CORRESPONDENCES FROM THE PUBLIC
City Council Regular Meeting
June 24, 2025
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM PH9:
Solid Waste Rate Increase
City Council of Rocklin
3970 Rocklin Road
Rocklin, CA. 95677
Attn: Jill Gayaldo, David Bass, Ken Broadway, Bill Halldin, Greg Janda To Whom It May Concern,
S.M. Gross
Rocklin, CA. 95765
June 5, 2025
This letter is in regards to the proposed fee increases for the Recology Garbage services.
I believe the entire contract with Recology should be reviewed regarding Rocklin. Recology does not provide the 30 gallon containers. It isn't in the contract. However, surrounding cities have that opportunity.
Is it correct that when surrendering the 90 gal gray waste, the gray and green are a "pair'' and they have to be surrendered together? Where is the logic while we are eligible to have up to three {3) Green waste.
Please review the entire contract before approving this fee increase, making the appropriate changes to benefit the customer.
Rd ., ,/7 egar s,( 1 • /
---d-"7 r�S
Sue Gross
Cc: Tony Perez, Recology General Manager
To: Rocklin City Council
Subject: Unfair Trash Collection Rates by Recology Auburn Placer Dear Members of the Rocklin City Council,
I am writing to formally express concern regarding the significantly high trash collection rates charged by Recology Auburn Placer. We own and manage The Brighton Apartments at 6050 Placer West Drive Rocklin, CA 95677 Parcel #016-410-042-000. Based on a recent analysis of service providers in the greater Sacramento area, Recology's cost of $50.28 per unit stands out as disproportionately high . In contrast, other companies serving similar properties charge between $13 and $24 per unit.
This pricing disparity places an undue financial burden on Rocklin residents and property owners. We urge the City Council to investigate this issue and explore options for ensuring more equitable and competitive waste collection services within our community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Mark Edwards
Manager, BMRCK LP
Owner of The Brighton Apartments at 6050 Placer West Dr, Rocklin, CA 95677 DISCUSSION ITEM D3
1536 Eureka Road o: 916 677 5717
Roseville, CA 95661 northstatebia.org
June 20, 2025
Jeff Short
Government and Public Affairs Director
North State Building Industry Association
1533 Eureka Road
Roseville, CA 95661
Mayor Gayaldo and Rocklin City Council.
3970 Rocklin Road
Rocklin, CA 95677
RE: Consider Providing Direction to Staff Regarding an Interim Inclusionary Housing Policy and a Corresponding Draft Ordinance and In-Lieu Fee Proposal- Item D3 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Rocklin City Council, On behalf of the North State Building Industry Association (BIA) and our more than 530 member homebuilders, residential developers, and affiliated companies, I am writing to express our deep disappointment and frustration that an interim Inclusionary Housing Ordinance discussion has been placed on the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting. This placement occurred without any outreach by the Councilmember who requested this item be placed on the agenda to our organization or any BIA member doing business in Rocklin.
While BIA is well aware of the often unfair pressure the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has placed on Rocklin, contemplating any housing policy without fully considering its ramifications will result in unintended consequences impeding the city’s housing goals. This hastily proposed process is especially concerning given that the city already has a consultant working on an Affordable Housing Study. BIA and city staff have already engaged in productive conversations regarding potential solutions based on the study’s outcome.
Rocklin, like many jurisdictions in our region, is a victim of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. RHNA was designed to address an acute problem but has been applied broadly and unfairly by a legislature that does not fully understand the impact of its decisions. It would be negligent for the City Council to repeat the mistakes of the State Legislature by acting similarly, without the benefit of the data it has commissioned or consulting the industry expected to comply with and implement this policy.
We have strong objections to an inclusionary policy in any case. Requiring the homebuilding industry to bear the full weight of solving the complex societal issue of housing affordability is inequitable and unworkable. While we are eager to be part of the solution, the residential construction industry cannot solve the affordable housing crisis alone. We welcome discussions involving solutions that also include the public sector and other sectors of the economy, but any policy that forces some Rocklin residents to pay artificially inflated prices for their homes so that others can pay less is fundamentally discriminatory, and we oppose it vociferously.
BIA also knows this approach is simply ineffective. The City of Sacramento’s own feasibility analysis, prepared by Keyser Marston, concluded that inclusionary housing requirements may only be feasible under strong market conditions and even then, only when applied at the master plan level, not project by project.
This is how the City of Roseville has successfully implemented its affordable housing strategy for decades. Roseville requires each Specific Plan, not housing project, to include 10% affordable units. This allows individual market-rate single-family homebuilders to execute on their core business without affordable housing requirements, while allowing affordable rental housing builders (who operate in a completely different economic and regulatory space) to build those units when gap financing becomes available. In our region, that financing typically ranges from $50,000 to $60,000 per unit.
A similar study, commissioned by El Dorado County and conducted by BAE Urban Economics, found that even under favorable market conditions, a 10% inclusionary policy would only be viable if limited to moderate-income units, tied to meaningful incentives, and designed to provide flexibility. The study specifically recommended a menu of options to meet the requirement, such as land dedication, in-lieu fees, or building units off-site to provide developers with the flexibility necessary to make projects pencil.
Additionally, the BIA, in collaboration with the California Homebuilding Foundation, commissioned a study by the Fermanian Business & Economic Institute to analyze the effects of potential inclusionary housing mandates in Sacramento, West Sacramento, and Sacramento County. The study clearly showed that instead of increasing the supply of affordable housing, these mandates actually reduced the overall number of homes built, further exacerbating the region’s affordability crisis.
In addition to those three studies, I’ve also attached an Affordable Housing Policy Update we recently submitted to the Placer County Board of Supervisors. That document highlights how managing an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is not only costly and time-consuming for staff but also less productive than policies designed to facilitate affordable housing development. The BIA supports reasonable in-lieu fee programs that help generate a portion of the gap financing needed by affordable builders. We also support flexible and creative approaches that offer a broad menu of options, which may include building units, but also more feasible options such as donating land, producing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), or other project-based solutions.
While I appreciate that the agenda item is already contemplating an in-lieu fee option, my organization objects to this premature discussion, as we have not been able to review the conclusions of the City’s yet-to-be-completed study. It is also unclear if this type of fee could even be legally levied without a study justifying the fee level.
Finally, it should be noted that Rocklin is doing an exceptional job of meeting your RHNA goals.
Your recent update stated that 178 low-income units and 83 very low-income units were produced in 2024, along with many ADUs and moderate- to above-moderate units. These figures are tremendous, far exceeding those of many other jurisdictions across the state. This demonstrates that the core concern in Rocklin is not anti-housing polices or staff but, rather, in the eyes of HCD, a lack of land appropriately zoned for high-density housing: a challenge given that the city is landlocked, and recent projects have developed that did not include the specific types of units called for by the RHNA program. While an affordable housing ordinance may be needed, an inclusionary program will not address those concerns. The real solution to the immediate problem is zoning for housing in additional places within the city, coupled with tools to provide the gap financing that affordable housing developers need to make their projects pencil—potentially even on parcels currently not in your RHNA inventory.
In the strongest terms, we urge the City Council to delay any discussion of an interim ordinance until the affordable housing study is complete and thoroughly analyzed. Doing so would reflect a commitment to sound policymaking, transparency, and meaningful collaboration with those most affected by this decision.
Thank you for your time and attention. We hope that our historically open lines of communication with the Council remain intact, and we look forward to working with you to craft practical, equitable, and data-driven housing solutions for the Rocklin community.
Sincerely,
Jeff Short
Government and Public Affairs Director
North State Building Industry Association