[{"_1":2,"_97":-5,"_98":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,85],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6572952,"mediaKeyId","3130595-11142e120d60b561828de9cd355ddc2c","parentId",3130595,"title","Planning director outlines upcoming housing element hearing, Placer 2050 workshops and busy spring agenda","audioSeconds",303,"startMs",1411000,"endMs",1714000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3130595-11142e120d60b561828de9cd355ddc2c&start=1411&end=1714","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3130595-11142e120d60b561828de9cd355ddc2c/thumbnail_1411000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6572952/Placer-County/California/Planning-director-outlines-upcoming-housing-element-hearing-Placer-2050-workshops-and-busy-spring-agenda","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6572952-272fe8085be9b138e26257c9775d6b33/orig.mp4?Expires=1773575108&Signature=aydfPqyWqFOvd3ClOnvip-XyVlvaFufMu~9JhBh1IqFFwp4k6RKqTEwraU60bAwlHQU-49H2pejw9R0LveUMoaFgE6wR5VapAponONi0KC0YnNu6c~jnYhDZ4h1CBINDOKJIPK~q7RKQsREV5Fs2OfxBBrRdq1abdV1HEAKzaKYxsHlbWnmnjQEZdUTDIUrqg5CMOEXNvR7S0r9KUuETqOTWMY-75E3Z2dj610t0G8NLWfoqZ56VbxZ~Ko0SrubSHKboMrtma9q6YX-jrbLqiIX10ez735Dj2Ul8mOVlv-i02kEh-9VJY3Sz8CbwNlIdaubg2fLBYxPVAEMbYef~Tg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-26T08:38:51.67Z","article","At the Planning Commission meeting the Planning Director provided multiple planning updates, including recent Board of Supervisors approvals and scheduling for upcoming planning items and outreach events.

The director told commissioners that on April 15 the Board of Supervisors approved three planning matters: the Mahoney rezone and minor land division in Penryn, the Bigford Ranch subdivision modification and closeout of grant funding for the Auburn Bowman Community Plan. The Planning Director said the county’s housing element amendment, previously expected on May 13, is now scheduled for the Board of Supervisors on May 27.

Upcoming Planning Commission meetings were described as busy: staff noted a potentially full May 22 agenda with three items and two presentations, including a briefing on enhanced infrastructure financing districts and a workshop on Senate Bill 330. The director also highlighted a Placer 2050 general plan visioning workshop on April 30 from 5 to 7:30 p.m. at the North Tahoe Event Center and said the vision and guiding principles would come to the Planning Commission first before going to the Board of Supervisors.

The director said staff will update the commission’s meeting schedule materials to reflect the need to hold a May 8 meeting and that staff will prepare the next quarterly report with active projects for commission review in June.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission - 04/24/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Placer County Planning Director reported recent Board of Supervisors approvals, the rescheduled date for the housing element amendment and upcoming Placer 2050 outreach events and commission presentations.","taxTitle","Placer County, California","taxId",3666,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":78,"_47":79,"_49":80,"_51":81,"_53":82,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":83,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":84,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6572957,"Placer County planning commission continues Schaeffer’s Mill subdivision hearing to May 8 to address fire-safety and other late comments",0,1937000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3130595-11142e120d60b561828de9cd355ddc2c&start=1937&end=1937","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3130595-11142e120d60b561828de9cd355ddc2c/thumbnail_1937000.jpg","/articles/6572957/Placer-County/California/Placer-County-planning-commission-continues-Schaeffers-Mill-subdivision-hearing-to-May-8-to-address-fire-safety-and-other-late-comments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6572957-4d94f8a03c4ee25887ced8a165ba5a73/orig.mp4?Expires=1773575108&Signature=OxajCPoh-NG6p9XBKmM4MU3esuaPAjm0SsVlmePUn1az5WI5BfiUsR4LlLDWyWcn7SixitnXbHZnJrRMvolHk7PvBOEGyeRZviH6zuBulMmIAzfN7Ay6JkUyGXjrIBvB72omtEuWDjgqFFKN3Ccc92dm~bpGpb20iO-1GpPxwjcU-OHbUwGC68GcVlpBQT8crto1lf3g6U39mMfr2BhO~HKHdtE7rPSmkSdQFMiqNyojbM5TvqMHozjCPJUuqEY2gqh9P-RY8n1BYz8oa1JFlUsHoqfcTyEUyns9ie8WclU5QF9AMLVloVoWED77hxCAYZ6EbAdCBgERuK1lja1okQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Placer County Planning Commission members voted unanimously to continue consideration of a modification to the approved Schaeffer’s Mill Subdivision to a special meeting on May 8 at 9 a.m. to allow staff time to respond to public comments from fire agencies.

Planning staff told the commission they had received four written comments as recently as the night before the hearing, including correspondence from Nevada County Firefighters Local 3800, the fire chief for Placer Hills Fire, Placer County LAFCO and Truckee Fire Protection District Chief McKechnie. Staff requested a two-week continuance so they could prepare detailed responses to concerns raised in those letters.

The commission opened the item for public comment on the proposed continuance but recorded no in-person or remote speakers on the question. After no public testimony, a motion to continue the hearing to May 8 at 9 a.m. passed on a roll call vote of 6-0; Commissioner Dahlgren was absent. Commissioners who voted yes were Renting, Johnson, Watts, Jewell, Alves and Beckler.

A commissioner asked whether the county could require mailed or emailed comments to meet a deadline so materials did not arrive just before a hearing. Planning staff said the county accepts public comment up until the meeting starts and, in practice, through the meeting’s conclusion.

The continuance postpones formal action on the Schaeffer’s Mill modification until staff has had an opportunity to submit responses to the commenting agencies. No conditions or votes on the substance of the subdivision modification were recorded at this meeting.","The commission unanimously agreed to a two-week continuance after receiving late letters from fire districts and related agencies so staff can prepare responses.",{"_33":86,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":87,"_41":88,"_43":89,"_45":90,"_47":91,"_49":92,"_51":93,"_53":94,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":95,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":96,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6572961,"Placer County planning commissioners approve updated procedures after public concerns about sanctions and remote access",363,1043000,1406000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3130595-11142e120d60b561828de9cd355ddc2c&start=1043&end=1406","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3130595-11142e120d60b561828de9cd355ddc2c/thumbnail_1043000.jpg","/articles/6572961/Placer-County/California/Placer-County-planning-commissioners-approve-updated-procedures-after-public-concerns-about-sanctions-and-remote-access","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6572961-ab5dc05614d696bd8023ea2cb3902dc7/orig.mp4?Expires=1773575108&Signature=Cy5Hcso8qVX5DKvkmaiKm~mIz-o3knZ8BneqJJqSRC3DgXlTNm~yZ4RybK7u0XHi0hJVS55vyWxJ7Riuqrs0s6RVJXyeUbwZ1mvN1QPZAoWaDxu7J7j3TsIvxWfOxt3YW-8tvJOtpNp1Vi1JOT5GfHQ4AQc9pRt0ndhWBfpZKelGrgZLkdPpxLq0mrqrenKjh2w0bdWP9eN0RwngzU~LohrcLo0xSCD~ljyAJIE7mpwjc~SvgGhcpA2Nvu95pM7X50LxxH0uBOChO0aH~iFE7dv-rv01nNMjY305BbBl4TgXptdWQcFJcjfQogftjqa~2J-cpk65KEVAFWlylaq3vA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Placer County Planning Commission members voted unanimously to adopt updated Planning Commission procedures after public comments raised concerns about sanctions for misconduct, fairness to long-running projects and the removal of a Zoom participation option.

The procedures update, listed as agenda item 2A, passed on a 6-0 roll call with Commissioner Dahlgren absent. Commissioners who voted yes were Johnson, Watts, Beckler, Renting, Jewell and Alves.

The vote followed two public commenters who urged changes or cautioned about the impact of procedural changes. Public commenter Louisa Lehi criticized the commission’s handling of a private application and asked for clearer sanctions and protections for earlier applicants, saying, “Where is the procedure where first in line is first in time?” Lehi told the commission a referenced project had been delayed for years, increasing costs to the applicant.

Another public commenter, Diane, said she opposed removal of the Zoom option for public participation and asked the commission to urge county supervisors to restore remote access. “It’s completely absurd to want to say you need public participation when you’re pulling away one of the best tools that were introduced during COVID,” Diane said, adding that loss of remote access would disproportionately affect people who must travel long distances or cannot attend in person.

Planning staff responded that the written procedures presented to the commission reflect revisions made after the commission’s March 20 governance workshop. Planning staff noted they are working with the private applicant mentioned in public comment to resolve issues and move the project forward. “The document that is provided for the planning commission is consistent with what was presented at the planning commission’s governance workshop,” a staff member identified as Planning Director said.

Commissioners made no substantive changes on the floor before the vote. The approved procedures document will be posted to the Planning Commission’s online materials.

The adoption sets the commission’s internal rules going forward; it does not, by itself, change county law or alter any single project’s permit status. Public commenters and at least one commissioner raised the possibility of supervisors reversing county-level decisions about remote access; that would be a separate action by the Board of Supervisors.","The Placer County Planning Commission unanimously approved revised internal procedures after public commenters raised concerns about enforcement, project delays and the commission’s decision to remove Zoom remote participation for some meetings.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning director outlines upcoming housing element hearing, Placer 2050 workshops and busy spring agenda

Placer County planning commission continues Schaeffer’s Mill subdivision hearing to May 8 to address fire-safety and other late comments

Placer County planning commissioners approve updated procedures after public concerns about sanctions and remote access