[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,75,87,99],{"_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":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6457655,"mediaKeyId","5843732-1dfd1c699a6bed2bfa45f14d65259ed3","parentId",5843732,"title","Public urges delay of Penryn Hope Way apartment hearing as state deadline forces October date","audioSeconds",1288,"startMs",1345000,"endMs",2633000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5843732-1dfd1c699a6bed2bfa45f14d65259ed3&start=1345&end=2633","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5843732-1dfd1c699a6bed2bfa45f14d65259ed3/thumbnail_1345000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6457655/Placer-County/California/Public-urges-delay-of-Penryn-Hope-Way-apartment-hearing-as-state-deadline-forces-October-date","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6457655-352e2454ebcbab9ee044beb152ca0e0b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181401&Signature=lNBOgaNI0Bpi6qZjukEH6XlMezhFhQy8FoucNDdv5xkFEgiwe~UHovlNiDbmlbk58e-s43OaLkD5tQf1B6oZSxMsun-RhQ6LEEfAku4jbOyqbDq4yF~zEYbR8SAaSVTbITPwPbmGJpD~2NYJB~h7l9D3DorNlAgq7p53bIqvsgp~t2E6XQ1vwurXioJXQ0GQn8RZQsRtUF9X5SU2Sl1LcF1sfSWIkz3O5iFUezN-Qm~wtH2zNldn8CnQnmTqV17HH5RTvtEfKbZsBCzwucvdMwV0q-cEk7mbiMFk-9yx-jDuWu0j0AV5sPBvc9auFHDNdoDzhxx54td0aJK9Y~37aQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Placer County Public Meetings","date","2025-09-25T00:00:00Z","article","The Placer County Planning Commission heard multiple public pleas to delay the Oct. 16 hearing on the Hope Way Apartments in Penryn after residents said they received more than 1,000 pages of technical documents from the county less than one week before the hearing.

Residents said the compressed timeline has not allowed meaningful public review. \"After two years of preparation between the county and the developer, why is the public only given a couple weeks to digest this volume of complex technical information?\" said Donna Delna, a Penryn resident who requested the commission postpone the hearing at least 90 days so the public could \"engage with the process in an informed and constructive way.\"

The request came during the planning commission’s public-comment period, where several speakers raised overlapping concerns: traffic and circulation impacts at the Hope Way/Parkway intersection, missing technical analyses (including an arborist report), and the need for independent expert review of the project's traffic studies. Patty Neifer, a Penryn resident, said the project would alter the long-established Penryn Parkway plan and create a bottleneck at the Hope Way entrance that would limit the Parkway’s intended 4‑lane configuration. \"This project will throw all of that under the bus,\" Neifer said.

Greg Hollyfield of Newcastle said the project has been treated as an outcome rather than subject to the county’s usual process of aligning sites with master plans and infrastructure. \"Planners and contractors team up to obfuscate, bypass, or dismantle codes that protect Placer communities,\" he said.

Diane Elise Alessi, representing the Christian Bale Community Services District, raised concerns about water availability and local infrastructure, calling for proof that potable water and emergency services can support higher-density development.

Planning staff emphasized two scheduling points in response. Planning Director Chris Pahule said the commission is the decision body for the Hope Way entitlements — including a design review and a state density‑bonus request — because he elevated the hearing body to the planning commission given public interest; appeals would be heard by the Board of Supervisors.

County staff also explained the timing constraint that prompted the Oct. 16 date. A planning‑department staff member told the commission the application was determined complete on Aug. 11; under the state permit streamlining requirements, a hearing body must make a decision within 60 days of a completeness determination. The staff explanation noted the county obtained an extension from the applicant to place the hearing on Oct. 16; without that extension the county would have faced a statutory deadline that would have required action by Oct. 10. The staff member cited the permit streamlining provision identified in the meeting transcript as Government Code section 65950(a)(6).

Staff also said it will hold a community meeting about the Hope Way project at 6 p.m. Oct. 1 at Del Oro and that a project website and the planning director’s report include the application materials and technical reports. Residents said several technical reviewers they approached could not complete paid reviews within the available two‑ to three‑week window and that the community is collecting donations to fund independent reviews.

No continuance or revision to the Oct. 16 hearing date was made on the record at the meeting. Commissioners and staff encouraged residents with further questions to contact county planning staff directly and to attend the Oct. 1 community meeting.

The Oct. 16 hearing will be held at the Health and Human Services Building, and planning staff said they would provide additional logistical information to commissioners and the public ahead of that date.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission - 09/25/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Placer County Planning Commission heard multiple public pleas to delay the Oct. 16 hearing on the Hope Way Apartments in Penryn after residents said they received more than 1,000 pages of technical documents from the county less than one week before the hearing.","taxTitle","Placer County, California","taxId",3666,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6457650,"Planning Commission approves Cook's Truck Body Manufacturing expansion in Dry Creek",1041,2724000,3765000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5843732-1dfd1c699a6bed2bfa45f14d65259ed3&start=2724&end=3765","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5843732-1dfd1c699a6bed2bfa45f14d65259ed3/thumbnail_2724000.jpg","/articles/6457650/Placer-County/California/Planning-Commission-approves-Cooks-Truck-Body-Manufacturing-expansion-in-Dry-Creek","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6457650-28bfab653388fc9d6302613940a40dbe/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181401&Signature=lSuodmGkHm46n0cah63hWqCXrPdcBrPZGtCzQSnD7TVS7SebyKMoCL549QjSY0BTPqqXfd7mC-VnLDGf3IvZf9HVT-qutqAVBkV4L3K~bQDlZXVRy7mxagZuDMhE4ztjnyEcFlSL6HIezCrWDHTfvElt5rYbFKAEOpMy-CjkwFLKeMU5pnf07DnhnFEa4nRZuh9QZurVqNNBnAAKo3GRy50ytYhNqwQp5xZ32xGarSUif2qpC9jgZ6byiFmOF~3Ub-oksF7ywP9eIm6D0Ig4GLbRrOvFPfdyUn1myPHFPCLKZfdQWd0nD~ZigQmAAJAdLdg1XpKaBNuDNcrHfXY2HA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Placer County Planning Commission voted to approve a modification to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 1519 to allow Cook's Truck Body Manufacturing to expand operations on a five‑acre site in the Dry Creek/West Placer industrial area.

Staff recommended the commission determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Guidelines sections 15301 and 15303 and the Placer County Environmental Review Ordinance because the project involves minor alterations and redevelopment of an existing industrial site. Assistant Planner Adam Anderson told commissioners the proposal would construct an approximately 18,188‑square‑foot shop with an attached 4,050‑square‑foot office, convert an existing vehicle‑body storage area to building area, and add limited outdoor storage consistent with adjacent industrial uses.

Anderson said current production is about one truck per week and the expansion is expected to allow Cook's to produce about two trucks a week and to employ seven additional on‑site workers. The site has been in operation since 1971, Anderson said, and is surrounded by industrial uses, including auto wrecking and concrete plants.

Owners and representatives attended the hearing. Sam Enochian, identified as the property owner and president of Cook's Truck Body, said the company works with local governments and municipal customers and thanked county staff for their support. \"We're really looking forward to the planning commission here giving us the approval we're looking for,\" Enochian said. Aaron Hardesty, the company's director of technical services, said Cook's performs work for Caltrans and neighboring counties and that the expansion would reduce production lead times.

Commissioners approved the staff recommendation and the CUP modification in two motions (read into the record as items the staff recommended). Roll‑call votes recorded the following results: Commissioner Brenteen — yes; Commissioner Watts — yes; Commissioner Johnson — yes; Commissioner Beckler — yes; Commissioner Jewell — yes; Commissioner Alves — yes; Commissioner Dahlgren — yes. The motions did not identify a named mover or seconder in the transcript; both were read into the record and adopted by roll call.

Staff will apply the conditions of approval discussed at the hearing and collect applicable building and roadway fees as required by county regulations.","The Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit modification allowing Cook's Truck Body Manufacturing to construct a new approximately 18,188‑sq. ft. shop and a 4,050‑sq. ft. office, increase output from about one truck a week to two, and add seven employees.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6457641,"Planning Commission approves revised schedule, adopts Aug. 21 minutes",193,983000,1176000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5843732-1dfd1c699a6bed2bfa45f14d65259ed3&start=983&end=1176","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5843732-1dfd1c699a6bed2bfa45f14d65259ed3/thumbnail_983000.jpg","/articles/6457641/Placer-County/California/Planning-Commission-approves-revised-schedule-adopts-Aug-21-minutes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6457641-3354fded3274d4f103ab8de3bafa1f2d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181401&Signature=Y3oQC7Ygmd5By2TLhCw7XOPIfPlwHQqUv6Gt20UsBwpEsqNx3GJol1qw4wYlZva5iCwKt5mdhU4oS~cZgM48~b~EAT0Up~ovB1B209KwdTl5-RvmMu7iCdBrXOGWJ5mNcS6aNgIP3XyXo0l4lBc54lgCWTS2aCSpMBHWUstERWP77CuOwj-2XCWtI86oH3Cl4VRIj5NS~Z7JAslaNRbHkWAYnN7E3FtqcYffg5648YfuDo6qDGb8Cd0HeQbdydf85ZDNbi070~~OlNpIsN543aPZ6HsYHCvLecxtBvVbwU-A3G6OsrseZvF00CCXHfsQ8k6pjx-IQScrps~A3iaZsA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Placer County Planning Commission approved two consent‑calendar items: a revised planning commission meeting schedule that adds three meetings in November and December, and the Aug. 21 meeting minutes.

Chair Dahlgren asked if any commissioner or member of the public wanted to remove items from the consent calendar; none did. Commissioners voted separately on the two consent items after a commissioner suggested separate votes because Commissioner Jewell had been absent on Aug. 21.

For the schedule (Item 4), the commission approved adding one meeting in November and two in December; staff said they will consolidate or cancel meetings if workload allows. The roll call for the schedule item recorded one commissioner as \"not voting\" in the transcript and the remaining present commissioners voting in favor.

For the Aug. 21 minutes (Item 5), the commission adopted the minutes; the transcript recorded Commissioner Jewell as \"Abstain\" on the minutes vote because of the earlier absence. The revised schedule and the minutes are now part of the planning commission record.","The commission approved a revised meeting schedule adding three meetings and adopted minutes from the Aug. 21 meeting; Commissioner Jewell was recorded as absent on Aug. 21 and abstained on the minutes vote.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6457646,"Planning Commission continues Eagles Nest reclamation plan and a development‑agreement item to Oct. 30",296,2493000,2789000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5843732-1dfd1c699a6bed2bfa45f14d65259ed3&start=2493&end=2789","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5843732-1dfd1c699a6bed2bfa45f14d65259ed3/thumbnail_2493000.jpg","/articles/6457646/Placer-County/California/Planning-Commission-continues-Eagles-Nest-reclamation-plan-and-a-developmentagreement-item-to-Oct-30","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6457646-e96f727008f9164a3b43c420d610cbb6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181401&Signature=Cxib3CtG8UmD5gj2VYb37M1evQXFHzum9EmyQb0ESuMH23~JL~mWkt3CAMP5xSjBvOE8PqjSEj-OLNlrhm0IqaHSjzBC-NfM~O9Dr0IiS00~BMbPufF0p60ekfzhCAjx9GYmuAxcs6Ggb06zO1dwgnO-0TRTfFju8jZWF9QfikuZwe5KSA2bnvBB0IM1ITA6Il5f3eYeHsekWiR7QiuRbCLeYzb3ErCJUkUDQ~jKt6d2EVG0pL5CiCJEX70sT7vCYEcOA45ZSc19cXh5aUsOYOWTB0O6BWuCLbjg8Xqda30-YPp~jvwFAiRAv~a3EXba1ChRAZjI8UXsZSVcXhOwCw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Placer County Planning Commission voted to continue two agenda items to Oct. 30 so staff and applicants could address late comments and coordinate with reviewing agencies.

For the Eagles Nest Mine reclamation‑plan amendment, Senior Planner David Oros said the Division of Mine Reclamation provided additional clarifying language on Sept. 18 after staff had already transmitted an earlier draft and legal notice. Staff requested the continuance to Oct. 30 to resolve those minor edits and to coordinate with the applicant and the Division of Mine Reclamation. The commission approved the continuance to Oct. 30 at 9 a.m. by roll call.

On the development agreement and modification to a small‑lot vesting tentative map, county staff said they received applicant comments on Monday and requested additional time to work internally and with the applicant. A commissioner recused themself from that item before the discussion. The commission approved continuing that item to Oct. 30 at 9 a.m. as well by roll call.

No substantive decisions were made on either matter at the Oct. 1 meeting; both items will return to the commission on Oct. 30 for further consideration after staff and applicants address the outstanding comments.","The commission voted to continue two agenda items — an amendment to the Eagles Nest Mine reclamation plan and a development‑agreement/small‑lot vesting map amendment — to a date‑certain of Oct. 30 to allow staff and applicants time to address agency and applicant comments. One commissioner recused from the development‑agreement item.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Public urges delay of Penryn Hope Way apartment hearing as state deadline forces October date

Planning Commission approves Cook's Truck Body Manufacturing expansion in Dry Creek

Planning Commission approves revised schedule, adopts Aug. 21 minutes

Planning Commission continues Eagles Nest reclamation plan and a development‑agreement item to Oct. 30