City Council - Regular Meeting

Start with a roll call.

Good evening. Council Member Janda.

Present.

Vice Mayor Holden.

Here.

Council Member Galdo.

Here.

Council Member Broadway.

Here.

Mayor Bass.

Here.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you, everybody, for. BEING HERE. WE ARE NOW CURRENTLY AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 11TH, 2026. WE ARE GOING TO START WITH A CLOSED SESSION. BEFORE WE GO INTO CLOSED SESSION, I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE CLOSED SESSION ITEM. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS?

NEW SPEAKERS? NEW SPEAKERS?

ANYTHING ONLINE?

NEW SPEAKERS?

ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC HERE FOR A CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT? All right, seeing none, close public comment, and we will now be entering into closed session for CS1 pursuant to government code section 54956.9 sub D sub 1, conference with legal counsel, existing litigation, Julie Casis v. City of Rockland, Placer County Superior Court, case number M-CV-0097248. Thank you, everyone. So we are back from closed session. There is nothing to report on closed session. We will now go to general session and call this to order. We will start with the Pledge of Allegiance, if everyone will join. Next item, agenda review. Do I have anybody seeking agenda review? Negative. We are now discussing agenda review. I did not see that anyone had asked for a review of the agenda. Next will be citizens addressing the city council. This is an opportunity for the public to comment on matters not listed on the agenda. Public comment on items listed on the agenda will be taken when the agenda item is called. Do we have any speaker cards?

Mayor Bass, we do have two comment cards for general public comment. The first is Mr. Greg Roberson.

All right.

Mayor Bass, distinguished city council members. I'm Greg Roberson, the current board chair of the Rockland Area Chamber of Commerce. And I am excited to be here this evening because after a several months long search, we have finally have our new CEO. And she is here tonight to introduce herself. Her name is Kathy McCorry. And she's joining us from Grover Beach. And she brings decades worth of experience. I'm getting the red light already. There.

I didn't even touch the thing.

You want me to sit down and then Kathy?

I didn't even touch it.

No, absolutely. No, it's, again, my pleasure and my exciting opportunity to ask Kathy to come up here and introduce herself to the city council. So, Kathy?

Welcome, Kathy.

Thank you. Good evening, council, mayor. and guests. Kathy McCorry, 25 years in chamber world, started in the Sierras at the Oakhurst Area Chamber. Moved to the Mariposa County Chamber. I had children that moved up to the Pacific Northwest, so I followed them up to Washington for seven years and ran the Issaquah Area Chamber of Commerce. Missed California, so I came back down to South County Chambers in Grover Beach. Thought I was ready to retire. Went on to city council, so today is day one of being a recovering city council person. and decided to get back into the Chamber world. Rockland was a perfect choice for me because I now have kids that are living in Nevada City. And so I am a grandparent that gets to be close to my grandchildren, and yet far enough away, no children are going to move back in with me. So I am so happy to be here. I'm excited to be the CEO for Rockland Chamber, to work with all of you. And thank you for all the hard work that you do. Again, I've been in your seats. I understand the challenges that you face. And anybody that comes up and does what you do deserves honor and respect. And you have that from me. So thank you very much.

Thank you. All right. Next comment card.

Next comment is from Rithika Ponce.

Good evening, esteemed mayor, vice mayor, and council members. Namaste. My name is Ritika Fonse. I am 11 years old and starting sixth grade at Rockland Elementary. I am here on behalf of Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, Sacramento chapter, to share a brief update on a meaningful community event we recently hosted at three different locations. In the month of May, families came together for Guru Vandana, a traditional Hindu celebration dedicated to honoring teachers. This year, we welcomed over 263 attendees, including 33 local educators and their families. At Rockland, we were privileged to also have the presence of our Vice Mayor Bill Holden and the Rockland Academy School Superintendent Robin Stout. It was an afternoon that beautifully blended cultural heritage with deep appreciation for the educators who shape children's futures. The programs began with a warm welcome and a traditional lamp lighting ceremony, symbolizing knowledge and enlightenment. The event with devotional music, classical instrumental pieces, and the synchronized Surya Namaskar demonstration were not just cultural showcases. They reflected the discipline, gratitude, and respect that our tradition places on the teacher-student relationship. One of the most touching moments was the Guru Vandana ceremony, where students performed arati for teachers and personally expressed their gratitude. Teachers were also presented with certificates of congressional recognition from Congressman Kevin Kiley's office, acknowledging their service to our community. We were especially honored to have parents recite verses from the holy Bhagavad Gita, one of Hinduism's most revered and foundational scriptures, highlighting the timeless value of educators in our culture. The formal program concluded with reflections on how these values, respect, humility, and lifelong learning are passed from one generation to the next. After the ceremony, the celebration continued with garba, a joyful folk dance, along with a darshana exhibition on Hindu civilization, a festive photo booth, henna artistry, and traditional refreshments. Many teachers shared that this was their first time experiencing Hindu culture so closely, and they expressed their heartfelt appreciation for the warm welcome and the opportunity to learn. Events like Guru Vandana strengthen the bonds between families, educators, and civic leaders. They help build bridges of understanding across cultures and reinforce the shared values that make our region such a vibrant and inclusive place to live. On behalf of the HSS Sacramento, I want to thank the City Council for your continued support of our community building efforts. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Any other cards since then?

No additional cards.

I will open it up if there is any comments. will not be on anything we're discussing today. Any further public comments? All right. Seeing none, I'll close. Now reports from City Council. I'll start with to my left, Council Member Broadway.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a couple quick things. On Saturday, August 1st, I had the opportunity to join members of the Rockland Police Department with their annual Shop with a Cop event where they supported local youth in purchasing supplies for the upcoming school year. It's a great way that our Police Officers Association, along with the Rockland Rotary Club, support students who might otherwise struggle to have the materials they need to start the year off in a positive way. So it was great to participate in that opportunity And I appreciate both the Rockland police officers and the Rockland Rotary for the support of the youth in our community. Also, that week on Tuesday, August 4th, I had the opportunity to participate in National Night Out, along with our other council members and our staff. members of the police and fire department or volunteers it was a great night in getting out into our community and Actually spending time with some of our neighborhood watch groups in Celebrating the night how we all work together to make Rockland a safe place to live and to raise a family and then finally today before our council meeting I had the opportunity to join staff and And Vice Mayor Halden, along with Council Member Gallardo, had a ribbon cutting for the newest play equipment here in our city at Knight Ridge Park. If you have a chance, swing by Knight Ridge Park to take a look at that new equipment. It looks fantastic. And there were a lot of excited kids who couldn't wait, so we cut that ribbon, and they were immediately running all over the place and taking full advantage of that new equipment. And I want to thank our Park and Recreation staff for that. A GREAT JOB KEEPING OUR PARKS LOOKING GREAT AND ENSURING WE HAVE THE BEST EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR OUR YOUTH TO ENJOY THOSE PARKS. THANK YOU AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

There we go. Now it's back. Thank you. Thank you. You covered a bunch of it, so just a couple things. On the 20th of July was the Mosquito Vector Control District meeting, and I think everybody that signed up is getting the notices. We are having issues with invasive mosquitoes and species. They are doing a great deal of treatment options, and so there are emails going out just to remind people to be very cautious because we do have had West Nile virus now here in the county that they are Addressing so hopefully everybody's taking precautions to make that keep them safe and then also on this August 6 was the Transportation Committee for sake of for the Sacramento Area Council of Governments Couple couple things as you know, we're working on Rena numbers and those will be coming back our new numbers in January I do have some tentatively hopefully positive news Last year, for our Cycle 6 for the Sac-Kaikouk region, we had 151,000 units that we were told we had to zone and build for. Cycle 7, because Placer County, Sacramento have been doing a pretty darn good job, and you did get an email today showing some of the numbers from the state. It looks like our assigned for the region will actually be down a bit, so 138,000 is what we're estimating. I don't have the numbers for, of course, our jurisdictions yet, But I'm pleased to see that the state's finally recognizing that we are doing more than our fair share and working on that piece. So I'll let you know when we hear about the individual jurisdictions. I expect about November. I should have those numbers. And then also on some good news, on the competitive federal funding for projects for road repairs and improvements, Rockland didn't have any specific projects in, but Placer County had five projects in And it still has to come back to the full board, which we'll be meeting in a couple weeks. But tentatively, the approved projects, I'm pleased to say that we were able to get four of the five Placer County projects listed as prioritized to receive funding for the Fed and funding. So that's a first for Placer County in a long time to have that significant number. So I'm excited, and I'll bring those to you when they are officially approved.

Vice Mayor Holden. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a few things. It seems a little long ago, but I wanted to commend the mayor on his State of the City delivered at the end of June at Sierra College with a great big audience there and hearing about all the exciting things happening around town. Also want to thank Destiny Church for putting on two days of fireworks that were really extraordinary. And I know, you know, it's not all Positive with fireworks around town based on what I see but I think overall the community had a great time and the crowds were kind of bigger than ever And always a little challenge to manage that And because I know everybody here is an interest in affordable housing since we were last year in May just Make sure everybody's aware that we've had two ground break breakings for affordable housing one for 116 units on Pacific Street and one for 180 units across from Sierra College. And based on my eyewitness view, the USA Property folks are working on their 300-unit complex on University Avenue that the formal groundbreaking hasn't happened. But lots going on in terms of affordable housing at this point. So thank you.

Councilmember John thank you. I Did attend a pioneer board meeting in July and one topic was specifically brought to the board by a recommendation of our assistance city manager and It had to do with a potential Company looking at leasing a building an empty space in Rockland and they were considering A site in Rockland and a site in Roseville, and due to the significant cost of energy being in PGE territory versus Roseville, they're asking if there's anything the pioneer would consider having some type of economic development rate. So there's an extensive discussion around that, and ultimately the board unanimously decided not to do a economic development rate. So I abstain from the vote, but was certainly part of the discussion trying to – Communicate with folks that the value to all of our communities throughout the pioneer territory Which in the next year is going to expand all the way up to Chico in Paradise So it's going to cover quite a large area that can certainly benefit from economic Activity and some incentives, but it was their decision to not go down that route That's all I have to report Thank you As for me, yes, it's been a while since we've been here and

I've done quite a few things, but not anything that needs to be discussed under AB 1234 reports. And otherwise, we've all done things together, and I appreciate everyone else bringing to light those events in the city. So I believe now we'll just move on. Yes. Oh. Hi. See, I was doing really well up until...

Thank you. I will make my comments brief. I just wanted to let the community know that on Thursday, August 20th, all Placer County Library locations are going to be closed for staff training and development. That does include the location here in Rockland, but it's countywide. They're having staff training. They will be back open for business normal hours on Friday, August 21st. And I wanted to invite all of our residents and anyone interested in what's going on in the city of Rockland to visit our brand new, refreshed, redone, and accessibly compliant website, which is now at rocklin.ca.gov. That was actually one of the state mandates that we change our web address to a .gov. So we are now rocklin.ca.gov. The website looks really great. We will be continually working on adding information and refining what is there over the next couple of weeks as we finalize the migration from the old site. But I just wanted to EXPRESS APPRECIATION TO HALEY REID AND EVERY MEMBER OF OUR TEAM WHO WORKED TO PUT THAT TOGETHER BECAUSE IT WAS AN EXTREMELY HEAVY LIFT OF A PROJECT BUT IS GOING TO HELP US BE MORE TRANSPARENT, MORE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC, AND ALSO TO MEET ALL THE STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED OF US IN THIS COMPLETE SUMMIT REPORT.

THANK YOU. AND I APOLOGIZE. MOVING ON TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR. All of these items listed under the consent calendar are considered and acted upon by one motion. Anyone may request an item be removed for separate consideration. I would first ask, is any item to be pulled? Nothing? Okay. We will be asking for public comment on any item in person or on Zoom. Nothing? public comment once, twice. All right. We will now, I will now be looking for a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I'll move approval of consent calendar items C1 through C15. I'll second. All right.

Having a first and a second, all in favor, aye.

Aye.

Nose. Abstentions. The ayes have it unanimously. All right. We are now moving on to the next and only item on This agenda, which is a public hearing, this hearing under PH1 is for the Sierra Wilds Apartments, which was continued from the May 12, 2026 hearing, including environmental, ENV 2025-0008, and design review, DRA. 2025-0005. We are going to have a presentation from Principal Planner Nathan Anderson, but before that, just a few items I just want to make sure we're covering. The first being that we do have a packed house, and we have a very important topic that we're going to be covering, and we're probably going to be here a while. So similar to last time, what I told everybody was that one of the most important things is to have a maintenance of decorum. That first and foremost means that our goal is respect for each speaker, both for their dignity as well as for what they have to say. We will be hearing opinions we don't like. Some will have opinions we don't like. Others will say things we do. What I'm asking from everybody is I'm not telling you how to react in terms of shaking heads and things like that, but we do ask that there is no booing, cheering, clapping. And the reason for that is not because of trying to silence anyone. It's because there are people that will speak to a topic that they may feel intimidated by the other side, so to speak. And so we want to make sure that every speaker is getting that respect. There's also another reason, which is we are able to receive information as a council when we are hearing the speaker and we are getting that message clearly and anytime we have Disruptions usually by someone that doesn't appreciate it That's a distraction and I don't think anybody wants that we want to get through this hearing and I think we can Just by reference last time we did this it was a very respectful group and I expect the same here I can tell we already have it so Thank you for that little diatribe. And there is one more piece, and there is going to be an opportunity for some people to find some restraint. Because I did want to address one letter that we did receive. Now, normally when we receive correspondence, we do not read them out loud. We do not discuss them. GIVEN THE NATURE OF THIS LETTER THAT WE RECEIVED YESTERDAY, I DO FEEL IT'S IMPORTANT AND I WILL BE THE ONE HANDLING DISCUSSING THE LETTER BEFORE NATHAN STARTS. YESTERDAY AT APPROXIMATELY 4 PM WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. IT IS A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE LETTER. regarding the most recent decision for us to have stopped the hearing to push it off until today. That decision was made in part by myself as well as the council in order to get clarification. I am going to read parts of the letter because I am assuming most people have not seen it or heard it. The LETTER PROVIDES FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REGARDING THE PROPOSED SIERRA WILDS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN RELATIONSHIP TO USE BY RIGHT PROCESSING UNDER THE HOUSING ELEMENT LAW FOR SITES REZONED TO ACCOMMODATE LOWER INCOME UNITS. THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, HCD, UNDERSTANDS THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE CONSIDERING THE PROJECT AT A HEARING ON AUGUST 11, 2026. HCD URGES THE CITY TO APPROVE THE PROJECT IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN THIS LETTER. The letter goes into a background discussing how it was once zoned business, professional, commercial. Based on that zoning, the project triggered a discretionary entitlement process. On August 26, 2025, the city conducted a first reading of an ordinance to rezone the project site and other sites as part of a required rezoning action identified in Program 10. Successful completion of the rezone was necessary after HCD previously found that the city had not implemented its required REZONE CAUSING HCD TO REVOKE ITS FINDING OF COMPLIANCE. ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2025, FOLLOWING THE CITY'S AUGUST REZONE ACTION, HCD NOTIFIED THE CITY THAT IT HAD SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE REQUIRED REZONE. ONCE THE REZONE TOOK EFFECT, THE PROJECT SITE WAS ZONED MIXED USE 24 DWELLINGS PER ACRE MINIMUM. AS REFLECTED IN PROGRAM 10 OF THE CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT, THE REZONE ACTION ALSO TRIGGERED THE USE BY RIGHT PROVISION IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT LAW FURTHER DISCUSSED BELOW. We're going to have a discussion as to this analysis, so I will get to the more important part. It goes on to say, considering that the project application was submitted before the project site was rezoned pursuant to the city's housing element implementation, the relevant question is, can the city continue applying its discretionary review because the rezoning occurred after, with an underline, the application was submitted? The answer is no. The statute specifies that a program to implement a required rezone i.e. a rezone to address a shortfall in accommodation of the lower-income RENA, applies on sites that shall be zoned to permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right for developments in which at least 20% of the units are affordable to lower-income households during the planning period. In other words, for purposes of processing a proposed housing development on a site that has rezoned to accommodate a jurisdiction's lower-income RENA, The quote, use by right, unquote, provision functions as a de facto zoning requirement throughout the planning period if the development meets the requisite affordability and does not create a separate ministerial process that a developer must invoke. Once a housing element rezone is in effect and found compliant by HCD, in this case on September 26, 2026, the use by right provision applies. HCD understands that the city identified the project site and its housing element to be rezoned specifically in light of the submitted application and prior technical assistance from HCD regarding the project I'm almost done In light of the City's rezone for the project site, the project's compliance with the affordability criteria and its consistency with the applicable minimum density, as noted in the Planning Commission and City Council staff reports for the project prepared to date as of September 26, 2025, the City was required to review the project in a manner consistent with the use by right definition above. As noted in the definition, this includes that the development is not a project for purposes of CEQA. THE CITY MUST THEREFORE ADHERE TO THE USE BY RIGHT REQUIREMENT IN ITS DECISION MAKING FOR THE PROJECT IN CONCLUSION. ALTHOUGH THE PROJECT WAS INITIALLY SUBJECT TO DISCRETIONARY REVIEW BASED ON THE ZONING IN PLACE AT THE TIME, ONCE THE CITY SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED ITS REZONE THAT INCLUDED THE PROJECT SITE, THE CITY WAS REQUIRED TO APPLY A USE BY RIGHT STANDARD OF REVIEW AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. The city must therefore modify its approach to be consistent with the state law. HCD remains committed to supporting the city and facilitating housing at all income levels. In addition, HCD has enforcement authority over housing element law, among other state housing laws. Accordingly, HCD may review local government actions to determine consistency with these laws. Pursuant to Government Code 65585, Subdivision J, if HCD finds that a jurisdiction's actions do not comply with state law, HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General. I'll save the last paragraph. I figured it was important before we started this that people understand that the day before this hearing we received that from HCD. Nathan, it's you.

Thank you, Mayor Bass. Good evening. I'm Nathan Anderson with the Rockland Planning Division, and I'll be continuing the presentation for the Sierra Wilds Apartments project. The council first considered this project on May 12th, as pointed out by the mayor. Since council received a detailed presentation at that meeting, I'll provide a brief project overview and focus primarily on what has occurred since then. Begin with a brief recap. Sierra Wilds is a proposed 120 unit affordable multifamily development at 1800 Wild Cap Boulevard. It's adjacent to St. Augustine. Everybody good? No problem, okay. It's adjacent to St. Augustine Episcopal Church and Maria Montessori Charter Academy. The project includes four three-story residential buildings, which are shown in red, a community building, shown in blue, 180 parking spaces, and several on-site amenities. Of the 120 units, 118 would be income-restricted, affordable units with two manager units. Architecturally, the project is designed in a contemporary farmhouse style. It includes simple building forms, varied roof lines, and a mix of siding materials. The architecture is consistent with the city's objective design standards. The site is designated mixed use in the general plan and is subject to the mixed use 24 plus residential minimum density overlay. It's also included in the city's state mandated regional housing needs allocation or RENA inventory. But it's important to note that before the project site was added to the Reno list, the underlying zoning district already allowed for a broad range of uses, including multifamily residential development. The Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD, confirmed in April of 2025 that the city must accommodate multifamily residential development on this property consistent with the Housing Accountability Act. The City Council began the public hearing for this item on May 12th. Council received presentations from staff, the applicant, and the applicant's technical consultants, and then asked questions of staff and the applicant team. Because of the length of the discussion and the fact that the public comment had not yet begun, the Council continued the hearing to August 11th to allow adequate time for public comment, additional Council questions, and deliberation. The continuation itself was not a direction to modify the project and bring it back for a new review. The Council simply needed additional time to complete the hearing. In practical terms, the period since May 12th has essentially been a lengthy recess. Tonight, the council is picking up the same hearing where it left off. During its discussion, council did request additional explanation and information regarding several items. These included traffic during drop-off and pickup times of the school, pedestrian connectivity between the church and the school, construction-related air quality and noise impacts, wildfire evacuation, emergency vehicle access, fencing and buffering, and the school garden. Following the hearing, staff compiled these questions into a comprehensive list, transmitted them to the applicant. The applicant subsequently provided a July 10th letter responding to each of the items. That response provides additional explanation regarding the technical studies, construction management practices, emergency access, and pedestrian circulation. Those responses have been included as attachment one in the staff report packet. In the interest of time, staff will not go through each of the applicant's responses as part of this presentation. The council has questions regarding any specific response. Staff would recommend directing those questions to the applicant. But there are a few that warrant some additional discussion. And the first one is regarding emergency access. The applicant has confirmed that project circulation was developed in coordination with the fire department and notes that the project creates an additional emergency access route through the development to Wildcat Boulevard. While this EVA currently exists, as shown in yellow on the aerial photo, it is through an unimproved field, and evacuation by typical vehicles would be extremely difficult in the undeveloped condition. The project as proposed complies with all applicable fire department requirements. If there are questions about the fire department review for the project, the fire department is here tonight to assist. There was also some confusion in May regarding the fencing and gates within the emergency vehicle access area or the hammerhead turnaround. The applicant confirmed at that meeting that the location of the fence shown on the plan in the dark black line was actually a drafting error and did not reflect the applicant's intent for the location of the fence or the gate. To correct this, staff has added a condition of approval requiring all fencing and gates associated with the EVA when fully open to remain entirely outside of the required emergency vehicle access corridor. This ensures that the full width of the EVA remains unobstructed for emergency responders. Apologies for this late addition, but in response to direction from the City Council, staff received a revised fencing and wall exhibit from the applicant today. The exhibit is consistent with the previous direction provided and the previous fence plans, although there are some new things on here which the applicant was directed to do. So consistent with the previous exhibit, the revised plan still includes the six foot tall solid wood fences with additional two foot of lattice along the northern and western portions of the project perimeter. Those are shown in green. But the new version also incorporates CMU block walls, which are shown in red, along the project parking areas at the top of the grade to provide additional separation and safety between the elevated parking area and the school playground below. So this was something that was brought up at the previous hearing. It was very important to some members of the community, and this is the response. To ensure these features are incorporated into the project, staff recommends adding the condition of approval shown on the screen. The condition would require the fencing and wall exhibit to be incorporated into the design review packet and require all fencing and walls to be constructed substantially consistent with the exhibit and with applicable city standards. Moving on to CEQA, as discussed in May, First Carbon Solutions has presented a CEQA guidelines section 15183 consistency checklist for the project, which has been included in the project packet. This checklist and supporting documents evaluate the project's consistency with the city's certified general plan environmental impact report, and subsequent addenda, and whether any project-specific impacts exist under CEQA. The analysis concludes the project is consistent with the general plan and is within the scope of the prior FEIR and addenda. Therefore, no additional CEQA review is required under Section 15183. Since the May 12th meeting, the applicant has submitted two additional pieces of correspondence dated May 20th and June 23rd. These are included as attachments two and three in the project packet. The May 20th letter requested an expedited project timeline citing the permit streamlining act. The June 23rd letter requested a change to the project CEQA approach, asserting that the project should be treated as ministerial and therefore not require approval of the previously prepared section 15183 analysis. Given the timing of the CEQA letter and where we are in the hearing process, staff has decided to continue with the approach that has been used throughout the project review, the planning commission, recommended approval based on the Section 15183 analysis, and the project was noted and presented to the Council using that same approach. Staff does not believe the applicant's newly raised position warrants changing course at this stage. For that reason, the Council packet continues to include the Section 15183 analysis, the associated environmental findings, and the notice of exemption. Late yesterday afternoon, as pointed out by Mayor Bass, staff received another letter from HCD, The letter conveys HCD's position that, based on the requirements of the regional housing needs allocation, this affordable housing development is an allowed use by right on the project site. That letter, which again was received yesterday, is included in the post-agenda correspondence packet. The project before the council this evening remains the same 120-unit affordable housing project considered on May 12th. The Planning Commission and staff find the project is consistent with the mixed-use general plan designation, the RMDO MU24 plus overlay, and the city's housing element. Because of the affordability of the project, the Housing Accountability Act significantly limits the circumstances under which the city may deny the project or impose conditions that would make it infeasible. For those reasons, the Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the project subject to the conditions included in the council packet and with the added fences and walls conditions and exhibits previously discussed. This concludes staff's presentation. Several staff members are here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll now open it back up for questions of staff by council members. First, I would also state, just to remember, If there's any disclosure of ex parte communications by council members, just a reminder, I already placed mine on the record last time, but I have not spoken with anybody other than a number of the parents, and that was several months ago before the hearing, our first hearing. I'll open it up. Is there anyone that has questions?

I have had additional conversations with members of the community concerned about this. I've had some email correspondence with the applicant as well.

Yeah, as I mentioned before, I have met with the school and community members, had those conversations with the church. I have not met with the applicant. Yeah, I think that's all I have.

Mr. Mayor, thank you. I've had no additional communications with any of the parties following our last council meeting. I do have a couple questions. It's primarily pertaining to the letters that we've received of late. One is we received today a letter from Pioneer Law Group on behalf of Maria Montessori Academy. And I have a question, and I believe our fire chief is here. One of the items in that letter, basically, I'm looking for clarification regarding a statement in there on page four that regarded fire access. Basically, it stated that, in fact, we understand the developer's proposal for the hammerhead will not, in fact, accommodate Rockland's fire trucks alone, and that the fire chief has actually come out to the site, inspected it, and observed that fact. This, again, gives the council ample reason to deny the application or invite the developer to amend it to comply with the DSA's requirements. I know that's an item I brought up previously, and given the reference to the chief having visited the site and a reference to that not accommodating our fire equipment is, given that you visited the site, chief, will the hammerhead accommodate our fire apparatus?

Thank you, Councilmember Broadway. I did visit the site on May 13th, just a little bit after 5 p.m. My sole purpose was to look at the hammerhead to determine whether or not it was wide enough and could accommodate fire apparatus. Based on my observations on that date, the current hammerhead meets the California Fire Code. It's a minimum of 20 feet in width and would currently accommodate fire. Our fire apparatus based on what I heard from Nate earlier sound like there was some misdrawings and that this project would not affect the current hammerhead So yes, it would accommodate our fire apparatus. Great. Thank you chief.

I appreciate that I'm trying to envision THE FIRE TRUCK GOING THROUGH AN APARTMENT COMPLEX WHERE HUNDREDS OF VEHICLES WILL BE PARKED, THERE WILL BE VEHICLES MOVING IN AN EMERGENCY, IT COULD BE A FIRST CLASS MESS. HOW DO WE EVALUATE WHETHER THIS IS ACTUALLY A GOOD ACCESS POINT FOR OUR EQUIPMENT?

That's a good question. I actually brought my fire marshal, Chief Brayton, here, who is very informed about this project, and he can answer that question.

Mayor and council members, Deputy Chief Brayton, I serve as your fire marshal. So in regards to when a development comes in and we look at turning radius, we require the applicant to provide us with our turning radii requirements, which is a 36-foot inside tire radius. and a 50-foot outside tire turn. And so the applicant provided for this project specifically for the EVA and was able to demonstrate in a CAD drawing or other architectural drawings that we are able to make that turn. I know there's a lot of concerns about fire apparatus turning through this, and the biggest concern seems to be the tiller truck. Understandably, it's the longest apparatus we have, but because we have a tiller truck, it actually allows us to make very tight turning radii to accommodate that requirement?

So I think the focus of my concern is less about getting the truck around and hundreds of vehicles being there at the same time. I mean, if there's an emergency going on, I've got to believe people are going to be leaving the area in their cars, and they only have one way to leave, and that's the way that you would get in. And so I just I mean, it seems abnormal to me that our access point could be this chaotic.

And that's part of the reason why there's two access points. There's the primary off of Wildcat and then the EVA access that serves the adjoining school. That's part of the requirement instead of just having one. Anytime we have 200 or more dwelling residents on a piece of parcel or a piece of property, there has to be two just to accommodate that. Now, the EVA is not intended for the occupants of the project or the residents to egress from it. It's emergency vehicle access. That being said...

I get that on the EVA, but the path to get there...

I understand there's no fire code matrix or anything we can base that on to say, well, there's so many people in a project area, there's so many parking stalls. roads need to be X amount wider. It doesn't exist. The minimum fire code requirement is 20 feet. And then these buildings, because of their height and their location, actually are required to have 26 foot wide lanes in designated areas to accommodate the ladder truck. So you'll see that while a fire service road is only required to have 20 feet, those areas around the buildings, it actually widens to 26 feet. But there is no matrix that says, well, everybody's going to be driving out in their cars. It's not factored in in the fire code when we do our analysis. And I would hope if there's an emergency, even though everybody likes their cars, the goal is to get out of the building into a safe spot, which might be the parking area. The goal of emergency egress is not to, when I talk about like a structure fire, is to get them off the property or them to be able to service their cars and leave. It's to get them out of the building. And that's the way the fire code is designed.

Back to you, Council Member Broadway. Thanks for allowing the interruption. Absolutely.

Thank you. Chief Brayton, that's all that I had on the fire side.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. So we also received the letter. Mr. Mayor, thank you for taking the time to share the letter from HCD with us. And I think, Nate, I don't think these really are for you. I think they're more for the city attorney. But either one of you can weigh in depending on who wants to address the questions. But it's likely Matt's going to be better positioned. So in reading through this letter, I'm regularly challenged by our state and its infinite wisdom giving non-elected. functions, the ability to tell municipalities how they should and shouldn't function. But that aside, this letter, some of the challenges I have is this reference to a project being ministerial. So what exactly, based on that letter, made this project ministerial? The specific provision that is referenced by HCD that says basically the September 2025 rezoning having taken effect that this essentially became ministerial, is what I gather from that letter. But what specific provision? When you look at Government Code 65583.2H-I, where does it establish that result, and is there any specific ordinance or zoning provision in our city that basically implements that?

COUNCIL MEMBER BROADWAY, MATTHEW MCCOMBER, CITY ATTORNEY. LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION CLEARLY. YOU'RE ASKING WITH RESPECT TO HCD'S LETTER WHICH REFERENCES A STATUTE ABOUT A USE BY RIGHT STATUS AND YOU'RE ASKING WHERE IN THAT STATUTE DOES IT REFER TO SOMETHING BEING MINISTERIAL?

YES.

MY REVIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS As I understand them as cited in that letter, the word ministerial actually does not appear in that part of the statute. And I don't want to necessarily go too far and speculate on precisely what the assertion of ministerial may mean from HD's perspective, because I don't have necessarily that information. But hopefully that helps answer your question. The use by right statute that's cited there, again, does not use the term ministerial.

Okay.

Itself.

Okay. So, again, that's kind of my point is I read through this and I see these references and this use by right and ministerial and yet they refer to government code, but yet there doesn't appear to be a reference to that in the government code. So...

There certainly are provisions in other areas of the law that refer to ministerial functions and various capacities The provision that we're talking about here in my view has several layers to it and To the extent it defines the term use by right it it hooks into laws that are outside if that's in the Housing Accountability Act it hooks into laws that are in the California Environmental Quality Act or refers to those and

And you may note also that it that statute also refers to Design review just part of what's on the agenda tonight Okay So Matt does the rezoning Automatically eliminate the previously existing discretionary rights is that What has been determined based on this letter from HCD and

Well, let me make sure I'm careful about my answer, because are you asking, to the extent the letter from HCD discusses that issue, I would say this, that I'd say the letter conveys HCD's position on that issue. And I may not necessarily agree with the legal position that is taken there. and in the manner in which it's presented. Because in my view, the way the agenda is squared up today is appropriate for the city council's consideration at least. And there's for the same reasons that I believe has been presented that the applicant had presented and requested the city council to look at what it was presented previously. So we've got that here before you tonight.

Okay. So can you help me understand exactly what use by right eliminates?

Are you asking – I want to be careful that I understand. Are you asking my understanding of the statute or – To rely on my city attorneys.

Yes.

Let me – if I may, let me pull up my –

Councilmember Broadway, I'm just interjecting, Mr. Mayor, if I could for a minute. When I received this yesterday, last night, to be more precise, I kind of felt like where I felt like we will not be able to really consider this letter tonight because it arrived at the 11th hour. And our city attorney hasn't had a chance to speak to us about this. And so I'm inclined, frankly, to set aside this letter for another time to talk about it or consider it. Because it just seems unrealistic that they would put out this letter. HOURS BEFORE OUR DELIBERATIONS AND EXPECT US TO FOLLOW IT TO THE LETTER JUST UNQUESTIONABLY, LIKE JUST TO FOLLOW IT ALONG. SO I WONDER, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TOO MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT THE LETTER, BUT I JUST FEEL LIKE THEY'VE PUT US IN A WEIRD, YOU KNOW, SPOT. THEY'VE TOLD US WHAT THEY THINK WE SHOULD DO, AND WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A CHANCE TO HAVE A CONSULTATION WITH OUR CITY STAFF ABOUT WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT THE LETTER.

I THINK, MR. VICE MAYOR, THAT'S THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM IS I'M BEING ASKED TO MAKE A DECISION REGARDING THIS PROJECT, AND I HAVE A LETTER THAT IS ESSENTIALLY, TO ME, IT'S A THREATENING LETTER, AND TELLING ME THAT I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING AND ESSENTIALLY TELLING ME I HAVE TO APPROVE THIS, AND YET I DON'T HAVE THE TIME, YOU'RE CORRECT, TO ASSESS THIS AND TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ON, OKAY, THIS IS USED BY RIGHT. MY UNDERSTANDING, EVEN IF IT'S MINISTERIAL, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE APPLICANT GETS TO DO ANYTHING THEY REQUEST. SO HOW DO I MAKE A DETERMINATION ON WHETHER OR NOT I CAN SUPPORT THIS MOVING FORWARD IF MY ONLY DECISION THEN WOULD BE BASED ON RECEIVING THIS INFORMATION? I CAN'T MAKE A DECISION.

And I'm drawn back to HCD's April 13th correspondence to us about this project, and they didn't mention any of these things in that correspondence. And nothing's changed. If the rezone from September of 2025 was so impactful, why wasn't that mentioned? IN THEIR APRIL 13TH LETTER TO US ABOUT THIS VERY PROJECT. AGAIN, I'M TROUBLED BY A STATE AGENCY THAT LOOKS AT THE CALENDAR, SENDS A LETTER THE NIGHT BEFORE CITY COUNCIL IS SUPPOSED TO DELIBERATE ON SOMETHING AND JUST SAYS, HERE'S OUR VIEW, YOU BETTER FOLLOW IT OR WE'RE REFERRING YOU TO THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

CONCUR WITH YOU. BUT I DO BELIEVE IT ALSO PUTS OUR CITY ATTORNEY IN A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFICULT POSITION BECAUSE THERE ARE LAWS, THERE ARE ORDINANCES, THERE'S SPECIFIC AREAS THAT HE MAY NEED TO RESEARCH MORE TO GIVE US A DEFENSIVE ANSWER. SO WITH THAT, I GUESS I'LL ASK ONE LAST QUESTION, MR. VICE MAYOR.

I THOUGHT A LITTLE DISCUSSION WAS GOOD.

I THINK IT'S SOMETHING I HAVE TO CONSIDER. WHAT IS MY APPROACH TO THIS GIVEN THE RECEIPT OF SUCH INFORMATION? SO, MATA, IF I MAY, ARE THERE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT THE APPLICANT MUST SATISFY GIVEN THIS LETTER?

Well, the short answer is yes, there are objective standards they need to meet. And that pertains in particular to the design review that is part of tonight's agenda.

Okay. So it doesn't just set those aside.

There are still... No, it does not set... The letter... And, you know, I... I ALSO RECEIVED THIS LAST NIGHT, BUT I HAVE READ IT. MY READING OF IT, I DON'T RECALL, AND IF I MISSED IT, IT DOESN'T REFER TO THAT PARTICULAR DETAIL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW. I CAN READ INTO THE RECORD, IF YOU LIKE, THE STATUTE'S DEFINITION OF USE BY RIGHT, WHICH ALSO DISCUSSES DESIGN REVIEW. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HELPFUL OR NOT FOR THE COUNCIL, BUT I HAVE THAT HERE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE.

No, I don't think that's necessary. And again, I very much appreciate the Vice Mayor and his comments. So I will table, because I have a series of questions associated with this that created concerns for me. But I think in hearing his thoughts, it certainly causes me pause in relationship to really even asking the questions because it puts you somewhat on the spot. But I did want to reference the fact that in this letter, It specifically references September 26, 2026. So unless this is back to the future, I don't know how that is applicable. So just wanted to point that out. But with that, I'll table the rest of my questions for now. Thank you.

You are always welcome to put me in the spot if you have any questions, of course.

Can I just follow up one question on this topic? Matthew, so under normal circumstances, you receive a letter like this. I think we got it at almost 7 o'clock last night, so outside of business hours. Under normal circumstances, what would be a reasonable amount of time for a city attorney to absorb this, do the research, confer with other experts, and form sort of a formula – opinion that's substantiated and that the council can rely on.

That's a great question. I would imagine different attorneys might have different answers for that, but let me tell you how I approach these things generally. I really highly value gathering input across from staff, management, and also myself. I will evaluate myself, but also gather input from my legal team. I know the city council can appreciate that in my role as city attorney, I am asked to cover very wide, wide-ranging areas of law. Right now, we're talking about some very specific statutes, but On any given day, I'm called on to do many, many things. So this is a long way of saying that I think one of the skills that I need to employ that I hopefully do well is to bring on good people to my team to help me evaluate the enormous variety of issues that come to my desk for legal services. And in this particular realm, ideally, I don't control this, but ideally, Given the nature and tenor of the letter, I would, of course, if I had my druthers, love to be able to do a more comprehensive evaluation. I want to be fair and say I know the statute referenced in this use by right discussion is something that came up through a letter that was sent a few weeks back also. So I don't want it to sound like 100% that this was the only time I've seen this, but it was certainly the first time I've seen this letter from HCD or the specifics ways that they're couching the issues, or I don't take lightly that there's a reference to their willingness to refer the matter to the Attorney General. That, of course, as City Attorney, catches my attention. And all those things would merit certainly careful consideration. I don't have a specific answer on time frame, by the way, but I think I said preference would be to be able to have more time than just a night.

It would seem to me, not being an attorney, that it would be an unreasonable expectation to have a well-thought-out response or feedback to a counsel than eight hours, eight business hours. Would that be fair? I'm not going to disagree with that. Okay.

Thank you.

So I think that I want to ask just a couple questions, a little Socratic, but the first being, can you just explain to everyone, I know we're just talking about the HCD letter here, but explain the perhaps precedential value or the value to courts when it comes to HCD's letters as opposed to letters from the public.

In general... When I've looked at how courts treat this type of input from the governing body, in this case, HCD, there's typically a significant amount of deference. They'll rely heavily on the position that HCD takes is typically what I've seen happen to the point where they'd look to find out. precisely what position HCD takes, and that would be a serious factor in how a judge would evaluate the issues.

Right. Is that answering your question? It does, and to the extent that you can explain that an administrative agency's opinions on a matter seem to carry weight with judges. I know Chevron deference in the federal courts is somewhat gone, but we still have it here in California, and it's an administrative agency. This is their area of expertise. So when we get something that says we're going to send you to the attorney general, It's a little different, and I also bring this up because we have received a tremendous amount of legal opinions from both sides at the 11th, 12th, and 13th hour. The reason I want to discuss this one is because otherwise we'd be caught in a doom loop of just getting things at the last minute. We have to make decisions, executive decisions, on how much of that information we can consider. The difference being that when Elk Grove pays $150,000 to the California Department of Justice in attorney's fees, that feels different. Saying you're going to go to the attorney general if we don't do what you say feels different, especially the night before the hearing. So with that, does anyone have any other questions? Yes.

Thank you. Thank you. You know, it's interesting. It is the first time that I can recall that the focus of the discussion seems to be less about the merits of a project and more about the limits, legal limits, of what we can as a council and what we can't do. I'm beyond frustrated with that focus. And so I'm going to try and get back to some basics. Normally, when we have a project come to us, we have oftentimes a developer will come And they'll work with staff and say, hey, here's a project that we want to do. Here's some of our ideas. And there is some guidance provided to say how you could make it a better project. This developer chose not to do that and chose to go directly to the state to get permission for this to be fully housing as opposed to the commercial piece that we were intending to have there. So there's some frustration to start out with. When we had the beginning of this hearing, it was very clear that we said, we've got some problems with this project, and the failure to interact with us has been a disservice to the city and to yourselves, quite frankly. We asked then for you to do some work, and I see now today I get that the new drawing said, in particular, one of the things was that block wall at the parking lot so that people aren't pulling up to a wood fence that is right next to a playground. Very happy to see that's there. That came in today, is that correct? Have you had any conversation with this applicant in the week since we started this hearing when we asked them specifically to work with this?

There has been some correspondence with the applicant. This fencing plan... A version of it came in about two days ago. Staff provided some comments. The wall on what's called the northern piece that you're seeing there was on there, but the one on the southern portion wasn't. So it kept going kind of back and forth, but today the final version came in that is in front of you.

Thank you. probably not as many questions as it is. I definitely will have some comments, but it does me no good to get a new map the day of a hearing. It does me no good, quite frankly, to get this letter from the school's attorney two minutes before our hearing. It does me no good to get a letter from HCD at 7, I think I saw it about close to midnight last night before the hearing. I can't And I see people put a lot of work into some of these letters. I did ask last time when we got the binder, please give it to us sometime so we can give it the time and deference it's due. I want to read what you say. But I got this just now. These are people's emails. I can't read them when I'm up here and doing what you're doing. So I have to ask people again, give us some time so we can read them through and do a good job with what you're sending in, I think. It really does a disservice to the work you did if I can't read it.

Questions? I do feel like we need to move on to the portion that we did not get to last time. So here's, first of all, is there anything else before I move on?

Before public comment if there was anything else you wanted to hear from the applicant that may be good to have in the record So that public comment can be made on the full Record okay, so we'll get to that the first thing I want to know is how many cards do we have I?

Want to manage this we also have people standing and

We have a total of 29 names submitted for public comment.

Okay. And that doesn't mean that you can't have a public comment. I just want to figure out when we're going to break for the ability for everyone to use the bathroom at some point. So what we'll do is we will have the applicant be able to speak. Then we will see where we're at. Uh, no, I think given, um, the back and forth and everything that we're not going to be imposing a time limit, I think we can agree to have a reasonable amount of time for the applicant to be able to speak. Uh, and then we'll decide whether we're going to break and come back for public comment. So at this point we'll have the applicant.

Is this on? OK. Good evening, everyone. Good to see you. I'll just do a quick introduction. Since Councilmember John was in at the last meeting, I'm Lauren Alexander. I'm the project manager representing Pacific West Communities. Pacific West Communities is part of a larger group of companies called the Pacific Companies. We've been developing affordable housing for over 35 years of about 22,500 units across the Western US. I don't want to take too much time. I know we have a lot of people who have been waiting to speak since May. I brought with me, just so that you know who's here, who you can ask questions of, our architect, our civil engineer, and our land use and CEQA attorney is also here. Just to address a few things from the last meeting to this meeting, there were several questions that were sort of left unresolved, unanswered at the last meeting. that Nathan compiled into an email and sent to me, and then I responded to those in writing. Before that, I had sent individual invitations to meet with council members. We didn't have any of those meetings. We did meet with the church and MMCA, with all councils present. That was not a particularly productive conversation, but we did have a meeting in attempt to do that. And then I also had a meeting directly with the Urban Ethics Coalition. So just disclosing that, that was a very positive conversation. I think it was helpful to understand the parents kind of, view just kind of concentrated on those issues. The fencing exhibit that you have before you, I just want to make clear that part of what I learned in the last hearing is that there wasn't a clear exhibit that showed what type of wall or fence was in what place. So it's not that we necessarily changed everything in that. The small CMU wall at the southern plan south part that we added, that was mentioned at the last meeting as something that might be good for safety so that if somebody were to accidentally accelerate when they're parking that they don't go down the hill into the playground. That was brought up again in my meeting with the Urban Ethics Coalition. So we put it in there. We are happy to discuss taking it out if there's more opinions on that, but we thought that made sense, and we kept the fences there for screening as we had discussed at the last meeting, and then worked to make it a little bit more clear where the fence line ended and began, particularly where the EVA is. That is not a fence. It's a gate that opens for emergency vehicles. So this was really meant to be more of a clarifying exhibit for conversation than an announcement of changes. We're available for questions if you have any. I can stay here if you have some right now, or I can sit.

Thank you, Lauren. I do have questions on the fencing. I don't know if you want to dig into that right now, maybe hear from public and then I think we'd go questions to the applicant okay so I appreciate all the work that's done on the fencing it seems a little just a little bit haphazard where we've got tubular we've got wood we've got block and and I appreciate the screening I think that's important to me and to the neighbors would You know, I don't know in this day and age if wood's any less expensive than CMU. They're still manually put together. Wood tends to require a lot more maintenance. You know, it can rot. Things can happen. Block is pretty permanent. So would there be some consideration to do more of just a block, six-foot block fence wall along the perimeter with the school versus a block and a wood and kind of just...

Kind of get some some input on that So we have gone back and forth extensively about this with staff and in there's varying opinions about who likes to look at what so We landed on the wooden fence in part that conversation started at the community meeting that we had particularly along that northern edge that's in front of that open space because the single-family homes that are on the other side had wanted at least In my hearing of a group speaking, it seemed overwhelmingly people preferred a wood fence that was eight feet tall to screen it. So that was where we landed. And then as far as the mix of things, the tubular steel fences is a pretty standard product that we use on our developments throughout the state. It's also what would have been required typically by city's code to do along that open space area. And that's what was originally in the design that we swapped out for privacy. That section to the south in particular, if you can kind of imagine, it's like an uphill slope to the parking area. So we were both trying to screen the parking, which is what was discussed at the last meeting, by having that wood fence up at the top by the cars. And then keeping the tubular fence there allows you to see through to that wider open space, because if a kid, for some reason, got back there or something, a teacher would need to see, like, okay, we know we don't have anybody, somebody hiding behind the fence. Again, I'm open to putting that back to wood, but that was what I gathered from our last meeting. So that's where that landed. And as far as the CMU wall, that really, that's there for protection. I think people were concerned that, yeah, if a car were to accidentally accelerate. Okay.

Yeah, no, I appreciate the addition of that and kind of the back story on how you evolved to this. So that works. Thank you. Yeah, great. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I kind of have an oddball one, so I'm sorry I'm throwing this one at you, but I understand apartments and, you know, we have this discussion of affordability issues, I think the answer is probably going to be money. But is there a reason that we don't go back to having starter homes that are like a two-bedroom, one-bath or the small stuff that addresses affordability but also homeownership? But can you just help us out there?

Well, I'm not an expert on that. We focus on multifamily. That's what we develop. There are certainly organizations that are working on doing that type of product. They have a really hard time. I mean, they're colleagues. I talk to them occasionally. They have a really hard time making a pencil in this state. Just land is very expensive. Construction is very expensive. I live in a community that's a little bit like Rockland in that it's largely subdivisions that have been built over time. And I keep watching that it's just getting, the buildings are getting closer and closer and closer together without touching, but it's like a five foot, you know, we're single family detached, but that's all just a reflection of how much it costs.

Okay.

Yeah.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah. Having no further questions for the applicant. Thank you for your time. All right. I am going to move forward with, to start with public comment. We will go until, unless staff, are you good? We're good. Okay. I'll check back in in about 15, 20, 30 minutes or so.

We did receive a few more comment cards.

All right, let's start.

I'll call the names three at a time, so that way members of the public can be ready for their turn. The first three speakers are Kathleen Patterson, followed by Tiffany P., and Cheryl Keller.

And I understand we have a... We're going to have this... Green, yellow, red. I think everyone knows what it means. Around 30 seconds left, you'll get the yellow. I'm going to do my best to enforce the three-minute, just obviously the sheer amount of people that we have. But we do appreciate your comments.

Good evening. Thank you for listening to all of us. My name's Kathleen Patterson. I've lived in this community for over 30 years. We moved here for the schools. Our three boys graduated from Rockland High School. I taught at Rockland High School for over 20 years. My personal and professional life has been dedicated to health safety and education of children. There are way too many problems with this design. Granted, we need more low-income housing, but this is very poorly designed. It's going to seriously impact these children. I'm simply asking that you take your time and make sure that this is made safe before it is approved. Thank you.

Tiffany P.

Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and council members. I'm a Rockland resident and the parent of a child who attends Maria Montessori Charter Academy right next to this project. This developer has lawyers. This developer has deadlines. The children next door have us. I support affordable housing, but this project still has serious safety questions. In May, the developers' attorneys argued that if the city did not act within their claim deadline, this project could be deemed approved. Weeks later, their own attorney wrote that this project had not been deemed approved and that the city still retains approval authority. They are still asking you to exercise that authority tonight. When a project is this close to hundreds of children, safety should not take a backseat to developers' deadlines. The plans show a walking path to the school, but no signed agreement protects it. A line on a map is not a safe passage for a five-year-old. This project may also mean Sorry. This project may also mean more cameras, fencing, supervision, and staff time for the school. If this project creates added security needs for the school, who pays for it? The council also asked about stronger boundary protection and a right turn lane. Those concerns are still not fully resolved. A response is not a fix, and noted is not an answer. Please do not approve this project. There are still too many unanswered questions about school access, security, traffic, and the burden this project could place on the public school next door. Affordable housing and safe access to public school should not be pitted against each other. We should be able to build housing without asking children to give up safe access to their school. These children are already here. Thank you.

Cheryl Keller followed by Kate Livengood and Scott Simpson.

Good evening, Mayor, council members, city manager, residents, and guests. My name is Cheryl Keller and tonight I am speaking simply as a resident, neighbor, homeowner, mother, grandmother, and someone who has loved and served this community for many years. Like many of you, I choose Rockland because of its vision as a thoughtfully planned community, one that is balanced with growth, our neighborhood schools, parks, and open space. That vision is what has made Rockland such a special place to call home. I just got Invisalign, can you tell? I want to be clear. I am not opposed to housing. I totally understand the tremendous pressure cities face under state housing mandates, and I appreciate the difficult position you're in. In many ways, you're being asked to balance legal requirements with your responsibility to preserve the character and quality of life that generations of residents have invested in. My concern and has always been that this is the wrong project in the wrong location. Tonight one of the actions before you is approval of CEQA exemption and I respectfully ask you to consider whether this unique property truly warrants concluding that no additional environmental review is necessary. It's not simply an undeveloped parcel. It has become a natural greenbelt with mature vegetation and seasonal drainage, wildlife, beautiful white egrets many of us have enjoyed watching over the years. It serves as the transition between an elementary school, a church, a public park, and an established neighborhood. I appreciate that the developer has responded to concerns by adding a masonry wall along the school boundary, but to me that change illustrates the larger issue. Instead of children looking toward open space and landscaping, they will now face a wall bordering high density apartment parking lot. While intended as mitigation, it also demonstrates just how difficult it is to make a project of this scale fit this particular location. Rockland has earned its reputation. through thoughtful, intentional planning. And my hope is that we continue that legacy by asking not only whether this project meets the minimum legal requirements, but whether it reflects the kind of planning that will serve this community well for the next 30 or 40 years. Some decisions define a community for generations. Tonight, I respectfully ask you to think beyond what is legally permissible and consider what is truly right for this location, the children who attend the school, and for the families who live here today. Thank you. Thank you.

Kate Livengood, followed by Scott Simpson.

Could I get the site plan back up, please? Thank you so much.

Yeah, we're only going to provide anything that we have on our screen.

It was already up, the site plan right next to the, okay.

We've had requests to put other stuff up.

Is this your slide or is this staff's slide? Okay, thank you.

Hello, my name is Kate. I am not only a mom of two students, but I've also been an EMT on a 911 ambulance for over 10 years now. I appreciate the changes that have been made for the sake of safety. I've been noticing it progress. I'm not convinced still that this is safe. For one thing, I also appreciate the Rockland Fire Department for doing their absolute best to make sure that this site plan goes up safely. But I can't help but notice that these changes that have been made don't really affect the issues regarding the safety of the schools. So for one thing, the egress that has been talked about, just to be clear, the gate that is going to be right by the school where our fire access road is, just question to be clear, it is going to be a closed gate that is locked by an ox box. Is that correct?

We will take your questions down and then we'll be able to answer them.

So with that being said, that makes it an ingress and egress for a fire apparatus only. So that does not make another way out for any potential needed evacuation from the school. We wouldn't be able to get through that gate. And honestly, just knowing how we operate, I would personally drive into one of those three accesses Whichever one I could figure close to the apartment or building that I was going to, I would only use that to get out. And while it's great, like they mentioned, using the tiller, needing to get that out. It's really just a way out. Again, during an emergency, that's not going to be open because emergencies don't happen when they are, you know. when we would hope that they would best be served to do so. So let's say we have an evacuation for whatever reason need it be. Our school still only has that one egress. And then you have the rest of the apartments that can choose to either go out on our road or in the other two directions. The problem with that is during school hours, the school has a fantastic emergency procedure plan, and I have actually seen it in action, being that I volunteer there often. Very, very well done. However, like I said, emergencies don't always happen when they are most convenient to do so. So during school hours, the school's got great emergency plans. What happens during an event? We have fantastic events all year long. We've got the Harvest Festival, Back to School Night. That creates a huge influx of vehicles and a huge influx of people there. So you've got the 300-plus students and staff. Any other time you're going to pick up, drop off, you're going to have a massive amount of cars. And in addition to that, parents, grandparents. And I have a question about the water lines, if I may.

If you have questions about water lines, we'll be able to identify where those are. And I'll follow up with.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If you could leave that drawing up, that would be great. In the interest of time, thank you to you all. So our home is actually on the point just across from the proposed swimming pool. As we talked about in the last meeting, Nathan Anderson, they had switched very nicely to the wood fence. That's great because he specifically said, you know, you don't want to be looking living room to living room with people. Unfortunately, it's a three-story building, so there are like eight. Living rooms, maybe 12 that will be looking into our living room still because there are no trees around the swimming pool. So privacy is pretty much out the window for us. We're required to have the metal slatted fence like had been talked about. We were expecting elevators are expensive, single-story properties as had been mentioned before, things like a dental office, parking lot, whatever. So to have three stories looking into our backyard totally changes the design now that we've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars putting in a swimming pool and improvements to the backyard. Some of the other issues that we do have with it is our neighborhood has a 23% walk score. You are setting up the apartment for failure. The developer says it works great in their other locations. If you look up their other properties, like the walk score for the bricks in Stockton, 75% NAPA. Apartments 63% Natomas 73% walk scores that means you can go out and do things in the neighborhood When it's 110 degrees in Rockland, you don't walk to even Taco Bell for a slushy It's pretty hot outside. Even the kids with the e-bikes in the middle of the day are not going anywhere. You need cars We're missing like 89 parking spaces for reference the church. I believe only has 60 parking spaces Where is everybody going to be parking? Since this is probably going forward anyway, my only request is to remove the event center that you don't have space for. Remove the playground. It's a beautiful park next door. We go there all the time with the kids. Please put in double deep parking. You could probably pick up about 50 parking spaces. That'll take a lot of the relief and a lot of the setting of the new apartment residents up for failure. Where does Amazon park? I don't see anywhere where the constant flow in our society of delivery trucks from FedEx, UPS, Amazon, those trucks are here every day. There's 120 units there. Where are the delivery vehicles parking to run things up to the door? Like, it's not set up for that. The, what do they call them? Sorry, the... The lane. I can't think of the fancy term for the lane. When you're driving down Wildcat, it's a fast street. You get passed by people. If you're doing 45, you're going slow. People regularly do 70 on the street. We sit there in our backyard and watch them. You need that eased lane to turn out. We pull into our neighborhood, and I slow down going to 25. It looks like Redmond has the little turnout. It doesn't. The curb comes back out. I put my turn signal on hundreds of feet ahead of time just to let cars know, hey, I'm turning. When you're pulling into an apartment complex with a 10 mile an hour speed limit coming off of a 45 mile an hour street, kind of a safety concern. So for the kids and the residents in the apartment, please don't set them up for failure. Get some parking there. Thank you.

Mayor Bass, the next nine public comments will reference a PowerPoint submitted to us on Friday, August 7th. So we will bring that up from Maria Montessori.

Okay.

So per the procedural rules, they can each take three minutes if they would like to present the PowerPoint in succession. There's no delegation of time or ceding of time under our procedural rules.

We have the PowerPoint?

Yes, they did provide it within the time frame required.

That's fine.

Next three speakers are Adrian Garcia, Brett Hillison, and Paul Brigartz.

Good evening, Mayor Bass, city council members, city staff. Thanks for having me and all of us here today. My name is Adrian Garcia.

Okay.

I am the assistant director at MMCA. Thank you very much. Before I get started with telling you about our school, I would like to note that the electronic binder that you were sent previously, which I do believe that was back in May, was updated as of Friday afternoon. So if there are any additional questions that you have, you can find the answers there. MMCA has 330 students enrolled with an extensive wait list and over 40 staff members. We are a Montessori-based pre-K through eighth grade program. We are Title I, meaning a significant number of our students come from families who would qualify for the Sierra Wilds. We are back-to-back and current California Distinguished School awardees. And we are the only school in the entire state that can say all three of those. MMCA is, I'm gonna skip a couple there. We focus on experiential learning. One of the reasons we have this fabulous garden that you see right there. We are a hands-on environment. Our students are outside learning and doing every single day. We also have extended learning opportunity programs and extended school year programs, which means that we are open from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. every day. And we are open all the weeks of the school year. School year plus summer with our extended programs. SCHOOL YEAR PROGRAM. THE SCHOOL SITE IS ULTIMATELY STATE PROPERTY AND CAN ONLY BE USED EXCLUSIVE FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL PURPOSES. IT IS BUILT TO DSA FIELD ACT AND STATE FIRE CODE STANDARDS AS WELL AS THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TITLE 5 STANDARDS. MMCA SCHOOL SITE IS CURRENTLY FOLLOWING 100% OF ALL THE SCHOOL FACILITY LAWS REGULATIONS. WE ARE OBLIGATED TO MAINTAIN A LEGALLY COMPLIANT MMCA school site is designed to suburban-based DSA and CDE health and safety standards. Placing an urbanized environment next to the suburban school will absolutely cause peculiar impacts to our site. Think about what an elementary school, urban elementary school that is, looks like. That is absolutely not what MMCA is. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. As you know, I am the parent of children with specific needs that attend MMCA. They would not receive the support they needed in a traditional school setting. MMCA is essential to their education, stability, and well-being. their health and safety should not be jeopardized to protect anyone else's profits or construction schedule. I want to talk about the geotechnical record that contains conflicts that require independent reconciliation. A submitted technical review of earlier Kleinfelder investigation reports expansive soils, existing fill approaching six feet, settlement concerns, and perch groundwater. By comparison, the Alerian report characterizes the expansion potential as low based on visual observations and laboratory testing of a representative clay sample. The field investigation was initially described publicly as nine borings that identified rock layers. The engineer later acknowledged that they were nine shallow test pits, generally only four to eight feet deep, mostly located near the proposed buildings with no direct test pits along the Western school boundary. He also stated that approximately 10 foot deep sewer would likely to encounter rock. Hilarion says hard rock was not discovered in these shallow pits, yet the same report says that if rock is encountered, Evacuation may require a caterpillar D10 or larger bulldozer. Large excavators, rock trenchers, hydraulic hammers, and pre-ripping. The actual method is left to the contractor. The report also says that groundwater was not encountered, but warns that the pits may not have remained open long enough for groundwater to stabilize. The perch water may occur in shallow soils, and that the observed conditions may not represent construction conditions. These are not minor differences. They affect the foundation design, settlement, dewatering, noise, vibration, dust, equipment, hauling, and duration of the construction next to the school. The wetland record is equally unsettled. FCS Appendix C cites the city of Napa general plan and Napa municipal code in its local regulations. In that section for Rockland project, why was language used for a different city in that study? Are they using old material, recycling the study? The FCS biological work was reconnaissance level at best. It identified an artificial drainage ditch and potential seasonal wetland, but no formal jurisdictional delineation was completed. The feature was called hydraulically isolated because no continuous connection was observed during one site visit. Yet city records describe the channel as feeding to the adjacent riparian drainage and a preliminary plan to direct an outflow or overflow toward the drainage area. FCS itself says the ditch may be regulated by a regional water quality control board. That work affecting its bed or banks may involve the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and a formal delineation is needed to determine the extent of potentially protected waters. Where are the written determinations from the water board, Fish and Wildlife, and Army Corps? Where are the completed wet season hydrology in fairy shrimp, clam shrimp, and other brachiopod surveys? Please continue this hearing until geotechnical reports are independently reconciled, deeper wet season testing is complete, biological appendix is corrected, and the waters are formally delineated, the agency's response in writing, and enforceable stop work triggers are adopted. Thank you.

Thank you.

Paul Brigards, Sid Fong, followed by Stephanie Faldonade.

I actually have some artifacts and evidence for all of you to look at if it's okay. It goes along with what I'm going to give.

Thank you.

We'll follow along. Okay, no worries. Okay, good evening, Mayor Bass and council members. My name is Paul Briggard, so my focus tonight is on the consistency... checklist prepared by First Carbon Solutions, or FCS. This document serves as a specialized environmental review under CEQA guidelines 15183. FCS uses a software called CalEEmod, and that's where Exhibit A would come from, a construction modeling software which is used to calculate air pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions, and construction vehicle exhaust during operations. The platform relies on providing the correct inputs which are imperative for an accurate assessment. From FCS's own study, it's shown that they utilize applicant-provided plans dated August 8, 2025. When the study was performed, some categories were left at a default value rather than being modified. I'm going to call out three of them. The first category is predominant soil, which is confirmed to be Merton Rock or Breccia. We've determined that in the Planning Commission meeting. The second category is construction, specifically the off-road equipment that should be or should have been utilized because of the soil type that was specified. Those are Exhibits C, D, and E. The third is the duration of the construction phases, excuse me, which should have been extended to account for the additional time needed to contend for the Meriden Rock. This has also been verified because any time you make a change to the default value in the Cal EEMOD software that they utilize, a justification field appears. and it requires you to explain that change. Appendix A will show a record for every entry made, including any justifications entered, when a default value were modified. That's Exhibit F. All three mentioned were absent from this record, so that's how I determined that these were not actually considered. Because this software is utilized in part for CEQA compliance, it must be as precise as possible to ensure compliance. We must have the study at least reevaluated but ideally performed again with the correct input criteria to provide a more realistic presentation and representation. So this is the FCS study that I'm calling out from and including Appendix A. I just want to make sure that everyone's clear on this, that the study is absolutely not correct. I spent an entire day yesterday and today going through the study. I have full access to the Cal EE Mod software, and I actually can input all of the values that are required. Those numbers do not reflect what's in the FCS study that was provided. I'm not saying it's intentional. I'm not saying it's appropriate. It was just what the applicant provided. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Sid Fong. I'm a parent of two students at Marine Montessori Charter Academy. The developer's project manager recently dismissed our concerns of construction noise and dust as temporary disruption and claiming that it's just months, not years. For a corporate developer, two years is just a minor line item on a spreadsheet. But for kids, two years is a massive portion of their entire early childhood education. My older son is autistic and has ADHD. For him, and for many children with special needs, sudden, unpredictable rock drilling is not a minor inconvenience. It shatters their sense of safety and derails their ability to learn. Our children will be playing, eating, and trying to learn literally feet away from heavy diesel equipment. Their own reports admit that the steep hillside requires massive Caterpillar D10 bedrock rippers and hydraulic hull ramps operating directly on the school property line. If Rockland's 2012 general plan EIR actually evaluate the site-specific decibel and low frequency vibration of bedrock grippers operating feet away from active classrooms, how can the city legally bypass a site-specific study under CEQA? When we asked the developer to run localized study, they refused, calling it incredibly expensive and financially risky. This same developer, Pacific West Communities, when their Moraine County project loss is public funding, their CEO, Caleb Ruppe, told the press, even if our financing was put in jeopardy, we could finance it ourselves. They have the capital to self-finance entire complexes, but they claim a safety study for our kids is a financial risk? The mayor earlier mentioned that the HCD letter THAT MADE THE THREAT TO REFER THE CITY OF ROCKLAND TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IF YOU DON'T RUBBERSTAMP THIS PROJECT TONIGHT. Let them. I dare the developer and HCD to go to litigation. Let the state of California sue the city of Rockland for protecting children. Let the public watch the state use taxpayer dollars to force heavy machinery next to a school because a developer refused to fund basic noise safety study. The media will eat this up because It involves children. This is definitely a unique situation. This isn't Elk Grove. Rockland is in compliance. Council members, draw the line tonight. Call their bluff. Demand a localized study before any single permit is issued. Protect our kids and let the state and developers explain this lawsuit to the media and general public. Thank you. Thank you.

Please, I understand it's impassioned. I'm going to try and keep this copacetic. But thank you for that very much.

Stephanie Baldonade, followed by Carol Royal and Christy Boothby.

Good evening. I am Stephanie Baldonati. I'm the MMCA preschool director. I want to focus on the impact of placing this project immediately above and beside an operating school. This parking lot is elevated above our preschool playground. We've heard about a fence and a possible CMU wall, but views are not the concern, safety is. Where is the analysis of vehicle intrusion? Where is the evaluation of whether bollards or other vehicle impact barriers should be required?

The other issue is air quality.

Exhaust has to go somewhere. Vehicles will start, idle and accelerate immediately above our playground. And outside air also enters our buildings through our ventilation systems. The developer recognizes MMCA as a sensitive receptor. But it's not only our children. We have one teacher who is in remission of breast cancer, another recently completed cancer treatment. These are the people who will spend every school day beside the project. Please don't approve this tonight. Require additional site-specific analysis of vehicle safety, air quality and exposure, and meaningful mitigation. You don't have to decide tonight that these impacts are unsafe. You only have to recognize that you don't yet have enough information to responsibly decide that they are safe. Thank you.

Carol Royal, followed by Christy Boothby and Laura Crouch.

Good evening. My name is Carol Royal and I'm a teacher at MMCA and a current resident of Rockland. I want to focus on something that can be difficult to appreciate from a flat site plan. What this emergency access will actually be like in three dimensions. This isn't a straight level driveway. It includes a grade of roughly 12% combined with S curves that a large fire apparatus would have to maneuver. On two-dimensional plan, you can draw a turning radius and show that a fire truck fits within the lines. But a fire truck doesn't drive on a two-dimensional piece of paper. It has to make those turns while actually traveling on that slope. With its length, wheelbase and clearance interacting with the real terrain. When you combine a grade of approximately 12% with multiple turns, the physical configuration starts to look very different from the neat lines we see on a site plan. In fact, there's a well-known California street with a remarkably similar combination of a steep grade and S-curves. You probably recognize it. This is Lombard Street in San Francisco. Now, obviously it's not suggesting these two roads are identical. But look at the geometry, the grade, the direction changes, and the S-curves. Seeing something like this in three dimensions makes it much easier to understand what a flat-site plan cannot show. Now imagine maneuvering a large fire apparatus through that type of geometry, and that brings us to Rockland Fire's approval. We've heard repeatedly that fire approved this plan. We don't dispute that fire approved the plan they were given. The question is whether the plan they were given accurately represented the three-dimensional conditions the fire apparatus would actually encounter. City staff acknowledged that the deputy fire chief reviewed the EVA based on the design that was provided. And PWC has now acknowledged that it did not survey the school property and that information shown there was estimated. A turning radius can work perfectly on a two-dimensional drawing and encounter something very different in three-dimensional reality. That's why we're asking that the emergency acts is to be evaluated based upon what actually exists, not simply what fits on the drawing. Because in an emergency, the fire truck doesn't get to drive on the drawing. It has to drive the real thing. The difference between what's shown on paper and what happens in reality doesn't end with emergency access. It also matters during construction. What we initially understood to be three to four weeks of grading is now three to four months of mass grading immediately beside an operating school. And this isn't just MMCA raising the issue. This council specifically asked the developer to address dust, diesel exhaust, particulate matter, noise, construction activity, and additional protections for our students and staff. Yet when council suggested requiring enhanced protections because we're at a school, the developer asked that those protections merely be something the city encourages rather than a condition of approval. That's an important distinction. Encouraging a protection is not the same as requiring one. This council already determined that these councils deserve to be addressed. The council tonight is whether they actually have been. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Christy Boothby, and I am an MMCA teacher and a 25-year Rockland resident. As a math teacher, I tell my students, if your diagram is wrong, your answer will be wrong. And that matters here. The council specifically requested an exhibit showing the existing school buildings and improvements around the emergency access easement. PWC responded, that has been provided. But look at this. That building exists, but on their plan, it doesn't. That is not a small detail when drawing is being used to demonstrate emergency access and vehicle maneuverability on a school site. And there is a bigger issue. Our existing emergency access hammerhead is part of MMCA's DSA approved school plans. This project changes that configuration, moving the hammerhead into a school flower bed and adding fences, walls, and gates around this emergency access area. MMCA has not consented to those changes. You can erase a building on paper, you can move a hammerhead on paper, but you cannot erase the real world consequences. So we went to our state agency, And we went directly to the state architect and asked what these changes meant for our DSA-approved school plans. And the answers that they gave matter. We were told DSA would not likely approve a new design. We were told DSA no longer permits new fire access easements. And regarding emergency access through the proposed apartment complex, DSA indicated that configuration would not be approved by them. These are not MMCA's opinions. These are answers from the state agency responsible for approving our school facilities. PWC's attorney argues the DSA does not have jurisdiction over their property, but that misses the point. The question is, what happens to our DSA approved school plans when their project changes the emergency access configuration underlying these approvals? Even PWC's own attorney acknowledges that MMCA may have to take steps to maintain its own facility's DSA compliance. if the easement configuration underlying MMCA's existing approvals changes. That is exactly our concern. And it isn't just MMCA asking these questions. This council raised questions. Rockland Unified has requested protections for our school. And the Placer County Board of Education has identified unresolved concerns involving student safety, emergency access, traffic, security, environmental impacts, and educational compatibility. So please do not leave these questions to be figured out after approval. require accurate plans, require the emergency access and DSA issues be resolved. Because eventually, these two-dimensional drawings become our three-dimensional reality. And once this is approved and built, there is no undo button. The developer may finish in construction and move on, but we won't. Our students, our staff, our families, and this community will be here, living with the repercussions of the decisions made tonight for years to come.

Thank you.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS LAURA CROUCH. WHILE I LIVE IN ANTELOPE, I HAVE TAUGHT AT MMCA SINCE ITS FOUNDING 26 YEARS AGO. I AM ALSO MMCA'S TEEN COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM INSTRUCTOR AND A FEMA CERTIFIED CERT PROGRAM MANAGER. I am asking you to reject the proposed Sierra Wilds high density housing development based on one overriding concern, the fire and evacuation safety of children. MMCA is a wildland urban interface school located in a Cal Fire designated fire hazard severity zone. MMCA and Sierra Elementary are the only public schools in Rockland with these wildfire danger zones. because the state recognizes a significant wildfire risk over the next 30 to 50 years. Because of that risk, MMCA was designed to survive wildfire conditions under California's wildland urban interface building standards. The campus includes ember-resistant vents, ignition-resistant siding, Class A metal roofing, tempered windows, and noncombustible gutter systems. These protections are critical, but hardened buildings alone do not save lives during a wildfire emergency. access and evacuation routes do. I might also point out that this property has been exempted from those same wildland requirements and will not be held to those standards. The only property in the area exempted from those. Right now, the school has a level fire access road with a DSA required 20 foot emergency gate and a hammerhead turnaround designed specifically for fire apparatus access and safe evacuation operations. The proposed project removes these protections. Emergency access would instead be routed through a dense apartment complex of 400 to 600 residents down an S-shaped road on a 13% grade. For comparison, Lombard Street in San Francisco is 16% and fire apparatus are restricted there due to safety concerns. The proposal also reduces the required 20-foot emergency gate to 14 feet and negatively alters the hammerhead turnaround needed for emergency vehicle maneuvering. We are told Rockland has only two fire trucks capable of fitting through the smaller access point. One is in reserve. Neither is located at Station 25. California Building Code Section 452 requires school emergency access roads to maintain a minimum 20-foot width so evacuation and emergency response can occur simultaneously. We all saw what happened during the campfire. Roads became bottlenecks, evacuation routes failed, and entire communities were trapped. Now imagine that same scenario involving an elementary school full of children trying to evacuate while hundreds of residents flee through the same narrow corridor. I respectfully urge you to put student safety first, not violate fire safety law, and deny this project as currently proposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Dave Patterson, and I would like to note that Mr. David Patterson also submitted a statement letter at the start of the council meeting.

Well, good evening, Mayor Bass, members of the City Council, and City Manager Zimmerman. First, I just want to reflect the amount of conversation, the amount of data, the amount of detailed information you just received is the type of stuff that doesn't happen very often. The amount of expertise that you've just had the opportunity to hear firsthand is incredible, and it's a reflection of the commitment of this community to its schools and making sure we do our homework. Now, as I said, I'm Dr. Dave Patterson. For 14 years, I have served on the Placer County Board of Education, representing the Rockland community. Now, Rockland, it has been said before and I'll say it again, is a great place to live and raise a family. And I'm appreciative of this council and the councils that came before you because you've ensured that this is, in fact, a great city. Let me be clear tonight, though. This is not a conversation about subsidized housing. It's a conversation about the health and safety of our children. Now, for months, we've been talking about the concerns about this proposed high density three story apartment complex immediately adjacent to and frankly towering over a public school in a way that raises many, many serious unresolved concerns. You've heard them tonight. You've heard them in detail tonight about safety, health, and frankly, the integrity of the educational environment. I also want you to know you're not alone in having these concerns. You're supported by your colleagues in local government to get the answers to protect our students. Tonight, I'm not sure if our county supervisor is here. I've spoken to his office. I've spoken to every county supervisor who's raised concerns. The Placer County Board of Education has written a letter asking for the questions to be answered, so is the superintendent, the county superintendent, Gail Garbolino-Mohica, and as you've heard tonight, so has Rockland Unified. Let me be real direct on this. The state of California would never approve a public school site with such an apartment complex immediately adjacent to it. It would consider it a fundamentally flawed design unsafe and educationally unsound. Yet here we are being told we must accept the reverse. I understand the pressures you're under. Making it much worse is that the state itself has conflicting laws and requirements. You heard about you need to give deference to a state agency. Well, the state architect is part of a state agency. You've heard some of the issues there. You need to give the same sort of deference and consideration there. The concern is they haven't got their act together. And they're putting the burden on you and our community. Tonight, it's a continuation of the May 12th hearing. There was a request for a lot of good activities to occur in that time frame since May 12th to today. I see little evidence that has occurred. It leaves me with two fundamental concerns. The first, I'm concerned that Pacific West Communities is simply trying to bully the city council. Do what we say now and instead of having meaningful mitigations that would protect student health and safety, instead the developer is seeking to have HCD bring additional pressure. Second, the city of Rockland, like many cities in California, is deeply concerned that the state will punish you. Do not allow that pressure to prevent you from doing your job. In closing, I ask you to, in fact, make sure you ask your questions, get your answers, and at the end of the day, everybody in this community can know that you, as our city council, is fighting hard every day to support the safety of our children.

Thank you. Thank you. At this point, I think it would be a good time to be able to take a pause give staff some time and everybody else. So thank you. We'll come back in 10 minutes. Start back at 810. Yeah. All right. We're going to start back up and continue on. I believe we have about 25 more cards. Not to say that we have to stop there. I'm just trying to get an idea. We'll try and get through a good bulk of them and see how late it gets.

I believe we have a little over 25 cards.

A little over 25.

And possibly some comments on Zoom. All right. The next three speakers are Virgil Nelson, followed by Lorinda O'Dell and Katie Poita.

I'm Reverend Virgil Nelson, retired pastor and chairperson of the Affordable Housing Task Force for Placer People of Faith Together. Affordable housing is not a political issue. It is an ethical and moral issue. All of our major faiths call us to care about our neighbors and for the common good of our neighborhood. The Judeo-Christian scriptures enjoin us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. But who is our neighbor? Jesus answered that question by telling a story titled The Good Samaritan. And in that story, the pivotal question was, who is my neighbor? And the answer was anyone who is in need. Each of us is responsible for the wellbeing of everyone around us, our immediate neighbors, all of those in our community and country, and indeed every person on this planet. How is love expressed? In words, of course, I love you, but those words are not enough unless they're accompanied by demonstrations of love. My family didn't say those words very often, but we demonstrated them by washing the car, taking out the trash, cleaning the bathrooms, exciting things like that. But how does a city demonstrate its love and caring for its residents and those in the surrounding communities? By identifying the needs of the people and doing what it can to meet those needs. The stage has helped Rockland identify the needs for housing for very low and low-income people in this community, and it pencils out to be about 3,065 units in the next five years. How many of the parcels that you rezone for affordable housing have owners who are even interested in selling them? How many of the of those parcels will accommodate over 100 units. You have before you tonight an excellent, well-designed project for 120 units in an ideal location for transportation and service. You can demonstrate your love and concern for your current and future residents in need of affordable housing by voting to approve it. Thank you.

Hello, good evening. My name is Lorinda Odell, and I'm a parent of two students at MMCA. The developer wants you to believe your hands are tied by state streamlining laws, but our own neighbors in Placer County already laid out the legal blueprint to fight this in the Hopeway case. Hopeway proved that state laws do not force a city to rubber stamp a project if it creates an unmitigated public safety hazard. They proved that traffic queuing on a narrow road created an active fire evacuation safety hazard. We've heard a lot of information and data and studies today raising a lot of concerns specifically related to fire evacuation, wildfire risk, EVA access, student evacuation, and specifically also ingress and engross with added traffic during an emergency, which was also central and highlighted in that Hopeway project. Without adding the taper lane and other mitigating measures, the Sierra Wilds project constitutes a critical fire evacuation risk. Passer West Community cites financial hardships to avoid constructing necessary taper lanes and other fire mitigation measures. However, bonus density laws expressly include exemptions for public safety. The city is also using a CEQA exemption shortcut Under the 2012 general plan, however, this section legally fails when there are unmitigated site-specific peculiar impacts. We've demonstrated with a lot of the evidence in today's meeting and others that the MMCU school definitely qualifies as a peculiar impact. The Hopeway project and the legal settlement proved that general broad environmental shortcuts fail when a specific site has unique, high-risk, physical layout constraints that the city's old general plan did not study. If the council votes to approve the notice of exemption or the design plan, it is approving a legally flawed exemption that fails to meet objective state standards. Thank you.

Good evening. I'm a Rockland resident, parent to five kids, all who attend Rockland schools, and our youngest attends MMCA. The question tonight is not whether the city supports affordable housing. The question is whether we should approve Sierra Wilds when important technical, legal, and enforcement issues remain incomplete and disputed. HCD's letter addresses processing, but it does not resolve the project's geotechnical, hydrologic, biological, traffic, fire, noise, vibration, or construction concerns. If HCD is correct that Sierra Wilds is not subject to CEQA, then the City still needs to identify the legal authority that preserves the protections previously tied to the CEQA checklist or general plan EIR mitigation. Before approval, every promised protection needs to be objective, final, and enforceable. That includes the wall or vehicle barrier, pedestrian and emergency access, school hour construction restrictions, stormwater and fire requirements, wetlands and biological protections, traffic measures, real-time monitoring, and automatic stop work triggers. I respectfully ask for a structured continuation with clear deliverables. First, require staff and the applicant to provide one numbered response matrix identifying the exact report, plan revision, date, responsible, professional, agency review, and approval condition for each outstanding issue. Second, require the complete underlying record, including the corrected HCD letter, city attorney opinion, objective standards matrix, final easements, geotechnical and hydrological data, biological surveys, traffic and fire materials, and construction management plan. Third, require independent city retained peer review for the major technical concerns. Finally, publish the complete package at least 14 days before the continued hearing so the public has meaningful opportunity to review and respond. A continuation is not a rejection of housing. It is the responsible way to make a durable decision based on a complete record. Please continue Sierra Wilds rather than approve it tonight.

Thank you.

Good evening, City Council. I am Tina Laube. I am a kindergarten and first grade teacher at MMCA. Time is kind of of the essence with me as their teacher. I get to set the foundation for their learning. It's a one and done chance, right? I get to set the foundation, they get to learn, and I'm the first teacher. line of defense here for them to learn. Okay, so my biggest concern right now is everything that's been going on, but the noise. We at MMCA love to spend time outside. I love taking the kids outside. We spend recess, we do lunch, we do PE, we go to the garden. Okay, so now we have to worry about noise levels, not just noise but also dust. So we have to think that because we are in Rockland and the ground and everything that you guys want to build on might need dynamite. It's going to need big tractors. It's been talked about already. So how are my little kids supposed to learn when they've got all this main noise going on? And you guys might be thinking, okay, yeah, it might just be a couple of months. Well, how long is this project going to take? Okay, once they're done digging out the ground to set the foundation, then they have to actually build the buildings, okay? Then they're pouring concrete. They're doing all the other landscaping, hardscaping, and all that stuff. So the noise is never ending. And like I started with, I am their first time being at school. I have to set the best foundation for them to learn and move forward. They don't get to go back and do kindergarten again. This is their first shot. So yeah, you might be thinking, okay, it's just a short term problem. But it's a long term problem for the little kids that are just going to be coming to school to learn. So I hope you guys take the time to really, really figure out if this is the right project. Are we making sure that we're doing all the right things? Because there's so many questions. There've been so many questions from the very beginning. And I would like to see those questions answered legitimately and with the right information. So please take your time, consider everything, and remember that kids are our future. Thank you.

Excuse me. Mr. Mayor, can I ask a question? Yes. If you could come back. At the time of the construction going on, I mean, you know parents, you know kids. I mean, nobody has to go to this charter school, like nobody forces anybody to go to the charter school and required to. Do you think the parents will even enroll their kids with the construction going on?

I think that is a very big possibility. If parents are that concerned, which a lot of them have been expressing that, which is why we have so much support, is because of the noise level, because of all the dust, because of all the uncertainty, the issues with the fire, the safety of the students. There's so many different things that the parents have to consider. And one of the things is, hey, I can just take them to another school, their neighborhood school, because this is a charter school. This is a choice, right? That they get in a lottery to get into our school. So if they don't want to have to deal with all this, they can just go to another school. which would be really, really sad because our school is such a great community. It's small, and we get to do so many fabulous things with them. And we have them for two years, so we really get to know our kids. And so if they go away, then again, it's sad.

Thank you.

Amy Hansen, followed by Denise Morgan and Shane Steffen.

Good evening, Mayor, council members, and everyone else that I don't know. My name is Amy Hansen. I'm the parent of two students at Maria Montessori. I'm also retired after 22 years in the U.S. Air Force. Part of my work there involved emergency response planning. And so when I heard about the proposed project right next to MMCA, my first thought was, How are the children going to get out if there's a fast-moving wildfire and everyone has to evacuate at once? The reason is the geography there. I've heard many of you have come out to this site and I really appreciate that. But the geography there creates an evacuation problem. It's in a little valley and on one hand there's a high concrete retaining wall and on the other there's grassland and another residential area. So if hundreds of people are trying to evacuate simultaneously, where do the buses, emergency vehicles, parents, teachers, and children go? Well, I'll tell you what, they're going to be caught behind everyone from the church, from the perspective development, and then out onto Wildcat Boulevard. And in that section of Wildcat Boulevard, you have a one-way section with a thick concrete median. So it's only a right-hand turn. And so there's already an existing traffic problem there. This is before adding hundreds of people from a new housing development. And I will stand before you and say I 100% support affordable housing. I saw it on these shirts that are awesome. It's the right project in the wrong place. It's not conducive for... housing area so there's also two high schools right along that wildcat corridor there's also a new construction all those residential homes there and the new nugget complex there's a ton of traffic and that leads to uh a bottleneck and in an emergency uh hundreds of people added to the same evacuation funnel is going to lead to what i consider a pretty big disaster uh now Wildfire evacuations don't happen in neat, orderly phases. You don't just say, oh, this zone goes, this zone goes. I'll remind you that there was a fire last year at 12 Bridges High School. It's right along that same corridor. And they had to get out. Luckily, it was summer, and they were able to evacuate. But it led to bottlenecks along that corridor. So you're not talking about a traffic evacuation. during that calm, regular traffic time. You're talking about when everybody is out there at once. We all are familiar with paradise where people got caught on the same road because other roads were impacted by the fire. So what I did about it. I contacted a prominent researcher, a transportation engineer, and I'm hoping that you will continue this decision until we're able to get the results from his research on this traffic problem during a wildfire evacuation. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Denise Morgan, and I am president of Third District PTA. We support more than 150 public schools, including public charter schools in Sacramento and its seven surrounding counties, and that includes Placer County. Third District's membership includes more than 10,000 families, educators, and community members that believe in the power of PTA. Third District proudly supports MMCA, who has had an active, engaged PTA for more than 20 years. PTA is not a fundraising organization. It is an advocacy organization. At both the state and national level, PTA's advocacy efforts are often significantly impact legislation and drive initiative efforts that help guide policy and decision-making on behalf of our children, youth, and families. As President of Third District, we are very concerned about the implications this multi-unit, multi-storied complex of apartments poses to the safety and welfare of children at MMCA. When concerns such as the safety and well-being of students arise, our PTA structure relies on the authorities that include resolutions that come from our members and call attention to a problem or necessity for advocacy and action in support of children, youth, and families. Tonight, I would like to touch on just one aspect of the concern we have as it relates to this proposed project and the potential implications of the City of Rockland approving design review for this multi-building, multi-storied complex. Our concern directly relates to the safety of student pedestrians and their families as they walk to and from school. Our School Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Improvement Resolution specifically calls for elected officials such as each of you to reduce traffic and pedestrian problems and hazards for children. This proposed project is filled with problems and hazards for children. This proposed project, our resolution calls on you to make decisions and implement policies to create a safer environment, not as in this case, a more dangerous one. The potential implications of elevated parking structures and multi-story departments with direct views down to playgrounds poses its own significant concerns for student safety. For these and many other concerns related to this project, we implore you to decline approval of this project. We can't imagine that you as representatives of the City of Rockland intend to subject students to potential harm and danger, but that is exactly what you are considering doing here tonight. We can't imagine you are willingly creating a potential liability for the City of Rockland with your decisions. We implore you to reconsider any effort to move this project forward on this vacant land next to MMCA. Thank you very much.

Hello. I don't do much public speaking. My name is Shane Stephan. Thank you for the opportunity to be here and hear all of us. My background is in construction 36 plus years, I guess, 36 years. And so of the things that I've heard expressed tonight, I wholeheartedly support the proposition of low-income housing, but in a space where that can be effective. I've heard people speak about the density of walkability, right? Driving, the impacts of where you're going to live, right? Not just sleep at night. but where you're going to raise presumably unlimited funds, right? Where do you live? What's your neighborhood? Walkability of getting to a grocery store or even bikeability, let's be honest. It's a trudge, right, from that location. Getting back to, I guess, maybe piggybacking off of Ms. Laube, I would say the noise and working in construction, if you've had a neighbor that's doing a side project with a buzzsaw next door or even in the neighborhood, you'll hear it. I would just say that the amount of the space within how much compacting. We hear about the diggers, but every foundation, every parking lot is gonna be re-compacted. Vibrating machines, steam rollers, compactors. And then that's when the housing gets built. It's going to be a cacophony of saws and drills and RT forklifts and every single piece of equipment, whether it's a man lift or anything moving on that site is going to have backup alarms going constantly all day long. When we go on job sites that are much bigger than this, we got earplugs in all day long. And we don't have to try to teach small children. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Oscar. I actually live in the neighborhood next to where the construction is going to take place. It's called the Vista neighborhood. I've been living there for five years. Very tranquil. So we actually really enjoy the neighborhood currently. It's full of kids as well. So there's a lot of kids that live there. Lots of kids playing outside on the street, playing basketball, riding their bikes. So very tranquil. There's no through traffic right now. So very tranquil right now. And let me see here. So... Oh, and then I guess now I just want to talk about the actual apartments. So there's 120 units, 180 parking spots. And from my research, there's about 60 to 80 parking spots missing. from the construction or the apartment complex. And I used to actually live in apartments growing up. So apartments typically depend or I guess they depend on outside parking to park outside. However, in this space, that is not an option. There's no parking on Wildcat Boulevard. So the only other place that these 60 to 80 cars have to park is going to be in our neighborhood, which is adjacent to the apartment, either that or across the street. So that's going to cause just a lot more traffic coming in into our neighborhood. We'd be fighting the apartment folks for parking spots in front of our homes. But also, there's the safety aspect that kids are playing basketball. There's going to be a lot more cars coming into our neighborhood, parking in our neighborhood. So my question to the builder is, Where is the visitor parking? And why are we building these units with 60 to 80 parking spots missing? So we're creating a problem not just for the tenants of the apartments, but also for the folks that live in the neighborhoods currently. And then also, somebody mentioned earlier about delivery trucks. coming in and out of these apartment complexes. There's 120 units. There's going to be delivery trucks in and out all day. So where do they park? Are they just going to be blocking traffic? So just things to consider. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kate and Fonzie, followed by David McLean. I don't know if Kate and Fonzie are still here. We can go to David McLean, followed by Brent Boothby.

Hello. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is David McLean. I'm a parent of four current students at MMCA, so I'm used to the traffic, which is what I'm going to talk about. Also, I'd love for you to ask me that question when I'm done. I'll give you an insightful answer. The original morning traffic count was taken on a teacher in-service day when the school was not in normal session. Instead of collecting an ordinary school day count, the study substituted ITE estimates. That may be a screening method, but it does not replace direct observation of the actual arrival queue, dismissal queue, pedestrians, bicycles, preschool activity, and vehicles using the church parking area. Please require normal in-session counts and a shared circulation simulation showing project residents, school traffic, church traffic, deliveries, pedestrians, bicycles, emergency apparatus, and simultaneous peak conditions. The right turn deceleration taper also remains unresolved. Staff said the city engineer believed the project would benefit from a taper. The applicant's traffic consultant raised a bicycle conflict and the applicant declined because Rockland lacked the adapted standard. Later, the applicant said it remained open to more study. Please resolve the taper, bicycle treatment, right-of-way funding, and replacement safety measure before approval. The school walking route is also not secured merely because of a draft easement was offered. Require the final ADA route, sidewalk, gate, lighting, maintenance agreement, and recorded easement before an existing path is blocked. Finally, analyze real parking demand and construction hauling, including overflow truck limits, haul routes, flaggers, road cleaning, and school hour prohibitions. These are design safety questions that can't be answered right now. Please continue the hearing until they are. Thank you.

Brent Boothby, followed by Dan King and Shelley Berba.

From Nathan's presentation, can we have the site plan, please? Awesome. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, City Council members, City staff. As the Executive Director of MMCA, we understand the pressure surrounding this housing project and its approval, and I'm genuinely sorry you're having to deal with this. The Sierra Wald's plans, as currently drawn, depend on walls, gates, and emergency access openings at our property line and rely on the use of our school driveway. As you know, our school site is ultimately state property reserved for exclusive public school use. We have formally and repeatedly withheld consent to any of these connections and alterations. With respect, the city cannot force us to accept these connections or force us to keep these openings clear. The developer's recent lawyer letter claims that the project does not touch our facilities, yet their own site plan shows new walls, fencing, and lock gates at the school interface, along with changes to the long-standing hammerhead turnaround that has served our campus for nearly 20 years. Under the Field Act and related statutes, our state-funded school facilities include the access routes to our buildings and the facilities that serve them. Any material change to those facilities require the school's consent first and DSA review. The state architect, I declare, the head of DSA herself, has already advised in writing that the proposed Hammerhead changes require DSA approval. She has stated that DSA will not accept an emergency access route for the school routed through the private apartment complex, and that even the installation of a gate at the school interface will trigger DSA review that she has indicated the department will not approve. By eliminating the open hammerhead, this layout leaves us with a dead-end driveway and blocks practical large vehicle access to the interior of our school campus, making major grounds and maintenance work nearly impossible. It would force delivery and service trucks to maneuver and back up through active student drop-off areas, conflicting with Title V safety regulations. Under Vehicle Code Section 2113, our governing board officially denies permission for a private department complex, traffic, residence, parking, etc. to use our driving way in parking lots in any capacity. HCD can push for housing, but it cannot make an unworkable design buildable. These plans require rights we will not grant and that the city cannot approve. Please deny the plans as submitted or require a redesign that keeps all emergency access and connections on the developer's own property and does not impair our campus. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

THAT'S ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR BASS, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. COUNCILMEMBER BROADWAY, I WANTED TO ANSWER YOUR INQUIRY OR RATHER RETURN TO IT ABOUT MY LETTER TODAY AND THE CHIEF'S COMMENTS IN RESPONSE, IF I MAY. I MAY NEED TO APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I MAY HAVE BEEN AN ARTFUL WITH THE LETTER I HAD TO WRITE BETWEEN LUNCH AND WHEN YOU GOT IT TODAY. MY APOLOGIES TO YOU AS WELL, COUNCILMEMBER GUILLARDO FOR THAT FACT. DELIVERY OF THE LETTER YOU GOT YESTERDAY WAS DELAYED TO ME UNTIL LUNCH TODAY. The chief said something very specific when he was up here, and that's something very specific I think the school agrees with. If you go back and watch the tape, what he said was, ultimately, the existing hammerhead allows our fire trucks to get in and out. That was the evaluation and decision that was made way back when the school was built. If you look at the developer's plans, you will see on the left center side where the hammerhead exists on the plans. That dotted line just below its left arm, you can see what looks like something has just simply been erased from the plans. That's because what's there is the building Mrs. Boothby showed you in pictures and in her hand-drawn version of these same plans. Some of you actually went out to the school and saw that the stakes from the surveyor marking things out show that hammerhead moving. It's about eight feet into Maria Montessori's property, and I think another 12 feet south, or maybe the other two ways. That change is the source of the disconnect that you're hearing between the parties. MMCA understands this plan proposes to move the existing pavement that is the hammerhead it also understands that because it moves it into a position where it interferes directly with a standing school building a fire truck cannot negotiate it where it's proposed here that's what that fundamental issue is about council member broadway and i wanted to clarify that the second issue i wanted to touch on briefly is the good senior planners comment earlier today that there is an existing uh secondary emergency vehicle slash emergency ingress egress that exits from that hammerhead. That emergency ingress egress is a path that cuts through the entirety of where this project is proposed. You can see a map of that at tab 30, exhibit A3 in the binder the school provided, whether you're working electronically or in paper. The fact that the developer proposes changes to that access way gives DSA jurisdiction. That fact isn't a fact for today. It's a result of the agreements that the church and the school made now over a decade ago when this church was built. They agreed that path could be changed, and to get it changed, they have to go back to DSA and get DSA's approval. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Shelley Berba. I'm a teacher at MMCA. I'd like to speak to you tonight about something fundamental, every child's right to a safe and secure learning environment. I'm extremely concerned about the impact of this project, if approved. would have upon our students. And I know I'm not the only one to say that. Under California Education Code, Section 32280, schools are required to maintain comprehensive school safety plans to protect students and staff. California law recognizes that children have a right to learn in an environment that is safe secure and protected from unnecessary risks. CEQA also recognizes children as sensitive receptors because they are more vulnerable to pollution, noise, traffic hazards, and environmental impacts than adults. Yet this project proposes placing a high-density residential development directly adjacent to an active school without a site-specific school safety analysis, without a full evacuation study, without localized health risk analysis, and without adequate protections for construction impacts during school operations. And our school is from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Children cannot learn next to prolonged heavy construction, increased congestion, diesel emissions, emergency access risks, and noise disruption without rigorous review and enforceable protections in place. This is not a land use issue. It is a child safety issue. The city has both a moral and legal responsibility to ensure that developmental decisions do not compromise the health and safety and education environment of children. Please slow the process down, require a full analysis, and put our students' safety first. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Susan Wechter, followed by Haley Fowler and Jessica Brenner.

Hi, my name is Susan Wechter, and I actually reside in Lincoln. This matter that's before us, and good evening to the City Council, this matter that before us isn't just, even though it's within the Rockland borders, it actually is going to affect and impact people outside our area in a greater area. Years ago, my children did graduate from MMCA, so I've Seen the information and I wanted to read something and then just discuss a little more the developers had sent an attorney's letter Seemingly threatening you into a little corner claiming the project is strictly ministerial and entirely immune to sequel review That seems to be blatant legal bluff although. I'm not an attorney under California law minutes Ministerial pass only applies to fixed final checklist that fully complies with objective codes of without needing modifications. Yet, in Section 3 and Section 6 of the July 1026 letter to the City, the developer openly admits they're actively trying to rewrite the school's recorded easement rights to alter existing pedestrian walkways. You cannot demand a hands-off, check-the-box ministerial review while simultaneously bringing a moving target plan a modification Unconsented to vehicle connections fire gates boundary adjustments to the table the moment a developer must alter a record recorded state regulated school easement in order to make their blueprints and the project becomes discretionary. You have the full legal authority to recognize this project's technical infeasibility and deny it tonight. I'd like also to say I am not an attorney. I am however a naturopathic practitioner and it has been a concern of mine about noise with other projects and things over children because I don't think we realize the damage that is done with sound to children's ears. And the little tiny hairs in your ear, those aren't replaceable. When you lose your hearing, it's gone. So that's a concern that I have as well as has been brought up with some of the breathing and the air pollution. We're already at a point with air pollution without adding to it that we have to work extra hard at wellness just in general. I witnessed the traffic many years ago. I still drive up and down Wildcat today. It is a concern. I personally have experienced a wildfire as it approached my backyard. And in that moment, as a wall of fire came up onto my property where I live, I realized a few things. One, I realized I was really grateful Laura Crouch had taught my daughter and I about cert training years ago. And I also realized there was only one little road in and out, the little private road I live on on five acres. And it was a really scary thing. Thankfully, the fire truck that was able to come was able to drive through some fields, cut a bunch of gates, and access it. But we, at that point, experienced real firsthand what it looks like to stare down a wall of fire and not have access. And that was just a small neighborhood, private road with little five-acre parcels, about 20 of us up the road. I can't imagine what it would be at a school with lots of people. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, Council Members, anyone I don't know. Apologies for any mistakes. Despite the fact that I do this for a living, I am extremely nervous public speaking. My name is Haley Fowler. I am a teacher at Maria Montessori Charter Academy. I am a mother and I am a strong candidate for affordable housing. I also strongly believe that this project should not be approved, frankly, at all in this area. Right project, wrong place. At the very least, with only the general promises to minimize impact, given the age range of our students at MMCA, the conditions must state exactly when work stops, who makes that decision, and what must happen before work restarts. Work should automatically be stopped for unexpected fill, unstable or saturated soil, hard rock requiring an unapproved method, groundwater or seepage, settlement, cracking, ground movement, or trench instability. Work should also be stopped when numerical dust, PM 10, PM 2.5, noise or vibration limits are exceeded, when sediment, mud, pollutants, or debris leave the site, when drainage follows an unapproved path, or when ponding, erosion, flooding, or stormwater failure occurs. Work should also stop if the seasonal wetlands hydro period changes outside approved limits, if wetland vegetation or projected species are discovered, if required monitoring fails, if the EVA is blocked or the gate is unavailable, if unapproved equipment or hours are used, or school pedestrian or emergency access is obstructed. For every trigger We need to specify the numerical threshold, instrument, monitoring location, frequency, notification deadline, corrective action, and city official with the authority to stop the work. Monitors should be funded by the developer, but selected or approved by and report directly to the city. Results, complaints, exceedances, corrections, stop orders, and restart approvals should be posted publicly. Work should restart only after independent testing is done and written clearance has been given. Without the enforceable protections, approval would defer the most important safety decisions being made. We are asking at the very least for you to please continue this hearing until further protections are put into place for our students and our staff and neighbors. Thank you so much for your time.

Jessica Brenner, followed by Tara Crowe and Mandy Fong.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members. My name is Jessica Brenner, and I'm a parent of three children at MMCA, as well as a Rockland resident of Stanford Ranch. I want to thank you for your efforts from last spring until now in learning more about the proposed Sierra Wilds project and its unique and particular impacts on our school. This developer has long been made aware that the unusual nature of this design plan has been met with substantial and obvious local concern. On May 12th, we were able to examine the design proposal, noting the shared points of entry and exiting the site, potentially hindering the access of emergency vehicles and threatening a bottleneck, the elevation putting apartment balconies with a direct aerial view of the entire campus, the unanticipated and out-of-budget costs for the school with no clear plan for what happens if the school is forced out of compliance, and the hammerhead turn, which was mapped on paper in a manner inconsistent with the physical buildings themselves. This is not to mention that the school itself has a high number of neurodivergent students and students with autoimmune and other illnesses, mine among them, and the unprecedented nature of construction happening within yards of their classroom for months on end, with a proximity that the developer acknowledged has not been attempted to her recollection. You also know that the nature of the terrain on site would mean using unusually loud and powerful construction equipment, and it is unrealistic to imagine that learning could take place as usual with this going on just feet away. Noticeably absent is any answer from the developer to these concerns. At the very least, please consider mandating that construction not take place during school or camp hours. I'll close by reiterating that this particular development, its massive size and extreme proximity to campus, the disruption to learning, to a safe route to and from school, evacuation procedures, traffic concerns, and unanswered health and environmental concerns is not conducive to the needs of our community. And there are many other avenues to increasing local affordable housing units, as you've already done so successfully, in many locations all throughout our city that do not include catering to an out-of-state for-profit developer who has revealed very little regard or care for adding value to this community. Thank you very much for your time and efforts.

Good evening, Mayor, council members, and everyone. My name is Tara Crow. Sorry. I'm a little nervous. The construction impacts cannot be evaluated without knowing what equipment will actually be used, for how long and how close it will operate to our school. Please require a complete equipment inventory with make, model, horsepower, operating weight, engine tier, attachment, expected hours, noise rating, vibration level, and distance to each sensitive receptor. The list must include equipment used for shorter periods if it can create high peak impacts such as hydraulic hammers, rock trenchers, crushers, or vibratory compactors. The schedule also needs to be reconciled. Sorry, reconciliation. The Planning Commission heard an informal estimate of three or four weeks of grading. Later materials reference three to four months of mass grading and 18 to 24 months of total construction. The health risk discussion used approximately 18 months in roughly nine to five, Monday through Friday, while the proposed conditions allow broader hours. Please rerun the air, health risk, noise, and vibration analyses using the longest reasonable duration, all permitted hours, overlapping equipment, and the worst case rock method. Provide peak noise and vibration not only of averages, sorry, and evaluate classroom speech, testing, preschool, recess, and outdoor instruction. Require real-time PM 10, PM 2.5, dust, noise, vibration, wind, and rainfall monitoring at the school boundary with public data, numerical action levels, and automatic stop work limits. Until the models match the real construction authority and enforceable controls, continuation is required. Thank you. Have a great night.

Mandy Fong followed by Brandy Armstrong and Elizabeth Gonzalez.

Hello, my name is Mandy Fong and I am a Placer County resident over 20 years and a parent of children at MMCA. This project will affect the children way more than anything imaginable. All of us had fun and not so fun memories of school, the best friend, the caring teacher, the bully. Please don't let this developer be a part of these children's story. We're asking for studies to be done to protect children and the community. Yet the same developer with lots of money says they can't fund it. They in fact told us parents to ask you, the city of Rockland, to conduct the wildfire study. In Marin County, this is the same developer who, despite getting their credits taken away, used their own money because they had already received approval from that city. They know they can do anything once they get the approval from a city. We're also advocating for the safety of the future Rockland residents who will live at Sierra Wilds. Who will tell them, some of them in three bedroom units, that they only get one and a half parking spots and there's no guest parking available because the developer decided it wasn't necessary. Who will tell them that studies were not completed so their home is highly flammable in a moderate fire zone with risky traffic routes? We already know that the developer will do whatever it takes to get their money, like when they lied about receiving farm worker credits to build in Petaluma at the Woodmark Apartments. When it stayed empty for three months, they allowed non-farm workers to live there to fill a spot and then attempted to evict them when they were held accountable. It isn't fair that the children don't have a voice because they don't have money. It isn't fair that the residents will be living in a dangerous environment because the wildfire or traffic studies weren't completed. The laws that are allowing the developer to streamline their plans are not the laws that will protect my children from catastrophic event like a wildfire. Where will the developer or even the state be if something huge were to happen in our city, our home? Please don't put a price on my children's health and safety or a dollar amount on their growth and development. The children at the school and the apartments deserve the best chance to succeed in this world. That in itself is worth fighting for, even if it's against the HCD and the state. So please, today, do not approve this project until the proper studies are completed and everything is checked off to protect the health and safety of the community. Please use all five of the allowed meetings to ensure that everything is safe for now and the future. Please don't let this project be your story. Thank you.

Brandy Armstrong, followed by Elizabeth Gonzalez.

Good evening, Mayor and members of City Council. My name is Brandy Armstrong. I live in Rockland and my children attend MMCA. I have been told to set a motion aside and focused only on facts. But as a parent of two young children at this school, I'm going to do both. When the facts concern children's safety, a motion is not a weakness. it is a response of a parent paying attention. What I see is a powerful out-of-state developer asking a community to accept the consequences of its project while our youngest residents bear the risk, or as the developer likes to say, negative externalities. Our children have also been described as peculiar impacts, but they are not just impacts, statistics, or obstacles on a development schedule. They are my boys. They are our children. We do not oppose affordable housing, but amid the politics, money, and technical language surrounding Sierra Wilds, our children have been forgotten. That is why we formed Urban Ethics Coalition, to give them a voice. When we requested a more thorough environmental review for Sierra Wilds, the developer's answer was, yeah, no, can't, it's risky. When asked why, the risk cited was not to our children. we were told a study could uncover something costly. The risk receiving priority appears to be the developer's financial risk. We were also told construction would be dusty and noisy, but there would be a calendar that would be provided a couple weeks in advance indicating that parents could decide whether to send their children to school those weeks. A calendar is not mitigation. Parents should not have to choose between their children's education and their health. Still, there has been no study addressing the peculiar impacts of these children. No wildfire evacuation of egress or ingress in the prior EIR or for this development, despite the property being in a WUI zone and a prior EIR identifying Whitney Ranch as having heightened wildfire vulnerabilities. Responsible development should not fear better information. If this project is safe through studies, it should confirm it. If it is not, we must know before, not after, someone is harmed. HCD has made it clear that the Council may deny if it results in an impact to public health and safety. State law allows up to five hearings, so use the process as the law gives you. Please do not act before these children's health and safety has been fully studied and properly addressed. Council members, I understand the amount of pressure that you are under and appreciate your service to our community. But if we will not stand together when our children's safety is at stake, for whom are we building the city's future for? require the studies, require meaningful protections, put the children first. Budgets can be revised. Projects can be redesigned. Construction schedules can be changed. Our children's health and lives cannot be replaced. Thank you.

Thank you.

Elizabeth Gonzalez, followed by Peter Liu and Mina Zink.

Hello. My name is Beth Gonzalez. resident of Whitney Ranch. So I know exactly what everybody's talking about. I do not have children at the school. I'm a retired teacher, 40 years. So I can hear the emotion. You can hear the emotion. This is one of those Don't Move My Cheese events, which we all, which I don't know if you ever read that book, Don't Move My Cheese, or Who Moved My Cheese? Excuse me, Who Moved My Cheese? So my cheese has been moved a lot. So I've only lived here 11 years. And we lived here purposely because we moved here, right? We are retired. And Rockland is a gorgeous place. I mean, we come home from any other place, we go, oh my God, we're so glad to be home. And it's because Rockland as a city is run so well. I mean, I have like zero complaints. I could find one or two maybe, but I really don't have any complaints about the staff or the council people You know, the city is run really well. We don't have to worry about going bankrupt. You know, there's all kinds of problems that cities have. So we need affordable housing. I'm also a executive director of Placer People of Faith Together. And along with Virgil, we have been working on affordable housing, mainly with the county. So this is our first event as, oh no, actually we work with City of Roseville also. But the problem is we need housing. So if you don't approve this project, which I can understand why you wouldn't, there has to be other answers. The project has to be changed so that it can fit the space where it is. I know that land very well. And there's lots of building. There's so much building, right? Because they just built the Nugget there. That's great, big, huge shopping center. I didn't have my windows washed because I was going like, oh my God, there's dust everywhere. Well, I couldn't wait more than another two years to get my windows washed. So I'm. Just want you to understand, I'm sure you do, that you have to build affordable housing. So if you don't approve this, where are you going to build it? And there's always going to be complaints because nobody really wants affordable housing within walking distance. Thank you.

Thank you.

Peter Liu. followed by Mina Zhang and John Nguyen.

Good evening, Mayor Bass and council members. My name is Peter Liu, and I want to address the emergency evacuation and wildfire safety concerns associated with the Sierra Wilds project. During the August 25th ranch fire near Highway 65 and 12 Bridges Drive, nearby schools were evacuated and traffic throughout the surrounding areas was disrupted. Residents saw how quickly an emergency can place pressure on the limited roads serving this part of Rockland and Lincoln. This project would add 120 apartments on the 4.67 acres immediately adjacent to an active school serving approximately 285 K-8 students, as well as preschool children as young as three. Oh, sorry. Sorry about that. OK. All right. Sorry about that. As three three years old although the record contains a general transportation analysis and a sequel consistency checklist It does not appear to contain a dedicated site-specific evacuation study evaluating actual evacuation times under con congested emergency conditions specifically the city should determine how the project would affect emergency vehicle access and evacuation on both residents and the school, traffic coordination during school hours, and bottlenecks along Wildcat Boulevard and Stanford Ranch Road when ordinary traffic and emergency evacuation occurred simultaneously. These concerns deserve more than a general conclusion that the project will comply with the applicable codes when hundreds of school children and additional residents may need to evacuate at the same time. The city should have a concrete site-specific evidence that the surrounding road network can function safely. Before approving this project, I respectfully ask the City to require a site-specific wildfire evacuation and emergency access analysis that accounts for school operations, peak hour congestions, emergency vehicles, and cumulative development in the surrounding area. Thank you.

Mina Zhang, followed by John Nguyen, and Julia Becker.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Mina Zhang, and I'm deeply concerned about traffic and pedestrian safety impact associated with this project. already experienced congestion during school drop-off and a pickup at Maria Montessori Academy. Adding a high density residential project directly adjacent to the school without detailed school circulation study increases serious safety concerns. The current analysis does not address students crossing safety, vehicle stacking, availability issues, parent pickup conflicts, or interactions between construction vehicles and children. And children as young as three years old should not be navigating increase in construction and the construction traffic to get to school safety. Before moving forward, the city should require a full site-specific school traffic and pedestrian safety analysis. Thank you. And also, I would like to quick address Bill, I'm sorry, I have bad eyes. So follow up your question earlier with one of MSA teacher, you were mentioning, oh, is this project really gonna impact the parents re-enrolling to a school? I will say as my kid, she is four years old, she was attending MSA last school year, and I will say it will, it will impact us. decision of continuing to go to school. Since especially there are so many schools around that area, like Sunset Ranch and other schools, it's definitely will impact us, which we will hate to leave. because we had such a wonderful year last year here. Our four-year-old started reading and accounting 200. It's a big achievement for her. And we're so happy for her to keep staying at school. So we would hate to leave. But yeah, I just want to have a quick mention about that if you just think that you would be interested to know. Okay, yeah, that would be it. Thank you so much.

Good evening, may and council member. My name John Nguyen. This project is not seem like being built next to building. It is being built next to classroom full of children try to learn. Prolonged construction noise. vibration, diesel emission, congestion, and disruption can negatively affect concentration, communication, stress level, and educational performance. Children deserve a stable, healthy, supportive learning environment. Yes, the environmental review does not adequately evaluate how year of construction activity could affect the school educational environment and daily operation. Before approving this project, the city should fully evaluate the impact on children's learning condition and require meaningful protection. Thank you. Thank you.

Julia Becker followed by Lindsey Roach and Derek counter Good evening Mayor and council members.

My name is Julia Becker. I am a parent of a student and MMCA and I want to speak with you about safe routes to school concerns associated with this project and Children walking to and from school deserve safe sidewalks, safe crossings, clear visibilities and protection from construction, traffic and congestion. This project increases vehicle trips, construction activity and pedestrian conflict directly adjacent to an active school. Yet there is no detailed safe route to school analysis included in the record. Families should not have to be worried about children navigating heavy traffic and construction vehicles just to safely access school. Before moving forward, I urge the city to require a full, safe route to school assessment focused specifically on student safety. Thank you.

My name is Lindsay. Thank you for hearing us tonight. I'm here to talk, voice my concerns about construction and the presence of lead in soil. As a radiology tech and I'm on staff, I coach the cross-country team at the school. So according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, there's no safe level of lead in the blood. Children, pregnant, and breastfeeding moms are also at higher risk of lead toxicity in men and Lead can alter hormone levels, affect sperm health, and reduce fertility. Even low levels can lower IQ, damage the brain and nervous system. Slow growth and development cause problems with learning, behavior, hearing, and speech. It affects every system of the body, leading to delays in development and behavioral problems. It could take months to years to show up and months to years for it to come down. For the construction workers, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, requires that employers provide clean, protective work clothing, ensure that workers change out of work clothing before leaving the work site, and ensure that workers shower before leaving work. Workers should also launder their clothes separately from their family's clothes. If the construction workers are provided such care, then what do the kids deserve as they grow and learn just a few feet away from the project? who is going to be responsible for the physical and mental health issues due to the environmental hazards such as lead and air pollutants. As you heard, the effects can spread to multiple generations too. The city and the developer are aware of these concerns and our request is to dig deeper to protect our health and community. So please, we need more time to consider additional measures to keep the kids safe and investigate any, including CEQA-related issues that may be harmful to these children.

Thank you. Mayor Bass, city council members, thank you very much. Just want to say that Derek Counter, Rockland Unified School District, Whitney Ranch resident. I support the PCOE resolution and just want to make the comments that this resolution that the board expresses, the PCOE board expresses concern regarding the unresolved impacts associated with the Sierra Wilds project as currently proposed and the potential effects on the students, staff, family members of Maria Montessori Charter Academy and, again, resolved that the consistent and it's resolved that consistent with the responsibility to promote the welfare of the students throughout Placer County, the board respectfully urges the city of Rockland, project applicant, MMCA, and all relevant government agencies to work together to fully evaluate and address outstanding concerns related to student safety.

And it's really student safety.

I know you guys got a letter from Roger, and I'll just simply say the district respectfully requests that in exercising any lawful discretion, the city, to the extent practicable, consider the potential impacts that the proposed development may have on nearby students, the adjacent school, Maria Montessori Charter Academy. This includes consideration of any feasible mitigation measures, project conditions, agreements, and other lawful actions that may lessen and address such impacts while remaining consistent with the city's statutory obligations. Again, let's keep students and safety first, and let's keep Rockland a great place to raise a family. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you.

Mr. Counter, I have a question for you. As a school board member that is proposing a $288 million bond to reconstruct the schools in Rockland, how are you going to be handling that construction while school is happening?

So most of our construction, as it's going to go, will happen either during the school year, and nothing significantly impacts. We're not, as we do most of our stuff over the summer and school breaks, so air conditioning units, cranes and things that are out there replacing portables, we do it during the summer and during breaks. The other things, painting, and those conditions are done on small scale. We're not... We're not creating, I mean, when we did build Whitney, when we did build Quarry Trail, we didn't build them when kids were around and those neighbors were around. We were building them off those sites.

So you're only going to do construction in June and July?

No, we're going to do construction as needed, but you're going to do construction outside of that can immediately impact students. You're going to modify the schools, you're going to move things around, but we do have to take all those considerations also.

I'm just curious if maybe you can be helpful on how that's going to happen for your your project for something similar.

Right now, we've got about 106, 107 projects going right now all throughout the summer, trying to get those as impact and as complete as possible so that we don't interfere with the education and the issues that are going on with schools when students are in school.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Next three speakers are Alan Gillen-Sanchez, Umair Wari, and Joy G.T.

Good evening mayor best and council members I just want to thank you for your time and hearing the concerns of all the residents You know that they've raised my wife Talia, and I have you know have family in the Chico area that had been affected by the campfire and so you know I guess like Although I'm a person of faith, my reason for raising a concern is really simply the expediting of a project and taking shortcuts, abdicating on any responsibilities regarding safety in the future of children and residents. With all the comments that many people have raised, there also is no need to pray for a miracle during very serious emergencies and offer condolences that could have been prevented using just God-given common sense, particularly with the safety and due diligence that this development still obviously lacks. You know, especially when the studies show it and our children depend on it. You know, why shouldn't the city of Rockland and its residents require any state and project mandates be compliant? You know, we have a right to hold any development to meet their own safety standards. As you know, every project doesn't always go exactly as planned and takes longer than expected. Please just take more time to demand evidence of compliance until all safety requirements are met. Then approve if it still makes sense. I'm simply asking not to make permanent decisions. because of short-term hardship or inconveniences. We've all seen many of these regrettable lessons that could have been addressed even for all parties if handled more thoughtfully. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor and council members, my name is Umar Waris and I'm a physician in the community and I moved here. Me and my wife chose Rockland after I completed training here at UC Davis for many of the reasons why so many of us are proud to call Rockland home. Responsible public leadership, well-data development, beautiful parks and open spaces, an excellent school district. And it's why me and my wife are proud to be raising our family here. And it's for that reason that I felt compelled to speak today, even though I didn't intend to, was the effect on family and children. There's a concept in public health that we're taught as physicians. That's not.

Thank you.

Thank you. I'll make it quick, I promise. But no, thank you. There's a concept that we're taught, and it's called health in all policies. And that is that health is much more than a prescription or a pill or what is done in the clinic. It is the effect of urban policy, it's the effect of construction policies, where our schools are built, do we have enough green spaces, where construction goes up. And I think we don't, I wouldn't need to cite any studies to say that construction going up right next to a school with the pollution, with the noise, with the congestion is not conducive to the health and the development of our children. And I think that perhaps a basic measure that we would ask, and I would ask, is would I be willing to send my child to such a school where such construction is happening? And of course, these are all our children. And even if it wasn't my child going, I would feel the same way. And of course, this is not a question about affordable housing. I think, speaking with Councilmember Bill, that we have proudly put up, I think, close to 1,000 affordable housing units in the Whitney Corridor. And it's just a matter of the right project at the right place, as we're saying. So with that, I respectfully ask that this project be reconsidered and hopefully be put in the right place. Thank you all.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. Over the past few hours, I've heard some really well-reasoned and technical arguments regarding this project. Unfortunately, I don't have the technical background to add to those comments. I would, however, like to share a couple of concerns that I have about the project. It's my understanding that the Rockland Fire Department, like so many other agencies, has mutual aid agreements with neighboring departments like South Placer County, Roosevelt, and Lincoln to meet emergency response capabilities. We heard from the Rockland Fire Department earlier tonight that the design submitted by the applicant would accommodate Rockland Fire Department apparatuses. My concern is, would the hammerhead turn design accommodate the engines, tillers, et cetera, of an outside agency that might respond under a mutual aid agreement. Secondly, as a grandparent who drops off and picks up a little one at Maria Montessori, I am concerned about the previously submitted traffic report being a general estimate with no real data from a full school day or conducted over an extended period of time to determine the traffic impacts on the school. I have been in line on Wildcat Boulevard, making that right turn to go into the school. And when I think about this project, all I can envision is the chaos and unsafe conditions for the students, drivers, and for the people living in the apartments. I think I heard earlier that the applicant addressed traffic in their recent letter to you all. Since the school has been out since the last council meeting, I'm curious as to what traffic conditions were studied. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor Bass, we have two comment cards remaining, but we may have speakers online via Zoom as well. The two in-person comment cards are from Sam Bacall Graves, followed by Nelson Medeiros.

Good evening members of the City Council mayor bass My name is Sam call graves. I'm the attorney for the applicant here on behalf of the project I appreciate you giving me a few minutes to address you during public comment. I probably should have said this at the outset of the hearing, but I Appreciate you giving me a few minutes There are a few issues that I wanted to address that related to some of the questions and concerns council members expressed at the outset of the hearing. First, Council Member Broadway, I think you asked whether the city has a provision that implements state law related to by-right approval. The answer is yes. That is on page 7-136 of the city's housing element. SECOND, I HEARD SEVERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE TIMING OF THE LETTER FROM HCD REGARDING BY RIGHT APPROVAL, MINISTERIAL APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE TIMING OF THAT AND I'D JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT I SUBMITTED A LETTER TO THE CITY SAYING ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING IN JUNE. THAT LETTER IS I BELIEVE ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT. STAFF REPORT ALSO ADDRESSES THE LETTER. I think it's fair to say it declines to weigh in on whether the city agrees with our analysis. But the city, I think it's fair to say, had an opportunity to address this and has not yet. I think that is all I have to say. I'm happy to answer any questions if you would like.

Thank you.

I will ask. And so we had asked the question about, you know, use by right, and I'll just open it to you. So your understanding is that, well, what is your understanding about that?

So use by right, I think your city attorney said this as well, that the term has a definition not in that particular statute we've been talking about, but it's in the Housing Accountability Act. Okay. In my view, and your city attorney may disagree with me, but it does mean that a project is ministerial. That means that the scope of the city's review does not include CEQA. Ministerial projects are inherently outside the scope of CEQA. So whether or not Section 15183 applies here, the project is not subject to CEQA by virtue of being by right or ministerial. And that much is stated in the section we've been talking about. So the scope of the city's review in the context of a by-right project under the Housing Accountability Act is assessing compliance with applicable objective city standards. Applicable objective standards are those that are generally quantitative. They don't require subjective or personal judgment to assess. Those are typically things like height limits, density standards, setbacks. Those are standards where reasonable people would all come to the same conclusion about them. If reasonable people could come to different conclusions if it requires personal or subjective judgment, it's not an objective standard and it's not applicable. So to answer your question, what is the scope of the city's review in my opinion? It is assessing whether the project complies with applicable objective city standards. And you have, before you, city staff's analysis, you have the planning commission's conclusion. They have said it does.

Now, when the applicant did the checklist for CEQA, having this being ministerial, was that even necessary? I'm sorry, can you repeat?

Was the checklist necessary? So I think, I don't know the exact date in which the checklist was initially prepared. I think once the city completed the rezone of that site, that was the trigger for application of this statute. So the idea is when a city does a housing element rezone, THAT HAS CERTAIN STANDARDS ATTACHED TO IT. ONE OF THOSE STANDARDS IS THAT A CITY COMMITS TO ALLOWING A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT THAT INCLUDES AT LEAST 20% LOWER INCOME UNITS BY RIGHT ON ANY SITE THAT HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO A HOUSING ELEMENT REZONE. SO ONCE THE CITY COMPLETED THAT REZONE, THAT PROVISION KICKED IN. THIS PROJECT IS 100% LOWER INCOME SO IT MEETS THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT. AND EVER SINCE THE CITY COMPLETED THAT REZONE, THE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO IT.

Mr. Mayor, so from September of last year until your June letter, you had the right to not do anything, but you did all these things anyhow. I think that's right. May I understand why you didn't send the letter last September? Well, I think it was so obvious.

I think from our perspective, we were on a course. I think we were all comfortable with that course. And we elected to continue with that. I don't think there's any problem with that. And I'm not saying that you, council, did anything wrong or planning commission did anything wrong or your staff or city attorney did anything wrong. It was a decision that we made. And I will also say to that point, all the implementation measures that were in the 15183 checklists Those are all still applicable. We are voluntarily still complying with all of those measures. Voluntarily? Yes. You don't have to? I think there are some of those measures that are implementations of general plan policies and stuff like that. I have not looked at every single one and gone back to determine, but I don't think there's a legal obligation to apply all of them.

Thanks for the clarity.

Thank you. Probably not so much of a question, but just a comment. You mentioned that you sent the letter in June with your advice. I'm sure you understand that I'm not taking the advice of the applicant's attorney. I'm going to find out. I appreciate your opinion and your advice. And certainly our attorney would have the ability to look at that. But HCD's letter I read last night just before midnight. So I need to have the ability to have my attorney look at that as well. So I appreciate your opinion, but I don't take my legal advice from the applicant's attorney.

I do understand. I think, you know, my point is that obviously I am not entitled to the deference that HCD gets in its interpretation of state law. I understand not taking my word for it. And that is why I sent the letter in June, so that the city would have opportunity to read it, analyze it, consider it.

I have a question. Where does the objective standards and the by right fall when it comes to student safety, environments, impacts for a long extended construction process?

Yeah, it's a good question. So those are not established by state law. For the most part, there are things like California Building Code that the city adopts. So it's the city that adopts the standards generally that are applicable to a development project. So it's all of the standards that the city has previously adopted. So do we not have purview? I think the city is capable of adopting many standards that are applicable to projects. There are limits to what the city, and this is sort of going somewhat far afield, but there are limits to what standards a city should expect are going to be applicable to housing projects because there is this objective limitation, but it doesn't prevent the city from adopting standards. I think that would be a question for your staff and city attorney as to what standards the city has adopted. I don't know the answer to that offhand.

I do know that the staff but based on what you're claiming a by right and administerial that all of the information that's been provided and all the the talk about You know the environment being disruptive to learning and the proximity Does that matter I?

Think the question before The city is whether the project complies with applicable objective city standards. I think if there is an applicable objective city standard that addresses that, then yes. Whether the project complies with that matters. If it is beyond that, then it's not within the scope of what the city is being asked to determine tonight. It doesn't mean it doesn't matter. It doesn't mean we are not taking it into consideration. Like Lauren said, we have been in communication with the school. We've been in communication with the parents. Some of those conversations have been productive. Some of them have not been. And I think those are probably going to continue. But what is before the city tonight is a narrow question.

But are you open to discussing how to mitigate some of these issues that have been concerned?

I think that's probably a question for Lauren, but I think in general, this is our second time before you, and I know, Councilman, you were not here last time, but this is our second time before Council. we have worked pretty hard to get to the point where we are. So I think once you're done with questions, if you are okay with it, ask Laura if she would like to address that.

We'll get back to that, but since you were up here, I figured I'd ask you. Appreciate it.

Thanks. So given the regular communication you have with HCD, the thing that is perplexing to me is I'm looking at their April... 13th email to Nathan all right they didn't mention anything that they mentioned in yesterday's note and I If they knew that back in April which given it's so obvious I guess why wouldn't they have told us that in April and instead they told us that they told us things that we could use and one is adverse impact about public health or safety and and there's no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact. So why didn't they tell us, but this is by right, so you've got to do all these things, or did they not know that four months ago?

So I can't speak for HCDF.

You do talk to them a lot, we understand. I wouldn't characterize it that way.

I have talked to HCD previously, including about this project, because I want to make sure that when I say things to the city, that I am speaking correctly about what state law means. And they are, as we all know.

I'm just so perplexed at the correspondence from you and HCD, which could have come last September. And I don't understand why, if it was so obvious, you didn't communicate that last September. And we've gone through all these machinations for what? Like, because you say we don't have any power. HCD tells us to approve it. I'm like, why should we approve it if they say it's already approved, basically? We shouldn't be doing anything, which is what your last letter said, so.

So there were a few questions there. In terms of why wasn't this raised earlier, I think it's a fair question. We elected not to pursue this. Why HCD didn't raise this earlier, you'd have to ask them, and I think they would be happy to talk to you about it, but I don't think that anybody asked the question.

Okay. I'm sitting here with their note to Nathan from April. It's part of our package. Everybody can read it. It just seems like quite the omission that now we get it on the eve of tonight's hearing, that it comes over. I mean, it just seems odd. Now, the two things are written by different people. I don't know the hierarchy. I don't know who knows what over there. But it makes it very confusing for us as decision makers or judges. Perceive ourselves to be decision makers. We're not always sure when we're talking to the state That's fair.

And I think you know HC is always open about this project others.

I think they're always open to answer questions Yeah, and I I do feel a responsibility since day one on this To not be in the silo of housing law only because we're responsible for all laws and making sure that projects comply with all laws not just housing laws and

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Who's up next?

Nelson Medeiros is the last public comment card.

All right. Hello, Mayor Bass. Hi, council members. My name is Nelson Medeiros. I'm from Lincoln, California. Doesn't mean I don't have any involvement in this because obviously we all have children. I do have two children that did graduate from MMCA, and I think it's a wonderful school. And I just need to remind the city of Rockland that you guys have a gem with that school here. I know we've heard a lot of the impacts regarding the acute impacts of construction. Just so we get short, that's what I do for a living. I do construction. I do landfills. I do heavy construction. I do every D10 dozer you could think of is on my project. My firm works on every project from high-speed rail to the Delta Conveyance, the Delta Tunnels project, even the White House Ballroom. That's where my firm works in. So we get involved in a lot of projects. I also build groundwater treatment plants, which we currently do a lot of pilot studies for PFAS. So I'm not... unfamiliar with the process and CEQA and everything else. Obviously, this one doesn't get that exemption from it. I was going to try to be diplomatic in my approach if I was going to speak back in May, but now I just totally forgot to be diplomatic suddenly. But this project is a bad project. I don't know how else to say it. They have zero thought against what impact it has on children what impact it has on teachers and what impact it has on that education environment that is already stressed enough, right? Anybody that's teaching, actually I know Mrs. Gallardo, our Councilman Gallardo, your husband and your late brother-in-law are coach to me. So like I said, I'm a Lincoln High School alumni, so I- You're a lucky man. I am a very lucky man. Go Zebras. Go Zebras. But everybody talked about the acute impact, right? Construction around the school, they happen. We do modify and we do build schools. We build new stadiums next to schools. And those are always accommodating that construction activity around the safety of the students, right? I mean, there's zones that are blocked off. Yes, construction does happen around schools. Construction happens all over the place. This particular project had zero... passion for the students and the children that will impact long term let's talk long term let's say this project does go off as designed as poorly designed as it is for this school and 10 years from now 15 years from now on its maturity now we're talking about the long term the the school's unsustainable it's lost its enrollment the children are stressed out There's other probably factors. I remember talking to a hillside next to a playground. And if we look at it, it's about as size as that element right there. So cars parked on that and put a three-story building on top of that. So that's massive over a playground, over a playground where children are going to be. So I'm sorry. I get that my time's up. Think about these children. Tinnitus is a real thing. And the stress. Everybody that's here spoke is amazing. Thank you. They're scared. They're stressed. And they're worried. And you guys have a right to be the city of Rockland and, you know, defend these people. Thank you very much, guys. Thank you.

All right. So we're out of those cards. Do we have hands raised online?

Checking right now to see if we have any hands raised online. We have a couple members of the public, but no hands raised.

Okay. Is there anyone that has not dropped off a speaker card? No? All right. At this point, I am going to be closing public comment. We are at 9.50, roughly. 948 how's staff doing? Good stuff's good. All right. We're gonna keep rolling Next is as necessary questions of public or staff by council members and I'll just leave it open. Are we looking for new questions? No, okay Yes

I have a couple, I need some clarification. There was a tremendous amount of discussion regarding the EVA access and looking at the drawings, there was a picture that was put up that shows a building that is adjacent to the building that is part of the drawings that shows the EVA access. And I've asked this question previously, and I don't know that I had a clear answer provided to me. So, Chief, I'm going to put you on the spot because I know you visited that location. And so when one is looking at that EVA access, there is clearly And again, it was the presentation that was provided by the Montessori School. It's not our presentation. But it shows a structure that is actually not included in the drawings, but it is part of the area where you would enter. So is that structure, is that building included in the consideration of equipment being able to access that area.

Again, Reggie Williams, Fire Chief. Councilmember, I'm going to try to answer your question as quickly as possible. I want to say that Nate probably has a better answer because it sounds like they've identified an issue in their initial drawings and fixed it. But when I went there, what I see is that there's a curb and the EVA in the plans

over they go over that curb and so if that mistake has been repaired as i understand it then i have no issue with how it's being presented tonight okay so i think that the question is about the two sides of the eva there's the side that's on the project side which it's shown there and there was a black line that was drawn there which is We'll leave the property line, but it does not necessarily denote where the fence is going to be. That has been moved back so that EVA is going to be completely free and clear on the project side. Then there's the school side. And I think the question, Chief, is whether or not there's a building that's been located on the school side within the EVA. Is that correct, Council Member? Yes. And to that, we could only evaluate what's on the project side. That's what's been provided to us. If there's a building within the EVA, and this EVA has been on this property for decades. If there's a building on the school side in the EVA, that would really be a conversation that the school would need to have on being able to make those turnarounds.

I think my problem with that is I'm being presented with statements that suggest that there's not a challenge in relationship to equipment being able to access the back of this building. Yet, when I look at this drawing and you look at the angle of where entry would occur, there's The lines that show a building, however, it does not incorporate what was shown earlier in a picture in which I have seen personally from a visit out at that location that is an extension to this building and is not included, which is problematic. So I'm being told that there's access, yet there doesn't appear to be access because there's a portion of a building there. So for me to be able to accept that there is access, irregardless, it exists. There's a building there. So I'm being told that we can access this area, yet none of the drawings show that portion of the building nor address the fact that it's there, but I'm being told that we can access this area with emergency equipment. So I can't sit here and say that I would be comfortable even moving this forward, knowing that I've seen a picture today, that I've visited the site, and I've seen the extension of this building that exists, and yet I'm being told that we have EVA access. That is hugely problematic to me. Irregardless of, or regardless, irregardless, I don't know where I come up with that word. Regardless, it's not a word. Regardless.

You're in a room full of educators.

I know. I'm embarrassed now. Regardless of the fact that we say, well, is it on the project side? Is it on the school side? It's there. And we're talking about emergency access to the school. So this is a huge concern that I have, that there is a portion of a building that exists that is not included in these drawings, which tell me that we have access to the back of this facility. So that is hugely problematic. And I don't think we can address it right now as it sits, but we did have a picture earlier that shows it. I would ask that some time be spent to actually look at the fact that there is a structure there that's not included. And it doesn't appear, at least to me, that that has been taken into consideration when we talk about, you know, if it's there and we show up and we need to get access and there's a building blocking us, that's a huge problem. Correct. So that is a concern of mine. Okay. So, Chief, thank you. I think additional... Work needs to be done on researching what is that structure? Does it impact our ability to access the back of that building? Why is it not listed here when we're using the existing building at least, but not that portion of the structure that is existing there as assessing our access to the back of that facility?

Yes, and Councilmember, to clarify, I don't know if you can put the cursor on the left hash marks. You don't have a mouse. But it's not a structure. It's actually a curb. But still, it's the school's property.

Actually, Chief, there is a structure there. So where you see that angle to the left, you see that dashed angling to the left, there's a building there. And so... It's not a curb. It's an actual structure that exists there.

There is a building there as well, but that dark line there is actually the curb adjacent to the building, but it is still the school's property.

Right. I understand that, but when we're talking about access to the back of that facility, I'm extremely concerned about what I'm seeing in drawings here, but knowing that there is... additional extension to that building that's not incorporated here. And I don't know that necessarily that angling that is shown there allows for or incorporates that and then would allow for entry of the vehicles. So that is a major concern of mine.

Okay.

Yep. Because, again, we're all talking about emergency access to this. And while, yes, the project piece of this doesn't include it, we are talking about the school that exists there today. And there is a portion of a building there that would appear to impede this area where we're showing angled for emergency access to the back of that building. Okay, so that is a major concern that I currently have, and I shared that information before, and I was told that that was analyzed, but it doesn't appear that that's the case. So I'm of the belief that that must be addressed. Another concern I have is traffic. Traffic is a major concern, and I shared this before, and I will say that I am extremely disappointed in the fact that the answer to that from this applicant is there's a willingness to make a good faith effort in relation to looking at the deceleration lane. Well, I can tell you, given your actions thus far, the good faith doesn't play well with me right now. So the fact that it hasn't been addressed, that I brought that forward in our meeting in May, and that you want to say, well, we'll make a good faith effort, I'm not convinced that I can rely on a good faith effort. I mean, I got a drawing just recently that addressed a wall that was discussed back in May. So I'm sorry. There's not a lot of confidence being created here on my part that anything is going to be done to address these issues. And so I have a major concern about traffic. And I don't think it's been addressed. And as a result, again, I have another major concern. It hasn't been addressed. And what I have here is we'll make a good faith effort. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not working for me right now. It needs to be addressed. And then listening to this discussion in relationship to what HCD requires and CEQA and the different things There's been a lot of discussion about noise. So what study, and this is for the applicant, what study has been conducted relating to the construction impacts on this school? Or is it just simply we don't think we're required to do it, or we think it's going to be expensive, or we think it might uncover something that makes it problematic? I mean, what... What is it that is taking place here? Is it just simply we don't think we're required to because we think the state has given us the ability to basically just disregard assessing the noise impacts that will occur based on this construction taking place in direct proximity to a school. So can someone from the applicant speak to What study has been conducted relating to the construction impacts? Are you simply telling this body that it doesn't matter? We are not required to do that. Can someone answer that?

Would you like me to start with the noise? I was taking notes. You brought up a number of things. You can start wherever you want. In the 15183 checklist, one of the studies that was done was a noise study. AND IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE REPORT. AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE RECEIVED COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NOISE STUDY THERE AS WELL. SO WE PROVIDED A SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY THAT PERFORMED THE NOISE STUDY. BOTH ADDING ADDITIONAL MEASURES AND ALSO EXPLAINING BECAUSE IT IS A VERY TECHNICAL STUDY, EXPLAINING how they took the measurements that they did, including addressing sensitive receptors. So all of that should be in the packet that you have. We also discussed it in the last city council meeting. So that study has been done. These are very standard studies. They're done on almost every project, regardless of whether there's a CEQA exemption. It followed all of the typical kind of like technical studies that it's supposed to. I am not an expert on the noise study, so I can't speak to the technical aspects of it. but the conclusions are there in the CEQA checklist that you have and the supplemental memo that followed.

Okay. So of all the things that you've basically said throughout this process that you're not required to do or that is basically waived because of the different processes and procedures that have been implemented in its infinite wisdom through our state, which we talk about we need CEQA and we need to do all these studies, but then we say we don't need to. And I can't say that I necessarily am convinced that I've seen information that suggests that a – actual thorough study has been done to assess the impacts of the type of construction that you're suggesting is going to take place in direct proximity to this school. So you're telling me that that has been done and that we have all that information? Yes. And it suggests that all that has been addressed? Yes. And that somehow all these people here, including myself, are confused and are incapable of

Finding that information to make us feel comfortable that that analysis has been done I can't speak for everybody here or yourself the noise study was was Conducted and it was provided and one of the questions that was brought up that we addressed in the supplemental memo or that the technical staff addressed is the types of equipment that would be used for the type of soil because that was considered a I mean, I think we had long discussion in the last City Council meeting about the particular rock in Rockland and so they added some additional explanation as to the types of equipment that would be used in that condition and how that would impact noise so that's all in the memo as well okay is there anything else you want to add on noise no no I well I wanted to address a couple things that that's okay that I heard come up around confusion so with the EVA First, I want to be clear because the image that's up on the screen right now, we can go to another one if we need to, but the parcel line that runs between the school and the church property, on the right-hand side, the dash shape that's showing the hammerhead, that's a surveyed line. So surveyors went out, they took the recorded easement document that has, I'm going to use technical language, meets and bounds, is that right? It has meets and bounds in it, so the surveyor goes out, they take measurements, and they stake it, and that's where that's marked on the survey. On the right side of that image, that's on a survey that's stamped by a surveyor, and that's our project side. In the course, and forgive me, I don't recall exactly when we put this in, but in the course of conversation about the EVA, we showed on the left side, which is school's property, the mirror image of that hammerhead, but that's a conceptual line. We didn't perform a survey on the school's property. We only performed a survey on our site because the easement is only that section of the hammerhead that falls on church property, which means the school or emergency vehicles have the right to use that hammerhead section as a turnaround. What happens on the school's property, we have no control over or influence over. We have zero improvements proposed on school property, anything that we're doing is the property line or on the church's parcel. If there's a building or a curb that impedes the ability to use the hammerhead, if that's what MMCA is claiming, we literally legally have no influence or power or control over that. All we have is a surveyed line work of an EVA in a recorded document from title. So far, we haven't been provided with any conflicting survey information. We would certainly want to know if there was a survey that existed that said the opposite or said something different about the location. But we're not proposing to change the location of that easement. That stays as it is. And we're simply, in some ways, you could say we're widening the area with which an emergency vehicle can go through there. And frankly, it That loop solves the building problem, meaning like right now, if there really truly is a building in the way of that hammerhead and the fire truck actually can't turn around, despite what the fire chief has said, we're creating a loop road where that building doesn't even come into play anymore because this fire truck can simply just pull through.

All right, Sue. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that your design of this is not modifying what currently exists on entry into the rear area of the school?

We can't do anything on school property.

No, no, no. What I'm saying is where you're... Because they have a garden area there that is on... an area they've been sharing with the church that you are purchasing. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Are you making modifications to that area that you're purchasing that is changing the access that currently exists to the back of the school?

Access to the back of the school. I mean, the garden is almost entirely on church property, so the garden will be removed, meaning they won't be able to access that area anymore because it's going to be part of the development. That doesn't affect the EVA, though. That's a separate area.

Because there's a fence there. where the garden is located, there's a fence. That fence opens, which allows for access into the blacktop area behind the school, does it not?

I should be clear and distinguish between two things. The survey that we did that shows the marking on our plans is simply a survey of the meets and bounds of the recorded easement. It does not necessarily coincide with the paved area and the fencing of the improvements that were done. Those were done well before we came along. So I can't attest to the fact that the actual paved area that is the hammerhead falls within the actual legal recorded easement.

So if there is... Okay, let me just stop you. Okay. So... My concern is that from what I can tell in the drawings, in the area that the garden area exists today, and the modifications that are planned with your development of the property is modifying the area where ingress and egress is available for emergency equipment today, that there will be some changes to it? No. You're saying there will not be any change, so you're not shortening that area at all? No, we're not. Okay, so I may be misreading the drawings here, but that doesn't, seem to correlate with me being out there at that location and looking at. So again, I will tell you, as it stands right now, there is no way that I am comfortable that EVA access is appropriate, given the drawings I have here, the knowledge that there's an additional portion of the building that exists that isn't part of these drawings. I don't care whether it's on your developed area, the area you plan on developing, or on the school. My concern right now is the emergency access to that school. And based on your project development, whether or not someone can share with me with 100% certainty that there's not a concern given that additional structure that's not included in any of the drawings here. And I don't have that sense.

I'm not sure what to address other than what we've provided you is a surveyed depiction of what the easement allows for, and the area will be free and clear for emergency vehicles to pass, which is why the fire department, upon several different reviews, has okayed it to proceed, and staff has also.

That's what you're sharing with me right now, but I saw a picture earlier that showed a structure that It's not included here. I know there's modification that's occurring relative to your development plans in this area, and I'm not confident that at this point in time that I could say that there's an accurate depiction of the EVA access into that area.

If the school's providing photos of the existing conditions, it doesn't reflect what is recorded against the church's property. Going out there and visually looking at it doesn't necessarily mean that what you're looking at was done, I don't want to say properly, like somebody did it on purpose, but it's very possible that improvements were put into an area that they were not supposed to go. We can't as the applicant for the project be responsible for anything that happens on a different property. We can only be responsible for what we're proposing to develop and making sure that it abides by the law.

Which is terrific. From your perspective, that's terrific. From mine, I also have to be concerned about the EVA access to the back of that facility. Again, I'm not convinced at this point in time that I have the information I need to say that we have proper EVA access to the back of that building.

Understood. I don't have any ability to address that. Thank you. I had a couple of other things, if that's all right. Yes, please. Construction activity, because a lot of the comments and I think concerns and worries on the parents' part and school's part is around construction activity, particularly noise and air quality. The studies that we did and provided address construction. That's why they are done, is because construction is SE. It causes all sorts of conditions that are unusual and temporary. I think what I want to make clear, and I said this in the previous meeting, is that we have said and will continue to say and remain open to working with MMCA when it comes the proper time to share the construction management plan, to discuss different ways that we can work with them to accommodate the specifics of the areas of the school and at particular times of construction. I've said that publicly in the community meeting, in every meeting that I've had with constituents, or sorry, I'm tired, community members who have talked with us. It just isn't the time. We literally don't have the plans in place to be able to have those discussions. That has to come next. The item that is up for review is the design and whether it meets the objective standards in the city's codes. would be happy to sit down with the school and talk about, I mean, we develop all over the state. Every single project has a different neighbor, different conditions that we have to accommodate work with. I've seen it even in the short time that I've been doing this, that we put up different types of fencing. You know, we manage traffic around certain times of day when we know that certain neighbors are going to be leaving a confined area. All of those measures happen, but they're not in this stage of the project. And unfortunately, we have not been able to have productive conversations with the school to this point. And yet I remain open to talking about those measures. But the construction management plan isn't part of this review. we will have to apply for building permits and that will be a requirement. Is there any other questions? That was all I had in my notes.

Thank you. Is there any other responses by the proponent at this point? No, okay, thank you. Okay, staff, is there any responses by staff that have been identified as questions you want to address?

Do you have any specific questions? I mean, I took notes during the meeting, but was there anything specific that the council wanted addressed?

I do know there was one question about... Water lines, and I just wanted to clarify when it came to... Actually, I think it's more sewage, but the actual... spot in which there's, I think, the main access for water or sewage. Is that directly underneath the garden?

Avento, would you mind bringing that up, please? I had her pull the utility plan so we can take a look at it together.

Does anyone else have questions that they're going to ask for staff, just so I know? No?

Okay. I've got some questions. You're going to have questions?

Okay.

Sorry. Okay, so the question is where the water line or the sewer line come from. Would you mind zooming in a little bit so we can see those? I've got glasses on, but my eyes still aren't that good. If you could just zoom in on that screen. There you go. Thank you. All right. So you can see the sewer easement. The S shows the sewer line, which is coming in. And the question is, where is the sewer line connecting?

I just thought that there was a major point that was essentially right underneath the garden, which regardless... There's a lot of questions about where things are and... One of the things that I found interesting was where the, I think that there was a connection and it was literally underneath where the garden was.

Yeah, the garden is located where that parking lot is in the, we'll call it the northwestern corner. So you can see the sewer easement comes through right there. That S is the sewer line. So that is under where the garden currently is located. I can tell you that staff doesn't spend a lot of time reviewing sewer and water plants. Those are reviewed by SPMUD and PCWA, and these plants have ultimately been approved by them in order to move forward. Thank you.

Yeah, Nathan, I've got some questions kind of around where the project interfaces the church parking lot and then the school driveway. I don't know if there's a cleaner... One of the other drawings that you had up that showed the fencing. Could you go back to the presentation? I'm sorry. Because there are some lines on there I'm a little confused about. So the fence plan or the site plan? The site plan, which shows some tubular fencing, the walkway. Yeah, there you go. So that – well, first of all, the project entry, the second entry adjacent to the church, is that driveway access – folks can either go into the church or continue into the project. Is that right? That's correct.

That entry is already existing. So the only entry that the project is constructing, which would be the primary entry, is the northernmost one directly off of Wildcat.

Okay, the northernmost will be the primary entry. Okay. So if folks turn into the church, can they continue all the way through to the school driveway, or is there a fence there preventing that access? I believe there's an existing fence there. There's a line.

No? Okay. Yeah, help me out here. I've been out to the site, but I guess there is no fence there. So there's no fence between the school, or I'm sorry, between the church and the school's entrance. Okay.

That's the answer. Okay, so there's nothing proposed. A little bit further down the church driveway, it says tubular steel.

Yeah, I wish I had a mouse, but the tubular steel, it elbows, so it goes down, and then it goes up along the dog park to the north.

So that line that continues.

Thank you so much.

So that line that continues past where it says tubular steel to the right does not exist.

And then it follows here where it says tubular steel along here. Okay. So it's not creating a fence along here where there is not one currently.

As cars come in to the school driveway, they can make a right into that church parking area? Yeah, there's no modification to this area here. Okay. So is there a walkway on the southernmost or the south edge of that driveway for the school?

Along here.

Below the parking lot.

Below the parking is the is this a sidewalk here?

If we don't have an answer or if we want to have it get an answer what hold on we're not we're I know it's getting late What we're gonna do is if there's gonna be a question for whether there's a sidewalk the first thing I'm gonna do is if the proponent has an answer and Is that proposed as a sidewalk, not a sidewalk currently? No, it's okay.

So there's a couple questions. One is on the school property on the edge of this diagonal parking, which is not part of your project. So I'm wondering, is there a sidewalk there or not?

I heard yes from the public behind me who would be the experts.

Okay, so if cars park there, students can walk on that sidewalk down towards the school. Is that correct? And I'm not specifically asking you, Lauren.

I think what I observed is they're walking across that dirt parking lot from the parking.

Well, that's sort of my question. If cars park along that way, do students have to cross the driveway to get there?

Sorry, are you talking about if we construct the project as it is, there's a dirt pathway right now that goes from the church parking finger and goes straight across church property. We voluntarily put in a walking path that reroutes the walking so they don't have to cross the dry well. Yep, right there.

Okay, so that's one of my other questions. So since you're up, we'll talk about that. So what exactly is that?

It's a, I don't know the measurements.

Like a three foot wide sidewalk or?

Five foot.

Okay. It's a side, kind of a curb sidewalk. It's above the roadway or is it?

Do you want me to curb it?

Okay. Six inch curb. Okay, good. And is, so is this tubular fence on the, is the sidewalk outside the tubular fence or inside the tubular fence? Outside. Outside. Outside. Okay. So the two of your friends sits inside the sidewalk.

So there's, it's on our property though, or on church property.

Yeah. It's, it's your, well, yes. So the, you're, you're offering to be granting and use that. Gotcha. Gotcha. Okay. Good. Good. So that was one of my questions. And then that sidewalk turns along to along the dog park. And then you have dead ends I guess at some point.

No, I continue it. Oh, no, it comes out from where the Basically work where they are walking now So it's like kind of the center of that the dead end of the parking drive aisle where the dog park label is neat Okay, that's where they're I think that's where they're walking out now to the current path Approximately instead of walking straight they'll turn left so that sidewalk will kind of go around the dog park down towards the school and And then connect up with their existing walking path on their property.

That's five feet or so wide. Yeah. Okay, great. I think that's all the questions I had on that portion.

That's all I have for right now. This is for our staff. So, you know, one of the consistent things that has come up is the study on sensitive receptors. And I'm in Appendix A. PAGE 94 WHERE THERE'S A MULTICOLORED DIAGRAM ABOUT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS.

PAGE 94? YEAH.

OF APPENDIX A.

IT'S NOT IN THE PACKET. OKAY. APPENDIX A THAT WAS REFERENCED IN THE PACKET.

I UNDERSTAND. I DON'T HAVE THAT HERE.

WHAT'S THE QUESTION, SIR? Well, I'm trying to understand, you know, there's been a lot of focus on the sensitive receptors, the study of that, and it was, you know, there was some more language about it in the supplemental thing that the developer, I just want somebody to walk me through what this is so I can understand exactly what's been studied and how it was studied and the assumptions baked into it.

Is it possible for Aventa to pull that up? It's on our city website.

I can send you a link to it. Nathan, I could send you a link if you want.

Yeah, we can pull it up. We would probably ask the applicant to respond to it.

I'd really like you to respond to it.

Okay. David, I might need your help with this one.

Okay. Well, I'd like somebody who's not got a vested interest to respond. Sure, yeah.

David Mullenbrook, the city's environmental coordinator. But I think first we need to see it.

And, you know.

Is there any other questions while they're trying to queue that up that maybe go somewhere to another staff member? I'm going to take a break. I think I'm going to have them take a break. All right. We're going to have this get pulled up. I'm going to put it off till 1035, do a quick break. Be back.

I had too much time sitting here.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. We're back on from our break. Sensitive receptors. So we're on. Sensitive receptors. All right. And then if staff can answer, I may actually ask the question as well.

Yeah, if I may, I was conferring with David Mullenbrook, who's the city's environmental coordinator and community development director. I think he can best answer that question, so he's going to come up and take a stab at it.

Thank you. Good evening, Council. David Mullenbrook, City of Rockland Community Development Director.

And David, if I could jump in. If you want to involve the applicant in this, that's fine with me.

I'll do my best, and then if they have anything to add, I'll certainly not oppose to that. This is... What we're looking at on the screen is a modeling result. The modeling result is showing the chart is labeled DPM concentrations. DPM is diesel particulate matter. So that's one of the emissions that is of concern during construction activities. diesel particulate matter. So this exhibit is deep down into the appendix of the air quality report that was conducted for the project. And one of the studies or efforts that was done was this health risk assessment. So there's a model that's used that's purported by the state of California. The state office, actually I found their acronym here, The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, OEHA, provides guidance and recommended methodologies, which the study followed. And then the results of that analysis are compared to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District Thresholds of significance. What the table or the colorful chart is demonstrating is the level of emissions in the rainbow colors with the yellow. If you look at the bar chart on the bottom, the higher concentrations are to the right. The lower concentrations are to the left. So as you get farther away from the project site, the concentrations of diesel particulate matter are less and less. At the top of the yellow area, there's a red box called MEIR. That's considered to be the maximum exposed individual recipient. And then the MEIW in blue is the church. And I'm going to try and... I don't remember.

And can I ask, you know, there's a dot, a big dot for the school. Correct. And then there's some other orange dots to the left of that dot. Like what determines it being and maybe it's, okay. So that's basically students we're talking about there.

Yeah, all of the, at least the yellow dots, I'm not sure about the orange dots, but the yellow dots are like individual locations where these modeling projections are being studied. identified through the modeling effort. But ultimately, all this information is used to draw a conclusion where, again, comparing the results of this modeling against the Placer County Air Pollution Control District's thresholds, it's a cancer risk threshold, and the risk is per million. So the Air District's threshold of significance is 10 per million And in this particular case, the project itself, well, 10 per million for cancer risk, one per, actually one for acute noncancer risk and one for chronic noncancer hazard index. And ultimately, the conclusions of this modeling is that none of those thresholds of the air districts are exceeded with respect to diesel particulate emissions when the project's under construction.

OK. And there was some discussion in the supplementary letter and at the planning commission about where the activity was happening and this thought that it was 400 feet from the school. And in the supplemental letter, it says, oh, no, that's not right. But I guess I'm still not clear about where the emitting is happening and being measured, because that seems to be the key variable.

Yeah. So the response there with the air quality modeling, when you're looking at, construction emissions being generated by a project on the project site, you pick basically the geographic center of the project site because the construction activities happening around the entire project site. But rather than model the edges, you pick the center. and then model from there. And so that's why the discussion previously said it's 400 feet from the edge of the, from the center of the site to the school is because you pick that center to represent an average condition of the construction emissions across the entirety of the project site.

Okay. That's confusing to me. So, okay.

I don't know if I could explain it differently, but if the applicant maybe has anything to add.

I've got a question. So there's been talk about different equipment, what type of equipment is required, when. We don't know what any of that stuff is yet, I guess. So how is this model designed? What's it look at as far as the type of equipment how how many units are out there operating simultaneously?

If you have one that's one thing if you've got 20, that's a whole different story Yeah, there was there was a speaker earlier this evening that referenced what's called the Cali mod model Cali mod is a model that is basically the model that's used in the state of California for projecting air quality missions both from a short-term and CONSTRUCTION PERSPECTIVE AS WELL AS A LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVE. IT ALSO LOOKS AT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AS WELL. IT'S A VERY COMPREHENSIVE MODEL THAT HAS BEEN, I THINK, CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED IT AND IT GETS UPDATED AND REFINED AS YEARS GO BY. The model has default settings, as was stated by the earlier speaker, but it also has project-specific data that you can enter into the model. So, for example, if you know your construction duration is going to be X many days, rather than the default setting, you enter that into the model. If you know you're going to use a certain type of equipment rather than the default setting, you enter that into the model. So it's the person who is running the model that gets that information from the development team as to any specifics that are maybe different from what the default settings are. And then they plug that information into the model, run the model, get the results. So if the modeler use information from the developer to inform how to set those settings, then, you know, it's more specific, customized to the project as opposed to just using the default settings. Right, right.

So I guess my question is what settings were used? I mean, if we've got something in front of us that shows the impact.

That's beyond my comprehension level of the model. I've never done that modeling before. I see the results, but I don't do the modeling.

Okay.

All right.

I'm open to hearing the applicant on that. Do the applicant have any information on that? Thanks, David.

I'm sorry. I was trying to, I don't have a copy of the supplemental memo. It sounds like you might be reading it. Is that the one that we submitted prior to the city, in between the planning commission and the last? Okay. So you have the most, that's the most recent information I have to address the question that you're asking.

Okay. That's what I would. You know, one of the things in that supplemental memo, I just feel like, you know, whether it's noise or this air quality for a school that is in many ways like an outside school, but noise, there's no attention to it being an educational setting. Like for noise, for example. You know, little kids... You know, I just it doesn't strike me that we can just say, oh, this is like the normal noise thing for construction sites. Well, normally it's not right next to a classroom where you're trying to teach kids. And, you know, the the school, you know, one of the great attributes of the school is it it it. does a great job of serving students with some special needs. And so the noise, the sensitivity to noise might be much bigger at that school than it might be somewhere else. But in any educational setting, it's going to be big. But the disruption of their education, I guess I don't feel like the noise study even really mentioned anything about education and kids in the noise study. It's just like kind of standard noise stuff.

I mean, I'm not a technical expert. I can relate to the conversation I had that led to the supplemental memo with the woman who personally prepared the air quality study. in this is in layman's terms so there's a body of work that determines kind of the parameters of the studies as far as what she has to follow and then in and I think David was alluding to this inside of that there's certain amount of like judgment calls that get made and what she described to me is in those judgment calls she went as as conservative as she can go in terms of how they measure The general population of sensitive receptors, as I understand it, there's lots of categories inside of sensitive receptors. So she took the most conservative approach.

I'd say there's three-year-olds and four-year-olds on this campus.

She said that age group was included.

What's that?

She said that that age group was included in the category of people. When she says most conservative, that age group, that population is included.

So the impact... It's focused on the impact on three-year-olds.

I didn't see that in the report. I don't know. I am not a technical expert, so I can't speak to what's in the report or could be in the report. All I'm relaying to you is when I asked her about this, because this came up in the last city council meeting, is that that age group, toddlers and younger, was included in the parameters that she studied.

I mean, I get back to my earlier question for the teacher, like, Are parents of three, four, five, six-year-olds going to send their kids to this school?

Did you have any other questions for me?

No, I mean, it's kind of a question for you, too. Like, I mean, you know, if there's an impact on the kids, okay, maybe it's below whatever somebody wants to say, you know, why would you expose your child to that versus sending them to another school when you can choose whatever school you want to? This is not 1960 where... Everybody had to go to the school they were assigned to.

Is your question, why would somebody do that?

No.

Are you asking me that?

No. I guess my, there's going to be an impact on these kits. You know, I mean, I don't think anybody's, I mean, I don't think your study says there's no impact. You're just saying it's not that big of an impact.

It measures the level of significance of the impact. And those thresholds are set by the county. as to whether it's considered significant or not.

Yeah. And then I guess I'm trying to think of a four-year-old body and whether the county's focused on four-year-old bodies. And I don't know. I don't know the answer to that question. But if the county's setting certain levels, that doesn't give me comfort that it's good for a four-year-old. I wouldn't presume to know what...

I don't have any of the knowledge that's required to make a judgment about that.

I think this is why I sit here and I just feel like, do we know enough about the impact on these kids and their health, you know, to make a decision here?

I mean, as developers, it's why we rely on all of the infrastructure that guides what we're allowed to do. There's no way we and the role that we have in developing anything could know everything there is to know. We live in one of the most restrictive states in the country as far as environmental protections are concerned.

Okay, thanks. Thank you. So we are at 10 minutes out to 11, and I believe it's 11 at which we have to make a decision. So I'd like to have that conversation now. We have, I mean, we've gotten to questions of staff, questions of... the proponent and I Could close the public hearing and then get on to City Council discussions But we are At the time where we're going to be making a decision anyways, we're going to continue I think council member Gallaudet.

I don't want to jump in front of you Well

Make some comments and then also make a suggestion for us for moving on. I think it's important, most important for me is that we are elected to represent the taxpayers and the citizens of Rockland. And we're supposed to use our personal knowledge of the city so that housing of all types can be located in the appropriate locations. and that our commercial properties are protected so that all the residents in Rockland continue to have the highest level of services, which are provided by sales tax and property tax. This is the perfect example of the loss of local control. We have a general plan for a reason, and we spent years making that plan. I have to remind everyone, this parcel was zoned commercial. It was always intended to provide sales tax to the city and for the residents so that we can pay for police and fire and for parks and roads. The church used a provision in that zoning law that allowed them to build the church on intended commercial property. And while they are absolutely lovely members of the community, what it means is no sales tax for this piece of property and no property taxes because they're exempt. The school used a provision in that law so that they could build a school on this commercial property. And what it means is no sales tax generated and no property tax because they're exempt. Now I have a developer who skipped us altogether. They went to the state to get permission for this housing project, and we wanted to at least get some commercial piece on there, but they are exempt from paying property taxes as well, if I'm correct. and they don't generate any sales tax. But certainly, as a city, we have to provide police, we have to provide fire, we have to provide roads to all three of you. And if you're wondering why I'm so focused on the dollars, and it sounds like that's because we don't have any place left to build, folks. We're almost built out. It is crucial that we save that. I don't get ADA. I don't get a dollar from the state for every resident. We have to generate our own income. Nearly 60% of our budget pays for police and fire. Let me say that again. Nearly 60%. We are very conservative with our dollars. We just have a triple A Fitch credit rating because we're really cautious. And at the same time, you probably haven't paid attention, but we still are the lowest sales tax rate. We're a base rate. If you go to Loomis, you're paying seven and a half. If you're in Roseville, you pay seven and three quarters. Rockland's still seven and a quarter. And quite honestly, I think we give the highest level of service for that. We are really cautious. But we do that because we protect our income sources. I have to protect those income sources, and this has completely blown that out of the water for me, which is really concerning because you're going to expect me to continue to provide those level of service. Rockland's been assigned a specific number of units. I support that we want workforce housing. We got new numbers coming in January, which are in addition to the ones that we already have. And I did support that if this went to this date, They approved it that at least we get the credit for those units. So I'm not having to do this to somebody else with these units. But I'm spending so much time on this or the legal issues, and we've missed the whole picture. This is not what we wanted in this property. I think people are coming here like it's something we're supporting or encouraging to do. No, quite frankly, for all of that property. but something was going to go on that lot too. And so I do have to ask the school folks, just like I do my family, you got to step up and have a little responsibility and say, guys, something was going to go on that lot, whether it was commercial or something else, it's not open space. So how are you going to work that out? What was your intentions for construction during that time and pathways? And how long do you get to use the church parking lot to drop off your kids? That's something that, is always weighing back here for me. I want to call out Adrienne Halfley. I'm sorry. I will tell you, her father is my mentor my entire life. And as 30 years in school transportation and as the safety analyst for San Juan for 14 years working for Dr. Halfley, and my last 16 years as the director of transportation for Rockland and Elk Grove, It's what I do is observe school traffic. And I've been out there and I've watched. Nobody's walking. I saw three kids on the three different times I've been out there. They ride their bikes. This isn't a neighborhood school. So all of that, I'm like, guys, they're not walking. They're getting dropped off in the parking lot and they're walking. And I get it. You still want a pathway and it looks like they've worked it. But I hate it when we throw stuff in that doesn't really apply because they're not walking. It's not a neighborhood school. Let's get to the nuts and bolts of what can we do with this. And am I willing to risk? I mean, you heard the line. If HCD finds a jurisdiction's actions do not comply with state law, HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General. Really? May? I mean, you know what they're saying to us. It's pretty frustrating because, quite honest, people put us in a position that we're having to deal with that we didn't really create this issue and we're trying to find a way through it. So I appreciate everybody's been gracious and kind through this and helping us. I don't have enough information, quite honestly, to continue with this. We still have so many questions going on with this. But we also know we have to balance. If HCD, what we have learned is if HCD decides we're noncompliant, it's not just this project. that they get to do, it's the whole city. I've never backed down from a fight, and this team hasn't either. But while we're fighting it, we just lost our ability to zone for the city. I've got to protect that. So I've got to have good answers from our legal team. I've got to have some clarity there. But I also need everybody to step up and say, is there a way you guys can work together on some of these issues? Something's going to go on that lot. This isn't what I wanted. And do I think it's a great location? I don't. But man, get your stuff together. The three of you need to sit down together and work something out to make some improvements. None of us are going to love construction, but something's going to be there. I don't have the information, and I don't believe that any of us do, to be able to make a decision tonight. We still have too many unanswered questions.

I WILL AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER GALDO'S FINAL POINT. I THINK THAT THE FLURRY OF LETTERS WE GOT AT THE END PRETTY MUCH PUT OFF THE IDEA THAT WE COULD MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT BECAUSE IT RAISED MORE QUESTIONS FOR US THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS. I DO THINK THAT on the air pollution, sensitive receptors, the noise, and how that impacts an educational environment. I don't feel like we have all the answers and all the information that we need. TO ENSURE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE STUDENTS OF THE SCHOOL. AND THAT'S THE STANDARD THAT HCD MENTIONED IN THEIR APRIL LETTER TO US. THAT'S THE STANDARD THAT I THINK THAT WE WANT TO BE SURE OF. BECAUSE, I MEAN, TO BE BLUNT, AND I DON'T MEAN TO SOUND DIRE, This school's been there 20 years. I was fortunate to actually be at the grand opening of the school 20 years ago, so I remember that day, actually, of it happening. And I said, you know, this school, people choose this school because it fits, it meets their need, all right? If it becomes basically a risky school because of the construction, they're going to choose something else. This school could very well just implode. And I don't think the church wants that on their conscience to see this school that really is serving a real community. segment of the student population that, frankly, a lot of schools don't even want to serve. So, again, I don't think the church wants the failure of this school on its record. And as Councilmember Gallardo, I think an affordable housing, any housing, and, you know, one of the things I think this has, most of our discussion here has nothing to do with affordable housing. It has to do with housing on this site, and how can we, I think housing can be on this site. I think it can be workable, and I don't think it's actually an incredibly dramatic change. You know, there's still going to be some issues to deal with, but I just, at this point, I couldn't, you know, vote for this, and I think we need more information. I think that Frankly, we've got some questions raised by residents in very thoughtful communications to us that came in the last few days. I'd like to dig in deep on some of those. But I just feel like it's our job to look out for the health and safety of these kids. And that's what we have to make sure that we've done. And this is a project, when it's built, it's going to be there for 40 or 50 years. And I don't think we ever need to rush when we have something that's going to be here for so long. All right.

So at this point, it sounds like we have at least two that want to move this on to another date. If we think that that is the consensus, then the question would be if this is going to be moved on to a date certain or not. Is there any?

Do you need a motion to continue?

Well, yeah, we're going to need either a motion to continue, a motion to keep going until, I would say, 1130.

A motion to continue this onto another calendar. So I should have clarified which continue I mean, not to continue the meeting.

Past 11, the council should, in theory, take a vote to extend just to complete the item.

Yes.

That would be the cleanest.

Okay. So first I'd be looking for a motion to go to 1115.

Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion that we continue the meeting to 1115. Second. All right.

All in favor, aye. Aye. Nose. Eyes have it. Sorry, we have to do that. It's just a rule.

The question about whether to continue it to another date certain or to not is just a matter of procedure. We are continuing to extend a single hearing. You know some of the challenges that came up because we were in an extended recess. Depending on the nature of the information that council is looking for, we can endeavor to bring it back as quickly as possible. But if you want to put a specific date on it, that would be what you do. Otherwise, we would bring it back at the first possible meeting that the information is available.

Right. And so the next available that would probably be the one that would be the best to get the most amount of information would probably be on the September one.

Which one? I'm sorry.

The September date that we.

September. If you continue it to date certain, potentially September 8th could work. If you were going to continue it off calendar with the noticing, probably the earliest would be September 22nd.

Well, we're going to probably have at least some items on September 22nd, and we didn't have really much on at all today, and we still are pushing the envelope.

If you continue it to a date certain, then I think it would also be up to the discretion, and I'll defer to the attorney on this, if you're going to reopen public comment. One of the things that... We want to make sure the public comment is made on the totality of the record. So if we're going to be providing more information, you'd likely need to open public comment regardless. And so whether it's state certain or not, we're probably going to have another robust meeting.

And that's fine. And to the extent that... I did want to address the statement about, you know, we got a lot of letters and everything, and this happened also in the last time, and I don't think that that's going to be a consideration as to continuing it. If we get things at the 11th hour, except for from HCD threatening to send us to the Attorney General's office, I'm really not worried about whether that's going to move the needle. I think we need to make sure everyone knows that sending us a letter, you know, This afternoon, when at least some of us are working a full-time job, is just not going to get read, and that's not fair to any of us. I'm more addressing the fact that we do need to get this hearing done. There needs to be at least some finality, but if it means not going to the September date, then I'm just asking if there's a consensus to move it just, I guess, a date not certain, and then we're going to see what happens in between that time until we can get the information we need.

Whatever is the desire of the council, we can make happen.

All right. Is there any input? Otherwise, I'll make an executive decision.

I would ask our city attorney in particular, because you're one of the ones that's going to have the workload on this. Are you comfortable with the first September meeting, or would the second one be more appropriate?

FIVE TRIES TO TURN ON MY MIC. I AND MY LEGAL TEAM WILL MAKE WHATEVER IS THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNCIL HAPPEN. SO I WOULD DEFER BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR THAT PURPOSE. I MEAN, IN A PERFECT WORLD, THE MORE TIME, THE BETTER. I AM SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF COMPETING INTERESTS AT STAKE. AND SO I'M ALSO WOULD REITERATE THAT WE'RE STANDING BY READY TO TURN AROUND WHATEVER IS NECESSARY IN THE TIME FRAME THAT CITY COUNCIL NEEDS.

NEW SPEAKER SO I THINK THE QUANDARY HERE IS IF WE DID LIKE A DATE CERTAIN TO SEPTEMBER 8TH then we might find as we get closer that we're not ready on September 8th. So I don't know. If we don't do any dates certain, then we have to notice things in the paper and all that rest of the stuff.

Yeah. I mean, it's up to the council as a whole. I have a 50-50. I could probably flick a coin as to whether or not we're going to have to have a special...

meeting anyways when we get the nasty ground from the ag well so date certain i think there's a little bit of concern about making that first september date so can we do date certain on the 22nd the second whatever you desire we can do we do have at least one scheduled public hearing that i'm aware for the 22nd which we have discussed a number of times but it is comprehensive it's the zoning code update

Perfect timing.

We would have the most flexibility by continuing it off calendar. It would just be an additional noticing time frame, which is two weeks.

Is it 10 days? It's a 10-day notice.

It's 10 days, and we also are obligated to submit through the local paper to Placer Herald, and they have a pretty, in my opinion, lengthy lead time for that that we always need to build in.

We need an additional seven above the 10. Yes.

I think date certain works better just because that is always a challenge. They only publish once a week, so it makes it a little challenging to get in to get our 10 days.

And do we have direction for staff or the applicant to work on leading up to the next meeting based on our feedback? Is there any direction for the staff?

I think some of the questions we asked, in particular with fire, would be some of the questions. I need to go do another site visit and stare at that corner now because I'm not sure that I remember exactly if it's correct with the stakes that were out there. But I think the fire in particular. Anybody else have something?

There's mention of a construction management plan, and I know there was provided some framework in a letter from the applicant. But, you know, nothing... Detailed, I mean, for me, that really dictates the impacts to the school during the construction phase. So not knowing what that looks like, what the intensity of the grading is, the time and duration, it would be really good to have more specific information that we can condition the project on.

And then most importantly is the legal questions that we have from the multiple letters we've received with lots of legal advice. Mr. Mayor, I can make a motion to move this to date certain.

I think also, though, I had mentioned the deceleration lane. I want more certainty to that. So if it's a no, then I want to be told by the applicant no, or... that this is what's going to be done. I want to see what the solution is. So we're including that in our decision making.

And I have Vice Mayor Holden's. I don't know if you had more clarity. You wanted to provide Vice Mayor Holden about the noise impacts.

Specific to much of the noise.

Yeah, noise.

I didn't know if you wanted more specificity on that. Just what you had stated earlier. I... We'll go back and watch.

What's that?

We can go back and watch to get what you said earlier, but I wasn't sure if there was more.

I'm concerned about the noise impacts on education environment and the students... you know, both on their ability to learn, but also on the students themselves, the noise impacts on young children. And I don't know if we're, are we on a date? Are we saying September 22nd?

Yes, that was my motion.

Okay, all right, great.

So we have a motion to continue to September 22nd. Second. All right. All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Those abstentions? Ayes have it. Unanimous. This gets continued. Aye. Future agenda items?

Mr.. Mayor I would ask staff never when I appreciate the work that was done by the park and recreation staff relative to fencing off an area two of our parks where we have had excessive activity from unscheduled but regularly planned volleyball activity which has been so significant that it's actually killed all the grass in specific areas. So now we have our youth sports groups from the soccer side out there trying to use these areas, and now they're all fenced off. So what I would ask staff is to bring back to us for a future discussion is the potential for us to look at a means for, and I believe there's other communities that I've looked at, for addressing the type of uses that are regular uses that are damaging and how we can manage that type of usage. So I would ask staff to explore that and bring something back to council. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you.

All right. Anything further? No? We adjourn.