Placer County adopts 2025 code amendments easing ADU porch limits, advancing movable tiny-home rules

The Placer County Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a 2025 code amendment package on Feb. 17 that county planning staff said fixes code errors, clarifies processes and updates standards for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), movable tiny homes and several other land‑use provisions.

Senior planner Lucy Rollins told the board the package includes 23 amendments. "One change removes the 25% limitation for unenclosed porches on ADUs so property owners can maximize interior living space while retaining a porch," Rollins said. The package also adds standards for electrified and barbed‑wire fencing limited to commercial and industrial zones and requires communication efforts with adjacent owners when property owners seek a 12‑foot fence/retaining‑wall combination.

The board packet and Rollins' presentation emphasized changes to chapter 17 that include a minimum‑parcel‑size deviation allowing a split when an agricultural, farm or forest parcel is within 95% of two times the minimum parcel size, subject to water‑service, Williamson Act and other constraints. "So under this amendment, if a parcel is 19.9 acres with a 10‑acre minimum, it could qualify for a split to create a 9.9 and a 10‑acre parcel," Rollins said.

The package amends the Movable Tiny Homes Ordinance to rely on national standards (ANSI/NFPA) rather than the California Building Code for factory‑built tiny homes on wheels and to require equivalent local snow‑load design where ANSI limits are insufficient for eastern Placer County. Rollins said the county will require manufacturer certification that a tiny home complies with the referenced standards and added that building‑services review authority was clarified to the Community Development Resources Agency for application completeness.

Public speakers and stakeholders supported parts of the package while flagging implementation concerns. Martin Koehler urged the board to approve the movable‑tiny‑home amendment, saying factory sprinkler systems are not practical for tiny homes on wheels and that an enforceable permitting pathway is safer than the unregulated deployments the county has seen. "By voting yes, you'll be removing what effectively has been a poison pill which has prevented everyone from using this ordinance since its passing over three years ago," he said.

Erin Casey, CEO of the Tahoe Housing Hub, supported movable tiny homes as a workforce‑housing option in high‑snow areas but warned that updated snow‑load values under ASCE 7‑22 raised ground snow loads by roughly 40–50% in parts of eastern Placer County. She said that for compact units, higher structural requirements can materially change feasibility and urged staff to consider program incentives such as EDU adjustments or Launchpad support to preserve viability.

Planning director Chris Pooley said staff coordinated closely with the agricultural commission and the planning commission; staff described the package as a routine "cleanup" and targeted update that incorporated stakeholder feedback and that would return for long‑range work program direction on March 24.

Supervisor Jones moved to adopt the ordinance package and Supervisor Gore seconded. The board voted in favor without opposition. The board closed the public hearing and directed staff to proceed with implementation steps identified in the staff report.

The ordinance amends multiple sections of the Placer County Code; staff also removed a proposed digital‑display‑sign amendment from the package to further review First Amendment and content‑neutral considerations.

What's next: staff will continue coordination with housing partners (including Tahoe Housing Hub) on tiny‑home implementation, follow up on technical snow‑load guidance for eastern Placer County, and present a long‑range work program update to the board on March 24.