City Council - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

Alright. We are here. City Council regular meeting, 04/28/2026. We'll do a call

to order along with roll call.

Good evening. Councilmember Janda?

Present.

Vice Mayor Holden?

Here.

Councilmember Gialdo?

Here.

Councilmember Broadway? Here. Mayor Bass?

Here.

Thank you.

Do we have any public comment on closed session?

No public comments.

All

right. We will now enter closed session on CS1 pursuant to government code section 549,069, conference of legal counsel, anticipated litigation. CS2, Conference of Labor Negotiators, Agency Representative, City Manager, Ali Zimmerman Administrative Services Director, Tamika Usher and Jack Hughes Employee Organization, City of Rockland Public service employees represented by AFSCME, council fifty seven, and then CS three pursuant to government code section 54,956.8, conference with real property negotiators, and there's a lot of properties there. We'll go into closed session now. All right.

We ready? All right. Good evening everyone. We are back from our closed session. We only have one item to report out and that is to authorize initiation of one case that is CS1.

There is nothing further to report out. We will take up CS3 at the conclusion of the general session. So, we are now starting our general session and a call to order at 6PM. We're going to start with the pledge of allegiance and I'd ask that the Pac one zero two Cub Scouts that are here if you can come on up and we're gonna have you lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Thank you, guys.

Alright. Next on the agenda is agenda review. I will be pulling p one. I appreciate staff putting that together. We don't need to have a presentation on it. Anything else? Okay. Seeing nothing, we'll move on to 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. I remind everyone that this is more of a one way conversation. You're able to tell us how you feel about something, but we can't engage in too big of a conversation about it. That means we would have to agendize it. But we can direct staff to assist if there is such a need that arises. Do we have any cards?

Mayor Bass, no comment cards received.

Alright. That doesn't mean that you can't speak up. Anybody else have anything that they would like to say? Comment cards? Or nothing? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on. Now we are to reports from city council and then we will get a report from the city manager. I will start on my left. Councilmember Broadway.

Thank you, mister mayor. Just one item to report. I had the opportunity April 17 through the twenty second to participate in the annual cap to cap trip to Washington DC and represent our community. During the time there, we met with different representatives both elected as well as members of their committees talking about the needs of our community as well as not just Rockland but Placer County and then even the broader region in Sacramento. I had meetings with congressman Kylie, congressman Barra, also congresswoman Titus from Nevada in discussing some of our needs from a transportation perspective because we do have that connection with Reno.

Additionally, I met with a number of the transportation committees to talk about our needs specifically with 65 and the 80 connectors. So it was a great opportunity to share with them the 26 different needs that we've identified as high priorities for our communities and to request their support as they're looking at funding for those transportation needs that we do have. And so that's all I have at this time. So thank you. Thank

you. Councilor McGowaldo.

Thank you. A couple of things. Most exciting for this for this week was on the fifteenth was the opening of the nugget. Hopefully everybody got to see the and not to say the new Rockland Nugget is, it's the only Rockland Nugget. I keep hearing people say, oh, we've already been to the first one. That one's not ours. That's that little chunk Roseville stole from us many years ago. So if you look at a map, clearly, looked like it's Rockem, but what an incredibly beautiful store. If you wanna go for anything, go look at the murals. They have beautiful murals of Whitney Ranch, including on the backside, missus Whitney Joe Parker Whitney when she was on the cover of Sunset Magazine, I think, in the early nineteen hundreds.

And it's just just beautiful. We're excited to have them there. Also, same day, on behalf of SACOG and the city, I had a chance to go down to Sacramento, just off of Stockton Boulevard. There's a new housing development there, for low income housing, the San Juan apartments. And what was really unique is to build these apartments, there's always a little funding gap, and Health Net came through and donated $3,000,000 to build low income housing because they feel that they recognize that the health of a whole person certainly includes housing.

So that was a first and unique, and I will put notice to all of our health care providers around that that might be an option for them to join us. The sixteenth was also SACOG and a lot of that was in preparation for our cap to cap, but really working to address again, as council member Broadway talked about it, I also was at cap to cap that time, local control. The message really was the fight to continue to say we have to have local control. And we talked about the basics acts, which is exactly that. One of the interesting things is that we have local communities control about 75% of our roadway, and we get 16% of the federal funding.

So that was a message. 450 plus strong that we were trying to give is it needs to come down to a local basis. So happy to be there. On the twenty third, also with some of my other, council members was the Placer Justice Foundation reception, and it was an opportunity to support the Vander Schuht family, and I I know our mayor will talk a little bit more about that, as well as some of the other local families here that have been crime victims for some really horrific crimes. So them to see the entire community was there to support behind them.

Last at least we had our first concert at park, at Cory Park, was last Sunday Saturday. And I know we have another one coming up, and so it's great to see so many people, and in particular, how many people it brings from the outside of our communities who stop and shop hopefully in our neighborhood stores and fill their cars up with gas or at least as $20 that you can afford a gallon. And it was just it was just lovely to see that and support our restaurants in particular. And then hopefully, I know everyone will touch on it, but next Saturday, I lovingly call our Civic Jubilee. Did I say that again?

Our Civic Jubilee. It is my favorite event. And so please, everybody, I know we've been putting the word out. If you are a person that has a family member that has an issue with loud noises and fireworks, or you are a fur family, please spread the word. We will have some serious fireworks and a drone show besides the heritage festival, which starts in the morning from the historical society. I think that's all I've got.

Vice Mayor Holden.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Also had a chance to attend the Plaster of Justice Foundation event as well as the Sierra College Gala to raise money for programs for students at the college. And it was the executive director of the Sierra College Foundation, Sunbhal Aliyabadi's last gala, because she's retiring, and it was a great event honoring her and also all the things that she's done for the foundation over the last twenty years. Also had a chance to attend a gala for Sierra Pregnancy Health, an organization that works with young women to help them through pregnancy and the birth of their children if they need help.

I also want to just mention the Nugget opening. It was supposed to open at seven The throng that wanted to get in early prompted them to open up at 06:30 and the place was mobbed that first day. You can get in now but the first day it was really mobbed and as council member Galdo said, just the amazing touches throughout the store to connect with Rockland history. It was really well done. In front of the story, there's a 100 year old tractor that marks the one hundred year anniversary of the Nugget markets, which started in 1926.

So I see a few people here. I ran into it, that 7AM start time. So people came from all over and it's a great addition. As a Whitney Ranch resident, hopefully it'll be a great gathering place for the whole community, but particularly the Whitney Ranch community. That's it. Thanks.

Thank you. On April 16, I attended Pioneer Community Energy meeting. A couple of items that we discussed or at least information we received. City of South Lake Tahoe is interested in possibly joining Pioneer. They're in El Dorado County.

When Pioneer was originally formed, it was just Placer County, and the intent then was to have the Kings Beach, Tahoe City area, which is also obviously part of Placer County, join. But they're served by Liberty, which is out of Nevada. So South Lake Tahoe is also served by Liberty. And Liberty is looking at exiting South Lake Tahoe. Rumor has it there's some large demand in data centers in Nevada that they want to latch on to.

So I'm not quite sure that how they're able to do that. So they were looking to pioneer to possibly help provide electricity. Gave authority for Pioneer staff to sort of explore and see what that looks like. Second item of note, I've reported past on the large increase in PCIA this year. Another I don't know if I'd call it a fee.

It's more of an amount that every CCA has to post in case they're no longer able to provide service. It's supposed to be amount of funds to help assist PG and E in bringing those folks back onto their network, which seems a little crazy. Historically, that's been about $175,000 a year. It's not a direct cost. We earn interest on it.

It's basically just some collateral we have to post. This year, it's potentially going to increase to $14,000,000 So it's very interesting what's going on at the PUC and with the investor owned utilities that they're setting up these fees that are making it a little more difficult for CCAs, and at the same time, it's like they're anticipating some CCAs not surviving by having them post these large fees. So the fortunate thing with Pioneer, since we have a very strong financial footing, good credit rating, we have a letter of credit that we can utilize for that. It's not going to be actual money out of our reserves. So, there will be a very minimal impact.

And again, that earns interest, which helps offset the cost of the letter of credit. So, Pioneer is prepared to handle that. But following up in May, I'll be attending the CalCCA event, which is all CCAs throughout California. And I'm sure this is going be a huge topic, as well as a lot of other things. So I will report back on that, on what type of movement. I know there's some lawsuits that are being filed on the PCIA and potentially this other fee. There's a lot of activity going on, and I'll keep you all posted.

Thank you. Yes.

Good. Just a couple of quick questions. So the 14,000,000, is it like you have to post it somewhere or like give it to

Yes. Like escrow or something? Exactly. Yeah.

They get interest on that?

There's a small amount. Don't know what it is. I'm sure it's not much. And then of course, Pioneer, whenever we draw down on that letter of credit, there's a fee. That's really our cost.

Could add one more thing? Sure. So, sorry. Councilmember Gallardo mentioned the Heritage Fair on Front Street at 10AM. Right after she mentioned that, I think Jay Parker Whitney walked into the audience in the back, and he probably wanted to give a plug for that too.

Well, I'll I'll allow him to give a plug. Yeah. Actually, just I don't really have updates. I just wanna thank everyone that did go to to Cap. I was not able to. But it's it's really valuable for us not just so that we can get in front of people, but we can also manage our own expectations and get a pulse on what's happening on the other side of the country in D. C. So thank you for everyone that went. And then obviously there was a mention of the Justice Foundation. It's actually a really wonderful event that we're able to go to.

Want to thank staff for being able to set up, being able to get a table there. Twice the voters have gone to the voting booth to enforce criminal victims' rights, and it still seems to be at odds with some of the other legislation that's being written. And so it's really great to hear from actual victims that are supported by our DA, our sheriff's office, and our law enforcement. So it's a wonderful event to also educate everyone, and I think that was one of the big things with the VanderSchut family having to go through so many parole hearings to keep her, their daughter's murderers behind bars. So always good to be vigilant, and I appreciate the staff setting that up so that we could go to it as a city.

On that, I think city manager and then we will allow for a special plug.

Thank you. So I won't talk about some things because I'm guessing Mr. Whitney might want to. But just wanted to remind the city council and invite the community to join us next Tuesday. We will be having a joint planning commission city council workshop here in the Council Chambers, I believe at 6PM, to discuss our ongoing comprehensive zoning code update project.

That meeting will be to get a status update of where we are and provide direction to the city city staff and the consultant before we start to bring the actual zoning document forward. Vice or excuse me, council member Gallardo mentioned, we do have our civic celebration. We've been doing this for the past four years to celebrate the city's birthday. Our birthday is in February, and nobody wants to go to the park in February, so we do it in April. And we like to do fireworks.

But this year, in honor of the country's 200 birthday, we're doing bigger. And so we're having a two hundred and fiftieth celebration, and we're calling it red, white, and bluegrass. So come out and join us for community fun and activities, showcasing city and community pride, and a lot of we'll have events and exhibits from our city departments as well as music and then ending with fireworks fireworks with some drone exhibits in there too, so that'll be fun. And as Vice Mayor Halden mentioned, we we have the two events, I won't talk about the first one because I think we have a special guest to talk about it, but we're linking the two events this year between the Historical Society on Front Street and the city's event in Johnson Spring View Park with a parade. So we're gonna have a small processional at 03:30 between Front Street down.

So closing out the historical society's event and opening up our red, white, bluegrass event. We'll be having a processional from Front Street down Farrin and over into Johnson Springview. So we wanna invite everyone to come and join us for those events. And that completes my report.

Alright. Mister Whitney, would you like to give us a a preview of what we should be expecting? Okay.

Oh, he may be here for a presentation. So I will just, for the record then, and into the microphone, invite everyone to also join us on Saturday from or join the Historical Society on Saturday between 10AM and 3PM on Front Street for their Heritage Street Fair. We'd love to see you all there.

Alright. All right. Thank you. Moving on to the consent calendar, items C1 through 15 of the consent calendar considered and acted upon by one motion of the city council.

Mr. Mayor, I'll move approval of consent calendar item c one through c nine.

I have a motion.

Do I Second.

We have a second. All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Nose.

Mr. Mayor, I, would like to register a yes vote on everything, but with a no vote on C6.

Okay. So council member agenda has a no vote on C6. Madam Clerk, do we have that? Alright. And there are no abstentions. So we have logged the all the yeses with one no. All right. We're now going to be moving on to presentations. As I'd stated previously, P1, just so everyone knows, that was a proclamation declaring April 29 fentanyl awareness day. We can move on to P2, which is the twenty twenty six Rukla Community Service Awards presentation, assistant to the city manager, Elizabeth Sorg. You have the mic.

Thank you. Good evening. Thank you, Mayor Bass. Elizabeth Sorg, assistant to the city manager here to briefly discuss the 2026 Rukla Awards and assist with the award presentation. At this point, I would like to invite our Community Recognition Commission Chair, Davoranski, up to the podium so you can say a few words about the awards themselves, and then we will ask the city council members and commissioners to begin handing out the awards. I will have the awards here, right here next to me, so as you come forward to present the award to the honoree, you can grab it from the desk right here. Thank you.

Sorry, I just pulled my notes out. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, council members. The Community Recognition Commission would like to acknowledge our honorees tonight, but first I would like to recognize my commission members who are on my team: Susan Wilson, Michelle Sutherland, Michelle Voss, and Bonnie Newman for their dedicated service to this, award and, the all of the hours I went into going over the applications and nominations. Tonight's Rookler, honorees represent the spirit of Rockland. They support local fundraisers, volunteer with our fire department, serve in retirement communities, uplift veterans, and help preserve the economic and historic character of our city.

Their generosity and countless hours of service strengthen strengthen our community in ways that are seen and unseen. The Community Recognition Commission values the Ruchel Awards because it highlights the stories behind these contributions, moments of kindness, long term commitment and the everyday actions that make Rockland a better place to live. This ceremony ensures these efforts are recognized with the intent tension and gratitude. We look forward to the heartfelt remarks tonight and to celebrate our honorees again here at the council meeting. Thank you for supporting this important tradition of recognition, and I invite invite, council member Ken Broadway to the podium to present the first award to Greg Ruberson.

Well, I do have the honor of recognizing the first recipient. So what I would like to do is ask Greg Roberson and any other guests that you would like to have come up with you for this recognition to join me. So please come up. And Greg is going to be receiving the individual award. Alright.

So tonight, we're honoring someone who proves that if you say no and say yes enough in the city of Rockland, eventually, we just start putting you in charge of things. And, Greg, here we are. Third time you're the board chair, right, for the chamber of commerce. So clearly shows you gotta learn to keep that hand down. Greg Roberson is what happens when community service meets an unlimited level of energy and a calendar that clearly gave up trying to keep up several years ago.

I was reviewing his volunteer resume and at one point I had to check, Is there really just one of you? Because I'm I'm starting to wonder if there's a little mini me running around out there doing a lot of the things. From the chamber to Keaton's, from the tree lighting to the rib cook off, Greg's really done it all. And to be honest, if there's food involved, it's not just volunteering. He is committed. And we can talk about attire for a minute. I mean, look at this guy. I mean, he doesn't just show up. He arrives. And I just have to say, I'm always honored to be in the presence of mister Roberson.

He shaved his head for Saint Baldrick's. He served meals. He supported families, lit Christmas trees, cooked ribs, and somehow he still has the energy to lead our chamber board. And I'm starting to think that coffee is certainly not a secret here. So but what really stands out about Greg isn't just the number of things that Greg has done.

It's the spirit that he brings to every single thing that he does. He doesn't just participate, but Greg elevates. So, Greg, for your energy, your enthusiasm, your wardrobe choices, and your unwavering commitment to this community, we are so proud to recognize you as this year's Rucola Award recipient for the individual award. Congratulations. And I would like to provide you with an opportunity to say a few words. That's a risk.

Thank you.

That is a risk.

Thank you. Usually I have a script, and so I don't have one for this evening, but I'm truly humbled and honored to receive this. I was looking at the history of the Ruchel Awards since 1999, and a lot of names that are synonymous with Rocklin and its success and its growth and its you know, there's just when we first moved here, there's just something about this place, right, that you want to continue to captivate, continue to grow, and continue to cultivate. And I keep coming back to some words of wisdom. We're just past March Madness, and they always run Jim Valvano, 30 for 30, where he just gives some tremendous speeches.

And a couple of things from his speeches stick out with me. One is that nothing great in this world was ever accomplished without enthusiasm. And so I love to bring enthusiasm to anything that I do. And the other one that sticks with me a lot is, because this is how I feel about myself, God loves ordinary people, because he made so many of us. Ordinary people do extraordinary things every single day.

And that's, I think, what keeps Rockland going. That's what keeps me going is that, hey, I can get up every day, and I can just do something small and make a difference. And I hope that's how everybody else feels that lives around here. So thank you very much. Thank you, council, committee. Thank you for everybody in this room. Thank you for the folks who came out to support me here today. Means the world to me, and let's let's keep doing it. You.

I

wanna provide the council members with an opportunity to make few comments, and then

Oh, boy.

We're going to bring you down. We get to do this a couple times. We'll come down for a

picture, so. Oh, boy.

Let's start with council member Gallardo.

He's all right.

Come on, somebody had to say that sometimes. You know the best part honestly for me is you are an absolute joy. You and your lovely wife are an absolute joy to work with. You are one of those people that has your fingers in every single thing that we're doing. And honestly, you do such a professional job to make us look so good, especially at all of our ribbon cutting events and being the face of the chamber that wasn't our lovely Robin who's here too. Just thank you so much.

Ditto. As a past chairman of the chamber, most of us were smart enough just to do it once. But you have been there in moments of need for the chamber and stepped up and done things that others have not done. So just you're kind of a core of this community and appreciate all that you and Sabrina are doing.

Yeah, don't know what else I can say. Greg, I think we go way back. I remember when I first saw you in the leadership program and you've just been doing more and more and your wife Sabrina has been very involved and you both are a fantastic asset to our community and I can't thank you enough.

What I'll just say, on top of everything else, it's one thing to be a leader, it's another to be a leader of leaders, and it's another thing to create leaders. And that's what you've done in Rockland, is you've created so many leaders that do the exact thing that you just said, which is to do extraordinary things, and they get to learn from you. So thank you.

Like to invite down council member Greg Janda, who is going to recognize another individual recipient, and that is David Teets. Come on up.

All right. How you doing, Dave? Good. Good. Good. Well, good evening, everyone. It's my privilege to recognize remarkable individual here whose service has made a lasting impact on our community, and that's mister David Teets. Let's give him another round of applause. For more than twelve years, David has dedicated himself as a volunteer with Rockland Fire Department, the Rockland Police Department, giving countless hours in service to the people of Rockland. David saw needs in our community and quietly got to work meeting them.

He has personally painted more than 300 fire hydrants throughout the city, helping ensure they are visible and accessible when seconds matter most during emergencies. He has helped improve wildfire preparedness by identifying and marking fire access routes, installing fire access signs, organizing gate access, and supporting firefighters' ability to respond quickly and safely. But David's contribution goes far beyond that. He has built a sustainable volunteer effort organizing teams, preparing maps and supplies, mentoring others, and inspiring community members, including young people to serve alongside him. His dedication has strengthened not only public safety, but also the spirit of service in Rockland.

What makes David's contribution especially extraordinary is the consistency, care, and humility with which he serves. Year after year, project after project, David has worked behind the scenes to make our neighborhoods safer, support first responders, and protect residents and businesses. And perhaps most inspiring of all, David continues this physically demanding work well into his eighties, demonstrating that service leadership and commitment have no age limit. For this exceptional volunteerism, unwavering dedication to public safety, and lasting impact on our community, it is an honor to present this Rukla Individual Honorary Award to Mr. David Teets.

Thank you very much. The mic is yours.

I just want to say thank you to everyone that is involved in giving me this award. Also, thank you to my nominator, who is she's a mother of a scout troop. And I really appreciate that she nominated me. Also, thank you to Chief Williams, who earlier did a very nice presentation for me at Quarry Park. I volunteer to do this stuff around this community because it's such a great community to live in. It's family oriented. I mean, you can't ask for a better place. I'll keep doing it as long as I can. Thank you.

Next, I would like to invite our Community Recognition Commission Chair, Dabaranski, to, the podium to present the award to Samuel Wong.

Hi. Good evening, everybody. My name is Jane Dabaranski. I'm this year's chair of the Community Recognition Commission. I would like to invite Samuel Huang up for the Youth Award.

Again, this is my honor tonight to honor Samuel Huang with the Youth Award. As we heard in our presentation earlier today, he started volunteering at the young age of 10 years old. He shared music with residents at the Pine Merrill Gardens. I think it's a retirement facility and has contributed to serve through Earth Day Creek Cleanups, supporting young learners at summer school at Gateway Rockland Academy, and contributes to culture events through his Dragon Dance Club at Wiska. He's also in the ninth grade at Wiska, and he balances his volunteer work with being a key member of the Rockland Robotics team.

As I understand it from his mother, they just won an award this year. They placed second in the Sacramento District Championship. He's obviously very busy, but he still continues to volunteer in our community and prioritize his service. His generosity, talent, and commitment to his community make him an exceptional young leader and is truly deserving of this youth award in the city of Rockland. Congratulations.

Thank you. So I moved to Rockland when I was four and ever since then I've been welcomed by the community. It's a really amazing community and yeah, it's really led to my growth as who I am today. I'd like to thank my parents, teachers, peers, everyone who's helped me and put me in the position that I am today. And I'd to give a special thanks to miss Froelink, who spoke for me earlier today.

Miss Wendy, my Whiskey Dragon Dance club mates, and Jean Laun Shea, who's club leader, and also my parents, my brother, and yeah. It's great. And, yeah, I'd like to thank them for putting me in this position to do all this community service, and it's really amazing that I got all these opportunities coming here moving to Rockland. Yeah. So when I fir when I was first heard that I was nominated for this award, I I was honestly, I was pretty surprised because I didn't believe that I'd done the crazy amount of community service to deserve award like this.

However, I'm so grateful, super excited that I got this award. It's really amazing, and I'm committed to this community, to all the service, to continue serving this community, this family to the best of my ability, and try to give back to the city what it gave to me to put me where I am today. Thank you.

At this point, I would like to invite Vice Mayor Bill Halden to present the group award to Rough Healing Heroes.

Thank you. I'd like to invite Vicki Curtis up and the rough Healing Heroes team. All right. Great. Long ago in Rockland, the city's motto was we're a city of volunteers.

And that motto kind of went by the wayside. It used to be on coffee cups and everything. And the folks at Rough Healing Heroes exemplify that spirit of volunteer volunteering in Rockland. And for those of us who remember way back, a group of residents was not happy that the city didn't have a a dog park. So they came to the city, asked for a dog park, then they asked again and again and again.

And then they got their dog park and they took the took the dog park and ran with it for our four legged friends, came up with the name RUFF which is Rockland Residence for Fido. And then after doing that for a few years, they added the RUFF Healing Heroes to provide service dogs for first responders and veterans with PTSD. And they, you know, dove into that by raising hundreds of thousands of dollars, more than $500,000 getting 200 service animals trained for these veterans and first responders. And doing it all, I don't wanna say on a shoestring, but kind of on a shoestring, knocking on a lot of doors, making a lot of calls, and putting so much energy and passion into helping these first responders and veterans. It's it's almost like they they kind of connected with this issue, and then they couldn't let go.

And they've done a great job for our community and beyond, energizing so many people with passion for this. And I'm honored to be able to give this award. Vicki has been at the forefront of this since pre day one, and appreciate you both being here tonight.

Those of you who know me know I get weird sometimes but tonight I'm going to be very serious. I'm honored to accept this award on behalf of REF and I want to thank you to the Rukola family, to the Commission, to the City Council and to the Rockland Parks and Recreation. A special thank you to our nominator, Diane Foose, the owner of Doctopia of Rockland. Seventeen years ago, when we first met then Mayor Scott Ewell and Peter Hill, I never thought I'd be standing here today receiving this award. With their guidance and the support of the Parks and Recreation Department and of our wonderful community, Rough Dog Park is celebrating its fifteen year anniversary this December.

Twelve years ago, we expanded our mission to help make a difference in the lives of disabled veterans and first responders with post traumatic stress. We do this by funding the cost of service dog training. And we do this every day, every week, every month, one hero and one dog at a time. Throughout all these years, RUF has been a 100% volunteer run nonprofit. No paid staff.

Like he said, on a shoestring. Today, I'm stepping back as the face and the operations of RUF and I'm excited and confident to be able to turn this leadership over to the under the direction of our first paid employee, our Executive Director, Brianna Callahan. And I know that Brianna will do the work and she has the passion and she has the integrity so that the legacy of Ruff will continue for many, many years to come. I'm just so proud of her and everybody in this room and the city of Rockland for this opportunity. Finally, I want to thank my dear late husband for putting up with me for twelve years.

It wasn't easy and that's probably why he's up there and

not

here. Brie, this is for you to carry on the legacy of rough rough healing heroes.

At this point, I would like to invite council member Jill Gallardo to present the award to Franklin Burris for the Pioneer Award.

Thank you. Yes, Franklin, you get to join me up here, please. I want you to know, can tell the Ruchel family said, those first few years, they send us like a brick. Not a brick. It was a brick. And it was a little too large to hang on a wall or carry anyone. And it was considered a weapon in your car. So this is this is so much improved.

I It sounds like that was free headstone.

I mean, that might have maybe It

was as close it's Rupala, it's Paul, it's not free. But as close as you were gonna get. Well, am so honored to be here and tell you guys a little bit about Franklin, if you don't know. The entire family got here about twenty two years ago, and as I said before, it feels like he's always been here. He came in as a force and literally jumped into everything.

Probably first and foremost, if you live in the Yankee Hill area, then you would know that twenty one years he's been serving on the homeowners association, including multiple terms as president. And that, honest to goodness, is the coolest neighborhood. It's the most tight knit neighborhood that I am aware of in Rockland. They do so much together and it's been your leadership that made them recognized as one of the top 1%, I believe, in this state of homeowners associations. Everything from little free libraries and my favorite is their fall festival.

So every October, the whole neighborhood comes together and it's the most beautiful organized event. You've got Snowy King, you've got Snowy King, you've got Cotton Candy, you've got all the carnival games set up, they have music, you've got the taco truck. I mean, it's just a it's a true spirit of Rockland, the whole true community of why we live here and just epitomizes what we do. I have to look at notes so I don't forget anything because he has a long list. Seven years that he started the redevelopment advisory commission and served as the chairman in that time.

And I have to tell you, during that time of the redevelopment, that's how we got the property for the library. So anybody that goes to the library, you have to thank Franklin for helping make that happen. It was also during that time that we moved St. Mary's Church across the way and we were able to restore St. Mary's for the incredible venue that it is.

So those were just it doesn't sound exciting to do Rio Development Agency, but those are the exciting things that came out of that. The general plan update, again, probably not a high point for everybody's book to want to do, but that is so critical to us to map where we're going. Part of the downtown redevelopment in Rockland, we really had a group to try to get, as you know, we're working on getting, we've been working for a while, we're trying to get our downtown back and it's happening. And part of that was, and I saw Jean Johnson here in the back, was the idea to say, we need something to do to get a community together for just a free fun event. And Franklin was a big part of helping us get our Christmas tree lighting off the ground.

And when the chamber especially took it over because the five rookies of us were gonna get ourselves killed. Jean hanging off the ladder, hanging lights, Dan let us borrow the stage from a school and the sound and as soon as the kids started dancing on that stage, it started sinking in that grass, and we knew this isn't good. We need professionals. So thank you to the chamber that came in and to take that over and make it it work. Also, somewhere in there, you managed to be an incredible real estate professional. Thank you for that. How many years serving on the political action committee for the chamber?

2010, when it was founded.

That would be all of them. All

the years? Yeah.

All the years. All the years. That's it. This is really a special award, and I and I have to thank the committee too. I got to serve as liaison for council with them for a little bit. The toughest job in the world is to publicly hold a meeting and look at the people that are nominees and talk about who's the best one. That it's it's brutal to do that. And and so clearly, you gotta stand a little taller to know apparently you're the best one. But thank you so much for the committee for doing that. Somewhere in there, he also got to be a scout leader. So thank you for our young scouts that were here tonight.

It was PAC one hundred two. You had him here tonight. I thought that

was I know. For I I did too. They must have forgotten.

I had never was only

a den leader.

Just the small level.

What we're looking for is somebody who epitomizes the spirit of the community of Rockland, and you absolutely do that. And I'm so grateful to you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Well, thank you very much. I'm incredibly honored for this recognition. I want to thank the council, the commission, the Rukola family. Got to meet Roy, so it's more meaningful when you know a bit more of that full story. I do want to express my deepest gratitude to the Lord, to my wife, my family for their support. My mother is here tonight. My boss is here tonight. Put this in my appraisal. I think that'll

be good.

It, you know, it's a privilege to serve. It's not everybody has the time, the treasure, the support to do that. So it's a privilege to serve. It's something we're glad to do. I feel like community service builds community development. It gets people involved. We all do this out of a heart for our home, our community, our city. It means a lot to us. We're we're invested because we all know our best day is still coming. The city's best day is still coming.

And that's why we do this. Right? So anything we can do, we wanna do. The the I think it says a lot about our city, city of volunteers, that we have a commission that actually for recognition that supports community service and and encourages that is not something in every city throughout this region. So it's something to be cherished and definitely valued. And we appreciate the city making that investment and recognition to continue that activity in this city. So thank you very much. Very appreciative.

And finally, I would like to invite our Community Recognition Commission Vice Chair, Michelle Sutherland, to present the Pioneer Award for Susan Brooking.

Okay, well, thank you to the council for continuing to support this event. My colleagues, of course, on the commission, where we had to make some really hard decisions, lots of excellent nominees this year. And also thank you to the Rukola family for being here, for continuing to exemplify what it is to be a public servant and carrying on the legacy of Roy and Peggy. So tonight it's my pleasure to introduce Susan Brookking as Arugula Pioneer Award recipient for 2026. Susan was a Rockland resident for over two decades, I think 1999, So we did lose her to Lincoln, but she continues to dedicate her time, energy, creativity and enthusiasm to the Rockland Historical Society as a longtime member.

Initially, I'm self admittedly right, reluctant newcomer to town at a point, an interest in Rockland's history was the catalyst for her volunteerism. Susan became a member of the crew who renovated the historic Fletcher House on Rockland Road, which now houses the Rockland History Museum. Susan was able to gather a wealth of historical knowledge from Roy Rukula, the man himself, and word on the street is that Susan can even educate you on traditional mining methods for extracting granite from the ground. This subject area interest earned her the good natured title of the basement troll. If you visit the museum, which you should, it is likely that you will get to see her handiwork in the table displays, and you may even get to engage with her as the docent on duty.

Many Rockland students have benefited from her breadth of local knowledge as Susan helps to host the third grade museum tours. And when I say many Rockland students, I really do mean many. Susan logged over 400 volunteer hours in 2025 alone. That's a feat. Susan's service in the community doesn't end with co managing the Rockland Historical Society. She is active with the Gold Trail chapters of the Daughters of the American Revolution. And last year, she was appointed to the Plaster County Historical Advisory Board by our County Supervisor Anthony Demetay. In the nomination forum that our committee received, it was said that Susan is always up for an adventure. So Susan, I hope that your adventure in Rockland will continue for years to come. Congratulations!

It's such a pleasure to have Joel Parker Whitney with us. Thank you, Smokey. I appreciate you being here. It's such an honor to receive this. The Rukola Pioneer Award.

If any of you look at the names that have preceded mine, you'll know that I'm truly humbled to be considered worthy of joining that group. It's an impressive group. So thank you, thank you. In 2000, Roy Rukula did more than just recruit me to the Rockland Historical Society. He gave me a way to put down true roots in this community.

Helping open the Rockland History Museum in 2002 was a turning point for me. It was there that mentors like Roy and Gay Morgan, my dear friend, taught me that our history isn't about, just about rocks, rails, and ranches. It's about the people, their stories, and perseverance. I see it as my duty now to keep those stories alive. My hope is to inspire others to cherish our community's heritage as much as I do, passing on the spirit of those who made all this possible for us today.

So if you haven't toured the Rockland History Museum, we're open on Friday, Saturday and Sunday from one until four and we've got a great event on May 2 from ten until three on Front Street. There's going to be all sorts of activities and you need to come. But I appreciate this so very much. That was the commercial break, sorry about that. I appreciate this so very much. Paul, now I've got my own piece of granite.

And, before we lose everyone, I would invite all of the honorees also to come forward to take a group photo with our entire city council and our community recognition commissioners, if you would like to join us as well. You, bring your awards as well.

Alright. I could immediately go into another hearing, but I'm gonna let everyone get out of here so it's not awkward.

Five minute recess.

Five minute recess. All right. Alright. I will continue signing these. Make sure I don't lose my spot.

Alright. Okay. We are back from our break. We are going to enter into public hearings. These first, we will be having PH1. I will be opening this public hearing and request staff to present on PH1 twenty twenty six-twenty twenty seven Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant Annual Action Plan, and this will be presented by management analyst Gabrielle DeFarsi.

Thank you, Mayor Bass. Good evening to City Council. Gabrielle DeFarci, management analyst in the City Manager's Office. I'm here tonight for the second of two required public hearings in the preparation of the City's twenty twenty six-twenty twenty seven Community Development Block Grant Annual Action Plan. Under the CDBG program, the City Of Rockland is an entitlement community and receives funding annually. To be eligible, the City must complete a consolidated plan every five years and an annual action plan. This action plan details planned projects and activities, as well as how the City will spend the allocation of funding to address priority needs and specific goals. The City was notified by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development earlier this month regarding the twenty twenty six fiscal year allocation.

The city will be awarded $307,853 to utilize for the twenty six-twenty seven annual action plan. For the preparation of the draft plan, staff used an estimated total allocation of $295,000 based on prior year averages. Therefore, the action plan has been revised to reflect the actual allocation amount as well as proportional changes to funding in all categories. From this total allocation, no more than 50% of the annual award can be expended in this Public Services category, 20% of funds can be used for planning and administration activities during the program year, and the remaining amount of funds are proposed for public facilities accessibility and safety improvements in the city. Staff is recommending that the public services portion of funding be divided equally among three nonprofit agencies, each to receive $15,392.65 to use during the 2026 program year.

Lighthouse Counseling and Family Resource Center will provide therapy services to children, adults, and families to support trauma recovery. Funding for Seniors First will support the Meals on Wheels program to provide home delivered meals and wellness checks to income eligible homebound seniors. And lastly, Stand Up Placer will provide crisis intervention, therapy, peer counseling, and legal advocacy for survivors of violence and or trafficking. The recommended projects align with one or more of the following goals in our twenty twenty five-twenty twenty nine consolidated plan, which include the following: meeting the needs of low and moderate income youth and seniors providing access to food and nutrition services assisting victims of violence and assault and completion of public infrastructure improvements. Consistent with our citizen participation plan, the purpose of tonight's hearing is to provide a final opportunity for public comment as well as the adoption of this annual action plan.

This concludes my presentation, and I'm available to respond to any questions you may have. Thank you.

First, I'll turn to council members. Any questions for staff?

We have one question. On plan on the sidewalks, I was having this question come up about sidewalks. We've got a significant amount of money in there do sidewalk repairs. But then frequently, and I know I've had a constituent say they had a crack in their sidewalk and then the city told them they're responsible to replace or repair their sidewalk. Can somebody give me a guideline of what sidewalks we're repairing and when people are responsible for their own?

So I don't know if I can get into the particulars of that. We can follow-up with specific information. But generally speaking, residential sidewalks in front of a person's property is typically their responsibility. This is a general broad brush. And what these dollars are used for in the CDBG fund are for ADA improvements in areas that qualify by their census tract.

So there's only very few areas of the city that actually qualify for us to do rehab improvements. The most recent that you would have seen would have been along Sunset Boulevard between Pacific Street and Whitney. We've been working on that area for a very long time. And that's an area that is eligible and is not considered a residential neighborhood and so we've been investing these funds in that project. And the other piece that I would mention is while it feels like a lot of money, it doesn't go very far unfortunately.

So it takes us a long time to make those sidewalk improvements either way, but we focus these dollars on the very small areas of Rockland that actually qualify for HUD funding because you have to be census tract eligible as well. But then the larger picture, you're talking about are typically in residential neighborhoods and in those scenarios typically the property owner is responsible.

That helps. Thank you very much.

Any other questions? Alright. At this point, I will open public comment. This is a period for the public to make comment on this particular agenda item. Do we have anything any comment cards? No comment cards received. Okay. Do we have we do have a member of the public. Come on up. And if you could just, give us your name and where you're from.

Hi there. Louise Arquillo, chief program officer at Stand Up Placer. And I just want to thank the city for taking the time to consider the needs of the most vulnerable in our community, during this time. Every year, we help several 100 victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking here in Rockland, and this funding helps us to provide those services to that group. Likewise, Lighthouse and Seniors First are also obviously serving some of our very vulnerable residents. So I appreciate the consideration. Thank you.

Thank you, and thank you for being here and taking the time. Any other comments? All right. At this point, I will close the public comment period. I will ask for any final questions by council members. At this point, I will close the public hearing. Ask for any further discussion? Nothing? Then I will be asking for a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion to adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Rockland approving the adoption of the twenty twenty six-twenty twenty seven annual action plan and authorizing the city manager to execute and file all documents required to receive U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, Community Development Block Grant, CDBG funding.

All right. Second. All right. We have a first and a second. All in favor, aye.

Aye.

No? Abstentions? Okay. The item passes unanimously. Moving on to our second public hearing. We will be opening the public hearing for PH2 accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit zoning ordinance amendments, amendment is ZOA 2020 six-one and environmental envy 2020 six-three. This is senior planner, Bennett Smithard.

Good evening, mayor and city council members. My name is Bennett Smithard with the planning division. I'll be presenting the accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units zoning ordinance amendments. Over the past decade, the state of California has significantly changed the ADU and JDU law to streamline the development of ADUs. Beginning in 2017, the legislature established uniform development standards and substantially limited local discretionary review.

ADUs that meet objective criteria must now be approved ministerially. These reforms are intended to increase overall housing supply. Prior to the major state reforms in 2016 and 2017, the city of Rockland regulated these units under the secondary residential units ordinance. The city updated its GADU and ADU regulations in 2017 and again in 2020 to maintain consistency with state mandates. Since 2020, additional legislation has been adopted.

The amendments before you tonight are intended to ensure our municipal code remains aligned with current state requirements. This slide summarizes the state's major legislative changes adopted since the city's last ADU ordinance update. These are provided for reference. Won't review each bill individually this evening, but staff is available to discuss any specifics. These next few slides are some examples of the changes that I wanted to go into.

First, some of the recent state amendments clarified statutory timelines for ADU building permit review, including requirement for written notices of incompleteness and the establishment of a ministerial appeal process. The proposed ordinance incorporates these updates and includes additional administrative revisions to improve clarity and consistency. In this example, changes include clarifying the thirty day review period, requiring staff to provide a written explanation of incompleteness within fifteen business days, and establishing a thirty day review timeline for pre approved ADU plans. Second, the amendments to state law further define the maximum development standards a local agency may impose on ADUs. These limitations apply to objective standards such as height, lot coverage, and minimum unit size.

The proposed ordinance revisions align cities' development standards with those statutory parameters. In this example, the changes include revising the six foot height to allow for 18 feet for parcels within one half mile of transit, and up to 25 feet of the height of the primary dwelling, whichever one is greater. Next, changes in state legislation prohibit discretionary review of ADUs and requires that the review be objective and ministerial. Staff conducted a comprehensive review of existing ordinance language ensure that all development and design standards are clearly measurable, objective in nature, and capable of administerial enforcement. In this case, the language was revised from subjective language, so the language was architecturally compatible, to objective language, so it's now the roof material shall be the same material as the primary dwelling unit.

Staff believes this captured the original intent of the original ordinance. Recent amendments to state law modified owner occupancy requirements applicable to ADUs and JDUs. Specifically, ADUs may not be subject to owner occupancy deed restrictions. Additionally, JDUs that include separate sanitation facilities are no longer required to be owner occupied. The proposed ordinance revisions incorporate these statutory changes and ensure consistency with current state requirements.

So some other minor updates. First, the ordinance clarifies fire sprinkler requirements consistent with state law by specifying that an ADU or JADU is not required to install fire sprinklers sprinklers are not required in the primary residence. Second, the amendments establish a pathway for legalization of previously unpermitted ADUs constructed prior to 01/01/2020. Finally, the ordinance standardizes detached ADU allowances on multifamily properties in accordance with state law. In most cases, this permits up to eight detached ADUs subject to existing unit count and statutory limitation.

These changes align the city like regulations with current density allowances and provide clear objective standards for multi family development. One thing to note here: last month, the HCD published an ADU guidebook that includes the new laws and some guidance on those, so we have that available for resources as we process ADUs. And just kind of a snapshot of ADUs in Rockland. So this was 2025. The city has approved a total of 27 accessory dwelling units.

Of these, five are detached and 22 are attached to the primary residence. The average unit size range from approximately 400 square feet to 800 square feet. So the photograph on the left here is a detached unit that a property owner in Rockland constructed. And to the right, this is one of the homes where there's an ADU, you can have detached ADU for the property owner's use. One thing I wanted to note was the permit ready ADU plans.

The City of Rockland has permit ready ADU plans. These plans include a four ninety nine square foot option and a seven forty nine square foot options, both of which are exempt from impact fees. And there's no cost for the use of the plans. We do have one active building permit in where a resident used or a property owner used the plans and is going through the process to construct it. And we've had several folks ask for these, so we've been sharing these.

They've been very successful. Staff determined that the project is exempt from CEQA. The proposal exempt pursuant to fifteen sixty one(two) and 15,060 one(three) of the CEQA guidelines because the activity will not result in direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment and the proposal does not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. So therefore, the Planning Commission and staff recommends approval of the ordinance to amend RMC seventeen sixty seven, 70 ADU and JEDU units. I'm available to answer any questions.

All right. Thank you. So any questions? Counsel? Just a couple for clarification.

So you showed some predefined examples. Does any of you have to specifically match the existing structure, just say in a single family neighborhood, does it have to match the existing architecture? Or could it be something like the shed example you showed, even though the home might be a typical stucco home?

So there are some. I believe I had a slide with just part of the so

Typically a detached. I mean attached would be different.

Yes. Overall on the right here we have a few. Basically we're translating the architecturally consistent to an objective measurable form. So here is part of that. So in terms of the roof angles, roof material, exterior cladding, so it would have to match those so it's consistent with that.

So, it would have to match? Someone couldn't use that shed plan in a stucco

The pre approved plans are exempt for this. We did include an exemption. You can build those as is regardless of what

So, like for like is more to be objective, so it can't be somewhat discriminated against or obviously subjective.

It's a ministerial objective review process.

If property owner wanted something different, they wouldn't be able to unless it was one of these pre approved?

Great. They would have the option of doing the pre approved ADU plans, but they would have to follow these objective standards to go through the ministerial building permit process.

You talked a little bit about sprinklers. So, again, single family neighborhood. If sprinklers are installed in a larger home and someone was to put in a 400 square foot detached ADU or JDU, that would have to have sprinklers. Is there a point where sprinklers kick in? Is there a minimum that sprinklers aren't

required? Seems like that's building code. They'd have to meet the building code standards, but we basically couldn't elevate them up if the main house does not have it.

But if it does, regardless of how small the

I think it kind of sets the maximum versus requiring that.

Is there a square footage?

Like some minimum amount to put sprinklers?

I've seen building code. Don't have that information Okay. Right

So if the building code doesn't require, say, something under 1,000 square feet, then it wouldn't be required unless

Correct, yes.

Even though the home may have had them. Only whatever is required by it.

Just something making it more restrictive.

Gotcha. Gotcha. And then about the deed restriction. So is it possible to have a deed restricted ADU but the main property isn't deed restricted? How does that work?

Like a detached ADU, we cannot put any attached or detached, we cannot put any deed restriction on.

Okay. So that wouldn't change.

Okay. Great.

Thanks for clarifying.

Yes. If you can so there's no fees from the city for for this, but what about, like, SP MUD and PCWA?

They they can charge con connection fees.

The

There are some standards in new state laws that, you know, overly burden, like an extra connection. They couldn't require that. You know, if there's a more affordable option, state law allows you to connect to your existing facility versus building a new connection. But they are allowed to impose fees for their connection.

So we don't have a building permit fee, but they could have a

fee Correct, With a connection. Yes.

Is that true then? So, if you were in Roseville where you're, you know, your own service provider, would they do this? I don't know if we know this, but this would be interesting since we're not the service provider.

I do not know that for Roseville.

Okay. Then if somebody wants to submit for an ADU and it has to go to an appeal process, is there any do we have any method in there to waive that fee for that appeal process for an ADU?

We do not have anything in this ordinance amendment that offers reduced appeals.

And I know we'll look into it, but I did bring up previously about putting it on as an agenda item to look at allowing the staff more flexibility and those exceptions. And certainly if it's something we're not charging building impact fee, charging the full fee for an appeal process, I think is something we should look at.

I think that's a separate ordinance, and as you know, we are doing the research on the request you made for a future agenda item.

Perfect. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Seeing no other further questions, I'm going to open this up to public comment. Do we have any comment cards? None? Anyone else out here in the audience? Seeing none, I will close the public comment period. And then, any final questions by counsel? Okay. Then, this closes the public hearing. Now, ask for any further discussion. I don't see anyone. I'll just be asking the city council to take an action on this item. Can we take them together? We do them separately, right?

Mr. Mayor, I'll move to adopt a resolution of the city council of the City Of Rockland approving a notice of exemption, accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units zoning ordinance amendments, ENV twenty twenty six dash zero zero zero three.

I have a motion. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

All in favor, aye.

Aye. Aye.

Nose? Extensions? Ayes have it. Passes unanimously. And now for

PH2B. Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion to introduce, waive the full reading, and read by title only, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rockland, amending Rockland Municipal Code Title 17, zoning specific to accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling unit zoning ordinance amendments Z zero A two zero two six dash zero zero zero one.

I'll second.

We have a first and a second. All in favor, aye. Aye. No? Abstentions? The ayes have it. Passes unanimously. All right. We are now closing our public hearings and moving on to the final discussion item. This is D1, inclusionary housing report, an in lieu fee discussion. We will have a report from assistant to the city manager, Elizabeth Sorg.

Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and city council. Elizabeth Zorg, assistant to the city manager, here tonight to present a follow-up to the inclusionary housing report from the March 24 city council meeting. On March 24, City staff and Kaiser Marston and Associates presented a draft inclusionary housing program and commercial linkage fee report. The purpose of the report was to analyze Rockland's housing market, determine the linkage between residential and commercial development in creating the need for affordable housing, and to recommend fees that would be used to incentivize the creation of more affordable housing units. The draft report recommended that the city establish an inclusionary housing program for residential development with an on-site obligation to construct affordable units and to establish a buy right fee that can be paid in lieu of constructing the units.

Currently, the city has an inclusionary housing policy that requires all residential developments to build 15% of their units for low income households, 5% of their units for low income house or for very low income households, and I'm sorry. Excuse me. 10% of their units for very low income households, and 5% of their units for extremely low income households. The city does not have an in lieu fee, meaning that all residential development must create the units required. However, the current program does allow for an in lieu fee to be set by resolution.

The inclusionary housing report recommended that an in lieu fee be set at $5 per square foot for all residential development. If the City Council is interested in establishing a commercial linkage fee, the report also provided some guidelines and recommendations to set those fee levels as well. At the conclusion of the presentation, City Council directed staff to return with more information about how much vacant land was left to develop within the city, possible amounts of fee revenues that could be generated based on the vacant parcels, different fee level scenarios, information about developers using ADUs to meet on-site obligations, and more information about how many units could be constructed using in lieu fee revenue. We will go through these items tonight in order and provide additional information about each one of them. First, the amount of vacant land with a general plan designation for residential development.

There are approximately three seventy two acres left of vacant land that is planned for residential development at varying densities, ranging from one to three units per acre for rural residential all the way up to greater than 15 units per acre for high density residential. The highest number of acres is in the low density residential with two thirty seven acres left. The next highest is the high density residential with 32.9 acres. As the City Of Rockland continues to develop, the majority of that development will happen in areas that are designated for low density residential development or single family developments. One item to note is that there are some parcels in the city that have two different general plan designations on them, and for those scenarios, staff has assumed the lower of the two densities to get at the numbers that we have here tonight.

To calculate out the potential number of units, staff used the prototype developments established in the inclusionary housing report. These prototypes were developed based on prior developments in Rockland and with feedback from the development community. Staff calculated out that the projected number of units based on the lowest and highest densities allowed on each parcel would equal to about ten seventy two units to 2,910 units with a total square footage of 1,900,000 to five point nine five point five million. Moving forward to the anticipated fees. The first fee scenario evaluated was a flat $5 per square foot for all residential development.

This fee could create anywhere from $9,800,000 to $27,000,000 in collected fees. The second fee scenario is a $5 per square foot fee on units that are 3,000 square foot or higher. It is likely that this fee would only be collected on low density residential units and rural residential units. It could create anywhere from 3 to 12,000,000 in fees. However, it's important to note that there is nothing that would prevent a developer in this scenario from proposing units that were just below this square foot threshold, say 2,999 square feet, to avoid paying a $5 fee.

So this estimate to collect fees could be substantially lower. The final scenario is a graduated fee that increases with larger square footage homes. You can see the proposed fees on the slide here. The fee would start at $1 per square foot for units that are greater than 1,000 square feet and increase from there. These bands of square footages that you see align with the way that we collect our development impact fees.

Could generate anywhere from $5,000,000 to $15,000,000 in fees. However, like discussed with the previous scenario, this estimate is more difficult to gauge given that units could be modified to apply a smaller fee. City Council also directed staff to research additional information about accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, and how developers might meet their on-site obligations by constructing ADUs instead of whole units or paying an in lieu fee. There are a few things to note for this approach. In the city's current housing element, we can only claim a maximum of 40 ADUs to meet our RENA obligations for this cycle, which is five per year.

This was based on guidance from HCD, and we cannot claim more than that. If we allow developers to meet their inclusionary obligations without updating the housing element, then the city cannot claim production of these units that are generated above five. Also, in order to meet RINA obligations, they must be deed restricted, meaning that an affordable housing agreement must be recorded on the title of the property, and there must be annual reporting to ensure that they are affordable. Placer County recently allowed a development to meet their on-site obligations using ADUs, the details of which can be found in your staff report. If City Council wishes to direct staff to explore this option, it would require an amendment to the housing element, which can be a lengthy process.

Finally, the City Council requested additional information about how the potential in lieu fee could generate additional affordable housing units in the city. The city's affordable housing incentive program features three components: a fee reduction, a fee deferral, and a loan from the city's Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund, or our LOMOD fund. This loan is offered at $40,000 for each extremely low and very low income unit that is included in the development. For each of these three fee scenarios, I've included information about how many units could be supported with these fees. So in fee scenario one, that's the $5 per square foot, it would support between two forty six and six eighty nine units.

Scenario two, it would support 95 to three nineteen units. And scenario three, it would be 130 to three eighty five units. It's important to note that this would not be the total number of affordable units that are created. 100% affordable developments often have a mix of units from 30% to 80% of the area median income, or from extremely low all the way up to moderate. I've provided a few examples of the projects that the city has supported with these funds and how many total units of affordable housing have been generated as a result.

So the first example is from Pacific Street Apartments. The city invested $2,600,000 which supported 59 extremely low and very low income units, or about half of the total development. The second is the College Park seniors development. The city invested $2,200,000 to support 56 extremely low and very low income units, or about a third of the total development, but it still resulted in 178 affordable units. For both of these projects, the City's funding is meant as gap financing that makes these projects possible.

Although the city's funding supports only a fraction of the project, that funding may be critical in making sure that these projects can actually move forward. Given the presentation of this information, staff are seeking direction about the items presented tonight, including whether the City Council wishes to keep the current on-site obligations in place, whether an in lieu fee should be adopted, and if so, at what amount, whether you would like staff to explore the option to include ADUs to meet on-site obligations, and whether City Council is interested in establishing a fee for commercial or non residential development. Following direction tonight, staff will present an update to the Municipal Code to align with the feedback tonight, and a draft resolution to set an in lieu fee, if so directed. That concludes my presentation, and staff are available for any questions.

Thank you. Before I ask for questions, I do want to thank staff for putting this all together. It's really impressive. So now I'm going call for questions. I'll start to my left. Councilmember Broadway.

Thank you. Appreciate the report. First, the feasibility analysis shows specifically with the townhomes and apartments that they're already challenged under existing conditions. How does the addition of a 5% requirement or the $5 per square foot fee avoid further suppressing the building of those?

Given that the apartments, the multi family and the townhome are already in a challenged position, there would probably be additional difficulties in levying a fee on top of that. However, we already have an inclusionary housing ordinance right now in place, which means that should a multi family project come to the counter right now, it would be required to build at the levels that we have established, which again is the 15%, 10%, or 5%. That could create an additional burden for the development. Kaiser Marston has provided examples of things that we can do, whether it's pausing the fee temporarily until we can see more multifamily developments, making sure that they pencil, or whether it's doing a lower fee. City council has very different options that you can use tonight and direct us to, make those projects possible.

But on on its surface, the analysis did conclude that multi family and townhomes are challenged in the current environment without an additional fee and, with on-site obligations.

Okay. Thank you. The nexus analysis suggests that higher inclusionary percentages may be supportable, but the feasibility analysis shows that it's much lower threshold. So when you compare the data, can you clarify which analysis ultimately is driving the recommendations? Is it basically the nexus or is it the feasibility?

It's the feasibility that we are using as our standard. So the nexus we use to make sure that our feasibility analysis is not completely out of left field. We do the nexus analysis to make sure that we do not go above what could be supported by the nexus analysis. However, it's not required to do a nexus analysis for an inclusionary housing in lieu fee because developers always have the option to build the units instead of paying the fee. But we wanted to do the analysis to have that in our back pocket to make sure that we weren't charging fees that were exorbitantly out of line with what could be supported by the nexus analysis. So the $5 that is recommended in the report is based on the feasibility analysis, not

the

nexus

analysis. Okay. Great. Thank you. And then on the In LUFI, given neighboring jurisdictions are generally closer to the $3 square foot range, What is the rationale for the recommendation of the higher fee? You know, we have modeled the point at which the fee begins to reduce. Know, have we basically modeled it to say at what point do we see that fee reducing production?

We have not run a full model to see if it would reduce production. However, know, Kaiser Marchten did the analysis of up to a 10 in lieu fee and found that for low density, medium density, and medium high density, that was all still supported and feasible and would still allow the development community to make the profits that they are looking for in their transactions. So, they set the fee at the $5 level because it is not, it's not as difficult to achieve a $5 level, and we aren't looking to maximize the amount of fees that we can charge. We want something that is simple and easy to apply, but generates enough revenue so that we can then apply that in future developments. So we landed on the smaller of the two fees.

Okay. Thank you. And then subject to counsel coming to a determination of what we would like to move forward with, How will we track whether the program is actually producing units? Have we had discussions about the process for looking at both the on-site and off-site? Is there a mechanism that we'll have available to provide us with feedback and then potentially make adjustments if needed so that we're seeing units produced?

Yeah. So it would depend on whether we're counting units produced on the on-site obligations or whether we would count units produced for the fee. So on the on-site obligations, there would be some sort of affordable agreement recorded on the property. So we would be able to track exactly how many units are being created. So if there's a 100 unit development that is choosing to instead do the on-site obligation versus paying the fee, we would know that depending on council's direction, say 15% of those units are for low income units and they would be recorded and we would have those in, you know, for the next fifty five years usually is how long those covenants are.

So we would be able to very easily track those. Our office, the city manager's office, would be going through that and recording those on the property. For the in lieu fees, in how many units are being created there, I imagine, I mean, I haven't spoken to our finance department, but that would be collected into a separate fund, and then that fund would be accessed to apply the gap financing that affordable developers are requesting from the city. So again, that funding would not be absorbed into the general fund or anything like that. Would be special set aside funding and we would be able to tell exactly where all of those dollars are going.

And then as developers approach the city and request funding, we would be looking at their pro formas and analyzing how many units that they are proposing and levels of affordability. We would bring each of those back to city council so that you would see, the funding and how far it's going. So at every point during this transaction, whether it's, you know, the affordability agreements being recorded or whether it's the funding being provided, those would be triggered to come back to city council. So you would see them every time.

Great. Thank you. So prior to establishing the current requirement we have for production of affordable units. There's been some data put together for us, and there's a significantly large number of previously identified RINA parcels that did not produce and were actually built at market rate. So they didn't produce anything for us to enable us to move forward.

Why were we seeing so many RHNA identified locations developed without producing affordable units? What was the trigger for that?

So the sites that were previously identified as RINA sites were they did not have the official designations applied to them until recently through a RINA overlay process and then most recently last fall when we trued up all of our RINA sites and got them all zoned and designated appropriately. Prior to that, there was nothing in place. There was no legal mechanism that the city could use to require developers to build affordable units on those sites. And then another thing to consider is that our our arena sites, they designate, you know, whether it's going to be low income or moderate income. But at the zoning level, the city can only control the density of those units.

So we could still have things that come forward on, say, high density sites that are designated for low income, but we don't necessarily have a mechanism to require them to do affordability on those sites.

So just and to clarify, until the city adopted them the existing inclusionary ordinance, we had a we have a general plan policy to encourage the creation of deed restricted units as part of a project if you're seeking a general plan amendment, but there's no mechanism to require it until there was no mechanism until the creation of the current or the establishment of the current ordinance. The the arena designation does not come with any teeth for the city. The state doesn't the state says you have to designate arena site, but then doesn't let you control that it does become a deed restricted affordable project.

Okay. So thank you. And and and that was what I was really looking for is so we we did have language there that encouraged, but it didn't require. So we were not able to mandate. So we kept having projects come forward and essentially by because it's a real struggle to say that, you know, I'm gonna mandate to you.

You have to to build this. But the problem is we tried. Prior council, this council that's been here for some period of time has tried because we had language that encouraged but didn't require. And from what I'm seeing just on the data that was supplied, there were a thirteen forty six units that were expected to be produced that weren't because those parcels were developed, but they didn't produce a single affordable unit for us. And we had no mechanism for requiring that development to produce those units.

That's correct.

Which brings us to where we are today. Okay. So what are the risks? I've heard comments, well, we should do nothing. We just leave it the way it is. You know, hope that the projects come forward, hope that we get units built. We, you know, shouldn't require. We shouldn't have a fee. What are the risks if we do nothing?

Yeah. So I do have our current RINA obligations here on the screen. These are the RINA obligations for our current housing element cycle, number of units that we are required to zone for and produce. And then our current RHNA production numbers are on the screen as well. So as you can see we are falling very short of our extremely low, very low, and low units, making decent progress on moderate and very good progress on our above moderate units.

The state and HCD requires that the city both zone for these units and produce these units. We report out on an annual basis on our housing element how many we are producing. HCD in the past has come down on cities, I I would say colloquially, that are not meeting their RENA obligations. And so we run the risk of, having some sort of enforcement action taken against the city if we don't meet these housing element requirements.

Okay. So essentially, we lose local control? Yes. Okay. All right, that's all I have at this time. Thank you.

Councilmember Galvin.

Thank you. Just one question. On the examples that you gave us as a $5 square foot, as I recall when we were looking at the other surrounding jurisdictions, it seems like the county was like $279 I think seemed like there was more around the $3 square foot. Do we have any of those calculations to show the difference?

As in plugging in those calculations into these scenarios to see how much it would Right, they'll

similar to what our neighboring

I do not have those. The only scenarios that I have created are the ones that you see here, the one, the two, and the three. So I don't have the exact, you know, fee revenue that could be expected from a $2 fee. But I mean if it's, you know, say it's something that's $2.50, this is a $5 fee. So you could just divide this fee revenue in half and say $2.50 would generate, you know, probably 4,500,000 and then doing math here on the fly, you know, million at the high end.

And I'm trying to remember from when you provided that to us before, I don't think there was anybody at the $5 foot level that I recall.

I can pull that up while we're continuing to go through questions and I can clarify for you. It's in the original report so you'd have to give me a

little It'd be great. Yeah, I'd like to see how that would compare with our neighboring jurisdictions. Thank you.

No

questions. Okay. Council Member Jenner. Yeah, just

one, if I can get this to work. Thanks, Elizabeth. This information is super helpful. So, I know that HCD requires us through the RENE process to designate properties for affordability. I don't agree with it, but that's kind of what we've been doing. I haven't heard before that the city is required to produce affordable units. Has something changed?

No. On an annual basis, we report out to, HCD the number of units that are being produced on these sites and the number of affordable units that we are producing. The city is not required to produce the units. We are not the responsible party for producing the units, but we are required to zone

To zone and report what's happened?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Thank you. When we're discussing the the questions about, what happens and the and the risks there, the legislature hasn't actually stated that a city has to make, an inclusionary housing element as

it No. There is no requirement for the city to create an inclusionary housing policy. No.

There is no requirement, but in the adopted housing element, we have a program that we said we would evaluate it. So we did we did commit to going through this evaluation process and to consider the program.

And then, so we just had the ADU. HCD had put out a manual that shows ADUs. Do they have something similar that says, this is what we suggest every city and town and county do?

I mean, not to my knowledge. That would certainly be something I would ask our consultants to look into. But to my knowledge, there's not a guidebook that we can access that I know of.

And aside from our efforts, what does it take to get the legislature to for example, recently, the legislature donated land to Marin County, and also provided debt financing to Marin County, to help them alleviate some of their problems, which is a very extremely wealthy county. And I'm just curious if we should also be exploring those special measures for Marin County, for perhaps Placer County and Rockland, because it does seem like they're capable of doing that. And I know that we're talking about the inclusionary. I want to be able to do that. But I think that it would be helpful to maybe reach out to the League of California cities and see what they think about that.

We will absolutely explore the Marin County specials.

Okay. Yeah. I appreciate that. And then, when we're talking about the gap financing and, you know, let's say best case scenario is

we go

to let's go scenario three, right? And we get, you know, x amount of millions. Let's say it's let's just go 8,000,000. And then we have multiple developers that will come and say, hey, I need 2.4, right? And no matter what, we're eventually going to wind down. And then we have the next cycle of RHNA, but we have no land. Do we know what happens there? Do we know what happens when we're built out? I

I I do not have a good answer to that question. I I do not know what happens when we are fully built out and we no longer have, potential vacant parcels that we could add RHNA to, but I imagine that our RHNA obligations would not go away and that the state would instead just require that we redevelop existing parcels versus vacant parcels.

So what I would share from on a the macro level is the the city's RHNA number is a component of a larger number that's given to our council of government so our six county Sacramento area council of governments and we intend to play a very active role in how those numbers are divvied up for the seventh cycle, not because we don't believe that we should bear some responsibility for growth in the region, but because there's a big difference between communities that have room to grow and communities that are built out and whose borders are not moving and only have 372 acres left of developable land and a very general plan that's balance of ability to support its community versus start to fall behind is in a precarious balance. So I don't think I'm not gonna say that our staff in the sixth cycle wasn't active, but the entire region agreed to a very, I would say, fair and a proportional distribution. But I don't know if it was equitable in that it everybody got the same proportional number based on population growth not necessarily on the reality of the community so we were are going to be very active in the robust discussion of how those numbers are distributed not just at the SACOG six county level but also within Placer County we've already started having discussions at the county level of how as a county we can better distribute our numbers.

So that's not a perfect answer and I know the state gives us things that are unrealistic but we're already thinking

about And to go on that, the unrealistic number, so what the numbers that we have now, because I've seen what land we have left and the number of degenerating, the numbers of housing that we can generate And then but the number of houses that HCD wants us to generate, is that an even plausible number based on if we put high density everywhere, which obviously I am the opposite of advocating for?

I would say if

we look at the base case scenario here and the expected number of units, you know, on the end for our maximum density on all these units, we'd be looking at about thirteen sixteen units. And if we go back to our RINA table, I mean, we are likely not going to be able to generate that many units. And

then I guess my I'll leave it at this one, but what happens when you have a rollover? So we're in the sixth cycle, right? Fifth cycle for those jurisdictions that didn't hit their numbers, was there were they penalized?

A portion of our sixth cycle is fifth cycle rollover.

So it's rollover. Right?

There is a bit of rollover in

there.

Is there any new mechanism to punish jurisdictions for not meeting there?

But then we would be included in that because we didn't meet our last time. We didn't

Right. But there's some that completely blew right past it, San Francisco, which didn't generate pretty much anything.

I'm just

kind of curious if there is something there or if it's a selective choice as to which jurisdiction gets it and which doesn't.

I can ask those questions as well.

Yeah. I'll put

it on my list.

Excellent. Thank you. All right. Any further questions? All right. At this moment, I will open public comment. Do we have any speaker cards?

No comment cards received.

Okay. We do have some members of the public.

Thank you, Mayor Bass and members of the city council. Jeff Short, North State Building Industry Association. Didn't prepare a speech today but I did want to just comment on some of the things that I heard from your discussion just now. Actually first I do just want to restate you know we still don't believe that the home building industry should bear any responsibility for this. We are the only industry that is currently trying to provide housing.

And so overburdening us with this seems backwards to us. That said, if you are looking to create a holistic solution to the issue, we are happy to volunteer to be part of that solution and even be the tip of the spear. And so to that, I think we could be comfortable with any of the three options presented to you tonight. We would like a fee of about $2.50 as previously said. I think the five dollar fee remains too high not only for competitive purposes but as was discussed at the last workshop, think would punish homeownership by making homes that much more expensive when again we think you're already going above and beyond.

The $2.50 we see as being contributing much more than 5% based on the math that I provided before. That math based on a $60,000 affordable housing ask which is what we typically see in the region if you wanna go by the 40,000 in your affordable housing program that you have which by the way we're big fans of. But if you're only gonna go by 40,000, I could make an argument that our fee should be as low as 90¢ a square foot if we're aiming for the 5%. However, our position hasn't changed. Would would prefer to see $2.50 a square foot for the reasons stated.

And then I did want to comment very briefly on the ADUs. We still think that they're an incredible tool for affordable housing. We would absolutely support you moving forward when the timing is right with the housing element amendment to allow them. We'd be happy to help offer our assistance in that effort but would ask you to not slow down this process of the establishment of an in lieu fee to make that happen. Thank you.

Mayor Bass, members of the council, Marcus Leduca. Just had a few comments this evening. Getting to councilmember Broadway asked some very good questions. And one of those had to do with if we make it more burdensome, do we, in essence, hinder residential development from coming forward and generating the funds that we need? For the most part, getting ones and twos and eights and nines in a subdivision on a build requirement doesn't get you anywhere close to meeting your requirement.

That's one of the reasons why Roseville, which had in its specific plan starting in the mid nineteen eighties up until 2010, had a for sale requirement of certain percentage was a for sale. That had to have a city subsidy in order to move forward. And in marketing those, if you didn't find a buyer qualified within thirty days, you had no obligation at all. That in that specific plan, that last specific plan where they did that, the builder that had it on their property has dropped that to a subsequent amendment. The way to generate production is through funds that could then be used with affordable housing builders.

I represent two of the largest in the region. And the the funds that get generated, whether it's in Folsom or in Elk Grove or in Rancho Cordova or other jurisdictions here in the Plaster unincorporated Plaster County, they're using those funds to be able to move forward, to build numbers. Again, not fours and fives or threes or twos, but a 150, 200 unit projects that could come forward. And so, looking at that, number, whatever you decide on, as Jeff just mentioned, one of the things to look at is not just saying, well, how far can we push the envelope up and and still let housing happen, but also where can you create almost a competitive advantage. So if some jurisdictions, $3, if we're at two fifty, does that create an advantage?

Just to let you know, looking at the math, Elk Grove's fee, which is on a per unit fee, if you And And we've

do we've

on that remaining acreage to that you showed in that slide, to generate the funds that USA properties and other projects coming forward can then fund, that gap to be able to bring projects forward. They get funding from various sources but that will help you generate the numbers in terms of your production numbers. So again we encourage you to move forward along those lines and try to create a competitive advantage actually here in Rockland. Thank you Mr. Mayor.

Good evening mayor and council. Michel Vass, city of Rockland. As a former Rockland planning commissioner as the majority of the council are, I appreciate the questions tonight and just the realizations that while we're sitting there approving projects, our hands were tied quite often with meeting the obligations for the city and then the options we had for approval and denial. With the options available, I think option one is probably my favorite. I don't have an opinion on the amount but as somebody who cares for folks that are in affordable housing right now and trying to figure out logistics for our family and what's best even, you know, adding adding $5 a square foot is is tough and especially in Rockland.

It's hard when you see the same floor plans in Rockland and they're $150,000 less in Roseville. I don't know. Something's gotta give but we need to also do something to take care of, the population that needs it. So option one, thank you for having this discussion. I know when I was on planning commission I kind of beat the drum a few times saying if you don't give us the tools what can we do. So I appreciate you all. Thank you for having the hard discussion.

Hello, Mayor Bass, Council. My name is Martin Novinsky. I represent Toll Brothers. We're a builder here in Rockland. We have an actively selling project right now called Vista Oaks. I think many of you may have seen it or know of it. We also have a new development going in up of Park Drive that overlooks Clover Valley.

It's very

beautiful. We closed escrow on the property. We got our improvement plans approved. Final map done before the inclusionary housing was inside. I think that Mr.

Leduca kind of stole my thunder a little bit. And if you are going to look to generate numbers, affordable housing numbers in any type of quantity, I think that your option of zoning property for higher density, maybe restricted price point properties is the way to go. I think like for our example, the one that we're about to start, even if you're at 10 or 15% of the homes, you're going get two houses. I don't know what that does for your numbers. But what it does to us, at a $5 square foot, it increases our cost over $1,000,000 and we're going add that to the rest of the price of the house.

We can't just eat that money. We're gonna pass it along because you've inflicted it on us, we'll pass it along. So just want you to recognize, if the numbers that you're going for is more than two, three at a time, I think that zoning the property is the way to go. I also agree with the BIA that I think $5 a square foot is a little too high. We're active in most markets around here. I think that $3 we just accepted or passed it in the city of Folsom. I think that's one of the higher ones. And it's pretty competitive. And if we can make that work, $5 is steep, especially with the size of homes that Toll Brothers builds. They're usually pretty large, pretty high end homes, in case you're not familiar with them, and it hurts a little bit.

So I just wanted to encourage you to if you're looking for numbers, zone some property for this affordability measure, get gets a quantity of units built opposed to placing a must build within a smaller subdivision to get one or two units at a time. And those are my comments. So thanks for hearing me out. Thank you.

Anyone else? Alright. At this point, I will close public comment, and I'm gonna open this up for further discussion. Do we wanna anyone wanna jump in?

I'll start.

Alright.

So, you know, I just want to kind of lay out a few things. I think where we're at right now with the ordinance that we have is problematic. It's the levels are high, there's no in leave fees, so I think we have to do something to replace that, and hopefully in short order. Where I struggle is, I think when you think of single family detached homes and coming up with a 5% low income standard on that, we end up with, if they build it, just a handful of houses. I think frankly, it creates as many problems for the city in the long term of having to manage these houses.

We manage them today over the condos, I think at Fikera, if I've got my name wrong over there or correct over there. We have this development on Pacific that we got them to do six homes. And it's, I don't know, it seems like a cumbersome process that doesn't really work that well. But if we don't have a requirement, then we don't have an in lieu fee to collect anything from home builders of any sort. So on the multi family side, I look at the challenges that are faced without us adding another fee and it kind of makes me shake my head like, and I've said this a month ago, that we have to acknowledge that we're, if we put any in lieu fee on or any requirement, we're increasing the cost of housing in Rockland for most people.

And so that doesn't really sound good to me. And yet, I sat here and I asked people who came in and put market rate apartments on Rina sites that we designated as Rina sites, and asked them if they could do some affordable. And if there was no zoning change required, they were unwilling. And I remember the guy who told us, well, there's three studios in there. Like we're supposed to be all excited about that.

I think we're in a bit of a quandary here. I don't like the idea of putting fees on apartments that are kind of inherently affordable when they're struggling to get the financing and they're operating under the weight of some extraordinary fees that are charged today in Rockland, not by us, but charged by others. So I'm not sure what to do and I just think of the single family detached home. And last meeting we talked about, well, maybe we have an in lieu fee for the larger homes that hits those larger homes that can maybe absorb some fees more than smaller homes, which again are inherently more affordable. But I don't know how we accomplish that.

And again, I think this idea of having a 5% requirement on a subdivision with 25 houses you know, means you've got, you know, two, maybe one and a half houses or something, you know, and what do you really accomplish with something like that. Those are my initial comments. I'm sure I'll have more.

Okay. Councilor Magenta?

Yeah. I mean, the way I look at it, we're kind of in the eighth inning with two out, an o two count, and Mason Miller on the mound. To me, this is something that really should have been handled long before Rockland started growing, you know, kind of around the Stanford Ranch pre Stanford Ranch development. Yeah, I don't think this has been time wasted. This is probably the third or fourth council meeting we've talked about this.

I appreciate the professional study, the staff's considerable amount of time, the discussion, good intentions by the council, the public, But I just don't think imposing any tax on the only businesses that are actually building residences in Rockland is going to really make a difference on affordability in the numbers that were shown that we technically have to produce. I prefer repealing the existing inclusionary ordinance, but aware I'm aware if it's a pleasure of the council to have one that we definitely would need some type of fee, even though I'm fundamentally against that. So that's it. Thank you. Councilwoman Raquelo?

Thank you. Yeah, I wish twenty five years ago this had been started. But like I said, we're down to the nitty gritty. It is really hard because I do appreciate Councilmember Holden, when you talked about it, if you're trying to build two, three houses, that it doesn't do a whole lot. But we're down to the point where we have to try and do something because we have these projects come and then they don't build any affordable units.

And and other cities have some funds to be able to kick in, and that's not something that we've been able to participate with. I I definitely feel like the in lieu of fee would be helpful. Think $5 I don't want to be the one that's at the top of the list that looks like Rockland is making it more challenging. I had expressed before, I think I'd be more comfortable something like Folsom just did at the $3 fee that matches close to the county to give us that ability to try and have some funding to incentivize people to do this. I don't think our restrictions are going to get any easier coming down the road.

I worry that it's going to get more restrictive if we aren't meeting these numbers. That is something that I could support if we did a more reasonable fee, but I'm not comfortable with the $5 quite honestly because it stands out as us being the top of the chain and I'm not comfortable there.

Alright. Councilmember Broadway.

Yes. Thank you, mister mayor. It's such a challenging situation because, as has been stated, you know, you're you're essentially punishing those who are are building the homes that are needed in your community. But the challenge is we don't really have another alternative. Because if we don't, what's going to happen is we're going to have a housing element that our state has decided to place on us that we're going to fall out of compliance on.

And then we'll just get whatever the building industry wants to build. And if we wanna sit here and say it's not gonna happen, we just have to look at where we are based on encouraging the development of affordable units. And none of those were being developed. We had parcel after parcel after parcel that was being developed. So we're at a point where we have to make a decision.

Are we going to apply a process that is at least enabling us to generate through the process of having identified these development projects coming forward to show that we are generating some affordable units. I don't like the process. I don't. I think the building industry should be able to bring to us projects that represent the homes that our residents want and that support the development of the community in the manner that our general plan dictates. But there are folks down in Sacramento who made a decision not to allow us to do that.

And so until we get them to change that, we're in a position now, regardless of what councils before us did, because I think we all would have loved for them to have addressed it. It didn't happen. So now we have to. And the way I see us doing it is by implementing the in lieu fee along with that requirement. You have a choice. One of the two, again, my apologies to the building industry because I love what you've built. I have a beautiful home in Rockland. I enjoy that. I love seeing the Toll Brothers homes when I drive around town. And, you know, they again, you've done a great job of building homes.

And clearly, the homes that people want because the homes aren't sitting empty in Rockland. So again, when I look at this from the standpoint of what I would like to do moving forward is I want it to be as easy as possible for staff, for the building community, at least let's start. I think that scenario one, though, I also struggle with the $5 that just because it is, while the study says, yeah, that's kinda where we need to be, it's such a significant dollar amount. And what has been shared is that cost additional cost of home. All it's doing is driving up the cost to buy a home in Rockland.

It'll produce some affordable units, but it's driving up the cost to buy a home in Rockland. So from my chair, I think we would probably land somewhere at $3 but you apply it to all. Because what I will share with you is the angst I have when I look at the options are what happened when we encouraged the development of affordable units. We got little to none. If you put a fee in place and then you tier that, what's going to happen is we're going to default to that lower square footage home.

And so you're gonna get lower and lower numbers. And so I think if you just apply it, we can monitor it, we can manage it. But we need to get a process in place. I do think an in lieu fee needs to be available. And I think we also need to have the conversation because unless I misunderstood, the recommendation was 5%. So it's 5% and then what we establish as in LUFI. And that 5% and staff, know there's chairs moving over there, so jump in. But that's different from what we have in place today. So that is a shift. And it's probably a shift in the right direction.

Would think my head's moving out there. Yes, Jeff? Yes? Okay. So, you know, I really think that's kind of directionally where I would like to see us go, make it as easy as possible. If we go with the 5%, we go with, you know, the $3 on the square foot. I think we could then manage. And I think the table that you provided kind of gave us a sense, yes, it's going to be less. Neither one of those was going to get us to the numbers that have been laid on top of us as a requirement anyway. But I think it gets us moving in the direction where we can justify the actions that we're taking to produce and meet the requirements that are on top of us.

And then, as the mayor has indicated, we've got to look at every option. And I'm sorry, the gentleman from Toll Brothers, what was your name again? I didn't write it down. It's Martin. Okay, thank you, Martin. I appreciate your comments in relationship to, you know, things we should be thinking about and we need to. And Marcus, you know, I appreciate everybody being here and sharing from the building industry standpoint, you know, the challenges. But we also need you talking with the folks in Sacramento. Okay? You you gotta be down there beating on their heads as well because we can't do it alone.

And when they give us no other option, then we've gotta come to you. And then we're putting a burden on you, which I apologize that we have to do that. But I have to protect the citizens of Rockland. That's what I'm elected to do. So so that's kind of where I'm at is I think that option one would be my recommendation. I'm looking at the 5% and probably I agree with council member Gaildo that $3 probably is more in line with what I see happening. I know it doesn't achieve necessarily that dollar amount, but I think when I look at the study and I would, when I say keep it easy, I always use that KISS principle. Keep it short and simple, and that's about as short and simple as it gets.

So Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. It's it's an interesting thing when we're talking about increasing the cost of housing to create affordable housing. You know, the American dream is to own a home, and now we're making it more difficult to own a home for people so that they can live in an apartment.

Because at the end of the day, that's all we're really doing. We're doing gap financing for these affordable units that no one's going to actually own. I mean, we've listening to developers and asking them, and we've heard, Well, because the cost of the land is too much, I can't do anything. It's not gonna pencil out. And I agree, encouraging doesn't get us anywhere.

And the fundamental flaw that I agree with Councilmember Janda is we're really messing with the market. And any time that you do that as a government, I think you start to influence in ways that are unintended, but I think we know exactly what's gonna happen, which is it just increases the cost of housing. That said, you know, it sounds like we can get to a place where, you know, the $3 I was initially leaning towards just tracking with whatever Placer County is doing, which was the $2.73. That was kind of my feeling on it. I can go to $3 as well, I think begrudgedly, a council member Janda.

I think that puts us at least in a place where we can try this out, and it's an experiment, and see how this is gonna end up working for us. I ultimately think that we're gonna run out of that gap financing pretty quick, and we're still never gonna achieve, and I think, you know, Council Member Janda said it last time, we're never gonna achieve what the Department of Housing wants us to achieve, and what arena numbers we get. So this is just our best effort to get there, to show that we're doing something, and hopefully that's as good as we can do when we're in court being told we didn't do anything. But I do wanna say, on top of that, with what Councilmember Broadway had mentioned about getting partnerships to figure out this long term, I can tell you that I've been presenting to PCAR a couple of times now, and when I talk to them, they want to talk about inventory and what the city is doing to help them with getting homes. And then I let them know, well, these are apartments.

And then I talk to them about Rina and how all that goes down. And they're like, Why are you you know, you're just building so many apartments and we want you to build homes. And I say, Well, you'd be surprised because the number one litigant going after jurisdictions right now is a non profit run by Carr. So, we gotta figure out what's broken over in Sacramento and who's really driving the train because the the quote housing crisis isn't really a housing crisis, it's an affordability issue. But because it's all been lumped in, we're getting crazy arena numbers that we have to deal with.

So the best way, I think, for us to deal with it is to do this fee, because I don't believe inclusionary numbers and getting two or three homes out of a subdivision is going to get us anywhere. So I think the fee is going to be where we do it.

If I could jump in. So one of the premises that is troubling to me is that we have to do this to get affordable housing. And we know because we approve them that we have two eighty eight units that opened up in Wildcat and University not that long ago. We have under construction two affordable housing projects on Sierra College and on Pacific Street, albeit we did put money in for the two of those. But we have three twenty four units across from Jessup that there's not going be any money from us for those units.

So, the premise that it's not happening unless we do this, I don't think is an accurate premise. We just got an application for almost 300 units at Midas and Pacific. And they put in that application, I think, pretty aware that we don't have any

They have made a request. I'll clarify that the Midas and Pacific has approached the city and staff is evaluating a request. And I will agree with the vice mayor. We have seen and been successful on a few projects where the city has not been asked for financing because there is definitely one developer who has figured out a way to do it and then they have less strings because they have fewer financing. But it is very rare, very extremely rare that jurisdictions aren't providing gap financing to these things.

And so the fee or what the council decides to give us direction on as it relates to a fee is one component of it. But the the general plan policy that says encourage versus some type of requirement puts us in a big challenging position when projects come before you on Rina sites that don't have any affordable units because once that project or once that site becomes entitled with a as a non Rina project, we now have to go find another rena site in the city and we're running out of sites. So we are

But if we get if we get 5% of units, we still have to go find another rena site, right?

Potentially, but a smaller one because we do have a small inventory.

Yeah.

But as a city that doesn't have much residential left, the more we can do to encourage the building is what we're trying to do. And the more we can say we're offering incentives and we have we have a small program, a small but mighty program, Hopefully, that will get people to bring those affordable projects to our arena sites. And we're just looking for more tools in the toolbox.

So I I can support the two fifty. I think two fifty is better than three myself. I'd also like to see us though have some exemption of this requirement for say homes that are a thousand square feet or less because we want to encourage people to build homes that are more attainable for people without having to be affordable. And maybe we also look at maybe exempting smaller square foot apartments, maybe seven fifty square foot or less. To encourage people to actually build attainable, affordable housing, and not to penalize them for doing that.

First of all, while I appreciate the comments about these very few projects we've had, we've lucked into them. And I don't take luck lightly. Having coached teams and lucked into some successes, I didn't rely on luck. I relied on coaching and getting the team there. The same thing with these projects.

We have so few parcels left that I don't wanna wish upon luck that we have someone else step up like USA Properties or someone and develop some of these. But when you also look, had one or two of those not happened because of all of the parcels that were not developed with affordable, we would be in a much more challenging place and we would not be in compliance. We would have had to work extremely hard to get ourselves back into compliance. So I want to be careful when we talk about those that we've been fortunate to have because as our city manager mentioned, that's not normal. And I don't foresee that happening on a regular basis.

The other thing is, again, I think initially my desire is to make this as clean, simple as possible so that we're not carving out and doing different things. We apply it. We apply it to all. You have the 5% or you have the $3 and then we manage and monitor. And if we need to adjust, then we adjust as opposed to making these carve outs because if we say, well, it's $1,000 but those are all and I think it was 120% was much of those that were developed at above market rate.

They were basically at 100% of market, not at market rate. So we do that, but you're not, not only are you not getting affordable, you're getting them that are over market rate based on what the data was showing on what's getting developed. So I get very concerned when we start carving out because the exception then becomes the rule and that's where people go. And I don't think we accomplish what we're trying to accomplish. And again, I have total disdain for this entire process, but we don't have a choice.

We have to come up with a solution. So I do just think that the easiest path is scenario one with the 5% and the $3 And I really think that's the easy path for us to get something in place, to make it easy for everyone in the development community to understand what we're doing and give our staff the ability to apply it, monitor it, and come back to us if we need to adjust. So thank

you. Yes.

Very good. Thank you. Yeah, I think everybody's hearing our frustration. It's so crazy that, housing costs is what's impacting housing, and here we are talking about applying additional costs. And I say the frustration that we have is when groups have come and then they've built market rate and that's causing us trouble to go back and find new spots.

I think an important part, and if you look out and hear from the public frequently or people who are looking to relocate, we're very fortunate that people want to live in Rockland because we have a great city and great schools. We also have PG and E. And if you're in Folsom, you've got SMUD. And if you're in Roseville, you've got Roseville Electric. And that impacts where people are making decisions to live.

That's a big part for me why I want to be very cautious on the dollar amount. Like I say, I'm comfortable at the $3 I think it's kind of clean and easy. But I also think, you know, for a while there, I I was definitely thinking along with with vice mayor Halden about carve outs, but I think they naturally occur with the fee based on square footage. And if we can reduce it down from the recommended $5 to $3 I think that will help address that issue for me. So I am supportive of the 5%, no carve outs, and $3 Yeah,

I mean, again, I think we all have good intentions. But the best case scenario that's been presented at $5 a foot, which no one's here talking about, would result in some 600, a little less than 700 units. But at the $3 level, that's more like 400 units. Well, our current quote unquote requirement, which there really is no requirement to produce affordability, just to zone. So, I think the narrative that we're not meeting our requirement, we are.

We're zoning. So, as long as we do that, we struggle at times, but that's going to be a challenge in the future. But that's just over the next three years. There's no way any of these, even with the $3 fee put in place, we're going to produce anywhere near 400 units. That could take fifteen, twenty years.

Well, in the next cycle, who knows what our number is going to be? Could be 10,000 or 7,000, whatever. To me, the numbers are ridiculous because nobody can achieve them. So it's fine if the majority wants to impose an additional cost on every person buying a home or renting an apartment to potentially maybe build 400 units at some point in the future, to me, it's just a drop in the bucket. And I get the intentions.

I totally understand. I don't disagree with what we're trying to do. But just the reality of it, given all the information and the work that staff and the consultants put in, to me it just doesn't make a lot of sense. And I don't think there's any risk. There's nobody in the state meeting these building requirements. I just don't see that ever coming to us as an issue. But that's me.

And I just add because we don't build housing. Know, other people build housing. We don't build housing. And sure, we might have some money to chip in. So but I hear where things are going. So maybe you can meet me halfway at two seventy five.

I'm solid at three. And I did want to just speak to the ADUs. I don't know what council's thought is on that, but I certainly would like to see additional discussion regarding the ADUs because we, which again, goes back to my frustration with our state. Because we had HCD here. We've had them tell us that even when we run out of developable space, we're still going to be given requirements, which is amazing to me.

But on top of that, we told them specifically that we would well exceed the numbers of ADUs, which we are doing. And they also knew that the state, those folks in Sacramento, were developing laws that were going to limit the restrictions and make it easier to develop them, yet they put caps on us. So we, I think we do need to look very hard at what we could do with the ADUs as well, because those ADUs will help us in achieving those units. And while I know there's a lot of discussion about, well, don't build anything, we don't have to produce anything, the problem is that while, yes, we don't, when the building industry is gracious enough to bring us a new development for our residents to enjoy, Once that development is built, if we have listed on their units, while we don't build anything, once something is built on that, we are responsible for those. So while we weren't building those units, we were responsible for those units.

So we could sit here all day and play with the, well, you know, we're not responsible for building anything. We are because the state looks at that, and that's exactly how you fall out of compliance. And then when you fall out of compliance, then you're facing builder's remedy. So there's a huge risk of that. And I think we've got to be very, very cautious when we say, well, you know, we're not going be held accountable because we've talked about not being held accountable and we faced the potential at one point of potentially having Builders' Remedy pushed upon us.

And then we would have had zero control. So I I would be very cautious on, you know, we do need to at least demonstrate that we are working towards those numbers as much as we just like them and as much as we know they're not realistic for any of the communities out there. I don't think anyone is coming remotely close. I think we've to be very cautious because the downside to not meeting that and to falling out of compliance is huge for our community. So again, I'm solid on the $3.

Think that I've and I know it's not a lot of numbers on the ADU, but that was my big frustration the first time it came up, because I think we got credit for three based on our past history. And we knew, you know, the regulations, of course, we only had three because nobody knew you could build them before and we didn't have pre play plans and and these opportunities. And so that was my frustration where I said, let's put in and I thought I was crazy trained, you know, let's put in 10. And they were like, nope, can't, they won't let you do that. And obviously we're well exceeding.

It's still small numbers, but what a cool way for people. And I know somebody that has special needs daughter, and now they build an ADU and she gets to live in her own place in the back of their property. And what a great way to be able to do some things like that. Or we've got some friends working to do that for their senior parents. So I want to encourage the ADUs. I know we're not going get the numbers. We should. We need to fight to try and get that. And I totally get it. Is this going to do what we're trying to do?

No. It's going to help. It'll give us a little bit of money to try and help and induce some encouragement. And I'm all about finding a way to make it work, if 275 is what makes you work, I'm I can be supportive, 275 that matches the county.

So just so I get some consensus here yes?

I was gonna seek some consensus, but also mention if if we're looking at matching the county in addition to their fee, have an annual inflator.

You have to make it hard, don't

you? Well.

And I will also say that they are currently in the process of evaluating their inclusionary housing policy. And so while at the time this report was generated it was February, I cannot say what it's going to be when they adopt their new policy. Yeah.

Well, we have a February. We have a February. And then I can't twist Your nugget? Your your yeah. He went zero.

So that's closer to two seventy five than three.

Yeah. Alright. Alright. Alright. Pressure is No. Not a bad No. I I I mean, listen, I think that it it's just the spirit of compromise and, you know, I'm actually very influenced in a lot of ways by what council member Rajanda said, which was, you know, what are we getting out of these 400 units? And so, when I go from $3 to $2.75, I'm not going to do the back of the envelope math there, but I mean, it's a haircut. Yeah, yeah. But at the same time, I think puts us at least a little in line here with the county.

It's closer to where I was at, which was actually 273. You can have the 2 pennies. And so, I agree that, you know, we need to answer to the call some ways with housing, but I think spirit of compromise, I can go to the $2.75. And so no inflator.

I'm going to read back what I have and see how many heads nod. We've three. I see three for two seventy five with a three, not five. Three for two seventy five, is there any support for an annual inflator?

We can come back and look at it if it's something we need to do. Not for me anyway.

5%. Clarify we can bring back a fee resolution separate from any updates to the ordinance and that could happen faster nothing of course is fast it requires some legal analysis as well as public noticing but bring back a fee resolution to adopt a fee prior to bringing the ordinance updates. Is that the desire? The council?

Yes. Okay.

In the ordinance update streamlining as identified in the report recommendations the three different criteria down to the 5% was and then we'll be we'll conduct some research on the ADUs as I mentioned and as was discussed here. There's there's some components of it that would require us to have our housing element taken an update to our housing element, would take a while. We wanna have some conversations with HCD and see what that would look like and bring back some information before we embark on that process. But that conversation absolutely to happen as part of the sixth cycle, and if nothing, be prepared for, more inclusion in the seventh cycle. But bring back more information for the council to provide us with specific direction.

And then finally, to confirm, we didn't discuss it here and I don't believe there was a desire in the last meeting, but we are not looking at any fee on non residential properties. Confirm. No. Okay. Just wanted to confirm. Did I miss anything, Elizabeth? Okay. Thank you very

much. Thank you. All right. And since there's no action further from that, and you have everything that you need? Okay. Just before I close this out, I wanna just thank everyone.

Yes? I a future item.

Okay. I just I do wanna say that this is why it's kind of an honor to be amongst you all on on the dais because we've had this conversation over and over again and it's always been good, it's always been respectful. And we're we you know, this is a win in a lot of ways for everyone. So just thank you for that. Now future agenda items.

You know, this is a little off the wall, but I think we've had a couple earthquakes in town of late. And I would I'd be interested in maybe just a little report on what we've had that we can share with residents as opposed to them just getting on social media.

So I'd like to bring out my earthquake expert, chief Banks

Okay.

If he wouldn't mind.

Is this a non agendized discussion item? Yeah.

I I believe so. We're just providing communication. I only know because he sent me a screenshot that we had an earthquake.

There there was one a couple weeks ago too.

Oh, I thought you meant today.

No. I'm talking about one today, but there was one a couple weeks ago. I I felt it in my driveway.

Are you familiar with the Rockland earthquakes or just the Placer County earthquakes?

I wasn't. Here here's my here's my here's what I wanna do. I I want us to just you know, without it just being reported on social media, want us to tell residents what has happened because I think a lot of people in town don't get earthquake insurance because they think there's no earthquakes. Usually there's never any earthquakes.

So more communication to residents that we had an earthquake?

Well, I'd like to hear what actually has happened and then maybe we can talk about what we do with that information.

Okay. We'll figure something out. I'm sorry, sorry. Thought it was about tonight. Okay.

So we do have one more item, so we cannot adjourn at this point. We are going to be going back into closed session. If there's no other future items, thank you for everyone that came and spoke or sat through and listened to us speak. Mayor mayor Bass? You do you mind just announce on the record with the item we're going back in on? Yes. I will. Thank you. So we are gonna go back into closed session, and that will be for c s three. Do I have to read this whole thing?

Pursuant to government code section five four nine five six point eight, conference with real property negotiators, acquisition of rights of way for the Monument Springs Bridge project, agency negotiator for each identified property, Ali Zimmerman, city manager, and David Mulrook, community development director, and a list of properties throughout Rockland that will be under negotiation for price terms of payment or both. We are back from closed session. And we have nothing else to report. As such, we are adjourned.