Loomis Planning Commission opens CEQA scoping for 353‑unit Hidden Grove project amid resident concerns about traffic, schools and tree loss

The Loomis Planning Commission opened a public scoping meeting for the proposed Hidden Grove residential project — described by the applicant and consultant as roughly a 353‑unit development — and invited written and oral comments to shape the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Planning Director Christy said the meeting’s purpose was to gather input on the EIR’s scope and reiterated that “this is not a night where any decisions will be made on the project.” Consultant Rod Stinson of Rainey Planning and Management reviewed the schedule and technical chapters the EIR will include, explaining that the project is proposed under the Housing Crisis Act (SB 330), which constrains local review steps and focuses environmental review on health and safety impacts.

Stinson summarized the proposal as a multi‑unit community that, as presented in the initial study, would include about 204 single‑family lots, a multifamily parcel (roughly 40–49 units) with approximately 85 affordable units, a small town‑center commercial lot (up to nine residences), 12.8 acres of open space and parks (about 10.5 acres of riparian/wetland area and roughly 2.3 acres of active parkland), roadway reservations (Library Drive and a Boyington Road reservation), stormwater basins and removal of vegetation. He said the applicant has requested development incentives under California Government Code section 65915.

Residents’ testimony focused heavily on transportation, school capacity, trees and wetlands. Multiple speakers asked that the EIR analyze vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and pedestrian and bicycle access, and urged coordination with state and regional agencies. ‘‘There’s a traffic tsunami coming,’’ one commissioner told the consultant, urging a comprehensive review of emergency egress given the site’s proximity to Interstate 80 and a rail line. Rod Stinson confirmed the traffic chapter will use VMT metrics and include bicycle and pedestrian safety considerations.

Public commenters said the project as shown places a large share of new trips on Library Drive and Horseshoe Bar Road, creating chokepoints at school‑hour peaks. Peter F. Stahtiu, assistant superintendent for the Placer Union High School District, said Del Oro High School could absorb a modest number of students in the short term but that the district will submit formal capacity and student‑generation information to the EIR.

Several residents questioned tree‑removal and habitat mitigation. One commenter asked the town to verify whether U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction affects a proposed bridge across wetlands and urged on‑site or nearby oak‑habitat mitigation rather than purchasing mitigation land many miles away. The consultant said biology, wetlands and tribal cultural resources chapters (including AB 52 consultation) will be prepared.

Utility and infrastructure capacity also drew repeated questions. Speakers urged the EIR to verify available sewer/water capacity with the Placer County Water Agency and to evaluate whether existing and planned pump and treatment facilities can serve the proposal. The consultant and staff encouraged written comments submitted by the NOP deadline to ensure those technical issues are fully evaluated and documented.

Procedurally, the commission adopted the meeting agenda and the consent agenda by roll call prior to the item, and one commissioner announced a recusal from this and future hearings on the project because of the proximity of his residence. Planning staff reminded the public that the notice of preparation comment period closes Friday at 5 p.m. and that written comments are encouraged.

What happens next: the consultant will compile comments from the NOP and prepare a draft EIR, which will be released for public and agency review (a 45‑day review period), followed by at least one public meeting on the draft and preparation of a final EIR that responds to comments. The Planning Commission and Town Council will hold subsequent hearings before any approvals occur.

Key factual details (as stated at the meeting): the consultant described the project as roughly 353 units; an initial study and NOP were issued (NOP comment period noted as Dec. 22–Jan. 26); the project requests incentives under California Government Code section 65915; the EIR will include chapters on air quality (including greenhouse gases), biology/wetlands, tribal cultural resources (AB 52), hydrology/water quality, noise, public services (including schools, police and fire), utilities, and traffic using VMT metrics.

The record for the EIR will include tonight’s verbal comments and any written submissions filed by the deadline. The commission closed the scoping item and continued its regular business before adjourning.