Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

We'll call this meeting to order. I would like to ask everyone to join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of

The United States Of America,

Thank you. Could I get a roll call, please?

Johnson?

Here.

Watts? Here. Dahlgren? Here. Runtine? Here. Jewell? Here. Alves? Here. Beckler? Here.

All right. Well, good morning, everyone. 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. If you'd like to make a public comment on any item today, the Planning Commission Clerk will announce when you are to line up to provide testimony.

And then you would want to please, just be prepared to speak at the time I open public comment for the specific item that you would like to address, which may include public comment for matters not on the published agenda or hearing items. Each commenter will be entitled three minutes, of comment, and you will only be given one opportunity to speak on each item. And thanks for your consideration, as we want to work to ensure that each citizen, gets equal opportunity to do so. Please be advised today, this hearing is being recorded and will be available on the Planning Commission's webpage following the hearing. And I will now move on to the next item on our agenda, which is the consent calendar.

And we have one item, and that is the Planning Commission meeting minutes from our 01/29/2026 meeting. So would any commissioner like to remove the item from the consent calendar? I see none. Is any member of the public? Would anyone like to remove the item from the consent calendar? Anyone on the ADA? Okay. If not, I will bring it back to the commission. Any comments?

Move move to approve.

Okay. I have the first.

Second.

Second. Roll call, please.

Runtime?

Yes.

Jewell?

Yes.

Johnson?

Yes.

Watts?

Yes.

Dahlgren? Yes. Alves?

Yes.

Beckler?

Yes. Alright. Great. Moving right along. I see Chris is here, so I'll ask for the report from our planning director, Chris Pahouli. Welcome.

Thank you. Good morning Chair Bechler, commissioners Chris Pahouli, Placer County Planning Director. I wanted to start with a couple of updates from past and upcoming Board of Supervisor hearings. First, wanted to mention that last week on February 3, the board took final action on the Ritz Carlton residences, Lake Tahoe Chalet project that was previously recommended for approval by the planning commission. The board took unanimous action to approve that general plan amendment, rezone as well as a tentative map for that project.

So wanted to, let the commission know of that action. I also wanted to let you know that on, next week on February 17, the board will be taking up the zoning text amendment package that the, planning commission previously heard. I did also wanna note when you consider that item there were 24 amendments that were, contemplated again recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. One of those amendments related to the digital, display signs has been, removed. That was removed due to, kind of further review and evaluation and potential concern that that, provision might run contrary to, first amendment, the first amendment and so we remove that and we'll, evaluate that that, code amendment in the future as we maybe look at a, overhaul of our sign ordinance.

So again 02/17 to the board. In terms of upcoming planning commission meetings, you have one item scheduled for your February 26 hearing, that will be a review and discussion on, the long range planning work program. There's quite a bit that's, involved in that, work program, so looking for a robust discussion with the Planning Commission on twenty sixth. You'll see here on your report that on March 19 we're looking at this point a very, excuse me, agenda. I have a number of items including, the estates at Granite Bay.

We're bringing back that Winchester Subdivision Planning Director determination, housing element and the general plan, annual progress reports, as well as the, affordable housing affordable and workforce housing ordinance workshop. Previously, I mentioned that that would, that would occur at your 02/26 meeting. However, the item has been rescheduled at the board and so therefore we're going to bring it, to the planning commission on, March 19. I should note that it is going to be that workshop is going to be held at the board on, threeten. So it will first go to the board and then come to the Planning Commission after, after being considered by the board.

And then I also wanted to note that, that on 03/26, you have or we have two tentative items planned for for that hearing. That meeting is also tentatively scheduled to be at the North Tahoe Event Center. So please, plan accordingly and I'll keep you updated, as to the, as to the location. I also wanted to provide an an update on, residential care homes and the zoning text amendment package. I know that that continues to be an item not only of interest to the planning commission but also to the public.

We continue to get public comment letters. You continue to get public comment letters about a handful of projects that we're currently, working on where they are have applied for minor use permits for care, care homes, as well as, this zoning text amendment package that we've been working on. And so, we have, a stood up a a web page on on this zoning text amendment. I provided that as part of your report, the link to that web page. It does have the draft language at least as it stands now, for that zoning text amendment as well as a schedule, and the lead planner working on that working on that package their contact information.

So I would encourage you to take a look at it in advance of that item coming before you and then also for members of the public to visit that webpage to get more information. I should note that we do have eight MAC meetings that we are going to be attending to review the draft ordinance that will begin next week on February 18 with the central MAC and then we'll be holding those MAC meetings again eight of them between now and mid or early April. Tentatively, we are planning on bringing that zoning text amendment package for the residential care homes to the planning commission in, in April for consideration and recommendation to the board. Lastly, just a couple administrative updates. I did want to note that, we are, going to be reinstating remote meetings, remote meeting capabilities for the Planning Commission.

As the commission, is is likely aware, there is a, newly effective, state law that requires, legislative bodies to, provide for, provide the public with the ability to attend, meetings remotely. We've decided that in addition to the legislative body which is the board of supervisors that we will also, extend that to the, planning commission and the zoning administrator hearings as well. And so we're tentatively planning for that first meeting even though that law doesn't go into effect until July, July 1. We're looking to get moving on that early and tentatively planning for that to be at your next meeting on 02/26. So I'll be working with, Chair Bechler and and, the Clerk of the Board in terms of how we, how we, incorporate that into the meetings.

And then lastly, just wanted to note that you, received the quarterly project report at your last meeting. Hopefully that was helpful, for all of you to, be tracking items that will be coming, eventually to the Planning Commission and your next quarterly report is scheduled for Feb the or I'm sorry, the April 23 meeting. That concludes my report. Happy to answer questions from the commission.

Thank you, Chris. Are there questions? Yes.

I think this is related. I'm trying to figure out how to see or view if it's possible the North Tahoe RAC meetings. It doesn't seem to be. I could maybe it is, but I couldn't find any links.

Yeah. I'm not aware that it is Yeah. It is being recorded and available. Are you you speaking of the knit rack meeting this Right. I'm not sure if it is, but I can check and follow-up with you.

Yeah. It was puzzling because I thought the new state law might reach to it, but it may be too far down the subsidiary levels.

Yeah. As I mentioned, the the new state law is only, is only applicable to legislative bodies. And so Not advisory. Okay.

Correct.

Chris, I have a question. Where can

we find the dates of the MAC meetings for the residential care home?

It it's on the web page. Okay. All of the dates.

Okay. On the, March 19, I'll be absent.

Thank you for letting us know. Yep.

Other questions for Chris? Chris, one other quick question. I know the board, has an ad hoc committee for the affordable housing workshop. Will that ad hoc committee be then reporting their findings during that board meeting on threeten, or is there some time before that that they would be reporting back?

That's a good question. I don't know the scope of the ad hoc committee and whether or not they are going to be reviewing and providing comments before that March 10 meeting, but I can follow-up with Nikki Stregan, who's the lead on the the ordinance revisions and then, report back at your 02/26 meeting.

Okay. That would be great. Thank you. Other questions? Okay. Thank you so much, Chris. Appreciate it. All right. The next item on the agenda is planning commissioner reports. Do any of the commissioners have a report or any information they'd like to share?

I see none. Okay. I am going to open it up to public comment for any matters that are not on the Planning Commission agenda. So as a reminder, you will have three minutes to provide, public comments. So is there anyone in the audience that would like to make public comment on anything not on the agenda? I see none. Do you have any more We do. Okay.

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

Greetings, commissioners. I'm Diane Louise Alessi from Christian Valley Park Community Services District, District 5, and a sixty year domiciliary of Placer County. We're watching Sacramento's iron fist crush the heart and soul of our rural commune community. RHNA, RHNA mandates, and monstrosities like the Hopeway apartments aren't fixing anything. They are a blatant betrayal of our hardworking families' farm legacies and real California life.

Just look at Hopeway's four 240 units ballooning to a $117,780,000. That's 490.753 per door. That's not affordable. That's highway robbery. As supervisor Landon rightly blasted, break it down further.

A one bedroom clocks in at a jaw dropping $835 per square foot, a two bedroom still outrageous at $630 per square foot. These costs are fed by USA property doing an in house construction padding every line item to squeeze maximum profit out of the LIHTC tax credits while pretending it's for the working poor. No plaster family scraping by on 32,000 or even $53,600 can touch this. The math is rigged, blending in tech millionaires and pension retirees to fake, quote, affordability, unquote. Our real people, service workers, farmers, young parents get locked out.

It's a flat out mathematical fraud. Arenas built on skewed ancient rotten data. Low income units get kicked down the road for decades while developers pay pocket change in lieu fees, cash out credits, and deliver luxury dressed as compliance. It's a disgusting shell game. This isn't planning.

It's Sacramento's communistic overreach, seizing family farms, trampling property rights with fifty five year restrictions that turn owners into serfs, and robbing our kids of the American dream. Plaster doesn't need this forced surge. We've got no jobs for it, just retirees and multigen families. Noncompliance means fines and builders remedy chaos with zero real infrastructure. This cannot stand.

Commissioners, the people of this county demand you fight. Challenge every mandate legally, demand real time data, front load truly low income builds, and fees so steep they force actual housing, not developer payoffs. Protect our farms, our families, our heritage, our grandchildren. Deserve roots here, not at this bureaucratic nightmare suburb. Thank you very much, and I yield.

Thank you, Diane, for your comments. Okay. No no other comments. Okay. I am gonna go ahead and close public comment. So we will now move on to our first, hearing item for today's agenda. The first item on the agenda concerns a matter that was continued from our last, meeting, the final actions related to the Hansen fence height variance. The Planning Commission is serving as the appeal body for this item. The staff presentation will be provided by supervising planner, Anne Marie Novotny. Good morning, Anne Marie.

Commissioners. Again, I am Anne Marie Novotny, supervising planner. I'll be presenting this item continued from the 01/29/2026 Planning Commission hearing. As a reminder, the subject subject property assessor's parcel number 40 Eight-ten Ten-fifty 9 is a 0.68 acre in size, is zoned residential single family, combining agriculture, combining minimum 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 Plan area. The proposed variance is to allow for construction of a five foot tall, black wrought iron open fence and gate within the front setback varying from approximately 16 feet to 22 feet from the edge of the public road easement.

During staff's presentation of the report packet for this Planning Commission hearing, planning staff reviewed the recommended conditions of approval with staff from other departments to confirm accuracy and completeness. A supplemental condition was added requiring the face of the gate to be set back a minimum of 30 feet from the edge of Rockhurst Way to allow vehicles, that's including emergency vehicles such as fire trucks, to fully exit the roadway and queue in the driveway during gate operation. Staff reached out to the applicant and an updated site plan was provided, which is Attachment A, included with the staff report, and the recommended conditions of approval are Attachment B. Just a little summary of the Planning Commission hearing on the appeal. On 01/29/2026, the Planning Commission considered an appeal filed on 09/29/2025 by David and Ann and Hansen challenging the 09/18/2025 zoning administrator's denial of the variance request.

The commission took tentative action to grant the appeal and approve the requested variance and continue this item to today's hearing. The commission also directed staff to prepare findings in support of the variance approval and the required CEQA determination. So now we're going to cover the variance findings. Approval of a variance may be granted only when the granting authority determines that the variance satisfies the criteria set forth in California Government Code Section 65,906 by making six specific findings outlined in Placer County Code Section 1760100D1. Staff's analysis in the report provides support for the Planning Commission to make these six findings which are summarized in this presentation.

So the first finding is that there are special circumstances related to size, location, and surroundings. And because of such circumstances, the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by adjacent properties under the identical RS zoning classification. The Hansen's 0.68 acre parcel is the smallest of the four non HOA parcels on Rockhurst Way. The three other non HOA parcels are each more than one acre in size and are in the same RS Zone District and may construct front fencing up to four feet tall by right. Because the subject parcel is less than one acre in size, it is restricted to front yard fencing up to three feet tall despite being zoned identically to the adjoining parcels to the east and west.

The Hansen's property and the adjoining parcel to the west and two adjoining parcels to the east are not governed by the Oak Leaf Glen HOA and not subject to the CC and Rs that govern subdivision development standards, including development standards for fencing. The second finding is that the proposed variance would not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with limitations upon other properties within the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. Both adjacent properties are larger than one acre under the same RSA zoning classification and may construct fencing up to four feet tall in the front setback by right. Each adjacent parcel is developed with five foot tall fences within the front setback. The parcel to the immediate east enjoys a nearly identical roadway frontage condition.

The proposed fence would be the same height and of the same open fence materials as the adjacent property to the east, which was granted a variance to construct a five foot tall fence within the front setback. The third finding is that the proposed variance does not authorize a use that is not otherwise allowed in the Zone District. Fencing is allowed in the front setback in the ARA Zoning District with three foot tall fence height limits for parcels less than one acre, and up to four feet tall by right for parcels one acre or larger. And I just want note that this variance does not include consideration of whether fencing may be constructed within the front setback, but rather only considers the existence of special circumstances that warrant fencing in excess of three feet tall. The fourth finding is that the variance will not adversely affect public health or safety, is not detrimental to public welfare, nor injurious to nearby property.

The proposed five foot tall open fencing located approximately 16 feet to 22 feet from the edge of the public road easement was reviewed by the Department of Public Works. DPW determined the height and location of the proposed fence does not impede site distance and is far enough back from the curb of Rockhurst Way that it would not interfere with road maintenance or development. DPW also noted they will issue a recordable encroachment permit for the improvements, The proposed five foot tall fence located at a variable setback of 16 to 22 feet from the edge of the roadway will ensure sufficient on-site area for vehicles to complete full turning movements to safely exit onto Rockhurst Way in a forward facing manner. The gate will be approximately 16 feet wide and set back 30 feet from the back of the curb on Rockhurst Way to accommodate emergency fire access and would include adequate area for vehicles to pull completely off the roadway and not interfere with passing motorists. And there's also mature landscaping along both the east and west sides of the subject property that provides screening of the fence from neighboring properties.

The fifth finding is that the variance request is consistent with the Placer County General Plan and the Granite Bay Community Plan. The Placer County General Plan does not specifically address fences within front setbacks of residential lots. However, the Granite Bay Community Plan, Community Design Element Policies four twenty two and four twenty six allow open fences that are attractive and well integrated into the surrounding landscaping and are appropriate scale, color, materials such as wrought iron and design that provide privacy, preserve views, and enhance aesthetics. The proposed black wrought iron fence and sliding gate will be constructed of similar and complementary fence materials as adjoining properties to the east and west, ensuring consistent and complementary aesthetic expression of the improvement consistent with these Community Plan policies. And the sixth and final finding that is required to be met is the requested variance represents a minimum departure from development standards necessary to grant relief to the subject property and to afford privileges enjoyed by identically zoned properties in the vicinity, including the adjoining parcels to the east.

The Hansen's parcel is uniquely constrained by its smaller size at 0.68 acre, the only non HOA parcel on Rockhurst Way less than one acre and subject to the more restrictive fence standard. The smaller lot size restricts fence improvements in a manner dissimilar to neighboring properties despite their identical RS zoning designation. The two adjacent properties on the east and west sides are developed with five foot tall fences located within the front setback. The variance request to increase the allowable fence height from three feet to five feet is limited to matching the height and approximate placement of these existing fences and does not exceed what has already been established on these similarly situated adjacent parcels. And then regarding public comments received prior to today's hearing, the Planning Commission received one written comment from a resident expressing their dissatisfaction with the commission's tentative action taken at the 01/29/2026 hearing on this item.

I don't recall seeing any other, comments coming through yet today. So now staff is recommending the Planning Commission, one, take final action on the Hansen fence height variance continued after the close of public hearing on 01/29/2026 through the following actions: A, grant the appeal filed by David and Ann and Hansen and approve a variance to allow for construction of a five foot tall open fence within the front setback approximately 16 feet or further from the edge of the public road easement subject to the recommended conditions of approval and based on the findings contained within the Staff Report. And B, determine the project is categorically exempt from environmental review in accordance with Sections fifteen point three zero three and fifteen point three zero five of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines and Placer County Code Section eighteen-thirty six-fifty, Class III, new construction or conversion of small structures, and Section eighteen-thirty six-seventy, Class V, minor alterations in land use limitations. So this concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions from the commission and also the appellant is also present and available to address the commission.

Thank you.

Thank you, Anne Marie. Are there questions? Go ahead, Rich.

Okay. I have a question with regards to entitlement, and it deals with setback too. Now there's a 50 foot setback, but given the entitlement that the property owner actually has right now, they could build a three foot fence on their property line. They they would be entitled to that. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Yes.

Okay. And so the setback really the 50 foot setback really doesn't really have any bearing determination of the entitled location of the fence. Okay. Thank Are

there other questions? No? Okay. Thank you.

If

the applicant would like to come up and speak, if you have any comments.

Chair, before the applicant speaks, I know at the last meeting, the public hearing was closed. I believe if you're going to have the applicant speak and you're also going to accept public comment, which I believe is the plan, then you would want to reopen the public hearing. And I would suggest you do that now before the applicant provides more information. And that would just facilitate the fact that the public comment and the applicant's comments would be able to be considered by the Planning Commission.

Gotcha. So, I should open public comment at this stage?

Yeah, it would technically be reopening the public hearing that was closed.

Okay. And do I take public comment first or applicant first?

No, you would reopen the public hearing and then you can take the applicant's comments and then public comment after.

Thank you, Clayton. Okay, I am hereby reopening the public hearing for this item. So, the applicant would like to please come forward, share any comments.

Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. As you know, I'm Annie Hansen. And I'm here to thank you for your tentative vote on January 29 and ask for formal approval of the variance. I won't rehash everything Anne said, and thank you to Anne. She's been fantastic to work with. Generally, totally agree with the staff report and the findings in the staff report. I'll emphasize two points. As Anne said, our property is 0.68 acres. It's uniquely constrained. It's the smallest lot on the non HOA parcels on our stretch of Rockhurst Way, and it creates disproportionate hardship when applying the strict setback.

Furthermore, our home is unusually forward on the lot, requiring the standard setback would eliminate our functional parking and turnaround space and interfere with property maintenance access. And then point number two is no special privilege. Granting this is not special privilege, but rather a matter of parity. Both of our immediate neighbors have five foot fences within the front setback, including the property at 6115 Rockhurst, The Hunter Variants. Allowing us to match the established five foot open style material of our neighbors ensures we are not placed in a unique disadvantage compared to the properties on either side.

The other question I wanted to answer because I think there was a lot of discussion on it last time was why not a three foot or four foot fence. We are requesting a five foot fence because it is a minimum functional height required to address site's unique challenges for three specific reasons. One, functional containment. A four foot fence is not a reliable barrier for medium to large pets. As noted in the recent hunter variance next door, the five foot is industry standard required to ensure pets stay safely within the yard and to deter local wildlife from entering and damaging the property.

Point number two is that the top topographical compensation. Our driveway and front yard is elevated above Rockhurst Way. Because our driveway is higher than the road, a three foot fence provides almost no functional barrier for a pet or child because we would be on the higher ground of the fence and could easily clear the low height. And then number three is neighborhood parity. Both of our immediate neighbors already have five foot fences.

If we were to build a four foot fence, it would create inconsistent step down in the streetscape, which contradicts the Granite Bay Community Plan goal of aesthetic continuity. We aren't asking for an outlier in height. We're asking to match the established five foot standard of our immediate vicinity. I also wanted to note, I did find three other approved variances for fences, where a three foot fence was allowed and a six foot fence was approved. Just for the record, I'll state what those are.

PLN 19302, PLN 21304, PLN 2258. And then, Rich, I think you break up a great point on the entitlement. I do just want to mention that our property, we actually don't own the first 35 feet of our yard. That's highway easement. So even if we were to put a three foot fence at our property line, it'd be 35 feet back.

So we'd lose 50% of our front yard just even putting in a three foot fence at our property line. I thought that was worth mentioning. And so in closing, we're fully committed to the recommended conditions of approval, including obtaining all necessary encroachment and electrical permits. We respectfully ask the commission to take action and grant this appeal today. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. And, if I could have you just come back up. Even though you mentioned it, I just want to ask the question specifically. Are you agreeable with the recommended conditions of approval? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I am going to go ahead and open public comment. Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on this item? I see none. Do we have anyone

I see no hand raised.

Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. I don't think there's any necessary need for staff to provide response, so I will bring it back to the commission for their comments and deliberations. Any commissioner have

Do we have did you open for public comment?

Yes. Yeah. No one.

Okay.

Yeah. The only person I think someone provided a letter, asking for clarification on the consistency of another, nearby property. That was the comment. And staff did provide in our packets sort of a rationale or reasoning, for each of those properties. So if we wanted to have staff bring that up Yeah.

For example, staff Okay.

Step up again. So if I can ask the, audio visual team to bring up the supplemental slide that we provided, earlier to the commission. Thank you.

Okay. So I put together this slide based on your your recommendations, Chair Bechler. So this, the the picture at the top shows the, four h way parcels just starting at Barton Road to the west. And so the first four parcels are the non HOA parcels. So then one through four and then five and six are in the Oak Leaf Glen HOA parcels.

So the the parcel that that they were questioning where the variance was denied, that's parcel number five. That's at 600125 Rockhurst Way. It's a 0.91 acre parcel. That variance was the Scotts Fence variance. It was PLN 2200174.

It was denied in June 2022 based on they they could not find any it was an act actually a code case. It wasn't after the fact as built, a black metal wrought iron fence that was installed without any permits. And so the findings were that there was no special circumstances that it would grant special privileges. Was not the minimum departure. And again, that property is within the Oakleaf Glen HOA.

So they're subject to the HOA and their CC and Rs. The other property that was mentioned earlier was the hunter variance. That is property Number 3. They are on the east side of the Hansen's property, and that variance came forward in 2024. They have a situation where they've got a very limited backyard utility.

So their house is, way in the back as you can see. And so that one was approved based on the special circumstances, of the site constraints with the residents being located at the rear. And then also because they are one acre, they're over one acre in size, they're allowed the four foot tall fence, by right. And so they were allowed to go up to the five foot as a minimum departure. I think those are the questions you would ask.

The property on the left side of the Hansen's, which is 6105 Rockhurst Way, That one in our research, there was no code complaint filed against that fence. We did some aerial imagery and what it looks like to us is that that fence was installed sometime after July 2016 and before May 2017. But we weren't able to find in our records, any, permit for that that fence, but there also was not a co complaint filed against it.

Thank you. Questions?

Yeah. Yeah. I guess, I've been a little bit confused by this process, to tell you the truth. Because there's been a lot of reasons that have come forward that really don't bear necessarily on the decision that we're making. I did visit the site to look at it just recently.

And let me see. I I mentioned earlier, and I wanted the clarification that the property owner of this particular parcel had a right to build a three foot fence on their property line. And so the setback really had no bearing on that discussion. Basically, they had a right to do it without even considering the setback. Okay.

I look at the property on the east, and basically, their fence is back a long ways from the property line. They're not building the fence specifically on the property line. They actually build it within their property. And so, basically, I think what they were asking for was a variance for an extra foot on the height of the fence, which would make sense because that's probably five foot is probably the most common size fence that you can buy at a Home Depot or someplace like that. And so, basically, that was a pretty minor variance.

On the west side and in the staff report under item two where it's disguised, they talk about that being east, but the west side apparently has no permit.

That's correct.

They did build a five foot fence. And, where their fence adjoins this particular property, they're on the property line. And so to me, it seems like we have two questions here, and I think the applicant did partially answer it. But we have two questions here. One is building a a five foot fence in the easement and building a five foot fence on the property line.

Now, I think our previous decision really focused on the the parity. You know, this is a this is an unfortunately little bit smaller parcel in the adjourning parcels in that particular subdivision. And the rest of them are well over an acre, and they were entitled to more than this one, being a little bit under an acre, wasn't entitled to the same thing. And so being this is the only one in that particular subdivision, it makes sense that there'd be parity. They have the ability to match their neighbors' fences.

I guess where I'm having a problem is if the right that they had was on the property line, and now they want to encroach into the easement area, you know, it seemed like there's two different decisions there that were really billed as one decision. And so, basically, I don't know if I'm really in agreement with the idea of that fence, you know, I can see where on this particular I didn't notice when I was out there, but I can see on the map you have there that actually, the property owner to the west did encroach on the easement some. And apparently, I guess, these folks want to encroach the same amount. But the encroachment that they're having is much closer to the road than the other ease you don't notice it on the other property. So I guess, I still question the the second part of the question about the encroachment on the easement.

You know, I think, basically, the idea of a five foot fence to match the neighbors, and there is a there is a circumstance here that's unique because of the property size. So, you know, I can agree with that on the property line, but but the easement, that's seems to me that's another question. And, you know, if the if the county planning wants to approve a fence in the easement, I guess that's county planning's decision. But I think it was unfortunate that we were billed with two decisions when we're really talking about when when we kind of bunched it all into one decision. And, basically, the property on the west, you really the only difference there is the height of the fence.

It's not the matching the property line. You know? It's not they don't match really up with the property line on this on their cell. Basically, I just little bit disappointed in the staff report. Really wasn't real clear on what we're really talking about here. So, basically, I don't know if I'm in support of this still.

So, commissioner Johnson, just to in response, appreciate your comments, and appreciate the comment about the staff report. In terms of the, placement of the fence within the easement, that is a decision that would be made by the Department of Public Works. There would be an encroachment permit that would be required. They have had, the applicant and staff have had conversations with the Department of Public Works. They are comfortable with the, placement of the fence within, the easement, but the, an encroachment permit would need to be issued by Is it gonna be required or is it It it would be required.

I believe it's a condition of approval

as well. It is a condition of

Yeah. It is a condition of approval.

So are we deciding today on the encroachment?

No. Again, the encroachment would be is a decision of the Department of Public Works, not a decision of planning.

Okay. That's what I was interpreting. So, basically, we are talking about a five foot fence which Correct. Would be within the entitlement that they existently have, but it would be a variance in that entitlement, would be on the property line.

That's correct. And the decision on the encroachment would be decided by the Department of Public Works.

Okay. That that clarifies it for me. Thank you.

Thanks. If I may supplement just a little, the Department of Public Works has already been consulted, and they they are prepared to issue an encroachment permit, for the fence regardless of of what height it would be. So, that that part of the analysis has some certainty to it.

Trent?

Has property number one I I I see that there's no complaint or no permit record found. We're comparing, this property to a piece of property that put a fence up without a permit. So it's it's not a legal permitted fence, but we're allowing it to stand. And then now the Hansen's want to match that fence even though it was never permitted. We're not doing anything about that other fence?

So our our code enforcement process is complaint driven. Mhmm. There there certainly could be you know, if there was a complaint submitted on that property, we would investigate and analyze and and make determinations on that. What I would suggest, and and I do understand, Commissioner Jewell, kind of the the thought process that you are undertaking because we do have a graphic up on the screen that is providing some level of comparative aspect between the developed conditions of the properties, their size, their zoning. In my view, this variance is incredibly narrow.

It deals very specifically in one issue. And it's not whether or not a fence can be constructed. We know that that fence is an allowance by right, including that in this instance, even though it would be somewhat off the property, the County Department of Public Works because of the the large area that that right of way has and and that there's not a a necessity to support road improvements there, that they are agreeable to issuing that. So really, that that this variance request deals very narrowly in the fence height alone and specifically, what is the minimum departure from the ordinance necessary to grant relief? As Anne Marie, you know, covered in in her presentation, if the property were one acre or larger like the parcels on either side of it, that by right allowance does mean that the fence would be able to be one foot taller.

And so the the the recommendations and analysis that we've brought forward does, in my view, it reflects the the majority deliberations of the Planning Commission's discussion at that January 29 hearing. But I think that that there is an issue here that you all are still fundamentally grappling with is is what is that minimum departure standard and the findings around that. And so I think that if that helps at all to narrow the focus of the decision making, that's just a couple of clarifying points that I would offer.

Yeah. And feel like there's a piece of this too that I should speak to, and for the record, Clayton Cook, counsel for the commission. The actions of that property one and the potential for code enforcement, I I would suggest that if there's a code violation that the the county is aware of, that the code enforcement should be looking into that at this point. And there's certainly sufficient notice to look into it. But purposes for purposes of your evaluation today, you're determining whether this variance is appropriate, and so a property that is in violation of our county code is not something that you would consider as being something that, similar circumstances should, necessitate the need for a variance here.

But I do think you do have another property, Property 3, that does have a variance that was granted, and that certainly can be considered as a reason to grant the variance. But one bad actor should not necessitate two bad actors for purposes of the granting of the variance. But there are other grounds to look at as well.

Trent, any other? I've just maybe a couple comments. I think that I was you know, based on the findings today that we're, that we're evaluating, you know, originally when we heard this item, the issues that I was grappling with were we the commission kept talking about the use of aesthetics, and it looks good, it's the same height. I think what I learned between then and now, that aesthetics actually cannot be used as a sort of rationale to make findings. So that so just taking that off the table for just a minute, and but with that said, I, you know, I completely agree with the Granite May community plan, and aesthetics are super important, but for the purposes of this decision.

The other piece that I was trying to grapple with, from the original hearing to today, and maybe I'm still I I thought I was feeling better, but now maybe I'm puzzled, is the use in Clayton maybe you can help. So the the concept of using surrounding parcels as a reason for justification is allowed, correct? I mean, I think it's stated in the variance the law around variance findings. So we can use surrounding parcels. Is that true? Just so I can.

Yes. I know. Yeah. I know Anne Marie mentioned it, but there's really two basic findings you're looking at for a variance. The first one is, are there special circumstances? And that special circumstance is to the property itself, the lot itself. So you're looking at size of the lot, shape of the lot, topography, location of surroundings. And I would suggest that those special circumstances did not include any man made obstruction. So decision by a property owner to do something else on the lot doesn't necessarily play into that special circumstances. You're looking at the actual physical lot itself.

So that's the first piece. Is there special circumstances? And then the second piece is, if you grant it, would it be a grant of special privileges inconsistent with neighboring properties? So I I do think if you have a situation where other variances have been granted to similarly situated properties in the same zone area, then you get to a point of now you're depriving a property right to a specific property owner if you decline to grant a variance if all the situation and the specifics are analogous and similar to that property. So you're looking at both of those.

One, is there special circumstances? And then two, would there be a grant of special privileges in terms of granting this or denying it? And I think that cuts both ways. So those are the two basic components you're looking at. There is and I know it's been brought up for. There's a lot of flexibility in terms of your factual determinations to how close those get. But as commissioner Beckler noted, there really isn't an analysis of aesthetics. That's not part of the factors. So to the extent that you've heard comments about aesthetics, I would say that that's not sufficient for purposes of a finding of a variance here.

And then, Clayton, maybe one follow-up. It just to make sure so I think the unique characteristics, I think there are unique characteristics on this property. I think the other piece, just to make sure we don't create a special privilege. So, yes, there were, there is a variance approved on a neighboring parcel. And then on parcel was it four? It wasn't or four or five, I don't remember. It wasn't approved. So we have both situations. And so it's sort of interesting that way. But I think the one where it wasn't approved, again, I guess it's the unique situation of that particular property.

So thank you for that clarification. The only other question I had, and Anne Marie, maybe it's a question for you, or maybe we could just go to slide it's a slide that show I thought it had there was a slide that showed, like, where the fence would jut up based on, South Plaster Fire's feedback.

So if we

can see the where the fence will actually be.

Yeah. So again, if I can ask the audio visual team to bring back the staff, slide deck.

Because I'd like to just because I know in the original conversation, the applicant, like, was saying that, you know, having the fence closer to the driveway made it challenging. But is that now what we're saying to ensure that there's no impediment of emergency response vehicles? I think that's what's happened, but if you could maybe clarify.

I know you can't see it very well, but see how by the driveway there. So originally, the gate was gonna go straight across. That was the original proposal. And then with, the fire, you know, needing to be able to have be able to pull their vehicles completely off. They need to get back to where that, you see the 100 marker there.

That's not 100 feet or whatever. So that's that's how it's going to go so that the fence will be set back. And actually, the neighbors to to the east have a similar situation. So they if you go look at their driveway, their fence is closer to the front and then it actually the it goes back so that the the, they don't want to have fire trucks, you know, stay out in the middle of the road if they have to come there. So especially since the gate is gonna be electric, it's gonna be they're gonna have a there's another, requirement in their conditions that they have to have this NOx box set up. And so they want to be able to safely pull the vehicles off the road to be able to open up the gate and

No. Unless my compass is off that property that we're talking about that does not have, an easement. I mean, doesn't have the exemption is, to the west.

Yeah. The one to the east that did get the variants approved.

Yeah. The east one has the variants

approved.

The one on the west does not.

Yeah. The east

But the document talks about both east. It doesn't mention west. There's a confusion on what's east and west here.

Okay.

If you look in the doc

Your mic.

Rich, can you turn on your mic?

Oh. Yeah. I'm just making the point that the staff report refers to the property on the East twice, but, doesn't report doesn't refer to the property on the West, which it does in in context, but not in actuality. Look in your snuff.

Okay. Alright. Thank you.

Anne Marie, just to clarify then, the Property 5, which is on the nice exhibit, thank you for putting that together too, That it's extremely variance, there was they didn't build the fence beforehand. They went to apply for a permit to actually build the fence, and then the variance was denied for whatever reasons were defined at that point. And that is part of the HOA. Is that correct?

I believe that was the one. They did do an ad there was a code case and they had already gone ahead and built it. So I

believe Oh, they did? Mhmm.

Okay. So there was a code violation. They built the fence, and then after the facts, tried to go back and get the variance, and so the variance was denied in that Okay. And in this case, for Property 2, I think DeHansons started to build the fence, but there was a code violation, but then they ceased building the fence until they went through the process? That's correct. Okay. Thank you.

In on Property 4 on on the supplemental slide, has that requested a variance to build a fence at some point in time?

Property 4 does not have a fence and it's not to my knowledge that they've requested one. Right. They just don't they just don't have one.

Anything we would consider because it's for that particular item because they haven't made a formal request or tried to build a fence.

Any other questions or

other questions for Anne Marie or any comments? Is anyone ready to make a motion on this item?

George?

Sure. I would, see, make sure I'm on the right page here. So I would make a motion to approve item one a as read into the record by staff.

We have a first. Do I hear a second?

I'd be glad to second it.

K. First and second. Roll call,

please. Alves? Yes. Watts?

Yes.

Johnson?

You see, I'm gonna vote yes, but I just wanna make it clear that my vote is addressing the the variance for a five foot fence and consistent with the entitlement that they currently have and any subsequent decisions are up to the planning department.

Dahlgren? Yes. Runtine?

Yes.

Jewell? No. Beckler? No.

I'll also make a motion to approve item one b as read into the record by staff.

I second that.

Alves?

Yes.

Watts? Yes. Johnson?

I guess, yes. I I spoke too soon before, but it's what I said before.

Dahlgren? Yes. Brentin?

Yes.

Jewell? No. Beckler?

No. And just one comment is that I I am having a hard time, with the consistency across five, one, and three. So that's the reason for my no vote. Thank you.

Chair, if you could note the appeal rights as well.

Yes. Thank you. Let me get back. So the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by anyone who appeared at today's hearing or provided public 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 So thank you everyone for attending. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the consideration of entitlements for Sheba Estates at Eden Rock Project in Granite Bay. For this item, the Board of Supervisors is the decision body, and the Planning Commission will provide a recommendation to the Board. The presentation will be given by Senior Planner, Kara Conklin. Welcome, Kara.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair Bechler. Good morning, commissioners. All right. I am Kara Conklin with the Planning Services Division.

And the item before you this morning is the Sheba Estates at Eden Rock Re Zone, vesting tentative subdivision map, conditional use permit, and variance request. All right. So the project site is located at 5830 Walden Lane, which is at the end of Walden Lane, approximately two fifty feet south of Eden Oak Circle in Granite Bay. Just to note, this is the pointer, so areas to the north is the Eden Rock subdivision, and areas to the west is the Los Lagos subdivision. South of the project site is the Folsom Lake State Recreational Area, And then, areas to the east are currently undeveloped.

This project site is unique. It is, two two parcels, 39.5 acres, and both of them have this interesting zoning going on. So in the north and south of the project site, it's zoned residential agricultural combining a minimum building site of 20 acre minimum with a planned residential development of 0.44 units per acre. And then the central portion, which is approximately 18.7 acres, is zoned residential agricultural with a minimum building site of 4.6 acre minimum. And we'll kinda get into, why there's a rezone request here in this central portion a little later in the presentation.

So the proposed project is a 39.5 acre site proposing six lots. The lots range in size from five acres to eight acres. The project is also proposing a 4.5 acre, open space lot. It's Lot A located on the east of the project site. There is a public trail that is proposed to kind of go through there.

Would, the public trail would not have any sort of parking related to it. It would primarily be accessed by the folks living in the Sheba Estates at Eden Rock subdivision and Eden Oak or I'm sorry, Eden Rock subdivision folks. The project is requesting a rezone to rezone that 4.6 acre minimum to add the planned residential development of 0.44 dwelling units per acre to that so that it is consistent with the other portions of the existing zoning, where it has that planned residential development tag on it. The project is also requesting a vesting tentative subdivision map to subdivide the project into six single family residential lots ranging in size from five to eight acres and one four point five acre open space lot. The project is also requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a planned residential development in accordance with Placer County Code section seventeen point five four point zero nine zero through seventeen point five four point one one zero.

The project is also, requesting consistency with Placer County code section 17.5409 b, which allows for a planned residential development for Sheba Estates at Eden Rock, and also a variance request to allow a reduction in the open space requirement from 20% to 11.4%. So this project has quite a history. It was originally approved back in 2009. In 2008, the Planning Commission approved a vesting tentative subdivision map, conditional use permit, and variance for the project, and they forwarded the recommendation of the rezone request over to the Board of Supervisors. Shortly after that approval, a third party appeal was filed by the EdenRock Homeowners Association and they challenged four conditions of approval on the project.

On 02/10/2009, the board then considered the appeal in conjunction with the rezone request and the board took action to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the of the project entitlements as well as the rezone request. Once it was approved in February 2009, the project had an expiration date of its map and entitlements of February 2012. Through a number of automatic extensions through the State of California Assembly Bills two zero eight and one hundred sixteen, Those were granted four consecutive extensions of their map and entitlements, which established an expiration date of 02/10/2016. Then through that process, the Planning Commission approved three extensions of time through our Placer County Code Allowance, in 2016 for a one year extension, and then in 2017, a two year extension, and in 2019, another two year extension, and in 2021, a one year extension, which brought the project to a final expiration date of 02/10/2022. I will state that during that time of all of those extensions, the project did have approved improvement plans.

They also began tree removal of the site, and the project had thought that they had been granted. It's an AB fifteen sixty one extension that was granted by the state, an eighteen month extension during COVID. And so it was determined that because they had their extension in 2021 that they were ineligible for that AB fifteen sixty one extension by the state, and so their map expired. So they were unable to carry out that project. Hence why they have now come in for a reapplication of their project.

So the project is exactly the same as it was approved back in 2009 with no changes. They're just coming in to finish what they started. So the project is proposing to rezone 18.7 acres of the existing residential agricultural combining a minimum building site of 4.6 acres to just tack on that planned residential development of 0.44 dwelling units per acre so that the entire site is zoned as a planned residential development. And so with the planned residential development ordinance, there needs to be consistency findings and determinations made along with the conditional use permit to be able to approve a planned residential development. So as set forth in section seventeen-fifty four-ninety of the zoning ordinance, a conditional use permit is required for the approval of a planned residential development.

Section seventeen point five four point zero nine zero a two allows for permitted density and the applicant must provide computations for permitted density parking and building coverage, as well as open space ratios. Section 17.54-90B also requires the findings to be made to approve the planned residential development. Planned residential development design and development standards also require that minimum 20% of the project site to be designated as open space. And so this is a slide showing those computations that are required by the applicant to provide for, the planned residential development. And so I'll just kind of walk through this a little bit.

The base zone districts are those current zoning, districts that the project has. And the parcel size is 39.42 acres. There isn't an existing road or any existing buildings on that project site, so their net buildable area is still gonna be their 39.42 acres. They get a standard deduction for inclusion of subdivision roads of 6%. So that 6% buildable area is 2.37 acres, giving them 37.5 acres of subdivision roads, a buildable area inclusion of the subdivision roads.

So at 37.5 acres, at 20 acres per unit, they would be allowed to build 1.5 units on the property as it stands with that current zoning of 20 acre minimum. And so with the planned residential development at the 0.44 dwelling units per acre, the project could, reasonably construct 17.3 units on the property with a planned residential development. However, the number of units that the applicant is proposing is six. With that, they would be required to have 7.88 acres of open space on that's the 20%, and the applicant is proposing to have 4.5 acres of open space, so 11%. So the project, has been determined to be consistent with both the general plan and the Granite Bay Community Plan, as the project provides a transition from some of the smaller, one acre residential lots in Los Lagos and Eden Rock two larger lots that are east of the project site.

The project site or the project, I'm sorry, avoids the site's sensitive natural features including wetlands, rock outcroppings, native oak woodlands, and, elderberry shrubs. It provides an open space lot with a publicly accessed trail that will connect to the larger trail system within the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area, and it's located in an area that already has services including public sewer, public water, and emergency services. I won't walk through all of the consistency, but in the staff report there are some tables that have further consistency for the general plan and the community plan. So the project is requesting a variance to the planned residential development requirement of 20% open space, and they're requesting a reduction down to 11.4%, due to the fact that this site has, several topographical constraints. It has wetlands on-site, there are steep slopes anywhere from 30 to 50% on the site, There are a lot of rock outcroppings, as well as the circles on the tentative map, those are the locations of the elderberry shrubs that contain valley elderberry longhorn beetles, which are a protected species.

They have to avoid those areas, the project does. What that results in, obviously, are larger lot sizes. The project could construct 17 units, but they're only proposing to construct six larger units or six larger lots. I'm sorry. The large parcel sizes contribute to the project's visual and aesthetic qualities developing around rock outcrops, wetlands, and oak woodlands, and as previously mentioned has a

lot of

topographical constraints. And so the reason that the site is asking for a variance is because potentially the buildable area on each of these lots is gonna be about one acre each, and so that serves us about anywhere from four to six acres of those lots being kept as open space, which gives the appearance that there is a lot more open space on the project site, than just the four acres reserved for that public trail area. Originally, the project was approved in 2009, and at that time had a mitigated negative declaration done as the environmental document to evaluate the project. And since that time, back in 2020, the Placer County Conservation Program was approved. There were some changes in CEQA evaluation in 2020 as well for vehicle miles traveled.

And so it was determined that even though there aren't any changes to the project itself or necessarily the project site itself, that we did need to update that environmental document to not only be, participate in the Placer County Conservation Program, but also update, those CEQA resource areas that that have since been updated, since the project was approved. So the addendum was prepared, to the mitigated negative declaration and updates to the biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and transportation and traffic, as well as what, those were updated and then new resource areas were added in, and those resource areas are energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and wildfire resource areas. So the project is subject to the Placer County Conservation Program and is located in the Foothills Potential Future Growth area of the PCCP. Land cover types of the project site include mixed oak woodland and foothills chaparral. This site has three isolated seasonal wetlands, one wetland swale, and three ephemeral drainages.

The site has also identified three elderberry shrubs with exit holes identified for the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle. The project is also subject to PCCP avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, including land conversion fees and any special habitat fees that apply to the project. I will note that the project is avoiding all of these special features, so any buildable area would be side of these, protective features such as the wetlands, the, elderberry shrubs, and then, the Folsom Lake Watershed drainage area. Wildfire. So the project site is located in a state responsibility area, SRA, and is identified as a very high fire hazard severity zone.

This project is served by CAL FIRE, who is responsible who is the responsible agency in a wildfire event. But South Placer Fire District is the servicing fire district for the project site. For emergency services or any structural fires on-site, South Placer Fire would be the servicing fire district. Because there is a very high fire hazard severity zone, there are mitigation measures included in the project, and they are required to adhere to Public Resources Code four thousand two hundred and ninety and four thousand two and ninety one regulations. And those regulations, establish minimum fire safety standards for structures and buildings, which also include defensible space, fire access, fuel breaks, and building standards.

The project will also be required to provide a vegetation management plan to help with vegetation and fuel management. So the project was presented at the Granite Bay MAC on 02/06/2025, for review and comment. At that time, there were no comments from the public. However, we did have questions from the MAC members. And those questions included whether or not the lots would restrict the keeping of horses on the property, and the project does not restrict the keeping of horses on these lots, and that the project or the lots would be subject to the Placer County Code Animal Raising and Keeping section if they wanted to have any sort of horses or other animals on-site.

And then also there were additional questions raised about the public trail in Lot A, including whether parking would be provided and whether the county and project would coordinate with the Folsom Lake State Recreational Area prior to trail construction. And so, to answer those questions, no, a parking lot is not going to be constructed for, public access to this trail. And that, yes, the project is required to, reach out to the Folsom Lake SRA, and coordinate with them on any, connection. The county did reach out to the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area prior to this hearing. I I left a couple messages but haven't heard back.

So, we did wanna reach out to them and just let them know that this was coming before the commission, but, did not hear back. Oh, and also, before I go to the recommendations, I did wanna note, so I did receive four phone calls from the public on this project. I was able to speak with three of those individuals, two of which have provided public comment that you should have received on this project. The concerns raised with the public, had to do with the public, the location of the public trail on the east side of the property and also just inquiring about where the buildings would be located on the lots on the project site. And so I was able to speak with all but one of those individuals.

So with that, staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the following recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Adopt a resolution adopting an addendum to the previously adopted mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the mitigation monitoring and reporting program prepared for the project pursuant to section 15,164 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines and section six point o nine o of the Placer County Environmental Review Ordinance. B, to adopt an ordinance rezoning a portion of the Sheba Estates At Eden Rock project site from residential agricultural combining a minimum building site of 4.6 acres to residential agricultural combining a minimum building site of 4.6 acres combining a planned residential development of 0.44 units per acre C, approve a vesting tentative subdivision map subject to the recommended conditions of approval. D, approve a conditional use permit to allow for a planned residential development in accordance with Placer County Code section seventeen point five four point zero nine zero and through seventeen point five four point one one zero subject to the recommended conditions of approval. E, approve a planned residential development for Sheba Estates at Eden Rock for consistency with Placer County Code Section 17.54.090B and approve a variance to allow for a reduction in the planned residential development open space requirement from 20% to 11.4% subject to the recommended conditions of approval.

I would like to note that we do have, Jeff Ingolia here with South Placer Fire District as well as deputy chief Derek Shepans with CAL FIRE for any fire related questions. And we also have the, applicant team, and I am available for questions as well. So thank you so much.

Thank you, Kara. Questions for staff? I'll start with you, Rich.

Okay. Just to the east of this parcel, there's a a large parcel that doesn't appear to be developed. Is that part of the state parks?

It is not.

Is that?

It is not part of the state recreation area. And when I say that this site is zoned a little funky, that large parcel is actually zoned 4.6 acre minimum. So it's a large lot to the east. I don't know if my pointer will allow me to but it's that large parcel on the east. And it's only zoned residential agricultural 4.6 acre minimum, but the Los Lagos and the Eden Rock subdivisions, those are, zoned as 20 acre minimum. But they have the PD designation tacked onto it. So but no, it is not part of the state recreation area. It's an individual property.

That is not developed.

Yeah. Me too. Okay.

That's interesting. So I had a question about the trail, but I guess the trail is necessary. Okay. Now these are large parcels and the zoning that's being applied here, will it if any future requests to subdivide any of these parcels, would that have to come back for a zoning request? This is pretty much the minimum zoning that

Yes. They would have to come back.

Okay. Couldn't be just a four by four type thing situation.

Right.

Okay. Thank

you. Mark, did you have a question?

Yeah. I had just one short follow-up question. That trail, I can see where it connects with the road at the top. I can't figure out where it would move out of the south end of the park or south end of the trail.

Yeah. It's a little difficult to see. But I believe the trail I wish this pointer would work, but it's, so the trail where it angles on Lot 4 Right. I think I can't tell if that's this mouse. It's it's on the Southeast corner of Lot 4 where it kinda angles a bit, and that is where the trail there ends. Because if you go further south into Lot A, there's some pretty steep slopes down there. Okay. Okay. Yeah. So it it doesn't extend all the way south.

So the trail terminates at that corner of Lot 4. It doesn't connect into the trail system of the Folsom State Recreation Area.

No, it doesn't. But they would have to coordinate if they wanted to have

a So get a transaction through. Okay.

Thank Mark,

are there

any other No,

that was it. Thank you.

Okay. Robin, anything? Jeff?

Yeah. The properties to the west existing, I know there was concern what's going to happen going on behind us. But it appears primarily on lots two and three of this tentative map that you've got Swales, Elderberry, Chaparral. So they're going to provide having to be avoided, they're going to provide quite an extensive buffer, correct?

Correct. And then on lots one and two, there's also I mean, you can kind of see the topographical lines on there, and it's pretty steep. It would be very difficult to even try to develop out there.

And then did the PCCP comment on the reduction of the open space?

No, they didn't. PCA doesn't necessarily provide comment on the size of the open space. It's more

I'm talking about the reduction.

No, they don't comment on it. They look at the whole project site. And so they look at what's out there and what needs to be protected. The project site, and it depends on the applicant how they want to pay for their conversion fees if they want to pay for the whole project site or if they are going to put PCCP land conversion on future property owners if they sell off the lots. But either way, they would pay conversion of the entire parcel site from undeveloped to developed.

Commissioner Rontine, I just maybe supplement what miss Conklin said. The PCA scope of authority would not lend them to comment on the variance request for a reduction in the open space area. That is strictly within the county's jurisdiction to consider, the variance request.

Okay. Thank you.

Other questions?

Yeah. At the point four four units per acre, can multiple units be built on each property?

That's a great question. So what is allowed on is, one single family dwelling, and then by right you can have an ADU or a JADU.

Actually it would be a J an ADU and a JADU. And They would be able to.

Okay. Thank you.

Other questions for Kara? Thank you, Kara. Appreciate it. You're welcome.

I Thank

would like to, go ahead and ask the applicant or the representative to go ahead and come up to the podium, if you could.

Morning. My name is Zac Mugerville. I'm with Sheba Development.

Zac, do you have any comments you'd like to make on the project, to supplement what Kira already provided?

Yes. Regarding Eden, Rock Subdivision, we had a maintenance road agreement in place, and we had all the agreements in place with the HOA. And they may request that we need to send them new ones because the board have changed, and we are very happy to send it before any construction starting.

Okay.

And regarding the two residences in the back, Mr. Dolittle residence and Martini residence, the distance from the homes we are planning on building is going to be plus or minus 350 feet from the property line.

Okay. So there from your perspective, there'd be plenty of barrier Plenty. Of privacy.

And all all the existing trees along that property line is staying.

Okay. Yes. Okay. Any other comments that you wanted to make? No. Any questions for the applicant? I had only one question, and I think maybe you addressed it. Is the plan to, build these all as one development and have one builder build all the units, or is the intention or vision to sell them off individually to have them constructed individually? Because one of the other comment letters was just sort of the curiosity around the construction noise aspect. Is it kind of a all at one time, or is it going to be sold off over time based on the market demand?

We are planning to building two at a time.

Okay.

We have done a subdivision in Placer County before. It's called Chiba Lakes on Douglas Boulevard. And we built all four homes, and now we're planning on doing these six homes.

The same way? Yes. Okay. K. Thank you.

Thank you.

And I do have to ask, are you agreeable with the recommended conditions of approval that are in the staff packet?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay. I am going to go ahead and open public comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make comment on this item? Yes, go ahead and come up to the podium, please. And if you could state your name for the record.

Yeah. My name is Paul Heald. I'm a resident of Eden Oak. I actually live at the top of Lot A there. There's been no conversation about the impact on the traffic. The only traffic entrance and egress is going right by my house. The exit will, but not the access. There's no other entrance or exit to this new developed proposed development apart from through our existing infrastructure. It's going through a private road, think, as Zach stated. We pay our homeowners pay for the maintenance of that particular area.

So I don't know what new infrastructure costs there'll be to do this. I was I don't know about that Eden Oak Circle or Walden Way entrance, whether it's going to be a ride only. So all the concrete trucks, all the traffic, all the maintenance crew are gonna go past my house and the rest of the neighbors. I don't know if they're concerned, but that's just my concern.

Okay. Thank you. Oh.

That's it.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it. Go ahead and come up to the podium.

Thank you. So I'm a member of the HOA board for Eden Roc. And there's been turnover for the people that were here originally in 2008 and 'nine that were looking at working with

Oh, yes. Can you state your name for

the Oh, did I not? Patrick McCollum. Thank you. It. So there was an agreement that they just showed me because we didn't have that.

It was made in 2009 that allowed for some of the maintenance cost to be shared with this new development as it was proposed in 2009. As I was reading through what they just shared with me, I'm not quite sure that it's still active because if this tentative map did terminate, it says that the that this agreement could be terminated by the developer. And this is a a new developer that's proposing this. So what I'm here to ask for and and again, I I apologize that we don't have this information and that there has been some turnover in our board, is a stay for two weeks so that or or give us some time to be able to come up with, even if it's similar language. But there is road expenses that we're talking about.

In the previous agreement, there's a waterfall feature that is a significant cost to the members of that to Eden Roc. And so we're looking forward to make sure that those costs are going to be shared properly and that there's an agreement in place for that. And it sounds like I just spoke with them for the first time just now right before they presented. And there is a like I said, they're willing to make that happen. But I would not want to move forward from our standpoint until I knew that the documentation was in place and that we had an agreement based on this new proposal that seems to be the old proposal.

But the costs that I see associated in 2008 and 'nine are wildly different than they are in 2026. And our again, the biggest cost to our members in our community are water feature, the maintenance and pumping, the electricity that it takes to run that feature. Our road because it is a private road, the county owns the road that goes from Auburn Folsom all the way up to the end, and it's the Eden Rock. But the Eden Oak Circle and any of the other ancillary roads, have to maintain ourselves. So again, what I'm asking for is just and it doesn't have to be long, just a short stay so that we can verify that what we have in place is still valid.

And if it's not, that we can have time to go back and update that to make that whatever it should be for 2026.

Okay. Thank you, Patrick. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else that would like to make comment? Yes. Go ahead and come up to the mic and state your name for the record.

My name is my name is Donna DeMartini, and I am West of Lot 1. Right? And they did answer some questions about where the I was concerned about where the home would be located because I back right up, and I have a smaller lot that I wasn't backed up to them. But they have explained that to me. I just want to make sure that I understand that it sounds like they're going to start building right away, but if they chose to change their minds and divide the lots, would they would come back to you, and we would be made aware that the residents surrounding that area would be notified by you as we were Yeah,

we will answer that question after your public comment.

Thank you. Uh-huh.

Thank you.

Great. Thank

you for providing comment. Any other, any other public comment? I can have you come back up after I close. Hank, do we have anyone on ADA?

We do not.

Okay. I'm going go ahead and close public comment, and I would ask staff if there's any, clarifications or responses that you'd like to give first.

We do. And just to mention the last comment, or to respond to the last comment first. Certainly, if the project were to be approved, if there were any modifications, any request for further subdivision, consideration for the site that would be subject to a subsequent entitlement package that would, be subject to public hearings and public noticing requirements. So wanted to address that. In terms of the first two questions, or first two, responses to the first two comments, I'm gonna have Michael Wilson from, our engineering and surveying division respond to those, but there are conditions of approval, in the in your report package that, address the the two comments that were made.

So again, have mister Wilson respond to that.

Yeah. So I'll touch on the road maintenance portion first. There is a condition of approval requiring that prior to improvement plan approval because this project will be required to submit and get approved improvement plans for the subdivision, that there's reasonable efforts to be made to enter a three party agreement for private road maintenance. It'll be with need to be with the Eden Rock Homeowners Association and the Row private property owner, which is the property owner just north adjacent where the road goes off-site. And then as far as the access, from, Eden Oaks Circle, the project's required to construct a ride in, ride out Pork Chop Island at that access.

It'll be mountable, so rolled curb so that fire trucks are able to, you know, have full access in and out. There's limited sight distance looking right where the road kind of bends, so we wanna restrict vehicles from turning left for us from a safety standpoint. It's also a mitigation measure in the environmental document.

And I would just note the conditional approval that was referenced is conditional approval 22. It's on page 123 of your packet. And also, the action being requested today is a recommendation to the board. So there will be roughly a thirty day or longer time period before, this gets to the board just to address that comment about concerns about working out an agreement.

Okay. Okay.

Staff doesn't have any any further, responses.

Thanks. Okay. I don't think there's a need to have the applicant come back up at this stage, but are there I'm gonna bring it back to the commission. Do you guys have any questions or comments at this stage?

Yeah. I I do have a question. Yeah. Yeah. I see some CAL FIRE people in the audience. Maybe you could come forward.

Morning, chair and commissioner. Jeff Angolia, fire marshal with South Plaster Fire District. My colleagues from Cal Fire.

Okay.

Be happy to address anything from South Plaster side, and then if you have specific questions for them.

I noticed in the requirements, the fire requirements that were basically statewide requirements. There's a discussion of a fuel break. Mhmm. And so for this particular parcel, has there been any thoughts on what you might require for a fuel break?

So that would fall under the public resource code that was mentioned, the PRC 4,291. It'd be concurrent with that.

What was that now?

It would be with the concurrent with those requirements outlined in forty two ninety one. Nothing that would be special to this particular No. You need

to speak in the microphone. I can't.

I'm sorry. So that would be concurrent with PRC forty two ninety one and wouldn't be anything in addition to that for this specific development.

Are there any specific plans or anything you're thinking about there?

So there is a fuels management plan that'll be presented to us. That's one of the conditions of approval. So we will review that when it is presented to us and, and make sure that it meets, those conditions outlined in PRC forty two ninety one, and then also what our recommendations would be. But outside of this particular project doesn't necessitate any special fuel reduction or anything like that from our perspective. I don't know if you have anything to add from Cal Fire's side.

Okay. So you don't have any big surprises then? No big surprises. Okay. No. Thank you.

Not clear cutting all of the oaks that neighbor the other properties. No. Why not? Okay.

No. We've been involved with this project since 2004 when it was initially our initial, Willsurf letter was presented. So we're we're well aware of it and have been in, a lot of discussions with both the developer and Eden Rock HOA on this particular one.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you.

Sure. Absolutely.

I have a question. It might be for Clayton to address oh, sorry. Not you.

It's okay. Is there any other questions for me while I'm

here?

Yeah. Any other questions? Okay.

Thank you so

much. If you

need anything, know

where to find me.

My question is about the, Eden Rock HOA representative and condition of approval 22 on page 123 of the staff report, where it says the applicant shall provide Placer County with evidence of reasonable efforts made to enter into a three party agreement with Ibn Rakshi of Estates and Rowe Property, R O H E, for the equitable share of costs in maintenance and repairs. What is the evidence that they have to provide before the Board of Supervisors gets this for their final approval?

Yeah, so that condition is required an improvement plan approval. So I guess in timing wise, it would occur if and when the board did approve this and if and when the Planning Commission did approve it. And then they submitted improvement plans. At that point, then there would need to be evidence. It would be based on, I think on this one, it's the engineering and surveying department's discretion as to what reasonable evidence is. There is some latitude there. I would say from a legal perspective, the first thing we would look at is, is there a legal right of access? Is there an easement? The county doesn't often get involved in the maintenance of private roads. That is normally considered a private party negotiation that would have to occur between the HOA and the property owners or the applicant.

But we do include this condition in to, I guess, facilitate that discussion and ask that it be moved forward and make sure that we at least have indications that the discussion occurred and that there was an effort to resolve that issue before we move forward with improvement plans. And I know the improvement plan is a bit of a technical term, but that's basically when the grading would start. So prior to any grading and any development of the property, they would have to make a good faith effort to reach an agreement on that.

Thank you. Other questions? Okay.

Let me see. I just wanted to mention that I noticed on the in the use permit under the CCRs, item D does require that the property owners enter into a maintenance agreement, which includes the Eagle Rock Road.

So you're saying, Rich, that you feel the HOA issue is covered because of that?

Yes. Apparently, it's yes, that's what the provision really talks about.

Okay. Okay. The only question I had, which I think has already been addressed, and Jeff you had brought it up, is one of the things that I looked at initially is just the subdivision. One, will say, thank you to the applicant and the developer for, you know, respecting the natural features on the area. And I do understand you could build out 17 units, so it's honestly very much appreciated.

I know this area very well. I live in Granite Bay. And so the only, the question I had in my mind was on the open space. So I was grappling with why not just create open space around, you know, that area. And and I definitely see the rationale for there's such a large area that basically is constrained.

So it gave me more hope, even though the PCA doesn't provide, comment on the actual open space variance. What they do do, and they would for this subdivision, and I just want to get confirmation that this will occur When the improvement plans move forward and building footprints are proposed, the constrained areas around the elderberry bushes, the rock outcroppings, wetlands will be constrained from building at all, correct? Or or not?

That's correct. But again, it it wouldn't be the PCA making that determination. That would be county, staff that would make that

be reviewing

PCCP minimization Correct. Avoidance measures. That's correct. Okay.

Commissioner Bechler, if I may just supplement a little bit, though, and and and affirm your assertions, there is, conditioning, that requires, preparation of an information sheet that will supplement the final map, and the information sheet list out, all of the areas that are available for building and those areas that are unavailable or restricted and not available for building. And this particular project, to your point, because of things Cara covered, the steep terrain, various natural resources on-site and other factors, the Folsom Lake Watershed being one of those primary factors, has fairly significant restrictions on availability of building area. And so it does provide a functional equivalency. But what I would say is somewhat unique is that each of these lots will be converted in full in terms of that PCCP land conversion authorization fee.

Thank you. Other comments or questions? Or if not, entertain a motion. No one wants to to move forward.

I'll make the motion that we recommended the the Planning Commission recommends the Board of Supervisor. And we'll, first item would be item a, which apparently has been written in the record.

That is correct. And that's sufficient for a motion to.

Okay. I have a first. Do I have a second?

Second.

Roll call, please.

Johnson? Yes.

Runtine?

Yes.

Watts? Yes. Dahlgren? Yes. Jewell?

Yes.

Alves?

Yes.

Becker? Yes.

Okay. Make a motion we approve the, item b as read in the record.

K. Just to clarify, all of these are recommendations to the board of supervisor.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Recommendations in that report.

Second that.

First and second. Roll call, please. Johnson?

Yes.

Runtine?

Yes. Watts? Yes.

Dahlgren? Jewell?

Yes.

Alves?

Yes.

Becker? Yes. Okay. Item one c.

Okay. I I make the recommendation that we approve as written in the staff report item c.

Okay. I have a first.

To the board of supervisors.

To to the board of supervisors.

To the board of supervisors.

Yeah. Second.

Okay. I have a first and second. Johnson?

Yes.

Runtine? Yes. Watts? Yes. Dahlgren? Yes. Jule?

Yes.

Alves?

Yes.

Beckler? Yes. And I would just ask applicant please work with the HOA ahead of the Board of Supervisors hearing to work out the details as best you can, even though you're not really required till afterward. I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. I think that's it. I will go ahead.

There's more. Yeah. Just put

the slide up with three of them.

I forgot page two. Momentary lapse there. Go

for Board supervisors, if we approve item d as read into the record in the staff report. Second.

I have a first and second roll call, please. Johnson?

Yes. Brentin? Yes.

Watts?

Yes.

Dahlgren? Yes. Jewel? Yes. Alves? Yes.

Beckler? Yes. Okay. Item e.

Okay. I recommend that we board recommend to the Board of Supervisors that we approve the planning, I mean, item e as written into the, record in the staff report.

Second that.

K. First and second, roll call. Johnson?

Yes.

Runtine?

Yes.

Watts?

Yes.

Dahlgren? Yes. Jewell? Yes. Alves?

Yes.

Beckler? Yes. Item f?

Okay. I recommended the board of supervisors that we approve item f as, written in the staff report He's board of supervisors. Okay. Second. I

have a first and second. Roll call, please.

Johnson? Yes. Gruntin?

Yes.

Watts? Yes. Dahlgren? Yes. Jewel? Yes. Alves?

Yes.

Beckler? Yes. Okay. That go we can go ahead and close this item. I will adjourn the meeting. Thank you everyone for attending.