Penryn residents urge county reviewers to block high-density "Hopewy" project, cite late notice and plan mismatch

Residents of Penryn told the Placer County Charter Review Committee on Sept. 29 that a developer's completed application for the "Hopewy" project arrived late to public review and that the proposed density would overwhelm the town.

"They wanna put 240 units, which would be 1,344 people when we did the math," said Donna Delno, identifying herself as a Penryn resident, describing the county's three-week public review before a planning commission hearing scheduled Oct. 16.

Those public commenters asked the committee to press county land-use staff for clearer notice and stronger adherence to community plans. Penryn and other speakers said they had expected the county's general plan update to align with existing community plans and instead saw projects moving forward without full accounting for neighborhood guidelines.

The concern centers on process as much as on the specific project. Delno said the county posted a packet containing more than 1,000 pages only on Sept. 19, three weeks before the planning commission hearing; she and other residents said that compressed timetable made effective public participation difficult.

Cheryl Bergama and other commenters also said they had raised related concerns at the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors and were disappointed by limited follow-through. Bergama urged the committee to explore ways to require staff to document how public comments were implemented or otherwise responded to.

Why it matters: The county is updating its general plan and housing element as part of a statewide planning cycle. Residents who say they are receiving large, late filings and limited explanation of how county recommendations or planning-commission findings were incorporated told the committee that the result is a loss of public trust and pressure on local infrastructure.

What county staff said: Ben Mills of the county executive office summarized staff analysis of items pending direction. He confirmed that many land-use and zoning processes are driven by state law, including the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers assigned through SACOG (the Sacramento Area Council of Governments). He also said a county nexus study intended to update impact fees and affordable-housing ordinance language is underway with scheduled board-level briefings in November and again in 2026.

What residents asked the committee to do: Residents asked that the committee consider charter or policy mechanisms that would (1) require staff to post and attach submitted public comments to meeting records rather than only count the number of comments; (2) require earlier public notification when large project packets are submitted; and (3) require measurable performance metrics for housing programs to report whether promised outcomes were achieved.

Committee response and next steps: Committee members signaled interest in improved transparency but were cautious about inserting operational rules into the charter. Staff noted that some process mandates (such as rezoning procedure and RHNA compliance) are questions of state law. The committee asked staff to draft language for an informational item that would be presented to the Board of Supervisors describing the public's concerns and possible administrative steps (posting full comment packages, timeline improvements, and clearer performance reporting) for the board to consider.

What remains unresolved: The committee did not adopt a charter amendment or formal policy at the Sept. 29 meeting. Residents who spoke said they will continue to press planning staff and their supervisor for review of the Hopewy proposal at the October planning commission meeting.