Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Test 123. Test 123. Okay. So Terry, Jordan? Yes.

Guaranakis, he can hear the audio. Okay. Our meeting, our archive is has audio. Only is Zoom does not have audio.

Okay.

So that's our backup. So we're pretty much relying on that at this time.

Good evening, and welcome, everyone. It's good to see you here. Thank you for for coming, and, and we look forward to to hearing from you tonight. It is 06:00, and we will and to today is, Tuesday, 04/21/2026. We're gonna start our planning commission meeting now, and we'll start as we normally do by standing and, saying the pledge of allegiance, and commissioner Cortez will lead us in that.

I pledge 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. May we have a a roll call, please?

Yes. Commissioner Barron? Here. Commissioner Cortez?

Here.

Commissioner McKenzie? Here. Chairman Thomas?

Here.

And Commissioner Armstrong is excused tonight.

Thank you. Okay. Right now, we have the opportunity to approve the minutes. So if we get a motion to approve last meeting's minutes.

I will move to approve the minutes subject to making them available for public comment.

Oh, I have to make them available for public comment first. Thank you. Thanks for reminding me. Okay. Last, meeting's minutes. So meeting, 03/17/2026, is open for public comment. Have anyone who wants to make a public comment on that meeting? Okay. Not seeing it there, I will ask for a motion now.

So moved. Seconded.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. I abstain. And one abstention.

Moving on, we will open up for public comment. So any citizens who want to address the commission on non agenda items. So not what we're gonna talk about normally tonight, but if you have anything that you would like to say now, we will open up. I don't see anyone, so we will close it and bring it back up here. And now we will we will address the the agenda items today.

We're gonna start off with agenda item two a, the kennel ordinance amendment, zoning ordinance amendment ZOA twenty twenty five-two and environmental ENVT twenty twenty six-seven. And I will turn it over to staff.

Good evening planning commission. My name is Bennett Smithar with the planning division. I am here to present the proposed kennel ordinance amendment. This is the same ordinance amendment that was before you last year as coming back with a modification. Just a refresher from last year, in response to multiple requests for outdoor kennel operations, staff initiated updates to the ordinance to provide greater flexibility in business operations and to enhance conditions for dogs.

The proposed changes include replacing the administrative kennel permit with a conditional use permit, allowing for more specific and enforceable operational standards. The amendments also permit outdoor dog enclosures, provided the kennel meets defined application requirements, operational standards, and conditions of approval. On 05/20/2025, your commission reviewed the proposed amendments and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the city council. On 08/12/2025, the city council considered the kennel ordinance amendments. During deliberations, the council expressed concerns regarding the compatibility of outdoor dog enclosures with adjacent building occupants and property owners.

Staff was directed to research ways to engage surrounding users earlier in the review process. After further research, staff revised the ordinance to include an early noticing letter be sent to surrounding users and property owners, making them aware of the request. This early notice letter will be sent out to the owner of record and the physical mailing address. The full text of the modifications is in your packet starting at page 11. So I want to go through the proposed procedures.

Once staff receives an application for a conditional use permit for a kennel with an outdoor enclosure, staff will review all submitted materials including the noise study operations statement. After confirming all required material have been received and reviewed, staff will prepare and send out mailed notices to the mailing address and owner of records to all properties within 300 feet. Then the mailed notice will include a description of the proposed kennel operations and also provide a link to the project plans for public review. The notice will include contact information for the planning department, including email, phone number, and office address. That will be included in the early notice letter.

This will allow staff and the applicant to coordinate with community members and address any comments or concerns before the project design is finalized. The proposed amendments to section seventeen sixty four-seventy are exempt from CEQA, as they will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impacts. Therefore, staff recommends the planning commission recommend approval of the ordinance to amend seventeen sixty four-seventy kennels to the city council. I'm available for any questions.

Okay. We'll open up for questions. Start to my right.

Just a quick one on the noise level. So we'll run a noise study. It'll be basing as decibels allowed at certain times in the day. How do we you know, noise levels during the day with construction, for example, they shut off at night. How do we know a dog is shutting off at night? I mean, they're not going to know that it's booked. You need to book people below 50, for example, at 02:00 in the morning. So how do we mitigate that? Is that going to be complaint based? And then we go back and investigate? Is that what'll happen? Because I'm assuming that the noise studies will come back below threshold levels. It's gonna be that late night dog bark that everybody loves.

So with the if the kennel operations includes an outdoor enclosure, part of the application requires them to identify adjacent base businesses if it's attached structures. So that's those that will be elements that the noise study will be considered like what are the operations for this current operations and what are the adjacent uses and how can we mitigate for, you know, if there's any impacts, you know, additional soundproofing and things like that.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. And I'm assuming there's no applicant here to this is from the staff, right?

Yes. Oh,

there is someone here.

There is a kennel that's interested in the amendment. They're available. Some do they have any questions?

Would you like to what's that?

North Carolina. The

the city is the applicant.

That's what I thought. Right? Yeah. So, this is more for public comment.

If someone wanted to speak, it would be during a public comment.

Public comment. Okay. That's what I was assuming there. Yes. Okay. Any more? We don't have any more questions? Okay. Then we'll open it up for for public comment. If you'd like to come and make a comment on this, you're welcome to.

If not, that's okay too. All right. Do you have any questions? Oh, we do.

I live and work in Rockland. My business is located on Atherton Road in the business part of Atherton. I would just like to talk a little bit about the parts that are stricken through on the permit approval modification revocation, specifically the parts that are crossed out that refer to disturbance or annoyance to persons in the surrounding area around the kennels. There's several areas on Part B number one, number two, and on C number three that are crossed out. And as a person that works in Rocklin and is in the building that shares a space with a potential dog kennel, it is gonna be an annoyance to our company, to the vendors that are coming in that we're trying to talk to, to various clients and customers that come in.

I know that we have a constant in and out of trucks receiving deliveries and the like. It is going to be an annoyance to us and I'm just a little concerned that this revision doesn't address those annoyances to businesses that are currently in Rockland. I just would like to present that as a concerned resident and a concerned employee in the city of Rocklin. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Can we answer those questions?

Yes. So part of the modifications was some cleanup on the text itself. We will have, as a conditional use permit, you will have enforcement standards built into that If they're operating in a way that they are not conditioned to operate, a conditional use permit can be revoked. So there is some and we have our code enforcement team that will work with the applicants to get in compliance as well. So we're not eliminating enforcement.

We're just changing the text to be from an administrative permit to a conditional use permit, just some kind of the technical changes. So we're not downgrading enforcement or expectations for our kennels to operate in, you know, Rockland level of expectations. So it's just kind of some text cleanup on that end.

Okay. Any questions?

Just again to kind of beat the same subject. You'd mentioned noise. I'm I'm are we outdoor noise, I get. I guess that's part of the CEP process. You come in, you look at the surrounding uses. Are we what about indoor noise coming from barking dogs that that might be disturbing adjacent businesses? Are we are we prior to construction, requiring some sort of soundproofing and mitigation of that type? Is it if they start getting complaints after the fact, then we come in and enforce it? Because I I do see that potentially being it's always just the barking dog in the middle of the day or the middle of night is always something that you gotta be somewhat cognizant of. So I'm just curious, not to bring her back up, but just, there's outdoor and indoor delineation.

Yes. Help me understand what happens if we're getting barking dogs from an inside component.

So we do have some standard conditions of approval that go along with these updates that have mitigations for soundproofing like a double studded double wall in between units. And one of the changes with the application was the applicant is required to kind of identify adjacent if it's attached, identify adjacent uses. So early during the review process, we can see what's next door and craft the projects to mitigate accordingly. Thank you. And one additional thing.

There is a standard condition of approval that requires a sign for if a noise issue comes up, it includes contact information for the operator so they can resolve the issue without getting city staff involved. And the sign will have to be located near the public right of way, so near a sidewalk or street where folks can easily see the sign. So our first step if an issue comes up would be contacting the operator and the operator will likely resolve the problem without getting city staff involved.

So to clarify, when the application comes up in identifying the neighbors type of business, if that type of business, let's say it's a therapist that needs a quiet environment, that application will be stopped at that point? Is that what I'm hearing?

So that was part of the changes that had some similar concerns from the city council. So the way we address that is providing an early notice. So while we're still reviewing the plans and getting the design right, we have an opportunity for a member of the public to contact us. And if there's some unique situation we need to look into, then we can work with the project applicant to ensure it's properly mitigated for without having a final design, like while we're still in the weeds of reviewing their design plans.

All right. Thanks. Mr. McKenzie. So as I understand this and from reading through this, this is supposed to give more public notice to the surrounding businesses and residents to give them a chance to voice their concern beforehand.

Is that correct? When we have a complete application, sending this notice out saying, Hey, we're taking a look at this. If you have any comments, you know, we have all of our contact information and you can come to the building and talk to us. You know, if something comes up, we can work with the applicant team to address it.

Okay. Thank you. Will is there any other public comment on that? I'm assuming there's not. So we'll close public comment on that and have any discussion that we want to have. Start to my left over here.

Sure. Yeah. I'll go ahead and start. Thank you for bringing this forward. Appreciate the council's recommendations to bring it back to this commission.

Thank you for your public comment. That's helpful for us to understand how you, the public, are saying it versus we as planning commissioners see it. So definitely thank you for that. So I'm more comfortable actually moving this one forward than the prior one because this basically takes the formally, you know, an application could be approved by staff at an administrative level and actually moving it up to a higher level of discretion with a conditional use permit which has be approved by this body and potentially appealable to the city council. Not that administrative approvals aren't, but it's just it starts that level, which is good from my perspective.

And appreciate the earlier notifications to businesses and community members at the application stage and instead of, you know, before it comes to a public hearing and somebody finds out with two weeks notice and all of a sudden, here they are and that's their one opportunity. So with that, I support the request. Thank you. Commissioner Cortez?

Yeah, I agree with that. And the addition of sending out letters to surrounding neighbors, that's not an additional burden on the project. That's fairly standard on some CUPs. So I'm I'm fine with it. Thank you.

Yeah. I fully concur with both commissioners. I do like the higher level of scrutiny. So from my perspective, I'm I'm comfortable with the project.

And I feel the same way. So with that, do we have a motion to approve?

I move we approve item 2A as written. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. It passes. Okay. Before we move on to our our next, I I just wanna say a couple things here to the the general public that's that's here right now. We we are approaching I don't know how full the room is is allowed to be, but if the fire marshal comes in and and moves some people out, there are chairs, out there, and you you can figure out who needs to come in and speak when and and things like that. Just wanna do that. We appreciate you coming here, and civic engagement is important.

On that end, it is a civic engagement, so let's stay civil. The the staff is going to, give their presentation. You know, the the we don't we don't want any clapping or booing or or anything else like this. It's not a theater. Right? So, and that goes for for applicants. This also goes for anyone who who comes up and speaks. So I just wanna give that, you know, put that out there right from the beginning. Also, when we do open it up for for public hearing, we'll give each of you two and a half minutes, to speak. Please state your name, tell us, you know, where you live, and and then quickly tell us, you know, what what you wanna say.

Please try to to avoid repetition, you know, if it moves the meeting along if if if we don't repeat ourselves too much. So, with that and then again, please avoid clapping and and cheering or or booing and hissing. It would be very helpful. So with that, I'm gonna turn we're gonna go over, item two b, Sierra Wilde's apartment design review, DR2025Dash0005, and Environmental E N V 2025008. And I will let staff take over from here.

Thank you, Chair Thomas. Good evening, Commission. Nathan Anderson with the Rockland Planning Division. I'll be presenting the Sierra Wilds Apartments project. This is a request for a design review, approval for a 120 unit, fully affordable multifamily housing project. Site is located at 1800 Wildcat Boulevard in the Northwest part of Rockland. It sits in the northern edge of the Stamford Ranch general development plan which dates back to 1987. The property was until only a few days ago part of a larger parcel that currently includes the Saint Augustine's Episcopal Church. The church and parking lot were approved in 2012 and instructed shortly thereafter. The north is an open space and drainage area connected to Pleasant Grove Creek.

The southwest is the Maria Montessori Charter Academy. Tenant parcel map was approved in 2022 to subdivide the vacant portion of the project site from the developed church portion to allow for future development. That map was officially recorded just last week. As far as I've been told, it is no longer two separate parcels, but it is one, Parcel one. From a land use standpoint, the site is designated mixed use.

Pursuant to the general plan, that designation is flexible and allows for residential, commercial, or any mixture of both. The zoning history here is a little bit more complicated. The project site was annexed into the city as part of the Rockland West annexation in 1980 and was initially designated for light industrial use. In 1987, the city adopted the Stanford Ranch general development plan, which established zoning and development standards for the area. In 1995, the city approved a subdivision map that applied planned development business professionalcommercialindustrial zoning for the site.

This zoning, which remained on the property for thirty years, was essentially a catchall for nonresidential, allowing for uses including professional and medical offices, research and development, large scale shopping centers, hotels, motels, restaurants, bars, liquor stores, manufacturing, among many other types of uses. When the proposal was initially brought to the city's attention in 2024, staff's determination was that the project was inconsistent with the site's existing nonresidential zoning. However, the zoning also included a use category called multifamily integrated with commercial, which was never clearly defined in this zoning document or any other. Because of that, the applicant argued that the city couldn't require a specific amount of commercial space to be included with any multifamily component. They reached out to the state for clarification.

Can you turn me down a little bit? You. In April 2025, HCD responded and confirmed that under the Housing Accountability Act, the city cannot enforce undefined or subjective standards. As a result, the city must allow this multi family project and cannot require a specific amount of commercial use. Essentially any amount, even less than 1%, would technically qualify as integrated with commercial.

Following that guidance, the city added this site to its regional housing needs allocation, or RENA inventory. A mixed use 24 plus overlay was applied, which maintained the nonresidential uses that would be allowed to be constructed on the site, but also required that any residential development proposed must achieve a minimum of 24 dwelling units per acre, consistent with state RENA standards. The Planning Commission and several people in this room tonight will likely remember the discussions at that meeting last year. Ultimately, the Commission and City Council supported the change to MU24 plus as it was clear that the Housing Accountability Act would require us to allow affordable housing on the site with or without the zone change. The implementation of this overlay simply allowed us to count those numbers towards satisfying our RENA requirements.

Based on all this, the project being presented tonight is strictly a design review. That means the focus is on-site design, architecture and consistency with standards, not on whether or not the use is appropriate. The project includes four three story residential buildings, which are shown in red on the screen, totaling 120 units along with 180 parking spaces and a variety of on-site amenities. Those include a clubhouse, which is shown in blue, a swimming pool, tot lot, barbecue area and a dog park. Unit types range from one to three bedrooms.

Access to the site primarily come from a new driveway on Wildcat Boulevard up there in the corner. The existing church driveway would also remain available. Access to the school driveway would be gated and limited to emergency use only. Not gated from the school but it would not be accessed from this property. There's a gate here.

There's a landscaped center median located in the middle of Wildcat Boulevard, and all turn movements to and from the project will be restricted to right in, right out. No changes to the median are proposed as part of this project. A traffic study was completed earlier this year by WTrans Traffic Engineering Transportation Planning to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed affordable housing project on local traffic operations. Concluded that nearby intersections are currently operating well and will continue to do so with the addition of the project traffic. Even under conservative assumptions, the study concluded that operations would remain acceptable.

Adequate site distance is available at both existing and proposed driveway locations. The project includes three residential building types and a clubhouse. All buildings share a similar design with some variation in size and layout. The project proposes one eighteen unit building, which would be located furthest to the south, approximately 90 feet from the shared property line with the school, and 106 feet from the nearest school building. The project would also include two thirty six unit buildings, one in the central portion of the site, approximately 115 feet north of the shared property line with the school, and the other in the northern portion of the site, approximately 20 feet away from the shared property line with the open space area, and about 140 feet away from the two or from the residential homes to the Northwest.

The project would also include a 30 unit building located adjacent to Wildcat Boulevard. Architecturally, the project is designed in a contemporary farmhouse style, includes simple building forms, varied roof lines, and a mix of siding materials. The Ground Floor uses darker tones with lighter materials above. Traditional elements such as recessed planes, balcony railings, and accent materials provide variation across the building elevations. Three coordinated color schemes are proposed, all using neutral and earth tones with darker variation accents, excuse me.

Clubhouse has been designed to match the architectural style of the residential buildings and is centrally located as a shared amenity. The project complies to all development standards, including lot coverage and setbacks. The three story buildings max out at 40 feet in height, whereas the zoning district within both the Stanford Ranch general development plan and within the overlay allows for four stories and up to 50 feet in height. If the project was market rate, Chapter 17.66 of the municipal code would typically require higher parking ratios, but state density bonus law allows reduced parking for affordable projects. Under state law, this project would only need to provide 153 parking spaces due to its affordability makeup.

The applicant is proposing 180 spaces, which is above state requirement and represents the middle ground between state and city standards. As the project exceeds state parking requirements for projects of this type, staff has no option but to support this reduction of parking in this case. The landscape plan includes a strong mix of trees, shrubs, and ground cover, helping with both aesthetics and functionality. Staff did its best work with the applicant to screen the boundaries of the project with landscaping wherever feasible. The main access points are not gated.

The project includes a combination of tubular steel and solid wood fencing, along with emergency access gates. Staff has received several pieces of correspondence from both the adjacent school and residents located northwest of the site across the open space, citing privacy concerns. To provide additional screenings, staff has recommended conditions of approval, which will modify both fences to be six foot tall, wood fences solid, with additional two foot of lattice on top. So eight foot total to provide some additional screening from both the school and the people who live across the open space. First Carbon Solutions, or FCS, has prepared a CEQA guideline section 15,183 consistency checklist for the project, which has been included with the project packet.

Checklist and supporting documents, including MMRP, evaluates the project's consistency with the city's certified general plan EIR and subsequent addenda, and whether any project specific impacts exist under CEQA. The analysis concludes that the project is consistent with the general plan and is within the scope of the prior FEIR and addenda therefore, no additional CEQA review is required under Section fifteen thousand one eighty three. The project does not introduce new land uses, densities or site characteristics that would result in impacts unique to the project or its location. The project would not result in new or more severe off-site or cumulative impacts as it falls within the development anticipated within the general plan buildout scenario. Notice that exemption has been prepared in accordance with CEQA guidelines section fifteen thousand one eighty three.

We received a significant amount of public input on this project, including both support and opposition. In addition to those distributed as part of the project packet, there are also several others to receive subsequent to the publication of the packet, including a petition of opposition with nine thirty three signatures. All of this is included in your Blue Memo tonight. In addition, there is one minor piece of housekeeping to attend to. In the sequel resolution, staff had forgotten to add, quote, and public resources code section 21,083.3 to one of the sections and had erroneously listed it as a categorical, excuse me, categorical exemption instead of statutory.

So, staff request that if the commission recommends the sequel document for approval, these modifications be included with that recommendation which would go ultimately forward to the city council. Based on foregoing, the project is consistent with the general plan, zoning, and arena objectives and represents a compatible use of the site with regard to those items. In addition, the Housing Accountability Act limits the city's ability to deny or condition the project absent specific adverse health or safety impacts, which were not identified in the sequel review. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the city council. This concludes staff's presentation. I'd be happy to try to answer any questions. The applicant team is here as well, and I'm sure they can answer questions as well.

Okay. Let's start with questions for you.

We go. Quick question. I was on the material, it says that there is a solid fence on the north side facing the drainage area of development. Is that a city requirement or is it something that the developer chose to do?

So typically the city requests tubular steel fencing to be placed along open space to provide kind of a view of that area. So you can see here this is that they had originally called this out as tubular steel. In fact, that was originally the direction. But due to the fact that there's tubular steel on the back of these homes on the other side of the creek, we'll call it on the top side. We did not think it was necessary to require open view fencing on this side as well because people would be basically staring into each other's yards. So in order to add additional privacy, we conditioned it to be a solid wood fence with a lattice on top.

All right. And now the eight foot fence, is that measured from the development side?

It's measured from the finished grade.

From the finished grade of the development. Because the that side is higher than the school.

It's measured from the high part

of the finished All right. Thanks.

I have a follow-up fencing question before I have another question. So on the property line between the school in Saint and the this site and then the this site in Saint Augustine's, was there a choice between solid wall? We typically see solid walls between uses and a eight foot wooden fence as take maintenance and can become problematic over the course of time.

Yeah. Staff initially requested that a solid wall be constructed. There the section of the code which discusses it is a little unclear when it comes to whether or not it's a requirement. The applicant requested that it be a wooden fence instead of a wall. They actually requested that as one of the concessions allowed to them by density bonus law, which they're allowed to have up to four for projects of this type. It didn't need a full concession due to the fact that it's somewhat ambiguous in our code. We just typically ask applicants to do it, and they typically comply. But at this point, it's proposed as a wooden fence with lattice on top.

Thank you. That that begs another question relative to and thank you for your due diligence with our state department housing community development. Obviously, with all the new state regulations around affordable housing and their narrowing of our discretion as a city with affordable housing, it creates always lots of concerns with, well, how is the state gonna see this? So thank you for reaching out to them and providing the feedback. So this question might be for city attorney, but staff feel free to weigh in as well.

So we have in front of us a, you know, a CEQA determination to make and a design review determination. Those get are in the form of a recommendation one way or another up to the city council. But relative to these objective standards versus subjective, you know, view is one of those things where there's standards around it, but it's pretty subjective Did does design review fall into those subjective categories or or are we stuck with the standards, the fence versus wall debate? Are is that subjective or is that objective? You know, it kinda really ties our hands to some extent.

Yeah, I believe that Nathan addressed it in his staff report and he probably has that language that he prepared in the staff report. Due to the housing laws in the state of California, for this type of review, it must we can only impose objective design review standards, which means, you know, a building can only be 30 feet tall. Not, you know, we have we can step it or make sure it matches the surrounding development. It must be that objective standard. So, for the design review, due to the housing project you're considering, we can only apply objective standards.

In addition, the project requires CEQA compliance and requires going through the CEQA compliance. And before you and the analysis that's been prepared is an exemption based on fifteen thousand one eighty three that the prior environmental review and the mitigation measures that apply to this property due to the prior environmental review adequately address the SECA environmental concerns.

Okay. So if we were looking at something like the fence versus the wall, if if we were to demonstrate recommendation or recommend forward a recommendation of the city council that, hey, for these adjacent uses, we recommend a solid wall due to health and safety concerns from a secret perspective, that would be more objective, hopefully less subjective.

Yeah. So I believe your planner, Nathan Anderson, went through the state law regarding the requirements that the state mandates on the city due to the affordable housing component of this project and the density requirements that even if the city had an objective standard that required a solid wall on the fence line, the developer has the ability to ask for a concession and get a waiver of that requirement. So, given the parameters, there's exceptions even to those objective standards, which are mandated by the state. So, to the fence, that requirement is, you know, we must follow state law to allow for the concession requested by the developer.

Thank you.

And I I don't

like it, but thank you.

Yeah. And I know I'm reiterating the statements made by staff, so if there's anything to add, you know, but that is the status.

Anyone else? Okay.

Do have other questions.

Keep going. Okay. Yeah. Unless unless they're gonna be for the applicant. Take turns. Yeah. I know. Right?

Keep going. Okay. Next one. So, yeah, as I was mentioning to somebody coming in, this is on my running routes. I'm very familiar with this location and adjacent park having had kids come up through sports and and especially in this particular park. So the existing access, we've got basically two curb cuts there. This project proposes a third curb cut. Is that does that meet the sight line, sight distance? It's pretty, you know, fairly straight. It does have a little bit of curve to it. But are those consistent with public safety standards for our roadways?

It is consistent, yeah. It's been reviewed by engineering and as part of the traffic study that was done, it analyzed the visibility and it was determined to be consistent.

Okay. Thank you.

That's it for now.

Okay. I'm sure there'll be more when we after the applicant. Okay. I'm assuming we have an applicant here. We do. Here, would you please come on up and introduce yourself and Hello.

Good evening. Thank you for having us. My name is Lauren Alexander. I'm the entitlements project manager for the Pacific Companies, Pacific West Communities. Just Nathan did a very thorough job introducing the project. I'll just let you know who's here that you can ask questions of. So there's myself. The Pacific Companies has been around for nearly thirty years doing almost entirely affordable housing. We've done over 300 now projects. 75% of those are in California.

And with me tonight I have A. J. Whittaker on the far outside with Atlas Civil Design, our civil engineer Lance Crinnell, who's with SDG Architects and Sam McCall Graves, who is our legal counsel. And we're all available to answer any questions that you have. Okay. Do you want me to stay here or?

Yes, please. Questions?

Sure. Obviously, by the number of folks in the room, a fairly controversial project. So question relative to, you know, we see a lot in the comments, hear a lot from the constituents of the city, residents of the city relative to, you know, the incompatibility of of uses here and have a lack of cooperative spirit. Have have you all, your team met with both the the school and Saint Augustine's collectively, separately? Looking have have you given it the the try to work through those issues that we're aware of that might not be within our discretion but are important nonetheless to kinda getting along in the community.

Sure, sure. Yes, I have met with Brent Boothby separately and together with the members of the church on several occasions for different topics, different reasons. Do you I mean, so that answers your question. I would say that we I don't know how much you all know about affordable housing, but we're going to finance this with tax credits should this move forward. And that means that we have to retain ownership of the property for at least fifteen years. So we're not a come in develop and leave. We own this. We have to operate it. It has to function. So we do like to be you know, good neighbors, good members of the community.

That being said, development, no matter what community you're in, is a disruption and people often have questions, concerns, and that is something that we're very accustomed to, you know, kind of working with people through. We have been and remain open to discussions with, I'll say mostly with the school, because I think the church, we've, you know, in the course of working through our land negotiations, have worked through most of what we would need to. But we remain open to working with the school. It has we've had many different conversations on many different topics, and I think we've made some progress in some areas and not in others. But we remain open, that's what I would say.

Thank you. So to clarify, you have reached out to the school and you are in talks with them?

Yes. Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant? No? Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Again, we will now open up for for public comment. Again, one more time, let's stay civil. Please state your name, where you live, what city you live in, and then also you have two and a half minutes. And I think we have we have speaker cards, right? So we'll

We'll start with those.

We'll start with the speaker cards, please. If you want to speak and you didn't fill out a speaker card I'm sorry, didn't mention that before in this little basket, you could fill one out and leave it there. We'll add you to it. Or you can just come up after. Okay.

First speaker is Doctor. David Patterson. Okay.

So put them with the group.

Over there.

Yeah, if I may, there's a presentation that they would like to present tonight. They've split it up into eight different portions. So, I think starting with that is probably a great way to go.

Okay, I'll start with that.

Yes please.

Okay, well whoever you know who's going first, let's go ahead and when you state your name, then we'll have an idea of where to start in the middle of that.

Brandi Armstrong.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Brandy Armstrong. I'm a Rockland resident, an MMCA parent, and a member of Urban Ethics Coalition. I wanna focus on whether the city's reliance on section one five one eight three and the general plan EIR is fully supported. The general plan EIR analysis development at a citywide level, not the specific boundaries adjacent to a school or construction interface present here.

Given the product's conditions, its proximity to a school, and the presence of sensitive receptors within feet of construction activity where children eat outside, move between buildings, and basic needs, these findings require careful support. This is not a typical infill site. The geotech analysis identifies dense, murten materials, cobbles, and difficult excavation conditions requiring specialized methods and heavy equipment, meaning more intense, longer duration grading with increased noise, vibration, and truck activity. On its own, this may not be unusual, but the project is within feet of an active elementary school And includes a direct pedestrian connection between the project and the school. That combination matters.

It creates a site specific interface involving student safety, pedestrian movement, school hour traffic, and construction impacts immediately next to children. That combination matters. At the same time, the city concludes that there are no particular impacts while relying on project specific studies like traffic, air quality, noise, geotech analysis that evaluate these exact conditions. That raises a real question about whether site specific impacts have fully been addressed. I understand the attempt to take away local control.

The HCD standard that a project like this can only be denied or reduced if there is real measurable public health or safety impacts. That standard depends on a complete and supported record. When sensitive receptors as young as three are within feet of construction with regular outdoor exposure, those conclusions must be backed by substantial evidence. At a minimum, I respectfully ask the commissioners to ensure the record supports a finding of no site specific particular impacts by requesting a continuance to confirm these findings before relying on section fifteen thousand one eighty three and a site specific environmental impact report. With children this young involved, we need to get this right.

Thank you.

Britt Hilson.

Good evening, chair, commissioners. My name is Britt Hilson. I'm an MMCA parent and a member of the Urban Ethics Coalition. I'm also a biologist who works in construction compliance. What I'm asking you to do is continue this item and withhold any recommendation on Sierra Wilds.

I'm not here to argue that housing can never be built here. I'm asking you to not make a secret guidelines section fifteen one eighty three recommendation on a record that still leaves key geotechnical and construction questions unresolved. In other words, I'm asking you to not recommend approval on an incomplete and contradictory environmental record. Staff is asking you tonight to recommend approval of the notice of exemption and design review. The current record says there are no particular project specific effects requiring further review, but the city's own approval conditions say that before any grading or construction, the developer must submit a design level soil investigation evaluating soil, rock conditions, especially expansive soils, and recommending roadway, foundation, stabilization, and drainage measures.

At the same time, the staff report assumes eighteen months of construction, about 4,300 cubic yards of fill, reuse of all that on-site, and no soil off haul, even though the conditions of approval also contemplate the

at

site.

Looking site. The historical Kleinfeld materials identified difficult the Kleinfeld materials identified difficult mass grading and trans evacuation, oversized rock, expansive rear near surface soils, existing cut and fill transition zones, and seepage concerns. The 2024 Alerian report also identifies dense and hard earth materials, disturbed or undocumented fill if encountered, differential sediment concerns, and says that if hard rock is encountered, a d 10 dozer, as you see on the screen, ripping and deeper utility test pits may be needed. Those are exactly the kinds of site conditions that can change impacts, noise, vibration, dust, hauling, and construction duration to a next to a school. Current conditions add an eight foot fence in general noise and dust controls, but they still do not resolve these geotechnical and school adjacent construction questions.

The right step tonight is not a rush recommendation. The right step is a continuance. So staff can reconcile the geotechnical reports, explain whether the current construction assumptions are still valid, and return with project specific construction protections before any recommendation is made. Please continue this item and withheld any recommendation tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. So if you know that this is a presentation, why don't we line up so that you're ready to go continuously here? We can move on and maybe get home tonight. And thank you. Also, you'll notice that a little orange light or yellow light will come on when you have thirty seconds left, so that's what that means.

Paul Brigerts. Good evening, Planning Commission. My name is Paul Brigerts, and I have two children who attend MMCA. And I'm also a founding member of the Urban Ethics Coalition. I come before you to speak about the air quality and substance exposure, both during and after construction, and the associated health risks these chemicals pose to our children. The chemicals I'm about to read to you are pulled directly from the project application. I have added a definition for each chemical and associated health risks. Particulate matter PM10 and PM2.5. This is considered inhalable construction dust and sand. These types of granular particles are so small that they can be inhaled and cause serious health problems.

The particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter can penetrate deep into your lungs. And the particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, also known as fine particles, pose a serious health risk and can enter into your bloodstream. Volatile Organic Compounds or VOCs. These are chemicals that are used during construction and are emitted and released into the surrounding air. VOCs are found in building materials including adhesives, paints and solvents.

These consist of chemicals like glycol ethers, methylene chloride and formaldehyde. Any concentration and exposure to these VOCs can persist in the air long after the construction has been completed. With this exposure, there have been hundreds of peer reviewed studies showing short and long term adverse health effects including asthma, headaches, nausea, skin, eye, and nose irritation. In fact, numerous VOCs are indeed classified as human carcinogens. There is going to be substantial construction for approximately a year and a half during school hours and within feet of the open campus where our children sit for snacks, lunch, and play.

This includes post construction, asphalting, and curing of the said asphalts. MMC is also considered a sensitive receptor location. This is a California health and safety code. This means children, especially those with asthmatic conditions, my son being one of them, are at a heightened risk of negative health outcomes due to exposure to air pollution and substance exposures like above. Under CEQA, for air quality and toxic substance exposure, a full environmental site specific impact review is necessary. This is the case especially since original calculations were based off normal construction equipment, not what's required for merited and expensive clay within our school, which is our school and our surrounding areas encompass. Thank you.

Sid Fong.

Thank you for your time on this important matter. My name is Sid Fong. My child is a first grader at MMCA, most of them member of Urban Ethics Coalition. I'm here to discuss noise and vibration that will be generated by this type of project. Here are some concerns. The general plan e EIR was used for the project's noise study but there was no vibration study. Schools are sensors receptors under CEQA for noise and vibration. This creates a peculiar need that must be addressed by detailed studies. No site specific analysis was done. It also assumed that regular equipment will be used for the project not specialized.

Does not address construction noise around the school site. There is no real analysis on post construction noise. The question I have is how will the project noise and vibration impact students, staff, parent volunteers on campus? When children are exposed to loud noises, the impacts are both health related and educational. My child is on the spectrum and has ADHD.

Loud, unpredictable noises are a major disruption to his daily routine and his ability to learn. For students with sensory issues, noise at this level can be overwhelming to the point that they can't participate in learning at all. Now factor a d 10 being used for this project. A d 10 is designed for open construction sites, quarries, and large earth moving operations, not for working next to a classroom. It produces noise to a level of a jet engine.

Imagine that kind of sound running for hours with within close range of children and teachers trying to learn and teach. The d 10 also generates low frequency vibration in the range that makes the human body resonate. For children, that could mean discomfort, stress, and real barriers to learning. Simply put, this project needs a more thorough review. I'm asking you to require a full site specific environmental report before moving forward. Our children's health and education depend on it. If this were your child's school, would this level of uncertainty feel acceptable to you? I hope you'll consider that as you make your decision. Thank you.

Adrienne Garcia.

Another picture of a D10 for you. All right, I am here. My name is Adrian Garcia. Good evening. I am an employee at MMCA and I also live in Whitney Ranch.

I am here to talk about the traffic study that was submitted on January 23. The traffic study that was done was inadequate. It doesn't analyze how the apartment traffic and school traffic will interact, and more critically, the study does not address our necessary safe path to school. Based on the proposed project and this visual here, one of our safe paths from the church parking lot will have children walking along the perimeter of an open fenced dog park, through the complex's property via their sidewalk, past one of the complex's parking lots that is only secured by an EVA gate, and finally on to school property. This is an example of the steel tubular fence since we were talking about fences, I thought I'd show that.

This is not where one of the wood fences would be. Not sure how this or any other fence is going to keep our children safe from dogs or children that might have issues with dogs. The traffic study assumes only 43 vehicles will be leaving during the peak morning commute. This calculates to about one car per three apartments. For this type of project, is that really realistic?

Don't think so. Additionally, the Planning Commission supporting documents have inconsistencies in regards to this. First, the city staff report says that the impact to the school will be minimal because the apartments only have access to our school through the EVA gate. And the traffic study assumes apartment traffic will only use their complex's driveway. However, in the legal analysis that the developer's lawyer submitted, it states that the apartment residents will have full access to the school driveway and full access to the school parking lot.

Which one of these scenarios do you think will realistically happen? While we do have a joint use agreement with the church that allows our driveway in both parking lots to be shared, this shared usage makes sense when dealing with other non profits like the church or Rockland Youth Soccer. This was last night. Foresharing of our public site with a for profit developer was never complicated, never contemplated by the involved parties. At this time, we ask that you not approve this project as proposed. Thank you.

Christie Booth Boothby.

Good evening. My name is Christie Boothby. I'm a Montessori teacher, a parent of MMCA alumni, and a Rockland community member. I'm a very visual person, so I want to walk you through what this project actually looks like because the site plan alone just doesn't show you the real impact. This is showing some elevations.

It shows you the parking lot elevation and it doesn't actually look like there's that much of a problem with the parking and where it's at. This is our current preschool playground and there's two cones on there. The cone that is on the playground is at our actual elevation of 164 feet. The cone that is in the weeds is the 13 feet away property line of where the curbs for the parking lot will start for this project and the parking lot elevation is set to be at 173 feet. What does this actually look like?

It looks like cars, headlights, exhaust, and noise directly above a preschool playground. Mind you, those are our three year olds that are there. And there are no retaining walls, no bollards to prevent a vehicle from entering the play area, and no analysis of air quality or toxic exposure for children directly below this parking lot. People can go in the parking lot and smoke. They can start their cars to let them warm up. Where is the exhaust going to go? Here is our main playground. From our main playground, this is what's going to be looking at the 18 unit building that's proposed behind where our community garden is right now. That red line that is there shows the elevation of the beginning pad of the 18 unit building. Our playground is at 154 feet.

That is a

17 foot difference. Let's put that into some perspective. So here we compared the elevations of our preschool, our soccer field, where they're gonna put their 18 foot building. This is all in the site plan, all that information. I put in there the La Quinta Inn in 12 Bridges because that was just recently built. It is quite comparable to what the size of the building is for the Sierra Wilds. It's 50 feet because it is four feet, four things tall for perspective. So this 18 unit building next to our main playground, it's about half the length of La Quinta building. That's looking at kinda where the elevation is gonna be. Our kids will no longer get to see sky.

They'll see a building. And here's what it's gonna look like with a 36 unit profile from our preschool playground. Our kids deserve safe spaces, clean air, and room to grow. Is this a school playground that you would want your kids to be on?

Kirk

Good evening. My name is Kirk Schutz. I'm a grandfather of two students at the school. My background is in school construction. I'm an architect.

One of the things that I find problematic is the use of the or the extent of the project up against the property line of the school. That property line is slightly arbitrary based on some agreements with the school and the church. And the use of that space, which happens to be a hammerhead driveway, would be considered at this point after twenty years eminent domain. And so that hammerhead was required by the state fire marshal for this school. And it may not be adjusted or changed without taking that back through the state.

So, that part is an issue that and then of course the other part is the traffic coming out of the lower parking lot of the complex onto that what I'll call is a flag driveway. The requirements for a public school is that they have access to a public street. So, that flag driveway equates to their access to public street, and it may not be shared by private entities. It entirely part of the school only. So, I'm going to keep it short. Thank you.

Brent Boothby.

The two and a half minute version, guys. Thank you very much for listening to us tonight. My name is Brent Boothby. I'm the executive director at MMCA. Last week, I submitted a written testimony regarding our concerns about the project. I know it was 18 pages. I'm sorry. For anybody that needs a copy or has it, we have extras that are available. As Nathan can attest to you, I I tend to write a lot. And as you're about to hear, I tend to talk a lot, and I will do my best to to get through it quickly.

I'm not gonna go through all 18 pages, but I'm going to hit on four key points that I I really wanna drive home right now. The air quality testing was based on an assumption of 400 feet from the school site. All air quality testing. Contextually, 400 feet from our D Wing Building is approximately the sidewalk right next to the church building. Exact building to building is 420 feet. One foot from the preschool excuse me, the main play structure, that's the sewer main connection. 28 feet from the soccer field, that's the storm water drain connection. Approximately half the project's parking is within a 100 feet of the school site. Two of the buildings are within a 115, one within 90. Clearly, substantial construction is going to occur very close to the school site.

Particular based studies need to be done to reflect that. Number two on on we we need to look at is the equipment of something we should use is very much using general stuff. We did the geotechnical for the entire site twenty years ago. We didn't know where the school location was gonna be. The full geotech was done. So we're looking at a table up there of our geotech report from Kleinfelder from twenty years ago. The nine or excuse me, the six yellow highlighted items are all on the proposed project sites. The table underneath is or each of the test pits in their depths. Preview the entire site is Merton. The refusal levels average less than three feet.

Above that level is all expansive clay. Do to then that. And do that. And we'll reflective of the actual equipment being used. Where there's been a lot of talk lately about state standards and state concerns.

Well, ultimately, guys, we are a state property too. And as that state property, there's all kinds of things that come into play here that needs to be remembered about this project and about this concept. And since we're very much on the shorter side, I'm gonna finish it with just a constitutional quote. California constitution expressly states that all students and staff of public elementary schools have the inalienable right to attend campuses that are safe, secure, and peaceful. Respectfully, I ask you to bring a copy of TPC's proposed project plans, come out to our school site, walk the site, and see what they're actually proposing.

The site with the cars above the preschool playground and the elevations of those buildings, well, yes, they are three d and and, you know, renderings, but the elevations are absolutely accurate. If approved without substantial mitigation, I sincerely believe that our school site would no longer be a safe, secure, peaceful site. And that's a problem for us since we are legally obligated as this being state property to maintain said said state regulations, title five, DSA, etcetera. And that would put us out of compliance and put catastrophic things like lack of insurance or, excuse me, loss of insurance as well as loss of state funding. We can't go there for obvious reasons, guys. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Dave Patterson.

Good evening Chairman Thomas and the members of the Planning Commission. My name is Doctor. Dave Patterson. I've lived in Rockland for over thirty years. My wife taught at Rockland High School where our three sons have graduated.

I have served for fourteen years on the Placer County Board of Education representing the Rockland community. And I have spent more than three decades working in k 12 public education at the local, state, and federal level. And I'm speaking tight on in a personal capacity. In all that time, across hundreds of school sites that I've been on, I have never seen a proposal like this. This project proposes to place a high density three story apartment complex immediately adjacent to and frankly towering over a public school in a way that raises many, many serious unresolved concerns about student safety, student health, and the integrity of the educational environment.

Let me be direct. The state of California would never approve a public school designed site designed this way. Yet here we are being asked to accept the reverse of in our community. I understand the pressure you are under. State, cities across California are being forced in extremely difficult positions by state housing mandates and the threat of costly litigation.

But that pressure makes it even more important that the city council and the residents of of Rockland benefit from your expertise and deep analysis and carefully crafted guidance on all the concerns raised here tonight and in the documents submitted. This proposal is not ready. It is not ready because the key impacts have not been fully analyzed. It's not ready because meaningful mitigation is wholly lacking. And it's not ready because the risk are being shifted on the students, families, and this community.

I urge you, do not approve the notice of exemption. Do not approve the design review. Instead, send it back to staff. Require a complete analysis of each and every issue. Demand real mitigation, make the project meet the standards of safety and quality this community expects. The community needs this level of diligence. The city council deserves your best work, and the families affected by this project deserve no less. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Yes. Yes.

Okay.

Yes. We're gonna it's been requested to have a five minute break, so we're not closing public comment at this moment. We're gonna take a five minute break. Thank you.

Yeah. It's on.

Is it is it on loud enough? Do I need to use my my teacher voice? There we go. Right? So oh, there we go. I get to use a gavel for the first time. Okay. Thank you everyone for permitting that five minute break. Let's let's start up again. We the we will continue with with public comments.

We have 21 people signed up or on they gave us speaker cards. We are maintaining the the same order, two and a half minutes, but that does not mean you have to use the full two and a half minutes. So and and please, if if if things are repetitive, you know, you it's okay to just say, I agree with the last person as well too. So, you know, that's okay too for us. We are going to announce please be ready so that we can go orderly, and and there's not a lot of dead time, please. So, go ahead and and announce the next the next four, and we'll go from there.

Alright. Scott Simpson, Loretta Hedinger, Heidi I don't know how to say your name Poja, and Lorinda Odell.

Thank you. That will be the order for now.

For. And we were told it's open space, planned commercial development down the road, so we're expecting self storage or a dental office parking lot. So it's kind of a big shock to have a three story apartment complex. At this point, it looks like there's not really much we can do about that. Some of our biggest concerns are 86 missing parking spaces that you would normally require. That's a huge number. The church only has about 60 parking spaces total. Where are those cars going to go? If you look at some of the other Pacific Commons, projects, looks like they're killing it. Stockton, they've got a 77 unit, complex with 75% walkability score.

There's a website. It'll tell you how great a neighborhood is for walking to your groceries, your school, public transportation. Napa, they have one that's got a 63% walk score. Natomas, 73%. And you get to our neighborhood, and we move there because it's kind of away from everything. We get a 23% walk score in our neighborhood. If there's not parking, how are people going to get around? It's eight tenths of a mile to the nearest bus station, and the bus comes every sixty minutes. The bus really only runs up and down Sunset. It won't get you to Winco where there's cheap groceries. We got that really awesome nuggets that's great. We we kinda cheap out, and we go to, we go to Winco. I'm sorry. It's in Roseville. The groceries are significantly cheaper.

When we drive over to our family on this side of town and sit in their backyard, we watch the temperature gauge in our car plunge as we drive to this side of town. It's 10 degrees cooler from my yard to this side of town. And this side of town is probably where they measure that 105 degree temperature. So you're asking people to walk in a 105. And sometimes our backyard, the concrete installers for the landscaping said that Satan's tongue was their problem. Just working back there, extremely hot. Where are people going to go? Where are cars parking? Do we need to ask for parking permits for our neighborhood to keep our parking going? Those are some huge concerns.

As Nathan pointed out, we don't want to be looking in each other's yards. The eight foot wood fence is great, but when you add the second and the third story, looks like about 16 apartments are still going to be looking into my backyard. We need to plant trees in the riparian zone there that will grow up, give us some shade, cool down the area, add to privacy, and help try to maintain some of our land values that we've worked really hard to get. Thank you so much for your time, and have a great day.

Loretta?

Okay, be ready, okay? Let's keep this going.

I was making revisions to shorten it. I'm Loretta Hettinger, a resident of the City Of Folsom and a retired City Of Folsom planner. My friends here have asked me to give a perspective on this project. I'm kind of an outside look. California has a housing problem, no doubt, but the state's one size fits all approach and a single-minded developer have put Rockland in the position of having to approve a multi story under park department project.

However, you can objectively modify the project. You have to live here. What are the issues? A critical one. Under California law, cities and school districts are separate jurisdictions established under different sets of laws. Neither can control the other. The city cannot force the Rockland Unified School District to change its state certified plan. It is always in the best interest of the community if the city and the school district maintain cooperation. The church is not blameless in their financial desperation. They put the city and the school district in a terrible position.

The school district will have to spend scarce dollars to relocate storage facilities, and an integral part of their curriculum, the garden area, a million dollar hit if it's even possible. A bigger issue is child safety. Contrary to the staff report's assertion on page 11 that project parking won't occur on the school property, attachment five is a legal opinion that the project is included in the church's shared parking agreement with the school. The child safety issue of more cars at more times of the day should be obvious. So what will you do?

Will the city be hero or villain? You could rubber stamp the project as the staff report proposes and leave the school district and the church to sort it out with the new hardball project owner. Lawsuits then appear inevitable. Perhaps the final financial blow to the church, and certainly school district dollars would be better spent on children than on lawyers. Or you could exercise your power to support your school district and neighbors.

You may not be able to require a new EIR, but there's no reason not to correct errors and update information, as you have been doing with the traffic study. A little more. You don't have to accept the project's 25 and a half dwelling units per acre density. The required minimum is lower, 24. However, you could allow even higher density than 25.

A 4th Floor, if they would donate the garden land to the school district and renegotiate the parking agreement to protect the school. Based on what I've heard tonight, I have to think that either the developer hasn't done enough homework or else they count on getting an approval and then coming back to you with a sad story of the difficulty of building this project. Thank you.

Heidi?

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Heidi Poida, a resident of Rockland and a parent of five children, all of which have attended Rockland schools. My youngest attends Maria Montessori Charter Academy. I want to speak about cumulative impacts and how this impact affects fits into what is already happening in the area. This is not occurring in isolation.

The Nugget Market just opened on April 15. The Chappa Building is nearing completion and there are plans to add 16 pickleball courts at Whitney Ranch. Each of these brings additional traffic and daily activity to some to to the same roadway network. At the same time, the traffic analysis did not even evaluate conditions during an in session school day, much less account for these new and upcoming changes. CEQA requires that projects consider not just their individual impact, but how they combine with existing and foreseeable conditions.

The question is whether the analysis reflects real world conditions, not just a snapshot of time, but what it but what this area really actually functions like day to day. When you layer this project on top of a recent upcoming development, the combined effect on traffic and circulation may be very different than what is assumed in isolation. That raises a legitimate question about whether cumulative impacts have been fully and accurately evaluated. At a minimum, I respectfully ask the Commission to ensure these cumulative conditions are fully considered and supported by substantial evidence before relying on streamlined environmental review. Thank you.

Lorenda and the next four after that are Virgil Nelson, Catherine Brack, Tina Laub, and Haley Fowler.

Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Lorinda Odell, and I'm here to request that the Commission table this agenda item and direct staff to conduct a formal operational analysis of the Northern EVA route in Area 2. In addition to being an MMCA parent for the last eight years, I also have professional experience working inside a fire dispatch call center. While I was not a dispatcher, I worked alongside them as they dispatched 200,000 incidences a year and protected over 1,400,000 residents in Sacramento and Placer Counties. In public safety, total response time is critical to saving lives.

And structural delays such as that require multi point turns or gate malfunctions create a public safety liability. The proposed project replaces what is currently open, unobstructed land with a hammerhead configuration and a 14 foot access gate. Navigating this layout without multipoint turns requires specialized equipment, specifically tiller trucks of which the city fire department only has one, and that is truck 24. In the staff report, it is assumed that the tiller truck will always be available. But truck 24 is a regional asset, and if it is committed to a freeway incident or structure fire across town, dispatch is going to drop that call to a standard type one engine.

Unlike the tiller, the standard engine has a fixed frame. To turn around in this proposed area to layout, a driver must perform a multipoint turn within a narrow 20 foot quarter bounded by three buildings. The proposed 14 foot gate also creates a bottleneck that ignores the reality of stacked emergency traffic. During a mass evacuation or a major incident, the proposed design would funnel units accessing the Northern EVA route into a single point of failure. This creates a stacking delay.

If the first arriving unit is slowed down by this hammerhead turn or gate malfunction, every subsequent unit is stalled behind them. A structure fire can double in size every sixty seconds and this added maneuvering increases response time and puts lives at risk. We are asking for a delay because the record is currently silent on this critical safety metric Without a timed side by side comparison of current access versus a proposed engineered route, we do not have the data required to find that there is no specific adverse impact to public safety. The House Accountability Act empowers this commission to pause a project when it presents a specific quantifiable safety risk. We're asking this commission to table the item until staff can conduct a time motion study or similar and support with data the determination that there is no specific adverse impact on public safety.

Virgil Nelson.

Good evening commissioners. I'm reverend Virgil Nelson, a retired pastor living in Roseville, I'm the chairman of the affordable housing task force of Placer People of Faced Together. I'm here to express support for the Sierra Wiles project as an effort on behalf of the common good of everyone in Rockland and Placer County. All of our major faith traditions help us describe and understand the meaning of the common good and what it looks like. The prophet Muhammad said, there are no rights that the son of Adam is more entitled to than four.

First, a home to live in, a garment to cover nakedness, a piece of bread, and water. In the Judeo Christian tradition, the Hebrew scriptures describe the common good as one in which each person can sit in the shade of their own fig tree. Jesus implores those of who follow him to love God and our neighbors and even to love our enemies. A young couple in our local congregation both grew up in Placer County and decided to get married. She is a college graduate working in Rockland and he works in the trades.

They could not find anything in Rockland or Placer County that was affordable and they now live in the Arden Arcade area. At the Mobile Temporary Shelter, I met a 71 year old widow with no family living on a 100 or a thousand $275 a month. She was evicted from her small duplex after seven years when her landlord, with no notice, raised her rent from $700 to a thousand dollars a month. I suspect that all of us here would want our children and grandchildren to be able to live here locally. If they were to graduate from college or trade school today, they could not afford a house here.

On behalf of PLACER people of faith together, we urge you to approve this project because it will benefit the common good of our offspring and our community in the years to come. Thank you.

Catherine Brack.

I'm Kathy Wehrbick. I live in Rockland, and I love our beautiful city. With great respect for the work that went into the presentation tonight, I have to say that that much work could accomplish a great deal in the way of accommodation and mitigation for the benefit of the students involved. Now I am old. I grew up in a time when civics was a standard part of the curriculum in elementary school.

And and so I was very proud to learn in fourth grade that the reason America was the best country in the whole world was because of our strong working class. In a capitalist country, we were taught. Everyone who wanted to work could have the opportunity of the American dream, a house or home, the ability to feed the children and raise a healthy family. Well, capitalism ain't what it used to be. Today, a worker can have three jobs and not afford a home in Rockland.

If we want the people who work in our community to continue to provide a sustainable, strong foundation for the community, we have got to create housing. Thanks to Saint Augustine, right now we have a doable opportunity to develop a 120 unit affordable housing project. We can do this. We should do this with the mandate from the state. We must do this. Let's do this.

Tina Laub.

I think I think did we skip someone? Are we in? Okay. Someone came up with they thought they heard their name, and it was the wrong name. So Okay.

It's all good.

We're gonna go back to well, the real Catherine.

Yeah. I

don't know. We'll see. Really good evening, planning commissioners. Thank you for your time. My name is Catherine Brock, and I've been a resident of Placer County since 2004.

I'm here tonight to urge you to approve the Sierra Woods workplace housing project at 1800 Wildcat Boulevard in Rockland without delay. For years, I've watched friends and colleagues, people who work in Rockland and Roseville get priced out of the communities from which they serve. These are not abstract numbers. These are families, essential workers, and neighbors who can no longer afford to live near their jobs, their schools, and their support systems. This is not just a market issue.

It's the result of our collective decisions, and it requires leadership. If we do not act, we are choosing a future where only some can afford to live here and where our workforce is pushed further away increasing strain on families, traffic and our local economy. Sierra Wilds is real, tangible step toward a better outcome. It provides safe, stable housing for working families and helps preserve the kind of community that we say we value. As a person of faith, I believe that we are called to care for one another and to welcome those who seek to be a part of the community.

But beyond that, this is simply about fairness, sustainability and the long term health of Placer County. You have an opportunity and a responsibility to act. Please approve the project and make workforce housing a priority. Thank you.

Tina Laub?

Good evening. My name is Tina Lauby. I am a resident of Granite Bay but I work at Maria Montessori. I am a teacher there. Based on what's been raised tonight emergency access, school proximity, and site specific impacts, I respectfully ask for a continuance. This is not about opposing housing. It's about making sure the environmental review is complete, clear, and supported by substantial evidence before decisions are made. When you have this level of proximity to a school and young children, taking time to get it right matters. I respectfully ask that the commission to continue this item for further clarification. Thank you.

Haley Fowler, and then the next four are Reverend Rosemary McLaughlin, Richard Wampler, Amanda Fong, and Bishop Megan Traquin.

Hi. So, my name is Haley Fowler. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of my coworker, Laura Crouch. I I live in Roseville, I work at MMCA. So, Laura wrote, This school is not just where I work. It is my home. My children were raised there. Our daughter took her first steps at a planning meeting, and we joked that our son attended before he was even born. Both are proud graduates, and over the years, my students have become part of my extended family. We care for them deeply, and we would do anything to protect them.

Tonight, we are asking you to protect them as well. Let me be clear: I do not oppose affordable housing. She writes that she grew up with very little and I'm a first generation college graduate. As is her husband, a high school teacher, as is myself and many of my colleagues. Our Title I school serves families who would actually qualify for housing.

It is not about who the project serves, it is how it is being planned. Our concern is safety. The environmental impact report appears to have been completed before our current campus was built and the sequel report assumes construction will occur at least 400 feet away. The current plan places two three story buildings within 100 feet of our playground less than that with excavation and paving as close as one foot from where our children play. The proximity obviously raises concerns that have been brought up by my colleagues.

Dust, fumes, noise, and vibrations that distance are not safe, especially for children with asthma, autoimmune conditions, and other health challenges. Many of our students have special needs. Imagine trying to learn with constant jackhammering just feet away. For students with sensory sensitivities or anxiety, this would be overwhelming. There are also supervision concerns. Two three story buildings elevated 13 feet above campus creates a direct line of sight into our playground. How will student privacy and safety be protected? How will exposure to secondhand cigarette and cannabis smoke be prevented? And how can these impacts be mitigated without placing added burden on school staff? Additionally, narrowing our emergency access puts the school out of compliance with safety requirements, potentially threatening its future existence.

This project can work, but only if it is done safely. Move it at least 400 feet away from school. Reduce the height, limit the construction hours, and complete new accurate EIR and CEQA reports accounting for child health and safety. This is the right idea. It is the wrong place. Thank you very much for your time.

Reverend Rosemary McLaughlin.

Good evening commissioners and thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Reverend Deacon Rosemary McLaughlin and I'm here representing our church which sold this land for the purpose of building workforce affordable housing. I'm also a mother of four. We entered into this decision thoughtfully, prayerfully, and with a deep awareness of both its promise and its impact. I wanna begin by saying this clearly.

I hear the concerns of this room. I hear the pain and fear of the school, your desire to protect your children, and especially their health. I hear the concerns of neighbors who have invested in their homes and are worried about privacy, safety, and the unknown. I hear the tension within our own church community as we too adjust to what this change will mean in our shared space. These concerns are real.

They matter. And they deserve to be spoken and acknowledged. And there are voices that we are not hearing tonight. We are not hearing from the hundred and one twenty people who will be housed in these apartments. The 120 individuals and families, many of whom likely already work in Rockland, serve this community or have deep ties here.

Who simply cannot afford to live here without housing like this. We are not hearing from the parents who are hoping for stability for their children or the children themselves who might one day attend the school next door, play on the same playing grounds, and form friendships. If they were here, what might they say? What would it sound like to hear their hopes, their fears, and their longing to belong? This moment places us at a crossroads, not just of development, but of identity as a community.

Can we hold all of this together? The fear and the hope. The grief and the possibility. As a church, we are guided by the words of Jesus who said, whatever you did for one of the least of these, you did for me. This project is not just about buildings.

It is about people. It is about whether we as a community are willing to expand our understanding of who our neighbor is. My hope is not that we ignore the concerns that are raised today, but that we work together to address them with creativity, compassion, and accountability while still moving forward. Because at the heart of this decision is a simple question, who gets to belong here? Thank you.

Richard Wampler.

I'm Richard Wampler. I've lived in Placer County for twenty four years, and I'm here to plead the case for people who need affordable housing that aren't here to plead their own case. I'm on the board of directors of The Gathering Inn, which is a nonprofit organization that helps homeless people reclaim their lives and find housing. In this role, I have had the opportunity to become very familiar with the large, tragic, invisible plight of the unhoused. I'm sure this is familiar to all of you with the prevalence of people sleeping on sidewalks, pushing shopping carts with their meager possessions, and living in tent cities without sanitation.

However, the plight of those seeking affordable housing is invisible, but no less tragic. Many working people and families are paying a large disproportionate percentage of their income on housing which allows for only a sustenance lifestyle with little prospects for higher education, savings, and constantly hovering on the edge of homelessness. To be eligible for an apartment at Sierra Wiles, a proof of employment and income is required. And I venture to say that the salary scale of teachers in California would qualify many people to live departments. In Contrary to online disinformation, Sierra Wiles is not a homeless shelter.

I believe that this application put forward by the applicant and recommended by the staff should be approved tonight. It would be some step towards meeting the requirement for over 3,000 affordable units that are required by the city of Rockland in the next seven years. I think the project is well designed. I'm impressed with the level of studies that have been done. And certainly, if there are other studies that really should be done, I hope they are done. And I hope we can come to some compromise on this. Thank you for your attention.

Amanda Fong.

Good evening. My name is Amanda Fong. I am a parent at Maria Montessori Charter Academy and a member of the Urban Ethics Coalition. I have been a resident of Placer County for over twenty five years. I am a health care provider, and I work in the neonatal ICU and pediatrics. We support babies in every way possible because they deserve to live even if they don't have a voice to tell us what they want or what hurts. They deserve to have the best chance to succeed and thrive in this world. Fast forward to these babies now being in school. They still deserve to have the best chance to succeed and thrive in this world. They are finding their voice, but education is a right for every child, and I am here to be their voice.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the AAP, construction dust can lead to issues with asthma, allergies, cancer, lung development, high blood pressure, brain nerve damage, cardiovascular disease, and mental health issues, which will all affect learning, memory, thinking, and problem solving. They have growing sensitive bodies and a higher rate of breathing per body weight. Of note, when evaluating a sick child, one of the first questions that a physician will ask is whether or not the child has been exposed to a construction site, either near their home or near their school. These are definitely alarming concerns that will affect the child's health long term. The noise, both volume and duration, will be beyond what is acceptable for a safe and peaceful school environment.

Children have smaller ear canals, which intensifies higher frequency sounds. They are at a higher risk of hearing damage, stress, and language delays. Our kids, especially the preschoolers, are still learning how to talk, and they will not get the opportunity to hear and use speech correctly. Their reading, processing, and focus will be greatly affected, which could lead to social emotional issues. We need to support kids who deserve a safe place to learn and grow.

It doesn't matter who the developer is, who the seller is, the vote is simple. In Rockland, is the best and only place to build a three story apartment complex right next to a school? Every single child would say no. And we need to listen to our children who deserve everything, including our best, trust and care, because they are our legacy and the future of this community. Please do not approve this project.

Bishop Megan Trackel. And then the next four are Camille Grabbolish, Cohodes? Good

evening, commissioners. My name is Megan Traquaire, and I am a resident of Fair Oaks. I'm also a mom and a grandmother of three well, two and nine tenths babies at this point. Third is due on May 1. And my family is filled with teachers, pediatricians, NICU nurses, and we talk about kids a lot.

But I'm also here as a bishop. That means that I have had thirty three years of ministry experience behind my belt in many different communities. And that I have been serving as a pastor and offering oversight for our 60 congregations which are spread out through Northern California, from Galt to Susanville to Crescent City. I rise to speak in favor of this project, and I urge you to, approve it without delay. When I have a chance to look and see at what is making a healthy community, and I can see this in many places, one of the things that I can see is care for families and a safe place to live.

I believe that this project will substantially assist the city of Rockland in meeting their affordable housing requirement. I believe that a good quality, carefully researched plan in fact has been put in front of you with considerable back and forth to cooperate with the needs of this city. I believe that it is well designed and that the multiple trees that will be in there will provide the beauty and the cooling and the shading of view that we look for in our neighborhoods. And I also believe that despite the concerns which I hear, I hear these concerns, homeowners, parents, and grandparents, I also believe that this is something that will be safe not only for the neighborhood and the kids, it will also be safe for the members of our church, those adults and their kids. It is my urging that you take up this leadership question because it is very important to a community that those who work there can live there.

It is my hope that the people who work for the city of Rockland will be able to live in the city of Rockland and thereby build a strong, sustainable and committed community. Thank you.

Camille?

Good evening. My name is Camille Grabowski, and I'm a Placer County resident and a member of St. Augustine Church. In my experience as a former St. Vincent de Paul volunteer, I worked with many families who were rent poor because 70 to 80% of their income went to pay rent.

These were often families where both parents were employed full time and yet their income was insufficient in Placer Counties. Some families, sadly, even doubled up, living two families together in one two bedroom home because that's all they could afford. Rockland needs to have housing that is affordable for people who live and work in Rockland, including those people who work for the city of Rockland, many of whom fall into the eligibility salary range for affordable housing. I wholeheartedly support the Sierra Wilde's affordable housing project. And I completely compliment the staff for their thorough project review.

And for these reasons, I ask that you approve the resolutions before you and approve this project tonight. Thank you very much.

Elizabeth Gonzalez.

Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Gonzales. I live in Whitney Ranch and I work for affordable housing or advocate for affordable housing since I've been in Placer County for the last ten years. And I feel so fortunate to live here. I mean, my husband and I, when we come home from anywhere, we go, oh my god, we're almost home. Look at this beautiful place. And I drive, we drive Whitney Ranch Parkway, right the exit off the freeway. You know, and the other day we were with friends from out of the city and we're like, Oh my God, the Nugget is open. Let's go, let's go see what this is all about. We live in a beautiful place.

And when we first moved here, I talked to a real estate person and he said, you know, when lived here, when I grew up here, he was probably in his 40s, he said there was nothing here but rock and weeds. Right? Because we live in Whitney Ranch. That's what Whitney Ranch was, rock and weeds. And actually there was some of that still left between Whitney Oaks where I live. Anyway, it's just that was vacant. And then the next five, six years is full. There's no I don't think there's any more places to build there, right? So people don't like change. I don't like change.

Nobody likes change unless it's really positive when you get a million bucks or something. So this is a very emotional thing, as you all know. And I'm sure you would feel something just like this. But we do have to work for the greater good. Life is not the same.

The United States is more than thirty years behind in building housing. And this is across more than that, across the country, not just Rockland. But we can't sit by and not do anything. There's a vacant land and there has to be good things built on that land and it has to be for a lot of people. Because just as some of the previous speakers said, there are so many people who are homeless and have not enough income to live under a roof. And you have the power to make that happen. And you're going to have to make it happen someday whether you want to or not anyway. So please make the right decision or make a good decision and build some affordable housing. Thank you.

Robert Brenner.

So good evening commissioners. My name is Robert Brenner and my wife and I have two kids at the Maria Montessori School and we're gonna have a third attending next year. And I just want to say that I mean I think we're all for pro affordable housing, offer fairness and change, but not when it endangers our kids. Paul said an hour ago about the pollutants PM ten and PM two point five just occurring just feet away from from our children, and that's really concerning. So under state law, decisions must be based on real measurable health and safety impacts and that they were you know, they should require a complete and well supported record.

And given the proximity and exposure, it's critical that these impacts are clearly evaluated and supported by substantial evidence. Okay. That's all. Thank you so much.

Julie Cohodes. And then the next four after that are Kimberly Wines, Kane Fancy, Kristia Hearn, and Jennifer Collins.

Hello. My name is Julie Cohodes. I am a teacher at MMCA. Both my daughters have attended MMCA. I coach volleyball and soccer at MMCA, And I want to address the noise impacts. The construction of this scale, especially with difficult excavation, means prolonged periods of heavy equipment, vibration, and sustained noise levels. The project is obviously immediately next to the active school where students are engaged in daily learning activities. Noise is not just inconvenient in the setting. It can directly affect concentration, communication and the learning environment. These impacts are not theoretical.

They are tied to the specific proximity of this project to the classroom and outdoor student areas. Those of you that don't know how our school functions and our culture, Students go and have snack in the garden. They enjoy the outdoors. We play. We have bunny rabbits that go on our grass. Students get to work outside our classroom, but I fear, as a teacher, I'm not gonna wanna do that as much. I'm not gonna feel safe. It's going to absolutely change the culture of our school. And I'm just really sad if this happens, and I implore you not to approve this project.

Kimberly Wines.

My name is Kimberly Wines. I live at 1617 Breadman Drive. I'm here on behalf of myself and my husband, Doug Wines. I wasn't aware of what the presentation that was planned for tonight was going to say, so I'm just kind of generalizing the comments I had planned for, for time. My husband and I agree that there are particular impacts that are not adequately addressed by prior general environmental surveys.

We found five items that stood out to us that were either incomplete, missing, or mentioned but deferred. We felt that the deferments that were mentioned, they're stated as not being allowed to be, Well, we'll figure it out later, and then have the project approved under those circumstances. We outlined those in our submitted email. Additionally, we found or we noticed that the Lincoln Boundary Fire that happened last summer caused a recognition of that specific point on Wildcat as a wildfire evacuation choke point. This development will join the school and the one next to it, as being able to only make a right hand turn onto Wildcat, and it

is

our only evacuation route. And I see no study by the city addressing the increased burden of this known choke point risk, and I find that really concerning. So we are also asking that this not be approved tonight and not be given the environmental deferment. We ask that you give this item a continuance and allow staff to address the specific particular impacts raised by the presentation, our email, well as any of the others that were raised this evening. We don't see a reason why Rockland cannot balance the need for housing as well as the need for standards around project impacts.

Keene Fancy.

Good evening. My name is Keithan Fancy. I live on Redmond Drive, and my house or my backyard would be directly facing the high rise, affordable housing. Concerns I have a few concerns that I've talked about. First of all, the privacy, right?

So I lose complete privacy on all the neighborhood, all the houses in that line, including mine, to lose complete privacy even with the eight foot fence for all our bedrooms and the backyard, which would be directly visible from the high rise apartment. Traffic congestion, this for currently to get to apartment or the school or this new construction or this new locality, you'll have to take a U at Bridalwood. Think about the congestion that would have if you have 120 units, one and all the cars associated with that, maybe in the ballpark of two forty cars that would have to take a U at that intersection. Next point I want to make is parking. There is, we heard, there's only 153 parking spots.

The parking overflow is not only going to go to the school parking, but it's also going to go in our neighborhood. That is a safety issue for my house, for my neighborhood when there are going to be cars and then for my kids playing in that area as well. The fourth, property value. Right? When I bought a house in 2021, right, I looked at a similar house in Roseville.

It was about 200,000 cheaper than this house. But I bought this house in Rocklin because of the neighborhood, because I love Rocklin. Until date, it has been awesome and I loved every part of it. But with this new affordable living structure, it's going to bring down the property value for me and all the neighbors. Lastly, the affordable housing, right?

I'm all for affordable housing too, But there's already an affordable housing on Wildcat And Wicken Ranch Intersection less than a mile from this affordable housing. So how many more affordable housings are we going to build in the same locality? Lastly, to end, let me ask you, right, with this, would you want this in your neighborhood facing your backyard? So I respectfully ask you guys, I urge you, beg you to not approve this affordable housing. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Kristia Hearn.

It's okay, didn't know what was up next. Oh my gosh, this is kind of nerve racking. Okay, I'm here. I'm Christina Hearn. I'm Christina Hearn. I'm here as a community member, a mother of four kids, two of them at MMCA. I am not unsympathetic to the plight of needing affordable housing. We have numerous family members that live in affordable housing, two of them within Rockland. I also am a sister to a brother who is on and off homeless. I do understand the plight and how hard it is.

I am also a Christian. I believe that everybody with my whole being deserves the right to a safe place to live. Yet, as a mother, my first ministry is to my children and to help them grow within the faith and in life. I am asking with my whole heart that you relook at all of the misleading analysis they seem to be if you're reading through them, such as the traffic analysis, the CEQA stuff. I'm re asking you to look at it.

I'm not against housing, but I'm asking you to look at it because I'm concerned about the safety of my children and all the children. I ask for continuance in this project, and I'm hoping that you guys are not rushing this quickly. I'm hoping that it's not for anybody to have any financial gain, make a financial deadline. I just don't want it to be rushed. But I am here.

I understand all sides of it, but as a mother, my first concern, ministry, my whole heart goes to the safety and the protection of the children, and I just re ask that we look at all of the evidence there, and you consider yourself in our spots as parents, and how you would feel if it was your child at the school. Thank you very much for your time. Jennifer

Collins.

Good evening. My name is Jennifer Collins. I'm a parent, a resident, and I have 30 of local law enforcement, some for the city of Rockland, most of the rest for Placer County Sheriff. I oppose the current multilevel development proposal because of the significant student safety risks created by placing a high density building only a few feet from a preschool campus. Montessori students spend much of their day outdoors.

A minimal setback does not provide a safe or practical buffer for the noise, activity, vehicle movement of a large residential complex. With upper story windows and balconies overlooking playground and classrooms, the school loses essential privacy and security that the young children need. Early childhood standards typically call for clear visual separation from high density structures, conditions this project does not meet. Traffic is a major concern. Drop off and pickup already creates short periods of intense congestion where young children are walking through parking lots and crossing driveways.

Adding daily vehicle trips increases the risk of accidents or near misses and may limit emergency vehicle access to both properties. Given these issues, I'm asking for responsible planning that prioritizes child safety, including a meaningful pause to review impacts to students at the school, a thoughtful alternative plan that does not place multilevel, high density housing directly across from a preschool and play structure a meaningful safety and privacy buffer fencing mitigation measures an official and robust law enforcement and fire department safety review what I read in the files was not what should have been done it was not sufficient a construction and operations plan that protects student health and daily school functioning Any development next to a school, especially one serving very young children, must be planned safely and thoughtfully. Thank you for considering the safety of the children who rely on this campus every day as your number one priority over anything else when making your decision. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, everyone. We will I'm assuming there's not anyone else that wanted to come up. Oh, there is one more. Okay. We'll all watch him walk up. Not, not letting you get away that easy. Good evening, commissioners. My name

is Jacob Boyce. The city of Rockland has failed to meet affordable housing needs set by California. It is unfortunate. As important as it is for Rockland to increase affordable housing, the proposed plan is not the right solution. It is a sign of poor poor past planning, a for profit developer exploiting a financial hardship of a community church, and neither party engaging with MMCA in a meaningful way.

Tonight, I'm speaking as a community member. This is my neighborhood and the former president and current VP of the MMCA board of trustees. But these words are my own. In 2024, the church abruptly broke off joint development plans with MMCA. The plan now includes selling the empty plot of land and then some cutting out the garden and parts of the preschool playground to a developer to build a 120 apartment units on fewer than five acres.

This will demolish a community garden and part of the preschool playground. Others will cover these details more thoroughly. Instead, I will comment prompt questions on how we ended up here today. Who is tying the hands of the city? Why are so many important processes being cut short or bypassed entirely?

And why have so many community and school concerns been brushed aside? This is not thoughtful planning. This is a reaction to failing to meet affordable housing needs. It is exacerbated by a for profit developer who is wielding state policy and connections to bully the city and run roughshod over any plans the school had. As representatives for your community, we rely on you to send the right message to our city council.

I urge each of you to send this plan to our city council with a determination of not recommended. Now is the time to show we will not be bullied by an exploitive developer who will be here when the construction dust has settled. It will not be Pacific West. For anyone else that that is in attendance tonight, I urge you to join up with the Urban Ethics Coalition to oppose this project. Individually, we will lose, but collectively, we will be victorious. Thank you for your time.

Okay. Thank you. Any more? Okay.

Good evening, commissioners. I hadn't planned on speaking. My name is Cheryl Keller. I live on Red Room Drive. I moved to Rockland in 1990.

I was the assistant manager that opened the Bel Air on Stanford Ranch Road, and I was so excited to be here, and especially Stanford Ranch, a master planned community. We have a loophole that got us here. We have an unexplained mixed use development that was sounds to me like the attorneys for the developer took full advantage of, but Rockland didn't. So I stand before you asking you not to approve this. My house overlooks the school.

I don't have children in the school, but I hear them every day playing. We are on a green belt. It is not a vacant lot. It's not a flat lot. And when we purchased, JMC said, yes, there'll be a strip along the street at some point that will be mixed use development, and we knew that.

But we all paid premiums for green belt lots. And so the mistakes that have been made to get us here today by Rockland need to be corrected. They need to be corrected by you. It's not about affordable housing. It's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. This project does not fit this particular piece of property. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Anyone else? If not, we will close public comment and open it up for some discussion. There's a lot of questions obviously asked during that. Nathan, did you want to take first stab at answering the questions or would you like us to reiterate some of them work it that way?

I can take a swing at some of them. The applicant would probably like to answer to some of them as well. I think it would be good. One of the questions was about the traffic impacts being conducted when the school was not in session. That is accurate, but unfortunate.

Basically, what happened was the school had an in service day and the traffic engineer was not aware of this. So they did the study, found out it was an in service day after the fact, but then they went back and they redid their numbers based on the traffic from the school using a very conservative count, probably more traffic than the school actually produces. So the traffic numbers based on the analysis of the school were accurate based on ITE manual requirements. There was a comment about the safety, the fire, being able to have access and to be able to get through the school, A fire safety circulation diagram was prepared that showed that they can make all the turn movements necessary, that the hose poles are correct. There's some very specific conditions of approval that were added by the fire department to ensure that the project is consistent, they can provide safe and adequate service to it.

There were a lot of comments about rushing the project. Project staff has been working on this with the applicant for over two years. This has been a long road, you know, and I think the applicant will agree when they come up that it hasn't always been we haven't always seen eye to eye. There have been a lot of discussions about how can we improve the project, how can we work together to meet the needs of the people who live who go to school there and people who also will live in this development if the project is approved and ultimately built. So it's something that we're always trying our best to make everything work.

But just to reiterate, you know, this is a situation where we've got a site that allows this use, and it's always allowed this use. It's always allowed multifamily on this site. And so we have to process it as such, you know, regardless of whether regardless of who the neighbors are. It's a site that allows for multifamily development. So unless there are any specific questions I mean, I know there was a lot about the CEQA. There will be, but yeah. Don't know if David, do you want to speak to the sequel at all on this?

Thank you, Nathan. David Mullenbrook, community development director. I will try and be as succinct as possible, but also there's a lot to cover. There were a lot of questions regarding the sequel analysis. There were a lot of comments made here this evening, as well as comments made in letters that were received prior to this meeting that had, you know, questions, concerns regarding the analysis going forward.

So let me start with sort of a big picture item. So premise of the environmental review for this project is relying upon the city's general plan EIR that was conducted and prepared in 2012. That general plan EIR takes a look at the entire breadth of development that was planned in the city of Rockland. The EIR looks at different scenarios including what would happen if all of that development were to happen at one time in an existing plus project scenario, and then what would happen with all that development in conjunction with all of the planned development in the region, including Placer County, Roseville, Lincoln, etcetera. That's called a cumulative analysis.

So there's a very in-depth study done with the city's general planning IR that looks at impacts from the immediate result of development as well as impacts from the cumulative level of development. The general plan EIR is what's called a program EIR. So there's areas of Rockland at the time that document was prepared that were already developed. There's areas of Rockland that were planned for some type of development. And there were areas of Rockland that were planned for no development.

Open space, parks, those types of things. All of that development is assumed and analyzed as part of the general plan EIR. And from that general plan EIR, there becomes policies that are developed to address future development. There becomes mitigation measures that are developed to address future development. And then on top of that, the city applies what are called uniformly applied development standards.

And I'll give an example of that because it's one of the questions that came up in the letters and in the conversation tonight. There's a question about a geotechnical study and should a geotechnical study be done before the CEQA environmental review is complete. We have a policy, a condition of approval, and a uniformly applied development policy that requires a geotechnical study to be prepared before construction starts. You have to know the geologic conditions of a site. It's prepared by a professional geotechnical engineer.

And that study provides information and recommendations as to the site specific geologic conditions of a particular site. At the general plan EIR level, we don't get into that level of analysis. We don't go into each and every possible site and examine site specific conditions. But the general plan EIR generates a roadmap for when you get a proposal for development on a site specific. These are the things you need to do in order to process that application.

So there's the program EIR level. There's a mitigation measures and policies from general planning EIR. Some of those mitigation measures and policies were applied to this project's fifteen thousand one eighty three consistency analysis. Those policies and mitigation measures prompted additional studies. We know when you have a project that's developing a vacant piece of property, there's likely going to be some biological resource issues and concerns.

The general plan EIR has policies and mitigation measures that require additional studies to be done, which was done for this project as part of that fifteen thousand one eighty three consistency analysis. There were a biological study done. There were mitigation measures that came out of that effort and that are now being applied to this project. Mitigation measures requiring preconstruction surveys for certain special status species that have the potential to occur on the site. Mitigation measures for potential wetlands that are on the project site because there's a, I'll call it a channel that feeds to the riparian area adjacent to the site that may be considered a jurisdictional wetland by the Corps of Engineers, by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, or possibly by the State Water Quality Control Board.

That delineation of whether that's a wetland or not is not required before the sequel document's done. We don't have a policy that requires it. The resource agencies don't require it. But if your project is potentially impacting that, then this mitigation measure will require before development happens for the study to be conducted. And if it's a wetland, then there's certain steps that have to be taken as well that are built into those mitigation measures, whether that's avoidance or mitigation because it's the wetland area or the riparian area is being impacted.

So there's some steps that are set up through the general plan through our policies, through our uniformly applied development policies that address development as it occurs, but after a project is approved. So there's a lot of things that happen before a project can actually begin construction. CEQA guidelines. So CEQA, California Environmental Quality Act, as most of the folks know here, is very specific with respect to the subject areas that are studied as part of an environmental review. There are 20 subject categories that are analyzed as part of a CEQA analysis.

Those include biological, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, cultural resources, noise, many of the things that were discussed here tonight. Those subject categories all have very specific questions beneath those subject categories that are asked to determine if a significant impact is occurring or not. Those are what we are called or what are called thresholds of significance. So is it exceeding a certain threshold to where it jumps the line from a less than significant impact to a significant impact. So the analysis under CEQA is done under those very specific categories, but it's also done under those very specific questions underneath each and every one of those categories.

So there are concerns that were expressed here regarding things that may happen because of the adjacency of the projects or because of the interconnectedness or relationship between the two project sites. Those may be things that are concerns that everyone has, but they're not necessarily considered to be environmental effects. Or if they're environmental effects, they may not rise to the level of exceeding that threshold and becoming a significant effect. And that's why these studies were done. Specifically, I can talk to the biological study.

So just touched on that a little bit. The mitigation measures from the bio study prompted the need and the identification of mitigation measures for future surveys, future analysis of whether wetlands are site. Air quality, stepping back a little bit, so the Placer County Air Pollution Control District, they regulate air quality in Placer County. Their job is to help the state and the federal government meet the air quality standards that are placed upon California, that are placed specifically on Placer County. The air district has created a CEQA handbook that our consultants and our staff will use to evaluate impacts of air quality based upon the Air District's specifically adopted thresholds of significance for Placid County.

The air quality study that was done for this project followed that CEQA handbook, followed that protocol, used those thresholds of significance, and came to the conclusion that the impacts were less than significant. There was a comment made, and I want to address it, and this is where my expertise is probably not at the level where I can confidently answer this question. But there was a comment and question made about the air quality analysis assumed the project site 400 feet away. So if if you look at the project site, it's close to the school. It's close to Wildcat Boulevard.

When you're doing an air quality analysis, I believe the standard protocol is you assume you're at the center of the site. You can't all the construction is not going to happen on one side of the site. It's not going to happen on the other side of the site. It's going to happen across the entire site. So that analysis assumes the center of the site which is about that 400 foot distance away from the edge of the property.

As to the specific equipment that's being used, again there are assumptions that are built into a model that the state of California has created an air quality model that everyone uses to analyze and predict air quality impacts. There's some assumptions that are preloaded into that air quality programming. I don't run the model. I don't know if the applicant's team is prepared to speak to the type of equipment or the list of equipment that's in that model. But that's my understanding with air quality studies as to that 400 foot distance and why it's not an analysis right on the edge of the project site but more in the center of the site because constructions are occurring across the entirety of the site.

Transportation. So again, just like the general plan EIR, our traffic studies take a look at several scenarios. One is what is the existing traffic today? The consultants will go out, take traffic counts. In this case, as Nate just explained, was a missed traffic count situation.

So the consultant took some numbers from what's called the ITE manual. The ITE manual is the Institute of Transportation Engineers manual. That is the bible that traffic study consultants use when trying to determine how much trips or how many trips a particular project is going to generate. So they use those ITE numbers to determine the number of trips that are generated by the project. And so there were some comments about, you know, based on the number of apartments and the population, we think the trips are much higher.

The ITE manual has an affordable housing category, and that was used for this traffic analysis. The counts that were missing when the school was not in session, as Nate just explained, ITE manual information was used to determine what those trips were. So traffic study looks at the existing condition. It puts those trips from the IT manual onto the existing conditions, gives you an existing plus project scenario. And we do another scenario what's called existing plus approved projects plus projects.

So it takes the existing conditions, the approved projects we know that are in the area that the city has approved that are not built yet. And we layer those trips onto the model assuming that those traffic, that traffic is being generated by those projects because they've been approved. And then we add the project trips on top of that. The last scenario is the cumulative analysis scenario. So the cumulative analysis scenario again assumes growth throughout the city Of Rockland and growth within the region based upon the general plans of the other jurisdictions in our area.

So again, Rockland, Loomis, Placer County, City Of Roseville, City Of Lincoln. It's all regional traffic that's built into that future year condition called the cumulative scenario. I think I've touched on most of the things that I wanted to touch on, but if there are any specific questions, let me know and I'll do my best to respond to those. Okay, thank you.

Okay, we'll start to the right.

Go ahead. I just got a quick clarification question on Okay, so you've covered most of it. What got brought up tonight a lot was site site specific impacts and child safety. And I'm not gonna get into post construction. I'm just gonna talk about construction. Does CEQA take into consideration or EIR take into consideration any of the impacts on children during construction, or are they a specially protected class in this particular instance? Or does the CEQUA study and EIR already take into account the vibration, the dust, the noise, even though it's under certain levels and acceptable for us, does the school's autonomy have any sort of jurisdictional protection?

So in some subject areas, yes. In some subject areas, no. Under air quality, one of the requirements to look at is are there sensitive receptors in the vicinity of a project, both from an operational standpoint and from a construction standpoint. In this case, the air quality analysis identified the school as a sensitive receptor. Other sensitive receptors include care homes, I'm trying to think of some others, but it's places where people are gathering for a long period of time.

But obviously when you have schools, you're dealing with children and, you know, a population is more sensitive to certain situations that maybe an adult population isn't. So the analysis for the air quality assumed or identified the school next door and the students as a sensitive receptor. It doesn't necessarily make the analysis go any different. It just recognizes that there's an adjacency. And if there's a sensitive receptor, what are the potential impacts to that sensitive receptor?

Again, using the air quality district's thresholds, the conclusion from both a construction standpoint and an operational standpoint were those impacts are less than significant.

One of the speakers brought up an issue or a concept of a choke point in Wildcat. This is first time I hear that. Is that something that you know about? Or

I'm sorry. What? One of

the speakers brought up an issue of a choke point in terms of the traffic on Wildcat. Have heard that before.

I I know there was if if you're referring to the conversation regarding, like, evacuation routes and So so there was a comment letter made with that same concern. So the city of Rockland participates in what's called the Placer County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. There was some legislation passed several years ago where, and I have it in front of me. I'm going to bore you with the government code section, 65,302.15. That section in part reads, is county or city that has adopted a local hazard mitigation plan, emergency operations plan, which the city has both of those, or other document that fulfills commensurate goals and objectives may use that information in the safety element to comply with this section and in that event shall summarize and incorporate into the safety element that other planner document.

Item B of that same discussion says after the initial revision of the safety element pursuant to subdivision A, the planning agency shall review and if necessary revise the safety element upon each revision of the housing element or local hazard mitigation plan, but not less than once every eight years to identify new information relating to flood and fire hazards and climate adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable to the city or county that was not available during the previous revision of the safety element. So as you may recall, the City of Rockland updated their housing element in 2021. We now have a 2021 through 2029 housing element. As part of that same effort, we updated our safety element in 2021. That safety element not only was updated, but it also incorporated by reference the 2021 local hazard mitigation plan that Placer County and all other, not all, but most other agencies in Placer County participate in.

Having a local hazard mitigation plan allows agencies, whether that's a city, county, fire district, school district, it allows agencies to be eligible for reimbursement from FEMA should there be some

type of

emergency. So most agencies will get on board and participate in the development of that local hazard mitigation plan. We are currently participating in the most recent update with Placer County for the 2026 local hazard mitigation plan. It is actually out for public review right now. And when that document is ready for adoption, we will incorporate it into the safety element of the general plan, just like the legislation requires us to do.

Okay. But is does that plan identify this

to

be this a particular route to be a challenge?

It doesn't it doesn't go into the detail. It it the the local hazard mitigation plan will identify particular threats that the city of Rockland is susceptible to. So wildfires, flooding, those types of things. Depending on where you are in Placer County, it could be an avalanche, could be landslide, those type of things depending on what your specific location parameters are. It will identify those threats. It will identify where there's weaknesses. And it will identify strategies to deal with potential emergencies should those crises

occur. But it doesn't go down to

a specific It doesn't level go it doesn't say Wildcat is a Okay. You know, a choke point for evacuation routes.

The the

city's roadways from both a fire perspective and a flooding perspective, the city's roadway infrastructure serve as evacuation routes.

Questions?

I do have questions but more design review questions if you all wanna stay on this topical side of things before we go there.

Yeah. Let's go

to resign.

And it's kinda related relative to the site. And, you know, we we have a school here. The school is there. We have to work around the school. Something is going to build on the site. Zoning allows for it. You know, take the affordable question off the table by the requirements that the state has put on us. It creates very challenging situation for us as a city. It creates a challenging situation actually for all jurisdictions. You know, we've heard some comments about, you know, where the blame's to be placed.

And as you all know and I can get on my soapbox on occasion, kind of a outspoken, voice about what the state has effectively done to all jurisdictions in California. If you look at the history of housing in California, the state for decades was opposed to housing unless it was in urban centers. And they tried to force everything into the centers. Well, that didn't work. It created a housing problem.

It created affordability problem. Now they have that pendulum has now swung really hard to the other side. And now they're basically telling us you have to allow for it. In most cases, you have no discretion. They've actually put in place statutory exemptions from CEQA that say it's those housing projects if they comply are not subject to CEQA. And they're absolute. So there's no discretion we have. So that's where I put the blame. You know, we have our own things that we've done over the course of time that have gotten us closer into this poor situation. But the affordable housing question, I tend to take off the table.

It's allowed here. We know it's allowed here. HCD is telling us it's allowed here. So we get back down into kinda how do we make hopefully a bad situation better. One of those I would like to look at is the grade separation between that existing use we have to deal with. And, you know, by design, they actually they've incorporated, you know, moved buildings back. Okay. There's some credit to be given there. We've got a parking lot there, a parking lot in a slope to a playground elevation. I don't know if we have a grading plan that we can show and if there's a finished playground elevation relative to what's going on from a construction perspective.

It is likely based upon what I'm looking at on the grading plan, and I'll look over here to my right. There's some work that's going to need to be done. And there's some grading and construction, at least a fence. And so that'll be important, I think, from a design review perspective to kind of get back into, hey, how's the site design? What are the elevations? Does it make sense? Or do we need to go back to the drawing board?

Yeah. I'm sorry. I don't have a grading plan for you. The project civil is here. Is that right? I think he could probably speak to this better than I could. So if you Bigger. Don't mind.

And we did see the renderings. And so, obviously, I always go to plans when I see renderings and wanna see, okay, what's going on on the site grading wise, you know, kind of proximity to grading activity at that property line with the school.

Just happen to have a grading plan. AJ Whitaker with Atlas Civil Design. Good evening. I'll bring it up for you. Do you have a particular area that you wanna look at?

Yeah. Really, the, you know, the closest use being the the playground, the proximity to, you know, what's gonna occur on the site next door. We saw the rendering. So interested in what that elevation difference is. I took a look

at that rendering as well when it was brought up. And it it is I wanna say that it appears accurate as far as what's being proposed. So the elevation at the bottom of that slope, this is Nathan, do we have a site plan that I can kind of reference? I can't project ourselves.

We do. Yeah. I'm actually I've got the grading plan. Can pull it up if you give me just a moment. Sure. If you want to vamp for just a second here.

These are

there's a lot of sheets of this thing, but I'm getting close. We

wanna look at sheet one of the preliminary engineering plan. Yeah. I'm

getting there.

You wanna just go ahead and bring that

up so they can see that I'm actually doing what I'm saying here? Here we go. Grading. Let me make that full sized here.

Right side bottom. Side bottom.

This guy?

Next plus. Down one more.

Well, that'll get closer, but how do I make this go away? Oh, go like that. Maybe? Yeah, there we go. Alright. And we want to go down to the school, right? So over here?

Playground preferably.

Me see if this Or school.

All of it. And I think yeah, there you go. So that's a good view right there. You can see the contours of that slope running parallel to each other. You can see down at the bottom of the slope where it approximately you can see the label of finished surface elevation at the lower left. It says 164.8 F S. That's an existing elevation along the property line. And then you can see spot elevations at the southwest corner of the parking lot and the north west corner of the parking lot. Those elevations at the southwest corner finished surface of a one seventy two point nine eight. We can call it one seventy three for our purposes.

So you're going from basically a one sixty five at the bottom of the slope up to a one seventy three. So about an eight foot vertical differentiation there. I've got the ALTA survey that we the original topographic survey for this. Those grades mimic pretty closely what's out there currently. That is an existing slope that runs through there.

So we're not proposing an extensive we're filling and raising the parking lot level to stick it higher above the school. We're simply trying to minimize earthworks and avoid rock cut, which is another issue that was brought up this evening. I will, on the topic of grading, just indicate that we've looked at the borings, and there has been a comprehensive design level geotechnical engineering study performed. We need that in order to do our preliminary design. It's extensive.

It's 91 pages. Nine borings were prepared throughout this site identifying rock layers at all of those. We are staying out of that rock layer with all of our mass grading operations. No D10 dozers required. The only areas where we'll be coming into contact with rock is within gravity utility trenches. We have to tie into an existing sewer at the northwest corner of the property. And there are alternatives to mass dozer ripping in order to cut the rock to allow for those utilities. I'm not sure if I've addressed your concerns regarding the grades on that slope.

Yeah. It's helpful. Is that slope itself being graded?

It will be touched. I like I said, we're matching elevations for the most part, but I there yeah. There will likely be some grading happening on that slope.

Yeah. It's you know, unfortunately, Rockland is known for its Merton formation geology. And so, yeah, I don't blame you for trying to minimize, you know, in in a lot of cases, you know, someone might try to step the site or to grade it down to get closer.

And it's

it's It's been a battle for all of Rockland's history. Sure.

And even with the geotechnical report does recommend some over x and recompactive isolated areas of expansive soil or clay are encountered. And even with those over x areas under the buildings, well above the solid rock layer.

That should be good. Thank you. I

still have some questions.

You're not excused.

I see fairly steep slopes, especially in that corner with the number four label is, numeral. So is that rock area to have a six to one slope in there?

Rock, the existing terrain drops as you go from east to west, especially along that west edge, you are getting down closer to the rock layer. I would imagine they hit it when they constructed the school. I haven't looked at that, but the rock I'm assuming and I don't we only have nine test pits largely coinciding with the buildings where over x is perhaps anticipated. So I don't have any direct test pits along the property line, the West property line. But, we are. I did look at where the sewer is connecting farther to the north, and I believe we will be impacting rock for the construction of that deep sewer, which is about 10 feet deep.

So that's really steep. Now, in terms of where the fence is going to be located, would that

It fits right along the property line.

So it would be at the bottom of the of the grid. Yeah.

I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you.

The fence location at the bottom of the grid?

Right now, it's close along the property line.

Along the property line. So it's not even if it's eight foot eight foot tall fence, it doesn't provide any shielding because you're talking about almost a 10 feet. The grade is going 10 feet. The fence is going to be only eight feet, so it's still going to stick out two feet.

The parking lot is no, it's an existing condition. The parking lot is not being placed on fill, and it's about an eight foot differential worst case between the school site currently and the proposed parking lot grade.

Either way, it's about the same.

But, yes, the the fence as it was depicted in the rendering that we saw tonight was at the bottom of that slope.

So that's that's a correct

That is the current. Okay. The proposed location.

Okay. Alright. So alright. Okay.

For now, that's it. Thank you.

It's one of those yeah. And partly why I asked the question is it's kind of this vicious cycle of, okay. Well, you can, you know, reduce that proximity of that parking lot to the school and the playground, but that requires more grading. And so so then you get more equipment and earthwork removal there. So, yeah, are you better off keeping that parking area closer to grade and then doing your best to landscape and fence? There's landscaping plan here for that. So, it's not an easy site for sure.

No. I mean, to me, the biggest issue is just this It's so close. Right? And and I and I look at this and I say, what, you know, what what have you done, you know, to talk to the school about it and mitigate some things? You know, I I would I'd love to to know more about that one because it looks like, a, they're gonna lose garden space, which obviously is not what they, you know, they don't own that piece of the property, but then just how close it is.

And and that fence line, I mean, it it's almost useless, you know, the eight foot fence. But but, again, I'd love to hear your you know, what what you've, you know, what you've done with the school. And, I mean, you're gonna have to be neighbors for, you know, like you said, you're you're not just building and and leaving, you're staying there. Right? I mean, you're you're this is obviously a a very sensitive sensitive things with both the neighbors, and then also with with the school, the school being the the closest there.

Well, couple of things, you know, as happens at these meetings, because we work, you know, as Nathan said, we've been working on this for almost over two years now. I thought it was just under, but you probably have a better sense of that than I do. You know, so we're looking at a lot when we do this. I mean, there's a lot that goes into this project and all the different things that have to be worked out across the review. And we were just sitting here, AJ had the idea that we could move.

The way that the fence is right now is it sits on the property line because, right, we're going to I mean, there is a kind of natural wall there already you you could have a kid that runs up the eight feet up the hill, right? We don't want to have that problem happening. So that's there as like a boundary fence. We could consider putting the fence more along kind of like tracking where the parking lot is, which would help with that view, because that eight feet would be up at that higher elevation. I don't see any reason right now why we couldn't do that.

I do think we need to go back to the drawing board, but that's something that we are open to discussing. As for the This has been like a complex conversation because we have the seller of the property, which is the church, and there's a long history of agreements that have been made between the church and the school, some of which have been memorialized into legal documents and some of which were not. And it has taken quite a bit of time to kind of sort through which is which. And I would say that it's been a challenge, and I, like many of the people who've come up and spoken, I'm a parent, I have four kids, so I really do understand as a parent where the concerns come from. And I think not a that lot of people know very much about construction.

I certainly didn't before I started doing this work. And there's some things that get kind of like conflated into this beginning part of where we're reviewing that are actually pieces that we can't talk about until we get to them, construction being one, operations being another. And so if we're just kind of separating out the pieces that we can actually get to now, I think the fence would be a good idea for us to look at.

Or a wall.

What's that?

Or a wall.

Or a wall. We know it's interesting because that was one of the points that was made in one of the communications with Mr. Boothby about not wanting to look at a wall like that because it kind of looks like a prison. You know, it's like cement CMU blocks. And that's when we came up with the idea for the fence.

So it's nicer looking, certainly, from my view, but we were just kind of falling there late. And the garden, it is part of the church's property, and it is what we have a contract to purchase. And there isn't an active lease on it right now, so part of what was priced in the land. So there's not a whole lot that, you know, like if we're looking at this as a developer who's going to spend money on the land and then we have to develop it with the use, There wasn't a whole lot we could do. You know, we looked at it.

And our most recent kind of conversation has been largely with the church in working with the school is can we help facilitate a relocation of the garden to the park down just below, which it seems like there's two pretty good locations for that in terms of topography where that could happen. And we're happy to help facilitate that, I mean, in the sense that, you know, to support the effort.

And neighbors. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? No? Okay. Deliberations, discussions? You want to start?

Oh, sure.

I'm good. Thanks.

Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. So we're bringing it back up here.

We're bringing it back up Okay. Yes,

please. Wow. Feel all day long on this. So I won't even get into the affordable housing component. I think Rockland's done a pretty good job. We've got a big number in front of us. I think we all know that. I've seen you guys have all been at meetings maybe a couple of times. You hear about affordable housing. We know what the state's doing in terms of tying our hands with that.

And I think we've done a

good job in Rockland with it, and there's a need for it. And I know we're addressing that. I haven't heard a single person here tonight talk about or be anti affordable housing. And I think we all agree that if I were a betting man, I would say that this project probably gets billed as an affordable housing project on this site. That's if I were betting. But I think what I'm hearing, we see 150, 200 people here maybe tonight, 100, I don't know what it is, An active community that came in, and all sides gave great talks tonight. I thought this was a well put together meeting. I thought both sides came together and it was this is very productive. And so I kinda look at this and say we have a lot of questions. There's a couple design review questions on the fence and certain things.

I know from an affordable housing standpoint, a state standpoint, our hands are tied from a discretionary perspective. But my position here to kinda shortcut it would be this. And again, because of the way the state of California has mandated these particular policies, this project is it's zoned for this piece of property. It will get built on this piece of property. The real question becomes how and with what kind of cooperation between the entities involved. And so one of the things that stuck out to me tonight, it's funny, environmental impact and CEQUA and all that, I've sat up here for a long time. No matter what we do, CEQUA always got has it got it covered. Oh, CEQUA covers this. CEQUA did this. They did a study on this.

They've taken that into consideration. It's always covered. No matter what we do, CEQUA always covers it. And you always start to scratch your head. At what point in time do you get to question CEQA or the environmental impact reports? And usually we don't. Too much. I am concerned about the safety of the kids though, and that's why I asked the question, are they specially protected? Because that was a common theme tonight amongst the people, certainly the the the school and the parents about the potential impact on the kids. And so my position would be this.

Whether we're not here to say you support or don't support the project. We're we're talking about design review tonight. I would like to see my perspective, a more in-depth conversation between the parties on certain mitigation factors as as it relates to the kids, as it relates to potential. You talked about not having to use d tens potentially for for digging, but there are alternatives in place in case something happens and you do have in fact, have to go deeper and dig some rock out to to be just pretty generic on it. We got into a situation in Downtown Rock when they were using dynamite.

So, I mean, I dug a pool and it was there's rock in Rockland. So what happens when we get to a situation and we don't wanna impact the kids? Like I said, guys, gang, this is gonna get built likely. So how do we do it in the best possible way? So I would just like to see more communication between the parties. I'd I would maybe like to see a better are we gonna go back with recommendations on do the fence, do this? Is that how we're gonna do this tonight? Are we gonna kinda over I'd like to see more focus on what what is the impact on the school? Is is there an impact on the kids from a from a a short term and long term term perspective when the construction takes place? I'm not that concerned post construction, but I do have a concern as it relates to construction.

So as I sit here today, from a design review perspective, yeah, I think there's a couple things we probably need to to tweak to make it a more compatible side by side and side by side situation. But really, how do we address the concerns of of there's 100 people in the room, 150 people that have valid concerns about what this could do to the kids at the school from both a health and learning perspective. I don't know if that falls in the EIR world or the SQL world or what kind of latitude it gives us. I don't really care. I I I'm I'm at this point would say, my position, I would like to see more conversation as it relates to safety with the kids, and I'll defer to my fellow commissioners on what we wanna do from design review perspective because the design of the project itself is fine.

I mean, there's some there's some things we gotta do, obviously, if it's gonna get built. But I think more specifically, how do we address the issue as it relate and maybe there isn't an issue with the kids. Maybe the kids are gonna

be fine.

I don't know. But I think it's worth looking at. And so my that's my position. And then I'll defer a little bit on the on the the environmental or design review. And Thank you.

You're welcome. Mister Cortez.

Okay. Yeah. I do agree with a a lot of the comments from fellow commissioner. Couple of things during construction. Let's talk about the construction. It's not permanent. It's the noisy part, which will be the grading, is not gonna be eighteen months. It's gonna be a lot shorter than that. The the civil engineer designer may say may you anticipate that to be?

We're bringing it back

Walking all the way up here to tell you I don't know. Mean, it's it's means and methods, and

it does

it does really depend on what they encounter from a rock standpoint. The geotechnical report does identify the potential for sizable boulders, which may require processing. I would suspect, however, in the spirit of cooperation with the school and being sensitive to that use, that they would put any kind of processing, you know, screening of materials, things of that nature along the road frontage where it's not going to have the impact to the neighbors. That would be my suspicion. But as far as actual grading duration, you know, maybe three weeks, four weeks. I don't Right.

But it's not going to be eighteen months.

It's not going to be eighteen months.

That's pretty much it. Yeah, the construction thanks. Thank you. Didn't mean to put you in the spot here, but so, yes, the noisier part is going to be less than eighteen months. So communication as to when that happens, how that happens or methodology to reduce dust, there are methods to do that.

Things of that nature, I think that communication should be between the developer and the school for the benefit of the kids. In regards to long term or the operations the facility, there's one comment that stuck with me in regards to, okay, what happens if the tenants start smoking weed in the close to the school? Well, I mean, there's a gentleman. I think you are the one who works in the in the school with schools or the doctor yeah. No.

No. I'm I'm just gonna put you on the spot. But I'm sure that there are requirements in terms of space between schools and drug use and all of that. So all those things I think it has to be addressed in terms of long term operations of the facility. And that has to be an agreement. And I don't know if maybe a legal, requirement to do that. I don't know. But, something that needs to be brought up in terms in their communications. And I don't know perhaps, conditions of approval for if that is a legal issue. I don't know.

That's something that might be, need a little bit more research, and we can put that as a as a suggestion for for city council. So it's it's a matter of com living together because it's not gonna it's the project's gonna happen because the land is is there. It's a it's zoned for that. The the laws in the state mandates that that if it's available, it should be done. So it's a matter of how we live together and to minimize the the impact between the two the two the two parties. So that's pretty much it. Thank you.

Commissioner McKenzie? Okay. Well, you heard

a little bit

of my soapbox, so I don't have to go back there, fortunately. But first of all, I wanted to thank you all for coming out this evening, your thoughtful, respectful, presentations and dialogue with us. That doesn't happen everywhere else. I think it's part of what makes Rocklin Rocklin, and we can all have a civil conversation. Not all meetings go this well with this one. It's just for the sensitivity of this project, thank you all. You know, we all are parents. We live in Rocklin. We dedicate our time here, and, you know, we each have an aspect of our daily life that we can apply to this project and try to help all these projects be better projects. And I think most do

to then

And that. You know, the state law requirements, the sequel requirements. And, you know, to answer, there's a couple of comments about being in a hurry. I don't think we have to be in a hurry with this one unless I'm missing something on the affordable housing front. I know there are timelines on process and approval of applications. But on my for the purpose of this discussion, I'm not asking the question. I'm gonna assume we're not in a hurry. You know, I would prefer to delay this and give the parties an opportunity now that everything's on the table to go back and much like fellow commissioners, kids are the concern here. The impacts of the school. The school's there.

We gotta deal with it. Are there ways to mitigate some of those concerns? We know there's access easements and things that we don't get to deal with here because they're private agreements, legal agreements. And so they they have to work through those. Hopefully, as part of that that conversation, they can continue to work through those.

Your proximity to kids in the school, you know, I look at that and go, okay. Are there periods of time and it's really hard to con you know, you you got construction windows in the wet season you can't operate in, you got construction windows in the summertime when it's too hot and windy to operate. So there are all these constraints from a construction perspective to deal with. But are there periods of time when we can focus those construction efforts, these mutual agreement amongst you all, the parties, to go, hey, during this time frame, this works best because we're out of school on Easter break, spring break. Are we out of school during Christmas breaks?

Are there periods of time that we can all agree, hey, this would be if this project goes forward, gets approved in some form or fashion or another, are those the simple things that we can encourage you all to kinda bring back to the table and you might not all agree. And one side might say, hey, we like our conditions. The other side might have their own conditions they wanna go with, but that's something we could probably help with, but it takes that level of, you know, discussion, dialogue to get there. We can make a recommendation to the city council. I think in this case, I think the you know, that recommendation would be best served by some of that cooperation we can get at this level and not just pass the city council on that, then have the city council ask you all to do the same thing if we can accomplish it here.

That would kinda be my druthers. So Yeah.

Thank you. I I tend to agree with you there. So where to where to begin? I I think we've all vetted out what, you know, the the major concerns here. I don't think we're going to be able to to come to an agreement or anything on that in terms of of the legalities of this. I think the legalities are on the side of the project, that the studies have been done. You know, there's not I don't and staff first of all, I wanna I wanna thank staff for all your hard work on this and and for the presentation and for coming prepared to explain so many things. So thank you to staff. Thank you to the project builders here. I know you came here.

We need affordable housing. Thank you for making the effort in such a difficult situation to do that. And and thank you everyone here for coming. You know? I get it. It's it's this is a tough this is a tough thing. I I would like to see this is where, you know, I we we talked a lot. We're all parents here apparently. I have six children, not to, you know, outdo anyone here, but, but I'm gonna put on my dad hat for just a second and say that, you know, I think we we need to step back. I don't think we need to rush this.

I don't think that I'm not in any hurry. That's for sure. I I don't think you should be either. I think what the best thing to do would be to is to give it time to to put this off if we can and and give give you an opportunity to talk to each other and and come up with something that everyone can live with and and be happy with and and agree with and work on little little things. Yes, Nathan. Were you in a hurry?

I'm sorry. If if I may, before recommendations Please do, yeah. Again. So a couple of things. The applicant team came in with me in my ear that they'd be willing to talk about the construction management plan, which may give us some information. The second thing is I know from the applicant that they are on a somewhat aggressive schedule due to tax credits and when they can apply for those, And I would I would like for them to come up and and speak to that as well.

I would like to know that too in terms of that. Because that I mean, that's an that's an issue. Right? Yeah. Okay. Please. Did you have a question real quick?

No. I just know we've heard a lot, but it is important on the tax credit thing to understand this particular component because the tax credit usage is really important to get affordable built. So go ahead and give us kind of a rundown on how that works and what your time frame is because ultimately from what you're hearing up here, we're moving down the path of likely this thing happening, but they want to see more communication between the groups. But give them an idea of what the tax credit timeline does to your particular project.

Sure. There's actually two things that affect our timeline. One is we're under contract to purchase the land with the church, so we have a contractual obligation to meet timelines in that, and we've already, had to extend on a number of occasions.

To interrupt, I'm assuming that contract, though, includes some city protections on permitting and things of that nature. Correct? You're you're not in a contract situation where the city you're gonna get blown out. You've probably got contractual extensions based on city approvals would be my understanding, probably.

In our land purchase contract, there that's the contract I'm talking about. It's totally separate from city approvals. We don't they're not related.

They're not related at all? You have no no contingencies on city approval on your on your purchase contract?

We do. Okay. And we've been using them. Okay. Because this has been extended on a number of occasions. So it did take some time to get here. This was not the original timeline. Then as far as tax credits go, this is our plan for this is to to the major source of subsidy to be able to build this project are our tax credits. And there are certain times in the year where the state makes application for those tax credits available. We don't have any control over those timelines.

This year, it happened to be that there are three chances to go for 4% tax credits, And those are set. When we overlay those with the obligations we have in our land contracts, the next round that we can apply for, and really the only one we'll have time for, will be May. So the plan for this was to actually go back to go in in February, but we didn't make that timeline. And I want to be clear that we've had extensive conversations with the school, and I'm being very cautious to open that up in this arena because it isn't really what's up for conversation review here. There have been, I would say, more less productive conversations than there have been productive ones.

And part of it, I think, generally, it's just like you said, it's tough. It's a really tough site. It's a tough configuration. There's a history that existed before we came into the picture that had to be worked through, through conversations. And there's a lot of very passionate stakeholders for understandable reasons.

But there's also a lot of, I think, misinformation and misunderstanding of the project as a whole, and it's been very challenging to figure out how to address all of the questions that people have because there's not a great venue for it. We did have a community meeting. We tried to provide some of that information, and I think we did make some progress there. I think there were questions, like larger theme questions about the design that got answered. And, you know, in the truth of it, we're really constrained as the builders.

We've got an immense amount of city standards we have to meet. There are state standards and building code. Regulations in the tax credit system, so if we want to apply for a project, we have to meet scoring regulations there too. So just layers and layers of things that go into this type of project, and it leaves a lot less flexibility than I think most people realize.

So I guess the question on that one is, you're in a hurry.

We are in a hurry.

Yes, indeed. I mean, May is Soon. Really, really soon. And in fact, I mean, is we're making recommendations to the council, Although, I think they would appreciate it if we gave them a you know, not just punted to them or lateral to them, actually gave them some recommendations. So we need to do that tonight. When does the council when when would the council meet on this?

May 12.

Three weeks from tonight is the plan.

So in May? Yes. So is that going be too late already?

No. And you stepped in and said this before I had the opportunity to, but staff has been, I mean, very thorough and rigorous, I will say, and we have not always seen eye to eye, but we've worked through a lot, and he and I have worked together to try to get these meetings in a way that we can still have an opportunity to apply for those tax credits.

Okay. I mean, is it a possibility to have a, I don't know, an information, let's lay things out on the table, other than in the Planning Commission meeting where we can say, stipulate, hey, we recommend this, but we require this type of town hall meeting where you get together and talk about this before city council?

Well, if I may, as Lauren pointed out, there was a meeting with the neighbors on this. If the Planning Commission has any

Hold on, hold on, guys. Public comment is over. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, you put your hand down.

That's correct, right?

Correct.

You may

not have known about it, but that's that's the way it was.

Where was it going on this? If there are any specific recommendations from the planning commission, like fencing, you know, identifying, possibly bringing it up to the top of the bank and working with their civil engineer to figure it out whether or not that could be done prior to the city council meeting. Certainly, that's doable. We can look into that. We would probably we would notice the project as is, but prior to the meeting, could probably prepare some kind of sheet that says that we're looking at this and hopefully we can make it work. If there's any specific conditions that the Planning Commission would like to add to this project, I've got my pen right here, I'm ready to add them. Any modifications to conditions of approval, we can do that. But really, we're seeking direction.

Coming

back without any specific direction, I'm not sure it would really get us any farther than we are today.

Thoughts? Well, yeah, thoughts on this. And keep in mind, you do have the lever of the state. So at the end of the day, as we're sitting up here, we're being relatively candid on the project's gonna move forward at some point in time. I'm in your world, I understand time kills all deals. Nobody wants more time put on this. But we have a packed house of people who have valid and legitimate concerns. Whether you guys have communicated in the past or not, this is an opportunity. And I understand, Nathan, we gotta give you some sort of recommendation or direction. But what you're hearing from us is that we'd like to see if there's an opportunity for you guys to get back with parties involved and mitigate some of the questions and issues that they have.

If that's not going to be a viable response from us tonight, then I guess we can give our recommendations or non recommendations and let it go up to city council. But what I'm hearing is there's some opportunity to have discussion with the parties, and you've said you've had discussion with the parties, correct? And you're running up against a time frame. It's that's a

I don't think those two are well, those are not related, is what I would say. I think we've had two years of conversations, and that doesn't affect I mean, the timelines are not

Please. Thank you. Continue. Don't put your hands up. I can't open up public comment at this time. Thank you.

So, I mean, the best that I think we're in a position to do would be to commit to continue to work through what the private really what most of this kind of stems from outside of the lease for the garden is this easement rights agreement that outlines a whole set of easements between the church and the school. And you have the legal memo that we submitted, which was, I would say like that was the if nothing else happens, this is what the facts would say about what we're doing. I mean, I'll say on the record, we have no intention of trying to use the school parking. That's not in our plan. We don't need that for our operations.

It is legally what runs with the land, so we do inherit the opportunity, if that's not changed, to park there, and they also have the opportunity to then park on our project. We have no reason operationally to do that. We don't want it. We've never asked for it. Absent of a new agreement, though, that's what it would be.

We have drafts of new easement agreements that we could enter into with the school that make it more clear as a new separate project from the church what our use of the land would be in the easements, including clarifying the new emergency vehicle access because it is different now. It's not a hammerhead, it's a loop. And that needs to have an easement for them to use it for their access as opposed to just first responders. So like if there's an emergency in the school and everybody needs to get out with an emergency vehicle access easement, they can come through the gate, exit out of not one, but two different or three different driveways. So there's all those things that we have prepared.

It's more than I was necessarily planning to do here in this meeting, but just wanted to kind of share that there's been a lot of effort and work into considering how to do this, despite it being challenging. On the construction side, because you mentioned this, one of the processes that we have to go through before we can get building permits is to submit a construction management plan, which I'm sure you know of. And that will detail all of the hours of operations, what phases will be done when. I had a great set of one on one conversations following our community meetings with different stakeholders at the school about both the construction phase and the operations phase in terms of how that actually looks. That's a different team that will come in that I will work with to kind of represent the relationship we have with the neighbors, putting together the plan about timing and letting everybody know.

Hopefully it works out that it's all over summer break, all the loud noise so that nobody has to deal with that. That might be a possibility. Then in terms of operations, I mean, is going to be a professionally managed property. There's going to be somebody on-site who lives there that's there. Their sole job will be to manage all of the dealings. And then there's places to escalate and go up from there. So there's a lot of different things that we can do to help with alleviate the concerns. We can't address them all right now. There's it's just there's no way.

There's not. Right. Okay. Any other questions for

Yeah. I do actually. A on a lighter note, design review related.

Do you

really need the dog park? I mean Oh. I have a dog. Right? I don't take my dog to a dog park. And when I look at land plans with dog parks, they're just the space that okay. If you if your goal is to get more parking out of it, dog park's a good place to put your parking lots. It's relatively flat. It's got it's in proximity to places that have a need for parking. It's one of those just kinda lost leaders in these projects that I always have to question. I forgot to ask about earlier.

I know. I hate that label too

because I feel like it's so misleading. I live near a dog park that's a proper park, you know, where you can like they can run 200 yards. This is not that. This is more like a dog relief area, right? These are going to be places where the state limits we can't restrict tenancy anymore to people who don't have pets. So we have to have a place for them to relieve themselves. There's no otherwise, they're going into the drainage area or they're going down the hill or whatever they're doing. It's not a big enough area to be a playground. Yeah.

Okay. Any more questions for her? Any questions now?

I mean, I could talk all up forever,

but Right.

I get sick of listening to myself.

Yeah. You know, really quick. You know, it's hard for us as commissioners, you know, to hear projects and to you know, we do our best not to second guess the two years worth of work that went into it and question all the, you know, hey, why did you make this decision? Why not that decision? Why not a retaining wall?

Why not a solid block wall? So thank you staff for helping us through this and thank thank you for your patience because it it it it's difficult. So, you know, relative to the construction management plan, you know, if for lack of a if there's I wanna say unwillingness. If we just can't get there from a two week time frame, and if, you know, just that's not gonna be productive potentially. I mean, I have a short list of things that, you know, I would like to see when they come forward with the recommendation of the city council of things that, you know, a construction management plan.

Okay. Well, it's perfectly reasonable in our recommendations to say, we recommend that you come forward with a well discussed thoughtful construction plan that focuses construction around times when there's not a full student population there. You might have summer school going on. You might have, you know, reduced student populations. If that's something they normally come later. Is that something we can pull forward and, you know, it's probably more of a question of staff to go, hey, we recommend you write that construction plan, meet with the school, have that developed, bring it to city council to help inform their recommendation as a thought.

Just real quick. Can we let her sit? Yes. You can sit. Thank you.

So I I think that's in the essence and spirit of moving things forward. I I do just want to bring up though, because you guys got two and a half minutes to talk and it doesn't seem like it's enough, right? When you're hearing about this. It's you're sitting there and all of your ago, affordable housing isn't going happen there. And originally it was you didn't want that to happen there. So for me to sit up here, and I know you guys put a lot of time and effort into this, it just seems like you guys have to sit on your hands a little bit. I'm speaking like I'm one of them, but I get to talk, so I'm just going to say it. And you to swallow the pill of affordable housing in that particular unit that's right there. Because we all agree in Rockland affordable housing is necessary. We all agree.

So I just I want to go recommendations and I agree with that, but I still am getting to the point of, you know, doesn't there's no point in sitting down and talking a couple, you know, to try to figure out if the parties can have a there's slope issues, there's fencing issues, there's parking issues. No, we don't have a contract to use the parking lot, but we never do that. Things come on. In the world of this world, things happen. So is there any chance to talk and and and and get through some of this stuff? Or is it just we give recommendation and we move forward and let you guys go to city council and we tried? I mean, I I don't know. I mean, I'm just I'm just asking. So that's my position, and I and I'm happy to go with recommendations. And I will stop talking. I'm done.

Same thing. I will just go over recommendations, and it seems like they have enough time to talk. In in two years, they have not reached an agreement that everybody's happy or can live with, yeah, another two weeks is not going to.

Yeah. Probably not. Right? So yeah. I'm sorry to cut everyone off here. You know, I mean, no. I'm not gonna answer. We're we've closed public comment. We're not gonna open back up public comment. So, yes, it is. There's no rebuttal. What's the no. We can't. Right?

No.

Yeah. So we cannot. I'm sorry. So, I mean, let's let's open it up for for recommendations. I I I'm I've you know, I'm not sure what to what to send to

Commissioner McKenzie, do you wanna go through the recommendations on from a design review component, and then we can decide.

Just going back through my notes. I'm trying to figure out if yeah.

Yeah. Okay.

Unfortunately, it's a really short list, and I feel like there's should be more there that you guy you guys might pick up on. Yeah. The irony. Right.

That's what it is.

Oh, yeah. Hang on a second.

I mean and and I'll just speak while you're looking at that. Candidly, you know, like, I I we all we want affordable housing. We need affordable housing whether we want it or not. We need affordable housing. And, you