Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Studebaker Electric proposes headquarters relocation to 21.6‑acre North Auburn parcel; neighbors raise access and trail concerns
Summary
Placer County planners described an application for Studebaker Electric to relocate its headquarters to a subdivided 21.6‑acre North Auburn parcel with a roughly 5.5‑acre light‑industrial lot; company representatives say they serve a wide region and employ about 25 office staff. Neighbors asked about road paving, county maintenance and a 10‑foot trail for pedestrian safety.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jared Peters, an associate planner with the Placer County Planning Department, told the North Auburn Municipal Advisory Council that the Studebaker Electric project (PLN25‑00328) would subdivide a 21.6‑acre parcel into four lots ranging from about 4.78 to 6.35 acres. The proposal would place a new light‑industrial headquarters on roughly a 5.5‑acre parcel in the southern portion of the site, create three new residential lots and adjust General Plan and zoning boundaries to accommodate the subdivision.
A company representative identified in the transcript as Mr. Studebaker said the firm provides large commercial electrical services "from the Oregon border to Bakersfield to the Bay Area," employs approximately 25 office staff and plans to store expensive equipment that cannot be kept on active construction sites. He said the company owns the other three parcels and intends to keep them in rural agriculture.
Neighbors raised access and pedestrian‑safety questions. A resident who said they live in Princeton Estates asked whether the county would pave the road to the site and whether the county would maintain it; the resident also flagged a sidewalk concern on New Airport Road and suggested a 10‑foot trail be considered for safer walking. Board members expressed overall support for the proposal during the informational review.
The item was presented as an informational review; no approval or formal vote occurred at this meeting. The project will proceed through the county’s public hearing process and notify nearby residents before hearings.
