Reader input: High-density housing would be detriment to North Auburn

Placer County has had a policy for years that any new residential development must build 10% of the housing units in the project as affordable. Unfortunately, over the years the county has made exceptions to this policy and let many of these projects just do a fee rather than build affordable housing. That fee equates to the ridiculous amount of $4 a square foot. Home-building costs are running well in excess of $350 a square foot today. The result is that Placer County is way behind on the state-required allotment of affordable housing. The state decided counties and cities need to get serious about their shortfall in addressing their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), so the state is mandating these municipal entities identify properties where high-density housing units (up to 30 units to the acre) could be built to meet their shortfall. This process must be complete by May 15, 2024, or the state will inflict severe penalties, which could include not allowing a municipality to issue building permits. That means if you wanted to even do something as simple as putting on a new roof or repairing a deck you would not be able to get a permit to do it. Placer County Planning Department is now scrambling to meet this deadline. They have started the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and identified 74 properties in the county with the potential to rezone for high-density housing. North Auburn has a little over 10% of the county's unincorporated population but has over 40% of the proposed high-density rezoning capacity. This is clearly a disproportionate burden that is being forced on North Auburn. The Planning Department has said the EIR will not address impacts to land use, planning, population, housing, public services, hazards and utilities, because they consider them less than significant. I would say this is rather outrageous given what is likely to happen in North Auburn if these high-density units are built. This process is on a very fast track. They were supposed to take these proposed properties to the various regional Municipal Advisory Councils (MACs) in January to get their input, but that has now been scrapped because they said there is not the time to do these meetings. MACs have a critical function in the planning process by providing a valuable prospective about the unique character of their community and how projects impact their area. It is a mistake to skip this step of allowing for the public to specifically weigh in on how these high-density units will impact their community. Normally, EIRs, due to their complexities, can take over a year to complete the process, but the county is trying to get the EIR related to the rezoning of these parcels completed within a matter of months. Rarely do I see something that is rushed have a good outcome. I would encourage you to express to the Board of Supervisors that as proposed the concentration of the high-density housing would have detrimental implications to North Auburn. Also tell them to not let the developers continue to push the "easy button" on getting around actually building affordable housing. Wayne Nader N. Auburn wayneforsupervisor.com Powers that need a hard look at Airport Master Plan Dear AJ, Thank you for the article about the Airport Master Plan update process. As someone who lives in the landing zone area, I attended a public meeting in October. Many local residents were present. All were objecting to expansion. Mead & Hunt planners stated they have a "community-driven" approach yet all the stakeholders mentioned in the article are pro growth. It is hoped that the powers that be take another look at environmental impact, quality of life/noise/air quality/traffic, and that impacts for North Auburn residents are carefully considered. Patty Pieropan Dong Auburn It was an opinion piece, not a news story Dear Editor, I felt amazement and disbelief upon reading Marianne Boll-See's headline article in the Journal ("Group eyes Auburn for private high school, Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2024, page A1). I was amazed this article was a "news article." It was an opinion piece, not an objective reporting of the news of Dave Pistone's aspiration to create a private high school. It was full of inflammatory statements, some quoted, some not referenced at all, concerning an undisclosed number of parents and staff (from Mt. St Mary's in Grass Valley?) who want a private high school. For example: What studies show that "restorative justice practices or trauma-informed practices that encourage the reinforcement for healthy behaviors and empathy building sessions to change behaviors" do not work? This piece needed to be where it belonged: on the editorial page as an opinion piece! George Hoffecker Meadow Vista