DON’T ALIGN PERFECTLY.>>OKAY.>>APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. THIS IS THE OVERALL SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. SHOWING THE FIVE LOTS ON THE PRIVATE DRIVE HERE. WE ALSO HAVE CONTEXT PHOTOS, PICTURES OF THE SITE. I SPECIFICALLY WANTED TO POINT OUT THE PHOTO ON THE BOTTOM LE LEFT. IT SHOWS TREE REMOVALS AND TREES HAVE BEEN PART OF THE CONVERSATION WITH REGARD TO THIS PARCEL MAP, AND THAT DOES SHOW THREE OLIVE TREES THAT WERE TRANSPLANTED ON THE SITE AND HAVE SINCE DIED AND MORE TREES HAVE REPLACEMENT TREES HAD BEEN PLANTED THERE. SO COVERING SOME OF THE HISTORY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT, THE FAIR OAKS COMMUNITY PLANNING ADVISORY COUNCIL INITIALLY MET IN JANUARY 2019 AND RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALSO PRE-AUTHORIZED AN APPEAL IN THE EVENT THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID APPROVE IT. NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS ABOUT JUST GENERAL INFILL, THE TYPICAL, YOU KNOW, LOT OF KINDS OF THINGS WE SEE WITH NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS WITH REGARD TO TRAFFIC AND PARKING AND DRAINAGE AND SO FORTH. SO THEY DID HAVE A VARIETY OF CONCERNS THERE. THE DESIGN REVIEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE CONSIDERED THE PROJECT IN FEBRUARY AND FOUND THE PROJECT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COUNTY-WIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES. AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHO IS TYPICALLY THE FINAL HEARING AUTHORITY, FOR SUBDIVISION MAP, CONSIDERED THE PROJECT IN JULY 2019. THERE WERE ONLY THREE MEMBERS PRESENT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, AND I WANT TO NOTE THAT STAFF INFORMED ALL OF THE PROJECTS THAT WERE ON THIS HEARING THAT NIGHT THAT THERE WOULD ONLY BE THREE MEMBERS. WE KNEW IT IN ADVANCE. AND TOLD EACH APPLICANT OR APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE THAT IT WOULD TAKE THREE VOTES TO APPROVE ANY OTHER PROJECTS SO THEY KNEW THAT IN ADVANCE AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE. IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT MOVED FORWARD WITH THE HEARING. AND DURING THE FINAL DELIBERATIONS AND THE FINAL VOTING BIT PLANNING COMMISSION, THERE WAS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROJECT AND THAT FAILED ON A 2-1 VOTE. SO THEN THE PROJECT APPLICANT HAS SINCE FILED AN APPEAL OF THAT DENIAL AND THAT IS THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TODAY.>>WILL YOU EXPLAIN WHY A VOTE OF 2-1 FAILED?>>SO THE VOTING — YOUR QUESTIONING WHAT THE VOTING MEMBER WHO RECOMMENDED –>>IF IT’S 2-1, A LOT WOULD LOOK AT IT AND THINK IT PASSED IS WHAT I’M SAYING.>>THE STANDING PROVISONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS IT TAKES THREE VOTES.>>THANK YOU.>>IN ORDER TO HAVE A PROJECT BE APPROVED.>>AND THERE WERE ABSENCES.>>YES, THERE WERE. A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL.>>RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU.>>REGARDING SOME OF THE QUAY POINTS, FROM PLANNING’S REVIEW AND PLANNING’S PERSPECTIVE, THE PROJECT IS IN RD5 ZONE WHICH HAS A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 5200 SQUARE FEET. THE LOTS MEET AND EXCEED MINIMUM LOT SIZES, WIDTHS, AND SETBACKS. THERE’S A LOT OF DETAIL ABOUT THAT IN YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT, INCLUDING ANALYSIS OF THE PREVAILING LOT SIZES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. ADMITTEDLY, THERE ARE A LOT OF LOTS IN FAIR OAKS THAT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER THAN THE MINIMUM RD5 LOT ZONE. MANY ARE 10,000 SQUARE FEET AND UP. WE HAVE — THESE LOTS ARE BETWEEN 8500 AND TEN SQUARE FEET, WELL ABOVE THE MIN RUM LOT SIZE, WHICH PLANNING CONSIDERS APPROPRIATE IN AN INFILL SITUATION. SO WE DO BELIEVE THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ZONING AND THE SURROUNDING PREVAILING AREA. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW MORE THAN TWO LOTS TO BE SERVED BY A PRIVATE DRIVE AND TO ALLOW TWO LOT — MORE THAN TWO LOTS TO DEVIATE FROM THE PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. THERE WILL BE ESSENTIALLY A TOTAL OF TEN LOTS SERVED OFF THE PRIVATE DRIVE WHEN YOU COUNT THE DRIVES SOBBED WITH THE PRIOR PARCEL DRIVE. IT WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR ON-STREET PARKING. SO IN ORDER TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS ABOUT PARKING, THEY WILL HAVE THEIR GARAGES AND THE APRON IN FRONT OF GARAGES AND WE’VE CONDITIONED THE PROJECT TO HAVE ADDITIONAL GUEST PARKING SPACE ON EACH LOT. SO THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL GUEST PARKING IN ADDITION TO THE PARKING, NORMAL PARKING PROVIDED IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. SO A MINIMUM OF TYPICALLY PROBABLY FIVE SPACES ON EACH LOT.>>SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI.>>A QUESTION AS IT GOES TO THE PREVIOUS MATTER THAT DIDN’T COME TO TO THIS BOARD IN 2016. DID NOT THE STAFF REPORT RECOGNIZE AND OBVIOUSLY THAT THIS REQUEST WASN’T BEFORE US, BUT WHEN YOU ALLOW, YOU KNOW, FOUR OR FIVE LOTS TO BE CREATED TO THE REAR, TAKEN OFF THE FRONTAGE THAT THE ISSUE WOULD COME UP? SO RATHER THAN TO HAVE A PUBLIC STREET DICKEDDATION, WE ALLOWED A PRIVATE DRIVE. I WOULD SAY THAT PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE ANTICIPATED THAT DISCUSSION. MAYBE YOU DID IN A PREVIOUS STAFF REPORT. NEITHER HERE NOR THERE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT WAS APPROVED. TO SOME OF THE CORRESPONDENCE WE’VE SEEN AND WHAT YOU’VE SUMMARIZED IN THE STAFF REPORT, WHY WOULDN’T THE STAFF ANALYSIS AT THE TIME HAVE TAKEN IT INTO ACCOUNT. NOT NECESSARILY PREDETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF THE PREVIOUS REQUEST BUT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THE ISSUE WE HAVE HERE TODAY, AT LEAST IN PART, WITH SOME OF THE FOLKS, ABOUT THE PRIVATE DRIVE AND NUMBER OF LOTS SERVED ON THE PRESIDENT TRUMP. IT DOESN’T ALLOW FOR PARKING AND SO FORTH. WHY WOULDN’T IT HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE PREVIOUS MAP?>>I THINK WE JUDGED THE FOUR LOTS WERE ADEQUATE, MET THE STANDARDS FOR REVIEW ON A PARCEL MAP ARE TYPICALLY LOWER THAN ON A SUBDIVISION MAP. WE ALLOWED THE PARCEL MAP TO GO THROUGH. I DIDN’T END THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW COMMITTEE ON THE PARCEL MAP.>>I GUESS I’D SAY, MAYBE A LESSON LEARNED THAT FROM THE STANDPOINT IT’S HARD TO ANTICIPATE. NOBODY KNOWS. I DON’T TRUST ITS WITH AN APPLICATION AT THE TIME. MAYBE IT WAS. I WOULD THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, PLANNING WOULD LOOK AT THAT TO ALLOW A PRIVATE DRIVE TO SERVE A PARCEL MAP. AND YOU KNOW YOU’RE GOING THROUGH ANOTHER PROPERTY TO GET THERE. YOU WOULD THINK ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE THE FUTURE AND HAVE DISCUSSION IF NOTHING ELSE AT THE STAFF REPORT OR SUBDIVISION REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PLANNING COMMITTEE SO PEOPLE COULD AT LEAST HAVE EYES WIDE OPEN ON IT. AGAIN, DOESN’T CHANGE WHAT’S BEFORE US BUT IT DOES AT LEAST, I THINK, ADDRESS AS TO HOW WE LOOK AT THESE. THEY DON’T COME IN IN GREAT NUMBER. I WOULD HOPE FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT AND PUBLIC WORKS WE’D NOTE THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE IF THERE’S FUTURE LOTS THAT YOU PASS THROUGH TO GET TO THIS, WHAT SITUATION THAT CREATES. JUST A POINT. THANKS.>>SUPERVISOR SERNA, I’M SORRY.>>QUICK QUESTION. HAS THE STAFF’S DISPOSITION ON THIS PROPOSAL, THIS PROJECT, CHANGED AT ALL FROM C PACK TO TODAY?>>WHEN WE GO TO THE CPA C, WE DON’T HAVE RECOMMENDATION YET PEP WE WAIT UNTIL AFTER TO LEARN THE CONCERNS. IT IT’S NOT CHANGED SINCE WE ISSUED OUR STAFF REPORT IN FAVOR PRIOR –>>FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.>>YEAH. HAS NOT CHANGED.>>THANK YOU.>>DRAINAGE HAS ALSO COME UP AS AN ISSUE. WE DO HAVE STAFF FROM DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES HERE. IF THERE’S ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT COME UP. THE PROJECT WILL UTILIZE AN EXISTING DRAINAGE CANAL, TRAINAGE STUDY HAS BEEN DONE, AND THE THE ATTACHMENT TWO HAS A SERIES OF EIGHT OR SO CONDITIONS ALL AROUND THE DRAINAGE WITH REGARD TO ENSURING THE APPLICANT FOLLOWS THROUGH AND FOLLOWS THROUGH WITH THE DRAINAGE STUDY AND DOES CONSTRUCT THE DRAINAGE EMPROVEMENTS WHICH ARE PLANNED ON THE PROPERTY. I CAN POINT OUT THOSE CONDITIONS FOR YOU. THEY ARE IN ATTACHMENT 2. THEY ARE START WITH CONDITION 19. THEY’RE CONDITIONS 19 THROUGH 29. SO THERE ARE TEN CONDITIONS ADDRESSING DRAINAGE.>>I READ THOSE. BUT IT DIDN’T REALLY CALL OUT SOME OF THE NEIGHBOR CONCERNS. I REALIZE THAT OFTEN DOESN’T HAPPEN IN CONDITIONS. BUT THERE ARE A COUPLE THAT — OF THE LETTERS THAT ARE PRETTY STRONG ABOUT THE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS. WE CAN ONLY SEE IF IT WERE RAINING AND I’M HOPING YOU BROUGHT SOMEBODY WITH YOU TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS IN SOME OF THE LETTERS.>>I DID ASK WATER RESOURCES STAFF TO BE HERE IN ANTICIPATION OF YOU HAVING SOME QUESTIONS.>>OKAY.>>SO — AND A LOT OF TIMES I WILL SAY, JUST IN — YOU KNOW, I CAN’T ANSWER ALL THE DETAILED DRAINAGE STUDY QUESTIONS.>>I DON’T EXPECT YOU TO.>>WE HAVE THE APPLICANT’S ENGINEER HERE AS WELL. A LOT OF TIMES, THE FINE DETAILS ARE WORKED OUT AFTER THE MAP IS APPROVED IN ORDER TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE DRAINAGE STUDY HOW THE ACTUAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE INSTALLED IS PART OF SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS. BUT I UNDERSTAND YOU WANT SOME REASSURANCE AND MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT AT TODAY’S HEARING.>>PARTICULARLY SINCE THERE’S BEEN A DEVELOPMENT PRIOR AND THERE’S A CREEK AND A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON ON THIS VICINITY.>>YES.>>I WILL WANT TO HEAR FROM WATER RESOURCES.>>OKAY.>>THANK YOU. I PREVIOUSLY MENTION THE PROJECT HAS RECEIVED OPPOSITION FROM THE FAIR OAKS COMMUNITY PLANNING ADVISORY COUNCIL AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. I DON’T HAVE A BULLET POINT ON THE SLIDE RELATING TO THE TREES, BUT IN — DURING THE BRIEFINGS THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED ON SITE WITH SOME OF THE TREES. INITIALLY THERE WAS A REMOVAL OF SOME TREES ON SITE AND SOME STREET TREES BY THE APPLICANT WITHOUT A PERMIT. THERE WAS AN OAK TREE REMOVED. THEY HAVE PAID THEIR FEES. SO FROM PLANNING STANDPOINT, WE HAVE CLOSED THE OAK TREE VEALATION OUT BECAUSE THEY DID REMEDY THAT. WITH REGARD TO OLIVE TREES, THERE WERE OLIVE TREES I MENTIONED IN THE INITIAL SLIDE, THOSE WERE ACTUALLY REPLANTED ONES. THERE HAD BEEN WOMANNIVE TREES IN THE STREET RIGHT-OF WAY THAT WERE REMOVED. THE APPLICANT INITIALLY TRANSPLANTED AND PLANTED TREES. THOSE DIDN’T MAKE IT AND DIED. THEY HAVE, AGAIN, REPLANTED TREES. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF CONDITIONS IN ATTACHMENT 2 REQUIRING THAT THE TREES BE MAINTAINED. THE REPLACEMENT TREES IN THE STREET BE MAINTAINED SO THEY CAN GROW ENOUGH TO BE HEALTHY. AND ALSO, THAT SOME OLIVE TREES BE PLANTED ON THE ACTUAL LOTS, THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THERE’S A ANTICIPATION THAT THAT — THEY ARE GOING TO ASK AND WE WILL WAIVE THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS. SO IT’S VERY LIKELY THAT THE CLASS C IMPROVEMENTS WILL REMAIN WITHOUT THE INSTALLATION OF THE CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK.>>WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY VERY LIKELY?>>THERE’S A PROCESS FOR THEM TO ASK FOR A WAIVER. AND PLANNING –>>IT’S NOT PART OF THIS APPLICATION TODAY?>>IT’S NOT. YOU COULD ACTUALLY DIRECT THAT TODAY.>>I PLAN TO.>>OKAY.>>OKAY.>>SUPERVISOR SERNA. I’M SORRY.>>THIS IS JUST IRRITATING TO ME. THE ISSUES WE’VE BEEN TALK BEING FOR YEARS MOSTLY WITH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ABOUT WHEN, I THINK, WHEN WE WERE DOING THE SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN. DON, DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?>>YES, YES, I DO.>>AND WE WOULD REMOVE THAT CONDITION FROM NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WERE CLASS C STREETS. SO WE WOULDN’T HAVE THE, YOU KNOW, HAVE A DEVELOPER COME IN WITH THE PLANS DRAWN WITH SIDEWALKS AND THEN LUCKILY NOT HAVE TO IMPROVE THEM FROM THEIR STANDPOINT BECAUSE OF THE COST. SO I — MAYBE WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT OFFLINE. BUT WE NEED TO GET THAT SQUARED AWAY WITHIN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.>>OKAY. WHEN A MOTION’S MADE WE WILL ANTICIPATE REVISING CONDITION 14 SO YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS TO HERE TODAY APPROVE THE WAIVER.>>THANK YOU.>>I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. THIS IS THE WAY IT WAS CHARACTERIZED TO ME BY THE APPLICANT. THAT THEY REMOVE THE OLIVE TREES. THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY WEREN’T SUPPOSED TO REMOVE THE OLIVE TREES. THEY WERE REQUIRED TO PUT THE OLIVE TREES BACK. THESE ARE THE ONES IN THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY. THEY PUT THE OLIVE TREES BACK. NOW AM I HEARING THAT WE ARE GOING TO REQUIRE THEM TO REMOVE THE TREES?>>NO, IT IS NOT OUR INDON’T REQUIRE THEM TO MOVE THE TREES.>>OKAY.>>WITH THE CLASS C IMPROVEMENTS REAR REMAINING AND THOSE TREES WOULD BE THERE.>>THANK YOU.>>SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI.>>TO THE PREVIOUS POINTS HERE AND CERTAINLY WHAT SUSAN SAID, WE WENT THROUGH THAT A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORHOODS, YET WE WOULDN’T EVEN SEE THIS SUBDIVISION MAP IF IT WEREN’T FOR THE SERIES OF CIRCUMSTANCES. I GUESS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, IT’S NOT JUST THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. WITH PUBLIC WORKS AND INFRASTRUCTURE, THERE NEEDS SOME CLINICIAN SO IT’S NOT LOST. BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAPS, THE AERIALS WITH B SOME OF WHAT’S DEVELOPED ISN’T ALL THAT OLD WHERE SIDEWALKS. THERE’S BEEN CURB RETURNS AND SO FORTH THAT BRING IT RIGHT OUT TO THE STREET. I THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORHOODS, NOT ALL IN DISTRICT THREE, THAT HAVE A DIFFERENT STANDARDS AND APPROACHES THAT ARE PART OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AMBIANCE AND MAY NOT PROVIDE FOR ALL THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS THAT YOU KNOW YOU KNOW, IS INCUMBERED WITH THE CLASS A REQUIREMENTS OR SOMETHING THAT’S MORE THAN WHAT’S THERE NOW. I THINK IT NEEDS TO GET EMBEDDED. AGAIN, IT’S NOT JUST FOR YOU AS PLANNING DIRECTOR. BECAUSE WE WENT THROUGH THE EXERCISE AND YET, I THINK, LEGITIMATELY, FOLKS DOING PLAN REVIEW AND SO FORTH, THERE’S A COUNTY-ADOPTED SO FORTH. NOT IF YOU LIVE IN X, Y, Z NEIGHBORHOOD, IT DOESN’T APPLY. IF THEY DON’T APPLY FOR THE WAIVER, IT WILL EITHER BET CONDITION AND THEY’LL BUILD THAT. PROBABLY TO THE SHAG RUN. I THINK WE NEED TO GO BACK AND DUST OFF THE MASTER PLAN RELATIVE TO PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. BUT AS WE LOOK AT THE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND CALL OUT AND GIFT AUTHORITY IF IT’S NOT THERE WHETHER IT’S IN THE DIRECTOR OF COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE OR SOMEONE DESIGNEE TO HAVE THAT ABILITY TO EXERCISE THE DISCRETION APPROPRIATELY BUT MAKE SURE IT GETS THE REVIEW RATHER THAN JUST THIS IS COUNTY REQUIREMENT, IT GETS STAMPED, THEN WE HAVE UPSET NEIGHBORS BECAUSE –>>RIGHT.>>AND THEN DEVELOPER BUILD IT’S TO THE STANDARDS REQUIRED.>>WE CLEAR WILL YOU KNEW THERE WOULD BE A REQUEST FOR WAIVER.>>YEAH.>>AND WE DO KNOW THAT AND EXERCISE OUR JUDGMENT AND HAVE A GROUP THAT MEETS ONCE A MONTH. IN THESE CASES WHERE THERE ARE THESE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THE IMPOSITION OF SIDEWALKS WOULD BE OUT OF CHARACTER, THEY DO ALLOW FOR THE CLASS C IMPROVEMENTS.>>OKAY.>>AND –>>BUT BUT BUT BUT SO THIS GROUP THAT MEETS, SO THAT THE AUTHORITY, THE DISCRETION IS VESTED WITH –>>TRANSPORTATION, STAFF, PLANNING, AND METRO FIRE.>>AND WHAT IS THE DOCUMENTATION THAT DIRECTS OR GIVES THAT AUTHORITY? IN THE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS?>>I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY –>>BECAUSE, AGAIN, AS YOU KNOW –>>MEET MONTHLY.>>I’M GLAD TO HEAR THAT. THAT’S GOOD. I DON’T DISCOUNT. IT’S A MATTER OF PRACTICE VERSUS SOMEWHERE WRITTEN. MAYBE IT IS WRITTEN.>>I DON’T KNOW WHERE IT IS.>>I WANT TO BE SURE OF THAT BECAUSE IT COMES UP TODAY AND IT’S NOT EVEN AN CAN COMPANYING REQUEST.>>SIP OVERSEES THAT. IT IS PART OF THE PROCESS.>>THANKS.>>CONTINUE.>>ALL RIGHT.>>THIS FINAL SLIDE SUMMARIZES THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT WHICH IS TO APPROVE THE PROJECT. THAT WOULD BE OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S ACTION AND APPROVING THE PROPOSED PROJECT, KERNELING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS IS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IN ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, THE MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. APPROVE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP. APPROVE THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. AND FIND THE PROJECT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. IN SUMMARY, I WANT TO SAY AS FROM COUNTY STAFF’S PERSPECTIVE, WE THINK THAT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE INFILL SITE. WE THINK HOUSING IS GOOD. WE THINK THE LOT SIZES AT THE 8500 TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET ARE APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE RD5 ZONING. WE UNDERSTAND WE HAVE AN OVERSIGHT ROLE. WE UNDERSTAND THERE ARE SOME NEIGHBOR CONCERNS. WE KNOW SUPERVISOR PETERS WANTS TO HEAR MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE DRAINAGE. THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF THAT. WE HAVE AN ONGOING OVERSIGHT ROLE TO PLAY AS THEY BUILD THE HOMES AND THAT WE, AS STAFF, WILL CONTINUE TO PLAY THAT APPROPRIATE OVERSIGHT ROLE AS THEY BUILD OUT.>>SUPERVISOR SERNA.>>THANK YOU.>>LEEANNE, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME — YOU MAY NOT KNOW THE ANSWER. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THIS SITE WAS ZONE — ZONED FOR ANYTHING BESIDES RD5? I DON’T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. MY ASSUMPTION IT’S BEEN YEARS AND YEARS.>>A LOT OF IT HAPPENED IN THE 70S, I WAS OLD SO.>>76, 78.>>YOU WERE HERE, RIGHT/N.>>NO.>>HE WAS.>>I WAS CLOSE BUT NOT QUITE.>>THAT IS THE LAST TIME THE COUNTY TENDED TO DO LARGE ZONING ACTIONS. YES.>>ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>>WE HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS. I DO HAVE CARDS. I’LL LET THE APPLICANT GO FIRST. OR THE APPELLANT. SO IF THERE’S A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT HERE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.>>GOOD MORNING, CHAIR. SUPERVISORS. MIKE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT.>>YOU’VE BEEN SWORN?>>I’M SORRY.>>HAVE YOU BEEN SWORN?>>I HAVE BEEN SWORN, THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU.>>I’LL PLAY THE MC THIS MORNING, BE VERY BRIEF. YOU GUYS HAVE A BUSY DAY. WE DON’T WANT TO TAKE UP TOO MUCH TIME OF IT.>>YOU’RE CORRECT ON ALL THOSE POINTS.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. I DON’T MEAN TO MAKE IT SOUND IMMODEST. I TEACH THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA. I’VE BEEN DOING IT ABOUT 35 YEARS. I MET SOME OF THE FOLKS WHO INVOLVED WITH THE PROPERTIES A COUPLE YEARS AGO WHO TRIED TO TRACK ME DOWN IN SACRAMENTO. THEY WEREN’T TOO LATE. TRIED TO TRACK D ME DOWN IN THE BAY AREA. WE MET IN SAN LUIS OBISPO. THEY TOLD ME ABOUT A FRIEND OF THEIRS, THEY’RE UKRAINIAN, VERY TIGHT KNIT. A FRIEND MIGHT BENEFIT FROM MY HELP. HERE I AM TODAY. FIRST AND FOREMOST, I THANK YOUR STAFF. I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF GOING ALL OVER CALIFORNIA, FROM SAN DIEGO TO EUREKA. THIS IS SOME OF THE BEST STAFF WORK I’VE SEEN. SO ACCOLADES TO THEM. BEAUTIFULLY PRESENTED. THE THINGS LINE UP. I SEE A LOT THAT DON’T AND A LOT OF GREAT COMMUNITIES ARE IN CALIFORNIA. SO HATS OFF TO YOUR STAFF. A PLUS JOB PUTTING TOGETHER THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND UNDERSCORED THE ONLY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD IS TO SUPPORT THE APPEAL AND APPROVE THIS PROJECT. WE’LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. I THINK STAFF’S DONE AN A PLUS JOB. DRAINAGE HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF. THERE’S ONLY TWO HOMES THAT FRONT NEW YORK. SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AESTHETIC IS PRESERVED. THE LARGER PART IS GREATER THAN MANY EXIST PARTS. I’D LIKE TO INTRODUCE TO YOU STEVE NORMAN, THE PROJECT’S ENGINEER. I’M SURE YOU ALL KNOW HIM. IF I MAY RESERVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME AT THE END IF THERE’S ANY NEED FOR REBUTTAL. I’LL DO IT THEN. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU.>>GOOD MORNING. STEVE NORMAN, ENGINEER. I HAVE BEEN SWORN. I’M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I CONCUR WITH ALL THE STAFF’S PRESENTATION AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. I WANT TO SAY THAT THIS PROJECT, I’VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH IT SINCE THE INITIAL APPLICATION. GONE TO ALL THE HEARINGS AND MEETINGS. ESPECIALLY TO COMMUNITY COUNSEL. THE FIRST WE WENT TO, THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES WITH PARKING AND ACCESS AND GARBAGE CANS AND ALL THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. WE CONTINUED IT. WE REVISED OUR TENTATIVE MAP TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT SEEMED TO BE ISSUES AT THE FIRST MEETING. WE PUT IN EXTRA PARKING SPACES FOR GUEST PARKING. WE PUT AREAS FOR GARBAGE CANS, AND WE SAVED ALL THE TREES AND DOING EVERYTHING COUNCIL WANTED. WE THOUGHT WE WERE IN GOOD STANDINGS WITH THE COUNCIL WHEN WE WENT THE SECOND TIME. UNFORTUNATELY WE GOT A DENIAL ANYWAY EVEN THOUGH EWE REVISED THE APPLICATION. WE TOOK TO THE COMMISSION. WE THINK IT’S A GOOD PROJECT. IT EXCEEDS ALL THE MINIMUMS FROM THE RD5 ZONE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I’M HERE TO ANSWER THEM?>>ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME?>>YES.>>SUPERVISOR PETERS.>>THANK YOU. LET’S GO BACK TO THE DRAINAGE FROM YOUR STANDPOINT, THEN I WANT TO HERE FROM THE COUNTY. LETTERS FROM SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT MENTIONED PROBLEMS WITH THE DRAINAGE. AND THAT THERE WAS A RETAINING WALL BUILT BUT THAT THE LOWEST ROW OF BLOCKS IN THE RETAINING WALL ARE ABOVE THE GROUND LEVEL, WHICH IS PROBLEMATIC. CAN YOU –>>I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT SPECIFICALLY. I’M NOT AWARE. I KNOW — WE DID TWO DRAINAGE STUDIES. WE WERE THE ENGINEERS ON THE PREVIOUS PROJECT THAT’S BEEN BUILT AND APPROVED. THE HOUSES HAVE SINCE BEEN BUILT AND ARE NO THERE NOW. WE DID A DRAINAGE STUDY FOR THIS PROJECT. BEFORE THIS LAND WAS DEVELOPED, IT WAS JUST A MEANDERING THING THAT WENT THROUGH A HORSE PASTURE. WE’VE DONE A DRAINAGE ANALYSIS TO CONFINE DRAINAGE INTO A CHANNEL TO GIVE IT BETTER FLOW AND BETTER STORAGE. IT’S ALL BEEN DONE THROUGH HYDROLOGY STUDY AND CALCULATIONS TO IMPROVE THE DRAINAGE COMING THROUGH RATHER THAN OPENING INTO A FIELD, SPREADING OUT REAL WIDE AND GOING THROUGH THE AREA. THEY BUILT A PORTION OF THAT WITH THE FIRST PROJECT THAT WAS BUILT THAT PARCEL MAP IN THE BACK. THE REST OF THE PROJECT WILL BE BUILT WITH THIS, IF IT GETS BUILT. WE’LL GO THROUGH WITH THIS PROJECT. IT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED. AND I DON’T HAVE THE STUDY WITH ME. BUT WATER RESOURCES COULD PROBABLY SPEAK TO THAT MORE SPECIFICALLY AS FAR AS WHAT THEY REQUIRED. BUT WHATEVER WATER RESOURCES WANTED, WE DESIGNED IT AND MADE IT WORK. I THINK WE APPROVED THE DRAINAGE IN THE BIG PICTURE.>>OKAY. HAVE YOU SEEN THE LETTER FROM MR. GABRIELSON?>>I — YEAH.>>I HAVE BEEN SWORN AND I CAN SPEAK ABOUT THE RETAINING WALL.>>OKAY.>>CAN YOU SPEAK BETWEEN THE MICROPHONES.>>PUSH THEM TOGETHER. HAVING TROUBLE HEARING ALL OF YOU.>>SO REGARDING THE RETAINING WALL, THERE’S — IT’S ACTUALLY ON A SEPARATE — ON A — ON THE SUBDIVISION THAT’S BEHIND THIS ONE THAT’S BEING TALKED ABOUT NOW. BUT COUNTY STAFF, WHEN WE WERE DOING THE IMPROVEMENTS, CAME IN AND ASKED US TO DO, BASICALLY, A SECARY WALL BEHIND AN ADDITIONAL RETAINING WALL THAT WAS THERE TO REINFORCE IT. THAT’S WHY THE BLOCK WALL IS ABOVE THE ONE THAT’S IN THE E-MAIL.>>I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. SO –>>YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT THE RETAINING WALL.>>I UNDERSTAND WHAT I ASKED ABOUT. SO YOU BUILT TWO RETAINING WALLS?>>THAT’S CORRECT, YES. IT’S A REDUNDANCY IN THE BUILDING STANDARDS.>>ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER?>>CORRECT. IT’S — IT — IT’S A TECHNICALITY THAT HAPPENS IN THE DESIGN SPECS, AND SO WE JUST WENT 0N AND DO TWO RETAINING WALLS, ONE BEHIND THE OTHER. IT WAS REDUNDANCY, WE TRIED TO TALK TO FIGURE IT OUT. THEY SAID STICK WITH THE STANDARDS. WE DID TWO RETAINING WALLS, ONE BACK TO BACK.>>DO YOU HAVE AN ILLUSTRATION OR A PHOTO OR ANYTHING THAT CAN ILLUMINATE?>>I CAN — I SHOULD HAVE IT IN MY PHONE, YEAH. IF YOU WOULD LIKE, IT WILL TAKE ME A COUPLE MINUTES TO LOOK AT IT.>>DOES PLANNING HAVE A PHOTO? THAT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND. SORRY.>>I DON’T, AND IT’S ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRIOR PARCEL MAPS. AND THE IMPROVEMENT PLANS WITH THOSE LOTS. SO TECHNICALLY, IT’S NOT REALLY PART OF THE APPEAL ITEM TODAY, BUT OBVIOUSLY –>>THAT IS CORRECT. IT’S NOT PART OF THE APPEAL ITEM TODAY.>>WE CAN LOOK INTO IT WITH SIP SUBSEQUENTLY AND REPORT BACK.>>IT’S A SHED, THOUGH. THE DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE. IT WOULD SEEM IT’S STILL RELEVANT BECAUSE THE STUDY WAS FOR BOTH PROJECTS THAT WEREN’T EVEN BEFORE US IN THE PREVIOUS ONE.>>APOLOGIZE. THIS PORTION THAT IS BEING SPOKEN ABOUT IS NOT — HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DRAINAGE AT ALL.>>OKAY.>>IT ACTUALLY HAS TO DO WITH RETENTION OF SOIL. IT POTENTIALLY, THE PERSON THAT E-MAILED, JUST WASN’T AWARE OF IT, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DRAINAGE.>>IT SAYS PUT IN A DRAINAGE PIPE.>>THAT’S STANDARD TO ALWAYS PUT IN A DRAINAGE PIPE BEHIND A RETAINING WALL SO IT FLOWS OUT. IT’S JUST THE STANDARD. IT WAS PUT IN. THAT IS CORRECT.>>OKAY. MAYBE SOMEBODY FROM WATER RESOURCES CAN EXPLAIN IT IN A LITTLE BIT. MAYBE WHILE WE’RE WAITING YOU CAN DRAW IT OUT ON A PIECE OF PAPER TO SOME METHOD WE CAN PICTURE IT.>>I COULD EXPLAIN TO YOU KIND OF THE — WHAT THE COUNTY STANDARD SAYS IS ANY RETAINING WALL UNDER 4 FEET TALL DOESN’T NEED TO BE ENGINEERED. SO WE N. IT’S CONSIDERED LANDSCAPING. SO WHAT WE DID IS WENT IN AND DID IT WHILE IT WAS 3 FEET TALL AND IT WAS BUILT OUT OF PRESSURE-TREATED WOOD. SO IT COMPLIES WITH THE BUILDING STANDARD. NOW, GIVEN THERE’S AN IMPROVEMENT PLAN, ANY PERIMETER, ANY WALL THAT’S PUT IN ON THE OUTSIDE PERIMETER OF ANY IMPROVEMENT PLAN NEEDS TO BE OUT OF A CMU BLOCK. WE WEREN’T AWARE OF THAT. WE THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO FALL INTO COMPLIANCE WITH JUST A LANDSCAPING ASPECT. SO WHEN WE WERE DOING OUR FINAL INSPECTION FOR ALL OUR IMPROVEMENTS, THE ISSUE WAS BROUGHT UP. THEY SAID, HEY, CAN YOU MAKE AN EXCEPTION HERE. IT’S NOT A BIG DEAL. THIS IS AN INFILL LOT. IT DOESN’T BACK UP TO ANY PUBLIC STREET OR ANYTHING ELSE. I SAID NO, WE COULDN’T MAKE THE EXCEPTION. YOU NEED TO BUILD, EITHER TAKE THE WALL OUT OR BUILD ANOTHER THINNED. IT WILL BE CHEAPER FOR US TO BUILD A SECONDARY WALL. THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED.>>OKAY.>>THE DRAINAGE WAS APPROVED. IT WAS COMPLETED AND APPROVED.>>I HEAR THE CONVERSATION. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE’RE ALL ON THE –>>PLEASE STAND 20 MICROPHONES.>>YOU NEED TO MOVE ASIDE. THERE WE GO.>>ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE WALL THAT’S DESIGNED ALONG THE DRAINAGE WELL OR THE WALL IN THE BACKYARD OF A HOUSE? I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE’RE ON THE SAME PAGE.>>IT’S NEAR HAAS DRIVE.>>YEAH. THAT’S THE ONE I WAS TALKING ABOUT. THAT’S THE BACKYARD OF A COMPLETELY SEPARATE PROPERTY THAT THIS APPEAL IS NOT PART OF.>>AN E-MAIL CAME IN RELATED TO THIS PROJECT. I’M TRYING TO SORT THIS OUT. I HAVE QUITE A FEW DRAINAGE QUESTIONS.>>THE BACKYARD I THINK THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT — THIS IS OUR PROJECT UP HERE.>>SIR, PULL IT OUT SO WE CAN SEE THE WHOLE –>>PERFECT.>>OKAY.>>THIS — OUR PROJECT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT, THESE FOUR, FIVE HOUSES UP HERE. THESE ARE THE HOUSES THAT ARE BUILT.>>OKAY.>>THE WALL YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT THE BACKYARD OF OF THIS BACK HOUSE BACK HERE THAT’S NOT EVEN PART OF THIS PROJECT. IT’S A HOUSE THAT’S BEEN BUILT. THEY GRADE THE BACKYARD AND PUT IN A RETAINING WALL. THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THE BACKYARD GRADING AND LANDSCAPING OF THIS HOME BACK IN THIS CORNER. PROJECT WE’RE HERE TODAY ABOUT ARE THESE HOMES RIGHT HERE. SO WE’RE KIND OF –>>THAT’S HELPFUL. IT’S A SEPARATE PROJECT.>>JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS WE’RE TALKING ABOUT A BACKYARD LANDSCAPING OF OF A HOME THAT’S BEEN BUILT WITH THE OTHER MAP, THE OTHER PROJECT. WHAT I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WAS A WALL THAT’S RIGHT ALONG THIS PROPERTY LINE HERE FOR THIS DRAINAGE SWALE. SO WHEN TALK BEING WALLS AND DRAINAGE, MY MIND WAS THINKING THE WALL IN THE DRAINAGE SWALE. THE CONVERSATION’S BEEN ABOUT A WALL IN THE BACKYARD OF THIS HOME.>>SO THAT PROJECT IN THAT CORNER DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO –>>IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PROJECT, YES.>>THAT HASN’T THE QUESTION. JUST WAIT. IT WASN’T THE QUESTION I ASKED. THERE’S A CREEK. YOU’RE DEALING WITH THE DRAINAGE. AND THAT LOT, THE RETAINING WALL WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT N CREEK.>>THAT WASN’T DOESN’T EVEN DRAIN THAT WAY. IT DRAINS THE OTHER WAY.>>ON THIS DRAWING, WHERE IS OLIVE DRIVE, PLEASE.>>OLIVE DRIVE.>>DOWN HERE. THE MAIN DRIVE’S DOWN HERE.>>OKAY. DOES THAT CREEK RUN DOWN TO OLIVE DRIVE?>>THIS SWALE COMES OFF-SITE. IT DRAINS THROUGH THE NEXT PROPERTY AND COMES INTO OLIVE DRIVE DOWN HERE. I THINK IT’S MIN HE MINNESOTA CREEK.>>I THINK THAT’S THE NAME.>>THIS DRAINS INTO MINNESOTA FURTHER SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY.>>YEAH. SO I GUESS THE QUESTIONS I HAVE ABOUT THAT, I’LL ASK WATER RESOURCES, BECAUSE I DON’T BELIEVE IT’S PART OF THIS PROJECT. IT JUST SAYS — BUT IT DOES SAY THE PLAN PROPOSED PI DEVELOPERS HAS WATER RUNOFF FEEDING INTO THE EXISTING DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND 7833 OLIVE. EVIDENTLY THERE’S PROBLEMS ACCORDING TO THIS HOMEOWNER, PROBLEMS WITH THE DRAINAGE THEY THINK WILL BE EXACERBATED BY THIS PROJECT. SO HAVE YOU — ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS CONCERN?>>I DON’T KNOW WHAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY. DOES HE LIVE HERE? I DON’T KNOW –>>ON OLIVE STREET.>>IF HE FRONTS OLIVE STREET HERE, THERE’S — THERE ARE HOMES THERE. THIS SWALE RUNS DOWN BETWEEN THE HOUSES AND IT’S A STANDARD.>>LET’S GET A BETTER EXHIBIT, PLEASE. THERE WE GO.>>I’M MICHAEL PETERSON, WATER RESOURCES. THIS MAP IS THE OVERALL WATERSHED. PROJECT SITE IS HERE. THIS IS THE UPSTREAM WATER. THE DRAINAGE THAT YOU’RE SEEING HERE IS RUNNING — IS GOING TO RUN THIS WAY.>>YOU NEED TO PUSH YOUR MAP IN A BIT SO WE CAN SEE IT.>>SO THIS MAP HERE RUNS-ESQUIVELY THROUGH HERE.>>WHERE’S OLIVE STREET?>>TO THE SOUTH. IT’S TIGHT. THIS PROPOSED CHANNEL WILL TIE INTO THE DOWNSTREAM EXISTING DITCH AT THE SAME POINT IT DOES CURRENTLY. I’LL SHOW YOU THAT ON THE EXISTING CONDITION MAP. THIS IS THE EXISTING PATH OF THE DRAINAGE SWALE THROUGH THE LOT. THIS IS THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT OF THE DRAINAGE. COMES IN AND LEAVES THE PROPERTY AT THE SAME SPOT. IT TAKES A DIFFERENT PATH WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE.>>OKAY. JUST TO POSSIBLY CORRECT SOMETHING I SAID EARLIER. I THINK I REFERRED TO IT AS A CREEK. IT’S A SWALE THAT HAS WATER ONLY WHEN IT’S BEEN RAINING.>>CORRECT. IT’S A SWALE FURTHER DOWNSTREAM IS MINNESOTA CREEK.>>OKAY.>>WHERE THE SHED GETS A LITTLE LARGER.>>OKAY. ARE YOU — I KNOW YOU’RE THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR SO YOU PROBABLY WOULDN’T BE. BUT ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE COMPLAINTS ABOUT MINNESOTA CREEK BEING BLOCKED AND STREETS FLOODING AND THAT SORT OF THING?>>I’VE SEEN SOME OF THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AND — IN PARTICULAR, THE LAST TWO WINTERS, THAT WOULDN’T BE SURPRISING AT ALL GIVEN THE INTENSITY OF RAINFALL WE EXPERIENCED. THE DRAINAGE STUDY STAFF REVIEWED FOR THE PROJECT SHOWS NOMINAL CHANGE IN THE PEAK RUNOFF IN 100-YEAR FLOW PRE AND POST PROJECT. AS FAR AS EXACERBATING THAT CONDITION, THE DRAINAGE STUDY DOESN’T IDENTIFY ANY CHANGE TO THAT.>>OKAY. WELL — GO AHEAD.>>ISSUES WITH TREES GOING DOWN, THOSE GET CALLED INTO 311, AND OUR CREWS WOULD RESPOND. THERE MAY BE — I THINK THERE’S SPECIFIC CONCERN WITH A ROOT BALL THAT MAY BESTILL BE IN THE CREEK. THAT’S CAUSING SOME CONCERN AS FAR AS EROSION. WE CAN TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THAT P ZERO BUT THAT HAS — THAT’S DOWNSTREAM OF THIS PROJECT SITE.>>YEAH. IT JUST CAME IN WITH THIS APPLICATION, SUGGESTING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT MAY CAUSE A A LARGER PROBLEM. SO MAYBE I CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH YOU OFFLINE.>>ABSOLUTELY.>>ABOUT THIS. AND THE NEIGHBOR EVIDENTLY, I DON’T THINK, DID CALL 311 TO HAVE THE TREE REMOVED. BUT THEN THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT A SWIMMING POOL, TOO. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT LATER. SO YOUR STATEMENT IS THIS REALIGNMENT OF THIS SWALE IS NOT GOING TO CAUSE ANY ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE PROBLEMS.>>THE LINEMENT AS PROPOSED PROVIDES A LONGER FLOW TIME THROUGH THE PROPERTY AND ALLOWS FOR WATER TO STAY ON THE PROPERTY LONGER SUCH THAT WHEN IT REACHED THE DOWNSTREAM END, THERE’S NO INCREASE IN THE PEAK FLOW IN THE 100-YEAR EVENT. THAT IS THE STANDARD WE MEASURE DRAINAGE IMPACTS FROM.>>OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT HELPS ME A LOT. THREE SEPARATISHES.>>BEFORE –>>BEFORE MIKE. CAN I ASK. ON YOUR POINT ABOUT RETAINING IT, BECAUSE YOU SLOW THE MOVEMENT OF WATER, SO IS THERE ANY RETENTION THAT OCCURS WITH THIS PROJECT? BECAUSE IF YOU CHANNELIZE IT, AGAIN, I’M NOT AN ENGINEER BUT I’VE SAT THROUGH ENOUGH OF THESE HEARINGS THROUGH THE YEARS, YOU ARE BASICALLY NOW CONVERTING THE FLOW THAT MIGHT BE OTHERWISE OVERLAND RELEASE AND SPREAD OUT AND END UP IN THE SAME POINT OF DISCHARGE OFF THE PROPERTY. BY CREATING A CHANNEL HERE, YOU’RE CONFINING THAT’S WHERE IT RUNS TO NATURALLY. WHAT ABOUT HOLDING SOME OF THAT, USING THE 100-YEAR FLOWS. THERE ARE A LOT OF EVENTS THAT CAN BE PRETTY IMPACTFUL TO AREAS, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU GET THE TOPOGRAPHY OUT HERE IN FAIR OAKS. ARE WE REQUIRING ANY RETENTION AT ALL?>>NO. IT’S NOT REQUIRE FORD THIS PROJECT. THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED CHANNEL BEING WIDER AND LONGER PROVIDES INLINE ATTENUATION, IF YOU WILL. THERE’S NOT A RETENTION BASE. IT’S NOT A REQUIREMENT WE CAN PLACE IN THE PROJECT. IT’S NOT WITHIN THE COUNTY STANDARDS FOR THIS SCALE OF PROJECT. THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED CHANNEL IDENTIFIES THE ADDITIONAL VOLUME WITHIN THAT CHANNEL SO YOU HAVE THE FLOW SLOWING DOWN. IT’S IN THE SOMEWHAT WIDER CROSS-SECTION SO IT DELAYS THE TIMING OF THE PEAK TO THE DOWNSTREAM END.>>WHEN YOU SAY WIDER, THOUGH, BUT ARE YOU HOT CONFINING IT, THOUGH? YOU’RE CONFINING — RIGHT NOW IT CAN — IT CAN SEEK ITS LEVEL UNTIL RELEASE TO THE PROPERTY –>>YOU’RE GOING FROM NATURAL SWALE TO A DEEP — YOU HAVE TO IMPROVE FLOW LINE FOR THIS CHANNEL VERSUS EXISTING SWALE. SO YOU HAVE A BIT DEEPER, A LONGER PASS. THE NET RESULT IS ABET MORE VOLUME.>>IS THIS NATURAL SOILS OR A CONCRETE CHANNEL?>>NATURAL.>>IT’S GOING TO BE NATURAL.>>NATURAL SOIL. SO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO PERCOLATE SOME OF THIS.>>YEAH.>>I THINK YOU SAID IT WOULD HELP WITH DRAINAGE WHICH MIGHT TAKE WATER OUT OF MIN MINNESOTA CREEK, FROM MY VIEW.>>YEAH.>>OKAY. THEN ANOTHER CONCERN RELAT ED TO DRAINAGE WAS THAT IT MIGHT AFFECT EXISTING HOMES ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE AND DURING HEAVY RAIN EVENTS, THEY’RE SAYING THEY HAVE SMALL STREAMS RUNNING THROUGH BACKYARDS. BUT THIS PROJECT WOULDN’T HAVE CREATED THAT PROBLEM. SO –>>AGAIN, THE IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IT FROM THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE TO SIGNIFICANTLY AT ALL TO THAT EXISTING CONDITION. IN ANY GIVEN WINTER, AGAIN, WE CAN ALWAYS HAVE A STORM THAT WILL FILL MINNESOTA CREEK, FILL THE CULVERTS. THEY ARE DINED TO CERTAIN CAPACITY. MINNESOTA CREEK IS MORE OR LESS A NATURAL CHANNEL. SO IT, YOU KNOW, IT’S NOT AT ALL UNSURPRISING WE KECKED IT TO WOULD FLOW FULL DURING HEAVY RAINS.>>OKAY. THANK YOU.>>ANYTHING ELSE? ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME?>>ARE YOU GOING TO BE THE PERSON WHO APPLY — WILL DEEM WITH THE SIDEWALK QUESTION?>>YEAH. AS FAR AS THE CONDITIONS, WE — WE ANTICIPATE IT TO APPEAL ANY IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS ON NEW YORK.>>OKAY.>>BUT IF THE BOARD WISHES TO MAKE IT A CONDITION –>>WOULDN’T HAVE ANY OBJECTION IF I MAKE THAT PART –>>WE WERE HOPING — WE WANT TO KEEP THE STREET LOOK RURAL LIKE IT DOES NOW.>>OKAY.>>THANK YOU.>>ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.>>IS THERE ANYONE ELSE FROM THE APPELLANT? OKAY. I HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. I WILL TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT THIS TIME. DEBORAH AVELLALAMENT.>>GOOD MORNING.>>MORNING.>>MY NAME IS DEBORAH. I HAVE BEEN SWORN.>>THANK YOU.>>IT APPEARS A LOT OF YOU HAVE READ MY LETTER. I’LL READ IT FOR EVERYONE TO HEAR. HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, I’M CRESTING THE TENTATIVE THE SUBDIVISION MAP AND SPECIAL VERY MANY PERMIT BE DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. THIS IS NOT A STAND-ALONE PROJECT. IT IS ONE OF TWO PROPERTIES ON CONTINUOUS LOTS WITH THE TOTAL OF TEN SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES USING A PRIVATE DRIVE. I SERIOUSLY DOUBT — I DOUBT THIS PROJEC WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED HAD IT BEEN PROPOSED AS A SINGLE DEVELOPMENT. THE GRANTING OF A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW MORE THAN TWO LOTS TO BE SERVED BY A PRIVATE DRIVE DOES NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT TEN, NOT FIVE, SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WILL BE ACCESSING THIS PRIVATE DRIVE. I’VE LIVED HERE 20 YEARS, AND I CAN ASSURE YOU, IT WILL AND HAS MADE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD LESS SAFE FOR WALKERS, EXISTING NEIGHBORS, AND HAS REDUCED OUR QUALITY OF LIFE. ADDITIONALLY, I HAVE THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS. I REQUEST THAT THE EXISTING STREET FRONTAGE ON NEW YORK AVENUE REMAIN THE SAME IN THE FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY AND NOT BE DEVELOPED WITH SIDEWALKS OR CURBS. THIS WILL HELP MAINTAIN THE RURAL COUNTRY FEEL OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. A REVIEW OF THE DRAINAGE PLANS FOR THE PROPERTY SHOW SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE CURRENT WATER EASEMENT. THE INITIAL COUNTY DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEGINS AT SUNSET AVENUE TO THE NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY. MY HOME IS TO THE NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY AND I HAVE A DRAINAGE EASEMENT. IT CONTINUES THROUGH THE BACKYARDS OF EACH PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF NEW YORK AVENUE, CONTINUING THROUGH THE PROPERTY — THROUGH THE PROJECT PROPERTY TO OLIVE AVENUE. MY CONCERN IS POSSIBLE FLOODING OF EXISTING HOMES THERE SHOULD BE A PLAN FOR A SUM PUMP AND DRAIN PIPES TO PROTECT FROM POSSIBLE FLOODING. DURING HEAVY RAIN EVENTS, WE HAVE SMALL STREAMS RUNNING THROUGH OUR BACKYARDS WHICH COULD RESULT IN FLOODING IN THE WATER CANNOT FLOW FREELY THROUGH THE PROPERTIES. I THANK YOU FOR THE DIDN’T TO VOICE MY CONCERNS.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>>I HAVE A QUESTION.>>YES, WE HAVE A QUESTION.>>DEBORAH.>>OH.>>DID — SORRY. DID YOU LISTEN TO THE ENGINEERS TALK ABOUT THE DRAINAGE AND DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT?>>I UNDERSTAND IT, BUT I KNOW THAT WATER FOLLOWS THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE. SO I DON’T KNOW HOW YOU’LL CHANGE THE FLOW INTO A SMALL AREA AND MAKE SURE THE WATER GOES THERE. IT MAY BACK UP BECAUSE IT — IT MAY BACK UP INTO THE YARD BEHIND THAT AND JUST BEFORE THAT PROJECT. IT MAY FLOOD THEM. I’M THINKING MAYBE A SUM PUMP A DRAIN SOMEWHERE TO HELP THAT WATER FLOW THROUGH MIGHT BE –>>IT’S NOT ALWAYS EASY TO UNDERSTAND ENGINEERS. I AGREE WITH THAT. [LAUGHTER]>>I THINK WE’LL PROBABLY HAVE MR. PETERSON COME BACK UP AND ADDRESS THAT.>>OKAY.>>IT TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND.>>OKAY.>>SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>>THANK YOU.>>REBECCA FRIEDMAN.>>SUPERVISORS, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. I’M REBECCA FRIEDMAN, CHAIR OF THE FAIR OAKS CPA C, AND I HAVE BEEN SWORN. I’M A FAIR OAKS RESIDENT OF 13 OF SACRAMENTO P COUNTY AND WORK AS GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT FOR LARKS A COUNTY. APPROVAL OF THIS SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WILL MEAN TEN HOMES WILL EMPTY INTO A PRIVATE STREET RATHER THAN THE ALLOWABLE TWO. THIS CONCLUDES FIVE HOMES FROM A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT. THE MOST TROUBLING ABOUT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY ABOUT THE INTENT OF THE PROJECT AND RELATIONSHIP EXTERNAL PROFESSIONALLY TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT. THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT ACTED IN GOOD FAMING, WE’VE FOUND, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF TREES AS AN EXAMPLE. WE GENERALLY SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT AND RECOGNIZE WE HAVE A HOUSING CRISIS IN CALIFORNIA AND THE NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT. WE ALSO RECOGNIZE SOME DEVELOPMENT IS INAPPROPRIATE AND OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE AREA. THIS INFILL PROJECT POSES A RISK TO THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA AS WELL AS PEDESTRIANS AND TRAFFIC SAFETY RISKS AND ENVIRONMENTAL, INCLUDING DRAINAGE RISKS. THE NEIGHBORS STRONGLY OPPOSE THE PROJECT. ON BEHALF CPA C, WE ALSO OPPOSE THIS SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND COUNTY PLANNERS ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK COUNTY STAFF. THEY HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL AS WELLING AS NEIGHBORS FOR BEING ABLE TO SHOW UP TO OUR MEETINGS AND VOICE CONCERNS. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT.>>THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU.>>GEGENE GONZALEZ.>>GOOD MORNING.>>GOOD MORNING.>>MY NAME IS GENE GONZALEZ. I’VE BEEN SWORN IN. ME AND MY HUSBAND LEAVE ON THE SOUTH END ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY. WE CONTINUE TO OPPOSE. AS STATED MANY TIMES, THERE ARE ALREADY FIVE HOMES FROM THE PREVIOUS APPROVED ADJACENT PROJECT USING THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY UNDER A PRIOR APPROVAL WHICH EMPTY ONTO AND ALREADY-NARROW NEW YORK AVENUE. THIS APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF ANOTHER SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OF THE SAME PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. APPROVAL OF THE SECOND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WILL MEAN POTENTIALLY TEN HOUSEHOLDS WILL FEED ONTO THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY AND ALSO EMPTYING ONTO THE EMPTY NARROW NEW YORK AVENUE. WE BELIEVE IT WILL OVERBURNED OUR ROADWAYS AND INCREASE THE NOISE IN OUR QUIET FAIR OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY THAT WE LOVE. WE HAVE ATTENDED MANY MEETINGS REGARDING THE TWO PROJECTS AND HAVE ASKED THE DEVELOPERS TO LESS EPTHE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT ANY COMPROMISE ON THEIR PART. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THOSE ARE TO BE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. BUT WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANY PROPOSED PLANS FROM THE APPLICANT ON WHAT THE HOMES WILL BE. INFILL DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SORT WILL CHANGE THE NATURAL AND CHARACTER OF OUR BELOVED FAIR OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE CHOSE TO LIVE IN. WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF OUR CONCERNS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE NATURAL AND SEMIRURAL CHARACTER OF OUR FAIR OAKS COMMUNITY THAT WAL LOVE. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU, JEAN.>>BARBARA ROPER.>>I’M BARBARA ROPER, AND I’VE BEEN SWORN IN. IS THERE OVERHEAD? I CAN SHOW A COUPLE OF PICTURES?>>TO YOUR RIGHT.>>WE NEED TO MOVE THE MAPS OVER THERE.>>WHEN YOU SPEAK, IF YOU COULD PULL THE MICROPHONES DOWN SO WE CAN HEAR YOU.>>THAT BETTER?>>YES, THANK YOU.>>IF YOU SET THEM HERE IN THIS PICTURE, THEY’LL GO UP.>>I MADE A LIST BUT I’LL PROBABLY GO OUT OF ORDER. YOU’VE BEEN DISCUSSING PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING I HAVE ON MY LIST. THIS IS A GOOGLE MAP OF NEW YORK AVENUE OF PREVIOUS TREES. I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY ARE AWARE OF WHAT WAS THERE ORIGINALLY BEFORE THE TREES WERE TAKEN OUT.>>THINK YOU NEED TO TURN?>>IF YOU COULD TURN IT, YEAH. THERE YOU GO.>>THIS WAY?>>THERE YOU GO.>>NOW I HAVE WHAT’S BEEN PLANTED TODAY. THE PREVIOUS TREES, I HEARD, WERE OVER 100 YEARS OLD. THESE WILL TAKE A LONG TIME TO GET TO IS IT A THAT STAGE. THEY’RE HISTORICAL OLIVE TREES. IF YOU NOTICE, THERE’S SOME BLACK IN BETWEEN THOSE TREES. THIS IS PART OF THE NEW PROJECT WHERE SOME ASPHALT’S BEEN PLACED BETWEEN THE OLIVE TREES, SO I DON’T KNOW WHY THERE WASN’T CONTINUOUS OLIVE TREES. I’M NOT SURE WHAT THEIR PLAN IS.>> THIS PICTURE IS A LITTLE DARK BUT THIS IS THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY. THIS IS WIDE GRAPH HE WILL ENTRY INTO THE PROJECT. AND THEN I ALSO TOOK A PICTURE. I HAVE CONCERNS OF SOIL. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE PLAN IS FOR THAT. THE REASON I BROUGHT THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION IS BECAUSE MY PROPERTY ABUTS THE PROJECT IN BACK. AND I’M CONCERNED ABOUT THE ELEVATION OF THE NEW HOMES. I KNOW SIP HAS COME OUT, AS HE MENTIONED, ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE. 3-FOOT RETAINING WALL. I’M NOT AN ENGINEER, BUT THE FIRST RETAINING WALL WAS PRESSURE-TREATED BOARDS. THEN THEY PUT, I THINK IT’S CALLED KEYSTONE BLOCK BEHIND THEM. AND WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD TODAY, AND IT APPEARS THAT WAY THEY SET THEM ON TOP OF THE SOIL. I ALWAYS THOUGHT WHEN YOU BUILT A RETAINING WALL, THE FIRST BRICKS GO DOWN BELOW THE SOIL SO THE GRAVEL DOESN’T RUN THROUGH WHEN THERE’S HEAVY RAIN. MY CONCERN IS ABOUT SAFETY, AS MENTIONED, AND ALSO ADJACENT IS LAUNA LANE FROM THE PROJECT FROM THE PRIVATE DRIVE. DRAINAGE CONCERNS WITH MINNESOTA CREEK, HOW WILL THE DRAINAGE BE ADDRESSED? THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL EMERGING VEHICLE ONS TO NEW YORK AVENUE, AND I’M NOT SURE — THEY’RE SAYING — I HEARD THEY HAVE FIVE PARKING PLACES FOR GUESTS. IS THAT INCLUDING THE RESIDENTS AND TWO GUESTS? AND WHERE ARE THEY ON THE PROPERTIES FOR THE PARKING? I’M NOT SURE. BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD THERE WAS NO PARKING ON THE STREET.>>OKAY. NOISE LEVELS. THE PRIVATE DRIVE IS ALREADY SERVING FIVE HOMES. I UNDERSTOOD PRIVATE DRIVE ONLY SERVES TWO AND ALSO, I DON’T WANT TO BE JUST AWARENESS. IS THERE SOME WAY THEY COULD BE MORE TRANSPARENT IN THE FUTURE WHEN THEY BUILD SO THE PROPERTY OWNERS KIND OF KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON AND WHAT WILL BE DEVELOPED? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>>THANK YOU. IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. ALL RIGHT. THAT’S THE LAST PUBLIC COMMENT I HAD. ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTED TO SPEAK IN? WE WILL COME BACK TO THE BOARD.>>THE APPLICANT DOESN’T WANT TO RESPOND TO ANYTHING?>>LET ME GET SUPERVISOR NOTTOLI FIRST WHILE THEY’RE COMING UP.>>NO, THANK YOU.>>OKAY. GO AHEAD.>>JUST A QUESTION I HAD MAYBE FOR STAFF. SOME OF THE PICTURES MS. ROPER SHOWED SHOW DIFFERENT, LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, ENTRYWAYS. I DON’T KNOW IF THOSE ARE PERMANENT ENCROACHMENTS. IT’S OBVIOUSLY NOT SHOWN ON ANY MAPS WE HAVE. WE SEE AASPHALT GOING AND SHOW GRAVEL COMING OUT IN ANOTHER LOCATION. I TRUST THAT THE PRIVATE DRIVE, AS YOU SAID, WILL SERVE ALL TEN. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE TWO HOUSES THAT THEN — TO THE LOTS THAT WOULD HAVE FRONTAGE ON NEW YORK AVENUE AND IF, IN FACT, TREES HAVE BEEN REPLACED, THE PICTURES SHOWED EVIDENCE THAT WAS A TREE LINE THAT LOOKS LIKE A LINE MOST OF THE FRONTAGE OF THE PREVIOUS PROPERTY ALIGNMENT THERE. SO I GUESS I’M CURIOUS AS TO WHAT’S GOING TO BE PROVIDED FOR FOR — IF THAT’S WHAT IT’S GOING TO LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE OR WILL THOSE CURRENT ENCROACHMENTS OFF THOSE BE CLOSED OFF AND GET SOLELY USED IN NEW YORK OR WILL THE TWO HOUSES TAKE DRIVEWAYS OFF NEW YORK AVENUE? IF SO, WHAT DOES IT DO TO THE TREES THAT HAVE BEEN RECENTLY REPLANTED?>>THE TWO LOTS WILL TAKE ACCESS OFF THE PRIVATE DRIVE, NOT OFF NEW YORK AVENUE.>>THAT’S CLEAR. SO THEY HAVE NO ACCESS. THEY’LL BE SIDE YARD FENCES OR SIDE YARD –>>SIDE YARD. WE DO HAVE A CONDITION NUMBER 5, REQUIRING SUBSEQUENT DESIGN REVIEW OF THE HOUSES. AND I WOULD ALSO NOTE CONDITION NUMBER 5 REQUIRES THAT 24-INCH BOX OLIVES BE PLANTED IN THE RESIDENTIAL YARDS OF THOSE TWO LOTS THAT FRONT ON NEW YORK. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE, JUST IN CASE THERE WAS EVER ANY STREET IMPROVEMENTS THERE WERE STILL OLIVE TREES THERE EVEN THOUGH I FULLY UNDERSTAND THERE’S NO INTENTION OF DOING THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS.>>I WANT TO TAKE YOU BACK TO MY QUESTION SPECIFICALLY, TO THE PHOTOS THAT WERE SHOWN.>>YEAH.>>IS THAT BECAUSE IT’S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT — IN MY CONVERSATION WITH THE PROPONENT HERE YESTERDAY, THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, ONLY TAKE EIGHT LOTS OFF OF THE PRIVATE DRIVE, THAT IT’S TEN LOTS, AND THAT THOSE ENCROACHMENTS WE NOW SEE WILL BE CLOSED OFF AND THEY WILL BE CONTINUOUS PLANTING ALONG THE SIDE YARDS FOR THE TWO LOTS THAT HAVE SOME DIRECT ADJACENCY TO NEW YORK AVENUE.>>MY UNDERSTANDING IS ALL TEN LOTS ARE OFF THE PRIVATE DRIVE.>> [INAUDIBLE]>>WE NEED IT ON RECORD.>>I BELIEVE YOU CAN TAKE ACCESS ON EITHER OR. I AGREE, COULD BE PROHIBITIVE BECAUSE OF THE TREE REQUIREMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND WHATNOT. MOST LIKELY, ACCESS WILL BE OFF THE PRIVATE DRIVE.>>AGAIN, I THINK — I APPRECIATE IT. THAT’S WHAT YOU SAID IN MY CONVERSATION WITH YOU. I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT, YOU KNOW,, AS WE CONSIDER THIS AND SUPERVISOR PETERS WILL TAKE THE LEAD. THAT CONVERSATION, BECAUSE IT’S NOT HOW I UNDERSTOOD IT INITIALLY HERE. I HEARD SAID TEN LOTS. OF ALL TEN TAKEN OFF THE PRIVATE DRIVE, YOU’LL PRECLUDE AND YOU NEED TO TAKE EITHER ACCESS — YOU KNOW, PRECLUDE THE ACCESS TO NEW YORK AVENUE AND MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE TREES ALONG THE EYE A SIGNMENT AND WHATEVER OTHER FENCING THAT GOES THERE AND IS APPROPRIATE.>>I BELIEVE WHAT DOES TAKING ACCESS MEAN? VEHICLE ACCESS OR ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY. POTENTIALLY IN THE HOUSE IS FACING FORWARD AND HAS A FRONT DOOR FACING FORWARD, IT CAN TAKE ACCESS OFF NEW YORK AVENUE AND HAVE A NEW YORK AVENUE ADDRESS EVEN THOUGH IT HAS VEHICULAR ACCESS ON –>>TALKING ABOUT ORIENTATION BASICALLY FRONTING ON NEW YORK AVENUE?>>POTENTIALLY, YES. THAT’S A POSSIBILITY THAT’S OPEN. IT HAPPY BEEN DETERMINED YET.>>A FRONT YARD WITH — SO, AGAIN, I DON’T KNOW WHAT WAS CONTEMPLATED. I HEARD SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM PLANNING AND MAYBE –>>I DON’T THINK SO. LEEANNE MENTIONED THE HOUSES WOULD — SOMEONE MENTIONED, ANYWAY, TO MAINTAIN THE SAME LOOK OF THE STREET WHERE HOUSES FACE THE TREAT, NOT A SIDE YARD OR BACK YARD, THAT THE HOUSES WOULD FACE NEW YORK AVENUE.>>THE GARAGES WOULD THEN BE OFF THE PRIVATE DRIVE, SO THE ENTRYWAYS?>>I’M LOOKING AT IT FROM A DESIGN STANDPOINT, THAT WOULD BE THE IDEAL WAY TO DO IT IS TO YES, HAVE THE FRONTAGE BE ON NEW YORK AVENUE.>>DOES IT MEAN THERE’S NO PROSPECT, THOUGH, OF HAVING TWO HOUSES THAT WILL FRONT NEW YORK AVENUE WITH THEIR OWN DRIVEWAYS PLUS THE MAIN PRIVATE DRIVE? SO GIVEN THAT THE OLIVE TREES HAVE A THREE-YEAR MAINTENANCE PLAN AND THE TREES NEED TO BE PRESERVED, IT WILL BE VERY PROHIBITIVE, MOST LIKELY, THAT THE GARAGES WON’T BE ABLE TO FACE NEW YORK AVENUE. IT’S JUST THAT –>>IT’S A VERY HIGH PROBABILITY THE ONLY VEHICULAR ACCESS IS THE ONE PRIVATE DRIVE?>>I’M SORRY. YES.>>OKAY. THANK YOU.>>OKAY. IS THAT IT?>>OKAY. SO I WANTED MR. PETERSON TO COME BACK AND TALK ABOUT IF IT’S POSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN HOW THE WATER MOVES ON THAT SWALE AND THE OTHER QUESTION S THAT M SHE ASKED.>>HERE WE GO.>>OKAY.>>HERE’S THE — THIS IS A GRADING CONTOUR MAP OF THE EXISTING SITE SHOWS THE. THE WATER IS FLOWING THIS WAY AND THIS WAY INTO THE EXISTING SWALE. COUNTY REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR PROPOSED GRADING TO CONTINUE TO FOLLOW THAT GENERAL PATTERN. THE PROPOSED CHANNEL WILL RUN WHILE RECONFIGURED, STILL RUN FROM THE SAME POINT A TO POINT B. THE INTERIOR DRAINAGE WILL STILL GO TO THAT NEW CHANNEL AND IT IS REQUIRED TO CONTINUE TO PICK UP THE UPSTREAM RUNOFF THAT’S NORTH OF THIS SITE. IN THE SAME MANNER IT’S HISTORICALLY DONE SO IT DOESN’T AFFECT THE ABILITY FOR THIS AREA UPSTREAM TO THE NORTH TO CONTINUE DRAINING APPROPRIATELY.>>SO DOING IT THIS WAY DOESN’T ALLOW THE WATER TO STAND LONGER THAN IT ALREADY DOES.>>NO. IT’S PROVIDING A LONGER FLOW PATH BUT NOT BACKING UP AND IT’S NOT CREATING A SITUATION WHERE IT BACKS UP HERE AND SITS LONGER UPSTREAM. THAT’S NOT EXACTLY WHAT’S IT’S DESIGNED NOT TO DO.>>SO IT SHOULD IMPROVE.>>OR HAVE NO IMPACT.>>NO IMPACT OR IMPROVE. OKAY. THANK. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. LEEANNE.>>DID YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION OR — YEAH.>>SOMEONE ASKED ABOUT DESIGN OF THE HOUSES. DO YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN THAT?>>SO WE HAVE CONDITION NUMBER 5 THAT REQUIRES THAT THE HOMES COME BACK THROUGH DESIGN REVIEW BECAUSE ADMITTEDLY, THEY HAVE NOT DESIGNED THE HOMES YET. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT — IN THE PROCESS FOR DESIGN REVIEW, THAT IS STAFF-LEVEL DESIGN REVIEW. SO THAT’S — IT’S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE FOR THE PUBLIC TO ASK QUESTIONS. ANYTHING THAT’S SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS PUBLIC INFORMATION BUT IT’S NOT PER SE HEARING PROCESS WHERE NOTICES GO OUT. SO NEIGHBORS WOULD HAVE TO BE INTERACTING WITH US IN ORDER TO HAVE ACCESS TO THIS. IT IS STAFF LEVEL DESIGN REVIEW. I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE’VE CONSIDERED IT VERY LIKELY THAT THE HOUSES WOULD BE — THEIR DRIVEWAYS, AT LEAST, WOULD BE ORIENTED ONTO THE DRIVE PRIVATE DRIVE IS BECAUSE ON THE MAP, IT’S WHERE THEY’VE DESIGNATED THEIR GUEST PARKING IS OFF THE PRIVATE DRIVE. PLUS PIT TIME YOU HAVE THE STREET OLIVE TREES AND THE OLIVE TREE CONDITION ON THE LOTS, IT SEEMS UNLIKELY — SEEMS IT WILL BE KILL TO FIT IN DRIVEWAYS. I’M SORT OF THINKING IN THE SKYPE REVIEW PROCESS, WE’LL BE LOOKING AT HAVING THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS OFF THE PRIVATE DRIVE TO FIT IT ALL IN.>>THEN SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. MAYBE YOU CAN EXPLAIN IF THERE’S ANY REQUIREMENT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF HOUSES THAT CAN BE SERVICED ON THE DRIVEWAY.>>THE REASON THEY’RE ASKING FOR A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTO PERMIT IS FOR REVIEW TO HAVE MORE THAN TWO HOMES OFF A PRIVATE DRIVE. THAT IS PART OF THE ENTITLEMENT PROCESS THAT THIS HAS BEEN PART OF.>>OKAY. AND I BELIEVE IT ALSO SAYS IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT DEPARTMENT OF TRANCE PORTATION REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND THERE’S NO SIGNIFICANT — THERE’S AN INSIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ON NEW YORK AVENUE.>>THAT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.>>OKAY.>>THEN PERHAPS YOU COULD EXPLAIN TO VISITORS THE ENTITLEMENT PROCESS AT 1.24 ACRES WITH ONLY FIVE HOUSES. MAYBE EXPLAIN THE ENTITLEMENT, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE LAND OWNER. HOW MANY HOUSES COULD BE BUILT.>>SURE. THE TYPICAL LOT SIZE IS 5200 SQUARE FEET AND WOULD TYPICALLY ALLOW FIVE HOUSES PER ACRE. I DON’T HAVE A CALCULATOR HERE AND NOT VERY GOOD AT MATH. BUT YOU COULD EASILY GET MORE THAN FIVE HOMES WITH A 200 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE. I WOULD HAZARD TO GUESS THEY COULD HAVE ASKED FOR AS MANY AS SIX OR SEVEN BASED ON THE MINIMUM LOT SIZES AND ACREAGE.>>SOMEONE HAD INDICATED THEY HOPED THEY’D BUILD FEWER HOUSES AND I THINK THEY HAVE BUILT FEWER THAN ENTITLED TO BUILD THERE.>>YES.>>ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE BOARD? I’LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT’S APPEAL AND OVERTURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S ACTION. I WANT TO MENTION IN THE CONDITION THAT IT SHOULD BE A CLASS C STREET. SO NO SIDEWALKS. AND NO STREET LIGHTS.>>OKAY.>>I ASSUME THAT THAT’S PART TOUGH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SORT OF URBAN ADDITIONS THAT I SHOULD BE AWARE OF THAT WE NEED TO TAKE OUT.>>WE’LL REVISE CONDITION 14 TO BE CLASS C IMPROVEMENTS.>>ALL RIGHT. SO THAT IS — THE RECOMMENDED — I’M MOVING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION PLUS TWO ADDITIONS TO THE CONDITIONS. AND I WOULD SUGGEST TO THE DEVELOPER THAT GIVEN THE COMMUNICATION ISSUES THAT HAVE ARISEN THAT PERHAPS WHEN YOU BUILD THE HOUSES, YOU PUT A SIGN INDICATING A PHONE NUMBER WHERE RESIDENTS CAN CALL IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. WE’VE DONE THAT BEFORE ON SOME PROJECTS. IT SEEMS TO HELP WITH ALREADY-EXISTING RESIDENTS FEELING LIKE THEY HAVE A DIRECT LINE AND TO THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE HERE, IF YOU’RE INTERESTED IN THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU BE AWARE OF THE DESIGN REVIEW MEETINGS AND IF YOU WANT TO ATTEND, THAT YOU DO SO.>>SECOND.>>THANK YOU.>>PLEASE VOTE.>>UNANIMOUS VOTE.>>GREAT. AND JUST TO WATER RESOURCES, IF WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS OTHER ISSUE THAT CAME UP THROUGH THE APPLICATION. THANK YOU.>>ALL RIGHT. THAT BRINGS US TO THE CONCLUSION OF THIS MORNING’S SESSION. WE WILL NOW GO INTO CLOSED

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *