Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Welcome everyone. This is 03/17/2026. Happy Saint Patrick's Day to everyone. And, it is 06:00, so we'll start our our meeting, the planning commission meeting. We will start off as we always do with the pledge of allegiance. I've asked commissioner Armstrong to lead us in that. I allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. As welcome all of our our guests.

If you haven't yet, and it's it's not necessary, but it is helpful if you fill out a speaker card there on the back table there. You can bring it up to to staff up here. That helps us to keep things organized. Okay. May we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Armstrong? Here. Commissioner Barron? Here. Vice Chair McKenzie? Here. And Chairman Thomas? Here. Commissioner Cortez is excused tonight.

Thank you. We will now open it up for public comment on the minutes. If there is any public comment on last meeting's minutes. I'm assuming he's walking up to give us speaker card. Okay. Seeing that there's no public comment on last meeting's minutes, I will bring it up to here. Any discussions or a motion?

So moved.

Second? Any seconds? Oh, I'll second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? One abstention? That's true.

I was absent. Alright.

Thank you. Okay. And then we have citizens addressing the commission on non agenda items. Not what we're going to talk about today. Anyone need to want to speak about non agenda items at this time?

Doesn't look like there's anyone, so we'll bring you back up here, and we'll start with our public hearings. So we were going to start off with the public hearing two, two point A, continued from February well, continued from February 2026, Granite Lakes Estates Development Agreement DA2024-one. And I will let staff give their presentation, please. Thank you.

Nathan Anderson with the Rockland Planning Division. Tonight I'll be presenting the development agreement for the remaining phases of the Granite Lakes Estates project. So the project area is located in the southern portion of the city at the southern terminus of Greenbrae Road and Monument Springs Drive. The first phase of the 116 lot project consisted of 48 homes, was constructed a little more than a decade ago. Approximately five acre parcel located near the center of the site was not included as part of the original project.

This parcel is labeled Napots on several exhibits, indicating that it is not a part of this project. The original entitlements for Granite Lake Estates go back to May 2002, when the project was originally approved. Those original approvals included an environmental impact report, general development plan, tentative subdivision map, oak tree preservation plan permit, and a development agreement, or DA. Primary access to the project site at that time was intended to occur via an off-site extension of Monument Springs Drive extending from its current terminus on the north side of Secret Ravine to Greenbrae Road. This extension included construction of a developer funded bridge over the creek along with two lane roadway connected to Greenbrae Road.

Construction of the roadway and extension of the bridge has been delayed by several factors throughout the years, including changes in property ownership, minor adjustments to the roadway alignment, changes associated with acquiring the necessary right of way, and one or two economic downturns. As of tonight, this extension and bridge remain undeveloped, although this is all in the process of changing. Granite Lakes Estates is one of three projects which were tied to construction of the bridge. The other two being Vista Oaks and Highlands Parcel A. In 2022, in an effort to advance construction of the bridge, the city council affirmed special conditions requiring the owners of the Granite Lakes Estates Project along with the two neighboring projects to form a bond opportunities for land development or bold community facilities district.

That same year, both Vista Oaks and Highlands Parcel A were approved for development agreements that included ten year term extensions. Also, in 2022, the city council directed staff to evaluate the feasibility of utilizing city funds to support earlier construction of the bridge and accelerate its delivery timeline. In March 2023, the council approved advancing city funds from the traffic circulation impact fees to support early construction of the bridge with reimbursement to the city occurring over time through the Bold Community Facilities District. This component is particularly important as the city is advancing the funds to facilitate construction of the bridge with repayment to occur over time as homes are constructed within the bed of fitting developments. As part of that action, the City Council directed staff to assume responsibility for the project and to deliver the bridge as quickly and efficiently as reasonably possible.

Since that time, bridge design has continued to progress with 90% design plans anticipated to be submitted by DOC and Engineering in May. Environmental permitting is also underway. The current construction schedule anticipates a spring twenty twenty seven start date, with construction expected to take approximately six months. The bridge is therefore anticipated to be fully operational by the 2027. This background brings us to the proposed development agreement for the Granite Lakes Estates project.

Much of the language in the proposed DA was derived from the development agreements approved for the twenty twenty two Vista Oaks And Highlands Parcel A DAs, though several project specific provisions are included. The first relates to the term of the agreement. The applicant is requesting a ten year extension consistent with the approvals granted for Vista Oaks and Highlands Parcel A. According to the development team, while the project is anticipated to be completed well before that time frame, the requested term is intended to account for potential uncertainties associated with the project or broader economic conditions. Approval of the agreement would extend the life of the tentative subdivision map and Oaktree preservation permit, which are currently valid only through January 2027, unless extended by this DA or other mechanism.

Section seven of the DA would require annexation into the CFD and establishment of a special tax rate, proceeds from bonds issued for and special taxes collected within this district would be used to reimburse the city for the costs associated with construction of the Monument Springs Bridge. Section eight of the development agreement has generated the majority of public comments received to date. As noted earlier in the presentation, 48 of the 116 approved lots within the project have already been constructed, leaving 68 lots remaining to be developed. The current tentative subdivision map includes a condition stating that the forty ninth building permit for the project may not be issued until the extension of Monument Springs Drive, including the bridge over Secret Ravine, has been completed and is fully operational. Section eight would remove this restriction on building permits and allow the applicant to begin construction of the remaining homes once construction of the bridge foundations and abutments have commenced.

However, of the 68 remaining lots, certificates of occupancy would only be permitted for six to eight model homes until a notice of completion is approved by the city council confirming that the bridge is fully operational. Certificate of occupancy, for those who don't know, is an official approval by the city building department, which states that the building is complete, safe, and legally approved for its intended use. As discussed previously, the full bridge construction timeline is anticipated to be only approximately six months with construction expected to begin in spring twenty twenty seven and conclude by the end of the year. Building permits would not be able to be issued until the bridge foundations have been poured if this DA is approved. Therefore, it's anticipated that home construction would begin approximately six months prior to completion of the bridge, meaning the home construction and the bridge construction would be on similar timelines.

It takes roughly four to six months to construct a typical single family residential home. It's also important to understand the distinction between building permits and improvement plans. There's been some confusion regarding the current condition of approval what the current condition of approval actually prohibits. Building permits authorize construction of vertical structures, including foundations, structural framing walls, roofs, mechanical, electrical, essentially everything above the finished grade. Improvement plans authorize construction of horizontal infrastructure and utilities that support development on the site.

Roads, water and sewer lines, storm drainage, grading, essentially everything at or below the finished grade. As currently approved, only building permits are restricted until the bridge is constructed. Under the current condition, the applicant could obtain approval of improvement plans and begin work on grading roads and utilities prior to any bridge construction. However, building permits for vertical construction could not be issued. The applicant has indicated that allowing the homes to be constructed concurrently with the bridge could potentially reduce the overall construction timeline in the area as different phases of the project could be coordinated to occur simultaneously.

Moving on, the development agreement would also require the landowners to align the location and design of the bike and pedestrian trail within the Granite Lakes boundaries with the Highlands, Parcel A and Vista Oaks Trail. This is more of a formality to just make sure that those trails sync up. But the DA would also require the dedication or granting of all reasonably necessary right of way and temporary construction easements to the city to facilitate completion of the Monument Springs Bridge. So this is a more important one. There's several areas of property that is owned by the Granite Lakes Estates owners that would need to be utilized for the Monument Springs Bridge, and this DA would accomplish that.

Final project specific provision in the DA worth noting is section 11, which requires the landowner to grant the city an irrevocable offer of dedication and construction easement. This easement would allow for a future roadway connection from the southern stub of Monument Springs Drive through the Granite Lakes Estates project area, ultimately connecting to the eastern terminus of the Highlands A project. This is essentially a fail safe, just in case the Granite Lakes Estates project is never constructed for whatever reason, this would allow the city to connect this future roadway. And this roadway is important. Once the three projects are fully developed, it will connect the project area directly to the southern extension of Monument Springs Drive, which eventually connects to Scarborough Drive in Roseville.

This connection will not only provide residents of this portion of Rockland with more direct access to this portion of Roseville, rather than requiring them to use Aguilar to reach I-eighty or Sierra College Boulevard, but will also provide an additional evacuation route in the case of an emergency. Since the item was originally published last month, staff has received a higher than usual number of public comments regarding this project. The vast majority of these comments raise one of three primary concerns. The first is that the environmental impact report, or EIR, for the project, which was originally certified in 2002, is too old. Some commenters have stated that the EIR must therefore be redone.

However, an addendum to the EIR was prepared in 2022, which confirmed that the original EIR remains adequate and that no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required for the project. With the 2002 EIR and the 2022 addendum, the project complies with all applicable CEQA requirements. The second concern raised in the public comments is that additional delays could occur, allowing the project to be fully constructed and occupied while the bridge is never completed. City Council expressed similar concerns in 2022, which is when the council directed staff to assume responsibility and deliver the bridge as quickly and efficiently as reasonably possible using city funds with reimbursement to occur from the benefiting projects. As discussed earlier this evening, design of the bridge is nearing completion and construction is anticipated to move forward next year.

The third comment raised by the public is that a similar request regarding the Granite Lakes Estates project was denied by the city council in 2022. While it is true that the 2022 request to modify the project's conditions of approval was not approved by council, that proposal differed from the current request in several important ways. First, the applicant in the 2022 proposal proposed removing all restrictions on construction and occupancy of additional homes prior to completion of the bridge. Under that proposal, if bridge construction had stalled for any reason, there would have been no restriction on either construction or occupancy of the homes. In contrast, the current proposal includes defined limitations and allows occupancy only for a limited number of model homes until the bridge is completed and accepted by the city council.

Additionally, the circumstances surrounding the bridge were very different in 2022. As discussed, a number of city actions have since occurred that reduce uncertainty and move the bridge project forward to construction. Since publication of the packet, staff has received about 15 additional pieces of correspondence, including one from the project applicant. These are included as a blue memo this evening. They're on the back table, and they are up at the dais.

In closing, staff finds the proposed DA to be consistent with the existing general plan designations, zoning, and requirements of the government code. This project has been approved for more than two decades, and approval of the development agreement would facilitate completion of this single family project on an underutilized residential site at a density that is consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the project to the City Council. This concludes staff's presentation. We're available for any questions.

Thank you. Appreciate that presentation. Any questions? I'll start to my right.

I don't have any questions currently.

Not at present.

Okay. I too don't have any questions. So I will, open well, I will allow the the applicant to to to come up and and speak to us and

Members of the Planning Commission, Nick Alexander on behalf of Granite Lakes Estates. At this time, we want to thank staff for working with us on this project. We are concurrence with a well written staff report. Congrats kudos to Nathan Anderson on on writing a great staff report. While there may be some debate on concurrent construction, there are many benefits to concurrent construction.

Lot progress past,

of

design and the construction of the bridge. To date, the city has advanced the cost for the environmental construction documents, and we at this time, we're we're pleased with the progress. Construction of the remaining homes is the primary mechanism for reimbursing the city for the cost of the bridge through the approved Bold financing district and that allows the city to recoup the construction costs in a timely manner rather than over a period of years. The benefit of this concurrent construction of the bridge re results in a significant savings of taxpayer and financing costs and interest dollars. Allowing concurrent home and bridge construction is intended to minimize the overall disruption to the nearby neighborhoods by consolidating the construction activity into an organized and coordinated time frame rather than sequentially.

Except for the model homes that may be constructed upon the completion of the bridge abutment, it's important to note that no final occupancy permits may be issued until the bridge is done and accepted by the city. And we're we're kinda we concur with that. Concurrent construction also provides for the early dedication of the right of way for Southern Monument Springs Drive. This tends to get overlooked. It's in the attached figure seven in your in your staff report, and that goes through Granite Lake subdivision.

This southern roadway provides another point of access through the Vista Oaks and Highlands project projects located to the Southwest. The southern extension of Monument Springs Drive also results in decreased vehicle trips to Aguilar Road and another point of emergency egress provided that's provided by a more direct route to Sutter Roosevelt Medical Center in case of a medical emergency. Furthermore, it's also another point of access if for any reason Aguilar Road becomes impassable. I'd like to point out that the traffic study presented by Mr. Steve Sutter failed to include this roadway in his analysis, so I believe that that analysis is currently flawed.

The development agreement establishes that the issuance of final occupancy permits requires the bridge to be completed and accepted by the city. And again, we concur with this. Given the benefits of given the benefits including but but not limited to tax and financing savings, minimizing overall community disruptions, and the improvement of emergency egress and access, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the approval of this development agreement before you tonight, and I'll be glad to answer any of the Commission's questions.

Thank you. I'll start to my left. Commissioner McKenzie, no questions? Commissioner Baron?

We're we're looking at, from the city perspective, if the city actually accomplishes the build 2027. Is that what we're projecting?

The schedule has the bridge operational by the 2027.

And we're getting through 2025. So our our crossover period why the rush? What's what's the the the issue with getting it done? Why not wait for the bridge eighteen more months?

Well, again, I as I pointed out to the benefits, there it's it's minimal disruption to the neighborhood, so it's constructed concurrently rather than sequentially. And there's taxpayer benefits with the savings of interest costs and the city could get reimbursed sooner rather than later. Remember, when you have a financing district and you string it out, you're paying interest on it. So, the benefit here is the to the city and to the residents is that it's it saves taxpayer takes taxpayer dollars on financing and interest interest costs.

So our purview here isn't the money component. That's city council, and I appreciate that, but we don't discuss that here. That's not our issue. My I guess I'm getting back to you from a development perspective, and I, again, appreciate the the recoupment of tax dollars. But from a development perspective, and I I understand you're trying to do concurrent with or keep the construction down, but what is the other motivation?

The other benefit, because right now, the city does not have that right of way for Monument Springs. The development agreement grants them that Springs right of way. If this project doesn't go, you would have the city would have to acquire that right away either through another project or eminent domain. So the development agreement grants the city the right of way for that roadway that provides emergency egress to the Sutter Roosevelt Medical Center in the case of a medical emergency. Those are the important points.

Do have no further questions?

So as I as I understand it too, you're gonna build you can build the the infrastructure, the roads and and things like that anyway Right. Without so there's going to be help me understand this a little bit better too. You're gonna bring in construction equipment either way along that path while they're doing the while they're doing the bridge or or when they're you know, or or you can wait, I guess, if you wanted to out of the goodness of your heart. But but either way, there's gonna be construction equipment going on. There's gonna be construction going on in that area. Yes. That's correct.

And my point there is, let's get it all over with at one time rather than over a period of years.

Following question?

Yes, please.

You may or may not know, I don't want to assume, so I'm going to ask the question. Will that bridge require construction access from both sides? You can't physically build that bridge from one side of the stream, correct? You actually have to come through the neighboring neighborhoods to get access to the other side?

Yes. I believe that the that the city has got an an easement that was granted to the county by the original construct by the original map on this project. And, yes, you can you can access it from both sides.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We we're gonna open up for public comment right now. I just wanna thank you for all for being here. It's it's great to see you here. We we appreciate it. We appreciate your feedback. We're we're grateful for all of the emails and and the information that that you're sharing with us. We we we like that you care and we care too. Nathan, did you have?

Yeah, sorry. I think another member of the applicant team went to speak. That right, Andrew?

Oh, please, come on up. I'm sorry. We're not going to open up for public comment quite yet.

Okay, sorry about that. I wanted to clarify one item. Oh, I'm sorry. Andrew Katakis. My family owns the property. There's no intention of starting, like, eighteen months earlier. The nothing can even initiate as to any model homes until the bridge has started construction. So basically it's a six month time frame. We're trying to save and do it simultaneously. Nothing will happen way in advance.

I just wanted to clarify that. First I wanted to thank the planning commission, city staff for a significant amount of time and effort that's gone into the project over the many years. I'll also acknowledge the residents who have written many letters here. They're here tonight. It's clear that people care deeply about their neighborhood, and I respect that completely. I'm not here to push our ways through. I'm trying to work with everybody the best we can. And I gotta tell you, you guys have the best staff in the world. You just hands down. Three years and everybody, whether it's city council people, staff, wonderful to work with.

And it's taken a lot of time, and there's been a lot of work to figure out a common way to get it done, not a builder developer saying this is what I want. You know? And we're not a developer. I just bought this land to invest for my kids' college, and it's been interesting process since then. Before discussing the development agreement, I wanted to ask that everybody participating tonight approach this conversation with respect towards one another, towards me personally, as the owner, towards staff, and towards the commission.

This issue goes back decades, and none of the individuals involved in here had anything to do with this. We're all trying to work together towards a common path and a goal to move this forward and nothing else. There's not greed involved. I mean, greed were involved, buying stock is greedy. Investing in something is greedy. We're here yes. We bought it to make a profit. But that's not saying that we don't care. If we didn't care, I'd be trying to push our way constantly. What we're trying to do with staff, thank god, is try to work out a way forward.

And sometimes people aren't happy with that, but we're doing the best we can. This is not a new subdivision proposal, and I'm not sure, based on some of the things I've read, that people understand. This community was approved many years ago, and it's been developed in phases. The last phase, the developer filed bankruptcy, and that's caused people to bring that up over and over again. Well, I have no intentions of filing bankruptcy. We own the property. The city has been involved. You know, we're doing the financing with the bridge. So that control is out of our hands. It's it's in the public's hands. We are paying for it through

the

bonds. But that allows everybody, what we believed, a comfort level that is not, oh, this developer will start building or whoever buys it from us, Toll Brothers, what have you, and not finish it, and we're gonna be right back where we are. Because I'm pretty sure the city's gonna finish this. We've put a lot of energy into it. Money's been put aside.

Pretty sure the city's not going away. And, you know, I have complete faith that it's gonna be completed properly, and it's gonna be way better than probably the one we designed, quite honestly. You know, a lot of people here, I'm assuming, live in phase one and two that are already built. And those residents here today live in homes that were created as part of this project. And there were probably people before that builder who came in and said, we don't want this, you shouldn't do this, what have you.

And if it weren't for city staff and people planning this, a lot of people here might not even have those homes and live in this wonderful community. So I ask you to keep that in mind because I think it's important that people understand that you're in a house that somebody built, And somebody before you, who may have been here since nineteen o six, may have said, I don't want change. I don't want this to happen. But thank god progress moved forward because now you're in this wonderful community, and and I hope you appreciate that because I I appreciate the city very much. What remains is a simple final phase in a long standing entitlement project.

We're not asking to develop the property. It's it's entitled. What we're only doing is trying to sequentially allow model homes. I don't know if you noticed sometimes when a builder a builder like Toll Brothers will start development, they also start to model homes at the same time. It's actually more efficient. Yes. It's better for them. I'm not gonna deny that. Because otherwise, you you you go in and do all the underground, the bridge is gonna be built, and then another phase comes in building homes. And and in our view, whether it's right or wrong or opinion, is that a lot of that can be done together.

Somebody brought up a very important point. No matter what, a bridge has two places of entry. It has to come from both sides. There's no helicopter coming in and dropping equipment down so you can not have traffic patterns. I mean, it it just has to be managed properly. So even if we did nothing, if you were to approve this, the bridge is gonna get built. There's gonna be heavy construction. There's gonna be trucks. There's gonna be everything. But the main goal is that, you know, we're giving an easement for those vehicles to have a housing place so they don't have to come back and forth as much.

They you know, they're gonna be loaded there. The cranes will be there. You obviously have traffic, but it's not like you're gonna have these huge vehicles coming and going, but they will have to land there, both sides, because it has to come from both sides. It can't come from one. The monument excuse me. The Monument Springs Bridge project's been difficult, long delayed issue, and it predates me. It predates this planning commission and this current staff. What matters today is that we are finally in a position to deliver the bridge through the city's advancing funds, engineering and permitting, and the help of all staff. The request before you tonight, does not eliminate the bridge. It does not ask for permission to do development.

The bridge will still need to be completed prior to any residential occupancy. Nobody will be living in these homes. There won't be traffic from that whatsoever. Until the bridge is completed, there can't be any occupancy permits, and no additional homes can be built from my understanding, just the model homes, and they won't be occupied. What we're asking for is simply a more efficient construction approach from our viewpoint, allowing certain work to occur concurrently rather than multiple extended phases. This is not about avoiding requirements. It's about reducing the overall duration of disruption to the neighborhood. And I'll give you an example. I don't know if anybody's been to Truckee in the last two years. They're developing I mean, they they improved the whole thing.

It's almost done. Just imagine they did that in phases over five years instead of just knocking it out at one time. It was a pain in the rear, but I tell you, went there last week. It's a clear ride. But they could have phased it. They could have done it, and and and it would have lasted four or five years. It's a it was a more efficient process, and that's where I got this idea. I'm like, makes more sense if we can from our viewpoint, not everybody's. I understand the concerns about construction traffic. These concerns are real, but it's also important to recognize that the construction traffic will occur with the bridge and future development regardless of the outcome of this hearing.

The request is not whether we will be whether there will be impacts. It's how it's managed. This is why I'm fully open to working with the staff and the neighbors. If there's a construction mitigation plan, clear routes, communication, reasonable controls, whatever could be done to mitigate those concerns, we are 100 willing to work with everybody. And no way are we wanting everybody just to blow through those roads without proper management.

And I wanted to point out, as as Nick did, there is gonna be an additional connector street. So that I'm not an engineer, but that'll help alleviate the traffic. But our project is instrumental in putting those streets together. This project turned out to be a very complex and challenging process shaped by long standing issues that came way before I was involved. You know, I truly believe we're working towards a middle ground.

What I would ask the neighbors here tonight is that let's focus on solutions, not accusations. Please be respectful when you come up here. So I I I I've read those, and I I see and I don't wanna use the word anger, but people feeling unheard, concerns. And nobody's putting that aside, but when you come up here, be respectful the way you address those things. Be considerate of everybody. And that's what I ask. Growth is not always easy, but it's a necessary part of

our

community. And the way we manage successfully is through cooperation, compromise, and respectful dialogue, not division. Many of the homes in this area were built through the same process, and at one time, each of those projects faced similar concerns today. My goal is not to work against the neighborhood, but to work with them to complete and finalize this phase, deliver a long awaited bridge, and to do so in a way that's thoughtful and efficient as possible. Ultimately, success is not one side winning.

Success is finding a balanced outcome that works for the city, the neighborhood, and the completion of the project, You know, it's been decades in the making. That's pretty much all I wanted to say, and I just wanted to, you know, end in thanking everybody for their time and effort.

Okay. Thank you. Will you stay for just a second and make sure that we have any questions for mister Barrett?

I have no questions at this time.

Okay. Anyone? Okay. Thank you.

Thank

you. Okay. Now we'll open it up for public comment. We'll we'll go orderly. I think that's a good reminder that we'll let's be respectful. Let's also be respectful of our time. If if you what you have we we'll give you three minutes. If you need to take the whole three minutes, then by all means take it. If you don't, that's okay too. Right?

We don't need to repeat ourselves. And then please, when you come up to the the dais, please say state your name, your address, and your relation to the prod project. If you have any questions for for staff, you you're willing you you may ask that we can grant you, you know, grant staff permission to answer those if they if they can. And then if we have any questions for you, please wait a moment. Okay? So with that, do you have the cards?

I do.

Okay.

First speaker is Sarah Dollar.

Hi, my name is Sarah Dollar, and I live in the Napots. I wish I knew what that stood for. What does that stand for?

Not a part of the cycle.

Okay. I grew up there, and I was gone for about twenty five years, and I moved back in 2014. I didn't really know any of this that went on before, but when I moved here, my parents were out of the country, and so I got to know all the neighbors that moved in in 2014, and I was really kind of shocked with the history of this issue. I wrote down notes because I tend to be too long. While this project might seem like a new item on your agenda, for us it's decades old, kicking the can down the road once again.

Our message tonight is simple: hold firm on the current requirements and council's directive: no more home permits until the Monument Spring Bridge is complete. I understand now that they're trying to get permits for the model homes, but I don't think that those should be permitted until the bridge is constructed. So the timeline, I wish that Nathan would have had going back even farther. In the timeline, in 2002, the city allowed its first developer to build 40 homes before starting the bridge to offset the cost. Next, a second developer was allowed to push that to 48 permits with initiation of congruent construction.

The result, all 48 homes that were done in 2014 when I first lived here were built, but the developer went bankrupt, leaving our neighborhood not with a bridge, but a pile of concrete piles and unfinished infrastructure. Now we have the current owner, Mr. Kacakis, is representing his family. Back in 2022, we were talking about this with Dave Cook, and the neighborhood had meetings and, so his family bought this property at auction without due diligence and was unaware of the obligations. The obligations were for the owner to build the bridge.

And back in 2014, that bridge was going to be $3,000,000 Since 2022, they've lobbied modification after modification, extension after extension, first to '21, then to '23, and now to '27. Now he's back asking for another ten year extension and modification to the development agreement. Enough is enough. It's important to note that the city has already made a massive concession. At the last council meeting, they agreed to use taxpayer funds to initiate the financing, the tune of 1,500,000.0, and the city assumed responsibility for the project.

This shifted the financial burden and construction responsibility directly from the property owner onto the taxpayers. By the way, the staff report references the estimated cost of the bridge in 2022 as 7,500,000.0. With inflation, that number has likely ballooned to a staggering nearly 9,000,000. The completion of the bridge has always been a condition of development. We're asking you to put the interest of Rockland residents first. Hold fast to the current conditions. No additional permits until bridge is done. No more concurrent construction. No more concessions. And no more investor bailouts. Okay. Something that I didn't have in my notes

Your time is up.

One I'm more thing. The environmental report was done in 2002. I'm wondering how nothing could have changed to the new environmental impact report. I'm not an environmentalist, but I know that everything changes so fast.

Okay. Would you like to because they reconfirmed it in 2022, right? Is that what I understand?

Addendum to the ER was done in 2022 that basically looked at the number of units that were proposed and it said that there were no greater impacts based on those on that development than there was in 2002. I'm not really the environmental guy, but if David has anything to add to that, I'd be I'd welcome his response.

Here we go. David Mullenbrook, Community Development Director. Nate, I think, accurately portrayed the things that have changed since that time. Obviously, growth and development has occurred, but when the original EIR analysis is done, what's required under CEQA is looking at cumulative conditions. So you're assuming that other growth and development is happening, new roadways, new homes, new shopping centers, etcetera.

So it's all based upon growth projections. The analysis that was done in the 2022 addendum, kind of the addendum's purpose is to go through and examine the old environmental impact report and look for things that have changed and make a conclusion one way or the other. In this case, the conclusion was that the identification of impacts on mitigation measures and conclusions reached in the original EIR done in 2002 are no different than the conclusions that would be reached today or in 2022 when that analysis was done.

Thank you, David. Any questions for

No.

Okay. Thank you. Next.

Okay. We have Jessica Rozek.

I forgot to mention that too. You'll see the little light right there. Green, you can speak. When it hits the yellow light, that means you have thirty seconds to wrap it up. And red means stop. Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners and staff. My name is Jessica Rozik. I'm at 4200 Caribou Court. I live in Green Lakes or Granite Lake Estates. To be clear, many of us are here tonight, not to deny this developer the land to develop. We understand that homes are going be there. We understand and hope that the bridge will eventually be there. Nor are we asking the city to buy it for a park. We are just tired of the consistent requests and extensions and modifications by this particular developer. He admits freely that he's not going to develop this property.

And sorry, short classes. Mr. Thomas, you asked the right question. So what is the reason for the push? Why?

Because this guy's an investor. He's an inept investor. He recognized that he cannot move forward with this property without the ability to put up vertical model homes. So he's trying to squeeze as much juice out of this property as he can before he turns it over to an actual reputable developer. So, in that process, we have a development agreement that's been in process with the city since 2022 now that states that in Section eight, they're not allowed to do any vertical structures until that is actually completed, until the bridge is completed.

And that's what he wants modified. Don't think anybody here is saying don't give any other modifications as far as like a ten year extension or anything else. This is just simply an issue of he wants to change the game yet again because he's trying to make it as cost effective for himself and not with any concern to the community. And I will bring up the staff report, page eight, and I'll quote it. The City Council did not approve the amendments to allow the construction of additional homes within Granite Lake Estates project prior to completion of the Monument Springs Bridge and roadway improvements.

End quote. That's section eight, page eight. There's nothing that's changed since then to justify a different outcome. It's simply him trying to recoup costs for himself. The city has already extended itself by taking ownership of the bridge. This was supposed to be done by the developers twenty plus years ago. And now we, the taxpayers, the city's the city of Rockland residents are now going to be bearing that initial cost and outlay. We the city gave 1,500,000.0 out of its transportation cost for this project. We're paying this. This guy is nothing but a rent seeker.

He's looking to just offload this property at the highest price and the only way he can do that is by getting these vertical permits for these model homes. It's pretty simple. No one here is denying the development agreement. No one's denying the fact that it's going to be developed. We're asking simply stick with what we have. It's very simple. And I do have a question for the Planning Commission or the Planning Members. I'd like to know why the residents had to bring to your attention AB 2,904 about mentioning and telling the local residents about this project because we were not notified. And that's something that that's why it got postponed last time. So I feel like I'm not sure who the city employees are actually advocating for.

Are they advocating for the people that pay the tax taxes here or are they advocating for developers?

Okay.

Thank you.

Go ahead and wait. Let's get your question answered, right? Dave, do you want to do that one, David or Nathan?

I can answer it to the best of my ability. The reason the project was postponed last week was, last month was for a couple of reasons. One was because a bunch of questions were brought up, legal questions that we wanted to look into. You're right about that. The noticing question, it was noticed and we missed a few. I'll admit it, there were a few that were missed. And that's why we pulled it, we re noticed it completely to everybody within the 600 foot radius, consistent with our code, which goes beyond what the state requires of us, because we wanted to make sure that everyone was involved in the process.

Not a single person in my neighborhood that is in contact with me received a notice prior to us requesting that. So just for consistency, we just we need to know about these things so that we you know, we don't really want to be here on a Wednesday night or Tuesday night or whenever the commissioner council meetings are. Want to be with our families. We don't want to have to keep fighting this. We've been doing this since 2014. At least my husband and I have been involved in this. That's why we're here. We're just kind of done. Thank you.

Hold on. Any questions for wait. Just wait.

I have no questions.

Any questions? Okay, so I mean, know I you want us to stick to the original plan, right? That's what you're proposing here. The original plan being build the bridge and then start construction, what is it?

Correct. So the existing development agreement, Section eight, states that there will be no additional home permits issued prior to completion of the bridge. And the reasoning behind that is that the council recognized that there are significant safety issues regarding driving all this construction traffic up. I worked in construction, my whole family is in construction. I know that the bridge has to be constructed with construction equipment. I'm not stupid. However, that is a very small confined area. When you think about the development of nearly 80 acres of property, that is an entirely different scenario. Now, claims he's claiming that he can start this infrastructure. Why doesn't he?

And you asked the right question. Again, it's because he's just trying to offload this property and he feels like he can make a little extra if he's got all the permits in place. Don't make it our problem. It's his problem. Don't make it ours.

Thank you.

Thank you. Alright.

Next. Eric Feller.

Good

evening, commissioners. My family and I moved here in 2012 and on Green Mountain Court, which is not part of the Granite Lakes original. Any of the I believe it predates all the Granite Lakes Estates homes that were have been built here. We were my home was built in 1994. We were informed that there was going to be no building until the bridge was completed.

We were in the county at that time. We're not this was before the we were annexed to the city. In the time that we've been here, there have been two developments on Aguilar, Granite Bluff, the neighborhood, and Brookshire Drive. Before Brookshire Drive, we used to have peacocks on Aguilar, and those are all gone now because I think their habitat has been destroyed. My main concern, we're stuck with heavy equipment to build the bridge, and we're stuck with it to build the infrastructure.

We don't need more heavy equipment before the bridge is complete to build model homes. If there were an emergency and we needed to evacuate, we would not want a large amount of construction vehicles to interfere with that. So it is there is a safety component here that I don't believe staff has addressed.

So thanks for your time. Thank you. Any questions for her? No? Okay. Next.

Carol Rubin.

Evening. I'm Carol Rubin. I live near the corner of Aguilar And Greenbrae Roads. And the fundamental problem with the proposed developer's agreement is that it is totally uncoupled with any progress on the bridge. There's only one milestone concerning bridge construction mentioned in that agreement, and that is as soon as bridge construction commences, the developer gets six or eight certificates of occupancy and all 49 building permits.

After that, the agreement can be modified at any time by appeal to the city council. So when that bridge runs into the prehistoric Sasquatch skeletons in their right of way, and construction has to stop, what's going to happen? Well, the city needs to have the developers building houses and selling houses so that they can recoup the cost of the bond. The bond the developer needs to be building and selling houses so that he can make some money. So he's gonna go whoever it is, whether it's mister Kotakis or anyone else he's gonna go to the city council, and he's gonna say, I'm not responsible for the bridge.

Delays in the bridge are not my fault, but I'm the one who's gonna pay for it. You can't make me sit and wait on all my CEOs until you guys get the bridge sorted out. You wanna do that, you're not gonna get any of your bold funding recompensed, and I'm gonna turn around and, abandon this project. And nobody wants that. Even even we, the neighbors, we don't want that.

So what's gonna happen? The city council is gonna say, okay, you can have a few more CEOs. And this should start looking like a real familiar scenario, because that's what happened when the county was in charge of this project back in 2010. The developer cries poor, the city council gives a few more CEOs, we rinse and repeat until either finally Granite Lake Estates phase two is built out, the bridge is finally completed, whenever that may be, or the developer files bankruptcy and abandons the project. This is nuts.

This gives the city no leverage here. So I strongly urge you, please don't adopt this developer's agreement. We're fine with extending the Granite Lakes subdivision map for another ten years, but no construction until the bridge is finished. Thank you.

Thank you.

Eric Feller.

Okay. G. Lozano.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Guadalupe Lozano. I have lived on the rustic hillside since 1996. I have seen the faces that sit in those chairs change, and everyone always wants to tell me it was the prior commission. The honest truth is this.

We don't have the money. We do not. We keep extension after extension. I was one of the only people from any of these neighborhoods that got up and spoke on March 2022 because we were in the middle of COVID and people did not want to be in an enclosed room like this. Not even you guys.

You zoomed in. You criticized me for being uneducated. The real fact is this, I am concerned. I happen to be one of those parents that has utilized Sutter Roseville Hospital. I live the furthest than any one of these neighborhoods from the hospital.

I have a child that needs emergency medication and if I get him to the hospital sooner, that means I continue to have a son or I possibly end up burying him. Not only do I have one, I have two. They are type one diabetic. I have left my neighborhood and went all the way around, got on to the umrack and gone on to Sutter Roseville. This bridge is not going to shorten my time. I wish it would. I wish it would. But it's not. It's not gonna get no one to the hospital faster. There's not enough benefit, return on investment.

You don't have the money to pay for it. The man does not have the money to build it. And you've taxed me with a bond. Do you realize that I've been trying to get my streets fixed for the last six years? I can't get my streets fixed. Our gutters are incomplete. Our streets need love and renewal. And you're talking about building a bridge? Fix the streets. Fix our streets.

Set up a gutter system where the water runs well off of our streets. Initially, since I I was one of the old roosters, I didn't want Granite Lakes. All my neighbors didn't want it. Phase one. Except me. They came to me and they said, hey. How come you're not going to these meetings and everything? I said, doesn't get any better than what they're offering you unless you own the land. So if you own the land, you can you can negotiate. But the offer that the city is giving you is probably the best you're gonna get.

Thank you.

Thank you. What can I get your first name again ma'am please?

My first name is Guadalupe.

Okay. Perfect.

G U A D A L U P E. My last name is Lozano L O Z A N L.

Thank you very much. You're welcome.

Next. Bella DeMete.

Good evening. I'm a student at Sierra College.

You put

name and Yeah.

I'm sorry. My name is Bella DeMate, and I live on the corner of Barrington Hills and Bradbury Court. I've lived here most all my life. I know I'm young, but it's been a while. And I understand that the land my house is on used to look like the land that this project is set to be finished on.

And I'm here to ask you to preserve as many trees and land as possible to keep the wildlife and biodiversity alive. I'm aware that you all have real estate entitlements and plan for 65 more lots, but I ask that you significantly lower that number in order to make larger lots so that trees and wildlife can be preserved. I don't want to see the beautiful land that houses that these houses, the very species that keep Rockland thriving, torn down more than it already has been. Human activity threatens biodiversity too often through habitat loss, so I beg you to keep the wildlife in mind and close to heart when developing these lots to preserve Rockland and our trees for generations to come. The following species, and not limited to, are deers, beavers in the wetlands, rabbits, raccoons, skunks, gray squirrels, turkeys, gray foxes, coyotes, mountain lions, red tailed hawks, California quails, woodpeckers.

I could go on. I'm just trying to be a voice for them because nobody they can't be a voice for themselves. And I ask that you complete please consider adding a park to preserve the trees as well and the wetland area like the Coral Alba Park. After all, the earth can survive without us, but we can't survive without the earth. Thank you.

Thank you.

I have no speaker cards left.

Okay. Anyone what's that? Okay. Yes. If you did yeah. Come on up.

Sorry. Forgot to fill out a speaker card. Anthony Demetay. That is my daughter. Thank you. I also live at 441 Bradbury Court. I am also your planning commissioner I mean, not planning commissioner. I'm your supervisor for this district. I used to be a supervisor, so this is so excuse my lack of knowledge. I was in a board meeting all day today, and I just found about found out about this last night. So just trying to gather some questions on what I heard today and questions from my neighbors that I just picked up. You had mentioned that there was an oak tree mitigation on this project. I have not had a chance

to look at this and very well aware of the PCCP that we

have at the county, but, again, excuse my ignorance on this project. How much of the land of this project is preserved for the oak trees? On the oak tree permit, you said there was a oak tree permit on this project as well. How much of that does preserve, the oak trees that are there? And my third question, I did have a meeting with some city council members yesterday on a off topic, but I was told that this project had larger lots in the previous design agreement or development agreement.

Is that I don't know if that's true or not. And if it's to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods, if these are on 10,000 to 12,000 square foot lots, the ones that are on Barrington Hills are anywhere from a half acre to an acre lot. So it doesn't seem to be very consistent with some of the other surrounding areas. I would also mention that I think that, you know, we were promised a bridge back in 2011 after we moved here in 2010. Obviously, there's financial problems with that and it didn't happen.

I always thought, being in the position I am today and trying to move roads and people around throughout our county, that maybe the bridge probably wasn't the best place to put it. It seems like that if we went south towards Scarborough or towards the hospital, it seems like there would be a better egress and ingress to this particular all of our subdivisions. Because with the bridge, what I see and what I would bring up is that all you're doing to do is defer people around. You're still going to put them on China Garden, and they're just going to end up at Aguilar once again competing with the same people that are already moving down Aguilar. So I don't know if there's an option to go towards Scarborough.

I haven't really looked at the lay of the land for that as well. I would say that prior to 2013, before Monument Springs was developed, there was a lot of police activity back there. There was a lot of people selling drugs back there. It was very dark back there. And, you know, to the to the positive part of what was developed on Monument Springs is that activity went away fairly quickly, and we didn't have as much problems in our neighborhood. So I'm not totally against the development project, but I just want to make sure that it does stay consistent with what we already have in the neighborhood. That's all I got. Thank you.

Thank you. Why don't you

stick Sure.

We have yes, some questions, right? Can we answer those questions?

Regarding the oak tree preservation, that's not really on the table tonight. Mean, again, this project is twenty years old. It was approved a long time ago.

Just want based on what I heard tonight.

There's an active oak tree preservation plan permit. In terms of the amount of oak trees or the number of acres, David, unless you know that number off the top of your head, I don't have it in front of me. But I can tell you that there's a lot of open space as part of this project. Can you bring this map back up for a second, please? So there's a good chunk up here that was preserved. It was formerly part of the project. It's now city owned. Several oak trees there. There are oak trees in this area. Kind of the creek kind of comes through here.

And this is all this green area is all going to be preserved with oak trees. These larger lots down here, they all have oak trees kind of on the top of the bank and there are several oaks in this area. So there are areas of oak tree preservation, but in terms of numbers, I'm sorry, I can get back to you tomorrow, but I don't have those With numbers regard to your question about larger lots, I mean, we can leave this up for a moment, you can see the phase one. I mean, lot sizes in this area depend on topography, they depend on where the roads are. Some are large, some are small, but in general, these are all the same lot sizes. I mean, these ones down here, like I said, are huge, but most of

it's

hillside. It all depends on how you measure the lot sizes. But these are consistent with the Phase I area. With regard to the bridge being moved, again, discussions have been happening over the course of decades. Where it's going to be located has been selected.

I understand where it's been selected. Guess my, you know, reviewing a lot of developments that are happening in Western Placer County, you know, it's part of my job to see where we're going to have to move traffic, obviously. So my only thought was even, you know, sixteen years ago that to move traffic across that canal and just put them back on Angular Lane, you're really just diverting them to go a little bit longer ways. Like, I wouldn't go that way. I would go the other way shorter.

So I don't see I know there's a benefit to it to to get people through there. But, again, I think your choke points are still gonna be at Aguilar and China Garden. But I did hear some mention about Monument Springs continuing on maybe, I don't know if it's Scarborough or whatever that road is, it leads towards East Roseville Parkway to the

That's the figure there. Dashed yellow line, you can see it here on this original approval, you can see how it would go through Highlands Parcele, go through the Vista Oaks, and then goes into the original Vista or I'm sorry, the Highlands area. Eventually it connects I can't remember the name of this road, but this is Scarborough here, and it ultimately connects there. So it does give another point of access to people in this area to be able to get out of there for medical reasons or just to get to a certain portion of Roseville. It's a nice connector road, but it really needs all three of these projects to develop in order to actually have it.

How much would what's the cost difference between I would imagine it's a lot cheaper to build that road than it is to go build a $9,000,000,000 bridge. And just based on what we've been building in Western Placer County, I'm not sure how long that is, but I'm just thinking for the residents who already live there and possibly live there in the future that if I had to go spend $9,000,000 of taxpayer money, I would rather spend it to go get them in and out a lot easier and safer to get, because you're really just bringing them back to one point on Aguilar Road.

Yeah, these roads in yellow will be constructed as part of the developments. So, it's all what the developers are building to access these lots. But the bridge is a little bit different. That's a bond

situation. Okay.

Yeah, just my thoughts.

All right. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? Alright. We will close public comment and bring it back up here for discussion. I'll start to my right again.

Me, mom. Yeah. I took a lot of notes, but I'll I'm actually gonna not refer to too many of them. Man, where do I start? The this has I've actually sat up here for almost eight years now, maybe it's been longer. I don't know. So I've seen this a couple of times. It's come before us. And I think I'll just kind of look at what a couple of our citizens said. I look at it primarily.

This was always my biggest concern looking at this project was safety. Safety is always you know, whether it's recouping of city's dollars, that's above our pay grade here. What what we look at is ultimately planning and then safety for the citizens. As when this came before us the first time, we were just fresh out of some fires that had happened, the Camp Fire in Paradise, and I believe it was the Santa Rosa fire that had just taken place. So our relevance or relative knowledge at the time was, hey, was some stuff that goes down, and having ingress and egress was important. And that wasn't just us up here at the time, that was the historical of this particular property. One of our I'm not gonna name the residents. I took your names down. I won't put you on the spot. But holding firm, I've been pretty consistent in how I voted on this over the years.

Very consistent. And I I I try to be consistent. I I try to have the same face and and say the same thing and and up here, so I think it's important. I feel that I'll be pretty consistent in how I come to determine this right here. One of your residents makes a good comment. And I don't begrudge builders or developers trying to get to a point in time where they can make money. That's the name of the game for a developer and and a builder. And there are certain benchmarks, whether they're permits. I am gonna give Carol a shout out. You did a phenomenal job of defining how the process works for good or for bad, however you look at it.

But there are certain benchmarks that help developers and builders get over certain humps and finance things and sell things. And all that being said, it doesn't negate or mitigate safety in the neighborhood. My

and and

the last comments on on traffic mitigation, all that. Again, this has been going on a long time. So the bridges were the bridges. The roads that are coming or or or what are coming. But a a citizen said hold firm. And I think our job up here is you know, I asked the question, what's the rush? We're we're at 2025, 2027 is right around the corner. The bridge is gonna be built, but assuming we don't run into some crazy artifact that slows us down. And stuff does happen. I'm in I'm in that world, and I see stuff happen all the time. So now we're out over our skis. We've got permits, houses, things going on, and a great comic. It's not it's not the developer's fault. It's the city's fault. It's not on you.

It's on them. So that becomes a game of she makes a great comment, leverage. And our job up here, I think, ultimately is to give the city the best position today and tomorrow to make decisions for the city and the residents. And I do think we lose leverage when we give away the bridge component here. The bridge has been part and parcel of this project since the very beginning. Nothing has changed other than I probably would have been more analytical in my due diligence on this particular project because this has been an ongoing project for a long time. And I've always been pretty firm on the bridge. Do I think the bridge solves the ultimate problem and and creates the ultimate safety mechanism? No. Do I think Aguilar in its current condition sucks?

Yeah. Do I think you guys have been under a huge burden with construction? Whoever sent the construction pictures from the first meeting with all the trucks lined up? That's part of the you make it it is part of the deal. Right? Getting stuff taking the the bad sandwich and eating it in one bite is the best way to do it. But it doesn't mean everybody likes to have the bad sandwich. And I looked at those pictures and I'm like, man, there's there's a lot of trucks that come in there. What if we have a fire and we don't have the bridge? So I wanna air up here on on the side of caution and the side of holding firm.

And and my particular position has been and will continue to be that I believe we have to hold firm on having a bridge. I think we're close enough now in the crossover point where I know as a developer you want to get things done as quickly as possible. I do know benchmarks help you get to certain end zones. And we aren't the final decision makers. But as I sit right here, I'm gonna hold firm on the expectation that this development has at least a bridge in place as we've had over the last twenty years.

I don't know what has changed today versus three years ago versus ten years ago versus fifteen years ago. So as I sit here today, my position would be I would support a development agreement. I think the neighborhood's in favor of common sense development. These individuals, if we're I deal on this all the time. We're very they're trying to work with everybody. It's a tough situation to be in, but I'm gonna on the side of safety for the for the community and just and sticking firm to what my position has been over the past several years. Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Armstrong.

First and foremost, thank

you guys so much for showing up. Oh, hello. Thank you.

Alright.

So thank you guys for showing up. As a commissioner, we want to be your voices. And when you show up, you allow us to do that. And we do it, sure, with the guidance of the city and all those other regulations that we have to adhere to. But when we hear your voice, believe me, it does my heart good to know, hey, they are trusting us to make sure that we're gonna make the best decision possible and they're going to show up.

So when I see you fill our benches, lots of times we're preaching to an empty space. Yeah. It it it is almost like are are we really and truly acting on behalf of our those people who have somewhat put us in these positions. So thank you for showing up. I too, with regards to the preservation, I'm gonna be be the voice of those turkeys and those peacocks and all of that as well. So, to the extent that we can preserve that, absolutely. We've gotta learn how to coexist. We absolutely do. We live in a very unique place. We do.

We live in Rockland for a reason. There's a reason why Rockland is one of the fastest growing cities. And we have to make sure that we do our best to preserve that. And that's where I stand. 2002, no. I I wasn't on the commission. I wasn't on the commission, but, yeah, my heart did flip when I thought, oh my gosh, we've been at this since 2002. Come on. We're smart people. We are smart people.

We are, every single one of us. We can figure this out. And to the extent that the developer and the applicant and the owner, please do. I am going to hold you to your word that you're going to work with the residents. That you're going to listen to them. And we can come to an agreement. And I agree with my commissioner Behren. I'm gonna hold firm. The bridge, that that's what the the bridge is there. It's been there since 2002.

It was in the plans. Citi has says we can get it done in 2007. I I don't I hope I'm around in 2007. I'm I I wanna see the bridge built. And and 2007, I wanna see you guys out there when that bridge is open.

2027.

Okay. So okay. I'm old. You've passed

2,000 something.

I want to see you guys out there because I'm gonna be out there with you when we open up that bridge. That's what the city is telling you. And if something else happens, I expect to see you back in here. Back in here asking us what's going on, why this happened. And I expect you to same thing with the developer and the the applicant. Why is this happening? Because it's we have got to work together because we've got to coexist together. We've got to coexist with the peacocks, we've got to coexist with the turkeys and the deers, because that's what brought us to Rockland. So, I'm with my learned friend here to my right. I'm I'm holding firm with regards to what what the city has brought to us and when we're gonna do a see do we're gonna do a bridge opening in 2027.

Thank you. Mister McKenzie.

Okay.

First of all, state for the record because it's important. I did have communications from you all, from the applicant, from city staff. So we we ran the gamut with communications outside of this public hearing. It's always important to disclose that as a as a commissioner. Misty Mattei actually raised a question for me and because it's my day job, I have to ask staff because I can't help myself. Do you all or maybe we can ask the applicant know the status of the state and federal wildlife and four zero one, four zero four permits? That in my world, my universe tends to be the thing that holds up projects the longest. Are those in, nearing completion, not in, not nearing completion? Because we could be sitting here in 2027 talking about it.

Sure.

Thank you for You

need to state your names.

Yeah. And turn turn on

the mic. Nick Alexander. The 404 permit's been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the four zero one certification's been approved by CDFW.

Regional Water Quality Control Board?

Yeah. Yes. Okay. And CDFW.

Okay. So, thank you. The realm of things

David, did you want to add something Actually, to

those were the prior permits for prior bridge. So it's since been determined that we do not need a four zero four permit from the Corps of Engineers because we're building the bridge outside of what's called the ordinary high watermark. The four zero one certification has been applied for. And we are also in the midst of obtaining a California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1,600 agreement. We have graciously granted Department of Fish and Wildlife a couple of extensions, but we expect to have those permits in hand well before we're ready to construct the bridge. That, as you just pointed out and recognized, those permits require a long lead time, so we have been on the application process for quite some time.

Thank you. And I should've been specific relative to the permits for the bridge, not for the overall project. So I wanted to first thank miss Rubin for your letter, your comments here because I had a train of thought and this commission knows me. A lot of the public knows me to ask questions to sometimes be a contrarian to look for other ways. Our goal is to get the bridge in place as most expeditiously as as possible. I think we all share in that same goal. It serves public safety. It may or may not serve, you know, reducing traffic in certain areas, but it it a bare minimum, it serves public safety. And and it's been a twenty year discussion and not even I was on the

planning commission when this came about just

for the record. But I've heard a lot about it in the past eighteen years. So, you know, here we are again. So my initial thought was if we're able to basically tie the hands of this project relative to c of o's at the council level, what that effectively does is puts a lot more money into play with building permits because you're gonna have a developer, a builder in there who all of sudden is sitting on forty, sixty, whatever the number is, building permits that wants to close those homes. That's gonna put a lot of pressure on that bridge.

The challenge I have, and it may be a a question for councils there anyway, and just so you all know, we are recommending body to the city council, so we don't make the decision here. We have to provide, hopefully, a straightforward and well informed recommendation to the city council who has the authority there, the legislative body here. They get to enter into the development agreements. And so is there a way to tie those CFOs? Because miss Rubin raised a point. Hey. Ultimately, that does put a lot of economic pressure on the city, on the developer to say, hey. We need CFOs that we've got all this money sitting in the ground. We can't get the bridge built. What do we do now?

And I would hate for, you know, a future city council go, not a problem. I don't know of any way to solve that. I don't think there's anything in this staff report that allows for that. It says no CVOs until the building of the bridge is complete. But is there anything I'm missing? Any suggestions from staff or council?

Deanne Gillig, assistant city attorney. I think, Commissioner, you've described that accurately. The development agreement requires that the bridge is completed before the certificate of occupancies are issued. However, development agreements can always be amended. And the process for amending it would be a public process that we're going through now, and that is always a possibility, but that is what would be required in order to issue those certificate of occupancy. Staff would not be able to do it. It would take an amendment to the development agreement by council.

And that would require a public hearing. And, you know, I put probably a lot more trust in public hearings because of my role here and my normal day job and vetting of these types of issues publicly. If a development agreement were to be amended, it's in front of the city council.

Yeah. That would involve the same process of what's occurring for this amendment so that it would be not noticed at the public planning commission and then as well at before the city council.

Okay. Thank you. You know, that that being said, you know, that that is one way to get there is to have those building permits go forward, put millions, millions of dollars in the sunk cost in the homes, and have those sitting there. That creates huge pressure on the developer to get this bridge completed. Yeah. That's my perspective on ultimate leverage to end up with a bridge at the end of the day. Let's say the council decides to not grant those permits. Is this developer gonna move forward absent permits with the bridge? I don't know. I would like to think so.

But, you know, I really only know of one way to get there unless to put all that economic incentive on the developers to get this project built and and done, once and for all because we've been talking about it for over twenty years. Other thoughts relative to CEQUA. You know, there was an EIR completed on this project. Staff prepared an addendum. CEQA is basically a public disclosure requirement.

Those documents are disclosing to us and to the city council and to you all the effects of the project. For the city to go back and require a new EIR, new analysis, there has to be substantial evidence in the record to point them there to say, hey, there's no there's some new information in the record that points to a new effect that wasn't previously disclosed. I'm not seeing that here. So from a sequel perspective, you know, we can rely on the EIR and the addendum to carry this project forward. Let's see if I had anything else relative to the project.

Those are my thoughts for now. And yes. So you know my kinda contrarian look at economic incentive now. I leave that to my fellow commissioners to consider.

Thank you. Okay. So just for the record too, I did have communication with the applicant and and with many of you through email. The issue really I mean, is you you I appreciate what you brought up in terms of the points, and and you make a very good argument for for your case. The the problem the biggest problem is is that there's a trust issue.

Right? And it's not I don't I don't think it's the applicant's fault necessarily here that there's a trust issue. I think it's the history here. And and that makes it really tough, because the arguments for what they want to do, honestly, me, make make more sense. But that is not what what the neighborhood wants.

And and in the spirit of of going through, you know, this process together, I think we have to listen to to your neighbors and and do what they want. And and and I'm not sure exactly how that that's gonna work, and I'm not sure that it's necessarily the the best way to do it, but I I think that it's the best way to build trust and and to and to move forward with that trust and then at least establish some trust by building this bridge and and then start building the goodwill by building the road up, to Scarborough as well. So, you know, for whatever reason, that's that's just the way I think it's gonna lay. Now I will reiterate too that this is not our decision. Right?

This is we're gonna make a recommendation to to city council. So this will give you an opportunity as well to to voice. I would encourage each of you to to talk to the builder, to discuss with him, to figure out solutions, you know, to to read through his proposals. He he you can pick up one of these blue memos in the back. He he he's written a letter there too that that outlines what what he would like to do.

So I would encourage each of you to do that and to reach out to him and and and discuss that. So with that, I'm not sure exactly where to to go. We need to set forth a a recommendation to to city council. I mean, I I know that they you on the on in here, we could we could pass it just as it is. I I I don't I'm getting the feeling that that we wanna add some things to that and change that.

We we could mister chairman, we could obviously bring it to a vote as it as it exists Right. With our either positive or negative recommendation or non recommendation.

Either either recommended or not recommended.

Or recommended. Exactly. Or we could move it forward with amendments to some of some sort. Although I think commissioner McKenzie brought up, I'm not sure what our solution would be other than to continue having the Section eight as part of the development agreement reinclusive or reincluding Section eight with the bridge as a requirement to give counsel the indication of what our position is. But that would be based on a motion, certainly.

Thoughts?

I think Commissioner Barron outlined a couple options. I'd probably look to staff. If I'm reading the tea leaves here, a motion that you all might make, depending upon how you're leaning, would be to move the recommendation forward to the city council with modification to hold up, I guess, maybe not the right term. I'll look to staff the prior approval in section eight of the staff report which speaks to the timing of bridges relative to Right. Building permits and certificates of occupancy.

If item eight were to be removed, it still lives in the tentative subdivision map. That's where the restriction currently is. So it could be removed without removing that restriction. While you were speaking, I think the applicant may have some questions for clarification, and I would like to ask if you could ask him.

Can we do that?

Yeah. Okay. Sure.

Yes, please. Let's reopen.

Thank you. Know, prior to prior to coming here, I even I told Nick, it's like, I'm not here to battle that part. And if that's something we have to work out, I'm totally fine with it, so I respect and appreciate all that. I think I'm just trying to clarify something whether it changes your mind or not. Probably won't. So we did go in and initially and say, can we start when the ground is broken? And I'm like, no. And staff said, look. Trust. You gotta make sure everybody knows this is gonna happen.

So they came back, said the abutments have to be in, which means when they dig up the caveman, that'll be before the abutments go in. Nothing can happen. It has to be the abut the big cement abutments, the foundations, the digging, you know, the bully mammoth is gonna be found and everything would stop. We can't do anything. Those have to be completed?

Yeah. Completed before the first permit on six models, give or take, can even start. So the goal was six months to build a bridge, six months to build a house. That was the goal. So that's all I wanted to say. So we can't start. And if the if they find gold or whatever, we still can't start. That construction, basically, that that bridge is those foundations are in, that thing's going. So we're looking to save three, four months, and I'm not gonna push my luck over that. But that's just to clarify. Okay.

Thank you. Any any questions for that? Okay. And we need to yeah, with that, we need to open up public comment. Again, does anyone would anyone like to make a comment on if not, great. We'll bring it back up here. Oh, we do. Okay. Name and

Jessica Rozic from four thousand two hundred Caribou. I struggle, though. We all know, from construction, it's not just about digging up and putting an abutment in. There's a myriad of different complications that can occur. And to suggest that just because you put an abutment in, now we can go gung ho, that's really a naive way to look at it. That's why that building of trust is so important with the neighbors just holding firm on the language of Section eight. That, look, if this is the truss that's going be built, then complete the bridge, then you can send all of the construction equipment. The challenge is that when you talk about the construction of just the bridge, it's in a very defined area. Very defined. You can look at the picture.

You're talking about the building in 80 plus acres or 60 acres, it's an entirely different volume of traffic, volume of construction equipment. And so just finish the bridge. That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have one who stood up and then one who raised her hand.

I hope I won't take too much more of your time. I just want to I'm sorry, I'm Carol Rubin again, Aguilar And Greenberry Roads. That to modify the development agreement only requires that the builder approach the city council and get agreement from the city councilors. It has essentially, if the city council says, look, we we really need our money to pay back the bond funding, and the developer says, look, I can't do any of that until you let me build houses and have occupancy, you you really are the rock and a hard place. And we're in between those two because both these guys want money to get this project done.

And frankly, we want to get it done too. It means essentially that once again the bridge is in limbo. And whatever happens, yeah, you can build the abutments, okay? But that doesn't say that there isn't going to be additional delays or even if there aren't delays. If if the developer is saying, look, I'm in real trouble financially here. You want that bond funding? You gotta give me more CEOs. What is the city council gonna do? So I know. Extend the subdivision map. Give them that. Extend the subdivision map, but no CEOs until the bridge is built. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions up for her? Okay. Okay. Did you want to say something? Please.

I just have two small

points, so I

know I won't take too much time. My name is Angel Ruffcorn. I live at 4445 Greenbrae Road, And addressing the safety issues, Rockland Unified School District has many school buses that run up and down Aguilar all day long, even during the summer. So, the presence of a lot of construction equipment would definitely impede that traffic flow for those school kids. A lot of them and it's only a one and a half lane road, right?

So, a lot of those kids wait along the edge of that road where there's no sidewalks. So, if you've got large and heavy construction equipment and school buses and a train of moms trying to get their kids to school, I believe that presents a pretty significant safety issue. The other one is, I think I'm going to say I perceive this is just me that the developer, the applicant, has a pretty poor reputation anyway. And it looks like he's wanting to buy this land on the cheap, sell it for the most he can get out of it, and leave us holding the bag. And we've been holding the bag now for twenty years. So, that concludes my statement. Thank you.

A reputation. Nick Alexander, for the record. Greg knows I've been doing land use in Roseville, Placer County for thirty two years. I think I have a great reputation. I developed most of Stoneridge. That turned out nicely. My first project was Sutter Roseville Medical Center. So I think I do have a good reputation, and I'm gonna defend that. Thank you.

No. Thank you. Okay. We got two coming up here.

Commissioners, thank you for an opportunity for us to have an extended open forum. For me, Guadalupe and Luzano, I have been at Rustic Hills over thirty years this year, and in Rockland, thirty two years. I think what's frustrating here is seeing this project by the own applicants ask for an extension after extension. They planted that. They're the ones who kept on asking for extension after extension.

Now, they stand before us and tell us that this bridge we're gonna be ordering balloons and eating cake in less than eight months? When all they have done is ask for extension after extension. Go back to my same request. We have to look how this is going to get paid for. This bond money that I'm getting on my tax bill, the years are already ticking.

They've already took they those years have already by getting extension after extension, that bond is already coming to an end.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you again, Chair and Commissioners. Anthony Demete, Plaster Goni, Board of Supervisors and also a resident at Bradbury Court. My other concern that I didn't hear that brought up is that Aguilar Road has been paved over, I don't know, probably 10 times in the last four years. It was designed and built by Mr. Aguilar in 1933, confirmed by missus Aguilar because I did buy the Aguilar Ranch in Penryn and kinda didn't know the history, but I got the history of it.

So is there any provisions with the construction that's gonna go on continuing through Monument Springs? Is there is there money set aside and who is gonna have to pay for that road to be built when you have, you know, 75,000, 80,000 pound trucks bringing a lot of equipment and construction materials down that road? So, and I know that Snyder who built my house was supposed to put that bridge in. Probably, you know, it no defense to this builder or developer, but we've been promised by a lot of developers who have gone broke. And it just seems that the city could have probably put that bridge in a lot earlier.

But I guess my biggest question is, is there money set aside and who's gonna pay for the repairs of Aguilar Road since it seems to be every time there's a new development put in, repaved, recut, and then held up for the citizens who have to get out of that only one or two egresses out of there.

So thank you. Thank you. Do we have a answer for that at all? We'll get back to you.

David Mullenburg, Community Development Director. From a very high level, all roads in the city are assessed in terms of their pavement condition. And then the city develops a plan to make necessary repairs, repavings, different levels of treatments to bring a road back to a better condition. And that's all determined through an assessment of all the roadways in a city. And ultimately, you know, the condition, the worst condition generally gets the repairs sooner. Okay. Thank you. Okay. One more.

Thank you. My name is Gina Heinz, and I live up on Rutland, up on the ridge. I didn't know if I would be speaking because I don't know a whole lot of history about this project, but I feel like I do have to reinforce them to speak for child advocates, so I feel like I need to speak for the animal advocates. Thanks for Bella DiMate for bringing that up, because it's kind of important. And I hope that the builder takes in consideration the amount of wildlife that lives back there, in the beautiful creek and the wetlands that's there.

I have a family of deer that live in there, come through at least a few times a year. We've got beautiful coyotes that we hear every single night from nine till midnight that feed back there peacocks, rabbits, squirrels, raccoons. And it's not a very large area, but it's still housing so many of our wildlife. And I'm not opposed to building. Our family has a business that definitely is into promoting building and also saving habitat.

So, just ask that you definitely take that in consideration for both of that, because we are growing as a city so much that we are losing so much of what we valued and why so many of us decided to move here. We're losing a lot of our beautiful oak trees. We're pushing our animals out. We have more roadkill out on the highway and up on Scarborough and Sierra College because we are pushing them out. They don't have anywhere else to go. And I think that we need to look at equality a little bit. I mean, I know that this project has already been decided upon, but if we can take consideration on how we map that out going forward, even after this bridge goes through.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anymore? If not, we will re close public hearing and bring it back up to here for discussion. Any more discussion?

Probably have another question for staff. Maybe I'm being dense relative to the tie between the and I was just looking at the subdivision map relative to development agreement such that we couldn't if there was a motion from fellow commissioners to basically require the original Yeah. Timing of the bridge.

Can you bring that back up, Martin, please? So this in the box is what it currently says in the tentative subdivision map. Prior to issuance, the forty ninth building permit, Granite Lakes State Subdivision, the extension of Monument Springs Bridge, including the bridge over Sikravine, shall be completed to end open to allow traffic between Charter Garden. So some other things, but that's the most important thing, that the bridge needs to be operational prior to any additional building permits being issued. If this development agreement were to go forward, and if item eight, which is this one, which says that notwithstanding project approvals, they can build, but they can't occupy anything more than the model homes.

If this were to go away, that condition of the map would remain. And there would be no further information in here that would change that.

Thank you. Some out of good ideas.

Okay. So here we are. We need to wrap it up. We need to up with something to to recommend to the city council. He says he's out of bright ideas, so I'm looking to you for the bright ideas now.

You're gonna look a long time. We've exhausted I do wanna make a couple of comments. I appreciate the commentary from the the public and I you know, the developers I don't know the developers. I didn't talk to the developers. We didn't have expert expert communication. The job of the developer is to make money. That's what developers do. That they move the ball from one side of the field to the next. That's the name of the game. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's a great game. And and you you got unique rules in this one. And usually, can come up with something relatively, you know, smart to to get us to counsel. And I guess where I'm sitting is I would still like to I have no problem with the development agreement. I'm I'm comfortable with all that.

I just I'm sticking firm on the bridge component. So, Nathan, if if I were to make a motion that's that said something to that effect with that with the removal of what we just shown going back to the original map where there's it's just the bridges gotta get built. Correct?

Yeah. Recommendation to approve the development agreement with the removal of item eight.

Okay. That's where I'm lying and that's where I'm inclined to make a motion. And if there's no further discussion and or anybody with a better idea. And again, very cognizant of where you guys are in this situation. And you didn't create it. And and you've got residents who are you'd never hear residents go, yeah, we don't mind. Build build it. That's great. We're in a unique situation. So we're we're grasping at straws a little to try to figure out what what the opportunity might be with with keeping the bridge, you know, requirement there and giving you guys some some flexibility.

I just don't know that there's something that will allow all those things to happen. So at this point in time, what I'm gonna do is make a motion that we we approve item 2A as continued from 02/17/2026, the Granite Lake Estates development agreement, development agreement DA twenty twenty four-one with the elimination of section eight.

Do we have a second? Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Okay. And there it goes. Okay. So that's

just for summary, it's a three one vote, and so it does pass that recommendation on to the council. The one objection was commissioner McKenzie. So for the record, thank you.

Perfect. Thank you.

And just for the record, you know, my no is mostly to ensure that the council takes all these discussions into consideration the points of view, including my novel, maybe not so novel idea of issuing those building for its and holding firm, how they might go about that. I don't know. But, you know, because it's always subject to legislative body, and we can't tie their hands as a planning commission, nor can we tie the hands of future legislative actions. And so, you know, somehow we need to ensure that this bridge gets built. What that is, we've got a map sitting there that's now inconsistent with the recommendation at least from one commissioner's perspective going forward. Board.

And move on now to item three, non public hearings. 3A, general correspondence presentations report from city staff. Thank you everyone for coming.

Good evening. Our one Watt planning manager. I don't have a look much on the way of updates, but just to let you know, the Northwest Rockland general development plan amendment will be going forth on, next week at city council. You heard that a few weeks ago. Also, Nate will also be taken for the, annual general plan and housing element annual progress reports to city council, which will be eventually sent to the state. We do anticipate planning commission meetings in April.

Mister chairman, I can't hear.

Sorry. Can we give it a

Yeah. Give it second. Sorry. I was about to

I know I knew what you just said. So

Everything's hitting you right over there. You're in the you're in the dead

zone. I can't, like, focus on one person. I hear it all at one time. So

I'm not sure what the last thing you heard was, but

Go ahead and give us the from the beginning. Northwest So,

yeah. Northwest Rockland, a general development plan amendment, which was the amendment for the outdoor storage for the commercial areas that Nate brought to you about a month ago. That's going to city council next week. He's also taking forward the annual general plan and housing element annual progress reports that we send off to the state. That's getting presented to the council next week also.

We do anticipate planning commission meetings in April. We'll send out the items and the agendas as we get close to those dates. Also, be aware for your calendars. We are planning on a joint planning commission city council workshop regarding the zoning code updates, our Zone Rockland project on May 5. Let us know your availability, of course, but I think that was it for today.

Okay. Thank you, everyone. Any reports and discussion items from the planning commissioners? No. Okay. Then we will adjourn. And it is, what, 07:45, and we'll close. Thank you, everyone. Appreciate the staff. Well done. Thank you.