Planning commission recommends denial of Gableman rezone and parcel split; environmental document found adequate

The Nevada County Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of a proposed general plan amendment, rezone, tentative parcel map and associated resource management plans for a 21.41‑acre property in the North San Juan ridge area, while approving the project’s proposed mitigated negative declaration for environmental review.

Zachary Bridal, associate planner for the Nevada County Planning Department and the project planner, summarized the Gableman application as a request to change the parcel’s general plan designation from Rural‑20 to Rural‑10 and to rezone from AG‑20 to AG‑10, enabling a tentative parcel map that would split the 21.41‑acre parcel into two parcels of about 11.36 and 10.05 acres. Bridal said the parcel previously hosted an approved commercial cannabis administrative development permit that the current owner withdrew to pursue this application.

Staff concluded the proposed amendment and rezone would be inconsistent with surrounding land‑use designations and could set a precedent that would raise density in an area characterized by remote topography, high fire severity and limited evacuation options. Bridal told commissioners the county’s analysis identified potentially significant impacts to transportation, biological resources (landmark oak groves), steep‑slope resources and ephemeral drainages, and that those impacts had been mitigated in the initial study/mitigated negative declaration (MND).

The applicant’s representative, Theodore Goodman of Millennium Planning and Engineering, said project changes would improve a local private road, Scenic Drive, and provide neighborhood fire‑safety benefits. Goodman argued the proposed split “aligns with the Board of Supervisors stated objectives” for housing and emergency preparedness and said converting the parcel from one 20‑acre lot to two 10‑acre lots would allow vegetation management buffers around future residences. James Gableman, son of the owner and speaking for the family, said the split would allow the family to retain one 10‑acre parcel for retirement and sell the other to address medical debt.

During public comment, several nearby residents said they supported the split and the prospect of Scenic Drive improvements. Dr. James Haney, a Nevada City resident, told commissioners the project would “improve the situation in this particular area of North San Juan, not only bringing in more affordable housing, but also improving safety in terms of fire mitigation and ingress and egress.” Neighbor Sean Berardi also spoke in favor.

Commissioners asked staff what evidence could have demonstrated the parcel’s uniqueness to justify the rezone; staff replied that no compelling evidence was submitted to show the parcel is an anomaly relative to similarly designated surrounding parcels. Staff noted previous approvals and recorded parcel maps show a long‑standing pattern of like‑sized parcels in the neighborhood. Commissioner questions also explored whether the applicant could pursue an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or junior ADU under current rules without a general plan amendment; staff said ADUs are allowed by law and would follow a different, potentially simpler review path.

After deliberation, the commission voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the MND and its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program but voted to recommend denial of the general plan amendment, the rezone, the tentative parcel map, the watercourse management plan, the oak resources management plan, and the petition for exceptions to driveway standards. The denial motions were made and seconded on the record; roll calls recorded Aye votes from the commissioners on the denial motions. Chair Millman cast a Nay on the motion to adopt the MND but voted Aye on the subsequent denial motions.

The Planning Commission’s action forwards the environmental document (MND) and the commission’s recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, which will take the final decisions on the general plan amendment, rezone and map.