$$eq;e[ved ,gc,cmcc~ dat~ box z$ot - placer.ca.gov · placer county planning department ,gc,cmcc~...

PLACER COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ,gc,cmcc~ for D a t ~ ~ t a r n p _

AUBURN OFFICE T A H O E OFFICE $$EQ;E[VeD 11414 B Avenue 565 W. Lake Blvd./P. 0. Box 1909 Auburn , C A 95603 T a h o e C I ~ ; CA 96145 OCT 1 9 z$oT 530-886-3000/FAX 530-886-3080 530-581-6280RAX 530-581-6282 Web page: www.placer.ca gov/plann~np_ E-Mall : plannmg@placer ca gov g\[2& 4 L f-&$? 4

The specific regulations regarding appeal procedures may be found i11 the Placer County Code, Chapters 16 (Subdivision), 17 (Planning and Zoning), and 18 (Environmental Review Ordinance).

-----OFFICE USE ONLY----- Last Day to Appeal & u 1 Zt /,k> (5 pm) Appeal Fee $ $L.,C ,

Letter Date Appeal Fded i Btc2, (l,T Receipt # 6 7 - 6 ~ q ' ~ $ Oral Testlrnony 6 kf

^*_I

Zonmg C?- \ 4 ?- 3, Received by 33 J L ~ ~ ' P ~ Maps: 7-full size and 1 reduced for Planning Cornmiss~on rterns Geograph~c Area>-.. . &C L

-----TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT-:---

1. Project name P c d 6 v U o~.i,-,.)hornc 9 ( P S Q ~ . ~ X I O ~ 0767) 2. Appellant(s) N ; ~ ~ A Q I SASKO /TI&\ 6 5 2 - 6 ~ 3 2 . / c / j ~ ) 6 5 ' 2 - - 3 ~ 2 3

T e l e ~ h o n e Number Fax Number

& . d P V d C A 956;63

0-?h i State ZIP Code 3 Assessor's Parcel Nurnber(s). $ o 43 - 0 -

4. Application being appealed (check all those that apply): Administrative Approval ( A A - A Tentative Map (SU B- )

)C Use Permit (CUPLVIUP- ) )( Varianc e (VAA- ) Parcel Map (P- ) X Design Revi ew (DSA- ) General Plan Amendment (GPA- ) Rezoning (REA - ) Specific Plan (SPA- ) ' Rafting Permit (RPA - )

X Planning Director Interpretation 10 - \ I bate) X Env Review (E IAQ- ) - Minor Boundary Line Adj. (MBR- ) 0 ther .

5. Whose decislon 1s being appealed P h d ~ ; . ~ 4 f0,n ,m , $d-, 0 -d (fee revcrse)

6 Appeal to be heard by. fi O t?f 13 04 Y"J k 6 > r 6' 2rv /.L 0, (see rcversc)

7. Reason for appeal (attach additional sheet if nccessary and be specific)

I;) J x ~ C n i . g d IC Tummv, . l , PLrtu a 0 4 , 9 ~ 1 ' ~ 1 1 A N L ~ F J ~ c ~ . w ~ ~ / ~ Y F ~ ~ U C J

&.q,?.n ci? \ PL 5 1 , ' ~ $fi-G?-fw RNL( ~CA-C'J c -6' 8 CA 4 k r l R ('. irn u/,+ l:vc .7 . f l r~4- i .+ (If you are appealingJa project condition only, please state the condition number) SCC n t t , + c A ~ { pc # 5-d

Note: Applicants may be requlred to submit add~t~onal project planslmaps &hid A D L % , ? ~ S 4 4 J ~ n c r ~ r

Signature of Appellnnt(s)

~ G R J ( ~ C I em1&5'

\ C M U \ C M D P M ~ P I ~ C ~ I U ~ & Ilrochurc b f ~ L ~ r l \ A p p e a \ doc. ) / l l /o i S f e re vr (5 Gr 5-1 n db'- dcw-tod 6- Y 71 ATTACHMENT A

APPEAL OF PENRYN TOWNHOMES DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL

We appeal to the Board of Supervisors for reversal of the Planning Commission approval on the Penryn Townhomes development as currently designed. Based on the testimony at the Planning Commission hearing and the written comments from the residents to the Planning Commission, the development is unacceptable for the following reasons:

1. THE DEVELOPMENT VIOLATES CBEB.l[l%alJMTU PLAN REQUIREMENTS 2. THE DEVELOPMENT DESIGN IS TOO DENSE APdD FUNCTIONALLY FLAWED 3. THE DEVELOPMENT DESIGN COMPROMISES PUBLIC SAFETY AND ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED 4. THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT FROM THIS PROJECT AND OTHERS BEING PLANNED IS NOT BEING ADDRESSED

APPEAL OF PENRk'N TOWNHOMES DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL

We appeal to the B( ~ r d of Supervisors for reversal of the Planning Commission approval on the Penryn Towrhomes development as currently deslgned Based on the testimony at the Planning Commission hearlng and the written comments from the Penryn residents to the Plannlng Commission, the development 1s unacceptable for the following reasons

1. VIOLATION OF COMMUNITY PLAN:

County zoning ordinance states (1 7.02.050):

" D Confirctrng Provrslons

I Other Code Provisrons IJconJrcts occur between dgerent requzrements o f fh i s chapter, or between thls chapter and otherprovzszons ofthe Placer Cozlnty Code or between the Placer County Code and any applicable state law, the most restrictive shall apply.

2 Cornmunzty Plan Standards Wheiz conjlrcls occur between theprovrsrons of thls chapter and standards adopted by ordrnance In any applicable comnzunrtyplans, lncludlng those areas wzthrn the j~ i r~sdzc t~on ofthe Tahoe Reglonal Plnnnrng Agency (TRPA), the provisions of !he coi?zmunity plans shall apply.

3 Spec fic Plans When conjllcts occur between the provrsions /;fthrs chapter and standards adopted aspart of any speczjc plan, the arovisions o f the specific plan shall apply.

HBPCP Penryn Parkway Community Plan

Page 5, General Cornmunzty Goal 19 hlANAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND SO THAT IT IS TREATED AS A LIMITED RESOURCE RATHER THAN A PRODUCT TO BE MAXIMIZED FOR ECONOMIC GAIN '

Page 14, Note e No dwelllng unlts are assumed for the commercial designations even though multifamily residential 1s permitted wlthin the implementing zonlng distrlct

2. DENSITY AND FUNCTIONALLY FLAWED:

HBPCP Penryn Parkway Conzmunity Plan

Page 81, policy d. Development shall be of a relatively low density, low profile type, and the signing and lighting provided shall reflect such a policy; specifically, building height is to be restricted to a maximum of two-stories. The area's historical nature ( i e ~abanese heritage, gold rush era, English settlement) should be reflected as much as possible in the design of new buildings to be constructed witliin the Penryn Parkway area.

, policy s. Lots in a subdivisiori Note The Plan states subdivision lots "shall be of adequate size and appropriate in shape for the range of primary and accessory uses which are typical for the area without:

1 Creating a feeling of overcrowding andlor infringement on privacy, 11 Creating measurable environmental impacts without appropriate ,

mitigation, 111 Creating the need for variances to ordinance requirements such as

setbacks, lot slze minimums, height maximums, length-to-width rat~os, etc ,

rv Violating the goals and pollcles of this Plan," [Pg 18, policy s ]

This development, with its zero lot lines and high density, violates this Thrs same statement 1s also vzrtually repeated onpage 78, polrcy 22, o f the Design Elemen

Page 25, ztenz e Only one high-density area was intended, the pre-existing mobile home park off Auburn-Folsom road

N B : The highest density in the "low density" range is one d.u. per .4 acre [2.5 d.u, per acre] (I-IBPCP page 25, item c.) and would allow a maximum of 6 d.u. [2.21 acres, the net buildable area per the sample density computation for PDs in the zoning ordinance, times 2.5 d.u. per acre = 5.5 d.u. 2.451.4 = 6.1251. before any density bonuses for a P.D., which cannot exceed 50%; with 50% density bonus the inaxiinum d.u, still would be 9.

Using the example for calculating density in a P.D. in the zoning ordinance (17.54.090), the density approved by the Planning Commission for this development is 9.4 d.u. per acre (3.2-,9975 for road = 2.45 buildable area; 2.451.4 = 9.4). ' .

It is doubtful this development qualifies for Factoring the maximum density bonus for a P.D. of 50% as , and this project may not be allowed that as it is a full "market value" development rather than a very low/low/moderate income (reference statements from the County and the developer. Nov 2,2007 telecon with Placer Couilty Chief Assistant CEO Rich Colwell), the maximum d.u. is 9.2 (2.45 acresl.4 acres per d.u. x 1 .SO [50% density bonus]) for the whole project.

P.D. allowed density is required to factor in the "significance of , the benefit to the cornrnunity."[l7.S4.100 (A)(l)(d.)] The

community sees this development as proposed as a detriment not a benefit! Within a few hours, one hundred and fourteen community people (over 5% of the population) signed a petition supporting appeal of the Planning Commission approval of this project to the Board of Supervisors. Virtually everyone i n the

community is opposed to putt~ng this high density development in I the rural Penryn area.

3. COMPROiclISES PUBLIC SAFETY AND ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED:

Penryn Townhontes Plan is in violatian o f the Anzerica~zs with Disabilities Act - Fair Housing Act (law covering all rental, condo or townhome units).

Project drscrzmlnates agaznst the Drsabled due toparkzng restrictrons (entlreplan is "red curbed" NO PARKING), road wzdth, drrveway wrdth (llfeet), drrveway length (SJee)t and pathways of decomposed granrte (rather than concrete) )

1 1 Disabled County residents would be wlthout access to "Placer D~al-A-

I Ride" Program due to slze and width of vehicle and 8 foot wheeIchair boarding ramp State Vehlcle Safety policy will not allow disabled rldes to be "dropped-off' on a County street There are NO hand~capped spaces available anywhere w~thln the Peilryn Townhomes project

2 Parking spaces for vans used for personal transport of disabled or mheel-bound passengers are requ~red to be a minimum of 18 feet long by

I 8 feet wide plus a 5 foot access aisle, or 8 feet wide plus an 8 foot access aisle for "van accessible" spaces Due to approved garage and drlveway lengths, Vans will not allow for the safe exit of vehicle, AND will block the entrance of the residence from the garage (requiring wheel-bound persons to travel a great dlstance to circle the multi-plex building, and endure an elevation galn of as much as 25 feet, trying to do all this on a

I

path of loose, and oftell muddy material) Additionally, side-entry d~sabrllty vans cannot be used throughout project due to wldth

1 requirements exceeding 16 feet for safe entrance and departure of wheel chair lifts Thls project discriminates against our wheel-bound cltlzens and

I veterans by not allowrng for the11 "speclal needs" I

Penryn Townhomes is rn violalion o f f h e Calgornia Stale Archilecf Access Design Mo~zual (will Jail disability inspection forpaving/no sidewalks and slope to entrance exceedrn~ 25 fool rise!)

I . Because the Penryn Townhomes project does not have sidewalks or any paving to the street-side entrance of the residences, all visiting wheel chair access individuals will be required to circumvent the entire multi-unit structure in order to enter residence.

I I

i 2 Slope on the single, back-side unpaved entrance of the building is in

I excess of a 25 foot llse, maklng wheeled entry impossible for non- motorized chairs This fact ALONE makes the Penryn Townhomes project an inspection failure as per the California State Architect Access Design

D--

Manuael Additionally, elderly resldents wlll find great difficulty making the climb for entrance to some of these bulldlngs, especially on the loose and unstable decomposed granite pathways

I

1

I

Penryn Townhomes provides an un-safe environment for entrance offire and ambulance service (due to the strong likelrhood that inappropriate parking, deliver service vehicles or land~cape maintenance equipment will block access to the Penryn Townlzomes yrojecl).

1 Members of the Penryn Fire Board believe that thls project will be I difficult to serve for fire protection due to the narrow roads, llmited

parking and no paving from the street to the building entrances A s~ngle vehicle parked In the "wrong place" would essentially block fire engine access to Penryn Townhomes

2 Wlthout street-front paving to these residences, elderly or wheel-based disability individuals have but one exit from these bulldlngs (to the rear and non-street slde) This limitation could provide for a "fire trap" s~tuation where res~dents would not be able to depart structures For example, lots 7 through 16 only have one entranceiegress rou te to the street!

3 Penryn Fire sees that ~f thls project is approved in its current plan,

I Penryn Townhomes wlll be ('a chronic area of violations" Law enforcement wlll have to be diligent and allow for personnel to ticket any and all "red zone" parking violations Parklng enforcement is a manpower request that, at the current time, no one can fund and no one is willing to

1 endure

4 There are too inany dwellings for the size of the property Reduction of the density by several Townhome units could easily resolve the problems,

I

allowing standard 20 foot driveways, a street wlde enough to have safe I parking on at least one slde, sidewalks in front of the houses and a I recreational area

4. CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF PENRYN GROWTH IS NOT ADDRESSED:

Placer County Plan'ning Departmentfailed to properly evalliate tlze cumulative impact of the projected Penryn Growfh. (Penryn populatioiz will grow 50% with currelztproject list, without Bickford Ranch).

1

1 Based on the 2000 census, the population of Penryn IS around 2,200 The current project list for Penryn includes 37 1 new units with an County expected 2 69 new residents per unlt (the planning figure used In the Plan) whlch wlll brlng nearly 1,000 new residents to the area, a 50% increase In Penryn's population over the course of just a few years The 2000 census of Penryn sates that there are 2,200 resldents

76

In Penryn The current project list for Penryn include's 371 new units r l t h an Count) expected 2 69 new residents per unlt whlch wlll brlng

I near 1,000 new residents to the area, doubling Penryn's population over the course of just a few years

I 2 Each of these developments has been v i e ~ e d in rsolatzon The effects

of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects are cumulatively considerable but not being treated that way as required by the CEQA (Title 14, 15604(h)(l)

3 Use of hlltigated Negative Declaration (findlng that all impacts less I than slgnlficant wlth mitlgatlon) is inappropriate in light of pop~rlntlon

growth and requirements to provide basic services to the people of Penryn. Negative Declaration has been too easlly applied to Penryn Townhomes and other proposed projects

I

4 Areas that wlll be DIRECTLY Impacted by the cumulate Penryn growth and require full and honest analysls to d u d e , but are not Ilinlted to Traffic, Sher~if , Fue, Air Quality and Schools These cumulative projects also act to remove futule commercial development oppoflunrties, critrcal to the service of the community

5 The affected publlc have overuhelm~ng expressed concerns of very adverse environmental effects from tlus project, yet they have no

I evldence the County has given tliose concerns serlous consideration (Tltle 14, 15064)

CONCLUSION: Penryn Townhomes has proposed too many dwellings for the size of the proper& (It is not 3.2 acres but rather 2.4 usable acres to build). Keductioi~ of the density by several Townhome units (to stay within the Plan directed maximum density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre of net buildable area) and redesigning this "flawed" project plan, could easily resolve many of the problems. Placer County Planning must adhere to the Community Plan, mulst reduce density, must require a safe environment with state required access for the handicapped I elderly and must evaluate the cumulative impact of the Penryn Townhomes and associated projects.

I

' Introduction; F. General Corninunity Goals; pg 4-5

APPEAL OF.PEP~XYN TOTINHOMES DEVELOPSIENT APPROVAL 1

We appeal to the E30ard10f Supervisors for reversal of thc Plaiuung Commission approval on the Penryn To~,nhornes development as currently designed Based on the testimony at the P l d ~ g Cornm~ssion hearing and the winin comments from the rcsldents to the Planning Commission, the develcpment is unacceptable for the following reasons

1. THE DEVELOI'MENT VIOLATES COBLqUMTY PLAN WQUIREPIIENTS 2. THE DEVELOYhLENT DESIGN IS TOO DENSE AND FUNCTIOS&LY FLAWED 3. THE DEVELOPMENT DESIGN COMPROMISES PL3LIC SAFETY kYD ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED 4. THE CUhIULATIVE IMPACT FROM THIS PROJECT AND OTHERS BEING PLANWED 1S NOT BEING ADDRESSED

APPEAL OF pH''

We appeal to the Board of Supervisors for reversal of the Planning omm mission approval on the P e w n To&omes development as currently designed. Based on the testimony at the P lming ~ornmission hearing and the wilten ro-ents from &r residents to the Planning Commission, the development is unacceptable for the following reasons:

1. THE DEVELOPMENT VIOLATES COMMUNITY PLAN REQUIREMENTS

I

2. THE DEVELOPMENT DESIGN IS TOO DENSE AND FUNCTION*I.LY FLAWED 3. THE DEVELOPMENT DESIGN COHYROHlSES PUBLIC SAFETY AND ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED 4. THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT FROM THIS PRO.IFCT AND OTHERS BEING PL*VNED IS NOT BEING ADDRESSED

APPEAL OF P- 'TRYN TOWNHOMES DEVELOYY ' ' Y 1 AVVKU v AL


1. THE DEVELOPMENT VIOLATES COMMUNITY PLAN REQUIREMENTS 2. THE DEVELOPMENT DESIGN IS TOO DENSE AND FUNCTIONALLY FLAWED 3. THE DEVELOPMENT DESIGN COMPROMISES PUBLIC SAFETY AND ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED 4. THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT FROM THIS PROJECT AND OTHERS BEING PLANNED IS NOT BEING ADDRESSED

ADDRESS

~ 4 % jzi~npe gh.

APPEAL OF PTyTRYN TOWHOMES DEVEL0Ph"'Y 1 AYYKUVAL


I

I

I


NAME I SIGNATURE ADDRESS 3- *0.5/4=3 \3GC C'ctqqf kl l ( Cu

/395 t-Lszh < l/J..i &-I. ' i - I j M 5 h n t '?~:DJI~ I

3 161.21.741 & P5bL.3

u" a s s 7 ?&kYd 7'. 7 ( p kJ

+~D~-L&JL? -34/'&4Rl -

--- . ,.. 2 720( In . )--.&+

--,̂

1 . I

-? , ,y ,,::/ ,: w O!$a ) 2617 iI.i,,!i,, R -. : i . i.' : .;? /$i ,.., !;!/ Lbb ' i3L ,J ,.-L.<" &:,., +,&A& ii /h i ('!! k p k L i c , - [,,,I $1 G i 5 , ., / f ~ ' g L . a

' i 1.' \ -

APPEAL OF P' 'lRYN TOWNHOMES B)KvbLurlv- I Hrrn" v fib


1. THE DEVELOPMENT VIOLATES COMMUNITY PLAN REQUIREMENTS 2. THE DEVELOPMENT DESIGN IS TOO DENSE AND FUNCTIONALLY FLAWED 3. THE DEVELOPMENT DESIGN COMPROMISES PUBLIC SAFETY AND ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED, 4. THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT FROM THIS PROJECT AND OTHERS BEING PLANNED IS NOT BEING ADDRESSED

NAME SIGNATURE ' - -.

7 j j y 8 i g & r ~ . r c ~ u 1 ;fi, p~h'K~!" q5'iJj

Dasi C~,WG \*- e4xLp>~c":~ A J e a =j- R &4 rp~+ ddjeC @Cw-C-Cm~ 73~0 &y;...iw &,&,

1765 FL\~ ii- 1{4l( & r f?.~? r9r.i c && 9 5-3; A 3

-.& ~d: L-. I

%oil; O L L ~ S O ~ J 2 0

,JRCL Y ~ G S cL1u qq 9 sz .hs - j ~ ? Q U ~ E oR , & f f l / ~ ~ Ds LAVIA J ? E / J ? ~ ~ ~4 44t-.t>'5

8~~ fikjf; 0 1 1 1 1 ~ .vP&+< /'"lie ugq d

APPEAL OF F ?RYN TOWNHOMES DEVELOP? TYAPPROVAL

We appeal to the Board of Supervisors for reversal of the Planning Commission approval on the Penryn Townhomes development as currently designed. Based on the testimony at the Planning Commission hearing and the written comments ftom the residents to the Planning Commission, the development is unacceptable .- for the following reasons:


NAME 6FNATURE ADDRESS

APPEAL OF T TRYN TOWPdHBmS DEVELOP! YT APPROVAL

We appeal to the Board of Supei-visors for reversal of the Planniilg Commission approval on the Peilryn Townhomes development as currently designed. Based on the testimony at the Planning Commission hearing and the written comments from the residents to the Planning Conmission, the development is unacceptable for the followii~g reasons:

I. THE DEVELOPMENT VIOLATES COMMmHTY PLAN WQUIImhZENTS 2. THE DEVELOPMENT DESIGN IS TO8 DENSE AND FUNCTIBNAH,LY FLAWED 3. THE DEWLOIPMENT DESIGN COMPROMISES PUBLIC SAFETY AND ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED 4. THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT FROb% THIS PWOmCT AND OTHERS BEING P l L M E D IS NOT BEING ADDWSSED

APPEAL OF 1 TRYN TOWNHOMES DEVELOPT YT AKPROVAL



NAME SIGPATYRE ADDRESS ./ / n

$$eq;e[ved ,gc,cmcc~ dat~ box z$ot - placer.ca.gov · placer county planning department ,gc,cmcc~...

Documents