Remote Surveillance Trailer in Penryn, CA

The Placer County Board of Supervisors gave final approval for a 240-apartment development on Monday that sparked fierce pushback by area residents and highlighted local frustration over California’s efforts to speed up homebuilding.

But supervisors later rejected providing a $10.8 million loan to the project’s developer, another sign that debate over the development is far from over.

The approval of the apartment complex, planned for Penryn, an unincorporated community off of Interstate 80 between Auburn and Rocklin, came after several lengthy public meetings.

In December, supervisors voted to tentatively approve the development in the face of potential lawsuits by both the state and outside organizations that closely watch how communities handle housing developments.

That came after the Planning Commission in October rejected the affordable housing project, called Hope Way Apartments.

At those, and Monday’s meeting, dozens of area residents pleaded with supervisors that the 12-building complex would lead to safety issues in the event of a fire evacuation, overburdened schools, a dramatic change to the character of the area and many other concerns.

Penryn has about 1,100 residents and the development could dramatically increase the number of people living in the area.

Brian Myers, chair of Placer Citizens for Neighborhood Rights, a local group in opposition to the development, on Monday accused county staff of relying on manipulated information in a study that made the traffic effects of the new development more favorable than it will actually be.

“We’re not saying deny the project today, we’re saying continue it, make them do their homework,” Myers said. “Do your due diligence.”

County Planning Director Chris Pahule said the traffic count numbers used in the study were “more conservative and refined” than they needed to be and that there was no new information that had not been evaluated by staff or supervisors.

The board’s vote Monday was 3-2, the same as it was in December. Bonnie Gore, one of the supervisors who was in favor of it, acknowledged the frustrations from residents but said that her arms were “being twisted by the state.”

The head of a California Department of Housing and Community Development enforcement unit had warned in a letter that the county could be in violation of state laws if it denied the project.

“Unfortunately we are in a situation where we now must implement making allowances for affordable housing because in the state of California there’s not been enough housing built at all,” Gore said. “And now the state has come down on local jurisdictions and we’ve seen that very clearly how they are forcing our hands.”

Myers said the neighborhood group is considering a lawsuit over the approval.

At the same time, he left the meeting pleased that the board denied a $10.8 million loan for USA Properties Fund, the Roseville-based developer behind the complex. The company anticipated the project to cost almost $118 million, according to county staff.

The rejection came after Supervisor Suzanne Jones, who supported the project’s approval earlier in the day, suggested that the developer decrease the number of units it planned to build and set aside part of the 11 acre site as open space as an “olive branch” to the community.

No action was taken on that idea after attorneys for both the county and developer raised concerns about putting such conditions on the funding.

The majority of the loan would have come from future fees generated by the Bickford Ranch housing development, which is close to Penryn. The community is planned to have almost 1,900 homes across a vast stretch of an unincorporated part of Placer County and feature parks and open space.

The county would not be on the hook for any of loan money that was not ultimately generated through the fees.

That wasn’t enough to convince Jones and two other supervisors who voted against the development. One of whom was board Chair Shanti Landon.

“I can’t in good conscience support the funding for a project that I don’t support in general,” she said.

After that decision, Milo Terzich, a vice president of development for USA Properties Fund, said company officials would get together to figure out what to do next.

“That’s life in this business,” he said. “If we measured success on getting yes all the time, we don’t belong here.”

The Placer County Board of Supervisors today granted final approval for the proposed Hope Way Apartments affordable housing project in Penryn.

In a separate action, the board voted against a proposed $10.8 million funding agreement that would have provided developer USA Properties Fund Inc. with a loan primarily using current and future affordable housing in-lieu fees from the nearby Bickford Ranch housing development.

That board voted against the loan 3-2, with Supervisors Shanti Landon, Anthony DeMattei and Suzanne Jones voting “no.”

The Hope Way project, proposed by USA Properties Fund Inc.,includes 240 affordable apartment units on approximately 11 acres of vacant land along Penryn Road near Interstate 80. The site is zoned for multifamily housing of up to 30 units per acre.

Today’s board action upheld the board’s tentative approval Dec. 16 for a design review agreement and State Density Bonus Law concessions and waivers, allowing the project to move forward in accordance with Placer County development standards.

The State Density Bonus Law requests provide flexibility from certain General Plan and community plan requirements under state law in exchange for the inclusion of affordable housing. The Hope Way application includes nine development concessions and waivers under the State Density Bonus Law.

State housing agencies have warned local jurisdictions that denial of “by right” affordable housing projects could result in heavy fines – potentially millions of dollars - and that the state could potentially strip away local land use authority where developers would be allowed to build outside the scope of established community plans and standards.

“The state has mandated the approval of affordable housing, and while the Board may not agree with every aspect of that mandate, our hands are tied,” District 5 Supervisor Cindy Gustafson said. “Fighting state law would put local taxpayers at risk of significant penalties. Our focus is on complying in a way that distributes affordable housing projects throughout the county.”

Similar to Dec. 16, the board approved the design review and state density bonus requests with a 3-2 vote.

The proposed funding agreement would have represented approximately 9% of the project’s $117 million total project costs.