Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comments Land Use Procurement Transit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gold River residents urge county to halt proposed drive‑throughs and tree removal; caller criticizes emergency contract and inspector general pay
Summary
During public comment, a Gold River resident urged the board to require a full public process for proposed drive‑throughs and to stop greenbelt tree removal; another commenter criticized a $2.5 million sound‑wall emergency contract and referenced an inspector general salary figure, while a PTA leader urged durable funding for the youth 'Ride Free' transit program.
Several members of the public used the unscheduled communications period on April 28 to raise neighborhood and program concerns.
Sandra Cortez, who said she is a Gold River homeowner, told the board that documents indicate county staff offered a developer (First Washington) an option to structure two fast‑food drive‑throughs to bypass CEQA review and asked the board to insist on a full public process before approving such projects. Cortez also requested that county staff deny further greenbelt tree removal and coordinate with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and other agencies if trees were being removed.
Another commenter identified as Barbara questioned the county’s placement of a $2.5 million sound‑wall replacement contract as an emergency procurement, noting that project study dates back to 2024 and asking why a traditional bidding process was not used. She also raised the inspector general salary figure of $165,000 as part of a broader criticism of oversight reporting cadence.
Wendy Bogdan, identified as president of a parent‑teacher‑student association, urged the board to recommit funding for the youth free‑transit program (referred to in the transcript as "Ride Free RT"), noting the program’s reported usage — "over 4.1 million youth rides" cited in her remarks — and asked the board to champion a sustainable long‑term funding strategy rather than leaving the program without durable financing.
Board members did not take immediate policy action on these public comments during the meeting; the speakers requested follow‑ups and additional staff communication.
