City hears master-plan scenarios for Domes infill site, staff to pursue environmental review

AECOM consultant Matthew Gerken presented concept master plans Tuesday for the Domes infill site in Auburn, outlining development scenarios that would add about 230–320 housing units near the Nevada Street transit stop and recommending further environmental review to clear the way for future construction.

The concepts aim to accelerate infill housing by testing densities that could support transit and proposing design and access improvements, said Community Economic Development Director Jonathan Wright. The work is funded by a SACOG Green Means Go infill‑acceleration grant and a professional services agreement the council approved in April 2024 with AECOM, Wright said.

Gerken described three circulation and three building‑type variants for the red‑lined redevelopment area adjacent to the domes and county office buildings. “Right now, we’re finding that potentially all of these scenarios could be [feasible], but they’re really sensitive to construction costs,” Gerken said. The scenarios show a mix of three‑ and four‑story multifamily buildings, with optional townhomes along site edges; total dwelling‑unit ranges in the analysis are roughly 230 to 320 units and a working density of about 30 dwelling units per acre.

The options include a “central circulation” layout with a drive through the middle of the site and an “eastern circulation” layout that concentrates vehicle access at the site’s east edge. Council members raised emergency access and child‑safety concerns about a central driveway; others said that central circulation offers easier emergency response. Several council members said townhomes could help local families access homeownership, while flats (apartments) were modeled as rental product in the economic analysis.

Wright and Gerken emphasized that the city’s master plan would be contingent on Placer County’s decisions about how it uses the existing domes and county administrative space. “This project is going to be contingent on the county moving out,” Wright said. City staff said the plan can be phased: some scenarios (labeled “c” in the packet) keep the domes and county facilities in place as part of a longer‑term buildout.

Councilmembers asked how long environmental review would remain usable if a project starts years later. Gerken said CEQA documentation can last many years, but later projects must be compared to the original analysis and any regulatory changes; he estimated it could be valid “12, 15 years down the line” depending on whether the eventual project deviates from the plan.

Public commenters urged preservation of mature trees and open space and thanked the council for considering options that retain the domes. Lucy Clark, who said she participated in the Placer 2050 general‑plan process, asked that the plan preserve greenway and tree canopy where possible.

City staff described next steps: finalize the master plan and then prepare environmental documentation so future development applications could move more quickly to financing and construction. Wright and Gerken said the city would continue collaborating with Placer County, identify low‑cost pedestrian and bicycle connections to Old Town and downtown, and make the plan “shovel‑ready” for a private developer if the county decides to relocate.

No formal council vote was taken on the conceptual plans; the council provided input and direction to staff to continue work on the master plan and environmental review.

The presentation and packet include detailed maps, parking and circulation analysis, and draft unit mixes; staff said the Green Means Go grant paid for the study and that the city would not be using general‑fund dollars for the planning work.