Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

Thank you. If I could get a roll call, please. Watts?

Here.

Johnson?

Here.

Dahlgren? Here. Runtine? Here. Jule? Here. Alves? Here.

Beckler? Here. Thank you. I'd like to welcome everyone to today's Planning Commission hearing. The meeting is open to in person participation and may be observed online through the Placer County website as well.

If you'd like to make public comment on any item today, the Planning Commission Clerk will announce when you are up to provide to line up to provide testimony. Please be prepared to speak at the time I open public comment for the specific item in which you would like to address. This may include public comment for matters not on the published agenda or hearing items. Each commenter will be entitled to three minutes, of comment, and you'll only be given one opportunity to speak on each item. Thank you for your consideration, as we work to ensure that each citizen, has, equal opportunity to do so.

Please be advised that today's hearing is being recorded and will be available on the Planning Commission's webpage, following the hearing. I will now move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the consent calendar. We do have two items today, the Planning Commission meeting minutes for 12/04/2025 and the 12/18/2025 meeting. Would any commissioner like to remove one of the items from the commission the consent agenda? Okay. Would any member of the public like to remove one of the items from the consent agenda? I see none. Do we have anyone on the ADA?

I see no hand raised.

Okay. If I could entertain a motion then.

Move we move we approve the consent agenda.

I'll second. We have a first and second, if we could get a roll call.

Rantine?

Yes.

Dahlgren? Yes. Watts?

Yes.

Johnson?

Yes.

Jewel?

Yes.

Alves?

Yes.

Beckler? Yes. Great. I will now ask for the report from the planning director, mister Pahuli. Welcome. Good morning.

Good morning, chair Beckler, commissioners. Chris Pahuli, planning director. Welcome to our first meeting of, 2026. I'm going to start, with, just a few updates. So earlier, this week, the board of supervisors took final action on the Hopeway Apartments project.

They did, vote to approve the design review agreement. They approved the state density bonus, requests as well as the CEQUA conformity review approving the entitlement package for, the Hopeway Apartments project. It's important to note that they, also took an action, to deny a funding request of, approximately $10,800,000, in loans for, that project as well. I know that this project is of great interest to the planning commission. I'll continue to keep you updated if there's any, new developments with the, with the project.

In terms of upcoming, board items, on February 3 next week, the board will be meeting in Tahoe at the Grand Lavacon. They will be considering, the Ritz Carlton Residences, project, which was heard by this commission on December 4 and was recommended for approval on a five zero, with two absences vote. Later in February on the seventeenth of Feb, seventeenth, the board will be taking up the, zoning text amendment package, that the board, I'm sorry, that the Planning Commission considered on December 18. You also approved that on a five zero two vote. As a reminder, there's about 24 amendments as part of that as part of that package.

In terms of upcoming, planning commission meetings, you you see on your planning director report that we do have items coming up for the next, two months. We have on, February 12, one item tentatively scheduled, that, includes a rezone, and other entitlements in in the Granite Bay community. On the twenty sixth, we have three items including, the housing elements annual progress report and the, long range work program. I'll also mention in a moment that we expect a presentation from our, CEO's housing division on the, affordable housing ordinance nexus study. I'll mention that in a moment.

March 19, you have two items tentatively scheduled. And then March 26, I do wanna mention that we are tentatively planning to hold that hearing at the North Tahoe Event Center, and I'll keep you updated as we get a little bit closer to let you know about that meeting and if we will indeed hold it there. In terms of some housing updates, I I just mentioned that we're expecting a presentation on the twenty sixth from our housing division. But I did also wanna make note that you all should have received a an email from, their staff, including that included the draft nexus study that's been prepared for for that effort. So you have access to that.

In addition to the presentation to the planning commission, that staff will be presenting that information to the board of supervisors on February 17. A couple of other updates I wanted to provide. We do have, four commissioners that will be attending the, League of California City's Planning Commissioner Academy, March 11 through the thirteenth in Anaheim. And then I also wanted to note that you should also have received the quarterly planning report as well. So you have that report.

I did want to point out that we did include our long range planning items as part of that report at the end. I will also just say that the report is a little bit of a work in progress. We're going to continue to refine it and to provide, you with some additional details, so we'll continue to refine it over the next year. The next quarterly report that you'll receive is on April 20 at your April 23 meeting. So not included in the planning director report, but I, also noticed that we did receive in advance of this meeting, public comments on, residential care facilities.

I did want to let the commission know that we do have, two, residential care facility applications that are in. Both of those are for minor use permits, so those will be heard by the zoning administrator, but you continue to receive, public comments on those items, given the great interest that the community has in them. I also wanted to note that yesterday evening, we did, hold a virtual town hall meeting on, two zoning ordinance amendments that staff is working on that we've talked about before. One of them is related to residential care homes, which is why I'm bringing it up. The other amendment is related to emergency shelters.

We had roughly 80 participants yesterday evening in that virtual town hall meeting. A lot of questions about those amendment packages that staff is working on. We're going to be meeting with a handful of municipal advisory councils over the next, couple of months, and we do plan on, coming to the commission with those draft ordinances for your consideration in April. That concludes my planning director's report, and I'm happy to answer questions from the commission.

Great. Thank you, Chris. I did wanna say one comment, I'll open it up to questions. That I did listen in to the workshop last night. I thought the county staff did a great job and actually entertained live questions, and then allowed feedback. So thanks for doing that. Planning commissioner's questions.

Yeah. We've been seeing a lot of information from the Fish and Game Committee with regards to fencing. Is that something that the planning department is working on? Or

It is. I I apologize for not mentioning that. We did receive a couple of of letters as well. Those were in relation to the zoning text amendment package, that you considered at your, at your last meeting. There was an amendment on fencing, and that we've been, talking with them, and they they provided comments in support of the the text amendment package.

Oh, so that was that's covered by that. It is. It's covered by now. Okay.

Thank you.

Hey, Chris. I I'm gonna be traveling from Anaheim, not back home, on Friday. Do you know I haven't seen the schedule of events. Do you know when that ends on Friday?

I believe the last session ends around noon or maybe a little bit before noon.

Okay. Okay. Thanks. 12:15. Okay.

Chris, the zoning, administrator residential care facilities, applications coming up. Do know what districts those are in? You said there's two of them coming up?

I believe districts 5 and 3? Both and 5.

Both and 5.

Both 5. Both and 5. Okay. And then you said the draft nexus study was emailed to us? By whom? I don't think I got it.

Yeah. There was an email that went out yesterday. I'll check on it. I believe it came from Darius Brown from the, CEO's office.

I didn't get it.

Okay. I'll check on that.

Did anybody else get it? Nexus study from Darius? You got it. Mark got it.

Chair, may I say something? We did receive that. It was near 05:00, so I'll be sending that today.

Okay, thank you so much. All right. Any other questions for Mr. Poohooli? All right. Thank you so much, Chris. Appreciate it. Okay. The next item on the agenda is Planning Commissioner Reports. Do any of my fellow commissioners have a report or any information they'd like to share?

See none. Okay. Moving right along. I'm now going to open public comment for any matters that are not on the Planning Commission agenda. And as a reminder, you will have three minutes to provide comments. So if you want to go ahead and line up. And please state your name for the record.

Sure thing. Hi. My name is Laurie Peltz Lewis. I'm with the Bald Hill Community. My comments are regarding the residential care home draft ordinances released last week. I've submitted two documents so far. I'm about to submit a third. The planning commission reviews of the minor use permits. Did you know that the new draft ordinance is exempting the planning commission from reviewing these MUPs? Which you do now, and we will be required to put in a filing fee if we're appealing it.

The removal of subject factors, I have to say last night the meeting was very interesting because we understand now that the draft ordinance exempts the subject of factors except for security and health. The technical letter of assistance HE-forty two we've read last night, and we do have security and health issues. Notifications. We also located in the Department of I guess it's HCD's planning information that homes that are less than six residents and move to anything more than six are now have the option of eliminating any requirement for public notification, although the planning department has told us numerous times that if they were to move to anything greater than six, we would be notified. There would be a public notification.

Community safety, we have numerous young children in the area, especially young ladies that can see right into the house at 1905 Bald Hill Road. We would like to some kind of consideration associated with how do we protect these people, what kind of safety do we have associated with that. The Planning Department has consistently said there is no medical services whatsoever at these homes that they're approving of. But in California Department of Health Care Services Notice eight eighteen-thirty one Incidental Medical Services, which is part of their SUDS toolkit, they allow the potential use of buprenorphine methadone, both of which are Schedule II drugs. And we also need to note that the California Department of Health Care Services has been audited, and it's resulted in a corrective action plan to make sure that they respond to people's complaints and they check things.

Number of people at the home, let's be clear, there are eight full time people at the home. Even though you're not including staff, they consume water and septic and traffic on the roads. They impact emergency evacuations. We are very concerned about the temporal turnover. You don't find this with other homes. These people are coming and going every thirty days we're seeing this. Objective issues that we're also concerned about insufficient septic. The home we know at nineteen o five has problems. Insufficient water. We all have water issues. Traffic. There's no line on the road outside at this area in Bald Hill Road. And what about wildfire evacuations? Lots of concerns. Thank you so much for your time, and thank you to the planning department also for their work last night. It was a great call.

Thank you. Appreciate your comments.

Good morning, Chair Bechler, commissioners, Wayne Nader. I just wanted to take a moment to publicly congratulate Ms. Bechler on being appointed by the rest of you commissioners to lead you in this next year. I'm it's likely that you will have another eventful year ahead of you, and I have no doubt that her experience, her thoughtfulness, and her thoroughness will be valuable attributes as you go through this year. And I do wanna wish all of you wisdom and discernment as you make important decisions for our community related to land use. This, is critical in the direction of our county. So I wish you the best.

Thank you so much, Wayne. Appreciate it. Any other public comment for items not on the agenda?

My name is Sherry Larson, and I live close to the True North Detox Project. I'd like to emphasize one of the things that Lori mentioned about your involvement in the Minor Use Project. Asked in the call last night, why was your involvement in the review of the minor use permit process cut out, basically? And the reason is you're too slow, that they want to make the process more or faster and speedier and remove constraints such as eliminating the public notice. So if you're cut out of the process, the Planning Services Division will review them up and they will potentially have a hearing and we don't have a say until after the hearing.

And then if we don't agree with them up, we'll have to then file an appeal with you and pay a fee. So we don't have the opportunity like we do today to raise comments with you. And in the last meeting Ms. Dahlgren asked Mr. Pahuli to transfer the detox MUPs to your review, and he said he would take it under advisement.

So under the revised draft zoning amendments, that's not going to happen anymore. So I just want you to know that we feel that using you as an avenue, with public comment, you know, at least makes us feel engaged as a community to express our concerns and now your involvement is going to be cut out of the process. The other thing I just want to mention briefly is they're going to raise the limit for over six in a residential care home to seven to 16. In the True North Detox, location, there's three parcels, three houses, 16 apiece, that's 48 people in one location. That doesn't include staff.

That doesn't include delivery of services or anything else on again a county road that's very narrow. So this is a major concern for us as well as the safety and other issues. And, I think I'll just eliminate or stop my comments at that. But we just feel very strongly about your participation in the minor use process. And so we don't want to see your involvement cut out of it. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good morning. My name is Mike Giles. I too will be impacted by the residential care facility. What's happening here, I've seen it happen before, is we are boiling frog. And how do you do it? You do it slow, and that's what they're going to do to us. And the way you do it is you go after zoning text amendments. One of the things you need to do is remove anything that's subjective in there. Things like, does this fit the character of the community or the character of the neighborhood? You you need to pull that out.

You need to pull out will it affect the peace, comfort, and well-being of that community? You need to go after that. You need to amend your text amendment. You need to start charging a fee for a neighbor or neighbors who want to object. Make it financially costly for the neighbors. Reduce the noise, suppress them. You need to ease the permitting process for the binder use permit for the entity. In in this case, not just a residential care facility or residential care campus. A campus. We're not talking single family residents.

We're talking a cluster. We're talking three parcels, all contiguous. We're talking up to three dwellings per parcel. We're talking a horse of a different color, but that will not be explained to you clearly. There there are limits. There's there's a difference between a duplex and a Hilton hotel. We all know it. And lastly, get the planning commission out of there. We don't need any more interference. We need to streamline this. We need to cut them out. The frog is slowly boiling. We're asking you to keep the temperature down. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else that would like to make public comment? Yes. Go ahead and come up and state your name for the record.

Hi. I'm Carrie O'Reilly. I just wanted to read something. I was looking last night, and I decided I probably should not be looking at the news anymore before I go to bed because it's truly giving me nightmares. I don't know if you're aware.

Somebody said they're going to Orange County, that that's now known as the Rehab Riviera. I don't know if you're aware of that, but in fact, it is. And they've done many, many studies. If you speak to someone from Orange County or Costa Mesa, there are over 1,100 rehab facilities in that area alone in Orange County. And, it just says there is a significant well documented issue in Orange County, California regarding an oversaturation of drug rehab facilities, which has led to complaints about negative impacts on residential neighborhoods and concerns over industry fraud.

You see what they're doing is importing people to California. They're not our neighbors. Importing them, getting them on insurance, putting them in a rehab home, keeping them there, just until their insurance runs out, and then saying, well, you can self pay. Well, of course, they can't self pay 10 to 50,000, sometimes $80,000 a month. And and then they just put them out on the street because you can't pay anymore.

They don't care if they're rehabbed. They care about profit, and that is we are going to be the next rehab Riviera if somebody doesn't do something. The bills are stalled in the state legislature. Apparently, we just passed, proposition one or whatever it was, and that offers another 6.4, I don't know if it's million or billion, either way, to help with these rehab facilities. They're not about rehab.

They're about profit, and they're coming into our neighborhood unless somebody stands up and does something. That's what we, as a group, are trying to do, but I don't wanna be the next rehab Riviera. We live moved to Placer County for a reason, and that's not it. So I am hoping that somebody here can do something to stop that so that that's not who where we are and what we're known for. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Good morning. My name is Chris Forrester, and I think what my concern is is that anybody can go out and purchase a home and turn it into a rehab center. The county is behind the ball. You only find out about it when they've applied for a building or for a permit to open these houses. So why or how do we become a part of being in front of it?

Now I know in counties in LA and Orange County, they have asked that the cities, they have to apply for a permit prior to opening up a rehab center. So how as what stops someone from going anywhere in our county and buying all of these houses? If they're getting 40 to 60,000 a month per person, that's a lot of money. So they could go and be buying houses throughout our area, and you guys will have no idea that they're rehab centers because they can immediately put six people in a house, and it's done. The only way the public finds out about it is by a neighbor or if they're applying for more beds, but nothing stops that initial six.

So I guess that's my concern is what stops these conglomerations from buying houses throughout our county, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. So that is my personal concern about changing the, quote, character of our county. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else that would like to make public comment?

Hello. My name is Shirley Paris, and I have been a property owner in Placer County for forty years. In addition, I have been an educator in this community for forty years. So I just want to bring to your attention that's already been mentioned, the fact that we are are trying to create, restrictions or guidelines after the fact. I hate that the fact that Placer County is going to be reactive instead of proactive.

When this particular home went up for sale in on Bald Hill, we had no idea. Because again, to seven beds, they can slip it in. But that opens the door. And then we look at these larger groups coming in and applying for your for the the multi multi use facility, whatever. And I, as a property owner, now look, every time I have a neighbor put their one acre to five acres up for sale, especially if they have a pool, am I going to have a drug facility across the street from me?

I never worried about housing going up for sale in my neighborhood. I live in the rural agricultural area for a reason, growing animals, etcetera. It was the lifestyle that I moved from the Bay Area to here forty years ago. Please be proactive and not reactive. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else that would like to make public comment for items not on the agenda? I see none. Do we have anyone from ADA?

Diane, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments, please.

Greetings, commissioners. Diane Louise Alessi from the Christian Valley Park Community Services District, District 5, and domiciled in Placer County for sixty years. I'm here to say plainly approving Hopeway Apartments under Reno was a serious mistake. We must never repeat it. The state's calculations are not reality.

The numbers are skewed by high income earners. Plaster's assigned medium household income of $114,006.78 and an AMI of one 120, 800 for a family of four are inflated by affluent households. For a real workforce, teachers, nurses, firefighters, mechanics, grocery workers, caregivers, and actual incomes are far less far lower. Affordable slash achievable housing tied to these medians is out of reach for the people who need it most. Over 80,000 low income renter households in Placer are severely burdened.

77% of extremely low income families spend more than half their income on rent. That is not affordability. That is a crisis. Lessons learned. The Hopeway project makes it worse. 240 units sky high cost, $662 per square foot. That's 2.3 times higher than in Texas. Long delays by, and by completion, inflation wipes out any affordability. Add fifty five year deed restrictions and talk of fifty year mortgages, and you're not creating homeowners. You're creating perpetual renters with no equity and no legacy for their kids.

Worst of all, safety was recklessly sacrificed. No study have ever studies have ever been conducted or is their hard aided to justify a roundabout for safety mitigation of congestion in a mass exodus event. A single lane roundabout on Penryn Road, a critical southern evacuation route in a high fire hazard zone is morally and ethically bankrupt. I tested three AI platforms for analysis deduced that in a wildfire, it becomes a deadly choke point, gridlock, delayed evacuations, lives at risk for death occurring. For for hundreds of additional residents, this is unacceptable.

Rina ignores reality. Statewide corporate flight, job losses, eroding tax base, stagnant wages, yet we keep rezoning high density projects that strain schools, roads, and emergency services while failing and the very families they claim to help. Commissioners, the facts are clear. Stop these rezonings just for cramping RINA numbers into the state's appeasement bucket. Demand real economic impact reviews based on actual workforce incomes, not skewed mediums.

Above all, prioritize safety. Cut red tape that drives up cost, deliver housing, our teachers, our first responders, and essential workers can actually afford and survive in. Our community deserves better than top down mandates in that endanger lives and deepen inequality. I thank you for your time

and your consideration. I thank you.

Thank you for your comments. I am going to go ahead and close public comment. I see that we have no other comment. So we are now oh, yes. Would you like to make any, clarifications?

Yeah, Becker, if you wouldn't mind, I'll just make a couple of points of clarification. And as the items that were talked about during comment, will be likely coming before the planning commission at some point, I will keep the, comments just to clarification point. So one, just wanted to, restate what I said during the planning director report that we are working on the zoning text amendment package that will address, residential care homes that is in response to the twenty twenty one housing elements, program, one of those programs, program 40, forty two forty one. So that will be coming to the planning commission likely in April for for consider for consideration. I also wanted to note there was some discussion about a minor the minor use permit process.

I know the commission is aware, but just for everyone to, to be aware of it, minor use permit is a discretionary, permit. That, discretionary permit is considered by the zoning administrator, as part of a open public meeting, that is noticed to, to residents. As the planning commission is also aware, those decisions as evidenced by, today's hearing, can be appealed to the planning commission. So, that, items that are before the zoning administrator have a, some ability to be heard by the Planning Commission, including the items that you heard from today during public comments. So just wanted to provide those points of clarification.

Thank you so much, Chris. Appreciate it. Okay. With that, I am going to go ahead and move on to the hearing items on today's agenda. Item number one is the consideration of an appeal of the zoning administrator's approval of a variance for a property that is located at 600 Canyon Drive in North Auburn. We did receive a request from the appellant to continue this item. So I would like to ask, the planning director if you could provide some guidance on how we want to handle this this morning.

Yeah. Thank you, Chair Bechler. So as as you noted, the, appellant has requested a continuance of this item to, your February 12 meeting. Per the, Placer County zoning ordinance, an appeal body shall commence a appeal hearing within ninety days of the filing of the appeal unless it is mutually agreed upon by the appellant and the appeal body, which in this case is the planning commission for an extension beyond those ninety days. This, item that's before you today was considered by the zoning administrator on October 23.

The appeal was filed on November 3. A continuance to the February 12 date would, exceed the ninety day time period and therefore, would need to be agreed upon by, by the appeal body and by the planning commission. So given, that requirement, staff is, recommending that the planning commission, take a vote on whether or not to grant that continuance of this item. Staff would recommend that, you do hear from the applicant who is not the appellant in this instance, to see if they are agreeable to a continuance to have that factor into your decision, and also to open public comment on the, granting of the continuance only, and have those, comments factor into, the decision of the planning commission. If you decide to grant the continuance, then staff would recommend that you continue it to a date and time certain.

Again, it's requested February 12. It would be at nine a. Or soon thereafter. And if you deny the continuance request, then the item would be heard today, and the Planning Commission can take action on the appeal.

Okay. Thank you so much, Chris. Appreciate it. With that, unless there are questions around clarification, okay? Yes.

So where are we at in the ninety day window?

Roughly February 3, I would be, I would say would be the ninety days. So we're we're

just a little bit before that right now. Just a week away from the deadline.

Correct. Any

other questions or clarification? Okay. With that, I am gonna go ahead and ask first, if there are comments, from the applicant specifically related to the continuance. And then after that, I will open it up to public comment.

Madam Chair, members of the commission, Marcus Loduca, 1508 Eureka Road. We do not support a continuance. This we were originally supposed to go to the zoning administrator sometime last summer. It was first heard on August 14. We are at almost a hundred days after the z a hearing. We're at ninety eight days of today. We're on day 80 seven after the appeal was filed. You know, there sometimes there's needs to be some certainty to the process in terms of working through. This has been in the hearing process for eight almost eight months, and we're gonna get a continuance. Nothing and nothing says that someone won't ask for continuance again.

We are ready to, to go. The, there have been further comments from the appellant this week that were submitted to the commission. So it wasn't like, this has been something, that they haven't had an opportunity to comment further once the staff report was out. They have commented further. And so we ask that the continuous request be rejected, and we hold the appeal hearing today. As we all know, this is not the last appeal body, and so, we need to move to the process. Again, this has been a very long time period for a property owner to try to get resolution one way or the other on her application. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. I am now gonna open it up to public comment, and again, the public comment should be specific to the continuance, not on the merits of the appeal. Thank you. Please state

your name. My name is Andrew Wold. I would like to advocate for a continuance, based on a few different items, one including what was just mentioned. First, the I believe that there is a potential notice deficiency. I know that I did not receive in the mail until last Wednesday my paper about this hearing, And I know when talking to other neighbors that they did not, and that is clearly without, from my understanding, what is supposed to be a ten day period notification period, and that in my that was not met.

The second one, I know that there were some concerns regarding the county email system over the last week. I know that some people are trying to send in comments that were rejected because of some issues that were going on with the county email system. And then I would also like to address the, the appellant, if that's the proper term, of who is who is ill and had requested the continuance. She, she initially asked if she could if she could satellite or remote in, if she could either do a Zoom or or telephone call, and she would that that was denied by the staff when she asked that, first of all, which I didn't realize, but it sounded like during the public comment section, somebody was allowed to call in. But this appellant she was not allowed to.

And, so I just feel that proceeding with that with this, it should be continued for those reasons. She should have the right to she should have the right to to speak, and she should certainly be afforded the same rights that whoever was able to call in was was afforded.

Thank you for your comments.

You're welcome. Can I ask a question?

If it's a clarifying question. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Oh, pardon me. Are you, are you representing the, applicant or the appellant?

I wouldn't necessarily say that I'm representing the applicant. I'm here I'm here in opposition of this of this variance.

Yeah. The appellant couldn't make it.

She couldn't make You know, she can I wanted to know if I Yeah? Can The appellant the appellant, the one who filed the appeal and who's, you know, kind of, I guess, you know, in in her own thing spearheading, she came down very ill, and she didn't wanna come here and expose other people to her illness.

I just wanted to know if you're representing the appellant. No. Okay.

Thank you. Any other?

No. No. Thank you, Rich. Any other public comment related to the continuance? And then, or do we have anyone on the ADA, line?

I see no hand raised.

Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. So I would bring it back to the Commission unless, Chris, there's anything you'd like to say before we deliberate on the continuance.

Just two quick points. One, just to, make sure that we say on the record that that we do not have, Zoom or Teams capabilities for these meetings. They are in person only. However, there are there is the ability for an ADA accommodation and just make sure that we mention that the member from the public that is participating is for an ADA accommodation, not because they're sick or not able to attend the meeting. The other point just to make is that the mail the mailing requirement is a ten day mail require requirement.

Staff, is is checking but believes that all of the mailings were conducted in in accordance with with our county code.

Okay. Thank you.

Chair Beckler?

Yes. Go ahead.

Thank you. Just to go into a little more detail, to qualify for an ADA accommodation, there are certain things that need to be met, mainly providing enough information to establish that there's a disability that needs to be accommodated.

Okay.

And then second, I was just going to cite to the county code section for the notice requirement, which is seventeen sixty one forty.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Okay. With that, I will bring it back to the commission. Questions or deliberations related to whether we grant a continuance or deny it in here the item today.

I'm just personally ready to go. So I'll see how my other commissioners feel about

it. Okay.

Yeah. My question, I think it was brought up, what prevents this person if we extend to, say, February 12 calling in two days before again and saying I'm ill and let's So do another that's the concern is it could just perpetuate on and on and on. We did hear

from the appellant this week in writing.

Yeah. And it's such a precedent that maybe people see that, oh, I just need to wait a few days before the thing if I'm not ready and say I'm sick. So I am I'm not questioning whatsoever the illness of the appellant. Just

saying it

would set a precedent.

Okay. Are there other

Yeah. Yeah. We've received a lot of input and I I think sufficient to be able to make a decision. So I don't think we need additional time or information on the item.

Okay. Trent, any nothing? Okay.

I'd question how many people are here today to speak on this item.

Could I get maybe a quick show of hands of who attended today to speak on the item that we're hearing today? So we have one. Yeah, we've received a lot of public comment outside of the room, but yeah. Mark, any comment? So I think we're hearing the various comments, so I guess if anyone's ready to make a motion whether we continue this item or not.

I'll make a motion that we hear the item today.

Just one quick point. I did have a discussion with the applicant's representative on his request. We had a short telephone conversation yesterday as well as I drove the location. So just wanted to make that point. Same for

me. Okay.

I reiterate my motion to hear this item today. Chair Bechler? Yes.

Just due to the request in front of the planning commission today, I would suggest that the motion be to deny the request for continuance.

Okay. I make a motion to deny the request for continuance for this item for today's hearing.

I'll second that.

Okay. I have a first and second. Can we get a roll call?

Dahlgren? Yes. Watts?

Yes.

Johnson?

Yes.

Runtine?

Yes.

Jule? Yes.

Alves?

Yes.

Beckler? Yes. Okay. With that, we will go ahead and then hear this item. Is there any sort of, guidance or advisement, before we open up to the staff presentation from counsel?

Yes. Thank you, Chair Beckler. I know all the commissioners have heard appeals before, but with the new year, I just wanna take a few minutes to remind you guys all of the process. As you may recall, the appeals process is a judicial proceeding. It takes a slightly different format than the typical items that come before the planning commission.

The process for the appeals is set out in the county code in section seventeen point sixty point one one zero and is also based on the accounting processes generally. To start with, when an action reaches the planning commission on appeal, the underlying action is stayed, and then the planning commission is conducting a de novo hearing, which is basically they're conducting a new hearing and can look at new evidence and can draw fresh conclusions irrespective of the prior action. K? Second, the order of the hearing generally goes in the following order, a staff presentation, an opportunity for the project applicant to present their case, and then an opportunity for the appellant to present their case if different than the applicant. And all parties' presentations are limited to the length of time that staff takes for their presentation, with the reason being that if the county staff needs longer time, it generally indicates more complexity to the issues, and so the other parties likely need that same amount of time.

The presentations are a little bit different, and the planning commissioner should feel free to raise questions throughout the presentations at any point. Like other judicial matters during these presentations, you will be charged with listening to the evidence and testimony and making decisions thereon. The rules of evidence that might apply in a courtroom won't apply here, so you can consider hearsay evidence. But you will be required to weigh the evidence, the credibility of witnesses' statements, and accuracy of statements to reach your conclusions. And then at the end of the presentations, there will be a public comment period, for the nonappeal parties, and this will follow the normal public comment procedures, allowing three minutes for each person to comment.

After the public comment period, then the planning commission will deliberate, and you can either affirm, modify, or reverse the underlying decision. And the findings made by the commission must identify the reasons for the action taken on the appeal. Also, in the instance that there is a tie vote on any item, the underlying decision will be upheld. And then at the end of the appeal decision today, there is a potential for the item to be appealed to the board, which must be filed within ten days. So those are generally the highlights. If you guys have any questions, I'm here to answer them. Otherwise, feel free to proceed.

Hannah, one question for the appeal opportunity, since the appellant isn't here, depending on what the decision is today, anyone that is either here in person or submitted comment would be able to appeal this item. Is that correct?

That's correct, yes.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Commission? Okay. Thank you so much, Hannah. Appreciate it.

You're welcome.

Okay. Hello. I don't think I've met you before, so welcome.

Hi. Thank you. Hi. Good morning. My name is Martin Romero.

I'm an associate planner, and I'll be presenting the appeal for the Leveque garage setback variance, PLN250009. Staff request that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Antoinette Fabela of the zoning administrator's 10/23/2025 decision to approve the LaVette garage setback variance. The subject property is located at 600 Canyon Drive in the unincorporated Auburn area. The 1.9 acre subject parcel is Sown R S B 100. That is residential single family combining minimum building site of 100,000 square feet.

The subject property is abutting the city of Auburn, shown here in oh, shown here in blue. Single family residential on the eastern property line, and undeveloped open space in the southern property line. The subject parcel is long and narrow with approximately 60% of the parcel being heavily vegetated with steep slopes. The remaining 40% of the parcel on the northern side is developed within approximately 1,700 square foot single family dwelling and a 540 square foot detached recreational room. Access to the site is achieved via Canyon Drive on the northern property line.

Canyon Drive abuts the subject parcel on the northern and western property lines. A road easement sits along the eastern, property line. An intermittent stream flows down the Western property line. The, garage is proposed to, be constructed in this orange box right here. The applicant and property owners, Cynthia Leveque, requested approval of a variance to construct a 1,200 square foot detached garage located 18 feet from the edge of the road eastman on the Eastern property line, where normally 30 feet would be required and 35 feet from the centerline of the intermittent stream that flows on the Western property line.

The variance request was approved by the zoning administrator in October 20 on 10/23/2025. Section seventeen sixty one hundred of the Placer County zoning ordinance provides the means for property owners to request to alter requirements in specific instances where the strict application of those requirements with the private property of privileges enjoyed by the other properties within identical zoning designations. Section seventeen sixty one hundred d one Approval may be granted only when grant the granting authority first determines that the variant satisfies the criteria set forth in California government code section sixty five nine zero six makes the necessary findings for approval. Placer County general plan policy six a one and Auburn Bowman community plan vegetation policy b six establish sensitive habitat buffers such as the required 50 foot setback for the intermittent stream. A buffer may be reduced given additional information in the review of a project, and an exception to the required buffer be made in the case that reasonable use of the property would otherwise be denied.

Placer County general plan policy six eight five in Auburn Bowman community plan hydrologic hydrology policy b 15 established that the county shall require the use of feasible and practical best management practices to protect streams from adverse effects of construction activities and urban runoff. The project has been conditioned to incorporate these BMPs into the construction and operation of the proposed structure. The item was first scheduled for hearing at the July 10 zoning administrator meeting, but due to a noticing error, staff recommended that it be continued to the August 14 date. At the August 14 zoning administrator meeting, the zoning administrator took the action to tentatively deny the project and continued the item to the September 18 zoning administrator meeting with the direction to staff to draft the findings for denial for the project. At the September 18 hearing, the zoning the applicant submitted a written request to revise the project to propose the to relocate the structure 35 feet from the centerline of the intermittent stream as opposed to the original eight feet that was requested.

The zoning administrator gave staff the direction to review the the revised project and continued the item to the October 23 zoning administrator meeting. At the October 23 zoning administrator meeting, the zoning administrator determined that the revised project satisfied the findings required to make approval to recommend approval for a variance and approved the variance. Throughout the processing of the application and during the previous hearings held for the item, neighboring property owners brought forth the following issues, potential impacts to the stream, the concrete slab, the construction of a fence on the western property line, the location, materials, use of the proposed structure as a business, tree removal, SQL compliance, and the mapping and analysis of the one hundred year floodplain. The issues listed have been continuously brought forth hearings in the form of comment letters and in person public comment. In an effort to address these concerns, county staff met with neighboring property owners, reviewed the concerns brought forth, and required additional information from the applicant in order to meet those concerns.

One of those additional informations that we required was the hundred year floodplain analysis. On 11/03/2025, Antoinette Fabela filed an appeal of the zoning administrator's decision to approve the LaVette garage variance, contending the following stream impacts. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife site review unauthorized site changes, Seadrill project description requirements and the accuracy of the proposed boundary lines. The appellant contends that the applicant completed significant alterations prior to applying for a variance. She for variance.

Such as pouring the concrete and removal of trees throughout the property. During staff's review, it was determined that the the concrete slab did not meet the parameters for requiring a permit. Initially, the slab was proposed as the foundation to the proposed structure, but the project has since been revised to be constructed east of this slab. So, also, the bulk of tree removal throughout the property was conducted by PG and E. A public utility is exempt from tree permitting.

Additionally, p c Placer County Code section nineteen fifty thirty allows developed nondivisible single family laws to be removed up to 50% of trees without the need of a tree permit, and the subject property meets these criteria. The applicant contends that a report of game warden Justin Cisneros from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife was not disclosed to the public. During the processing of the applications, county staff was informed of reports to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife alleging stream bed alterations at the property. Staff reached out to the game warden who stated that during their review, they found no violations. And when staff requested a copy of the report following the site visit, the game warden stated that no report was filed as no violations were found and the case was closed.

Earlier this month, the appellant requested that planning staff provide them with the CDFW report, and I once again reached out to the warden who reaffirmed that no report was filed. The appellant contends that the applicant made unauthorized changes to the site during the processing of the application. The Placer County Universal allows the applicant sorry, let me backtrack. The Placer County Universal Application states that the applicant agrees not to alter the physical condition of the property during the processing of this application without prior obtaining written approval from the county. On 03/30/2025, the applicant reached out to county staff requesting permission to construct a fence in response to vandalism.

Her garden got vandalized, and county staff responded that a fence would be allowed and confirmed that the applicant's choice of materials and height complied with the zoning ordinance. The appellant contends that the zoning administrator did not take into account the variance instructions form before approving the application. The form the appellant incites is an instructional form, not the findings required to make to approve a variance. As previously mentioned, Placer County Code Section seventeen sixty one hundred d one establishes the findings the zoning administrator established to approve the project. The appellant contends that no report from a program biologist was disclosed per Community Condition 2.2.

Community Condition 2.2 comes from the master conditions of approval for projects within the Placer County Conservation Program area, and the subject property is not within the PCCP. The appellant contends that the project does not meet the seizure project description requirements. The appellant references language under the project description guidelines. The language referenced from this form does not apply to the project and is just an example of residential an example of project descriptions for residential projects. The project description for the variance reflected the scope of the proposed project at the time of submittal.

The appellant contends that a survey should have been required prior to approving a variance. Although variances are not typically routed to county surveying, this application was routed just to verify the property lines shown on the site plan. Surveying determined that recordation of the property lines were not required prior to approving a variance. In response to concerns that the applicant in response to these concerns, the applicant previously elected to record the Western property lines. But after discussions with the abutting neighbor, the Placer Land Trust, The property owner chose not to proceed as the Placer Land Trust was in the process of recording their boundaries.

The issues brought forth in the appeal letter do not challenge whether the project met the findings required to approve a variance. At the October 23 zoning administrator hearing, the zoning administrator established that there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including constraints from the location of the existing development, the shape of the parcel, the topography of the parcel, the existing easements, the required setbacks, and the location of the stream. Because of these circumstances, the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under similar zoning. The granting of this variance would not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with limitations put upon other properties in the vicinity, allowing the applicant the same benefit of residential zoning as allowed to the neighboring residential properties. The variance does not authorize a use that is not otherwise allowed in the RSB 100 zoning because accessory storage buildings are allowed in residential zones.

The granting of this variance does not, under the circumstances and conditions applied in this case, adversely affect public health or safety, is not materially detrimental to public welfare nor injurious to nearby property as established in the one hundred year floodplain analysis. Additionally, the structure will require a building permit prior to construction to verify that the structure meets county building code standards. As previously mentioned, the variance is consistent with the Auburn Bowman community plan and that the variance is the minimum departure from the requirements of Section seventeen fifty four-one 140 as described in the staff report. Due to the parcel shape, topography, and existing development, the buildable area for the garage on the parcel is limited. The proposed project site would allow the structure to be furthest from the stream while granting access to the existing residents.

Prior to this hearing, staff received 14 comments, six of which were for the project and eight opposed to the project. The comments from the appellant and the neighbors reiterated concerns raised at previous hearings. As noted in the staff report, staff has confirmed that ESD and building define the concrete slab as flatwork, not requiring a building permit. Based on the analysis contained in the report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions. Determine that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review in accordance with sections fifteen three zero three and fifteen three zero five of the California Environmental Quality Act.

In sections eighteen thirty six fifty, class three new construction or conversion of small structures and eighteen thirty six seventy class five minor alterations and land use limitations of the Placer County environmental review ordinance and deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrator's approval of the variance to allow for the construction of a 1,200 foot detached garage to be located 18 feet from the edge of the road eastman on the Eastern property line where normally 30 feet is required and 35 feet from the center line of the intermediate stream on the Western property line where 50 is normally required, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Thank you. This concludes my presentation. I am available to answer questions.

Thank you so much, Martin. Commissioners, do you have any questions? Go ahead, Rich. Okay.

Let me see. I understand that the flat work or the concrete was really not part of really the issue that we're deciding on because it's something that was already done. But I'm just a little bit curious. You say the flat work was not didn't need a permit or anything when it's within the stream zone?

Right. So the concrete slab, regardless of when it was poured, fits the definition of what a building determines as flatwork. And flatwork is exempt from both watercourse and property line setbacks.

Okay. That answers my question. Thank you.

In the oh. You know, I've been here four years, and I've never heard the term flatwork. I don't even know how that's possible. Start it out there.

And, I have a just a follow on question about the flatwork, because it was a new term to meet as well. So the flatwork, it's not considered fill or anything. Like, it's separate, because I know there's conditions around when you do fill and dirt removal within a stream system, then it can be a complicating factor, but maybe just distinguish why it's not considered fill or related.

Yeah, certainly. And and I'll have to rely a little bit on mister O'Mearo to supplement my response, but thank you, Commissioner Beckler, Chair Beckler. My understanding is that in this particular instance, because of the concerns of the proximity of this concrete flat work, and specifically that term means concrete slabs less than 30 inches in height that do not have a building located on top of them. Due to the proximity to the stream and the environmental setting that staff did consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine, if there was a need for a lake and stream alteration agreement, permit for that. And, ultimately, my understanding is that CDFW, game warden did review, the site and setting and the existing conditions and determined that a lake and stream alteration agreement was not required.

And I'll ask mister Romero to supplement my response.

Thank you, Alex.

Yeah. So game warden, justice Cisneros, during his review, did observe the concrete slab and determined that there was no evidence of stream bed narrowing or widening. So, yeah, no violations were observed.

Okay. Thank you. Trent?

Now some of the things that you brought up or talked about were brought up by the appellant, and I just wanna clarify. You said that the bulk of the tree removal was done by PG and E?

Yes. And p during one of the previous hearings, PG and E did provide me with proof that identified the trees that they had either trimmed or completely removed and that stated public utility is exempt if it is part of their maintenance.

Okay. But but using the word bulk, are you indicating that the the applicant did remove some trees? Oh,

yes. And let me see. One second.

But they didn't need a permit to do it. Right.

Yeah. So I was gonna point out to Placer County code section nineteen fifty thirty. So this is an ex under exceptions to treat permits. The subject property is currently developed with the residents. It is not divisible. It is allowed to remove up to 50% of the trees in in the area without requiring a permit.

Okay. And that that was one of the appellant's concerns that the trees some trees were removed, but they were all done lawfully? Correct. Okay. The other was they alleged that a fence was put up. But you also mentioned that she got a permit for the fence. It was approved before it was done.

So a fence wouldn't require a permit. The reason why she needed prior approval before constructing the fence was that there was an active application. Our universal application does state that you're not supposed to alter the site unless you have specific written approval from the county. So given the circumstances that it was following a case of vandalism, I I thought it would be okay to construct a fence since it was something that wouldn't require permitting.

Okay. And then, lastly, there was a a property boundary question by the appellant. And then you said that Placer Land Trust was going to survey the property, but was there ever done was there any of the answer to the appellant's question on boundary line?

So that application is currently in the process and being reviewed by county surveying. So Placer Lantros did move forward with, trying to get their property lines recorded.

And do you know what what the issue was with the boundary line, that there was incorrect boundary lines, there was encroachment. What was the issue?

The appellant alleges that the applicant, encroached onto onto Placer Lantro's property.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Yes. Just piggybacking on the boundary. I think maybe I heard correct that a variance does not necessarily require I mean, we've performed many variance decisions here, and I don't ever remember a requirement of a boundary line. Is that correct?

Correct. So typically, surveying doesn't review property lines during the review of a variance. Since we this became a common issue that was brought forth. We chose to have survey and take a look, and they determined that it wasn't a requirement for variance.

Okay. And then I believe also you stated that the my main concern was the stream running along and it appears that things were done properly, but they will be required during construction and subsequent to adhere to BMPs or SWIP requirements throughout. And if there's a violation, then it would be forwarded on to code enforcement, I guess, as a reported violation?

Correct. And if there were any more allegations to stream bed alteration, they would be forwarded to the CDFW, who I have been in contact.

Thank you.

I just have two quick follow-up questions. And then before we open up to public comment, I will ask, if the applicant would like to make any comments. But, on the code, the PCC195030, I'm pretty familiar with that one, isn't there also, just to clarify, diameter at breast height requirement? So is it full scale 50% of any tree, or can you only remove trees of a certain DBH?

So my understanding of this code section is that it exempts the need for a building tree permit, which would require some sort of mitigation. As I previously stated, the parcel is heavily vegetated. So the removal of the trees that the appellant team brought forth would be exempt from permitting.

Regardless of diameter, though,

I'm I'll pretty sure there's clarify just a little bit. So there is a diameter at breast height, I guess, a trigger, if you will, and that the trees that are subject to compliance with tree ordinance requirements or restrictions from removal, Those are trees that are six inches diameter at breast height or larger in the case of a single trunk tree or 10 inches diameter at breast height or larger in the case of a multi trunk tree, and those are taken in aggregate. Thank you. Yeah.

That's what I I'm sorry, sir. I can your question, but we're not at public comment. Thank you. So it's six inches for single trunk and 10 inches for multi trunk.

That is correct.

Okay. And so with that additional clarification, I was just curious, you know, suspending comments about the actual appeal, was is it still true then that there's no violation of county code based on the trees that were removed based on those DBH requirements.

That that is still correct. PG and E did provide me with their list of trees. The applicant, gave me an estimation of, the DBH for the trees that she had, trimmed or removed, and, that is still subject to the, exception from a tree permit.

Sure. Beckler, I'll I'll I'll just add a little supplemental, commentary and, again, ask mister Romero to supplement where where he may. My understanding is that that there is, some, obviously, there's allegation of of tree removal by the property owner within that stream environment zone setting. Our tree ordinance does place restrictions around that. My understanding is that that issue, was also addressed to game warden Cisneros.

And during the review of the, existing conditions, at the time of the visitation that mister Cisneros again determined that, there was not a a violation of lake and stream alteration requirements, in terms of permit process, and that's typically where the county code will intersect with that responsible agency permit process. But I'll ask mister Romero again to clarify, what mister Cisneros reviewed when he visited the site.

Thank you.

So, yeah, to follow-up with Alex said, the full one second. I'll take the my look at what Mr. Cisneros reviewed. Okay. So the reports given to the game warden was that there was a removal of trees on the embankment embankment of the stream, dumping a cement and sawdust on the stream, narrowing and widening of the stream, and construction within the stream bed.

The game warden, after their visit to the site, concluded that the reports were unfounded, and he determined that no stream bed alterations there was no evidence of stream bed alterations. The trees along the embankment were removed by PG and E, and that there was no construction or dumping of materials within the stream system and no evidence of widening or narrowing of the stream system. No significant damage or erosion took place that met the parameters for stream bed alteration violation.

Okay. Thank you for that. I think George had a Yeah. Question

Just one more point for clarification on the size of the tree. So if it's less than the six inches or the 10 inches, then they're not considered as part of the count for clearing. So if you had 100 trees and 30 of them were less than that measure, then the 70 is considered the part of the count.

That is correct. Any trees that are less than six inches diameter at breast height would be excluded from the count.

So just to clarify, even if the applicant removes some trees on the stream bed parameters, there was no alteration noted by Department of Fish and Wild?

That is correct.

Okay. Maybe I'm a little bit confused now. There's a fairly large, looks like a giant Sequoia tree. It's going to have to be removed to build a garage. So what's the requirement there?

So since the project is the scope of the project requires the removal of that tree, which is within the 50 foot intermittent stream setback. There are special BMPs that will be well, they were conditioned, for the removal of the tree. That includes, the use of hand tools such as hedge trimmers and chainsaws and the prohibition of any treaded vehicles and equipment. So there are special BMPs that will be conditioned for this project.

Well, the tree well, you know, I just saw it from a distance, but it looks like it's well over six inches in size.

Commissioner Johnson, I'll I'll clarify for you. So, while we do see, coast redwood and and giant sequoia pretty commonly in these areas, those trees are are landscape ornamental trees. They're not while they are endemic to California, they're not endemic, to this area of Placer County. They are not specifically recognized in our tree ordinance as a protected tree species because they do not naturally occur here unless, of course, somebody plants one and maybe it germinates next door, which is probably, an extremely rare occurrence.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Okay. And then just one other clarifying question. The Placer Land Trust property is which property? Is this to the south, that large

U shaped property?

So they do have property somewhere around the Southeast, but the property in question is immediately west of the property and is actually it incorporates Canyon Drive. So this is the Placer Lantros property.

Oh, even though that's the city of Auburn. That's what I didn't understand. So the Placer Lantros owns property in the city of Auburn?

Yes.

Along that roadway?

Yes.

Okay. Do you know if it's a conservation easement on that stream? I know I watched two of the ZEA hearings, and one of the commenters talked about the flow of this into Calcutta Falls. So is it just out of curiosity, I know Placer Land Trust hasn't submitted a letter for our hearing today, but is it did they have an easement anywhere around that stream?

To the best of my knowledge, I'm not sure if there's an easement. I do know that the primary use of that portion of the parcel is for the road.

Okay.

Chair Bechler, just again a I'm really curious now.

I could ask a question here.

Oh, is talking.

Oh, Let's let Alex

Just a quick subliminal clarification on on the Placer Land Trust, the the question of whether there's a conservation easement. They are a fee owner, meaning that they actually own the parcel that is in question. So, in effect, as a conservation organization, you could probably consider that as an element of of their ownership.

Okay.

That would be a fair assumption.

And I haven't seen any additional comments from Placer Land Trust ahead of this hearing. I know they were at one of the ZA hearings, but nothing up to this point.

I didn't receive any correspondence. It sounds that after the first couple of hearings, they've elected to verify the their boundary to decide next steps.

Okay. Thank you. Rich?

So so, yeah, you just confused me a little bit. Is the Canyon Drive Road, is that Land Trust property?

So one second. So, yes, this portion right here is owned by the Placer Land Trust, and that includes a a portion of the embankment as well as the the road.

And in the area to the south, they own two, right? Is that correct?

Right. They do have some property around this side.

Adjacent to the south? It says open space on our staff report.

I'm unsure if it's immediately adjacent, but there is open space south of the property.

Yeah. It just joins the property to the south, the open space.

Do you mean Canyon Drive?

Well, Canyon Drive is you say Canyon Drive is property of the land trust. Is that correct? Then the land to the south of the subject property is open space in the staff report. I presume that belongs to the land trust also.

I do not know ownership for that open space property. I'm sorry about that.

Yeah. I'm a little bit confused why they would just own the road. Exactly.

So Commissioner Johnson, just to, again, to provide a point of clarification on on the road issue. Placer Land Trust is the underlying fee owner, meaning that they they have rights to the dirt. There is a, public access and public utilities easement for Canyon Drive that crosses over and through the property and obviously provides the access to to the the neighboring subdivision. I am not aware specifically of the answer to your question of ownership, for the property to south, although my colleague, mister Paoli, is looking that up right now. It it may be the land trust, but more likely, it's probably the Bureau of Land Management as that does then lead into the Auburn State Recreation Area.

Yeah. And and Mr. Pahuli is confirming that it's owned by The US Okay.

One then just follow on, and then that would be all of the questions I have. But then if the Placer Land Trust actually owns the property, not just an easement, they would then be responsible for maintenance of that road, as well? Or is it a county or city road?

I I I don't have the the precise answer to that. We would have to look at that outside the hearing, but I I believe that this is a public roadway, not a privately maintained road. There may be a shared responsibility between the city of of, Auburn and the county. I don't know. Mister Wald seems to indicate that he may know the answer to that. So when he gets up,

we'll be

able to provide some clarity. And I'll, outreach a colleague while we're we're considering this further

and see if I can get clarity.

Other questions for staff?

Just really quick, Slide 10. Just a quick question. So it looks like this is there looks like there's some survey there with a string line and new new trees planted.

Correct. So

Is that PG and E did that? The land trust did that? So

that that surveying was conducted by the applicant in the efforts to create the site plan. The tree removal was PG and E, and there is a program that the applicant applied to where PG and E provides trees. So PG and E provide the applicant with three trees, and I am unsure if this is one of them, but I'm sure the applicant can speak to that.

And that it from what the picture looks like, that looks like it's on land trust property.

Yeah, it does.

But it was improved by PG and E or the applicant?

So that's This portion this portion is within the boundaries of the, subject property. K. And Placer Land Trust

Is there.

Is here. Yes. Okay.

So land trust planted trees?

No. No. That was the applicant, I believe.

That law On land trust Well,

that's what's being disputed and is why the land trust is currently trying to get their boundaries recorded, just to make sure.

Okay. Alright. That's the boundary issue. Okay.

Okay. Other questions?

Okay. So the line that we see, that the thread, that that string, that is from the Placer Land Trust, and they're trying to discern their boundaries. No.

So

this picture was taken before the land trust

Okay.

Applied to get their boundaries recorded. This more than likely is from this applicant's team Okay. Trying to survey to create the site plan.

And then the three little trees or two trees that we see, newly planted trees, those were from a program that PG and E provided to the applicant, and the applicant planted them.

I would have to, ask the applicant.

We'll ask the applicant.

So maybe when they come up, we can ask.

Okay. For Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay, thank you Martin for fielding our questions. That's it for now.

Thank I

could go ahead and ask, if the applicant or representative for the applicant would like to come up. Chair. Chair. Yes.

The applicant will have twenty minutes to present.

Twenty minutes? Okay. Thank you.

I won't need anywhere close to that. Marcus Leduca again. 1508 Eureka Road. On behalf of Cynthia Laveska, I'm I'm very pleased to be here with your staff's recommendation for denial of the approval and to uphold the zoning administrator's approval of the requested variance before you. As staff report has correctly concluded, none of the concerns that were expressed in the appeal challenge whether the requested variance meets the statutory findings.

And if you'll notice in the appeal, all of the, correspondence attached to that was before the August 14, hearing of the zoning administrator when the location of the garage was eight feet from the, inner ministry, not what's before you today. And, again, as the staff report thoroughly explains, the variance approved by the zoning administrator satisfied all those statutory, findings required for the variance. As the staff report also reviewed, the approved variance addressed the single basis for the proposed denial action of the zoning administrator at her August 14 meeting, namely the finding regarding the minimum departure from the setback to the intermittent stream. As I noted in my letter to you this week, the revised request that was approved in October by the zoning administrator places the proposed garage as in what is really given a number of factors. The only other place on the property that the garage could be located, and those factors are, one, the property's existing in development, including her home, the recreation room, the driveway, sewage disposal area, two, the shape of the parcel, three, the topography of the property and the dense vegetation on most of the site, four, the existing utility and road easements along the property's eastern property line, and then, of course, the final factor is the intermittent stream and to try to set back from that location on the Western property line.

Yet, again, to summarize, the approved variance shows the location of the proposed garage in precisely that one location. It's 35 feet from the centerline of the intermittent stream versus eight feet, that was requested prior to the August 14, meeting of the zoning administrator. So four and a half times what that requested setback was on the original variance request. There because of the relocation 35 feet away, there is now no variance needed from the street side setback that was requested prior to August 14. Staff report notes, there is a re requirement to have the variance also reflect a reduced setback, from the roadway easement on the eastern property line because of that shift further east.

In the appeal before you and in, not only the letters that you received as part of that appeal, but in the letters correspondence since then and also what you may hear more of today, there's been a number of claims or allegations, made against my client. I think the staff report did a very thorough job of discussing and dismissing each and every one of those, points made in the appeal and in that correspondence. And as mister Romero noted today in his explanation, his presentation, and his responses to the commission's questions. Again, I submitted, a letter this week simply to try to supplement, some of the staff's analysis, but also to show you in photographs that the claim of changing character to the neighborhood, of the proposed garage does not withstand any scrutiny based on the evidence before you. Mister Romero went over in detail the work that was done on my client's property during the pendency of this matter, and the fence was put up after, you know, mister Romero had, approved, that being put on the property because of the vandalism that had occurred on her property from parties unknown, that included both damage to her garden.

But also when she went to, have the property surveyed, there was removal of her survey stakes. And, again, she had cameras and signs posted, on that fence on the basis of advice from both the sheriff's office and her, home insurance company, in terms of providing protection for her and also, against further vandalism that she would be able to monitor or be able to preclude further trespassing and vandalism as had occurred. Again, the trees that were removed, mister Romero went over the, PG and E trees, that were removed. There was a photograph submitted earlier this week. We believe that I mean, we're not certain, but it appears the city of Auburn did remove one tree at the edge of the road and placed the cut down tree on her property.

There were other, damaged trees. There were trees that had fallen. There were trees, that were dead on her property that she did remove during the pendency of this time period, but she's allowed to do that. She's also allowed to remove brush. She removed brush and blackberry bushes.

This area is a fire, what's called a firewise community. That designation, as the commission well knows, provides a break in insurance for home insurance for property owners and, all the factors that she considered in removing brush and removing those dead trees was based on exactly those Firewise requirements, for the community. Again, my client really is just seeking the same privileges afforded to other properties in the area, which I showed pictures of earlier this week, under similar zone classifications. Again, the the the movement of the proposed garage to its location now is the fur, you know, the fur furthest deviation she can get and still be able to enjoy that use that's permitted in the zone of a garage or accessory structure. And so we believe that, as concluded by your staff in the report, the findings the eight statutory findings can easily be made.

And, again, we would ask today for your denial of the, appeal and upholding the zoning administrator approval of the requested variance for the garage as shown in the plans before you. Be happy to answer any questions the commission may have. I would request that at the end of the public hearing, I'll be given the chance to respond to any comments made in the public. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, mister Leduca. Are there any questions? Okay. I do, have to ask, based on the conditions that were included, are you and the applicant agreeable to the recommended conditions of approval, including I think the ZA added a number 11, which was related to commercial activity preclusion.

Yes, ma'am, Chair.

Thank you. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and open public comment.

Chair Buckler? Yes. Just before we move into public comment, for purposes of the record, I don't know if you want to put some kind of confirming statement on the record that the appellant is not present in the room today.

Okay. Yes, thank you for that, Hannah. I will acknowledge, because the appellant isn't here today, typically we would, call them up to give equal time, to present their case, which was also submitted to the Planning Commission. So since they are not here, we will go ahead and move on to the public comment period. Okay? Okay, with that, if there's anyone here to speak on this item, from the public, please go ahead and come up to the podium. You'll have three minutes. And if you could state your name for the record.

Morning. I'm Tom Fauciana. I've lived on that street, Canyon Drive since 1988. And, I know the Leveque property and I know the transfer of properties from ownership to the land trust. I understand I'm a retired surveyor.

I understand where the survey lines were put in originally by the, by the Levecs and who did it and who did that survey. And I understand who did the survey for the land trust and how that line moved Westerly somewhat, not a lot, but somewhat from the original survey that that the Levecs had done, which was not filed either by a Nevada County surveyor. And, and I know that the points that were set, these current points are more westerly than the old ones. The fence that she put up or that they put up, excuse me, still remains. And, so do some of the some of the the trees that are not bad looking at all that she that they put up from some of the bushes still remain somewhat on land trust property.

I suppose that's up to land trust to to bother with that. But I know that the points were are all set in there. And any points that are claimed to be knocked down, he didn't the original survey didn't set legal points. He didn't set an iron iron work, which is rebar, tagged with his number on it. That was not a legal survey, the original one. That's in the that's in the ground right now. You can look at it. Any laugh that's knocked over can be knocked over by deer or bear, and we have all kinds of deer and bear on that on that creek. In that last flood, some of that eastern bank washed away. That eastern bank that's underneath that massive slab.

Look at that slab. It's that thick. Is that my time? The slab is that

minute light.

That was built right on that Eastern Bank, and that slab is going to remain even though the building is gonna be further to the east. And that's a problem with the creek. Nobody cares about creeks. Just admit it. The county should admit that. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item?

Yeah. I would before I, before I begin, though,

if you don't

mind state your name for the record?

Yeah. I have, some handouts that I'd like to give to the commissioners.

Okay.

My name is, again, it's Andrew Wold, also a resident of Canyon Drive.

K. And you can go ahead and give them to the clerk.

Okay. And, again, good morning, commissioners. Again, Andrew Wold. A variance is a privilege. It should not be granted to those who the county it should not be granted to those who treat county agreements as optional.

In January 2025, this applicant signed a legal agreement with Placer County promising not to alter this property while her application was pending. This was a fraud. Months earlier, she had already poured this 1,200 square foot foundation just eight feet from the center line of the creek. And despite the applicant and her counsel testifying in this room in previous hearings that that was poured decades ago, simple Google image a a simple Google image search proves it otherwise. Eyewitness accounts prove the timing otherwise as well as in the meeting with the zoning administrator, her own words where she stated that this was a freshly poured concrete slab.

And despite the pattern of deception, as a matter of public record, remarkably, that fact has still been left out of the staff report. Since signing that same promise, the applicant has continued to act in bad faith by clear cutting trees on Placer Land Trust property. Those trees were cut down on Placer Land Trust property. It did not, again, did not make the report. PG and E and I you can confirm or PG and E cut three trees down.

The applicant cut seven to eight trees down. So not the majority as the staff indicated. The majority was cut down on Placer Land Trust property, confirmed by Placer Land Trust in a written in her in their last testimony as well. And the staff report actually admits this breach on page 10 of the staff report. The U I quote, the universal application language merely permits but does not require the denial of a project where such unauthorized alterations have occurred.

The county has identified the breach for you. They just chose not to enforce it. So that is why I am here to ask you guys to use your power to enforce that. The staff has erred by acknowledging a breach, but failing to recommend the enforcement. They're passing the buck to you guys to decide if the legal contracts in this county matter.

They ignored the law. Staff claims that this foundation is exempt, but PCC fifteen forty eight zero seven zero a six says exemptions for fill do not apply in a stream system, which fill and of what he called the foundation is a fill. Concrete is fill is defined as man made substrate, which concrete is. Also facilitating a direct violation of the application by mister Romero, you know, being aware of the installation of the fence that is in direct, excuse me, being being aware of the installation of the fence that is on land trust property. The action was in direct opposition to the applicant's own signed project description and the legal agreements she made with this county.

When staff authorizes work that flatly contradicts the applicant's sworn promises, this entire public process is undermined. So I ask you to deny the variance, do not reward this intentional deception, and at a minimum, I ask that you require the full restoration of the land trust property and the removal of the illegal foundation. And to close, I do want to ask a specific question for the author of the report, mister Romero. Mister Romero, regardless of any internal code compliance notes, the physical facts are undisputed. There's a 1,200 square foot slab eight feet from the stream.

Section fifteen forty eight zero seven zero of the county code states that minor project exemption shall not apply in a stream system. And so my question is, by what specific legal authority did you, as the author of this report, decide that this mandatory code requirement did not need to be met for the variance?

Andrew, you can go ahead and address us. We will address that with staff.

Okay. Well, that would be a question that I would I would request that you guys ask to mister Romero.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your comments.

And in addition to, miss Favela did message me and asked me if I could spend some time to speak on her behalf. So if permitted to have another three minutes.

Yeah. Unfortunately, at this time, your comment period is closed. But I appreciate your

comments.

The whole comment period is closed?

No. Just for you, each person has one chance. And, at this point, I wouldn't grant you an additional time on her behalf since you're not officially representing her.

Okay. Is there any chance that I could refute some of the omissions that I saw in that report?

No, but we did hear your comments. We appreciate

Appreciate that.

Yep. Is there anyone else, in the room that would like to make public comment on this matter? Mister Leduca, first, is there anyone on the ADA?

I see no hand. Okay.

Just a a couple of comments. One, the I mean, miss Levecht did repair and reconstruct the concrete slab in 2024. That's not disputed. The original slab in that exact same location was poured the early nineteen eighties. You received a, letter, I believe, yesterday from, her son who lived on the property and, regarding when the slab was in existence starting in, at least when his sister, was, there also in the late eighties, early nineties.

So it was there. It was in the exact same location, and it was reconstructed. Again, the the some of the trees that miss Leveque, removed were dead or dying or damaged, and there was when in that circumstance where there is a potential for a tree falling and, human health involved, Those are she removed those. We are in contact with the land trust, now that their survey is done once it's recorded. I was in fact in touch with them yesterday relative to, you know, getting together with them to see once the survey is recorded and done, if there's issues of encroachment, how they want us to address those.

But, again, that was just done. She stopped doing her moving forward her survey when PLT said that they were gonna move forward. So we will be in contact with them once this is all resolved and and move from there. So, again, there was, the the concrete slab though is not before you, at all, simply because the variance that was approved in October was for the, location of the garage before you today, which is 35 feet away. So it does not involve, that concrete slab.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. I'm gonna go ahead and, close public comment, bring it back to the commission, staff. Is there anything you guys would like to clarify, you know, comment on before we deliberate?

Yeah. Thank you, chair Bechler. Just a few things, to make sure that the orientation of your decision making is has the the correct foundation. As mister Wold stated in in his perspective, a variance is a privilege. I just wanna clarify that a variance is a very specific piece of of state planning law that has parameters that are directly incorporated into our county code, where an applicant or a property owner may seek relief from zoning restrictions or zoning requirements, rather, based on a demonstration of special circumstances that are specifically related to property size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings.

And so those those five factors, several of them are present, in this particular instance. We do have, I would say, a rather unique situation in terms of this intermittent stream going directly through the middle of of what is a relatively old neighborhood, and you have a lot of development close-up onto it, including the subject property, the roadway, and that does provide a lot of constraint in addition to the fact this property has limited access to portions that are further to the south because they are inaccessible by virtue of physical constraints. So this area where, the zoning administrator, did grant that variance approval to locate that garage, in in in my perspective, having done this for a long time, is the only real true feasible location for for, for that facility. That said, the determination of of whether or not that was the minimum departure from the standard certainly is is a a judgment, but I I I believe that there is adequate support for that. But I did wanna clarify, it's not a privilege.

It is based on findings that are specific to those variance factors. I do appreciate that mister Leduca got up and clarified the the issue of the slab and and its existence. I myself have done some research on this to the availability of of desktop resources that have. I have seen evidence that the slab existed in the past, but it it also does appear to me that there is evidence that that slab may be new. And so mister Leduca clarified that condition and and how that came to be.

And and I think, really, that is kind of at the heart of the issue here is there are, you know, there are, as as as, the speaker, stated, we we do have a scenario where the county's application process requires a property to be held in a steady condition during the consideration of an entitlement so that we don't have a murky decision making process. Right? And that's that's a very important point. There were things that have happened, and the county staff has gone through a process to address each of those things that have happened and investigate each of those things that have happened, disclose what has happened, and then make recommendations on decision making around that. So I think we do have a a fair representation of those background circumstances and conditions, and and what has been re in the report is what we know to be factually correct, and that is what we have brought forward for your consideration.

So I did just wanna provide that that perspective.

Okay. Thank you. K. Commissioners, questions and or comments?

Comments. I have a comment.

Okay. Go ahead, Rich.

Let me see. Understanding that the tree removal is external to actually the decision that we're gonna make. But it seems to me that the tree removal would be an issue that would be between the property owner and the land trust on whether or not there was a trespass that occurred and how to handle it and probably external to this discussion is what my understanding would be. Is that correct?

Yes. Yes. Sorry, Chris. Yes, Commissioner Johnson, that's correct. The appeal before you today is limited to the project that was approved in October, which is the variance to locate the 1,200 square foot garage, at that 35 feet from the stream and 18 feet from the roadway easement. And so the issues of the trees and the slab, they're not related to the appeal before you today. And you are correct with regard to the private property issue between the land trust and Ms. Levesque that would, need to be resolved, between the private parties.

I would just also further state that if there are concerns that come up, related to, tree removal without the benefit of a permit, that those are complaints that we would investigate through our code enforcement team.

Thank you.

I had a similar comment around the tree removal and the survey lines. That's between the property owner and the property owner. Land Trust and Quebec's. That has nothing to do with this appeal process. I mean they can the opposition brought in a lot of information that was obfuscating in my mind. The issue that we have right before us today, which is the overturning or upholding of the zoning administrator's findings. So I just wanted to be clear on that. The other question I had, was there an issue with technical failures with the county email system this week? Mister Walt's complaint, I didn't have any issues. I got everything that I think I did.

The issue that was, not unique to the county, there was a Microsoft Oh. Outage, that affected affected the county for one day. But after that, email was restored

to the county. And I'm assuming people that tried to submit that day got a bounce back message and then they could have resubmitted.

I believe I I can't answer that with certainty. I do know that there were, emails that were held in queue and that we received, after. However, I can't state with certainty that all emails, weren't impacted by that.

And then also one of mister Wald's objections was the appellant, obviously couldn't be here today because she's not feeling well. That's not under ADA compliance, a protected class. And they have to apply for ADA accommodations to be able to participate here. So I just wanted to make sure that that was clear, to Mr. Wald. And I did a little deep dive on the slab last night because that kept coming up. Again, I learned after four years of being here that flat work isn't necessarily need to be permitted, which is helpful. And if you do use Google Earth Pro, you can go to specific dates and time to look from Google Earth to what was in existence there. Now there is some tree, coverage that makes it a little more difficult. But there was something there for a long time.

Mr. Leduca explained that she had fixed up, updated whatever, the slab in that meantime. But since it's not necessarily needs to be permitted, unlike the fence, that's why and I'm asking the question of Martin, that she didn't need permission from the county to fix the slab, if that's what happened. Is that correct? That

is correct.

Okay. Thank you. That's my only question.

Trent? And something that was brought up earlier, and I know you guys said that you were going to check into it, The mailer notification that was sent out on time correctly, and there's no dispute about that.

Correct. We did confirm that the mailing went out on January 16, which is, exceeds the ten day requirement. We have to mail out ten days prior to the hearing. It's not ten days that they receive the mail before the hearing, I think as evidenced in the letter provided by Mr. Wall, that property owners received the mail eight days prior to the hearing, which tracks with when we mailed out the notice.

Thank you.

Other questions? I had, maybe just a couple questions. So I thought I understood, but maybe you guys can help me, just one last time. So one of the comments that was brought up related to disqualification of exemption. So can you just address I understand the slab isn't necessarily relevant to this project, although it was assumed that that would be the foundation initially, right?

So I think there was a connection. But setting that aside for just a second, is there an exemption or not with flat this flat work slab based on this PCC 15 dot four eight dot o seven o on a six that, mister Wold presented. Is there is or isn't there an exemption for this flatwork?

The the ultimate determination of that issue lies with, in this instance, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, who would evaluate whether or not a an improvement or an alteration of something happening in a stream environment zone, whether that's vegetation, bed bank, or in this case, this improvement, is subject to a lake and stream alteration agreement permit. While the the, the order of operations, I think, did not go forward in the manner that we would typically expect, nonetheless, as mister Romero indicated, a game warden was consulted by the county staff, went out to the property, and and observed all of the existing, things that had been done and made evaluation of that and provided, his written determination back to the county that no, alteration agreement was required. And that's that's, what we would normally do is defer to CDFW on that issue.

Okay. And they concluded there was no issue from a stream bed alteration perspective for that slab?

Correct. They specifically stated that there was no evidence of widening or narrowing of the stream bed. So no violation was observed.

Okay. Any other questions? I have maybe just a couple comments. So, I first just want to appreciate, I know a lot of the public commenters and neighbors, are not here today, but just appreciate all the sort of energy and time that's been put into this regardless of the outcome. I know that these types of neighborly issues can create lots of conflict, tension, and it's not a great neighborly feel.

One thing I will say, you know, if you just isolate this to the variants, that we're evaluating today, it's it's very strict as far as the findings, and I think some of the other commissioners brought up these sort of other ancillary issues around the, you know, Placer Land Trust property and things such as that. You know, I I know this would be handled separately. I guess it is, it is not the best situation, during this time, you know, for the homeowner applicant to be possibly cutting trees down, you know, in if it truly is in Placer Land Trust land, obviously that's not a good thing to do. And on the PG and E replacement, trees, if indeed these were intended to be the PG and E replacement trees, I had I went through the PG and E replacement program just this past year, had 10 palm trees removed. PG and E did a one for one replacement, but they were super strict on the size and scale of the tree if you replanted them.

These trees, if it was PG and E that cut them down, are obviously tall conifer, evergreen trees, which are going to grow super tall and then they're going have to be cut down again. So I guess, you know, just comment outside of the specific evaluation of the variance findings. That's something that people should just try to avoid, and think about the implications, to neighbors because neighbors are used to, you know, a heavily forested area. So it does even though it's maybe not specific to our decision today, it does create impact and, concern to, other neighbors. The other last thing I will say, I know one commenter today, talked about the stream bed and our care for streams.

I just have to say I have extreme passion for conservation, environmental management, so like, I don't feel insulted, but I will just say like we absolutely care, or I just speak for myself, about natural resources. And I do think it's inappropriate that that slab is in the stream, in the stream centerline, but I have to, you know, sort of go back and refer to California Fish and Wildlife because they are the body that makes the determination. And it sounds like, you know, they did make a determination on that. So I just wanted to share those comments. Okay. Any other comments?

I would just say that if Placer Land Trust had an issue, they would be the first to speak up. We would have heard from them by by that.

Any other

May I pay 18,000

Sir, dollars yeah, public comments closed. Thank you. Any other comments? If not, would any commissioner like to evaluate what's before us and make a motion? Can you advance the slide? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Kelly. You're welcome. Do I have any commissioners that would like to make a motion?

I'd be glad to recommend the Planning Commission take the following actions as read into the record by Mr. Romero. I guess we'll take them separate, Item 1A.

Alright. Second that.

Okay. I have a first and second. Roll call,

please. Runtine?

Yes.

Watts? Yes. Johnson?

Yes.

Dahlgren? Yes. Jewel? Yes. Alves?

Yes.

Zuckler?

Yes.

And I would further, recommend the Planning Commission take the action as read into the record by mister Romero as item one b.

I'll second that as well.

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

Rantine?

Yes.

Watts? Yes. Johnson?

Yes.

Dahlgren? Yes. Jewel?

Yes.

Alves?

Yes.

Beckler? Yes. Okay. That, closes this item. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by anyone who appeared at today's hearing and provided comment or anyone that submitted written comments on this item. An appeal must be filed within ten days of today's date and shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $752 Thank you all for coming. Okay. You guys ready to keep going? All right. So the next item on the agenda is consideration of an appeal of the zoning administrator's denial of a variance of a property at 6107 Rockhurst Way in Granite Bay.

For this appeal item, the Planning Commission is the decision body. The presentation will be given by supervising planner Anne Marie Novante. Hi Anne Marie.

Good morning Chair Beckler and Commissioners. I'm sorry for my voice. I'm getting over a cold, so I wasn't sure I was gonna come out. So as I mentioned or as you said, I'm Anne Marie Novotny, supervising planner, and I will be presenting this item, an appeal of the zoning administrator's denial of the Hansen Fence height variance PLN 20 five-one 157. The subject property assessors parcel number 40 Eight-ten Ten-fifty 9 is 0.68 acre in size is zoned RSAGB 40, which is residential single family combining agriculture, combining minimum part building site of 40,000 square feet with the land use designation rural low density residential 0.9 to 2.3 acre minimum and is located at 6107 Rockhurst Way in the Granite Bay Community Bay plan area.

The proposed variance was considered by the zoning administrator on 09/18/2025. The variance proposed to allow a partially constructed five foot high fence to be constructed within the front setback ranging from approximately 16 feet to 22 feet from the edge of the road easement of Rockhurst Way. Majority of the fence improvement is located within the county road easement. Fencing proposed as black tubular steel material with a sliding gate for vehicular access to the driveway and garage. Material and design would be similar to and would align with existing fencing on adjacent properties on both sides of the appellant's property.

The fencing is within the front setback of RS zone parcels less than one acre is limited to three feet tall. And the appellant stated reason for installing taller fence is to provide a secure boundary in the front yard where their four young children play. They contend a three foot tall fence is insufficient as it could be easily climbed. So this slide shows on the left side is a view of the the site's front yard from Rockhurst Way, which shows the partially constructed fence on the left side of the driveway and then post where the fence is proposed to be constructed on the right side of the driveway. And on the right side of this slide is the site plan, which shows the proposed placement of the fence within the county's road easement.

As shown, Rockhurst Way is angling down from east to west. Therefore, the proposed variance varies from approximately 16 feet to 22 feet from the back of the curb on Rockhurst Way. For the appeal summary on 09/29/2025, the appellant filed an appeal of the zoning administrator's denial of the Hansen fence height variance PLN twenty five zero zero one five seven from the 09/18/2025 hearing. The appeal contends the following: one, denial of the variance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties within the same zoning classification, Adjacent neighbors on both sides have fences up to five feet tall in their front yards. Installing the fence 50 feet from the edge of Rockhurst Way would impede access to the garage and parking in the driveway.

Two, a taller fence would enhance public safety. In the absence of a protective barrier, the appellant's children could access the road increasing potential for a vehicle collision with a child. Three, the proposed fence would maintain visual aesthetics. The proposed fence is of similar material and design as the existing fencing on the neighboring properties on both sides of the appellant's property. The fourth point is denial of the variance while approving others in same zoning classification and that are also not part of the HOA results in inconsistent application of standards contrary to the intent of zoning ordinance section seventeen sixty one hundred ten D2 and requirements of equitable treatment required under California government code section 65,906.

And then the last point that they made is that, is regarding the infeasibility of a three foot tall fence within the front setback or placement of a five foot tall fence at a 50 foot setback. So on that point, a three foot tall fence can easily be climbed by children and poses greater risk of potential collisions with vehicles and children on the road. Three foot tall fences and gates are not a standard manufacturer specification, and a five foot tall fence placed at 50 at a 50 foot property boundary setback would restrict functional use of the driveway to park vehicles within the fenced area and reduce functional front yard space that comparable properties enjoy. It would also block equipment access on the west side of the property used for maintenance activities such as tree trimming and vegetation removal. So now this slide shows kind of an existing condition.

So on the left side a photo that both of these photos were taken by the appellant. So the photo on the left shows a proposed fence, which would be the 16 to 22 feet from the edge of the road easement. This photo shows that the appellants would be able to park three of their vehicles within the fenced area with ample space, be able to kind of maneuver the vehicle so that they could pull out forward rather than backing out of the driveway safely. The photo on the right shows placement of the proposed fence at 50 feet from the edge of Rockhurst Way, which would only accommodate barely parking, like two cars within the fenced area. You can see the third vehicle would have to be parked outside of it.

It doesn't allow any it it impedes access to the garage. It doesn't allow, safely be able to maneuver the cars so that they could come out forward from the the driveway. This is another existing condition slide. And so this shows the property in relation to the neighborhood and the surrounding parcels. And what I want to note here is that the parcels that are outlined in red are not part of the Oak Glen Subdivision HOA, and so the other parcels that are outlined in blue are the ones that are part of the HOA.

The subject parcel, as you notice, is the smallest. So that's what's sort of unique about it is it is 0.6 acres and everything around it is in its area is either, you know, one to two or one to one to one to three acres in size. So it is the smallest parcel, which means it's the one that's subject to the three foot high fence height. Whereas the ones that are at over one acre, they can have up to four feet for the fence height. So this is going to summarize staff's response to the appeal, and this is tying in with their five points that they brought up.

So their first point is right to reasonable use of property. The property may be fenced up to three foot tall and fencing may be placed at the front property line or in the County Road easement with approval of an encroachment permit. The three foot tall limit is the same maximum height allowed for identical zone properties in the same neighborhood that are less than one acre in size, including the adjoining Oak Leaf Glen subdivision. The second point they talked about was public safety considerations. The appellants have not made a clear showing that the height of a fence in a front yard has a clear nexus to public safety for Rockhurst Way, which has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour.

The third point talked about neighborhood aesthetics. The aesthetics characteristics of the neighborhood are not one of the findings required for approval or disapproval of variance request. Consistency with neighboring properties may be considered. The fourth point they brought up was that inconsistent application of standards, material omission and precedent. The zoning administrator did not rely on a previously denied variance for a nearby property within the Oakleaf Glen subdivision to deny this variance.

The required variance findings are the same whether or not the property is or is not within an HOA. And the fifth point was in feasibility of a three foot tall fence and a five foot tall fence placed 50 feet back. Properties located in the Ara Zone District that are less than one acre in size may have three foot tall fences within the front setback, and the zoning administrator did not find evidence that the requested five foot tall fence would be the minimum departure from the zoning ordinance nor that the strict application of the code would result in a hardship. At this point, I just wanna mention that, I'm talking about the public comments that were submitted. So prior to this hearing, the county received eight written comments from residents within the appellant's neighborhood or vicinity.

Five residents support the five foot tall fence height variance, stating that the proposed fence does not distract from the neighborhood and is like the adjacent neighbor's properties and would provide visually appealing continuity. The proposed distance from the road would not present any visual obstruction or be detrimental to the aesthetic appearance. The addition of the gate and fence would not negatively impact safety of motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, and would support the safety concerns for the appellant's young children to be able to play safely in the front yard. The three residents that submitted comments that are opposed to the five foot tall fence stated that the three foot tall standard for fences in the front setback for proposed zoned RS under one acre and size is adequate, that there is no unique feature on the site to support the variance request, and would downgrade the aesthetics of the street and does not fit with the neighborhood of Oakleaf Glen. So at this point, staff, is recommending the Planning Commission take the following actions.

One, determine that the denial of the appeal is statutorily exempt from environmental review pursuant to section 15,270 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines and Placer County Code section eighteen thirty six-ten gs projects which are disapproved. And two, deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrator's 09/18/2025 decision denying the Hansen fence height variance, which would have allowed a five foot tall fence within the subject property's front setback approximately 16 feet or further from the edge of the public road easement, or a maximum fence height of three feet is permitted as supported by the finance contained within the staff report. This concludes my presentation. I am happy to answer any questions, and the appellants are also present at this hearing and available to address the commission. Thank you.

Thank you, Anne Marie. Questions? Yes.

Okay. Yeah. Just a a question with regards to the the county's position on the two properties on either side of this particular parcel have a five foot fence within the setback. And so how did the county address that issue with the three foot fence here?

Okay. So we we did do the research of the parcels around the area. So on the right No.

I'm I'm talking about the adjacent part.

Yeah. The adjacent properties. Yes. There's the two properties. So the one on the right side, which should be to the east, they, came forward for a variance, request back in 2024, and that variance was approved.

And the reason that one was cited is their property was has some uniquenesses to it in that most of the the area of the property was in the front yard, so they had very limited backyard space. And so that was one of the reasons why that came up with it, that they that was approved. The fencing on the other side and doing research on the one to the west, We did research looking back at all the different permits that have been pulled. That that house was built back in 1970. They haven't they've had some some landscaping encroachment permits done.

We couldn't find details specifically regarding the fence on that one, so we would have to do some more research on that. But the the home was built back in the nineteen seventies. So we we don't have any record as exactly when that fence went in. That would take some more research.

Under today's standards, it seems to me we you know, on that property is on the corner. And so recently, we looked at properties around the corner where they had a side yard and a front yard. And there was provision to allow for side yard fences where previously, it might have been on both sides of the house. Is that correct? Or

Commissioner Johnson, I I believe what you're referring to is the county's incorporation of a street side setback for for building provisions, and there is some correlation to fencing allowances as you surmise. Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Do we ever consider the safety of the homeowners' children in variances? I haven't seen it.

Yeah. It's it's, very specific in the in the zoning code. The six findings are specific to the property, not who's residing there. So the safety of children or whoever's living in the home is not taken into consideration.

Because otherwise,

anybody with kids could have any fence to

That's correct. And I think as as Alex summarized during the last hearing item, the required findings, you know, taking into consideration the residents of the property is not one of the required findings.

Right. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Dahlgren. Yes, ma'am. Just to go into a little bit more of the legal explanation. So, as everyone has mentioned, there are very specific findings that must be made to grant a variance and those are generally focused on the physical aspects of the property with the focus being a disparity between the subject property and other, properties in the same zone. And the granting of the variance is intended to bring the subject property into parity with those other properties based again on those physical characteristics of the property.

From where we know one was approved, one variance was approved because there's no backyard, so we don't know about that other fence. We know the house was built in the seventies. Can't we tell if a fence is fifty, sixty years old?

What our research indicates, Anne Marie had indicated, is we do know of an encroachment permit that was issued in, I believe it was 2006 or 2007, for some landscaping and irrigation improvements out front. It does not appear that the fence was part of that approval. I cannot say that with 100% certainty, but the determination is based on other desktop resources that we have, Google Earth, namely. It does appear that that fence was built at a later time, maybe in the period of 2016 or 2017. Thank you.

And just a clarification, under an acre is limited to a three foot fence. Over an acre, I was under the understanding it was five feet, but you stated in your comment that it was four feet.

In the Auris zone it's up to four feet.

Four feet. Okay. So this is going another foot beyond that. Okay. You.

And a quick follow-up. But the four feet, but the two properties on either side, they're five feet? Mhmm. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

And are those similar style fences? The wrought iron?

Yeah. So the the appellants are are making their fence to be look very similar. So it's gonna be a very uniform look between all three connected properties.

Other questions? Okay. Thank you, Ann Marie. I would go ahead and ask the applicant and appellant, I know you're one and the same, to go ahead and come up to the podium if you'd like to make any comments. And how much time do they have?

Fifteen minutes. And

if you could state your names for the record. And thank you for bearing with us. I know that prior item took some time, so appreciate your patience.

Totally. So my name is David Hansen, and this is my wife, Annie Hansen. We're the owners of 6107 Rockhurst Way, and we're appealing to try to build the five foot fence instead of three. I'm gonna pass it off to my wife who's diligently worked on this. Unfortunately, I have to leave in five minutes for childcare that ends at noon. Thought it was gonna go a little bit quicker. So I'm gonna pass it off to her, but we appreciate you guys' time.

Thank you.

Yes. Good more good good morning, madam chair and commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak, and a special thanks to Anne Marie. Even though she has to uphold the zoning administrator's ruling, she's been really very kind to work with and very lovely. Admittedly, when I originally went into this process, I I went into it very naively.

Like, I did not do my research and homework on what the code requirements were. So I initially submitted the request for the variants under the guise of, like, protecting my children, not even realizing that's something that's not considered. And since submitting an appeal, and I think you'll note that in my appeal letter, that when I found out that the fence has to be 50 feet back, like, realized there are so many challenges with our unique property. And this is not so much about my children, but more so about my property, the specific circumstances of our property. So as David said, today, we're appealing the zoning administrator's denial of our five foot fence.

I also want to say to our neighbor who who who commented last time that, you know, I I'm I'm sorry. You know, last time we got a little upset and just that, you know, I hope no matter what, we can have cordial neighborhood relationships. So I'm gonna organize my comments into two sections. One, clarifications on the staff report that frames our appeal in a way that kind of miss misses key facts. And then the second part of my comments are gonna be why the six why we've met the six required finding variance findings under Placer County code.

So clarifications on the staff report. The staff report characterizes our site as relatively flat to support the conclusion that there are no special circumstances. The same report also acknowledges that our parcel is point six eight acres and is the smallest amongst the surrounding properties, which range from roughly point nine to 1.3 acres. The first six So her her diagram showed that there were four properties in the area that are not in the HOA. It's actually the first six.

The three across the street are also not in the HOA. You can see that those ones are also larger, lots. So our lot is almost half the size. So, So the three across the street are also not in the HOA. And, you can see that ours is almost half the size of most of our neighbors.

Size and surroundings are explicitly part of special circumstances analysis. On a smaller lot, the strict application of the 50 foot setback creates a disproportionate constraint on our lot, compared to the larger parcels around us. It reduces, like, the practical flexibility for the fence placement without impairing the normal driveway and front yard. The staff suggests our our safety concerns lack nexus. Regardless of whether whatever speed limit is posted on Rockhurst Way, the real world conditions at our frontage is that vehicles frequently exit the neighborhoods at much higher speeds than posted.

When cars are leaving our neighborhood, they travel downhill and it levels out at our yard. Additionally, the shared neigh neighborhood mailbox is in the front left corner of our property and can block the view of cars coming down that road to children in the driveway. So not only does the mailbox create more traffic in front of our house, but it it blocks the site view. Our proposal is not a solid fence. It's an open style fence intended to maintain visibility while creating clear, consistent boundaries that helps prevent a child or pets from unintentionally entering the area.

In the hunter variance at six one one five, Rockhurst staff supported the five foot fence because the home's placement created a functional hardship, yard hardship for the backyard. The principle is the same with our house. Our home is sited unusually far forward and requiring the fence to be at a full 50 foot back creates a narrow non functional strip that interferes with the normal front yard and driveway functionality. This is not about aesthetics alone. It's about how the strict application of the functional use of the property on this specific site.

The staff suggests that granting our request would be a special privilege, but the staff also acknowledges that our immediate neighbors on both sides already have a five foot front yard fence. Matching the immediate neighborhood is standard immediate immediate neighborhood standard is parody, not not special privilege. Denying us what has already been allowed immediately next door creates a unique disadvantage. Staff concludes five feet is not minimum departure. Granting the variance would be minimum departure from the requirements of this ordinance.

A three foot fence provides limited containment and doesn't address the functional and safety issues. A five foot fence is the minimum required to keep any pets within the yard, limit wildlife from entering and impacting the gardening, as well as providing a secured recreational area within the yard space. Placing a five foot fence at the 50 foot setback would limit the yard usability, block garage access, eliminate parking and turnaround space, and obstruct road maintenance. On our property, on that left side, we have a, access road to the backyard. We also have seven oak trees in the backyard that require regular tree trimming.

We moved into the property a year ago, and, our insurance was actually canceled within the first few months when we moved in because they said, You have trees hanging over the house. And now, companies are starting to drone properties to ask them to cut foliage. And so, really do Putting that fence 50 feet back eliminates large access vehicles for being able to get around our house. On the other side of the house, it's our property line. Our property line's like three feet from the right side of our house.

So there would be no physical way to get into our backyard to trim those seven oak trees. And it's not like we could just cut them down before we put in a five foot fence. Oak trees are protected trees. Need to first of all, they're beautiful and they uphold the aesthetics of the neighborhood, but you also they need to be dying or you need to get a permit in California. Where was I?

Sorry about that. The and the five foot fence within the setback is the smallest adjustment that resolves these issues of safety and functionality without excess. By using a wrought iron see through design, we are ensuring minimum departure from the intent of the code while satisfying a functional need for security. The report also dismisses the matching aesthetic as irrelevant because aesthetics are not a mandatory finding. While aesthetics are not a standalone finding, they are highly relevant to finding b, which was the no special privilege, and finding e, general plan consistency.

If the fence matches the neighborhood, it proves the variance is consistent with character of the vicinity, which is a core requirement of the code. So now moving into part two where I explain the six variants, how we've satisfied the six variants findings. Just kind of respectfully, the staff report tends to frame our case primarily about young children and dismisses it as personal circumstance. But our appeal is not to approve this because we have kids. Our appeal is the physical layout of the lot, the driveway function, the lot size constraint relative to the immediate block pattern, meaning the properties around us, and the existing five foot fence on both adjacent properties together create a site based hardship and deprivation of privileges under identical zoning.

So the first criteria is special circumstances and deprivation of privileges. As I've mentioned, our special circumstances are physical and site based. The smallest parcel on the block and the home's forward placement on the frontage, it's only 72 feet from the road. So placing a foot a fence 50 feet back puts it with 22 feet within our house. And honestly, aesthetically, it would look like a prison.

I mean, just like aesthetically displeasing, but, that's a side note. So, smallest parcel in the homes for replacement near the frontage, the need to maintain access along the side, and the sight line condition near the neighborhood exit and share because and the shared mailbox. Because of these circumstances, strict application deprives us of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning, most directly the adjacent neighbors who already have five foot yard fencing. This is the exact type of surrounding circumstances contemplated by the code. The established pattern on this portion of Rockhurst includes five foot fence openings, and our request is to align with the existing pattern.

No special privilege. We are not asking for something greater than the neighborhood standard, we are asking to match it. Same height, similar open style material consistent with the adjacent properties. Granting this variance places us on equal footing with the immediate streetscape rather than creating an outlier condition. No unauthorized use. This variance does not authorize new use. It is a residential accessory improvement fencing. The property remains single family residential. No adverse impact to public health or safety, not detrimental to wear welfare, not injurious to nearby properties. An open style fence maintains visibility and can be conditioned to ensure no conflict with sight distance.

It does not create a hazard. It reduces the likelihood of a small child or a pet entering the roadway. It matches existing fences. It is not injurious to nearby properties. Consistency with the general plan and community character. This request is consistent with the established residential character on the portion of Rockhurst Way where similar front yard fences exist. We are proposing an open design that preserves the neighborhood openness and continuity with the surrounding properties. Minimum departure necessary. We are seeking the smallest adjustment that makes the property functional and safe under these site specific constraints. A three foot fence provides limited containment, does not meaningfully address the functional and safety purpose here.

While placing the fence at a full 50 foot line interferes with normal parking, turnaround, and access due to the home's forward siding. A five foot fence open style style fence is the minimum that resolves the hardship without excess. It prevert preserves the intent of the code by maintaining visit visibility. So today, we respectfully ask that you grant the appeal and approve the variance subject you yeah. You grant the appeal, approve the variance subject to the reasonable conditions that the fence is limited to an open style black metal consistent with the adjacent fences, maximum of five feet, and placement and design to maintain no conflict with sight distance and any applicable visibility.

If any portion is within the county road easement, we will obtain the required hold harmless encroachment permits. Thank you so much for your time today.

Thank you so much. Okay. Any questions? Otherwise, I will open up public comment. Okay. Thank you. At this point, I will open up public comment for this, matter. Is anyone here in the room would like to speak? You can go ahead and come up to the podium. I see no speakers present. Okay. Do we have anyone on ADA?

I see no hand raised.

Okay. I am going to go ahead and close public comment. Staff, anything you'd like to say based on what was shared by the appellant?

Certainly. Just just a couple of, quick clarifications, and thank you very much, chair Beckler. With respect to just the representation of non HOA parcels and HOA parcels that you see on the graphic there, I was able to look into that a little bit further while we're we're in the hearing here and did confirm, in fact, that the, that the lots to the south of Rockhurst Way, are part of that Oakleaf Terrace subdivision. That said, I I don't you know, I I just wanna make that clarification. The only other clarification that I I wanted to make or or really just a a point to, emphasize is is something that has already been said, both by Anne Marie and miss Hansen, and that is that, just to clarify that a fence is allowed.

That's that's not in dispute. And that fence may even be located within, that public road easement for Rockhurst Way with a hold harmless encroachment permit, and the county staff or or the the project team has already investigated that with our Department of Public Works colleagues and confirmed with them that they would agree to issue a hold harmless permit. The decision before you is really limited to, what is the height of that fence. So not whether or not it could be located in that area, at least as it is currently proposed. They have already rendered their, professional opinion that it would not result in sight distance conflicts with the roadway or any other safety issues that would be of concern for the county.

Thank you. I'm gonna start with George this time.