Placer County tentatively approves 240-unit Hope Way apartments after heated Penryn hearing; final action set for Jan. 26
Loading...
Summary
After hours of testimony from residents, fire and transportation experts and counsel, the Placer County Board of Supervisors tentatively approved entitlements for the 240-unit Hope Way affordable housing project in Penryn and continued final action to Jan. 26, 2026, while staff responds to an HCD warning letter.
Placer County supervisors on Tuesday took tentative action to approve entitlements for the Hope Way Apartments, a proposed 240-unit, 100% affordable housing development in Penryn, and continued final consideration to a special meeting on Jan. 26, 2026.
The decision came after an all-day appeal hearing that included staff presentations, legal arguments from both opponents and the project applicant, technical testimony on traffic and fire response, and more than 200 public comments. Planning staff told the board the site is an 11.43‑acre parcel already rezoned for multifamily use and that the project seeks nine concessions and waivers under California’s density bonus law to allow the proposed design.
Why it mattered: the project sits immediately adjacent to Interstate 80 and proposes a single‑lane roundabout at Hope Way and Penryn Road as its primary egress. Opponents, including a community group called Placer Citizens for Neighborhood Rights, argued the geometry and expected vehicle queuing would create an unmitigable public‑safety risk in wildfire or other mass‑evacuation scenarios and cited concerns about ladder‑truck access, queue spillback toward the I‑80 ramps and impacts to local schools. Appellants asked the board to deny the waivers and send the project back for additional environmental review.
What the board heard: county staff and consultants defended the environmental conformity review and transportation analysis prepared for the project and flagged a Dec. 11 letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development that warned the county that denying the project without required written findings could jeopardize the county’s housing‑element compliance and invite fines or enforcement. The project sponsor, USA Properties Fund, and its lawyers argued the site is a housing‑element rezoned site entitled to by‑right approval and presented experts who said the roundabout and other improvements would meet design standards and emergency access requirements. "We're here to talk about, much needed workforce housing for Placer County," said Milo Terzic of USA Properties.
Expert testimony and local officials: Penryn Fire and the Placer County Sheriff’s Office testified that while first‑responder engines could reach the site quickly, ladder‑truck resources are mutual‑aid and can take longer (county testimony put ladder response at 10–15 minutes from mutual‑aid locations in some scenarios). Transportation consultants disagreed about queue lengths and modeling assumptions; Farron Pierce, the project's traffic consultant, said field observations and micro‑simulation supported the proposed roundabout design, while independent consultants argued some movements would exceed storage capacity and could spill into live lanes.
Public comment: speakers were sharply divided. Dozens of local residents, school officials and fire‑service representatives urged denial or supplemental review, describing Penryn as a small community that would see a large—and they said fast—population increase. Supporters, including Housing Trust Placer and faith and business groups, urged approval to meet urgent workforce housing needs and warned of legal and financial consequences if the county rejects a housing‑element site.
Board action: after extended deliberations the board voted to tentatively approve the requested development‑standard concessions and waivers and the design‑review agreement for the project (roll calls reflected a 3–2 pattern: Supervisors Gustafson, Jones and Gore voting to approve; Supervisors Landon and DeMattei opposed). The board also took tentative action on the appeals and directed staff to return with final findings and actions at a special meeting set for Jan. 26, 2026 at 9 a.m. in Auburn. Staff will also notify HCD and respond to its Dec. 11 corrective‑action letter.
What remains unresolved: the board’s action is tentative. Opponents may press legal challenges and HCD has signaled that denial of an approved housing‑element site can trigger corrective measures including fines and the state’s builder’s remedy. County counsel and staff repeatedly advised the board that any denial would carry financial and legal risk to the county.
Next steps: the board will consider final findings and any refined conditions on Jan. 26, 2026. Until then, the project remains on hold and the county will prepare the written response to HCD’s letter.
