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.