Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

recording in progress.

Sounds good. I'm going to put this over here next to Lee.

Oh, thank you. Great. okay i will call this meeting to order um i'd like to ask everyone to join me in the pledge of allegiance thank you if i could get the planning commission clerk to take roll call commissioner dahlgren

Here. Commissioner Alice.

Here.

Commissioner Jewell.

Here.

Commissioner Beckler. Here. Commissioner Runtine. Here. Commissioner Watts. Here. And Commissioner Johnson.

Here. Great. I'd like to welcome everyone to today's Planning Commission hearing. The meeting is open to virtual and in-person participation and also 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're to line up to provide public testimony. For members of the public that are attending via Zoom, you'll need to raise your hand with the hand icon on the bottom of the page. If you are calling in, please press star nine to raise your hand. Please 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 agenda or hearing items. Each commenter does have three minutes, and you will only be given one opportunity to speak on each item. Thank you for your consideration as we work to ensure that every citizen has an equal opportunity to share their feedback. Please also be advised that today's hearing is being recorded and will be available on the Planning Commission's webpage following the hearing today. So the first item that we have on our meeting agenda today is the consent calendar. We have three items on the consent calendar, including two extensions of time. and the Planning Commission meeting minutes for the May 14th meeting. I'd like to first ask the Planning Director if there are any items that need to be pulled from the consent calendar.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Beckler, Commissioners, Chris Pahuli, Placer County Planning Director. Staff would request that item 7A, which is the Stone Ridge and Westwood family cellars request for an extension of time be pulled from the consent calendar. As the commission is aware, County Code Chapter 1758-160 is what allows for Extensions of time to be considered without a public hearing provided that there are no objections received From the public and prior to this hearing staff and the Commission did receive a comment letter from Mr. Carson Percival on June 20th Raising concerns about the project. So out of abundance of caution staff is recommending that that item be pulled from consent

Okay. Thank you. So we will go ahead and pull that item to the consent. Pull it from the consent calendar. For the balance of the items, would any commissioner like to remove any other item from the consent calendar? I see none. Would anyone from the public like to remove any item from the consent calendar? Either anyone in person? I see none. Do we have anyone via Zoom?

No hands raised.

Okay, so before we move on to item 7A, could I get a motion for the balance of the consent items that were not pulled? Anyone?

Motion to approve.

Okay, I have a first. Second. I have a second. Roll call, please.

Alves? Yes. Jewell? Yes. Watts? Yes. Dahlgren?

Yes.

Rendine? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Bechler?

Yes. Okay, we will now go to the hearing item that was pulled from consent calendar. Item 7A is an extension of time requested for the Stone Ridge and Westwood Family Cellars project. The Planning Commission is the decision body, and we will receive a staff presentation from Allison Museling, Assistant Planner. Welcome. Good morning.

My PowerPoint's being distributed. All righty. Good morning, Commissioners and Chair Beckler. My name is Allison Musling, and I'm an assistant planner with the Planning Services Division. The item before you today is a request from the applicant, Kurt Westwood, on behalf of the property owner, Lucille Westwood, for a third and final extension of time for the Stone Ridge Westwood Family Cellars Project. The 37.9-acre project site is located on the north side of Indian Hill Road, approximately 1.5 miles west of the intersection of Auburn Folsom Road and Indian Hill Road in Newcastle. It is within the Placer County General Plan. The Union Pacific Railroad and Interstate 80 are north of the project site. Surrounding parcels are developed with rural residential uses. The project site is shown here outlined in yellow. The project site is approximately 37.9 acres. The western portion of the project site is zoned residential agriculture, combining a minimum building site of 2.3 acres. And the eastern portion is zoned residential agriculture, combining a minimum building site of 4.6 acres. The Board of Supervisors took action to approve the project on July 9, 2019. The previously approved project entitlements include a tentative subdivision map, for eight residential lots and an administrative review permit for the construction and operation of a 6,000 square foot winery with an annual production of 20,000 cases and six annual wine club dinner events. In addition to the project entitlements, the board took action to rezone the western portion of the project site consisting of parcels two through eight to residential agriculture combining minimum building site of 2.3 acres and also adopted a mitigated negative declaration for the project. The approved project includes two phases. Phase one includes development of the subdivision and associated improvements and phase two includes the development of the winery and associated improvements. The project has received two previous extensions of time. This is the third and final extension of time request associated with this project, and it would allow the project entitlements to remain valid through July 9th, 2028. Following project approval, the applicant has taken steps to advance the project, including submittal of improvement plans. On March 18th, 2026, The applicant submitted a request for a third and final two-year extension of time. The applicant cites increased costs associated with the relocation of utilities by PG&E, as well as ongoing instability of the residential sales market as the primary factors affecting project timing. Despite these challenges, the applicant has continued to make steady progress towards implementation. The applicant has worked actively to advance the project through the improvement plan process. The applicant has been timely with improvement plan submittals. And response to reviewer comments has indicated additional responses to staff comments are forthcoming. One public comment was received for this extension of time request. The letter expressed concerns with the previously approved project's potential for impacts to traffic safety, noise, lighting, and the role character of the area surrounding the project on Indian Hill Road. The letter requests additional mitigations be considered before an extension of time may be granted. In response, staff provides the following comments. A mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the project and considers information from technical studies and reports, including a traffic impact analysis and an acoustic analysis. Project conditions and mitigation measures imposed on the project include the construction of a left turn pocket on Indian Hill Road, a new access road from the project site to Indian Hill Road, to require lighting to be directed downward and not cross property lines, to comply with the Placer County Noise Ordinance, and to establish winery hours of operation, including 1030 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekends and state and federal holidays, and wine dinner events are approved to occur six times per year from 630 p.m. to 9 p.m. With regards to the rural residential setting, wineries and winery events are allowed within the rural or residential agriculture zone district, subject to an approval of an administrative review permit, which the previously approved project has already received. No changes are required or proposed to the original project proposal. If approved, the applicant would have two additional years to carry out the project, and this extension of time is the third and final extension available to the project. Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions. A, determine the extension of time for the project's previously approved tentative subdivision map and administrative review permit is within the scope of the adopted mitigated negative declaration, State Clearinghouse No. 201-903-9128, and that no additional environmental review is triggered pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Sections 15162 through 15164. And B, approve the third and final two-year, 24-month extension of time for the previously approved tentative subdivision map and administrative review permit that allows for an eight-lot single-family residential subdivision and the construction of a 6,000-square-foot winery with an annual production of 20,000 cases of wine and six annual wine club dinner events subject to the modified conditions of approval. This concludes my presentation. I am available for any questions. And the applicant is also in the room should you have any questions for him. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much, Allison. Do any commissioners have questions? Yes, go ahead, Mark.

Thank you. How do you assure us or yourself or the public that the traffic impact is no different than it has been or not past a threshold that requires any additional review?

Thank you for your question. The original project planner from 2019, Kelly Kendiaker, is in here, and I'll turn to her for that answer. Thank you.

Thank you Commissioner Watts, Callie Kendra Cecil, Supervising Planner with the Planning Services Division. There was a traffic impact analysis that was prepared and that traffic analysis did determine that the proposed traffic would not exceed the level of service threshold that is established for that particular area. The project is required to construct

project improvements to the roadway as Miss Museling mentioned and there will be a slight increase in traffic related to the project but again that would not exceed any thresholds established through a level of service so if I understand and there's the initial study and pursuant to that mitigation element and then fast forward to one two three extensions nobody goes back and looks at what traffic impact could be

The traffic impact is not changing because the project is not changing from its original approval. So we don't continually go back at each extension and require a traffic impact analysis.

It doesn't take into account any changes in the surrounding environment, just impact that that facility has on the roadway?

We also consider whether there have been changes that would require further environmental review, and there have not been any substantial changes within the immediate vicinity that would require further analysis.

I drive it every day for the last three years. It's different, but not too much.

I do have kind of, if you can clarify, so the initial survey was done in 2019 or before that?

The traffic impact analysis was prepared.

Find the exact date Was prepared it's dated September 6 2018 And there as far as and what you're saying is there has not been any concern with What has occurred since then? To change any part of the survey as far as the track.

That's correct.

Okay, so And the letter that we received for this new extension, has there been, and I don't know who would answer this, has there been that similar or same complaint since the beginning of the project, or is this a new complaint?

It is not a new complaint. When this project was initially going through the process, we received several public comments related to these exact issues that were raised in that comment letter. Okay.

Will this be the last extension that they can apply for? Yes. Okay.

Other questions? Okay. Thank you. If the applicant is here, I would like them to come to the podium. Hi, Kurt. If you want to share any comments, you're welcome to. Otherwise, I would just ask if you've read and are agreeable to the conditions of approval for this extension.

Yeah, they're consistent with everything that we've had and that we know was approved. I don't know how many of you were here when the project was approved, but the winery's only allowed to be open to the public for tasting, selling wine on Saturdays and Sundays. Because, of course, the traffic on Saturdays and Sundays is less than Monday through Friday when others are on the road. So that was one of the decisions that was made. in recognizing that there was quite a bit of mitigation for traffic from a winery because it was only open on Saturdays and Sundays as well as holidays when people are off work also. But all of the conditions of approval are manifest in the improvement plans that we've already submitted to the county. The improvement plans were completed with the exception of one thing, a landscape plan at the entrance. We hadn't done that yet. And then, of course, the fires came. And PG&E filed for bankruptcy. For two years, they wouldn't even answer our calls. And we couldn't proceed with the project without a plan for electrical. And we had to move power lines and that sort of thing. And then later on, we're hit with higher interest rates, inflation rates, and the housing market, luxury housing market, which is what we are building, basically just dried up. So those are the reasons why we couldn't even proceed until we had plans from PG&E, and they were out of business.

Thank you for sharing the background. Are there any questions from the commissioners?

I have a question.

This is not an appeal, though. This is the applicant.

Mr. Westwood, I have a question. If the market conditions don't change, how will you still proceed? If one of the questions... besides PG&E as the market conditions? What are you planning on doing in the next?

What alternatives might we have? I ask myself that a lot. I'm 76 years old, so it might be my children that would be talking to you. But the most viable solution beyond that, you know, million dollars here a million dollars there when you're only putting eight units on the property and pretty soon you've uh you've busted your pick you just you can't go make that kind of investment and that's the situation with pg e they gave us price um prior to um the fires and the bankruptcy uh And it was way too much money. And that was because we had to move all of the power poles. If you've been there, there's a table, a plateau, a meso, whatever you would like to call it. And then it slopes down to Indian Hill Road, and it slopes down to the railroad tracks. And right in the middle of that, in the early 1900s or whenever they did it, the canal. Is it the Newcastle Canal? I'm not quite sure the name. But anyway, the canal's right through where all of the prime building sites are. And then PG&E has their lines there also. So we have to, and we did design, PCWA did approve it, rebuilding the canal. And then we had to move the power lines for viable lots, and PG&E's price was just way too much money. And so we decided that we will relocate those power lines, but we wouldn't get rid of the power lines. The idea was to not have any visual, no sight of the power lines. And so we redesigned that, and we cut down a lot on what the infrastructure was going to be. And then the price went up more. So they're having a difficult time trying to make money and pay for their problems. So it's a long way around the block. And the only other thing we could do in the future. I mean, it depends on how long you might want to wait. Maybe my kids might want to wait 10 or 15 years. But if I were to be around to do something, I would just go in for a parcel map. I wouldn't have to remove all that stuff. The utility expenses would be much less because you just have to work around what's existing. So that's the most logical plan B. Or somebody could buy the property, put a house or two on it, and grow grapes. But as you may have read in the paper, wineries and the great business is in very, very sad shape. So I hope I answered all your questions.

I think there may be another question, Mark.

No, I'm just preparing to make a motion.

Okay. Yes. Question?

Yeah, this is for staff. What effectuates them meeting the timeline? Is it pulling a residential building permit?

Recordation of the map.

Recordation. Okay. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you for coming up. I do need to open this to public comment. So is there anyone here in person that would like to make comment on this item? I see none. Do we have anyone online? I see no hands raised. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. Just look to staff. Is there anything additional that you'd like to share? No. Okay. Commissioners, any comments or thoughts? Okay. Could entertain a motion.

I'd like to move approval, but I want to make sure this has not been read, right? She did, okay.

I was asleep, I guess.

So I'd like to move approval of the staff recommendation that the Planning Commission take the actions outlined in number one and number two, if we could do them both together. Thank you.

And I'll second.

Okay, we have a first and second. Roll call, please. Watts?

Aye.

Jewell?

Yes.

Dahlgren? Yes. Runtine?

Yes.

Johnson?

Yes.

Alves? Yes. Beckler?

Yes. Okay, 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 10 days of today's date and shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $752. So next item on the agenda is a report from our Planning Director, Chris Pahuli. Welcome, Chris.

Hey, good morning once again, Commissioners. Chris Bohule, Planning Director. I do have several updates to share with you today, and I will begin with recent Board actions and upcoming meetings. So since your last meeting, there has been one item of interest in front of the Board of Supervisors. On May 19th, the Board denied Jerry Johnson's appeal of the planning commission's March 19th approval of the planning director's determination regarding the Winchester stormwater requirements. Following the board's action, I did issue the final determination and provided it to Mr. Johnson along with the Winchester Community Association. Looking ahead, the board will receive an update on the Placer 2050 general plan update next week on June 30th. The presentation will be similar to the one that was provided to the commission on May 14th. Following the board's review, staff will begin outreach to the MACs during the course of this summer. And then we will have some more broad-based community meetings where we will do broad outreach and hold likely three or four community meetings in different geographical areas. And those will likely occur during the fall of this year. And then as we mentioned during our presentation to the Planning Commission following that community engagement We will come back to the Planning Commission with a final recommendation before we go back to the board Once that outreach calendar is is finalized. I will be providing that to the Commission So that you know of those dates and if you'd like to participate You know, you will have those dates so that you can schedule it accordingly Also coming before the board on July 14th is the Sierra Family Meadows subdivision. As a reminder, that is the project that proposes an eight lot subdivision in Olympic Valley and includes a general plan amendment, a rezone, as well as a tentative subdivision map. The Planning Commission recommended approval of that project on a series of unanimous votes during your May 14th meeting. So as it relates to the Planning Commission, following today's meeting, the Commission will be on summer break until August 13th. At your last meeting, I mentioned that that August 13th meeting was shaping up to be extremely packed. However, since then, several of those items have moved off of that date to another date, and it's now looking like there will be Four hearing items for that August 13th meeting. However, I should note that Staff does anticipate bringing the two zoning text amendments one on emergency shelters the other on the residential care homes to that meeting and so as the Commission is aware based on the level of Comments that we've already received on the residential care home zoning text amendment and just public comment that we've already received during the meetings. I am expecting that there will be a fair amount of public attendance and comment at that meeting. So I ask that the commissioners plan for a meeting that perhaps could go into the afternoon. Moving on at the at a recent meeting commissioners expressed interest in receiving a legislative update from county staff. I did discuss that request with the county's legislative affairs coordinator. who has agreed to attend a future planning commission meeting and provide an overview of legislative activity. We agreed that perhaps the most beneficial timing for that meeting would be after the legislative session has closed and after bills have been signed. So we're targeting a early fall, perhaps September, October timeframe to bring forward that item for the commission. So stay tuned for that. I also wanted to mention our quarterly project reports. I do hope that the Commission is finding value in those quarterly reports. Your next report is scheduled to be provided at the August 13th meeting. I did want to mention in the meantime, and I know I've mentioned it before, but for the benefit of the Commissioners and those members of the public viewing, that in between when we provide these quarterly project reports, that the information on all of our county projects is available on the county's interactive GIS project viewer. I did provide a link to that viewer on this report so that you have that information and can go to it and see the projects as new projects come on before you get that quarterly report. As it relates to public comment, prior to today's meeting, the commission did receive a number of public comment on matters not on today's agenda. Nearly 20 of those letters were related to the proposed 40 acres gateway project in Blue Canyon. I know I've mentioned it before to the Commission, but I thought I'd provide another update for you and for members of the public that might be watching today's meeting. So I did want to again note that the project is very recently submitted to the county. We are in that initial phases of the review process. The project is subject to a minor use permit, which will require a public hearing in front of the zoning administrator. I also wanted to let the commission and the public know that the project is undergoing environmental review. Staff has determined that it will be subject to an environmental impact report. And they are, their consultant team and the county are working on the notice of preparation, which will require a public scoping meeting. The members of the public that have provided comment have been added to the mailing list for that public scoping meeting. So there will be opportunities for members of the public to engage in this project and to provide comment. There are a number of technical studies that are being prepared for the project to support the environmental analysis that will ultimately be prepared and to support the evaluation of the project. So again, project is in very early stages of review and as additional information becomes available and as those milestones are met with the project, there will be opportunities for the public to provide further comment on the project. And so lastly, I did want to provide a brief staffing update. I know it's been a while since I've done that, but you have just recently saw a new face in front of you and you will see a couple more today. So I thought I'd provide a really brief update. We currently have within the planning division 39 full-time equivalent positions supporting our operations and we continue to work through a few vacancies within our division. We have vacancies at the supervising senior and assistant planner levels that we're looking to fill. However, we have made progress in filling a number of positions within the last three to six months. And so I'm very encouraged by where we're at and where we're headed in terms of building out the staffing for our division. So as I noted, you're going to hear today from a number of folks that you haven't heard from before. You just heard from Allison Museling. She's one of our newest assistants. PLANNERS, BUT YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO HEAR FROM REBECCA LAZARDI AND THOMAS MCNERN, WHO IS OUR NEW SENIOR PLANNER WITH OUR LONG-RANGE PLANNING TEAM. AND ALTHOUGH NOT NEW TO OUR PLANNING DIVISION, YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO HEAR FROM CHRISTIE BECKER, WHO IS A STAFF SERVICES ANALYST WITH OUR TAHOE PLANNING TEAM AS WE TALK ABOUT THE RAFTING PROJECT IN JUST A FEW MOMENTS. Update that concludes my report. I'm happy to answer questions from the Commission great Chris.

Thank you for Doing the legislative update. I know that was a Request from the Commission really appreciate you responding to that. I think that'll be perfect Update are there questions from other commissioners Chris?

I have a question when can we get our hands on the county's? draft of the residential care homes and

So that is actually posted on our, on our website, the draft. Okay. So yes, you can begin reviewing the draft text for that. And I can provide another, I didn't include it on this report. It's been on our previous reports, the link to the webpage for residential care homes, but I'll work with the planning commission clerk to get an email out to the commission providing that link once again.

And the 40 acres project, do you anticipate that getting to the zoning administrator this year even? Or is it too early?

I wouldn't expect so. I would expect that's going to happen sometime next year.

Yeah. And then the quarterly reports are very helpful. I just want to thank you for doing that. I know a couple years ago you started. I find it very helpful. Thank you. Thanks.

Other questions for Chris?

Chris, on the general plan update presentations to the MACs, will those continue to be information only, or will they have the importance of that program? Are they going to have a more active recommendation-type role?

We're not anticipating that there will be a formal recommendation at this point, but I will say that those meetings, although informational, will be much more interactive. We really want to get the max input on those opportunity areas, areas for potential land use designation changes within the general plan update, and also further conversation about their community plans. So I do anticipate that they're going to be much more interactive than our more informational presentations that we've provided to the planning commission and that we're going to be providing to the board.

Thanks.

And then Chris, I know the affordable housing nexus study was sort of, it's in circulation. I think the board has ad hoc committee. Do you know when we would expect to hear that item?

I'm expecting that that will be late this year based on the work that's being done by the ad hoc committee. I know they're continuing to progress and have meetings to talk about it. So I'm anticipating sometime perhaps late this year, but I'll make sure to provide a more detailed update at your August 13th meeting. great thank you i should also just mention um the um as you've brought up affordable housing there are two projects that have been submitted to the county that are affordable housing developments one that would not normally come to the Planning Commission and therefore won't be on your quarterly report next time, but I can make maybe a little bit more of a note of it. One of them is within the Placer One or Placer Ranch specific plan area. THERE ARE TWO SITES WITHIN THAT SPECIFIC PLAN THAT HAVE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR A DESIGN REVIEW. THOSE ARE 100% AFFORDABLE AND GO QUITE A WAYS IN HELPING THE COUNTY TO MEET OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARENA REQUIREMENTS. The other is in Granite Bay at one of the housing or one of the rezone sites. That project is proposing 20% affordable and the remaining balance of at the 80% at market rate.

Which rezone site? 26, 27? No.

No, it's not 26, 27. Correct. Yeah. Correct. So just thought I'd make a mention of that since you brought up affordable housing.

Thank you. Was the Placer 1 one made the media? I think that's how I heard of it. I think it was in the SACB. Yeah. Yeah.

Great. Any other questions? Chris, thank you so much. You're welcome. Appreciate it. Okay. The next item on the agenda is planning commissioner reports. Do any of my fellow commissioners have any information they would like to share or report on? I have just one comment I wanted to share. I wanted to do a head nod acknowledgement to county staff. In Granite Bay, one of the projects that was approved by this commission was the Ivy, which is a senior care facility on Douglas Road. So that project is now moving forward to construction. And there were some concerns raised in the community about making sure that the areas, the repairing areas were protected as stated in the mitigated monitoring program. County staff was very proactive, on point, and I just wanted to say thank you. I know there are multiple community members that were appreciative of you guys being so on point for that, so thank you. Um, that is it for that item will now open it to public comment for any matters not on the planning commission agenda today. Um, as a reminder, um, you will have three minutes to provide your comments. Is there anyone in person that would like to make a comment? I see none. Do we have anyone online? I see a hand raise.

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

Greetings, commissioners. My name is Diane Louise Alessi, District 5, six decades in Placer County. And I am a director on the board of Christian Valley Park Community Services District, as you should already know. We provide potable water and maintain district roads throughout this unincorporated community. I'm here to place the county on formal verbal notice today. and formal written notice will be forthcoming from the CVP CSD board regarding the proposed zoning text amendments. While we support affordable housing and current state legislative mandates ignore two critical realities, physical infrastructure limits. and the infringements upon our community's lifestyle via the state's draconian legal covenant overrides. First and most importantly is the infrastructure crisis. According to this county's ZTA project manager, the state now allows up to four ADUs slash JADUs under 750 square feet with only a four foot setback. That scenario is untenable. Our hydro engineer has confirmed we have a hard limit in our storage and processing capacities. Currently, CVP serves 632 residential customers plus the California Conservation Corps camp. We have a very limited capacity for only approximately 65 more customers and many are paying standby fees and take precedent. Meanwhile, we have no financial means with an estimate of 70 to $80 million to replace our 63 year old transmission lines while being mindful of more drought conditions whereby many stressed wells do fail and we must consider annexing in those as we have before. Highlighting the obvious, if just 25% of our current residents build only one ADU, we exceed capacity by 100%. If the four ADU rule is ever applied, the system collapses immediately. You cannot approve and permit that water systems physically cannot deliver upon. Nevermind septic systems, which is the majority here. Second, the legal overreach. Many of our subdivisions like Christian Valley Park have strict covenants requiring a two-thirds majority vote to alter land use or density. These covenants have stood for decades protecting the character and infrastructure capacity of our community. My question to the commission is this, how will the county instruct staff and the supervisors to notify subdivisions like ours that their democratic rights are being overridden behind their backs. The ZTA slash state is effectively stripping residents of their right to vote on changes that fundamentally alter their community's infrastructure load. The solution, we cannot say simply build more without a plan for who gets the water.

Diane, if you could wrap up your comments. Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. Yes. Loop in special district boards. No ADU permits should be issued without written capacity certification from our water districts first. Sorry, Diane.

We are out of time. Thank you for your comments. Okay. Do we have anyone else on Zoom? No other hands raised. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close general public comment. I did have one question. I know we can't act on public comment. There was a letter that came in regarding the Shirley Canyon Trailhead. So when the work moves forward on the Palisades project, and you guys don't have to answer now, But I was curious if the public would still have access to that trailhead. That was what the public commenter had asked. So I just wanted to raise that.

Yeah, so just in response, there not only is the Palisades project, but you've also heard the draft EIR for the Granite View Condos project. Both of those projects impact that Shirley Canyon Trailhead. And so, yes, ultimately there will be or there will continue to be and there will ultimately be access, public access, but it will be a relocated trail and relocated trailhead.

Thank you. All right. That concludes public comment. We will now move on to the hearing items for today. Um, items one and two are requests for rafting licenses and conditional use permits for two businesses to continue commercial river rafting operations along the Truckee River. As these items are similar in their request, staff will be providing one presentation that will cover both items. For the two items, the Planning Commission is the decision body. And today's staff presentation will be given by Christy Betker, staff services analyst. Welcome, Christy.

Good morning, commissioners. I'm Christy Becker, I'm a Staff Services Analyst for Tahoe Planning Services Division. And I will be presenting the following, the Truckee River Rafting License Renewals and Conditional Use Permit Modifications. Throughout this presentation, I will be addressing both of the applicants' requests, PLN2500399 and PLN2600007. However, at the end of the presentation, I will have the staff recommendation specific to our first hearing item on the agenda, followed by the second. The applicants request conditional use permit modifications to allow continued outdoor recreational concessions and a rafting license in order to continue to operate commercial river raft rental businesses along the Truckee River for an additional three-year term. Operations are limited to summer months, weather and water flow permitting, which is typically about 58 days per season. This excludes the many years the applicant is not able to operate due to drought, low water and conditions high flow conditions. The commercial rafting rental businesses operate along and on the Truckee River from the Tahoe City to Alpine Meadows. The rafting put in is in Tahoe City approximately a quarter mile southwest of the Tahoe City intersection of State Route 28 and West Lake Boulevard State Route 89. The rafting takeout is located at the River Ranch near the intersection of Alpine Meadows Road and State Route 89. OK, so here we have a location map overview. In Tahoe City, let me try to see if this will work. In Tahoe City here, we have the rafting put in area for both companies. And then over here, we have the egress locations for both rafting companies. This is a more detailed map of that area, so I'm going to go off of this one. Truckee River RAFCO utilizes an approved egress point at the River Ranch Lodge and Restaurant, while Tahoe Mountain Air Sports utilizes an approved egress point located just a short distance upstream at Bell's Landing Riverfront Park, also known as Bell's Landing, which is a property currently owned by the Tahoe City Public Utility District. Here we have the off-site parking for Tahoe Mountain Air Sports at Bell's Landing, and we also have the off-site parking for Truckee River RAFCO at the Hidden Valley parking lot, which is just across that street right there. This slide really outlines and summarizes the requirements for the rafting companies, such as 100 raft tags per company at any one time on the river. The rafting license has a number of requirements that the rafting companies are to continue compliance with, which include free shuttles, transportation to and from, trash pickup, and parking, or just a few of them. In the condition of approvals, the rafting companies are required to monitor the river and the rafts with a river monitor. In years past, we've received reports which also include commercial versus private comparison, which, for example, in 2022, we had a 34.8% commercial versus or sorry, excuse me, private, versus, oh my gosh, I'm so sorry, 34.8% commercial and 65.2% private, pardon me. The rivers monitor's duties are to count the rafts and the monitors and implement those condition of approvals. An initial study and mitigated negative declaration was adopted on May 22nd, 2014 for the conditional use permits and rafting licenses that allowed a commercial rafting rental business on the Truckee River from Tahoe City to Alpine Meadows. And an addendum to the 2014 adopted mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the current renewal term for CEQA compliance. This addendum is listed as attachment E in the staff report package. Staff has concluded that none of the conditions described in CEQA guidelines section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. I am now requesting the recommendation for Truckee River RAFCO PLN2500399 and staff recommend the Planning Commission take the following actions. One, adopt an addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the project. Two, approve the issuance of a rafting license to allow Truckee River Raft Co. to continue operating commercial river raft rental business along the Truckee River for an additional three-year term, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Three, approve a conditional use permit modification to allow Truckee River Raft Co. to continue operating its outdoor recreational concessions for an additional three-year term, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. That concludes staff's presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Both applicants for both companies are here to represent the raft companies. If there are any questions, can you please provide the opportunity for both rafting companies to address them?

Thank you. Great. And we will take those as separate items. So we'll do this one first. But commissioners, any questions for Christy?

Let's see, I probably asked this question before, but basically you said, what, 68% of the rafters are private rafters?

Yes, and that was just a data example from 2022. We do have more current data, but I just did not include it in this presentation.

And so basically they're putting it in a parking lot on the National Forest land? Is that correct?

Not necessarily a parking lot. There's many, like, entryways to the river, wherever you see fit, essentially.

Okay, so I'm just kind of questioning what the cooperation is between the Forest Service and the private rafting companies in the county.

And the private rafting companies?

Well, we're talking about two private rafting companies that are here for...

Correct. I can have the applicant speak toward that. The applicants?

Yeah. But what about the cooperation of the Forest Service and the county over this issue?

I'll have Chris speak to that.

That's a good question. Staff will have to look into that and get back to you on that. Okay.

It seems like, yeah, there's an impact that the applicants have to cover. And so basically there seems to be that there would be some cooperation that would be needed. So that's a reasonable question.

Yeah. Again, happy to get back to you, the Commissioner, on that.

Okay. Thank you.

Other questions? Yes.

Real quick question. I assume, and I couldn't find anything in the write-up, these are the only two licenses that are available?

These are the only two licenses, correct.

In existence, I guess is the right phrase? Yes. Okay, thank you very much.

Okay. Okay.

George?

And the public has direct access to the same ingress and egress locations, and there's no conflicts there, and you can, I guess, what's the quantity difference? Quantity-wise how many rafters go in and the private businesses and then versus how many go in?

Individuals that just want to raft and it's kind of curious to what but well we do have the percentage The percentage difference which I mentioned but yes, technically they could ingress and egress in the same area Not necessarily at their exact points on their property and company locations Okay, so

So you have a property that you control and so the public can't input. I'm sorry, I should be asking you and then they can answer. We'll bring the applicant up. Yeah, we'll bring the applicant up. Okay, we'll just wait for that.

And maybe just to add in, perhaps maybe the applicant can speak to just the overall volume of people that are rafting as well.

Okay. Other questions for Christy? Christy, my understanding is the existing conditional use permit There's no active code violations that they've been good neighbors up to this point, is that correct? Correct. Okay. Thank you so much. With that, thank you for the presentation. Can I ask the applicant to please come up for this particular item of the Truckee River Raft Co.? I don't know if they're in person. Okay. Wonderful. And if just you could state your name for the record and share any comments that you might have.

I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. I don't have a lot of comments other than our articles of incorporation for Tahoe Sierra Recreation state that we were incorporated in 1976. So I just wanted to thank everyone here for 50 years of rafting business. We're pretty excited to celebrate that this summer.

Great. Thank you.

Questions for the applicant?

We'll go start with George.

Yeah, so again, apparently you have a private location that people go in through, and I assume there's no complications with that. It's clearly marked, so you don't have the public trying to come in, and you run into confrontations.

It's very clearly delineated. We're right next to each other with two separate parcels, and then the, oh, sorry, and then the, did you hear the first part? Okay, the public access is on the other side of the river, so it's pretty easy to understand what's what. And it is, there's a parking lot there. It's like a concrete dock. It's not just a, you know, walk down in the dirt and find a spot. It's pretty clearly noted.

Okay. And the general business plan is that you have a location, you provide material, training, safety items, a place for them to come in, transportation to pick them up to bring them back, and those types of things, whereas the public has to provide all of that themselves.

Absolutely. We also do all the cleanup and provide restroom facilities and things of that nature that everyone uses, not just the commercial companies.

Thank you.

Mark? Just remembering back, I think I've seen this come by a few times.

Every three years?

And so basically, when you talk about private rafters versus your company rafters, According to this permit though that puts you on the hook to clean up any problems that they may cause Absolutely. Okay.

Yep.

Just wanted to get that out. Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you Thank You rich mark Is there still in state law Limited probate or a prohibition I guess on certain days for alcohol use on the river.

Yes Is it County ordinance

Oh, it is a calendar.

Over 4th of July holiday.

Okay. Well, I've enjoyed watching your facility work over the years, and I enjoyed being one of the early users. I was going to say, come see us. I hate myself. Thank you.

Any other questions from the commissioners? And then I would just ask, have you read and are agreeable to the conditions of approval? Yes, thank you. Okay, thank you for coming up. All right, I'm going to go ahead and open public comment for this. No, it's a separate item. Yeah. I'm going to go ahead and open public comment. Is there anyone here in person that would like to speak on this item? I see none. Do we have anyone on Zoom? No hands raised. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. Any other staff comments that you'd like to make before we move into deliberations?

Um, I actually do have one, um, commissioner Watts just to follow up on your question. It is July 1st to July 6th of 2026 for the alcohol ban on the Truckee river. Okay.

Thank you very much. Great. All right. I'll bring it back to the commission for deliberations.

comments before we well I just would commented you know the observation based on the question you asked it they've been good neighbors is very important and I think based on that I'm prepared to make a motion if there's no other comment any other comments okay go ahead mark and I'd like to make a motion or I'd like to move the staff recommendation relative to the Truckee River rap PLN 2500-00399, as stated by the staff.

Okay, I have a first. Do we have a second? Second. Jeff, second. Roll call, please.

Watts? Yes. Runtine? Yes. Jewell? Yes. Dahlgren? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Alves? Yes. Bechler?

Yes. Okay, 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 10 days of today's date and shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $752. We'll now move on to the second rafting request. Kristi, I know we're not gonna redo the presentation, but you do have another slide to share on the staff recommendation.

Okay, thank you, Chair Beckler. As I have already delivered the staff presentation for the second agenda item, I will now read the recommendation into the record. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions. One, adopt an addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the project. Two, approve the issuance of a rafting license to allow Tahoe Mountain Air Sports, Inc. to continue operating a commercial river raft rental business along the Truckee River for an additional three-year term, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Three, approve a conditional use permit modification to allow Tahoe Mountain Air Sports Inc. to continue operating its outdoor recreational concessions for an additional three-year term, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. That concludes staff's presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions, and the applicants are here to represent their RAF company.

Great. Any questions on this particular item? Just a standing question. Based on my understanding, there's no open code violations for the existing CUP?

That is correct.

Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, if I could ask the applicant to please come to the podium. And if you could state your name and feel free to share any comments.

Yes, good morning. Richard Courcier. We've been doing this every three years, 52 years, and we keep going. It's great. And what you said about being a good neighbor is working with Placer County. It's also with the Tahoe City PUD helps us a lot. We work with them quite a bit. And as you saw in the numbers, when we started the whole process, we were literally 100% of the rafts going down the river in the early 70s. And that's been continually changing to where now the public can get rafts from every grocery store, every gas station, the liquor stores. Everyone are selling these little pool floats, really, and getting into the river any place they like. The 64 acres actually gets totally overwhelmed with parking and they're just everywhere alongside the road floating down there And it started out where we were supposed to clean up our fair share of the river and we're fine doing that We've been doing it for 52 years and there is no fair share. It's not like we can leave some trash in the river So it just keeps getting worse and worse every year, but we're cleaning it up. We have divers going down there We're doing it every day The porta-potties, everything, you can't separate it. Everything's used by the public now. So we're 30%, the public's 70% now. We're still going.

Thank you for your comments. Are there any questions for the applicant? No? I would just ask, have you read and are you agreeable to the conditions of approval?

Yes, we did.

Okay, thank you. All right, with that, I am gonna open up public comment for this item. Are there any commenters that would like to speak in person? Seeing none, anyone on Zoom? I see no hands raised. Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and close public comment. Staff, any other comments you'd like to share on this item? Okay, bring it back to the commissioners. Any deliberations or comments? Otherwise, I would entertain a motion.

Well, I'd be glad to make a motion. I'll ask staff a question personally afterwards, separate from this, on this issue. Not the company, but just on the overall issue. So I would move the Planning Commission adopt the staff recommendation relative to Tahoe Mountain Air Sports DLN 26-00007 as the staff read them into the record. OK.

We have a first. Second. We have a second. Rontine, can I get roll call, please? Watts?

Yes.

Rontine? Yes. Jewell? Yes. Dahlgren? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Alves? Yes. Bechler?

Yes. All right, that closes that item. The next item on the agenda is a subdivision modification for the Boyle subdivision in Tahoe City. The Planning Commission is a decision body for this item and the staff presentation will be given by senior planner, Heather Beckman. Welcome, Heather. Thank you. Good morning.

I think a presentation should be coming up shortly. As you said, my name is Heather Beckman. I'm a senior planner working out of the Tahoe City office and today I'm presenting the Boyle subdivision map modification. Thank you. The property is located in the Tahoe Basin just south of Tahoe City at 732 Chapel Lane. The project parcel is .25 acres in size. It's zoned residential and it's developed with a single family residence and a single vehicle carport. The second required parking space for the property is in a stacked parking scenario in the driveway and uncovered. And the residents and the carport were built in 1970. The Boyle property is surrounded by developed single-family residences to the north, east, and south. And to the west, there's a 12-acre parcel that is also zoned residential. It's undeveloped and owned by the state of California. So the figure on the right does show a red line which represents a mapped 40-foot front setback. That setback line is within the Cathedral Forest subdivision map, final map. And although the existing residence and carport are located outside of that front setback line, the applicant does propose to add a new two-car garage with living space above and a second story deck that would extend over the driveway. And these elements of these would encroach into that 40 foot front required setback. So due to the placement of the existing residence, due to steep slopes on the property, there are limited areas where this proposed addition can go. That's the proposal before you that has the encroachment. The encroachment themselves, however, are relatively modest. The garage and living area above have a proposed seven foot encroachment into the front setback and that second story deck would extend eight feet farther for a total of a 15 foot encroachment. So as shown on this figure, there have been two previous modifications that were approved on Lots 12 and 53. Lot 12 allowed for a 28-foot front setback for a residential addition and Lot 53 allowed for a detached garage. So for the Boyle proposal again although it's encroaching into that front setback it is providing for protected ingress and egress to the property which doesn't exist today and which is really imperative in snow country. It's still maintaining 45 feet from the edge of pavement so that's allowing for ample snow storage snow and snow removal areas as well as protecting the light air and open space to the surrounding properties. Staff did review the project and determined that it's consistent with the Placer County General Plan and the Tahoe Basin Area Plan as referenced in your staff report. The residential addition is also it does not change the existing residential use or density on the property and it's consistent with the character and the surrounding residential development. So I do want to point out that you should have an errata that was provided to you or is being provided to you now. So this errata is making two minor changes, one to Condition No. 9 and Condition No. 10. They're really reflecting today's hearing date. So Condition No. 9 is changing or revising the approval date to June 25, 2026, and the Condition of approval number 10 is changing the expiration date to June 25, 2029. I would like to point out that the applicant is online if you have any questions. And with that, I'll go ahead and move on to reading the staff recommendation into the record. So staff does recommend that the Planning Commission take the following actions. First is to determine that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review in accordance with Sections 15303 and 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and Placer County Code Sections 18.36050, Class III, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and 18.36070, Class V, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. Second would be to approve a subdivision map modification to the Cathedral Forest subdivision final map to modify the mapped 40-foot front setback as measured from the property line of Lot 15 to allow for a 32.9-foot setback measured from the property line to the face of the proposed attached 894 square foot two-car garage with a 1,270 square feet of living area above. And a 25.1 foot setback measured from the property line to the structural post associated with a 246 square foot second story deck carport subject to the recommended conditions of approval as modified by the errata and direct the county surveyor to record a certificate of correction reflecting this modification. And I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Great. Thank you so much, Heather. Questions for Heather? Mark?

maybe this should be for the applicant but i'm just curious the breezeway really is just like a walkway underneath the connection between the garage and the home yeah it is an enclosed breezeway and thank you for pointing that out um oh let's see if i can there so this is the the breezeway here shown in cross section so it is enclosed and um does meet the definition of attached for um placer county purposes and here it is in plan view but it's open space underneath or is that wall I think and I the applicant can speak to this I think that's just showing the grade the great difference it's not thank you okay other questions I don't see any okay thank you Heather

If the applicant is here and like to ask them to come up to the podium, they're online. Oh, online. Thank you. You mentioned that. Yes, could we get them? I mean, if you could state your name and share any comments that you would like.

Hi, my name is Sylvia Santana. I work for evolve design works who designed the addition. And I don't have any comments. I agree with the staff's recommendation.

Hey, Did you want to follow up, Mark? No. Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. And it sounds like you are agreeable to the conditions of approval? Yes. Okay. Wonderful. With that, thank you for joining us. I'm going to go ahead and open public comment for this particular item. Is there anyone here in person that would like to make any comments on this item? Seeing none, do we have anyone online?

No hands raised.

All right. I'm going to go ahead and close public comment for this item, bring it back to the commission unless staff has anything else to share.

No, no further comments.

Okay, great. Commissioners, any comments, deliberations, or I would entertain a motion.

I move that we take the following action as read into the record. Do we need to take these separately or I guess we can take them together. You can take these together Okay, we'll take both item one and two as right into the record by miss Beckman Great, but first do I second?

Okay, we're first and second roll call, please Run team. Yes. What? Yes, jewel. Yes Dahlgren. Yes, Johnson. Yes. Alice. Yes Beckler.

Yes Okay, so the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by anyone who appeared at today's hearing and provided comment or anyone had submitted written comments on this item. An appeal must be filed within 10 days of today's date and shall be accompanied again by a filing fee of $752. Everyone's going to know that number by the end of today. The next item on the agenda is an appeal of the zoning administrator's March 12th, 2026 approval. of a 24-month extension of time for a variance located at 7137 Wilcox Place in the Granite Bay community. For this item, the Planning Commission is serving as the appeal body, and the staff presentation will be provided by Assistant Planner Rebecca Lizarde. Before we hear from staff, though, I would like to ask County Council to provide a brief overview of the appeal process, just as a refresher. and the Commission's options when considering an appeal. So, Hannah?

Yes, thank you, Chair Beckler. Hannah Kreiser, County Council's Office. So, the appeal process is a judicial process. The procedural route it'll take today is a little different than the typical items you guys hear. And the appeals process is set out in County Code Section 1760.110 and is also based on the county's processes generally. so to start when an action reaches the planning commission on appeal the underlying action taken in this case by the zoning administrator is stayed which essentially means that the commission is not bound by the underlying decision and can look at new evidence and draw fresh conclusion fresh conclusions regardless of what the underlying decision was for this appeal the hearing will go in the following order first there'll be a staff presentation And then there will be an opportunity for the project applicants to present their case. And then lastly, there will be an opportunity for the appellant to present their case. All parties presentations will be timed. Um, and they're limited to the length of the County staff presentation in this case, with the reasoning being that if County staff needs additional time to address a complex issue, that the other parties will also need additional time to address that same complex issue. The presentations by the parties are going to be a little different than normal presentations and commissioners should feel free to jump in and ask questions at any time during those presentations. Much like any other judicial matter, you as the commission are charged with listening to the evidence and testimony and making a decision after considering the evidence and testimony presented. The rules of evidence that typically apply in a courtroom won't apply here. So, for example, hearsay evidence is something that you can consider. You are also required to weigh the evidence, the credibility of those providing testimony, and the accuracy of the statements in reaching your conclusion. At the end of the presentation, there will be a public comment period, which will follow the same public comment rules of three minutes per person. After the public comment period, the commission will be given a chance to deliberate and you can affirm, modify, or reverse the underlying decision. And this is worded as either approving the appeal or denying the appeal. You also have the ability to approve or deny it with different or additional conditions. The findings that the commission makes must identify the reasons for your action on the appeal. And if the appeal is over discretionary land use entitlement, as is the case here, any action taken, as mentioned, can include the adoption of new or different conditions. And those can be created to address issues or concerns related to the subject of the appeal. When it gets to the deliberation process, if there's a desire to depart from staff's recommendations, that is something that I can help walk you through. Also, in the instance that there is a tie vote on the appeal, the underlying decision will be upheld. And so at the end of today's process, any decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors, and that appeal would need to be filed within 10 days of today's decision. I'm here to answer any questions you guys may have. Otherwise, with that, you're free to proceed whenever you're ready.

Great. Thank you so much, Hannah. Any questions for Hannah? Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. Rebecca, welcome.

Thank you, Chair Beckler. I am Rebecca Lazzardi, Assistant Planner, and today I will be presenting the Yeroshavitch Variance Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Approval of a Variance Extension of Time, PLN 22-00510-EOT001. I'll start with a general overview of the project entitlement and project site, then I will move applicable sections of the zoning ordinance and I will discuss the main arguments within the appeal and then I will finally move to an analysis of the extension of time required findings and a staff recommendation Beginning with a vicinity map of the location, the project site is located at 7137 Wilcox Place in Granite Bay. The 0.5-acre site is owned residential single-family, combining agriculture, combining a minimum building site of 20,000 square feet, and the project site is surrounded by similar residential single-family homes and residential accessory structures. For a project entitlement timeline, on January 26, 2023, the variance was first heard by the zoning administrator and the zoning administrator approved a variance to allow for a home expansion from 1,000 to 4,500 square feet to be located five feet from the west side property line where a 15-foot side setback is normally required and 20 feet from the front south property line where a 35-foot front setback is normally required. This entitlement was given an expiration date of January 26, 2026. In January 20, 2026, before the entitlement expired, the applicant filed a request for an extension of time. This entitlement request was heard on March 12, 2026 by the zoning administrator. And at that hearing, the zoning administrator approved a 24-month extension of time for the variance, which extended the deadline to January 26, 2028. Now for an overall site plan to further illustrate the variance at hand. The site is developed with a small 1,000 square foot single family home, which is shown in blue on the site plan. There is a driveway that runs along the east side of the home to Wilcox Place to the south. And it is also developed with natural vegetation and overgrown rock. outcroppings on the east side of the parcel. The proposed home expansion to 4,500 square feet and the corresponding proposed setbacks are shown in yellow on the site plan. Now to move to applicable sections of the zoning ordinance. Section 17.58.160 of the Placer County Zoning Ordinance provides a means for property owners to request to extend the time limit of an improved entitlement. In order to recommend approval of an extension of time, staff must make three findings. The first of which is that no change of conditions or circumstances has occurred that would have been grounds for denying the original application. The second of which is that the applicant has been diligent in pursuing implementation of the permit. And the third, modified conditions have been imposed which update the permit to reflect current adopted standards and ordinance requirements. Having given this general overview, I will now turn to the five main arguments that were provided within the appeal. This appeal was filed on March 23rd, 2026 by Mr. Ray Hamme here and after the appellant who owns the property directly west of the subject parcel for the variance. This appeal has five main points. As I said, I will give a brief summary now and then I will give a staff response to each claim in the following slides. The first claim is a lack of progress towards project implementation. The second is a lack of evidence-based findings as required by California case law. The third is a lack of relevance of personal circumstances towards extension of time requests. The fourth is a concern that the extension of time would grant an indefinite entitlement in the circumstances that were approved. And the fifth was a concern of the continued lack of diligence from the applicant towards project implementation. Beginning with the first claim, the appellant contended that the applicant has not proven that they have meaningfully advanced the approved project and has not provided evidence. In response, staff notes that the applicant has drafted architectural plans and pursued financing options and provided a project phasing timeline. These documents which prove this planning of architecture and financing are provided in attachment F of the staff report. These efforts are consistent with the type of progress that have supported extension of time approvals with past Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission hearings. The second claim is that California case law has clarified firm requirements for evidence-backed findings for variance and extension of time approvals. And the March 12, 2026 zoning administrator approval was made without these evidence-backed findings. Within the appeal materials, the appellant makes reference to multiple instances in California case law that make firm the requirement for evidence-backed findings for variances. However, the lawsuits cited do not discuss extensions of time requirements within state law. However, staff agrees that extension of time approvals must be met with firm evidence-backed findings. And as stated before, the findings to grant the extension of time were met within the March 12 zoning administrator staff report and documents provided by the applicant during that public hearing, such as architectural plans and invoices. The third claim is that the applicant's reference to personal circumstances such as an occupation change and marriage as a reason for delay of the project is legally insufficient under California Government Code 65906 which discusses variances. This section of California Government Code does not discuss extensions of time. It does discuss the need for evidence to approve a variance. Once again, Placer County Code and California Government Code do not provide a strict definition of diligence, which is one of the required findings for an extension of time. And they do not discuss reasonable reasons for delay of a project. However, staff agrees that there needs to be reasonable delay that is provided within the extension of time request. Personal circumstances have historically been used within findings to grant extensions of time at the zoning administrator and planning commission levels. Additionally, personal circumstances are not the sole basis of this extension of time request. The applicant also cites financing and architectural design delays, which caused the project to not be implemented by the original expiration date. The fourth claim is a concern that granting an extension of time for the current project without firm evidence of diligence would effectively result in an indefinite entitlement for the project, which would be a special privilege for the applicant. In response, staff notes that, once again, the firm evidence of diligence has been met through the provision of the architectural plans, invoices, and project phasing timelines. Furthermore, Placer County Code Section 17.58.160 states that the time limit for the implementation of an approved variance may be extended for a total of no more than six years. Therefore, an indefinite entitlement is not possible under Placer County Code. This specific extension of time was a first two-year extension of time, so not for six years, and was conditioned with an expiration date of January 26, 2028. And the fifth claim, which was provided within a supplementary appeal material, was that the applicant's lack of response to text messages regarding constructing a privacy fence along the shared property line is consistent with the applicant's overall pattern of negligence towards implementation of the project. In response, staff responds that this incident does not disprove diligence on behalf of the applicant. This privacy fencing is not a required component of the approved project. It was not included within the conditions of approval of the original improved entitlement, nor is it a component of the approved site plan or any project phasing that has been discussed by the applicant. This incident is a civil matter between the property owners and as such is not directly applicable to the appeal at hand today. Having discussed the five claims within the appeal, I will now move to a discussion of the three required findings to recommend the approval of an extension of time and whether the extension of time materials provided satisfy these findings. The first is that no change of conditions or circumstances has occurred that would have been grounds for denying the original application. This finding can be made because there have been no changes to the approved 2023 variance or the site plan for that variance, the proposed development or the surrounding areas that would have been caused for denying the original application. The same constraints to the site exist that were grounds for approving that original variance. The second finding is that the applicant has been diligent in pursuing implementation of the permit. This finding can be made because the applicant has engaged in the architectural design process and funding procurement process and has planned project phases. The delays to the project are not due to negligence on behalf of the applicant but due to issues regarding financing and architectural design. The third finding is that modified conditions have been imposed which update the permit to reflect current adopted standards and ordinance requirements. This can be made because modified conditions have been imposed within the modified final conditions of approval found within the staff report. The first condition was changed to reference the extension of time request. There was an inclusion of sprinkler requirements which were an errata in the 2023 zoning administrator hearing. And there were changes to the variance expiration date and there was an addition of explicitly saying that the variance will have been enacted with a building permit and inspection of the foundation. With all three findings being made, staff is able to support approval of the 24-month extension of time for the Yaroshevich variants. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions. A, determine that the action is categorically exempt from environmental review in accordance with Sections 15303 and 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and Section 18.36.050, Class III, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and 18.36.070, Class 5 Minor Alterations and Land Use Limitations of the Placer County Environmental Review Ordinance. B, deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrator's approval of a 24-month extension of time for the Yaroshevich variants to allow until January 26, 2028, for a home expansion from 1,000 to 4,500 square feet to be located five feet from the west side property line where a 15-foot side setback is normally required. and 20 feet from the front south property line where a 35-foot front setback is normally required, subject to the modified final conditions of approval. Thank you for listening. I am available to answer any questions. And the applicant and appellant are also present today to provide supplemental information and answer any other questions. Thank you again.

Thank you so much, Rebecca. Questions for Rebecca?

Is there currently a fence delineating the two properties on the west side running north and south?

There is not a fence from my site visits. There is a natural line of vegetation which naturally screens the two properties. And the closest property to the proposed home expansion is currently 60 feet to the west.

Can you go back to about the first or second slide that showed the site? A little more is the overview slide Yeah, so looking at the property to the west I can't tell if those are those black lines or property lines Is that a is that a property line running north and south there? on the property of the West that goes right through a shed or something like that?

If you're referring to this right here, that's not a property line. I'm not familiar with what that actually is, but that property is about twice the size of the subject property.

Okay. Okay. Thanks.

Of course.

Rebecca, the appellant which we'll hear from is which property owner?

The appellant owns the property directly to the west.

To the west.

Exactly. So I can, using my pointer, this property here.

Okay. And then during the original approval of the variance back in January of 2023, was there an appeal filed at that point in time by either the current appellant or anyone else during that approval process?

There was not an appeal filed at that time, no.

Okay. Okay.

I should, we should clarify. My understanding is that the appellant did not own the property at the time that, okay, that was going to be a next question.

It was the appellant.

They can have them answer that, but that's what I seem to recall from the administrator hearing.

Okay. And then, um, just to clarify, I think you did touch on this, but so, um, this extension of time would grant them a two year extension, And then is this the first and they can have three extensions? What's the total extension time that they could get if it was approved?

Yes. Thank you for the question. So this is the first extension of time. It's the first two-year extension of time. And in total, they can be granted three extensions of two years each for a total of six years.

Does that answer the question? It does. Thank you. Okay. Other questions for staff? No? Okay, thank you. I will go ahead and ask the applicant of the variants to in the extension of time, sorry, to go ahead and come to the podium. And if you could state your name and share any comments that you have.

Chair Beckler, yes, just before we allow the applicants to get started, I would ask the clerk to just clarify what amount of time he has to speak. Perfect.

Yes, staff took 12 minutes. So I have set the timer as such, there will be a two minute warning to give you a heads up when you're getting near the end. Thank you.

For the owner of 7137 Wilcox place.

I'm here with my wife microphone a little bit louder.

Okay, sorry. J restart. Thank you. Okay. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Eddie Rachevich. I am the property owner at 7137 Wilcox place. I'm here with my wife, Jana. She's here sitting beside me. I'm here regarding my home expansion project, which is a long term investment in the property that my wife and I plan to call home for many years. First, I'd like to express my appreciation to county staff and acknowledge that I am in agreement with the county staff report and its recommendations. I respectfully want to emphasize that the project itself has not changed. The approved home expansion essential project remains consistent with the original approved variance. Since the variance approval, I have continued to work in diligently with the Placer County staff and my architect to move this project forward and to ensure all planning and design work is done properly. I request the extension of time for the already approved variance I requested the extension of time for the already approved variance because I encountered several significant events over the past year that caused delays in my project timeline. One major factor was disruption in my occupation, which created financial instability and temporarily impacted my ability to move forward at the pace originally planned. Additionally, I got married last year and my wife and I have been thoughtfully aligning the project's architectural design requirements to ensure that this home meets our family's long-term needs. Because this is our forever home, we are committed to building wisely, responsibly, and with a long-term planning in mind. So we are taking serious note into all the details of the build, and that's affecting the architectural work and essentially our completion of that phase. The extension of time is important because the extension of time allows us to complete the final architectural design work and proceed to the next steps of submitting building plans to the county for permitting, which we aim to do so in the coming months, targeted for September of this year. as well as secure additional project finances i just want to make a comment there that we have we have some finances already available we have forecasts on additional financing being available secured these coming months ahead of our permit schedule and we're looking good with that i remain fully committed to this project and seen it through i respectfully ask the commission to deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrators approval of the extension of time consistent with the county staff recommendations. Thank you for your time and consideration. I'm available for any questions you may have.

Thank you for your comments. Are there questions for the applicant?

Yeah, I guess I understand that this is an extension of time. Yeah. But I'm really kind of puzzling. What's the significance of four feet from the property line?

It's actually five feet from the property line. And primarily, what's the significance? Because the total space there, like to add an additional room, requires to go up to that level of space. You know to five feet within a property line so to add additional useful internal space The total like space available on the left side on the west side of the property is Such that it requires the building to be pushed all the way to the left within five feet of the property line Okay, so I think what you're saying is the to make a room that

Right size you needed to go within four feet. Is that correct?

Correct. Yeah. Thank you. And you received approval on that. You received approval on that variance some time ago. So you've Planned and designed based on that approval Correct.

Yeah, and Yeah, the approval was granted all the neighbors were in support at the time all the remaining neighbors continued to be in support and the What has changed since is that well primarily I was very occupied at the time with my position as a manager of a company and had a really high responsibility, so I limited time with the design aspect. However, we made progress and then getting married last year, now there's, if I'm coming from a single guy at the time when the original variance was presented or requested, my you know vision of the property was such right and so now taking the time to consider all the elements with my wife to ensure that we have a home that we want to um you know that we will enjoy for a long time so it's we're working together so with all that said you've not changed you've not changed what was approved previously no nothing has changed everything remains the same yeah

Other questions?

I'm just seeking clarification. It looks like, and I think I heard the staff presentation, that the driveway remains essentially as it is, and I guess your front entrance faces that driveway?

Yeah, the front entrance currently is from the driveway, the driveway. It's it's currently there. It's been there for a long time. There is some challenges with navigating trailers into that driveway. A couple other constraints there, hence the future position of where the garage should be in the another driveway would be on the preferred left side. And that's the target there. Thank you. Absolutely.

Just maybe a quick question. Can we go to the next slide that shows the site plan? Or one more, there. So in the original variance when you were designing the footprint, I'm just curious, is there a reason you didn't expand to the center part of the parcel? That way it wouldn't impede on the setback to the property owner on the other side? Just curious what the thinking was.

Yeah, there was a few details there that made the expansion to the west side the most appropriate. One being that that was the front entrance and essentially making the change would require, you know, it would have a big impact to the overall way of the property. For example, right now, The yard of the property is considered on the east side, and it's something that is, yeah, enjoyed. And so we want to ensure that that's secured and preserved for our living and enjoyment of the property. But yeah, the entrance being there created some constraints to, and along with the existing driveway, created constraints to build out this way. So we want to have access all the way to the shed as well as keeping the orientation of the house primarily similar with the option to have another entry door from the front now of the street, but not to encroach on the area on the right because that would require the driveway to be affected and other things.

Okay. So it's in addition and you're trying to anchor, the intent was you were anchoring on that front porch and the addition expands based on that front porch staying, is that correct?

Yeah, that's one of the components, yeah.

Okay.

It's really just kind of like the also the, if you notice that it's a, you know, kind of a narrow and long house. And so building out the other way, it was really difficult to envision that. Because, yeah, like, this is the best way to utilize this property in this way that we have designed it.

Okay, thank you for that. Other questions? Okay. I do need to ask, have you read and are you agreeable with the conditions of approval for this item?

Yes, I am.

Okay. Thank you for your comments.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

I'm going to go ahead and ask the appellant to go ahead and come to the podium. And I'm assuming there's a similar time limit, if you could share that.

Yes, time limit will be the same, 12 minutes with a two-minute warning as time is nearing the end.

Okay. Hi, my name is Ray Hammy. I live at 7087 Wilcox Place, just west of 7137. I wanted to, I didn't create a presentation or slides. I've submitted obviously my documents and you've, I've assumed read them. I can give you, you know, if needed, answer questions to items that you might want to review or address. I just wanted to highlight a few points and then, you know, listen to Any questions you might have? I appreciate Rebecca putting the presentation together. I think she captured pretty much my objections that I had submitted regarding this appeal. I don't agree with the code law and those items that she's presented, but I'm not here to talk about code law and whatnot. I'm here to just review kind of the facts and the findings that we have today. If I could, can I get back to the property slide? Because there was a question earlier about property.

One more aerial.

Yeah, so obviously what's checkered or dotted is? 71 37 Edwards home and I'm west of that property. So I own I purchased the property October 3rd, sorry October 5th 2023 so I wasn't privy to this variance and this plan to put a property five feet to my adjacent property and And when I read the initial variance, again, the comment comes back, there's only one house 60 feet away, but people don't know my plans. We've been clearing all of the land for the past two and a half years. We've remodeled two homes from . There's a home to the left, and then there's a fence. I think, I don't know if it was Richard that mentioned what was that line. There's a garage, there's a metal shed, and then there's another home to the left in the back left corner. So I live in that back left corner home, which has been fully remodeled. And then the home in the middle that has the black roof has been fully remodeled. And we're talking exterior, interior, everything, electric, roofing, whatnot. And the plan is, I'm working hopefully after this, is to meet with the planning division to do lot splits. I own 1.5 acres and my plan is to build a home to the right of the current home in the middle, and that would be, you know, apparently 15 foot from the fence line. Now I have a problem because I have an individual that's requesting a variance that's been approved and is requesting an extension of time, which is when there's nothing been done, when this person has 0.5 acres that could build in the middle. Yes, trees might need to be cut down, but I think what this individual's failing to state and communicate, which he shared with me, is that right here.

You have to go back to the mic. Oh, I'm sorry.

I need to just use the arrow then. There's a pointer, I think. Is that this one? Oh, I'm so sorry. I don't want to like...

You just have to stay speaking into the mic, that's what's important. Pardon me, I apologize. Yeah, you're fine.

So the issue is, one of the issues is, and this isn't something that we could solve today, is that the individual adjacent to the property that we're dealing with right now has taken half of the street entrance. So you could see that we have a 25 foot wide private, this is a private property, so that's another issue, right? There's like inconsistencies and individuals have done things for their own personal benefits. The issue is boats are being parked here. And I know that Edward's into boating. And this place is being used as a boat parking lot and jet ski parking lot. I haven't seen Edward here for three months because I live at that house. I'm here every day. And so the issue is that, oh, I'm so sorry. I'll stop pressing. So the concern is that this home doesn't want to be built in the middle because you can't get the boat probably to pull in. And so there's this request to modify, which is a special privilege. You guys have granted a special privilege to an individual based on their personal preferences. And then unfortunately, it's been three years that they haven't executed. I understand cash flow, financials. I have my own business here, 12 years now in Rockland. a baby products company that we own and have a warehouse, seven employees, et cetera. So I understand timing, cash flow. I know the needs and the demands. You know, I have my own two children. So, you know, life just moves fast. So here we are three years later. My concern is another two-year extension is going to turn into another two years extension. And ideally, I don't want my property to be compromised with a 5-foot variance. I personally bought this location in Granite Bay for 15 20-foot variances. Privacy. That's why I have 1.5 acres. I want privacy. And having a home adjacent, which is the plan of 4,000 square foot build with ADU conversion with that middle house. And so I'll have 27,000 square foot lot, lot one, lot two will be 20,000, and then lot three will be SB9. So I have a master plan, and I wanted everyone to hear my master plan, and I'm not in favor of this extension of time. I don't believe that the individual has made efforts. I'm not sure what date that invoices and plans and financing were submitted. And obviously, I don't know those details. I was not provided that information. So, the other issue is I talked to Edward in March and when we had this issue arise and everything was friendly. I spoke to him via phone, was texting him. We met a couple of times. We actually met right in the corner of the fence line talking about how I want to build a fence. If you're going to build a house, I need to build a fence. And that's something I need. I have a dog. I plan to use the land. I plan to sell it eventually to new owners. It's whatever. The fence needs to be built. Right now, I'm trying to remove trees which are on my property line. They're privets. They're like basically the roots of trees that grow everywhere. We've removed 500, 600 over the last two years. Unfortunately, I need to get a fence line built and so there's you know Edwards got stuff tied to the fence. I've tried to text him in April about it four or five texts No response then March 10th I had an issue where someone was parking on my private property and it turned out to be Edwards brothers friend And I basically said, you know, no response. No one's gotten back to me so my concern is that this continues to show that this individual isn't going to be able to work with me and to coordinate building a fence. And then the other issue is we can't find the property marker in the back lot. The property marker's been removed. And I've had PG&E out to mark all of the property lots. I've got photos. I didn't bring it all. We need to do that. But that property marker's missing. And I've asked Edward, what's going on? Where's our property marker? How are we going to figure that out? That's thousands and thousands of dollars to get the lot rechecked. So I can't get this fence built, and there's been no response. And yes, if I need to take it to civil, hopefully not. Edward and I will talk after this meeting and have a good conversation to solve some of these issues that are very minor. So building a house is a major project. If we can't solve a fence, that's a big issue to me. We're talking thousands of dollars where a house is $400,000. if not more, to do what he wants to do. So, you know, those are my concerns, and I don't want to, I think that's kind of the summary I have to give everyone a highlight of where I'm at today, excuse me, and my objection to this extension of time. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Do we have questions from the Commission? I do. Thank you. We're here for an extension of time.

Yes, ma'am.

That's it.

Okay.

Okay, I have a question.

Yes.

Just wanted to be really clear on this yes, you purchased your property After or subsequent to this variance being yes, sir Yes, okay, so I guess the question that would come up then was that information available to you I was not aware of this when the home was sold to me but in your Diligence and buying the property was not available to you.

It was not made aware of me. Did you ask her off? Did you check? No, we did not check that Okay Thank you.

Mm-hmm Other questions for the Ellen Which end of the property is the property marker missing?

Ah, it's let me try again. I Back here, this property marker right here that was set and placed because PG&E had checked it to make sure where we were. When was that done? I haven't come out like two years ago. I'd have to find the exact date on my phone for the photographs.

And what type of marker did they put?

It was a pin marker. I think it was a yellow flag. Because I have another one on the adjacent corner of my property, which I've identified, obviously, as part of planning. So it was more temporary than a permanent marker? It was a permanent pin marker on the fence line. Okay.

But not in the ground?

It was in the ground. A permanent pin marker in the ground.

Okay. And it's gone?

It's gone. I can't find it. I've tried to ask Edward. No response. Doesn't want to communicate. And you still have one at the other end? Yes, sir.

Okay.

And can I just clarify the, so your property, maybe it goes off the screen in this particular image. It's 1.5 acres and you mentioned. I could give you this. Sure. Yeah. If he could bring it to the, bring it to the clerk. You mentioned that you've got, so there's two homes with a couple of sheds. Your future plan, as you described it, is to do a lot split on the 1.5 acres into three separate lots because you're wanting to build another house to the east, butting up against... toward the other properties. Is that correct?

Yeah, one home will be a master home, and these homes are 1270 square feet, so I was going to switch one to an ADU. The other one, I was going to build another home in front, and then, you know, another one, or tear the homes down as needed, depending on what we come up with as our best site plan for maximum, you know, utility. But because of what, you know, we want affordable housing also, and, you know, I need you could be rented out as well. So and I know that's important for the Placer County community You know if I could I would rezone and that's what I want to talk about Rezone me to our 8 8,000 and I want to build 8 10 12 homes here just like they did it so late block behind me, okay, 55 townhomes I Have a lot of land and I like to repurpose it Okay.

Thank you for your response. Yes any other questions? I

I don't mean to belabor the pin marker, but when PG&E placed that, there should be coordinates documented.

PG&E did not place it. It existed before I bought the home. What PG&E, when I asked them to come in and check where gas and electric lines might be, they require, hey, make sure I need to know where all your pin markers and they're flagged. I mean, spray painted. I need to know your corners of your property.

If there was a pin marker placed, wouldn't the county have... coordinates on that or?

We have masks like this. I'm sorry, I'm asking. Pardon me, sir.

Would the county have those coordinates if a permanent pin marker was placed?

on the assessor map or something. Yeah. It's GPS driven.

Yeah. It notes here on the sheet that I provided, it talks. It's a five-eighth-inch rebar with plastic cap. That's the marker that's placed. What we have to do is go measure. 348 feet.

Yeah, I don't think that's a big hurdle to overcome.

It is not as long as we get Everyone to agree that the two parties that hey This is where the fence is because we're gonna be cutting all these trees down that Edward wants to keep it's on my property I'm cutting them all down. I don't like these trees. I like different types of trees. So that's been a point of contention That I have to deal with

And the trees you're talking about, those are privets or something else? Yes, they're privets.

So they're basically highly aggressive, attacking trees. You can't build them. You've got to get the roots out before you do your posts. It's a project. That's going to cost me thousands of dollars. And we had started this in March. And then I got halted because he's got his fence tied to my trees. And I don't want to take them down. And I have the right to. And I might just do that next week if we don't get any agreement because I've halted my team.

OK. Not oak. It looks like oak canopy to me. But you're saying privets are bushes usually?

I'm just trying to... Privets can grow 30 feet tall. And that's what's there? Yeah. I've had 500, 600. I cannot tell you how many we've got. This whole area was covered with... Let's move on. The prior owners of this home were basically renters of the property for like eight years. The homes were in terrible condition. Mold and mildew damage. They were as-is homes. Basically, they were teardowns.

Okay.

So I've put my heart and energy and money into this because I believe that this is a beautiful area and it's just going to get nicer.

Okay. Thank you for your comments. Appreciate it.

I appreciate everyone's time. Thank you for listening to me. I appreciate it.

Okay, great. Um, if I could have a staff, uh, come back up if there's any responses or any further questions from the commissioners.

OK. I don't have much more to add other than, as Commissioner Dahlgren said, that we're limited to the extension of time today in our analysis. And I'm happy to answer questions on the extension of time specifically as well.

OK. Other questions? No? Thank you.

Thank you.

OK. I'm going to go ahead and open up public comment for this item. Anyone here in person would like to speak on this item? I'm seeing none. Do we have anyone on Zoom or online?

I see no hand raised.

Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. If there's no additional comments from staff, I'll bring it back to the Commission for deliberations and comments regarding this item. I'm going to start from George and then come down this way if that works for everyone.

I mean as pointed out we're here to talk about the extension and there's a lot of other circumstances that have been talked about My thinking is this individual the appellant has a lot of plans for his property and those aren't impacted by this He's he's already defined what he wants to do within his property line and I don't see the impact of That house will now be 10 foot closer, but still on the applicant's property line. So we're talking about a variance that's already been approved, and we're looking at an extension for that.

OK. Rich, comments?

I guess original variance ..

Yes extension of time the applicant received approval of a variance and Excuse me dedicated his efforts based on that approval It's kind of another bite at the Apple coming back here I would strongly recommend to the applicant and the appellant that they work together to determine where that property line is and I construct an appropriate privacy fence as this does get closer to the property line and if that would it seemed to be a very significant item to the to the appellant so I would hope that they would work on that not have to go to the court to get that done just Find the boundary line and figure out a privacy fence that works for both of you. I know it's an expense, but hopefully it would Calm a lot of the concerns

skip myself and go last Robin um yeah we're not here to talk about the original variance I mean it's up to the property owners to do due diligence on all the properties surrounding them when they buy one so this is nothing to do with the original variance it was granted we're here only about an extension of time I understand you don't it's not really about the extension of time for you because they could come back as staff had stated before there are two more that they are eligible for over the next six year period Staff reviewed and showed progress on their plans. Just because it's not evident to you as a neighbor doesn't mean it's not moving forward with their plans. We're here only to discuss extension of time. All of your other issues are civil matters, not part of this body. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT- Comment?

Trent?

No comments? I know I asked the question about the driveway and the front entrance. It seems to me, in retrospect, there's nothing you could do to expand that house and maintain, without blowing up the rest of the house, a teardown, other than leave the front where it is and then expand as he's done it. So it seems like it's a reasonable solution. And that was dealt with in the planning process. And I think the extension is is appropriate.

Okay. Mike only comments, you know, similar to what the other commissioners have said, I, while I maybe don't agree with the original variants, that's not what we're here to discuss. It seems like the house could have been scaled down to create that privacy barrier. But I do understand the orientation. But when you look at the sort of guardrails that we have for this particular item on the extension of time, it clearly, to me, shows that there was due diligence, that the conditions haven't changed dramatically, which is the other condition. So I guess I just don't see anything to sort of come back to the drawing board. Two comments I would make is just I know the appellant understanding that you know when someone's encroaching onto your property it can It can take away from that open rural area But it and you moved to Granite Bay for that particular reason But it sounded to me like even though you appreciate that you're wanting to build and expand and even do like high density is what I heard so That is a little bit different, the comment. So, you know, with that, I do agree with the rest of the commissioners. I hope you guys can work together after this meeting. It's really simple. Get the corner, you know, lot measured, surveyed, get the fence in so that the appellant feels somewhat satisfied in what's happening. That would be my request as well. So those are my comments. Staff, any other comments that you would like to make?

No, no other comments that we would like to make. However, we do recommend that the Commission take up these items individually when you are ready.

Okay. Do I have anyone that would like to make a motion? I'll make a motion.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions. 1A, determine that the action is categorically exempt from the Environmental Review in accordance with Sections 15303 and 15305. of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines in Section 1836050, Class III, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures in 1836070, Class V, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations of the Placer County Environmental Review Ordinance.

I'll second.

Okay, we have a first and second.

Roll call, please. Dahlgren. Yes. Watts. Yes. Jewell.

Yes.

Runtine.

Yes.

Johnson.

Yes. Alves. Yes.

Becler. Yes. Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions. 1B, deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrator's approval of a 24-month extension of time for the Jarosiewicz variance to allow until January 26, 2028 for a home expansion from 1,000 to 4,500 square feet to be located five feet from the west side property line where a 15-foot side setback is normally required. and 20 feet from the front south property line where a 35-foot setback is normally required, subject to the modified final conditions of approval. Okay, we have a first.

I'll second that. First and second. Roll call, please. Dahlgren. Yes. Watts. Yes. Jewell. Yes. Runtine.

Yes.

Johnson.

Yes. Alves. Yes.

Becler. Yes. That concludes 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 10 days of today's date. and shall be accompanied by the filing fee of $752. The last item on the agenda is a zoning ordinance amendment related to accessory dwelling units. As this is a legislative item, the Board of Supervisors is the decision body and the Planning Commission will be providing a recommendation to the board. Today's staff presentation will be given by Senior Planner Thomas McNairn.

Sorry. Go right ahead. Good morning, commissioners. I will wait just a second while my presentation comes up. There we go. As was mentioned, my name is Thomas McNair and I'm a Senior Planner for the Long Range Division and today is my first day presenting in front of you all, so it's nice to see you all. Today I will be presenting on the Accessory Dwelling Unit Zoning Text Amendments. These are primarily a compliance effort to bring our zoning code ordinance into compliance with the state with respect to accessory dwelling units. This presentation will walk through what has changed in the state law, how that impacts our current code, and how these proposed amendments will address that. There are four main purposes of these amendments today. The first and foremost is to ensure compliance with state ADU law. Currently, our code is out of compliance with the state, which means we have to defer to the state provisions wherever there is a conflict with our code. Second, we want to maintain good standing with the Housing and Community Development Department of the state, HCD. Maintaining good compliance with HCD is important to reduce any future risk, and we have been in constant communication with them throughout this process. We also want to create a resilient ADU ordinance to withstand any future changes that we know are coming to the state ADU law and reduce the need to come back for future zoning text amendments on this topic. And overall, these items, these provisions will reduce barriers to build ADUs in the future and encourage a mix of housing options in Placer County. Before I dive too far into the content, I want to acknowledge the progress the county has made thus far. One reason this ordinance actually matters is because ADUs are no longer theoretical anymore. Since 2021, the county has built over 600 ADUs. Our housing element allows ADUs under 750 square feet to be considered affordable to low-income renters, and that makes up about 40% of our ADUs that we've built. To further break that down, about 80% of all ADUs that have been constructed are considered detached ADUs, 50% are larger than 750 square feet, and then roughly 8% of ADUs are JADUs. So why now? Why are we bringing these amendments today? Back in December, HCD identified compliance issues with our current code. They sent via letter all of the statutes that have been updated in the state ordinance and let the county know of all of the provisions where we were out of compliance. Until our ordinance was updated, they also let us know that staff is obligated to default to the state ordinance and cannot impose any additional local provisions if there is a conflict. Since 2020, the ADU law has been updated five times. That's just about every legislative cycle, and we don't expect them to stop anytime soon. Given how frequently the state law has changed, we are proposing a very resilient ordinance. We are simply proposing to refer and point to the state law wherever possible. There are a few local provisions that we are including because the state allows us to do so. And so those are sprinkled throughout. But largely, we believe this approach will reduce the need to do this every year and really just keep up with the ever-changing state law. So in the next few slides, I'm going to briefly review the specific changes that we are proposing in this amendment and what the code means for us. The changes generally fall into five buckets, statutory cleanups, processing requirements, unit allowances, development standard changes, and fee and administrative changes. I'll highlight all of them, but I will also spend more attention and point out which ones I would like you all to remember throughout this presentation and moving forward. So the first topic is statutory references. This one's simple. The state just moved the provisions in the government code where they were once referred to to a different portion, and so we have to reflect that in our code. The topic of state-exempt and non-state-exempt frameworks, this is a really important one I want you to remember. The state has essentially created two approval track, two approval pathways for ADUs and two types of ADUs. So the state-exempt ADUs are essentially a protected housing type that the state has chosen to protect. Those ADUs will have very limited local review and are allowed in most situations. They can also be combined. And then there's the non-state exempt ADU. These are still allowed very much like the state exempt ADUs, but they have to be reviewed through objective and clearly measurable standards, development standards by the zone. The next topic is processing timelines. So the state has required local governments to review ADU applications within specific timelines so applicants receive timely decisions. Impact fees have also changed. So ADUs that are less than 750 square feet are now exempt from impact fees. And ADUs that are larger will be analyzed and charged in proportion to the size of the primary structure. These next three topics are pretty important, as these are some of the bulk of the changes, and they have to do with unit counts. So for existing multifamily structures, they can now build up to eight detached ADUs. The number cannot go past the existing unit count, and they are allowed up to eight. They're also allowed to convert non-habitable interior space into ADUs as well, up to 25% of the existing unit count. So an example I have here is that a 20-unit multifamily existing dwelling can build up to eight detached ADUs, and then they can convert interior space into five inverted ADUs. So that's for existing multifamily structures. For proposed multifamily structures, they can propose no more than two detached ADUs along with their primary structure. Yes, that brings me to my second one. That's perfect timing. For single-family lots, the unit counts for these have changed as well. A single-family lot can now build up to four ADUs. The count includes a converted ADU, a JADU, and a detached ADU, so long as it's under 800 square feet. And then those three are considered state-exempt ADUs. So they can be built in combination with each other and are protected by the state essentially. So there's very limited local or staff review on those. And then the fourth one is a non-state exempt ADU, which is an ADU that's going to be larger than 800 square feet or attached to the primary structure built like an addition. Now in most situations, I will say we don't expect to see the full build out of all of the ADUs because there are still constraints beyond what planning has to review. So things like utility capacity, water supply. When an ADU is proposed, it still needs to meet all of these standards. This zoning text amendment is specific to planning's review. Oops. The next topic is office and professional zone. This is a very simple change. ADUs are allowed wherever residential isn't allowed use. And so because in our zoning residential isn't allowed use in office and professional, we are changing the code to allow ADUs as well. The next two are some more important ones as well. ADUs are no longer, sorry, the state law precludes local agencies from requiring deed restrictions on ADUs. That doesn't preclude a property owner or a builder from electing into or voluntarily putting a deed restriction on their ADU for the purposes specifically of affordable housing or additionally for like a bonus unit in the Tahoe Basin. And then rentals as well. JADUs and ADUs cannot be rented for less than 31 consecutive days. That is countywide. However, we do have a provision in our local county code that exempts ADUs that were built in the Tahoe Basin prior to 2020. So those can continue as short-term rentals if they choose to do so. The next topic, ADUs can be sold separately now. There are some pretty strict requirements around those, and we don't expect it to happen often. But essentially, it requires a qualified nonprofit organization specifically buying these and renting it out to qualified low-income renters. And like I said, there are some very specific requirements around there. We haven't seen these in the county and I'm not sure how often these are happening around the state The last one on this slide is unpermitted unit legalization The county cannot deny unpermitted ad user j80 use Built before 2020 unless they pose a safety risk. This is the state basically trying to bring in all non-conforming or you know, unsafely built ADUs into conformance so that property owners are incentivized to do so. And then the final five here, there are no owner occupancy requirements on ADUs anymore unless there is a JADU that will be sharing the sanitation services with the primary dwelling. The next two are some important ones. State law now limits how much design review can be applied on ADUs. So in a similar vein to the state-exempt ADUs, state-exempt ADUs are exempt from design review. There are very limited development standards that they need to follow, and I have a slide next that will go over those. But the non-state-exempt ADUs are not exempt from design review. objective standards can be imposed on those such as parking, which is the next topic. State law has significantly limited how local governments can require parking on ADUs. In the same pattern here, state-exempt ADUs are exempt from parking requirements. non-state exempt ADUs still will follow the parking requirements of the zone, and that is one of the provisions where we still have local control and we are continuing to require parking on ADUs where we can, essentially. Sure. Yeah, I actually have a slide right after this one that will explain that. The last two topics are quick ones. For fire sprinklers, building an ABU does not require a homeowner to retrofit their house to include fire sprinklers in their primary dwelling if they did not need to upon building. And then all of these provisions do impact the Tahoe Basin as well. So the ZTA does impact the basin, except for the two provisions in two topics I mentioned earlier about rentals and deed restrictions. So here's the breakdown of the difference between state exempt and non-state exempt ADUs. This is an important slide. If there's anything I want you to take away from today, it's this. This is the two-track approval process. State exempt ADUs, as I mentioned earlier, are a protected housing type. The state has limited local control on these. And they have set very strict parameters around what these can be so these adus are allowed up to 800 square feet they can be built at four feet setbacks or a four foot setback and they're allowed at least 16 feet high The approval process for these is extremely streamlined. It's through a building permit only. And so staff is only or planning staff, I should say, is really just reviewing if the four feet setbacks are met and the height is met and it's under 800 square feet. If those are met, then the building division will take care of the remainder of the review. Some allowed types or examples of state-exempt ADUs are a conversion ADU, a detached ADU so long as it's under 800 square feet, and a JADU. And then the two multifamily types of ADUs are also considered state-exempt. For non-state-exempt ADUs, these are ADUs above 800 to 1,200 square feet. These still do need to follow objective local standards. They are also allowed at four-foot setbacks and the same height as a state-exempt ADU. But the development standards apply by the zone. And so parking requirements, lot coverage, or even neighborhood standards will still apply to these ADUs, so long as they're objective and clearly measurable.

I have a quick question, if I may.

Yeah. I'm a little confused about what's the difference between a JADU and a converted ADU.

Good question. So a JADU, let me start with a converted ADU, actually. A converted ADU is a full ADU kitchen, bathroom, living space, and a bedroom. Within the existing. In some existing structure. A JADU does not necessarily need to have sanitation facilities of its own. And it's usually converted from like a bedroom. Does that answer your question?

Can I just add, I had a similar question. How is that different from a guest house? Because I know the county has different requirements for guest house versus ADUs. But it sounds like a junior ADU is similar to a guest house.

Yeah, I'm not quite familiar with all of the provisions of a guest house. But a JADU, it needs a kitchen at or a kitchen. And a JADU is converted from an existing bedroom, per se. Or a garage. Or a garage, yes, of course.

A J-ADU, okay.

Yeah. And so maybe someone can weigh in on what the provisions of a guest house are. I'm not entirely familiar about those.

Well, and also the junior ADU is typically included or is part of the primary structure.

Oh. And it's capped at 500 square feet as well.

Okay.

I would also just add that government code section 66313 provides definitions for both an accessory dwelling unit and a junior accessory dwelling unit, which might help with the distinction. Okay.

And then additionally, our guest houses don't allow full kitchens.

Okay.

So that's a really big difference.

Oh, do not allow full kitchens. That's the distinction then. Where JADU sounds like has a kitchenette or is required to. but not required to hook into separate sewer or water.

For a jade, if it's part of the primary structure, it will be a part of the same system.

Gotcha.

OK. You guys need an infographic.

I like your flow here, but we do need an infographic. Any more quick questions? Otherwise, let's let the presentation proceed. Yeah.

Okay, so just a few allowed types for non-state ADUs, just so you can visualize them. It's going to be an ADU that's larger than 800 square feet up to 1,200 square feet as a new detached structure, or any new addition to a primary dwelling will be considered a non-state exempt ADU. And with that, I will read the recommendations into the record. So staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend the Board of Supervisors take the following actions. One, determine that the proposed action is exempt from environmental review. Persuade to California Public Resource Code Section 21080.17 and California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15282H. Ends 2. Adopt an ordinance amending Placer County Code Chapter 17 Section 17.04.030 Section 17.32.010, Section 17.56.200, and Section 17.60.050. This concludes my presentation, and I am happy to answer any questions that you all may have additionally.

Thank you, Thomas. Great presentation for your first first round. Other questions? We'll go Rich first.

Okay. You know, ADU is kind of a broadly defined term. But it's got a lot of bells and whistles on it. And so basically, I guess what I'm trying to maybe get clarification on is, say, particularly with a detached ADU, as long as it's got the sleeping area, kitchen, shower, hookups,

It qualifies as an ADU? Yeah, so the definition of an ADU is a very broad definition, like you mentioned. The requirements for an ADU are that it meets the minimum for what the minimum is for an efficiency unit, which I believe is 150 square feet or so. Maybe we have a local requirement. But it does need a sanitation facility. It needs a kitchenette or a full kitchen, living space, and a place to sleep, so like a bedroom. But we do see studio, ADUs, and so those living and bedroom spaces are sometimes combined. um to build off of your question yes for for like a detached adu or even a converted adu um that is detached so long as you meet those provisions and size requirements um then it will fall under um an adu okay so uh so tiny homes and fifth wheels and as long as they're under 800 square feet oh good question i'll let emily or chris again

As the name implies, an ADU is accessory to a primary unit. So if you have a tiny home on the lot, if that's the primary use of the lot, then that's a primary structure on the lot.

Okay, so you have to have the primary structure first, then have that, then qualify.

Correct.

But I can also clarify that a fifth wheel does not count as an accessory dwelling unit. We do have an ordinance in our county code that allows tiny homes to count as an ADU, though, but not a fifth wheel. Okay, I don't know if I heard that real clearly, but... Our code allows for tiny houses to count as accessory dwelling units. Our code does not allow for all recreational vehicles or fifth wheels or trailers to count as an accessory dwelling unit.

So that's different from what the state is saying?

No, the state does allow us to count a tiny house as an ADU. It does not allow us to count a normal recreational vehicle trailer as an ADU.

Okay. If I could provide some clarification, Commissioner Johnson. So under state law and ADU, it would include either attached or a detached residential dwelling unit. And that unit has to provide complete independent living facilities for at least one person. And it has to be located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. And it also needs to include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as that either single family or multifamily dwelling unit. And then it would also include an efficiency unit as well as some manufactured homes that qualify. Okay.

Mark, did you have a question?

Yeah, I have two. I think if I understood the outset of your presentation, you talked about building in resiliency to the county codes. And I assume what that means is you make direct references to some of the code sections so that when they change, you automatically change.

Yeah, that's the that's exactly the the intent of what we're trying to accomplish here.

The other question I have, and I didn't see it anywhere, and I really don't know too much about this part of it, but our ADUs, there are many cases there are an improvement to their improvement on a property. Do they increase the assessed value of the property for property tax?

In my experience, I believe that is the case. It is additional living space on your property and it can be assessed for more.

I would agree with that comment. Through the building permit process, the assessor's office would be notified if they choose to reassess the property at that point. That would be the decision on the assessor's office, decision by the assessor's office.

So what would be a rationale for not?

I just am not as familiar with what their process and what would trigger them to, you know, institute that reassessment.

That's something we can look into, but it showed up and I got hit with a property. Right. So it's kind of like, and nobody's living in it. It's just storage. So thank you, I get doesn't seem like a real incentive if you're going to get taxed by putting that up, but I do appreciate the legislature exempting from impact fees.

I had two questions on the unpermitted ADUs that were built prior. I think it said those do not have to come to code, but those unpermitted ADUs need to have been designated as an ADU. It can't be someone had a garage, they're using it as an ADU today, but it was always a garage from the perspective of the county. Does that make sense?

It does make sense, yeah. It seems to be a particular situation in which if it walks and talks like an ADU and they want to bring it into code, bring it into conformance as an ADU, then I think that that's how we would would view it, but it would definitely be a case-by-case situation.

That's my question. You didn't certify things as ADUs before. I'm thinking of Isla Vista with all the garage conversions. Are they all just grandfathered in now? Exactly. Because you didn't call them ADUs a long time ago. No one said, check, I have an ADU. It's just like, now, oh, I have an ADU. It was built before X time, so now it therefore exists in this grandfathered inn.

There's no ADU inspectors. The intention of the state, if I'm reading it correctly, is just that they want to bring as many... non-conforming structures into conformance or, you know, into livable ADUs as possible to increase the supply of housing.

College towns can now stop hiding all of their garage conversions. This is a huge deal for College Town.

The other quick question I had, you did mention that when someone goes to put in an ADU, they're still required, because this comment came up in the public comment section, you're still required to go through the evaluation of public water, sewer, like San Juan water, what PCWA, wherever you live in the county, to make sure there's capacity for that ADU, is that correct?

Yeah, absolutely. This zoning tax ordinance or this zoning tax amendment is specific to the planning process and what is allowed in order to encourage the building of more ADUs. That does not mean that an ADU can bypass or sidestep any water supply issues or even utility capacity or anything like that. So improvements will have to be made on top of that per further review with the building or Public Works or anything along that matter.

And nothing changes as it relates to septic. So where I'm at, a lot of people are on septic, including myself. And so for people that have gone in to get an ADU, if you're so close to a public sewer, which is somewhat limited in certain areas of the county, you have to pay like up to $100,000 hookup fee. Is that changing with the ZTA or not? Because that makes it actually difficult to do an ADU because of that upfront cost versus just allowing people to expand and upgrade their septic area.

Yeah, that's a good question. And in, you know, the effort of the state to reduce barriers of building ADUs, they have removed the local jurisdiction's ability to charge those fees.

Oh, really? Okay. Okay.

Yeah. So an ADU, you know, does not have to pay hookup fees essentially.

Okay. And there are two specific government code provision sections that address both utility connections as well as impact fees that the county may be able to charge on ADUs. Gotcha. Thank you, Hannah.

Just a quick one. I was curious. States here proposed change that on a single family lot you can have a max now of four ADUs. How do you define single family lot? Is there a size definition?

It's based off of the zoning of the property. And so, you know, if Yeah, I mean, simply put, it's the zoning.

I'm just curious if there was a minimum maximum or something like that, but it's just going to be based on zoning.

The state code, you know, it defines multifamily as anything beyond one unit allowed. And so even the duplex will be considered falling into that multifamily category. But if the zoning, if the parcel is zoned single family, then it will fall under the single family. So it could be a tenth of an acre. Two acres, right.

Other questions?

And I don't know if this can be answered, but I know one of our online people indicated that water is a scarce source in their area. Can an ADU or a JADU be inclined to permit if the area can't support it in any way, like water?

Yeah, absolutely. So like I mentioned earlier, these changes are geared towards the review and allowance of ADUs. Water supply is still very much something that is reviewed and can be used as a basis of denial of an ADU if there is not adequate resources.

Great. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. I'm going to go ahead and move to public comment. So is there anyone in person that would like to speak on this item? You can go ahead and come up to the podium and state your name for the record, please.

My name is Tom Jones, a longtime resident here in Placer County. I would like to know if the new guidelines or old guidelines trumps an HOA. Specifically, we have Auburn Greens. They've maintained that property beautifully. I recall when they started it. But they also require people to keep their garage doors closed. Then the HOA said, nope, you have to open them so we can see who's living there. A J is a junior, meaning it's missing other things? Or does it mean join to an existing structure? Junior. Junior, meaning it doesn't have to have a kitchen.

It sounded like it had to. We can, yeah, staff will respond to your questions once you're done. Yes. Okay, then I'll make an unsolicited comment afterwards. We'll make sure to get that answered.

HOA?

But you, we'll answer the questions at the end of your public comment. Yeah, so go ahead and finish and we've got them.

So the finish is that I hope that we explain to the public, the Placer County public who are getting antsy now, that this is not our, we're not creating this, we're responding to it that their legislators have done, and let them know that there's been a change every year, every session, and let them know that the cost is being borne by the county, not the state. Okay?

Thank you for your comments. Thank you. I don't see anyone else in person. Do we have anyone online?

Yes, I have a hand raise. Caller, go ahead and unmute your mic and give your comments.

Greetings again, commissioners, and now you know why my open comment was structured the way it was. I attended that webinar for that project manager for this ETA, this Diane Louise Alessi, again, director for Christian Valley Park Community Services District. I asked the project manager directly whether this would override the covenants and I'm addressing the gentleman before me and he stated, yes, and our covenants that have been in place now for more than 63 years. And I find that appalling. And to me, it's this kind of a form of eminent domain and should be constitutionally challenged. However, The state is effectively now stripping residents of their right to vote on any changes or that or fundamentally kind of change the community's infrastructure load. And I'm saying as a solution, we cannot simply build more without a plan of who gets water and what priority. You need to loop in all special district boards. No ADU permits should even be considered without issuing a written capacity certification from water districts such as ours first. Hard cap on lottery. We must establish a number of ADUs based on our capacities upfront. And the lottery system must be used to determine who can build. And if we ignore these constraints, we're not solving housing crisis. We are creating a public health crisis with no water. We are stakeholders and I don't want to be left behind as we were when we were doing the arena six evaluation and this board had to come forward and deny the Florence property that was being proposed because you automatically were just going to annex in Christian Valley water without even consulting the board as to how and what that would look like in the cost. So I'm cautioning the commissioners that this zone

text amendment is not going far enough as to preemptively knowing where those capacities lie before you even review or consider any permitting so with that i yield thank you thank you for your comments do we have anyone else i see no others okay i am going to go ahead and close public comment and bring it back to the commission for any comments or deliberations actually before that i will ask staff to respond to the questions that came up.

I'm going to have Thomas respond in a little bit more detail on the HOA request, but I did want to just begin with making sure that we say once again that this zoning text amendment is really in response to the letter we received from HCD that said that our ordinance may be out of compliance and so we're taking steps to ensure compliance with with recently passed legislation To bring us in in compliance with state law We are not ADDING PROVISIONS INTO THIS ORDINANCE THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT. THOMAS MENTIONED THE SEPARATELY SALEABLE ADUS AND THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN STATE LAW AS I THINK MANY COMMISSIONERS KNOW FROM GOING TO THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES TRAININGS THAT THERE ARE ABILITIES FOR JURISDICTIONS TO OPT IN TO ALLOW FOR A MORE PERMISSIBLE SALE OPTION WITH ADUS. THAT'S NOT A COMPONENT OF THIS PACKAGE. AGAIN, WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO ALIGN AS CLOSELY WITH STATE LAW WITHOUT ADDING ANY OTHER PROVISIONS THAT ARE NOT ALREADY REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. So I wanted to make that comment and then ask Thomas to follow up on some of the questions that came up, particularly the ones about HOAs. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks, Chris. So with respect to HOAs and covenants, the state law, state code is pretty explicit that an HOA or community organization cannot deny or cannot provide basis to deny an ADU. However, there are still abilities to impose objective and clearly measurable criteria on such ADUs, such as ways to bring an ADU into the same design or character as the primary structure, so long as, again, those are objective criteria. Because, you know, there are state-exempt ADUs and non-state-exempt ADUs. Those criteria only apply to non-state-exempt ADUs. State-exempt ADUs may still, you know, be proposed without that design review. And as I mentioned earlier, these code amendments and zoning tax amendments are specifically to address the state provisions that have changed the review of these ADUs for planning purposes, not necessarily for utilities or any public works or environmental services that still may be required on an ADU.

Can I, a quick follow-up, two quick follow-up questions. So the state exempt units do not have to follow even objective standards, whether they're in HOA, CC&Rs, or the county's own design review standards. Is that correct?

Correct. For state exempt data use the only criteria that they can be reviewed against are the four feet setbacks, four foot setbacks, the height, and the size.

Okay. Okay.

And I would just add to Thomas's answer that Government Code Section 66323, he captured the standards well, but that specific section provides the standards that those state-exempt ADUs can be held to and measured against. But anything outside of that section cannot be applied if the ADU meets those state-exempt qualifications.

Gotcha. And does that include waterway setbacks. So they can override waterway setbacks as well.

So yes, essentially, the only standards that the state exempt ad use would have to meet are those written into that specific section, which it only provides for that forefoot setback. Okay, at least in relation to setbacks.

Okay, thank you. And then I think the gentleman did have a just wanted clarity on the JADU. What does it stand for? Does it require a kitchen? I know you did mention it, but maybe just restate that.

Yeah, of course. So a JADU is a junior ADU, essentially. The J stands for junior. And it still has to meet all of the provisions of a state-exempt ADU. It just doesn't necessarily require a a sanitation facility to be individual in that unit. It can't be shared. Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, a kitchen is required.

Other questions? Yes.

Yeah, this first step is part of the, well, let me just ask it this way. I'm sorry, I'm kind of fumbling around in my head. Once this is adopted, will there be some sort of checklist provided through the permit department? So if you walk in and you're not sure which one you qualify for, will you have that available? Like you need the water, you need this, you need that, you need the other?

Yes, there will be. We do have staff with our front counter services team in both planning and building that are technical experts on ADUs. These changes, we've been working with them to make sure that they understand what these changes are. And there will be, and again, to the public comment that we received, YOU KNOW, MORE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE, CHECKLISTS AND SO FORTH TO ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC IS AWARE OF THESE CHANGES AND WE ARE ABLE TO WORK WITH THEM TO BUILD OUT THEIR DESIRED PROJECT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CAN I JUST BUILD ON THAT? IT'S MORE OF A COMMENT. the two-track ADU grid that you had. I think from a public, someone mentioned infographics, having a simple chart that shows this is a JADU, this is an ADU, this is a state exempt, this is a non-state exempt, so similar to your two-track review, have what are the differences between the different types of ADUs, I think would be a great public resource, not having to come, so they don't have to come to the county counter but they can look it up online and say, oh, I think I'm J-A-D-U or I'm A-D-U, that kind of thing would be a good resource, just as a suggestion. So any other comments or deliberations? Otherwise, I'd entertain a motion. I just had a quick comment. I just had a quick comment. All of the new presenters today did great. Wonderful. You have good staff, Chris.

Whatever you're doing, keep doing it, because every single one of them hit the mark. I just want to say that before we close.

That's great to hear. I really appreciate that comment. I agree.

Yeah, I agree, Robin, and I think all of them did. So if you can share that back to the previous ones, that would be awesome. Yeah, well said. Rich, did you have another comment?

Oh, I just wanted to kind of maybe second the comment that, you know, just reading through this, when you see a lot of references to state laws and that kind of stuff, it's very legal. And unfortunately for most of us, we don't really have the ability to, the element of that legalese. And so I think it's going to be a challenge in order to explain this to people so that they can actually figure out if they can qualify to implement something in the ADU realm. So I could see a big challenge there.

If I can make a comment to that, I'll add off what Chris said earlier. We do have a web page that we are using to convey a lot of this information because of the approach that we're taking to simply refer to the state code in this zoning text amendment. we are relying on our webpage to communicate all of the standards and we have a living FAQ page that will continue to evolve as more and more questions come up. So we hope to continue to educate the public on these forever changing laws.

Okay.

Anyone would like to do a motion?

Sure, I'll take that. So we can get out here. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors take the following action. Can I do them together? I'll do them separately. Determine that the proposed action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15282H. We have a first. Do I have a second?

Second.

I'll second.

Oh, we got Rontine with second. You guys are battling over the motions today. We have a first and second. Can I get roll call, please?

Dahlgren? Yes. Rontine? Yes. Watts? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Alts? Yes. Jewell is absent. And Becler?

Yes. I recommend the Planning Commission recommended the Board of Supervisors to take the following action. Item 2, adopt an ordinance amending Placer County Code Chapter 17, Section 17.04.030, Section 17.32.010, Section 17.56.200, and Section 17.060.500. And Section 17.060.050. I'm so sorry. And Section 17.060.050. That is a mouthful. Okay. We have a first and second.

Roll call, please. Dahlgren? Yes. Rentin? Yes. Watts? Yes. Johnson? Yes. Alves? Yes. Jewell is absent. Beckler?

Yes. Okay, thank you. We'll close that item. I wanted to remind everyone that the recommendation of the Planning Commission for this item will be considered by the Board of Supervisors at an upcoming meeting. That concludes the business for today. Thanks, everyone, for attending. This meeting is now adjourned.

See you in August.