Agenda packet — Rocklin City Council, August 26, 2025 (part 4 of 5)

business/professional office and retail commercial development.”3 The general plan references broad uses such as professional office, “compatible commercial,” quasi- public, and light industrial. It does not reference residential uses, but it provides that, “[t]he use of innovative development and planning techniques to promote flexibility in land use is encouraged.”

Through communication with City staff, HCD understands that the zoning for the site is also called Business Professional/Commercial/Light Industrial (BP/Comm/LI), which is a Planned Development (PD) zoning district within the Stanford Ranch GDP. The Stanford Ranch GDP, originally adopted in the mid-1980s, was amended by Ordinance No. 752 in 1997. This ordinance established the BP/Comm/LI Planned Development zoning that would implement the general plan by establishing the specific land uses and development standards that are consistent with the objective of the BP/Comm/LI designation noted above.4 In relevant part, the list of land uses in the GDP indicates that “multi-family (integrated with commercial)” is a conditionally permitted use.5

Unfortunately, neither the Stanford Ranch GDP nor the associated PD zoning elaborate on the meaning of “integrated with,” and this ambiguity is the basis for the disagreement between the applicant and the City regarding what is required for consistency. The HAA is instructive about how local governments must treat these types of ambiguities, as discussed below.

Objective Standards and the HAA

The HAA provides that a “housing development project,” that meets all objective standards (except those lawfully modified via State Density Bonus Law6 concessions and waivers) may only be denied or approved at a lower density if the City makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence on the record, that (1) a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety would result and (2) mitigation of the adverse impact is not possible.7

The HAA defines “objective” as: “Until January 1, 2030, “objective” means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.”8

3 City of Rocklin General Plan, Table 4-2 (page 4A-12): Rocklin General Plan Land Use Element 4 Stanford Ranch General Development Plan (page 78 of the PDF): Stanford Ranch General Development Plan
5 Stanford Ranch General Development Plan (page 81 of the PDF): Stanford Ranch General Development Plan
6 Gov. Code, § 65915.
7 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j). Note that the HAA includes additional protections for affordable housing developments, however, those are not addressed in this letter. 8 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(9).
447
David Mohlenbrok, Community Development Director

Page 3 ends

The term “integrated with” does not meet this definition of objective, as its meaning can be reasonably interpreted in different ways. The City can only require the applicant to comply with the objective components of the land use standard: “multifamily” and “commercial.” The City may also refer to prior HCD technical assistance that elaborates on this topic of objective and non-objective (i.e., subjective) standards. 9 As a result, the City cannot require the applicant to increase the quantity of commercial use in the project to meet a subjective requirement that multifamily is “integrated with” commercial. The City similarly cannot require that the applicant propose a general plan amendment – entailing a discretionary, legislative decision – to resolve this issue on the basis that the project does not comply with this subjective standard.

Conclusion
HCD recognizes that the general plan designation for the site envisions commercial and light industrial uses and was adopted decades ago. Current state housing laws impose limitations to the implementation of standards or policies that are not objective. Given the limited amount of commercial in the applicant’s proposal, even absent a definition of “integrated with,” the City’s hesitancy is understandable. Even so, as the City is aware, the state’s housing laws have been continually strengthened to address the dire need for affordable housing across all income levels throughout the state. To that end, the intent of these provisions of the HAA is that developers are given certainty in what standards, conditions, and policies apply to their project and specifically how those standards can be met.

HCD remains committed to supporting the City of Rocklin in facilitating housing at all income levels and hopes the City finds this clarification helpful. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Lisa Frank at [email protected].

Sincerely,
S
hannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
9 HCD letter of technical assistance to City of Mill Valley, found at:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/mill-valley-TA- 110222.pdf.
448
ATTACHMENT 3
Public Correspondence

Comments Received Prior to Planning Commission

1) From: Katie Clouse <[email protected]>

Dear Rocklin Planning Commission,

I am a longtime Rocklin resident, home owner, and Rocklin business owner. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed zoning change and development of a large apartment complex behind my home at 1607 Redmond Drive, Rocklin.

As a directly adjacent homeowner, I have significant concerns regarding the impact this project would have on my property and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed development would:
 Dramatically increase traffic and congestion on nearby residential streets. This immediate area is already impacted by Maria Montessori Academy at this location. The addition of 120+ apartments will make traffic and congestion excessing and disruptive for the community.
 Result in the loss of valuable green space currently enjoyed by the community.  Introduce high-density housing that is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding single-family neighborhood.
 Likely have a negative impact on my property value, especially given the scale and proximity of the proposed buildings.

My home backs directly up to the proposed site, and this development would place a multi- story apartment complex overlooking my backyard and living spaces. Had this zoning been in place when I purchased my home, I would not have moved forward with the purchase.

I respectfully request that the Commission consider the significant, long-term impact on existing homeowners and deny the proposed zoning change. This area was not designed to accommodate this level of density, and doing so would irreparably alter the character and livability of our neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Katie Clouse
1607 Redmond Drive
Rocklin, CA 95765
203.807.1141
[email protected]

2) From: Steven Eckelberger <[email protected]>

Dear Council Member,

I am writing as a parent of a child who attends Maria Montessori Charter Academy at 1850 Wildcat Blvd, Rocklin, CA 95765. I have become aware of a plan for an apartment building intended for the address 1800 Wildcat Boulevard, Rocklin, CA 95765 which is directly next to our school.
449
I am writing with the hope that my voice will be heard, and this project will not be approved. We parents and staff members have many concerns regarding the safety of our children, as well as other concerns that will impact them greatly.

Safety:
· The vacant church lot’s elevation is already about 10 feet higher than our existing school site; second and third story neighboring apartments would have full overhead views of our entire campus.
· For our students that walk or ride their scooters/bicycles to school, this project would impact their ‘Safe Route to School’, as required for California public schools. It would also impact student/parent access to the church parking lot.

Increased maintenance costs:
· Most likely our school site would become the de facto playground of the apartment complex during non-school hours, which will create additional wear and tear on our equipment, as well as increased costs associated with vandalism.

Physical impact on school operations, including:
· The loss of our beloved garden.
· Relocating our Cool Box storage units will be inconvenient for our staff and create excess costs for M.M.C.A.

Traffic:
· The impact of 120 apartments on traffic, particularly during our drop-off and pick-up times.

These are only some of our many concerns regarding having an apartment built right next to our school. Please hear us and help us keep our children safe and our school thriving!

Sincerely,
Steven Eckelberger

3) From: anonymous LGBT <[email protected]>

I am being asked to send a form letter in opposition of the new development by the school. So I'm going to send it on to you on my main email for the sake of peace between spouses... But I can't in good conscience pretend I'm against this housing development. Therefore, I am sending an email opposing the opposition form letter using a burner email address that I have used to warn my own company about a coworker's hate speech (just to explain the email address name).

To address the points made in that form letter, yes low income housing does tend to centralize crime. However, I believe in much more than my immediate community, the crime that follows low income housing is almost exclusively driven by poverty. With the reduction of rent for impoverished families, total crime numbers fall, which benefits us as well as neighboring communities. It would definitely put a lot of minds at ease if some sort of "shade structure" was erected to block the view of the school yard from the apartment complex. It is expensive, however, I find that could be a very strong point of compromise for opponents of this building plan. In the very least, there needs to be a strong emphasis on surveillance from the school yard on the 2nd and 3rd floor windows to make sure that inappropriate behavior is not taking place.

there are thousands of elementary and preschools in the US in heavily populated areas, and they're perfectly safe as long as there are adequate members of a crossing guard organization.

450
the school can be completely locked off from outsiders, it does not have to be a de facto playground for the apartment complex, i don't know the details of the apartment complex, they may even have their own playground.

The loss of a garden is tragic, and it is unfortunate that the "cool box storage units" will have to be relocated. I would say that that's quite a reasonable sacrifice to allow 120 families to not have to choose between rent and feeding their children... a garden is ultimately a luxury for a school. Refusing to build affordable housing for impoverished human beings because of the loss of a garden is quite... inappropriate.

I definitely understand the concern of parents, but it's ultimately good for the city, county, state, and country as a whole for people to get access to more affordable housing. If these concerned parents wanted a real solution, they should band together to fight the false scarcity being generated by real estate giants.

4) From: Amy Tudevdorj <[email protected]>

Dear Council Member,

I am writing with the hope that my voice will be heard, and this project will not be approved. We parents and staff members have many concerns regarding the safety of our children, as well as other concerns that will impact them greatly.

Safety:

• The vacant church lot’s elevation is already about 10 feet higher than our existing school site; second and third story neighboring apartments would have full overhead views of our entire campus.

• For our students that walk or ride their scooters/bicycles to school, this project would impact their ‘Safe Route to School’, as required for California public schools. It would also impact student/parent access to the church parking lot.

Increased maintenance costs:

• Most likely our school site would become the de facto playground of the apartment complex during non-school hours, which will create additional wear and tear on our equipment, as well as increased costs associated with vandalism.

Physical impact on school operations, including:

• The loss of our beloved garden.

• Relocating our Cool Box storage units will be inconvenient for our staff and create excess costs for M.M.C.A.

451
Traffic:

• The impact of 120 apartments on traffic, particularly during our drop-off and pick-up times.

These are only some of our many concerns regarding having an apartment built right next to our school. Please hear us and help us keep our children safe and our school thriving!

5) From: Cameron <[email protected]>

Dear Council Member,

Physical impact on school operations, including:
· The loss of our beloved garden.
· Relocating our Cool Box storage units will be inconvenient for our staff and create excess costs for M.M.C.A.

Traffic:
· The impact of 120 apartments on traffic, particularly during our drop-off and pick-up times.

These are only some of our many concerns regarding having an apartment built right next to our school. Please hear us and help us keep our children safe and our school thriving!

Sincerely,
Cameron Goetz

6) From: Sarabjot Kohli <[email protected]>

Dear Council Member,

452
I am writing with the hope that my voice will be heard, and this project will not be approved. We parents and staff members have many concerns regarding the safety of our children, as well as other concerns that will impact them greatly.

Safety:

Increased maintenance costs:

Physical impact on school operations, including:

• The loss of our beloved garden.

• Relocating our Cool Box storage units will be inconvenient for our staff and create excess costs for M.M.C.A.

Traffic:

• The impact of 120 apartments on traffic, particularly during our drop-off and pick-up times.

These are only some of our many concerns regarding having an apartment built right next to our school. Please hear us and help us keep our children safe and our school thriving!

7) From: Sarah Del Buono <[email protected]>

Dear Council Members,
I am writing as a parent of two children who attend Maria Montessori Charter Academy at 1850 Wildcat Blvd, Rocklin, CA 95765. I have become aware of a plan for an apartment building intended for the address 1800 Wildcat Boulevard, Rocklin, CA 95765 which is directly next to our school.

I am writing with the hope that my voice will be heard, and this project will not be approved. We parents have many concerns regarding the safety of our children, as well as other concerns that will impact them greatly.

Safety:
• The vacant church lot’s elevation is already about 10 feet higher than our existing school site; second and third story neighboring apartments would have full overhead views of our entire campus.
• For our students that walk or ride their scooters/bicycles to school, this project would impact their ‘Safe Route to School’, as required for California public schools. It would also impact student/parent access to the church parking lot.
453
Increased maintenance costs:
• Most likely our school site would become the de facto playground of the apartment complex during non-school hours, which will create additional wear and tear on our equipment, as well as increased costs associated with vandalism.

Physical impact on school operations, including:
• The loss of our beloved garden.
• Relocating our Cool Box storage units will be inconvenient for our staff and create excess costs for M.M.C.A.

Traffic:
• The impact of 120 apartments on traffic, particularly during our drop-off and pick-up times.

These are only some of our many concerns regarding having an apartment built right next to our school. Please hear us and help us keep our children safe and our school thriving! Sincerely,
Sarah Del Buono and Family

8) From: Stefanie Baldonade <[email protected]>

Dear Council Member,

I am writing as a teacher of Maria Montessori Charter Academy at 1850 Wildcat Blvd, Rocklin, CA 95765. I have become aware of a plan for an apartment building intended for the address 1800 Wildcat Boulevard, Rocklin, CA 95765 which is directly next to our school.

I am writing with the hope that my voice will be heard, and this project will not be approved.

Parents and staff members have many concerns regarding the safety of our children, as well as other concerns that will impact them greatly.

Safety:

Increased maintenance costs:

Physical impact on school operations, including:

• The loss of our beloved garden.

• Relocating our Cool Box storage units will be inconvenient for our staff and create excess costs for M.M.C.A.

Traffic:
454

• The impact of 120 apartments on traffic, particularly during our drop-off and pick-up times.

These are only some of our many concerns regarding having an apartment built right next to our school. Please hear us and help us keep our children safe and our school thriving!

Stefanie Baldonade

9) From: Kids O'Connor <[email protected]>

Dear Council Member,

Physical impact on school operations, including:
· The loss of our beloved garden.
· Relocating our Cool Box storage units will be inconvenient for our staff and create excess costs for M.M.C.A.

Traffic:
· The impact of 120 apartments on traffic, particularly during our drop-off and pick-up times.

These are only some of our many concerns regarding having an apartment built right next to our school. Please hear us and help us keep our children safe and our school thriving!

Sincerely,
Kate Livengood (parent of a son in Purple Room and a daughter who can't wait to start next year!)

10) From: Brandi LaRoux <[email protected]>

Dear Council Member,

I am writing as a parent of a child who attends Maria Montessori Charter Academy at 1850 Wildcat Blvd, Rocklin, CA 95765. I have become aware of a plan for an apartment building 455
intended for the address 1800 Wildcat Boulevard, Rocklin, CA 95765 which is directly next to our school.

Safety:

Increased maintenance costs:

Physical impact on school operations, including:

• The loss of our beloved garden.

• Relocating our Cool Box storage units will be inconvenient for our staff and create excess costs for M.M.C.A.

Traffic:

• The impact of 120 apartments on traffic, particularly during our drop-off and pick-up times.

These are only some of our many concerns regarding having an apartment built right next to our school. Please hear us and help us keep our children safe and our school thriving!

11) Brandi & David LaRoux
From: Jennifer Collins <[email protected]>

Good evening,

I am writing as a parent of an eight-year old child who attends third grade at Maria Montessori Charter Academy at 1850 Wildcat Blvd, Rocklin, CA 95765. I am also a proud volunteer and substitute teacher. I volunteer several hundred hours each year and occasionally substitute teach on Fridays to spend more time with my son at school and to help the team of lovely people who give their best to the children on a daily basis. They have created a special and loving environment which should be cherished and retained.

I have become aware of a plan for an apartment building intended for the address 1800 Wildcat Boulevard, Rocklin, CA 95765 which is directly next to our school even sharing the same 456
parking lot and space. I am writing with hope that you will reconsider this terrible idea and cancel the project. I understand the need for low-income housing and would even suggest perhaps putting in on the other side of the property further away from the school or on the other side of the park or next to the new medical facility going in at Wildcat/Stanford Ranch. We parents have many concerns regarding the safety of our children, as well as other concerns that will impact them greatly.

*I am a Garden Committee member and have participated in the garden docent program and fundraising since my son began attending the school. The garden is one of the main reasons I chose the school in the first place because I loved the idea of the children learning outside in nature and learning to garden. Few skills could be more important. The loss of the garden would be devastating, and for what? More apartments? The garden facebook page can be found here so you can see details of how special it is and what a tragedy it would be to lose it. https://www.facebook.com/MMCAGarden?mibextid=wwXIfr

Concerns:

Safety:

Increased maintenance costs:

Physical impact on school operations, including:

• The unacceptable loss of our beloved garden.

• Relocating our Cool Box storage units will be inconvenient for our staff and create excess costs for M.M.C.A.

Traffic:

• The impact of 120 apartments on traffic, particularly during our drop-off and pick-up times.

These are only some of our many concerns regarding having an apartment built right next to our school. Please hear us and help us keep our children safe and our school thriving!

I would be most willing to attend any council meetings and speak on the topic if it goes to council.

Thank you for your time,
Jennifer Collins
457
Jennifer Collins
3635 Argonaut Ave
Rocklin, California 95677

12) From: Jessica King <[email protected]>

Dear Congressman Kevin Kiley,
I am writing as a concerned resident to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning effort currently underway in the City of Rocklin, specifically concerning Parcel Number 045-011- 001-0000 and its impact on our community. My property is located at 3953 Argonaut Ave, and I am deeply concerned about the potential negative impacts this rezoning will have on our neighborhood. I believe this plan is not in the best interest of our city for several reasons, including:
 Increased Traffic Congestion: The current infrastructure on Argonaut and connecting streets is already struggling to handle existing traffic. Increased density from this rezoning will exacerbate congestion, making daily commutes and local travel unbearable for residents.
 Strain on Public Services: Our schools, parks, and emergency services are already operating at capacity. This rezoning will place an undue burden on these vital public services, diminishing their quality for all Rocklin residents.  Loss of Neighborhood Character/Green Space: The proposed changes will fundamentally alter the quaint, slow paced, quiet and close to nature feel that makes our neighborhood desirable. This will negatively impact our quality of life and the aesthetic appeal of our community. The building of the Skyline Houses off of Argonaut has already drastically increased traffic.
 Decreased Property Values: I am concerned that the proposed rezoning will lead to a decrease in property values for homeowners in the affected areas due to increased density.
 The ecological impact has already been great. Adding further housing and removing what the wildlife has left in our area will be detrimental to our environment and existing wildlife.

I believe a more comprehensive and community-inclusive approach is needed before any rezoning decisions are made. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission:
 Conduct further public outreach and workshops specific to this parcel and its impacts. Many residents feel their voices have not been adequately heard throughout this process.
 Commission an independent study on the infrastructure impact (e.g., traffic, water, sewer capacity) resulting from this proposed rezoning. A thorough analysis is essential before proceeding.
 Explore alternative development strategies that are more compatible with existing neighborhoods and the current general plan for our city.

I am available to provide further input and would appreciate the opportunity to discuss my concerns in more detail. Thank you for your time and consideration of this critical matter. I look forward to your response and action on behalf of the residents of Rocklin.

Sincerely,
Jessica King
3953 Argonaut Ave. Rocklin, CA

458
13) From: Debbie Pettey [email protected]

Dear Rocklin Planning Commissioners,

My name is Debbie Pettey, and I reside at 3933 Argonaut Avenue, Rocklin, CA in the Argonaut Avenue neighborhood. I am writing to vehemently oppose the proposed rezoning of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000. This proposal represents an unacceptable threat to our community's well-being, and I respectfully request that it be completely moved out of our neighborhood.

We, the residents, firmly believe this development does not belong here. This is not about being anti-growth; it's about responsible, appropriate development that respects existing communities.

This specific plan is ill-conceived and will have devastating consequences for our quality of life.

The undeniable negative impacts of this rezoning are numerous and cannot be overlooked:

* Traffic Chaos Awaits: Our local streets are already struggling with existing traffic. Adding significant new density from this rezoning will unleash unmanageable gridlock, turning daily commutes and neighborhood access into a constant frustration. Our current infrastructure simply cannot absorb this impact.
* Public Services at Breaking Point: Rocklin's critical services—our schools and emergency response teams—are already stretched thin. This rezoning will push them beyond their limits, leading to a tangible decline in the quality and accessibility of essential services for all residents. * Irreversible Neighborhood Destruction: The quiet, residential character and vital green spaces that define our neighborhood are under direct threat. This rezoning will permanently alter our community's identity, replacing the very qualities that make it desirable with overdevelopment that fundamentally clashes with our established environment. * Crippling Property Values: The introduction of high-density development in our immediate vicinity will undoubtedly depress property values for homeowners throughout the affected areas.

This represents a direct and unacceptable financial burden on residents' most significant investments.

We are not seeking compromises on this specific location. Our demand is clear: this particular rezoning must be removed entirely from consideration for our neighborhood. We urge the Planning Commission to:

* Halt This Plan Immediately: Cease all further consideration and planning for the rezoning of Parcel 045-011-001-0000.
* Prioritize Resident Voices: Conduct genuinely open and accessible public forums where community concerns are not just heard, but are given paramount importance in decision- making. Our input must drive this process, not external pressures. * Relocate and Re-evaluate: Direct resources to identify and pursue development strategies that are compatible with Rocklin's General Plan and are situated in locations that do not degrade or overwhelm established residential communities.

As a voting constituent, I believe our elected officials, at all levels, have a responsibility to listen to and act on behalf of their community.I am prepared to provide further input and expect the opportunity for a detailed discussion on this critical matter. Thank you for your immediate attention and for choosing to act in the best interests of Rocklin residents and our vibrant neighborhoods.

Sincerely,
Debbie Pettey
459
3933 Argonaut Avenue, Rocklin, CA
[email protected]

14) From: Andrea Jensen [email protected]

Dear Rocklin City Planners,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning effort currently underway in the City of Rocklin, specifically concerning Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000, surrounding parcels and its impact on our community. My property is located at 3946 Argonaut Avenue, Rocklin, CA 95677, and I am deeply concerned about the multiple negative impacts this rezoning will have on both my property as well as that of our neighborhood. (Please note that I am also disappointed that I heard about this Rocklin Planning Committee agenda item through social media and not from our City directly. We are only .3 miles from the proposed rezoning site and will be negatively impacted and should have been notified of the city plans to consider this area for rezoning.)
I urge you, the Planning Commission, to consider the significant concerns of myself and other local residents regarding this rezoning proposal that directly impacts Parcel Number 045- 011-001-0000 and the surrounding parcel areas. While I understand the city's need for more multi-unit dwellings and low-income housing, I believe this specific plan is flawed and not in the best interest of our neighborhood for several reasons, including these detrimental effects on:
 Local Infrastructure and Traffic Congestion: The current infrastructure in in our neighborhood is already struggling to handle existing traffic. Increased density from this rezoning will exacerbate congestion, making daily commutes and local travel unbearable for residents. We are already feeling the ill-effects of the new Toll Brothers Development in our neighborhood due to the increased number of vehicles on Argonaut Ave.  Strain on Public Services: Our schools, parks, and emergency services are already operating at capacity. This rezoning will place an undue burden on these vital public services, diminishing their quality for all Rocklin residents.  Availability of Water: We are already asked to reduce our water usage (and not just in times of drought). Where is the water for the proposed multi-dwelling units going to come from?
 Loss of Neighborhood and Community Character/Green Space: The proposed changes will fundamentally alter the quiet residential feel and amount of greenspace that makes our neighborhood desirable. This will negatively impact our quality of life and the aesthetic appeal of our community. We bought in this neighborhood due to its charm and safe feeling we have. The proposed rezoning will negatively impact the character of our neighborhood. It is a known fact that many low-income housing units have many residents that struggle with substance abuse (of course not all, but many). We currently have many neighbors with kids who can play outside (including our own grandkids) and whose parents do not be as concerned about neighbors who may try to influence their kids into the destructive nature of substance abuse. Many of us bought in this neighborhood for this very reason.
 Decreased Property Values: I am concerned that the proposed rezoning will lead to a decrease in property values for homeowners in the affected areas due to overdevelopment and increased density. We specifically bought in this neighborhood six years ago so understanding that the property would retain its value. With multi-dwelling units/low-income houses just .3 miles up the road from us, our property value WILL decrease. I worked hard for my money to invest in this property and have substantially invested more into our property to add to its value. Other cities with the character of Rocklin do not put multi-dwelling units/low-income housing next to properties of our 460
value so that the City can maintain its property tax income. This proposed rezoning does not make any sense for this area.
 Environmental Impact on Nearby Waterways and Wildlife: We have already seen the impact the Toll Brothers Development has had in our neighborhood. Wildlife has been impacted. I have seen deer on the neighborhood streets (not just in the fields, but on the actual paved streets). Skunks have moved into our backyards since they were displaced. Wild turkeys, fox, rodents, and other wild animals are more prevalent since not having all the area they used to have. Many of our neighbors have had severe water issues since the building of the Toll Brothers units as underground water tables moved/diverted with the changing of the geology. This has resulted in substantial costs to these neighbors in trying to divert the water that was never in the yards before but now threaten to damage their property.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this critical matter. I look forward to your response and action on behalf of the residents of Rocklin.

Sincerely,
Andrea Jensen
3946 Argonaut Avenue
Rocklin, CA 95677
[email protected]

15) From: Eileen P [email protected]

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed RHNA rezoning of Parcel Number 045- 011-001-000 in the city of Rocklin, CA. I have serious concerns about this parcel and believe the city must take these into consideration now and not at a later time. Please enter this letter into the record for the meeting to be held on August 5, 2025.

1. Public Safety Risks: Should there be an emergency necessitating evacuation of the area, the residents could find themselves unable to escape due to limited egress options and including the possibility of a train blocking the roadways. There has been at least one train derailment and one train track fatality in Rocklin in recent years, both of which closed the tracks for a period of time. Additionally, with fuel lines running along the railroad tracks, the City is putting the nearby population at risk. Rezoning and developing denser housing will put potentially hundreds more people at risk. The City can, and should, be held accountable for knowingly doing so.

2. Topographical Deficiencies: This parcel has been evaluated by a local civil engineering firm which has determined that it is neither conducive to, nor cost-effective for, high-density residential design. The reasons include:
a. The slope of the land will require extensive fill to level it for HDR development. b. Lift stations will be required for sewer and storm drainage because it will not “gravity drain.”
These two points will significantly increase the cost of [HDR] development on this parcel. 461

Additionally:
c. The triangular shape of the parcel will render significant portions of the site unusable, presuming the city will enforce buffer zones along the railroad tracks. Buildings in excess of three stories will likely need to be utilized on the smaller area of developable land in order to build 30 dwelling units per acre of HDR land. This goes against City policy and does not fit in with the adjacent neighborhoods.

3. Insufficient Roadways: The surrounding roads are not designed to handle vehicles for 270 additional dwelling units (assuming 30 units/acre and at least 1 vehicle per unit).

The Midas-Argonaut area is presently struggling to handle existing traffic. Traffic is gridlocked at certain times of the day, particularly during the school year. Increased density from this rezoning will exacerbate congestion, making daily commutes and local travel unbearable for residents. Homeowners on these streets can paint a realistic picture for you as to what they are experiencing today.

4. Insufficient Access to Necessary Services: Residents in high-density, lower-cost housing should be within a reasonable distance of grocery stores, drug stores, schools, etc. There is NOTHING within a reasonable walking distance of this parcel, nor is there public transportation available within close walking distance.

5. Strain on Public Services: Our schools and first responder (police, fire) services are already operating at capacity. This rezoning and potential development will place an added burden on these vital public services, diminishing their quality for all Rocklin residents. The truth of the matter is that there is insufficient police presence today to enforce traffic violations, which have skyrocketed with recent developments in the area.

For these reasons, this particular parcel should no longer be considered or recommended for rezoning to HDR. I am available to provide further input should you be interested. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter and thank you for serving the residents of Rocklin.

Sincerely,
Eileen Pietz
3779 lside Drive, Rocklin

16) From: Sharon Ludden [email protected]

Hello,

We are Tim and Sharon Ludden, and have lived at 3759 Hillside Dr. for the last 28 years.

Our neighborhood is beautiful! We love living in our Mission Hills home, but unfortunately, the Skyline development has overburdened and harmed our street traffic and our peace of mind.

We were aghast to learn of the proposed Multi-Family development at the end of Argonaut. This would disrupt many more lives, with traffic, gridlock, noise, and potential crime.

We're still reeling from the Skyline development, which added over 200 more vehicles to an already congested area on Argonaut and Midas.

Many folks in Mission Hills are retired. This is our last stop, as it were. We do not look kindly on giving up our privacy, security, and comfort. This would be a tremendous burden and inconvenience.

Other areas in Rocklin are better suited for lower-income housing. Financially, this development would devalue our property values.
462

WE ARE THE PEOPLE. WE ARE AGAINST RE-ZONING.

Many thanks,

Tim and Sharon

17) From: [email protected]

To whom it may concern,

We are Mike and Mary Pitcher at 4006 Argonaut Ave, Rocklin. We have lived here for thirty years. We are both retired senior citizens from professional backgrounds.

We are writing to you to contest re-zoning parcel number 045-011-001-0000 which identifies the land at the end of Argonaut Ave.

We feel strongly that a large multi-family complex at the end of Argonaut Ave. is wrong for our neighborhood. The reason that it is wrong is Argonaut and particularly Midas Ave. cannot handle increased traffic that would be generated by this project. The Skyline project has increased traffic already onto Argonaut Ave, and Midas. The Skyline project has now added cars to the traffic congestion and now has made it impossible with school and trains running.

In addition, this project would make, which is already a fire hazard into a disaster waiting to happen. This planned zoning would put our lives at severe risk. There is no way that residents, because of very limited egress, could get out to safety in a disaster or fire. Large number of residents could die.

This rezoning would severly decrease the value of our home with the increased traffic, parking, and noise.

We appreciate you taking our concerns very seriously when voting on this dangerous and unwanted re-zoning.

Mary Pitcher 916-778-8742, Mike Pitcher 916-759-6460

18) From: Marlene Haney [email protected]

Marlene Haney
4095 Argonaut Avenue
Rocklin, CA 95677
(916) 276-1233
July 26, 2025

To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing to respectfully express my opposition to the proposed rezoning of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000.

Together with our family, we live in the property directly adjacent to the property in question. My family and I chose to live in this neighborhood because of its peaceful, safe, and private character. We pay over $18,000 annually in property taxes, and part of what makes that investment worthwhile is the tranquility and security of living at the end of a quiet street.

Rezoning this parcel would significantly and negatively affect our community in the following ways:

1. Increased Traffic & Safety Concerns: There is only one ingress and egress for this street. Additional traffic would create congestion and pose safety risks for pedestrians, children, and residents.
463

2. Noise & Crime: Higher density or commercial use would inevitably bring more noise and potentially increase crime, disrupting the sense of safety we currently enjoy.

3. Impact on Property Values: Rezoning this parcel would likely reduce home values in our neighborhood, affecting families who have invested heavily to live here.

4. Easement Concerns: Our property shares an easement with this parcel, and any changes to its use would directly impact our access and quiet enjoyment of our property.

We respectfully ask that you deny the rezoning request and preserve the integrity of our neighborhood. Maintaining its current zoning protects not only our property values but also the quality of life that drew us here in the first place.

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.

Sincerely,

Marlene Haney

19) From: L [email protected]

Dear Mr. Anderson:

As concerned Mission Hills homeowners, we urge the Rocklin Planning Commission to reconsider the proposed rezoning that directly impacts Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 and the surrounding single-family homeowners. We believe this rezoning is not in the best interest for our well-planned neighborhood of single-family homes for several reasons, including:
 Fire and Police Access: There is only one ingress/egress street, namely Argonaut Avenue, which has already been further taxed by the recently built 115 Skyline homes. This recent housing development has already added an additional 200+ vehicles to our neighborhood traffic. We believe sufficient fire and police access to be a huge safety concern for current residents and for the city of Rocklin.  Degradation of Current Neighborhood Character: Introducing any type of multi-level, high-density apartment buildings to this quiet, well-planned, single-family neighborhood will terribly degrade the current atmosphere of the Mission Hills neighbor and this location is absolutely the wrong place to build anything other than similar, single-family homes.
 City of Rocklin Criteria for “Affordable Housing Program”, RHNA: As stated on page 7-95 of the “City of Rocklin 2021-2029 Housing Element” report, dated August 2021, “...the City identified a set of objective criteria.... Criteria included avoiding locations that were largely adjacent to single-family land uses and [also needed to] consider sites that were in close proximity to arterials and transit routes, parks, services and places of employment.” Certainly, this parcel at the end of Argonaut Avenue does NOT meet this criteria.
 Increased Traffic Congestion: The current infrastructure in Mission Hills/Argonaut Avenue neighborhood is already struggling to handle the existing traffic. Increased density from this rezoning will exacerbate congestion, making daily commutes and local travel most disagreeable for current, long-time residents. Additionally, the Midas Avenue thoroughfare route is also currently strained handling the current volume of vehicles. During the school year, as parents drive Rocklin children to and from local schools, Midas Avenue becomes extremely congested and at times presents public safety concerns to everyone in the area. Adding further vehicles to this thoroughfare makes no logical sense.
 Strain on Public Services: Our schools, parks, and emergency services are already operating at capacity. This rezoning will place an undue burden on these vital public services in this immediate area.
464
 Loss of Neighborhood Character: The proposed changes will fundamentally alter the quiet residential feel and safe walking/biking paths that currently make our very well- planned neighborhood desirable. This will negatively impact our quality of life and the aesthetic appeal of our community.
 Decreased Property Values: I am concerned that the proposed rezoning will lead to a decrease in property values for homeowners in the affected areas due to all of the above points.

We implore that you consider a more comprehensive and community-inclusive approach before any rezoning decisions are made. Respectfully, we request that the Planning Commission:
 Pursue already approved, alternative development parcels that are more compatible with existing neighborhoods and the current general plan for our city. Hasn’t the city of Rocklin already designated over 100 acres for affordable housing in other areas of our city?
We strongly urge you to reconsider the zoning for this parcel 045-011-001-0000 and make it consistent with the current character of the Mission Hills neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Linda and Scott Killian
4606 Lemonhill Drive
Rocklin, CA 95677
[email protected]

20) From: Susan Corrao [email protected]

Dear Board Members:

I am writing to all of you regarding the request by the property owner of Parcel #045-011-001- 0000 wherein the owner is requesting a rezoning of his property. I reside in the development that surrounds this property, specifically 3772 Sweetwater Dr. I understand that you have received prior emails regarding the surrounding property owners opposition to the rezoning of this piece of property so I won't provide you with a long email that outlines my opposition opinions. However, as a resident for more than 40 years at the indicated address I've seen many changes in the City, many of which I was opposed of and some that I agreed with. In this case, my opinion is that the City should DENY the rezoning request. The primary reason is TRAFFIC CONGESTION. With the addition of the Skyline Development there has been an immense increase in traffic along with an immense increase of disobeying of traffic laws. To add additional properties at this Parcel will make it more of a nightmare than it already is. Midas/Argonaut is already strained in the mornings and afternoon/evenings with both work and school traffic. To add hundreds of more vehicles to this traffic daily will make tempers flair further than they are now. The most important aspect of the traffic that concerns me is that there is only ONE WAY in and ONE WAY out. IF there is any type of catastrophe (fire, train derailment and/or explosion) I'm afraid that many lives will be in DANGER. PLEASE take my opinion into consideration when discussing the rezoning request. Thank you for your time and anticipated support to the citizen's of Rocklin.

Susan Corrao

21) From: Patti Gordon [email protected]

Dear City Officials,

465
My name is Patricia Gordon, and I’m a long-time resident of the Mission Hills neighborhood. I’m writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed rezoning of Parcel Number 045- 011-001-0000 at the end of Argonaut.

Our neighborhood is already experiencing increased traffic from recent developments, and adding a large multi-family complex would severely overburden the single access road, strain emergency services, and drastically reduce the quality of life that makes this area so special.

Many of us, including seniors and original homeowners, chose to live here for the safety, peace, and community. Overcrowding, limited parking, and lack of nearby infrastructure for low-income families make this rezoning not only impractical but unfair to all involved.

Please prioritize thoughtful planning and preserve what makes our neighborhood a cherished place to live.

Sincerely,
Patricia A. Gordon

22) From: Patti Gordon [email protected]

Dear City Officials,

I am writing as a concerned resident of Mission Hills to express my strong opposition to the proposed large multi-family complex at the end of Argonaut (Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000).

My family and I have chosen to make our home in this neighborhood because of its safety, tranquility, and well-maintained character. The proposed development threatens the very qualities that make Mission Hills such a desirable community.

My primary concerns include:

**Traffic and Infrastructure:** Our area has only one ingress/egress street, which is already strained by existing Skyline developments. Adding 270+ additional drivers/tenants would create dangerous congestion and limit emergency vehicle access.

**Parking Crisis:** The Planning Commission's minimal parking requirements (one space per unit) are completely inadequate when most households have two or more vehicles. This will flood our residential streets with parked cars, destroying the neighborhood's character.

**Community Impact:** Many of our neighbors are seniors and long-time residents who specifically chose this area for its peaceful environment. The increased noise, traffic, and congestion would significantly diminish their quality of life and property values.

**Infrastructure Mismatch:** Our area lacks the nearby infrastructure needed for low-income housing, with the closest grocery store 2.5 miles away and no public transportation access.

Rocklin has already designated over 100 acres for affordable housing in other, more suitable locations. Why compromise the integrity of an established neighborhood when better alternatives exist?

I urge you to reject this rezoning proposal and preserve the character of our community.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
466

Patti Gordon
3938 Argonaut Ave

23) From: Steve Kohlbacher [email protected]

Dear City Planners,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of parcel number 045- 011-001-0000, located at the end of Argonaut Avenue. As a resident of Rocklin who has owned our home on Argonaut Ave since 2005, I believe it is essential to voice my opposition to this rezoning .

Firstly, We chose this house in this particular neighborhood twenty years ago as our retirement home. Unlike our previous Bay Area homes, this unique Mission Hills neighborhood offered quiet, safe, attractive neighborhoods with congenial neighbors who all take pride in maintaining their properties and getting to know their neighbors personally. Now, twenty years later, we are both in our mid 70s and are still spending money to improve our home and plan to continue living in it for another twenty years.

Secondly, the last rezoning effort at Mountain View Dr which produced 115 additional “Skyline homes” has now taken away our last remaining open space and created congestion at the only entry and exit point to and from the neighborhood at the intersection of Midas and Argonaut. There is only one way in and one way out of Mission Hills and we are now full.

Lastly, I understand and support the need for more housing in Rocklin. But Mission Hills has already made its contribution with the “Skyline homes” and there is no infrastructure to support multi-family units or low income dwellings. We do not have public transportation or any type of retail facilities within walking distance or even cycling distance. Every adult that lives here requires their own personal car to come and go.

In conclusion, I respectfully request that the city planners reconsider the proposal to rezone parcel number 045-011-001-0000. It is vital to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood and ensure that any development aligns with the values and needs of our community.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and hope for a collaborative approach to planning that takes into account the perspectives of Rocklin residents.

Sincerely,

Stephen Kohlbacher & Lili Chou
[email protected]
--
Steve Kohlbacher
[email protected]

24) From: Sharon Ludden [email protected]

Hello,

We are Tim and Sharon Ludden, and have lived at 3759 Hillside Dr. for the last 28 years. 467

Our neighborhood is beautiful! We love living in our Mission Hills home, but unfortunately, the Skyline development has overburdened and harmed our street traffic and our peace of mind.

We were aghast to learn of the proposed Multi-Family development at the end of Argonaut. This would disrupt many more lives, with traffic, gridlock, noise, and potential crime.

We're still reeling from the Skyline development, which added over 200 more vehicles to an already congested area on Argonaut and Midas.

Many folks in Mission Hills are retired. This is our last stop, as it were. We do not look kindly on giving up our privacy, security, and comfort. This would be a tremendous burden and inconvenience.

Other areas in Rocklin are better suited for lower-income housing. Financially, this development would devalue our property values.

WE ARE THE PEOPLE. WE ARE AGAINST RE-ZONING.

Many thanks,
Tim and Sharon

25) From: Scott Gordon [email protected]

Dear Rocklin City Planners and Councilmembers,
I am writing to strongly urge you to reconsider the proposed rezoning at the end of Argonaut (Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000). Our neighborhood simply cannot support a large multi- family complex in this location.

The single ingress/egress route is already congested, and the area lacks the necessary infrastructure — such as public transportation and nearby stores — that would support new high-density housing. Overcrowding, noise, and parking issues would be immediate consequences.

Rocklin has already committed land elsewhere for affordable housing. Why not continue with those plans instead of disrupting a well-established and stable neighborhood? Thank you for listening to the voices of local residents.

Sincerely,
J. Scott Gordon
3938 Argonaut Ave
Rocklin, CA

26) From: Bryon Rodriques [email protected]

I want to Thank you for taking the time to review my concerns with the proposed zoning change at the end of Argonaut, parcel number 045-011-001-0000.

I live on Baltic Circle two blocks away from Mountain View and Argonaut. This proposed zoning change and projected building project of additional homes will have a huge negative impact on our beautiful neighborhood community. Six years ago SKY Line came in and we had many original homeowners sell their homes due the impact of additional homes on the plateau along with additional cars and noise.

If there are 90+ homes I would guess that if they followed the norm in California 65% have an average of 2 automobiles, bringing that to approx 145+ cars potentially coming and going daily. 468
Homes bordering the hillside also lost privacy in their backyards! They were use to having a wonderful view of open land which is precious in today’s world that’s going away.

We moved to this city for that reason (open space), small town community living. Coming from Fremont in the Bay Area where every lot was destined to have high density housing ruined a beautiful city.

Being fairly new to our great city (6 years) I have never understood how a new home development SKY LINE with 90+ homes could be approved with only one entrance and exit to be dispersed out to only one street, Argonaut. No consideration to those homeowners at the bottom of the hill or neighborhood. What about emergency services (police or fire).

So now our neighborhood is being threatened again by another new development at the end of Argonaut with the same issues impacting our neighborhood again. All the homeowners from Hillside down to the proposed site will be greatly affected. Eliminating open space, with only a single ingress and regress. This will affect the homeowners on the entire street of Argonaut to Midas! Please visit our area during the morning commute when school is in; out in the afternoon. Midas is a mess! Traffic, noise, patience, quality of life!

Our wonderful niche of a neighbor, which was a hidden gem, is being compromised by changing a zoning code for more tax revenue to the city by adding additional housing in our neighborhood community.

That proposed development will also have a financial effect on all homeowners in the area. Will our homes increase in value? Will those homeowners home values along Argonaut maintain or increase at the same rate as other neighborhoods? Most likely not!

The big cities are infringing upon our once great small town feeling! Our vision of neighborhood, companionship, open spaces, fresh air, less traffic, less growth is seeming to disappear! For what? Additional tax revenue for our once wonderful town. NOT WORTH IT!

As you might tell, I'm opposed to the development!

Sincerely,
Bryon Rodriques
Homeowner Baltic Circle

27) From: don pettey [email protected]

Dear City Officials and Rocklin Planning Commissioners,

My name is Don Pettey, residing at 3933 Argonaut Avenue in the Argonaut Avenueneighborhood. I am writing to you today with an urgent and unequivocal demand: put an immediate stop to the proposed rezoning of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000. This proposal is not merely an inconvenience; it is a direct assault on our community's quality of life and future, and we do not want it in our neighborhood at all. It must be moved out completely.

This isn't just a local issue; this is precisely the type of top-down mandate that Governor Gavin Newsom's administration is pushing, but it is not what we, the residents of Rocklin, want. While Governor Newsom may speak for this kind of "density at all costs" development, I am asking 469
YOU, our local representatives, to help us resist this madness. Please, help us to put a stop to it here and now.

I expect our local leadership to stand with their community, not outside mandates. This proposed rezoning poses severe, unacceptable threats:

* Our Streets Can't Handle It: The Argonaut Avenue area is already struggling with traffic.

Adding significant density from this rezoning will create an unbearable gridlock that will make daily life a nightmare for residents. Our infrastructure is not equipped for this. * Overwhelmed Public Services: Our schools are full, our parks are crowded, and our emergency services are stretched thin. This rezoning will push them beyond their breaking point, degrading the quality of essential services for every Rocklin family. * Destroying Our Neighborhood's Character: We chose to live in the Argonaut Avenue neighborhood for its quiet, residential feel and green spaces. This rezoning will fundamentally destroy that character, replacing it with something unrecognizable and undesirable. This is an attack on our way of life.
* Crushing Our Property Values: Increased density and overdevelopment in our immediate vicinity will undoubtedly depress property values for homeowners throughout the Argonaut Avenue area. This is a direct financial blow to our most significant investments.

We are not asking for minor adjustments. We are demanding that this specific rezoning be completely removed from consideration for our neighborhood. We urge the Planning Commission to:

* Cease All Action on This Parcel: Immediately halt all plans related to the rezoning of Parcel 045-011-001-0000 for high-density development in our neighborhood. * Listen to the Community, Not Sacramento: Conduct transparent public meetings where genuine community feedback is prioritized over state-mandated agendas. Our voices have been ignored.
* Explore Viable, Compatible Alternatives ELSEWHERE: Direct resources to identify development strategies that are genuinely compatible with Rocklin's existing character and placed in locations that do not destroy established neighborhoods like ours.

I am ready to provide further input and expect the opportunity to discuss this critical matter in detail. Thank you for your urgent attention to this issue. It's time to put Rocklin residents first and push back against this ill-conceived plan.

Sincerely,
Don Pettey
[email protected]

28) From: Karen Rosen [email protected]

Hi to All,
I would like to express my opinion on the above parcel. I am 100% against this proposal of building on the property. Argonaut already has increased traffic due to the Skyline houses. The speeding traffic on our street is horrible. We do not need more traffic. I hope this development will not go through.

Karen Rosen
3920 onaut Ave, Rocklin, CA 95677
470

29) From: Tom Rakela [email protected]

My name is Thomas Rakela and I have lived in the Green Valley Ranch subdivision for over 35 years. This is a beautiful and established neighborhood, one of the premier older communities in Rocklin. I am appalled and extremely upset to think that our city officials are considering rezoning this area for apartments!

Allowing multi-family apartments in this beautiful established area will serious damage the quality of life for all citizens in the neighborhood.

It will:

-decrease property values
-vastly increase traffic and congestion
-vastly increase the population density
-increase crime
-invade our streets with parked cars in front of home

My son owns a home in the Seattle area that allowed multi-family homes in his neighborhood. It has resulted in increased crime, congestion and damage to property values. Driving down his street is like a gauntlet with wall to wall cars parked in front of every house.

Rocklin has already designated over 100 acres for affordable housing in other areas. Why add this beautiful established neighborhood to that list Enough is enough!!

This proposed rezoning is an insult to all taxpayers in the area!

Next election season I will remember every politician involved in the proposal and work tirelessly to defeat

30) From: adam parella [email protected]

I'm writing you to tell you that i'm against the multiple family units down the street on my house.I live in our argonaut avenue

31) From: Anne Diroll, RN CNN

3708 Mountain View Drive,
Rocklin, CA 95677
July 20, 2025

To whom it may concern.

These phrases from the City of Rocklin website are encouraging.

Rocklin has a “healthy and growing population”. I am a Registered Nurse, and the key word is “healthy”, hence I am deeply concerned about the public health impacts should a rezoning be approved for higher density dwellings, especially for those disadvantaged by income.

Thankfully Rocklin pledges to be “transparent and accountable to the public” per their website.

I am expressing my concerns because “every resident who wants to be heard has a voice.” 471
The Mission Hills subdivision is a low density, single family stable neighborhood with very low real estate turnover. It is why we chose to invest in this community.

My understanding is that Argonaut Avenue and Lemon Hill end in dead ends for that very reason, per zoning requests from property owners years ago. One owner threw rocks at me, my aunt and my car when we were inadvertently leaning on the fence, and he admonished me to “Go back to Russia, and get out of the neighborhood.” For the record, I filed a report at The Rocklin P.D. Incidentally, I have lived in Rocklin for 25 years and am a registered voter. It seems quite an about face to rezone this property and build multi-unit dwellings between the tracks and the Gayaldo playground on the other side of the wall. Having lived in an apartment, there is a shortage of storage space, necessitating more frequent trips to the grocery store. Cost- burdened people need services within walking distance, such as pharmacy, post office, grocery store, ATM etc. The closest grocery store/pharmacy (Walmart Neighborhood Market) is 2.5 miles away, or a 55 minute walk. Safeway is 2.9 miles away, also a 55 minute walk one way.

A. Traffic.

We have endured the increased traffic on Argonaut with the development of the Toll Brothers Hillside addition. The trucks hauled the fill dirt up the hill, and now that pools are being built, that same dirt is coming down the hill. The 4-way stop signs on Argonaut and Mountain View, Argonaut and Hillside are routinely ignored.

The Midas and 5th intersection is a nightmare on schooldays. I have been stopped at the train tracks in midmorning (I have the photo) with an engine stuck on the train tracks. The best solution is to loop around to Fallon or Sunset to access Pacific.

In the event of a fire, how do you propose egress for the additional population? The Fire Factor for this area is Extreme at 9/10, and separate wildfire insurance policies are necessary for mortgages. There have been 12 large wildfires within 20 miles since 1984.A cursory investigation of my street states that my property could be destroyed by a wildfire, there are facilities near which release toxic pollution into the air, and residents of these properties breathe worse air quality than others. I have a 10% chance of being in a wildfire in the next 5 years. I lived here when there was a grass fire on the mountain prior to the Hillside development. Fire trucks had to park on private property on Clover Valley Road. Egress was a problem. I would consider another fire in the future another “Black Swan” event.

A wildfire after rezoning this area would result in a potentially hazardous situation, endangering both property and life. The only route out of this area onto Pacific and the I-80 freeway is via Midas or Sunset, both of which are already congested during commute hours and school drop- off and pick-up. Discussing schools, where will all these additional pediatric tenants attend school, since Parker Whitney is already bursting at the seams? And how many Medi Vans will need to drive up and down Argonaut transporting patients to dialysis, since there is no dialysis clinic in Rocklin?

B. Since this proposed development will back up to a railway line, these are additional concerns. Train pollution, particularly from diesel locomotives and coal trains, can negatively impact children's health by increasing the risk of respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular issues, and cognitive and developmental problems. Studies have shown a link between proximity to rail yards and increased asthma-related emergency room visits in children. Furthermore, air pollution from trains can exacerbate existing respiratory conditions like asthma and potentially lead to new cases.

Within 18 railyard model, children closest to railyard (0–5 miles) were at significant increased odds (OR = 1.15, 95%CI: 1.10–1.20) for asthma related ER visit and stronger odds observed for 5 top emitting railyards (OR = 1.40, 95%CI: 1.29–1.52).Nov 23, 2018 472

C. Noise.

Noise Pollution and Impact on Children’s Health is an article from The Indian Journal of Pediatrics found at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-017-2579-7 and published in December, 2017.

Authors: Alok Gupta, Anant Gupta, Khushbu Jain,Sweta
With rapid urbanization and life style changes, loud noise is omnipresent and has become a part of life. Indoor and outdoor environmental noise pollution have been documented as a serious health hazard with increasing adverse effects on fetus, infants, children, adolescents and adults.

Noise induced hearing loss and non-auditory adverse effects due to noise pollution, are being increasingly diagnosed in all age groups including the fetus. Outdated motorized vehicles, machinery, increasing traffic, congested residential areas, crowded educational institutions and workplaces, unregulated commercial and industrial noise have become a source of noise pollution with long-term disability. Areas of noise pollution must be identified and corrective measures be taken. Toys, personal, domestic, commercial, industrial equipment should be within the safe sound intensity. Loudspeakers and vehicular horns should be banned except in emergencies. Nocturnal noise pollution must be avoided near residential areas as sleep disturbances have serious long-term health consequences. Pregnant women, fetus, newborns, infants and children are most susceptible to noise induced health hazards and should be given utmost protection.

All animals are affected by loud sounds or noise pollution and respond by increasing their own sounds or by becoming quieter. They become irritable, lose concentration and move away from the noise temporarily or permanently as the situation demands .

Noise pollution affects the physical and mental health of hu- man beings. Noise exposure leads to psychomotor effects by increasing stress, causing sleep disturbance, difficulty in normal conversation, lack of concentration, irritability, violent behavior, increased heart rate commonly observed with loud drum beats, tachyarrhythmia, vasoconstriction, hypertension and associated diseases .

Till few years back noise pollution was a totally neglected area. Only now it is being recognized as an Environmental Pollutant and a Health Hazard
In USA, 12.5% children of age 6–19 y have permanent hearing loss of varying degree due to increased noise exposure
Avoid living in noisy areas as near highways, congested traffic areas, railway station and railway tracks, bus stands, airports, industrial areas etc.

To summarize, the environmental noise pollution causes temporary and permanent hearing loss. Motorized vehicles are a significant cause of sleep disturbance. Poor sleep causes en- docrine and metabolic disturbances, several cardio-metabolic and psychiatric problems and anti-social behavior, both in children and adults. Nocturnal environmental noise cause bi- ological effects like stress, altered sleep pattern and quality of sleep which are like those seen in endogenous sleep disorders. Apart from these subjective feelings and measurable effects of disturbed sleep, people affected by nocturnal environmental noise suffer the next day from daytime sleepiness, tiredness, annoyance, mood changes, decreased well-being and cognitive performance. Nocturnal environmental noise affecting normal sleep is most concerned form of noise pollution having adverse health consequences due to its synergistic direct and indirect influence on biological system. Duration and quality of sleep are risk factors or markers significantly affected by the environment but amenable to modification through aware- ness and counseling and through measures of public health. Avoidance, at all costs, of sleep disruptions caused by environmental noise is essential.

This is a Web report (no. 16/2024) discussing noise pollution. Even at midnight I hear the freight trains passing. I cannot imagine living right next to the tracks.

Title: The effect of environmental noise on children’s reading ability and behaviour in 473
Europe
EN HTML: TH-01-24-025-EN-Q - ISBN: 978-92-9480-703-8 - ISSN: 2467-3196 - doi:

10.2800/2429067
Health effects from transport noise on children
Environmental noise from transport sources such as vehicles, trains and aircraft is among the most damaging environmental factors to health in Europe after air pollution (Hänninen et al., 2014). Living in an area affected by transport noise is associated with an increased risk of developing a wide range of health issues, including cardiovascular, metabolic and mental health diseases. Chronic exposure to transport noise can also negatively affect children, especially because they are in an important learning and developmental phase (Clark and Paunovic, 2018). Growing evidence suggests that children that are exposed to transport noise at school or at home are more likely to suffer certain types of cognitive, learning, behavioral problems and obesity (ETC HE, 2024). In addition, recent work on cognitive development in adolescents found that traffic noise was associated with anxiety (Thompson et al., 2024) and that early life exposure to transport noise could also lead to mental health issues in adulthood (Newbury et al., 2024). Based on the latest evidence, this briefing presents the estimated impact of transport noise (road, rail and air) on the reading and behaviour of children in Europe. The full findings and methodology are described in the report Health effects of transportation noise for children and adolescents: an umbrella review and burden of disease estimation from the European Topic Center on Human Health and the Environment (ETC HE) (ETC HE, 2024).

Almost 550,000 cases of reading ability impairment a year are estimated to be due to environmental transport noise in Europe. Most of these cases (84%) are due to noise from road traffic, especially inside urban areas, followed by rail traffic (15%) and air transport (about 1%).

In addition, almost 60,000 cases of behavioural difficulties annually are due to environmental transport noise in Europe, where again, a majority (about 86%) of cases are due to road traffic noise, mostly inside urban areas.

A very large proportion of the population in Europe — more than 20% — is exposed to long- term levels of transportation noise that are considered to be harmful to health. Consequently, it is estimated that the same proportion of children is also exposed to levels of noise that can have detrimental effects in their learning development. It is conservatively estimated that there are more than 500,000 children with impaired reading ability due to transportation noise from road, rail and air transport. In addition to this, almost 60,000 could also be having behavioural difficulties. Given the large number of children exposed to transport noise in residential environments and at schools, implementing policies to reduce transport noise could help in mitigating the detrimental effects of noise on learning.

Reducing exposure both at home and at schools would minimise these adverse outcomes for children, which may affect their lifelong opportunities and quality of life. There is a wide range of interventions that can be applied to reduce noise exposure and increase related community health outcomes, including for children.

D. I experimented with AI for the 1st time! Here’s what I found.

Living near train tracks can be associated with increased cancer risk due to exposure to diesel exhaust, particulate matter, and other pollutants. Studies have linked proximity to rail lines and yards to higher rates of certain cancers, including breast cancer, liver cancer, and pancreatic cancer. While the exact extent of the risk varies, research suggests that living near train tracks can contribute to elevated levels of air pollution and potentially increase the likelihood of developing cancer.

A study in Denmark found a correlation between railway noise and an increased risk of breast cancer.

E. Cancer
474
The British Journal of Cancer published this article in 2003 Mar 4;88(5):695–698. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600762
Childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in relation to proximity to railways Authors: H O Dickinson, D M Hammal , T J B Dummer , L Parker , J F Bithell In a study of cancer in children, diagnosed during 1968–1983 in England, Wales and Scotland reported an association between residential proximity to railways and risk of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). A further national study of children who died from leukaemia, between 1953 and 1980, appeared to confirm this association. The authors inferred that exposure to petroleum-related products is likely to be a risk factor for childhood leukaemia and NHL. However, they did not have population denominators for the areal units used and the appropriateness of the methodology employed to obviate this problem has been questioned In addition, recent studies have shown such a marked effect of population mixing on the incidence of childhood leukaemia that it is essential to allow for this as a possible confounding factor (

F. This is a summary by Nihar Parekh, MD from November 29, 2023 discussing Effects of Air Pollution on Child Development.

Air pollution is a pressing global issue with far-reaching consequences, and children are particularly vulnerable to its adverse effects. As young bodies are still developing, exposure to pollutants in the air can have significant and lasting impacts on their health. This article delves into the ways in which air pollution affects the well-being of children

1. Respiratory System: Increased Respiratory Infections: Children exposed to air pollution are more susceptible to respiratory infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis.

Pollutants irritate the respiratory tract, making it easier for infections to take hold.

Exacerbation of Asthma: For children with asthma, air pollution can trigger and worsen symptoms. The inflammation caused by pollutants can lead to more frequent and severe asthma attacks.

2. Lung Development: Impaired Lung Growth: Long-term exposure to air pollution can hinder the proper growth of children’s lungs. This impairment may have lasting consequences, affecting respiratory function throughout their lives. Decreased Lung Function: Studies show that children in areas with high levels of air pollution often exhibit reduced lung function. This can limit their ability to engage in physical activities and impact their overall well-being.

3. Cognitive Development: Neurological Effects: Emerging research suggests a link between air pollution and cognitive development in children. Exposure to certain pollutants may negatively impact memory, attention, and overall cognitive function. Impact on Academic Performance:

Poor air quality has been associated with lower academic achievement. Children exposed to higher levels of pollutants may experience difficulty concentrating and learning.

4. Cardiovascular Health: Increased Risk of Heart Problems: Air pollution doesn’t just affect the respiratory system; it can also harm the cardiovascular system. Children exposed to pollutants may face an elevated risk of heart problems later in life. Blood Pressure and Inflammation:

Some pollutants can lead to increased blood pressure and inflammation, contributing to cardiovascular issues even at a young age.

5. Prenatal effects: Risk During Pregnancy: Prenatal exposure to air pollution is a concern.

Studies suggest a connection between a mother’s exposure to pollutants and adverse outcomes such as preterm birth and low birth weight. Long-Term Consequences: Children exposed to air pollution in utero may experience long-term health effects, including respiratory and developmental issues.

G. The American Lung Association also weighs in, as follows:

Locomotives, a.k.a. the engines that power trains, are a leading source of harmful, lung- damaging air pollution.

The engines that haul goods across the country and transport people between cities are most often powered by diesel. These diesel-powered locomotives are extremely polluting 475
communities surrounding railways, and they contribute to the climate change health crisis. Many have been in operation for decades and still rely on outdated technology that spews harmful pollutants and gases into the air we breathe.

The majority of America’s locomotive fleet is old. Trains built as far back as the 1970s are still on the rails today. These engines release a dangerous mix of emissions, including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and greenhouse gases. These pollutants cause health emergencies such as asthma attacks, cancer, lung and heart disease and even premature death.

Locomotive emissions impact air quality around the country, especially in communities surrounding rail yards and train routes. Millions of Americans live and work near train tracks, many of them in lower-income and disadvantaged communities that already bear a heavy burden of environmental health risks. Children, older adults and people with existing health conditions are especially vulnerable.

I have mentioned the risk of wildfires in my section on traffic problems. Of note, California, experienced ‘out of wildfire season’ activity that prompted air quality alerts. Wildfires are becoming more frequent and more severe. And more people are experiencing smoke exposure than ever before. We can all testify to layers of ash in our yards, in our homes, and on our vehicles. Fires have necessitated me changing my home air filters every 3 months, instead of annually.

H. These are excerpts from an article entitled Air Pollution and Children’s Health Inequalities, (volume 131) published this year in May in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Authors: Milena Suarez Castillo, David Benatia , Christine Le Thi

Impacts of early childhood exposure to air pollution on children’s health care use across parental income groups.

Short-term surges of air pollution affect the likelihood of emergency admissions and drug consumption related to respiratory issues for young children.

Our analysis reveals that significant health effects of short-term variations of air pollution are concentrated in about 10% of the infant population. These infants are characterized by a combination of poor health indicators at birth, and are more likely to be from the lowest parental income decile.

I. Here is a summary from our very own local UC Davis published in CHILDREN’S HEALTH as recently as October 2, 2024 entitled Research in 4 continents links outdoor air pollution to differences in children’s brains
By Alex Russell and Karen Nikos-Rose
(SACRAMENTO)
Outdoor air pollution from power plants, fires and cars continues to degrade human, animal and environmental health around the globe. New research shows that even pollution levels that are below government air-quality standards are associated with differences in children’s brains.

A UC Davis research team systematically analyzed 40 empirical studies, the majority of which had found that outdoor air pollution is associated with differences in children’s brains. These differences include volumes of white matter, which is associated with cognitive function, connections throughout the brain and even early markers for Alzheimer’s.

The study, “Clearing the Air: A systematic review of studies on air pollution and childhood brain outcomes to mobilize policy change,” was published this month in Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience.
476
“We're seeing differences in brain outcomes between children with higher levels of pollution exposure versus lower levels of pollution exposure,” said Camelia Hostinar, an associate professor of psychology and the study’s corresponding author.

Children and teens are especially vulnerable to air pollution because their brains and bodies are still developing. They tend to spend more time outdoors, and their bodies absorb more contaminants relative to their bodyweight than adults, researchers said.

Outdoor air pollution and brain development
This study surveyed 40 published, peer-reviewed studies that all included measures of outdoor air pollution and brain outcomes for children at various ages, from newborns up to 18-year-old adults. The majority of studies came from the United States, Mexico and Europe, with one each from Asia and Australia.

J. In conclusion, not only would this rezoning and proposed development have a major impact on traffic, it will also increase noise and air pollution for the existing Mission Hills residents. This would be an egregious disservice to the community and its permanent residents, especially children and the elderly with any pre-existing lung and cardiovascular problems. Rocklin’s most recent Clean Air Award was in 2015 – What has happened to our air in the previous 9 years? Our Air Factor is Extreme at 10/10. We have had 32 days of unhealthy air this year. Our Heat Factor is severe at 7/10 with 6 days this year greater than 104F. That number of hot days is projected to increase by 67% over the next 15 years. With PG&E increasing rates at a rapid pace, how will cost burdened tenants afford the cooling? These proposed apartments will add to our urban heat island.

Please seriously consider the damage to public health as you make decisions in the best interests of your Rocklin residents.

For all the above reasons, I am categorically opposed to a rezoning of land abutting the railway line.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Anne Diroll, RN CNN

32) From: Vladimir Gavrilov [email protected]

URGENT: Strong Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of Parcel 045-011-001-000 and construction of a low-income apartment complex.

We are Rocklin residents since 1994 and since 2003 we reside at Pecan Ct. very close to Argonaut ave. Our daughter an grandson also live in Rocklin. We love our neighborhood. It is quiet, clean, and safe. Majority of residents here are seniors or retired. Unfortunately, during some last year’s Rocklin City council doing everything to decrease resident’s living standards.

For instance new development on the ridge (Skyline, Witney Vista Lane) despite council statements added about 1000+ car day-trips, safety hazard as many of these upscale residents ignore stop sign on Hillside/Argonaut intersection. And now you want to build an apartment complex at the dead end of Argonaut. The only way to and out of the complex would be Argonaut Ave. It will produce additional traffic and possible congestion on both Argonaut and Midas, because it is only way to schools, stores, post-office, etc. There is certainly not enough room for parking, Cars of low-income residents of the apartments would be parked in front of private houses.

There are safety concerns also. Apartments having only one escape route and located very close to the railroad are not safe.

Please stop consideration of rezoning and construction at the dead end of Argonaut.

Thank you,
477
Sincerely
Dr. Vladimir Gavrilov (916) 217 5189,
Elena Gavrilov. (916) 216 3189
2709 Pecan Ct, Rocklin CA 95677
[email protected]

33) From: Carole Durbin [email protected]

Hello,
My name is Carole Durbin. I live at 3971 Argonaut Ave., Rocklin. I am writing to you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of parcel number 045-011-001-000.

Here are a few of many concerns:

Concern #1: additional traffic in the neighborhood and on Midas/Argonaut.

Concern #2: the minimal standard of ONE parking space per unit is NOT realistic!! Concern #3 where would overflow parking go?
Concern #4 if there is only 1 car per unit, this means extra trips by residents if there is more than 1 occupant
Concern #5: one egress/ingress street (already overtaxed by Skyline) Concern #6: low income housing should be closer to public transportation and grocery/pharmacy

Please do not allow this rezoning, it's bad for the neighborhood and bad for Rocklin.

Carole Durbin

34) From: Charline Botelho [email protected]

Our name is Charles and Charline Botelho. We live at 3515 Argonaut Avenue, Rocklin CA. We have lived here since 1995 and we love this community. Our neighborhood is relatively safe (Argonaut has become more dangerous to walk since Skyline was built) and we hope to retire here.

That said, we’ve learned recently of the plan to build multi-housing at the end of Argonaut. We are strongly opposed to it for the following reasons:
 the upper portion of Argonaut is very busy now. Drivers fly down the road and we have observed multiple near misses of pedestrians trying to cross over. Our house is at the corner of Argonaut and Mission. We sit out front and are amazed at how many drive closer to 50-60 then the posted speed limit. We have seen more than once, slower cars being passed by fast drivers using the car pool lane. You know Argonaut has a curve and often it is done where you can’t see who is in the bike lane.  The City has done NOTHING about slowing down cars driving Argonaut by installing additional stop signs. Instead you are now talking about adding more residents and cars to the street.
 The stop sign at Argonaut and Midas backs up. It was bad before Skyline and has only gotten worse with those cars, coupled with the new neighborhoods off Park.  The area in mention backs to a railroad track, meaning those cars all have to come up Argonaut, causing even more delays and making it more of a highway. What happens when there is a fire? Are you planning to open up the neighborhood on the other side so people can get out safely?
 Let’s talk low income. You are building low income housing at the old Kmart site. That makes sense. Adding low income at this particular place makes zero sense. It should be 478
in locations where there is public transportation. Are you planning to add a bus stop at the end?
 Multi-Family has no business at the end of Argonaut. This is a neighborhood with houses, not apartments or multiple mobile homes. This will adversely affect home values.

It was bad enough when Skyline was approved. We question the City and their thought process on these types of projects. You sorely lack common sense. While Mission Hills is not as peaceful as it was prior to Skyline, we do not want it made worse. We hope you make the right decision this time.

Charline and Chuck Botelho

35) From: Nikole Frey <[email protected]>

Good morning,

I’m Nikole Frey. My husband, four children and myself live on Argonaut Ave here in Rocklin. We love our quiet, family friendly neighborhood and have been blessed to be here the last 5 years.

We’ve been informed that a potential multi-family complex may be considered at the end of our neighborhood if re-zoning is approved. We are AGAINST this for many reasons and feel it would be wrong for our neighborhood. Our streets have already been impacted by Skylines homes, Midas is impacted as well and adding well over 270 additional drivers/tenants would only negatively affect it more. Additionally, Rocklin already has over 100 acres designated for affordable housing in other areas, so why not use what they have rather than add yet another area? Lastly, there isn’t any nearby public transportation, grocery stores, etc. that may be needed by tenants. The closest grocery stores, Walmart and Safeway, are both a 55 minute walk.

While we are compassionate towards a potential need that the city may be trying to meet, we are hopeful that the city can find a solution that would allow our residents to be undisturbed and for a new community to be established that would provide the convenience they need as well as the city finding use for property that they already have designated for affordable housing.

We hope you seriously consider our current neighborhood community concerns about this issue!

Thank you for taking the time to read this email.

Have a blessed day,
Nikole Frey

36) From: Donald Blodger [email protected]
Sent: July 30, 2025
Subject: Rezoning APN 045-011-001-000 (9.1 acres)

To the Rocklin City Planning Commission and the Rocklin City Council:

My name is Don Blodger, and my wife and I have lived at 4605 Lemonhill Drive for 14 years. We love our neighborhood. I am writing about your REZONING parcel number APN 045-011-001-000 (9.1 acres).
479

You have heard from many of my neighbors about their concerns and issues, such as safety, lack of needed infrastructure and services, strain on current roadways, increased traffic on Argonaut and Midas (already a disaster), and parking fears because of your ability to waive parking requirements, etc. I am sure you intend to address each one of these concerns to those who have written.

However, I have 3 additional questions, and I look forward to your answers.

1. Why this property and why now, in light of the following:
a. The owner is not interested in selling, and therefore, there is no reason to rezone his property.
b. You have a lot of vacant property in other parts of Rocklin that is already rezoned for low- income.
c. And perhaps most importantly, all the other current zoned properties for low-income and potential properties ARE NOT INSIDE quiet existing residential neighborhoods like the one at the end of Argonaut Ave. Why such a departure from your precedent, and why now?

2. In the City of Rocklin Housing Element 2021-2029, Adopted 8/2021, you cite the following; “The Zoning Ordinance also serves to preserve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods.”
I am interested in learning about the research you have conducted, the assumptions you made in deciding to rezone this particular property, and all the ways you believe it will serve to preserve the character and integrity of our neighborhood.

3. One of the individuals on your planning commission has (re)directed those interested to the Rocklin City website, where I found this statement:
“Rezoning does not mean homes will be built immediately or without oversight. It simply means the land is legally eligible for future housing development.

Without much effort, this statement can be interpreted as you do not plan to build low-income housing NOW or TODAY , but you are giving yourself, The City of Rocklin, the LEGAL RIGHT to construct low-income housing TOMORROW or anytime you want in the future.

It appears the motivation being cited for the rezoning is that the State of California is making you do it. Still, it seems to be, even to the casual observer, an under-the-radar way to give yourself the legal right to build low-income housing in the future. How else could it be interpreted, especially in light of issues in questions 1 & 2 above, along with all the other issues raised by others? Once you rezone, it is simply the proverbial camel's nose under the tent, and I believe you are hearing a unified and resounding... DON'T.

I look forward to hearing your answers and / or response to the above.

Don Blodger
916.296.8080

37) From: Larry Frye [email protected]

My name is: Mr. Lawrence Frye. 3944 Sweetwater Dr., Rocklin CA I am very strongly opposed to The rezoning of the parcel listed above for the following reasons. I am retired. I purchased my home in this area because of the quality of homes and the safe and quiet private neighborhood.

I don’t believe this would be maintained with the zoning of the low income family development for the following reasons.There is only one ingress/egress Street, which has been further taxed by skylines homes. Midas is even more impacted, and both developments would be further harmed by well over 270 additional driver/tenants. The increased noise, congestion, and overflow parking. which would result in our streets being inundated with parked cars in front of our homes would create havoc. Rocklin has already designated over 100 acres for affordable 480
housing in other areas. so why not use what they have rather than add yet another area that will result in nothing but a negative impact in the surrounding neighborhood. please consider the impact this zoning would have. For not only these reasons. But a whole lot more that have been brought to your attention. Thank you.

38) From: Kelsey Martin [email protected]

Hello!
To whom it may concern:

My name is Kelsey Martin, I live at 3780 Argonaut Avenue in Rocklin.

I am emailing regarding the potential of the re-zoning on Argonaut Avenue to become a low income apartment complex. I live here on Argonaut Avenue in Mission Hills with my two young boys five years old and two years old as well as with my husband. We moved here nine months ago, from the East Bay area, looking in the Placer county area and cities for well over six months to make the right decision on which city to raise our two boys, for a better life, better community, better surroundings, family oriented people, & all in all a better neighborhood & city to raise our 2 wonderful boys.

We made many 3 hour round trip drives, day trips, etc. to check out different neighborhoods & areas, to give our 2 boys the best childhood neighborhood & memories we could possibly give them, looking in Lincoln, Rocklin, Loomis, & Auburn area. After touring / viewing well over 100 homes for sale in these different areas & cities, we knew we wanted placer county & decided on Rocklin for the family community feel, kind / caring people, cleanliness of the city, parks, & overall wonderful feel & impression that Rocklin imprinted on us.

We toured many homes in the Rocklin area, went through countless open houses, spent weekends, evenings, zoom / FaceTime showings trying to find the perfect fit for our family of 4.

Our realtor took us to 3780 Argonaut Avenue, & we knew we could not walk away from this house, & it was not because of the 80’s kitchen, bathroom, & very dated home.

However, it was because of the moment we pulled up to tour this home, the neighbors were out in the front yards, waving, kids playing & laughing being kids, people out walking their dogs saying hello, surrounding neighbors coming over to introduce themselves, & of course it won our hearts over that our 90 year old neighbor Ms. Louis is the original owner of her mission hills home & she could tell us every single milestone big or small that has happened in the neighborhood in the last 40 plus years!
The feeling was overwhelming of how much this felt like home, the welcoming of the neighbors, regardless of how dated & how much work needed to go into our hopeful forever home.

We were lucky enough to purchase 3780 Argonaut Ave. and have quickly made it feel more like Home in the past few months then our previous home that we lived bought & lived in the past seven years.

We have experience of what low income housing/apartment complexes can do to a community, neighborhood, area. In our previous neighborhood in the East Bay it was well established for over 40+ years, just like Mission Hills/Argonaut Avenue. The city in our previous owned home built low income apartment complexes, just 2 to 5 minutes from our family community neighborhood, changing it forever. Shortly after they were built, cars started getting broken into, 911 phone calls increased, crime increased, homelessness increased, and many things not wanting our two young boys as well as ourselves to be surrounded by. My husband and I fear is that the same thing will happen to our wonderful family oriented community and neighborhood here in Mission Hills and on Argonaut Avenue. We have met many neighbors who are original owners and love this neighborhood for its safety privacy well built and well loved homes, and the quiet lifestyle that it offers. Building these apartment complexes will increase the noise, 481
congestion, parking, and change the dynamics of Argonaut Avenue/Mission Hills neighborhood from a well loved well, cared for area, neighborhood, surroundings to a very congested area and many people coming in and out, just for the sake of the lower income option.

Please, heavily consider to not rezone the end of Argonaut for a low income apartment complex.

We want to keep our beautiful, well loved, family oriented, quiet, safe area, the same as it has been the past 40+ years just as our incredible 90-year-old neighbor has explained it to us, let’s make Argonaut Avenue and Mission Hills an amazing area and place to live for the next 40+ years by NOT building these low income apartment complexes.

Thank you for your time!
Kelsey Martin
3780 Argonaut Avenue

925-548-5367
[email protected]

39) From: Nadara Craun <[email protected]

While the State of California may be driving the need for Rocklin to re-asses its land management and parcel zoning plan, the current approach of simply changing zoning without regard for the existing residents and surrounding communities is inappropriate. It does, in fact, violate California’s current position that supports a property owner’s general rights to use their land without having that use or the properties’ values impaired by damaging uses of neighboring properties. Therefore, the proposed rezoning of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 to HDR MU- 24+ violates California’s stated rights as it is not consistent or suitable for the surrounding area and neighborhoods. This inappropriate land use will have a negative impact on the surrounding communities in the following ways:

Roadways

Midas Ave. and 5th St. intersection:

Traffic at this intersection has been a problem for many years particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times.

There is no room to build a roundabout and a traffic light would not reduce the amount of traffic through this intersection; therefore, it would not reduce the traffic impact. In fact, it could increase the waiting and therefore the environmental and safety impacts. This also poses a hazard to public safety because emergency response vehicles would be delayed as they encounter additional traffic obstacles. Not forgetting, of course, that hundreds of children are present – in cars, on bikes, scooters, skateboards and on foot. All would be exposed to increased safety risks with the increased traffic.

Midas Ave. from Pacific to Clover Valley Rd.:

Residents along Midas already are unable to safely exit their properties due to both the amount and the speed of traffic. With the significant increase in trips that will result from HD zoning, they will suffer from a disproportionate increase in danger and inconvenience as well as increased exposure to both noise and air pollution.

Other surrounding roadways and neighborhoods:
482

Whether traffic is routed through or near the Green Valley Ranch, Mission Hills, or Yankee Hill Estates subdivisions, the impact of HD zoning on the existing communities will be severe.

Children play on those streets. And they will be subjected to many, many more speeding cars and distracted drivers. Increased traffic will result in more speeding and more aggressive driving as has been documented (Federal Highway Administration of the Department of Transportation).

In short, adding more vehicles and more trips increases the environmental and safety impacts, thus increasing issues for the surrounding communities and the liability to Rocklin. The impacts to these neighborhoods can be mitigated, to a degree, through the responsible use of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000. Re-zoning to HDR MU-24+ does not constitute responsible use.

Additional Impacts:

Business Development

Rocklin has stated in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Overview (RHNA, last updated Sept. 17, 2022) that the Retail Sector requires higher density to locate to Rocklin. I would argue that the retail activity at the Sierra College/ I-80 interchange proves that that condition has already been met. Further, if the re-zoning of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 might be thought to be a positive impact on the Pacific Street corridor, I would encourage City Staff, City Council, and City Planning Commission to study the Taylor Corridor in Loomis where there is a vibrant and thriving community-based retail business center that is not surrounded by HD housing.

The RHNA Overview also stated that the retail sector desired higher incomes. Given the very high density (24+) being proposed for this property and its placement, it is unlikely to attract higher incomes, thus increasing strain on the surrounding neighborhoods without an equivalent benefit to the retail sector or the community as a whole.

Accordingly, re-zoning of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 is not justified by the city’s RHNA rationale.

Public Utilities and Services

The responsibility for providing public safety, well-maintained roads, sufficient water supplies and electricity are the duties of government. Rocklin’s First Responders fulfill their responsibilities with distinction. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the other duties are not met.

Residents are asked to conserve water, to restrict cooling/heating, and to limit appliance use to reduce demand on infrastructure. We are told to live with increased traffic and the subsequent safety and environmental hazards. And residents must spend thousands of dollars to mitigate city/developer-induced problems when inappropriate builds are approved (e.g., Skyline at Los Cerros.)

High density housing increases the burden on and the demand for services without providing an appropriate level of incremental benefit. While the general response to these issues is that developer fees and increased tax revenues will provide the offset, that is unlikely to be the case with the rezone of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 given the placement of the property and the many negative impacts already mentioned. Different areas can be rezoned far more readily 483
and though there would be safety and environmental questions to be answered, if the properties were suitably identified, these issues would have less of an impact on the community.

Rocklin’s website and the page, “Why Rezoning is Required—and What It Means for Our Community, explains why Rocklin government believes rezoning is necessary but the reasons stated are not supportable in the case of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 as outline below:

1. “It’s the law”

The fact that it is law does not mean that this specific parcel must be rezoned. Rocklin has many, many other parcels in less developed/mature areas where re-zoning would have far less impact on the environment and the existing community and residents. I won’t discuss here the ethics of how this particular parcel rezone has come about. A single parcel with one resident who may not have the means to fight would seem an easy path. Suffice it to say that “legal” does not make it “ethical.” The legal obligation to meet a housing target does not mean that you must rezone this specific parcel.

2. “It helps planning locally”

Rezoning may help the city retain control, but in the case of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 it’s not being done with consideration for current property owners’ rights or consistent with existing property use. Other parcels that are already being used in a high-density fashion but not necessarily designated as such (i.e., mobile home parks) may be easily rezoned without impact to the existing community or residence. Further, as stated previously, there are many more parcels where HD zoning could be imposed with far fewer impacts.

3. “It supports the community”

Rezoning Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 to HDR MU-24+ will not support the community, Instead, it will have a negative impact. In the context of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 it could be claimed that “it supports the community” is an emotional argument, not a logical one.

In closing, the rezoning of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 to HDR MU-24+, in my opinion, is neither logical nor rational. It will not improve the community, rather it will have a costly and deleterious impact. The need to meet California State requirements can be met in other ways. I therefore strongly urge the Rocklin Planning Commission to not recommend the rezoning of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000.

Sincerely
Nadara Craun
3942 Argonaut Ave.

Rocklin, CA 95677

40) From: Doug Dickson <[email protected]>

Members of the Rocklin Planning Commission:

484
I respectfully urge the Rocklin Planning Commission to reconsider its proposal and not recommend the rezoning of the Subject Parcel on the following grounds:

Inappropriate Land Use:

While it is understandable that the City wants to establish higher density housing, that housing needs to be thoughtfully located and consistent with surrounding land use and amenities. The California Department of Housing and Community Development states that the intention of zoning is that local ordinances and policies are enacted to protect the health and safety of citizens and further the general welfare of the community. Rezoning the Subject Parcel to higher density would do the opposite for the surrounding existing neighborhoods. The Subject Parcel is located proximate to the neighborhoods on Sweetwater, Lemon Hill, Argonaut, Los Cerros, Clover Valley, and Rawhide. High density housing is simply incompatible with these existing neighborhoods. Further, rezoning this parcel is unjustified given numerous other available locations, far more suitable to high density housing.

Financial Impact to Adjacent Properties:

Rezoning of the Subject parcel would result in irreparable harm to surrounding property owners due to depression of property values and other financial impacts. A suggestion from the Planning Commission is that Rezoning the Subject Parcel doesn't really affect members of the existing neighborhood at all. This is not correct. As members of the Planning Commission are undoubtedly thoroughly familiar with the real estate industry, they are certainly aware that prospective real estate buyers consider future development plans. Rezoning would decrease the appeal of the area for real estate buyers due to the impact on the character of the neighborhood and the inconsistency of this proposed rezoning. Even without development, just the act of rezoning the Subject Parcel telegraphs to prospective real estate buyers a future reduced standard of living due to traffic, noise, congestion, street parking, pollution, reduced privacy and strain on infrastructure and resources.

Once developed, harm from secondary financial impacts would also include increased costs for increased demand for resources such as utilities. This would exacerbate the current environment where there is already a scarcity of water and electrical power.

California property rights include a general right of a property owner to use their land without having that use or the properties’ values impaired by damaging uses of neighboring properties.

Rezoning the Subject Parcel to high density housing would adversely and unjustifiably impact the property rights of homeowners in the aforementioned neighborhoods.

Some of the residents have nearly 40 years of experience and history with this neighborhood and the City of Rocklin’s planning and development processes. Does anyone on the current Planning Commission have that comprehensive background and experience?

Increased Traffic and Related Issues:

There are existing traffic issues in Rocklin today. The Deputy Director of City of Rocklin’s Department of Public Services, Mr. Justin Nartker’s Neighborhood Traffic Survey acknowledged the City’s concerns over vehicle speeding, vehicular volume, and pedestrian safety. Given the 485
City’s acknowledgment, the Planning Commission must already be aware that legitimate traffic concerns exist for Argonaut today. Additional traffic from high density housing on the Subject Parcel would only exacerbate the existing issues and would be unacceptable.

The existing traffic issues today are also, in part, due to the Rocklin City Planning Commission’s and City Council’s approval of previous rezoning and development plans without proper or meaningful mitigation of traffic volumes. In numerous examples, like the Los Cerros rezoning and development approval, the City of Rocklin simply did not respond to the input of the community or act with due diligence to mitigate additional traffic volumes from the new developments. Los Cerros is only one of many cases over the last several years where the City of Rocklin has failed to establish circulation patterns and manage traffic volumes to the acceptable standards of the community. It would be disappointing to the community if the City did not learn from its past mistakes.

For surface streets and collectors such as Argonaut, a fundamental tenet of accident investigation is that accidents occur in proportion to traffic volume. If the City of Rocklin already acknowledges the existing traffic issues and proceeds with rezoning and development of the subject parcel, then they must accept shared responsibility for the inevitable increase in incidents, accidents, and injuries in our community.

Environmental Impact:

An environmental impact study commissioned by the City of Rocklin in association with the development of Yankee Hills Estates identified the area south of the Subject Parcel along Yankee Hill to be the habitat of the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus Californicus Dimorphus). This is a federally threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Rezoning to higher density land use is inconsistent with the City’s responsibilities to protect this habitat under the ESA.

Conflict of Interest for Rocklin Officials:

Under the California Fair Political Practices Commission’s Political Reform Act, a public official in the State of California has a disqualifying conflict of interest in a governmental decision if it is foreseeable that the decision will have a financial impact on his or her personal finances or other financial interests. In such cases, there is a risk of biased decision-making that could sacrifice the public’s interest in favor of the official’s private financial interests. To avoid actual bias or the appearance of possible improprieties, the public official is prohibited from participating in the decision.

Given the Planning Commission’s members’ multiple business, professional, and/or political associations that would financially benefit from increased housing density, I believe there is a clear and obvious conflict of interest in making a rezoning recommendation on the Subject Parcel. Adhering to the Act’s avoidance of appearance of conflict of interest requires Commissioners with conflicts to recuse themselves of any recommendation. Given the breadth of publicly available information regarding Planning Commissioners’ business interests, professional and/or political associations, some might question whether those members are ethically and legally precluded from making a recommendation relative to rezoning the Subject Parcel at all.

D. W. Dickson
3942 Argonaut Ave
486
Rocklin, CA 95677

41) From: Jenean Alden [email protected]

To the Rocklin City Planning Commission and the Rocklin City Council:

We are the Alden Family, and we have lived at 3975 Argonaut Avenue for 11 years. We came from the Bay Area looking for a more peaceful, slower-paced, affordable, and family- centric neighborhood. We love our home and our uniquely wonderful neighborhood. I am writing about your REZONING parcel number APN 045-011-001-000 (9.1 acres).

However, we have 3 additional questions, and we look forward to your answers.

1. Why this property and why now, in light of the following:
a. The owner is not interested in selling, and therefore, there is no reason to rezone his property.
b. You have vacant property in other parts of Rocklin that is already rezoned for low-income. c. And perhaps most importantly, all the other current zoned properties for low-income and potential properties ARE NOT INSIDE quiet existing established residential neighborhoods like the one at the end of the street I live on.Why such a departure from your precedent, and why now?

2. In the City of Rocklin Housing Element 2021-2029, Adopted 8/2021, you cite the following; “The Zoning Ordinance also serves to preserve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods.”
We are interested in learning about the research you have conducted, the assumptions you made in deciding to rezone this particular property, and all the ways you believe it will serve to preserve the character and integrity of our neighborhood.

3. One of the individuals on your planning commission has (re)directed those interested to the Rocklin City website, where we found this statement:
“Rezoning does not mean homes will be built immediately or without oversight. It simply means the land is legally eligible for future housing development.

As a family of your constituents, we beg you, DO NOT rezone APN 045-011-001-000 I look forward to hearing your answers and / or response to the above.

Kindly
Jenean Alden

487

42) From: Daniel Diroll
Sent: July 21, 2025 via Mail

488

489
43) From: Richard and Valentina Parkman
Sent: July 16, 2025 via Mail

490

491
44) From: Chad Romig [email protected]

Counsel Members,

As a realtor and long time resident of Rocklin, I would like to express my protest against the proposal of using 045-011-012 AND 045-011-017 as high density options to meet RHNA requirements.

These are not good options for this purpose. It will be more harmful for the community, and the city.

Call me if you have any questions.

Chad

-- 📧 --
Chad Romig, Realtor
Purpose Real Estate
“Selling Homes,
Building Hope”
BRE 01962708
916-824-6885

45) From: Chad Romig [email protected]

Dear City Council members,

I am writing to express my concern and disapproval of using the Rocklin land on parcels 045- 011-012 AND 045-011-017 as high density options to meet the state of CA requirements for housing. I have worked in the nonprofit world for over 15 years and much of that time was focused on housing options for the homeless/houseless, as well as affordable housing. I have managed 3 affordable housing programs, working with HUD and the VA, and I have experience with the Winter Sanctuary mobile shelter program as well. In all this time I have learned that in order to truly help this sector of our community we need to set them up for success and equip them with viable resources to offer them a fighting chance. These 2 lots being proposed for high density housing do NOT fit the bill. They are too far removed from resources, they do not match the community style and 'comfort' of most potential residents, and they don't offer ease of access or availability of options for daily living.

Please consider dropping these lots and looking in more 'urban' areas of the city where the residents of these units can be more successful and comfortable.

Thank you,
Chad

46) From: kathy j [email protected]

Dear Mr. Anderson;

It is with grave concern that we are contacting you today. It has come to our attention that a low income housing development is being considered behind Yankee Hills Estates. This is 492
behind Lakebreeze Dr. Another development is being considered off Delmar behind the railroad tracks.

We have lived in Yankee Hills Estates for at least 15 years. It is a quiet, crime free neighborhood where children play in yards and park and enjoy themselves. We would like to keep it that way.

We already have had to deal with the Gathering Inn issue. I would hope that you could find another option rather than this neighborhood for these housing developments.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Kathy and William Johnston
4367 Lakebreeze Dr.

Rocklin, ca.

47) From: M Davis [email protected]

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to oppose the proposed high-density housing on lot number (045-011-017 and 045- 011-012). Placing high density housing next to our neighborhood (Yankee Hills Estates) would be a disaster. The road is one way in and out and approximately .8 of a mile long. Traffic is bad now, especially during the school year when parents and buses take their children to school.

Aitken Dairy Road is narrow and has cars parked on both sides often creating slow downs for passing cars. Another concern is when the trains block the tracks or the crossing arms malfunction. This happens at least monthly, and it causes a huge traffic jam leaving.

Occasionally there will also be trains passing through during the school hour rush which also causes a major back up. If the proposed lots were developed it would not be sustainable the amount of traffic that would be routed through our neighborhood.

Thank You

48) From: Valentina Marchuk [email protected]

To the Rocklin City Council and Planning Commission,

It is brought to our attention that The City of Rocklin has scheduled a public hearing for Tuesday, August 5, to re-zone the land bordering Yankee Hill Estates subdivision. If approved, this zoning change will allow high-density low income apartments at 24 units per acre for parcel numbers 045-011-012 and 045-011-017.

I am writing as a concerned resident of Yankee hill Estate subdivision regarding the proposed development. While we recognize the importance of providing affordable housing options, we respectfully oppose the current plan based on concerns that directly impact the safety, stability, and quality of life in our community.

We recently purchased a house in this quiet Yankee Hill Estate neighborhood with good schools and safe place for our family. And with this proposal for high-density low income apartments all our expectations will be vanished.

Here are the concerns that I would like to voice out:

1. Increased Traffic
493
Access to the complex may be routed through Jaybird Place, which would significantly increase neighborhood traffic and potentially impact the safety of children and pedestrians. Our local road is not adequately equipped for the added volume.

2. Community and Neighborhood Safety
One of Yankee Hills Estates’ most valued qualities is its reputation for being a safe, family- oriented neighborhood. While housing for all is important, statistical data shows that high- density, low-income housing can correlate with increased crime rates, which may impact property values and neighborhood security.

3. Negative Impact on Local Schools.

Rocklin’s schools are a cornerstone of our community, known for their high standards and strong performance. However, many are already nearing capacity. A large influx of students from a dense housing project could lead to overcrowded classrooms, stretched resources, and ultimately, a decline in school performance and district ratings. This would not only affect the education of current students but could also have long-term impacts on home values and community satisfaction.

We urge the City of Rocklin to reconsider the proposed development. Thank you for your attention and thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
Valentina Anikhimik (916-390-6617)
Concerned Resident of Rocklin, CA

49) From: Lyudmila Silchuk [email protected]

Yankee hill estates, we don’t want the low income housing near here. We have been living here for the last 20 years in peace and silence and we don’t want it to be ruined by low income housing.

My contact: 916-715-5178

50) From: devon miller [email protected]

Hello,

I am a homeowner resident in Yankee Hill Estates and have concerns about the proposed rezoning the land between Antelope Creek and our neighborhood for high density low-income housing.

My greatest concern relates to the proposed access to this area routing through our neighborhood (connecting at Jaybird).

Any increase in traffic, especially high-density housing numbers, is incredibly dangerous to the children and pets in our neighborhood. Aitken Dairy has several blind sharp turns in which children are often riding in the middle of the street on bikes or scooters- there have been several times I would have hit a child head on had I been the slightest bit distracted. And several pets have been hit and or killed on the straight sections of Aitken Dairy.

Additionally, there is only one access road to Yankee Hill Estates. What happens if there is an emergency (fire or other)? How safely can every household in our neighborhood plus the proposed high-density housing numbers of households evacuate? Also, what is the anticipated rate of calls for emergency vehicles (police/ fire/ ambulance) for the proposed high density low- 494
income housing? Are those vehicles going to come flying through our neighborhood where children ride down the middle of the blind curves of Aitken Dairy on bikes and scooters?

My other primary concern is the beauty and habitat of the existing wooded areas. A portion of land in the proposed rezoning is already cleared, but there is also a large wooded portion of this land that is not only incredibly beautiful and a significant feature of our neighborhood, but also a thriving habitat for deer, hawks, eagles, owls, frogs, etc. How will this proposed development impact this environment?

Please consider how this proposed rezoning and access to it is truly inappropriate.

Thank you,

Devon Miller

916-792-1070

51) From: Brian Sauer [email protected]

Good afternoon, My name is Brian Sauer, and I’m a resident of the Yankee hill estates. I’m here to respectfully voice my opposition to the proposed rezoning of APN 045-011-012 and APN 045- 011-017 to high-density residential.

This proposed change is deeply concerning to many of us in the community — not because we oppose growth, but because this kind of growth is out of scale with our neighborhood and inconsistent with the city’s own planning.

First, this area is made up almost entirely of single-family homes and low-density residential lots. Changing just one lot to high-density sets a precedent that could permanently alter the character and cohesion of the neighborhood. Our neighborhood was designed and built for lower density — this change would fundamentally alter its identity. It’s not just about one building — it’s about preserving the design and livability of our community.

Second, our infrastructure is not built for this kind of density. Roads are already busy, and increased traffic from dozens of new units would pose serious congestion and safety issues.

Our roads are already congested during peak hours. Adding more units would exacerbate traffic and create safety concerns. We also worry about the strain on sewer, water, and emergency services, which are not equipped to handle sudden increases in demand without costly upgrades.

There’s also an environmental cost. That lot provides important green space and helps with stormwater absorption in heavy rains. Replacing it with high-density construction could increase runoff, flooding risk, and reduce natural habitats that benefit our local ecosystem. This area is a habitat for local wildlife with a large wetland and creek running and trees that would be lost or effected with high-density development.

Perhaps most importantly, this proposal appears to conflict with the city’s own comprehensive plan, which designates this area as low density suburban residential. A decision to rezone would directly undermine the planning framework that’s supposed to guide balanced development.

495
This change could also reduce property values and quality of life for nearby residents — we are concerned about increased noise, parking issues, and a loss of privacy.

We’re not here just to say “no” — many of us would be open to reasonable compromises. A more modest, medium-density development with integrated green space would be far more appropriate and respectful of the surrounding community. Can the council consider a development that includes more green space or fewer units?

In closing, I urge you to listen to the voices of the residents who will be directly affected. Please preserve the integrity of our neighborhood and reject this rezoning proposal. I also ask that you share your plans to mitigate the risks I’ve outlined.

Thank you for your time and service.

52) From: Steve Burch [email protected]

Hi Nathan and Arwen,

As I am sure you have received many emails from my neighbors I would like to echo our collective concerns regarding the rezoning of the lots listed in the subject line. I am a homeowner in the Yankee Hills neighborhood, specifically at the corner of Lakebreeze and Jaybird where it appears there would be an access road granted for the potential development.

Our biggest concerns are around the increased traffic and the impact it would have on our neighborhood. There is only one residential road in and out of the neighborhood and increasing traffic at the level required for a high density development is very likely to increase the danger of accidents given that children often play in and around our streets.

A high density development would also require the removal of a significant portion of the forested habitat that abuts our neighborhood. This is another safety concern based on possible interactions with autos and wildlife. We routinely see several deer at a time passing where Jaybird would be extended. Based on the drawings I've seen this would be a bland corner with an elevation drop.

Lastly, these parcels seem remote for a high density development. The units would be a significant distance from public transportation and thus be an added burden for the new residents.

I will plan on going to the planning meeting on August 5th.

Thank you for your consideration.

Cheers
Steve Burch

53) From: Ryan Biziewski, Land Manager
John Mourier Construction, Inc.

Dear Ms. Leanza,
We received your letter dated June 9, 2025, regarding the proposed inclusion of our property in the City’s list of alternative RHNA sites.

JMC understands and respects the City’s obligations to meet State housing mandates under RHNA; however, first and foremost, we do not support the rezoning of our property from its current designation of medium density residential to high density residential. In addition to our 496
general opposition to a change in land use, we want to share several site-specific challenges that make high density development on this parcel infeasible:

1. The parcel only has one ingress and egress through a developed subdivision. The RHNA density will create challenges for the existing residents and may create difficulty for the emergency services departments.

2. Introducing high-density development into an established single-family neighborhood may significantly alter the community’s character, leading to compatibility issues, increased traffic, parking strain, and visual impacts that are inconsistent with existing development patterns.

3. The site is located within an existing subdivision and is isolated from streets and transit that are typically expected for this type of dense project. Further there would not be connectivity and smart growth connections to shopping and other uses normally associated with this type of density.

4. Achieving the required density will likely necessitate three-story buildings and deviations from the City’s established parking standards, which may not be appropriate or feasible for this site.

5. Additional variances to City conditions and standards may be needed to develop this high density residential (e.g. parking requirements, one point of ingress/egress, etc.) based on a review of the layout of the project.

6. It is unclear whether existing infrastructure, such as water, sewer, storm drainage, and roads, can adequately support the increased demand from high density residential development. Upgrades may be required, resulting in additional public or private cost burdens.

7. The topography of the site will likely require significant retaining walls costs and challenges for compliance with ADA with the RHNA mandated density.

Considering these issues, we respectfully ask that our property not be included in the proposed high density RHNA site inventory and that it be withdrawn from the scheduled discussion at the August 5, 2025, Planning Commission meeting.

Sincerely,
John Mourier Construction, Inc.

Ryan Biziewski
Land Manager

497
Planning Commission Blue Memo
Public Correspondence
(Received 7/31/25 through 8/05/25)

54) From: Matthew Bollinger [email protected]

Dear Mayor Janda and Members of the Rocklin City Council, I am writing as a Rocklin resident deeply concerned about the proposed affordable housing development. Rocklin is defined by its strong values: hardworking residents, community pride, and well-maintained neighborhoods. I fear that this project could strain the very quality of life that makes our city exceptional.

1. Fears about Crime and Community Safety
Many community members worry that affordable housing developments can bring increased crime. Some anecdotal accounts describe illicit activity and violence in concentrated low-income complexes. While exceptions exist, the specter of increased criminal behavior understandably unsettles residents seeking to preserve Rocklin’s safe environment.

2. Concerns Over Property Values
One prevailing fear is that introducing subsidized housing may depress surrounding home values. Earlier literature has identified resident concerns about declining property values and neighborhood character. In particular, there is evidence that in high-income suburban areas, building affordable housing could slightly reduce home prices—especially if the development is perceived as incongruent with local housing stock and community standards.

3. Rocklin’s Local Context
Rocklin boasts a high median home value and steady appreciation over the past decade, estimated at around 0.12% annually—well above typical state and national rates. These trends reflect the investment Rocklinites make in maintaining property standards and neighborhood stability. This project may risk shifting that investment dynamic.

4. Living Community Norms
Rocklin is proud to be a “family community,” built by people who value hard work and long-term commitment. Any changes to housing stock should respect the established character of existing neighborhoods. Many residents feel that introducing a high-density income-restricted project into predominantly owner-occupied areas could disrupt that balance and alter neighborhood cohesion.

Ultimately, Rocklin’s success is rooted in carefully managed growth, civic responsibility, and a shared vision of neighborhood integrity. I respectfully request that the Council fully weigh the potential risks to crime, property values, and community character before moving forward.

Rocklin is a very special city, and I feel very privileged to call it home. I have a young family, and we love Rocklin’s schools, businesses, parks, and community character. I would encourage anyone who is hard-working and civic-minded to consider moving to Rocklin. For the aforementioned reasons, I believe the addition of state-mandated affordable housing would do more harm than good to the community.

If there is any recourse to fight this unwanted affordable housing imposition from the state, I think it should be vigorously pursued.

Thank you for your service and your careful consideration.

Sincerely,
Matthew Bollinger
Rocklin Resident

498
55) From: Margie Richmond [email protected]

Dear Council Members and Planning Commission Members,

I would like to ask that Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 be removed from consideration for rezoning under RHNA. This property is not right for High Density Housing and zoning it as such would be a mistake.

The proposed lot resides in a neighborhood of single family homes which does not have the infrastructure to support an expected 250+ residents.The traffic on Argonaut and Midas is already an issue, especially during school hours, and the prospect of adding an additional 250+ vehicles is unreasonable. Argonaut is the only thoroughfare to access the neighborhood and this drastic influx of vehicles would be a negative impact to all surrounding communities as well as significantly decrease emergency services response times.

It is also my understanding that there are over 30 additional parcels that are in consideration for rezoning in the city of Rocklin. After review, parcel 045-011-001-0000 is the only lot that is situated in a neighborhood. As such, important accommodations for residents of High Density Housing are not afforded in this location. The parcel is located at the backside of the community and does not allow prospective High Density Housing residents walk-ability as there is not close proximity to stores nor a main street.

I sincerely hope that you take this request to remove parcel 045-011-001-0000 from rezoning into serious consideration. While I understand the importance of the city offering High Density Housing to its residents, the rezoning proposition is not a good fit for this community as it will conflict with the current character and would forever change this beloved neighborhood.

Margie Richmond
3946 Sweetwater Dr, Rocklin
916.214.3946

56) From: Andrea Jensen [email protected]

Rocklin City Council and City Planning Commissioners,

I echo the sentiments of Donald’s questions. In addition to my previous letters that have been recorded, I would like this in record for our property at 3946 Argonaut Ave, Rocklin.

In my response to the letter I received from Jared, I raised some of these same concerns to the link he provided trying to ease the issues I addressed.

Bottom line is I would like, at minimum, to see parcel number APN 045-011-001-000 removed from the rezoning you are considering and want this in record for us.

Thank you,
Andrea Jensen

57) From: Kyle Chatelain [email protected]
499

Dear Rocklin City Planning Commission and Rocklin City Council, My name is Kyle Chatelain. I was born and raised in the Mission Hills neighborhood and loved it so much that my wife and I purchased my childhood home from my parents. I’ve lived at 4607 Lemon Hill Drive for 36 years, and we’re now raising our own family here.

This neighborhood means a great deal to me.

I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of farmland for apartment and housing development on Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 and the surrounding area.

While I understand the need for affordable housing, I do not believe this specific plan is in the best interest of our city. My concerns include:
 Increased Traffic Congestion:

Our current infrastructure is already under strain. Adding high-density housing will only worsen congestion, especially on Argonaut and Midas Avenue and surrounding roads.

For context, a prior proposal to build homes on the former Sunset Whitney Golf Course was denied due to traffic concerns—and that was before the Skyline development added even more vehicles to an area not built for this volume. Notably, there is only one ingress/egress point to the area, further complicating traffic flow and emergency access.  Strain on Public Services:

Our schools, parks, and emergency services are already stretched thin. Additional housing will put further pressure on these systems. As a public safety concern, longer police and fire response times could cost lives when every second counts.  Loss of Neighborhood Character and Green Space:

This development would alter the peaceful, residential character and reduce the green space that makes our community so livable. The quality of life for existing residents would be permanently impacted.
 Decreased Property Values:

Increased density, overdevelopment, and inadequate parking often lead to lower property values. Homeowners who have invested in this community deserve better planning and foresight.
 Pedestrian Safety Near Railroad Tracks:

The nearby railroad tracks pose a safety risk. Families and children may be tempted to cross the tracks on foot to reach parks or nearby stores, increasing the risk of serious accidents.
 Parking Shortages:

The Planning Commission appears to allow the applicant to request a minimum standard of just one parking space per unit—despite most units likely housing two or more drivers.

With no visitor parking required, our streets will inevitably become overcrowded, with cars parked in front of existing homes.

Because of these serious concerns, I respectfully request the Planning Commission:

1. Conduct more public outreach and hold workshops specifically focused on this parcel and its impacts—many residents feel their voices have not been adequately heard.

2. Commission an independent infrastructure impact study, including traffic counts during peak hours, as well as evaluations of water, sewer, and emergency response capacity.

3. Explore development strategies that are more consistent with Rocklin’s General Plan and the character of existing neighborhoods.

Additionally, I have the following questions:
 Has the City conducted a recent traffic study specific to this parcel, considering peak commute times on Argonaut and Midas? If so, can the results be shared with the public?  How will the City ensure pedestrian safety, especially concerning the nearby railroad tracks?
500
 Rocklin has already designated over 100 acres for affordable housing in other areas— why not prioritize development there rather than introducing high-density housing into yet another established neighborhood?
 How will community feedback be incorporated into the final decision-making process for this rezoning?
I welcome the opportunity to further discuss these concerns and appreciate your time and service to our city.

Please consider the long-term impacts of this decision. I urge the Council to reject the current rezoning proposal and instead pursue balanced, sustainable alternatives that reflect the needs and values of our community.

Sincerely,
Kyle Chatelain

58) From: Michael Olsen [email protected]

Hello all,

My name is Michael Olsen and I live at 3728 Argonaut Ave. My wife and I first moved to Rocklin when we were just 12 years old and both attended Springview and Rocklin High School. Growing up here was the best thing that ever happened to us. We made so many close friends and connections that we still have to this day. Some of whom we still gather with on a weekly basis and speak to daily. They are like family. Some also have moved back to this very neighborhood and other parts of Rocklin. This is an incredibly special place to raise a family. I would not be who or what I am today without them or the experiences that I have had growing up here.

My wife and I started our family when we lived in Carmichael, then moved to West Roseville, and never felt like we were home until we moved back here to Rocklin. Our 2 boys had many friends in Roseville and were not excited about the move. However, within the 1st year of living on Argonaut, they could not have been more happy that we moved. They attended Parker Whitney, Springview, and Rocklin HS (youngest is still at RHS). My oldest is home from college and still gets together with his friends from Rocklin everyday. It warms my heart and I know that we made the right decision in coming back here and to see them thrive in a community that is so special to me.

As someone that invests in real estate in the Boise and McCall, ID area, I have seen first hand how quickly areas can change. Even Rocklin is almost unrecognizable from what it once was. Which is fine. Change is not in itself bad. Change can be very good, but only if done properly. Putting high density and/or low income living at the end of an established well sought after neighborhood is not how we should plan to develop and change this city that I love dearly. This will make people want to leave the neighborhood and less desirable for those looking to move to the neighborhood. The goal should be to make neighborhoods more desirable, not less. Think of the added traffic alone. It's not just the residents that add traffic. It's the visitors, the delivery drivers, the maintenance and construction folks. With one way in and out, this will significantly increase traffic. Adding another way in and out isn't the answer in my opinion either. That will open a path for people to use as a shortcut raceway and easier access for those looking to burglarize, etc. In other words, it has been my experience that small communities with one way in and out are safer and more desirable.

501
On top of that, we need to set people up for success. If there are going to be families that rely on nearby facilities for things such as jobs, shopping, and public transportation, then do them a favor and put them in a convenient location that provides them with easy access to what they need. Some of them are having a hard enough time as it is. There is a reason why you don't see low income high density living deep in well established neighborhoods.

Part of growing up here is knowing that we live in a community where people look after one another. That is what we are asking of you today. Help us to look after those of us that have worked hard to have a neighborhood perfect for raising a family and that you don't have to leave to grow old. Help those in need of low income housing to be in an area that supports their needs for success. Let's make sure that we keep all of Rocklin a desirable place to live, not just parts of Rocklin.

To be clear, I'm not fighting for whether or not this parcel should be developed. I would honestly much rather it not be developed, but I understand needs to develop areas. I am, however, fighting the zoning and how it gets developed. This is a single family home neighborhood in a residentially zoned area and should remain that way if you want it to remain as desirable as possible. If you don't think that changing that will reduce how desirable this neighborhood is, then I urge you to have some more conversations and do some more research before making your decision. We should never accept reducing the desirability of a Rocklin neighborhood. We should always strive to make Rocklin more desirable to continue to attract the amazing people that drive this community.

Sincerely,
Michael Olsen

59) From: Nadara Craun [email protected]

It does, in fact, violate California’s current position that supports a property owner’s general rights to use their land without having that use or the properties’ values impaired by damaging uses of neighboring properties. Therefore, the proposed rezoning of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 to HDR MU-24+ violates California’s stated rights as it is not consistent or suitable for the surrounding area and neighborhoods. This inappropriate land use will have a negative impact on the surrounding communities in the following ways:

Roadways

Midas Ave. and 5th St. intersection:

Traffic at this intersection has been a problem for many years particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times.

There is no room to build a roundabout and a traffic light would not reduce the amount of traffic through this intersection; therefore, it would not reduce the traffic impact. In fact, it could increase the waiting and therefore the environmental and safety impacts. This 502
also poses a hazard to public safety because emergency response vehicles would be delayed as they encounter additional traffic obstacles. Not forgetting, of course, that hundreds of children are present – in cars, on bikes, scooters, skateboards and on foot.

All would be exposed to increased safety risks with the increased traffic.

Midas Ave. from Pacific to Clover Valley Rd.:

Other surrounding roadways and neighborhoods:

Whether traffic is routed through or near the Green Valley Ranch, Mission Hills, or Yankee Hill Estates subdivisions, the impact of HD zoning on the existing communities will be severe. Children play on those streets. And they will be subjected to many, many more speeding cars and distracted drivers. Increased traffic will result in more speeding and more aggressive driving as has been documented (Federal Highway Administration of the Department of Transportation).

Additional Impacts:

Business Development

Rocklin has stated in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Overview (RHNA, last updated Sept. 17, 2022) that the Retail Sector requires higher density to locate to Rocklin. I would argue that the retail activity at the Sierra College/ I-80 interchange proves that that condition has already been met. Further, if the re-zoning of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 might be thought to be a positive impact on the Pacific Street corridor, I would encourage City Staff, City Council, and City Planning Commission to study the Taylor Corridor in Loomis where there is a vibrant and thriving community- based retail business center that is not surrounded by HD housing.

Accordingly, re-zoning of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 is not justified by the city’s RHNA rationale.

Public Utilities and Services

503
The responsibility for providing public safety, well-maintained roads, sufficient water supplies and electricity are the duties of government. Rocklin’s First Responders fulfill their responsibilities with distinction. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the other duties are not met. Residents are asked to conserve water, to restrict cooling/heating, and to limit appliance use to reduce demand on infrastructure. We are told to live with increased traffic and the subsequent safety and environmental hazards. And residents must spend thousands of dollars to mitigate city/developer-induced problems when inappropriate builds are approved (e.g., Skyline at Los Cerros.)

Different areas can be rezoned far more readily and though there would be safety and environmental questions to be answered, if the properties were suitably identified, these issues would have less of an impact on the community.

1. “It’s the law”

2. “It helps planning locally”

Rezoning may help the city retain control, but in the case of Parcel Number 045-011- 001-0000 it’s not being done with consideration for current property owners’ rights or consistent with existing property use. Other parcels that are already being used in a high-density fashion but not necessarily designated as such (i.e., mobile home parks) may be easily rezoned without impact to the existing community or residence. Further, as stated previously, there are many more parcels where HD zoning could be imposed with far fewer impacts.

3. “It supports the community”

This is the only statement that might withstand a cursory, but not a full, inspection. It does not overcome the egregious impacts that rezoning Parcel Number 045-011-001- 0000 will enable, especially in light of the many other areas where rezoning could occur with far less impact. Rezoning Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 to HDR MU-24+ will not support the community, Instead, it will have a negative impact. In the context of 504
Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 it could be claimed that “it supports the community” is an emotional argument, not a logical one.

Sincerely
Nadara Craun
3942 Argonaut Ave.

60) From: Doug Dickson [email protected]

I respectfully urge the Rocklin Planning Commission to reconsider its proposal and not recommend the rezoning of the Subject Parcel on the following grounds:

Inappropriate Land Use:

Rezoning the Subject Parcel to higher density would do the opposite for the surrounding existing neighborhoods. The Subject Parcel is located proximate to the neighborhoods on Sweetwater, Lemon Hill, Argonaut, Los Cerros, Clover Valley, and Rawhide. High density housing is simply incompatible with these existing neighborhoods. Further, rezoning this parcel is unjustified given numerous other available locations, far more suitable to high density housing.

Financial Impact to Adjacent Properties:

505
California property rights include a general right of a property owner to use their land without having that use or the properties’ values impaired by damaging uses of neighboring properties. Rezoning the Subject Parcel to high density housing would adversely and unjustifiably impact the property rights of homeowners in the aforementioned neighborhoods.

The issues presented by the public to the Planning Commission reflect legitimate concerns for the welfare of the entire community. It is not helpful to gaslight the community with the suggestion that rezoning the Subject Parcel will have no impact on the neighborhood at all. Some of the residents have nearly 40 years of experience and history with this neighborhood and the City of Rocklin’s planning and development processes. Does anyone on the current Planning Commission have that comprehensive background and experience?

Increased Traffic and Related Issues:

There are existing traffic issues in Rocklin today. The Deputy Director of City of Rocklin’s Department of Public Services, Mr. Justin Nartker’s Neighborhood Traffic Survey acknowledged the City’s concerns over vehicle speeding, vehicular volume, and pedestrian safety. Given the City’s acknowledgment, the Planning Commission must already be aware that legitimate traffic concerns exist for Argonaut today. Additional traffic from high density housing on the Subject Parcel would only exacerbate the existing issues and would be unacceptable.

Environmental Impact:

Conflict of Interest for Rocklin Officials:

506
Under the California Fair Political Practices Commission’s Political Reform Act, a public official in the State of California has a disqualifying conflict of interest in a governmental decision if it is foreseeable that the decision will have a financial impact on his or her personal finances or other financial interests. In such cases, there is a risk of biased decision-making that could sacrifice the public’s interest in favor of the official’s private financial interests. To avoid actual bias or the appearance of possible improprieties, the public official is prohibited from participating in the decision.

D. W. Dickson
3942 Argonaut Ave
Rocklin, CA 95677

61) From: Richard E Schultz [email protected]

To City of Rocklin Planning Commission and Rocklin City Council Members

My name is Richard E. Schultz, my wife Gayle have been owners and residents at 4009 Argonaut Ave., Rocklin, CA since June 1987. We very much appreciate our home, neighbors and friendships we have made in the neighborhood in the City of Rocklin.

I are writing to you to express my concerns and opposition to the efforts to rezone the specific parcel APN 045-011-001-0000 and the blanket rezoning of the multiple parcels listed in the hearing notice for the August 5, 2025 planning commission meeting.

Simply put the basic reasons are as follows:

1. Preservation of the character and integrity of the existing neighborhood in the area originally known as the “Green Valley Ranch Subdivision" as it was known in the 1986 development plan.

2. Traffic concerns and impact on the Argonaut Avenue and Midas Avenue corridor and adjacent roadways.

3. Fire and safety issues generated by a potential high density zoned development with only one inlet and one outlet that being Argonaut Avenue. This specific parcel, as you know, is immediately adjacent to the railroad tracks that carry a significant volume of rail traffic which in the event of a railroad incident would be a potential catastrophe event.

Please exclude this specific parcel and potentially other parcels listed in the notice as they may not be appropriate for the zoning changes put forth.

507
At the request and with the approval of I also am listing my good friends and neighbors:

Andrew and Barbara Giannini, 4008 Argonaut Ave., Rocklin, CA 95677. They also have been residents in their home since May 1987. The are quite elderly and no longer use the email or internet and may not be at the August 5, 2025 meeting,

Thank you, respectfully,
Richard E. and Gayle A. Schultz
4009 Argonaut Ave.

Rocklin, CA 95677
My cell phone number 916-798-0364

62) From: Jeff Smith [email protected]

I am writing to you to express my deep concern over the possible / likely rezoning of the above parcel of land at the end of Argonaut Ave. in Rocklin, a parcel currently used to stable horses and with a single resident living on it. I am hoping very much that this is not an issue that is ALREADY DECIDED, but that you will listen closely to the concerns of the hundreds of residents of this area who would be negatively impacted and are strongly opposed to it.

We believe that you will be considering rezoning this plot of land to permit the building of apartments and low-income, high-density homes. This would be tragic for the CURRENT residents adjacent to this property whose homes are generally on large parcels, maintained impeccably, and whose property values are in the neighborhood of $1 million. Placing low income homes and apartments immediately next to them could only bring down property values and the quality of the area. I believe that observations of other such low-income properties in the City of Rocklin support this belief, especially since it is quite possible that many of the low-income, high-density homes would be purchased by people intending only to rent them.

Assuming a possible 30 housing units per acre this, should this be approved, will result in hundreds of additional vehicles DAILY driving down Argonaut Ave, which already has serious problems with speeding and an epidemic of running of the stop signs at Hillside, Mountain View, and Midas. During commute hours and when school is in session Midas Ave. already has serious congestion problems, sometimes backing up from Argonaut to Pacific Street, particularly when a train has stopped traffic, and for a quarter of a mile down Argonaut.

This parcel is immediately adjacent to the very busy Union Pacific tracks and it is likely that a very high, unsightly sound wall would be demanded to block at least some of the noise for new residents. It is my understanding that a local engineering firm has already determined that this parcel of land is totally UNSUITED for high density housing or apartments due to its slope, which would require unusual steps to provide sewage service and storm drain needs.

I am confident in stating that nearly 100% of the CURRENT residents along Argonaut Ave and Sweetwater Ave are strongly opposed to rezoning this for apartments and low- income, high density housing, and I believe that the needs and impacts on current residents must be taken into consideration, and supercede the desire for high property tax income for the City of Rocklin. Please do not allow this type of rezoning to occur. 508

63) From: Sara Bonaccorso [email protected]

I am a resident on Argonaut Ave. I contest the re-zone in the land at the end of Argonaut. We have live here about 10 years. It a well keep up area and safe to live. All the residents take good care of their homes, and are respectful of others. We have no crime issues so far. This area is safe, quiet and well-maintained.

A large Multi-Family Complex at the end of Argonaut is wrong for this neighborhood. It will increase the noise, be congested and diminished access for emergency vehicles as needed. There is no public transportation nearby and the closet market is over 2 miles away. It is my understanding that Rocklin has already designated over 100 aces for affordable housing in other areas. Why not use what is ready for housing than add another area and create additional chaos in a wonderful neighbor we live in. Thank you

64) From: Vanessa Moon [email protected]

Dear Rocklin City Officials,
My name is Vanessa Moon, I am a lifelong resident of Rocklin, and have been a homeowner at 3745 Argonaut Avenue for almost 8 years. I am writing on behalf of myself and my husband, Cyle Moon, as concerned residents of the Mission Hills neighborhood to strongly oppose the proposed rezoning and development of parcel number 045-011-001-000, located at the end of Argonaut Avenue. The proposed plan to rezone and develop low-income housing on this site poses serious and potentially detrimental effects to the safety, character, and infrastructure of our neighborhood.

One of the most immediate concerns is the exponential increase in traffic this development would bring to Argonaut Avenue. Our street is frequently used by families, seniors, and individuals for walking dogs, exercising, and children walking to and from school, riding bicycles, or playing in front yards and on sidewalks. An influx of new residents and traffic would directly compromise the safety and peaceful nature of our neighborhood.

As longtime residents of Argonaut Avenue, many of us have already noticed a marked increase in speeding and unsafe driving patterns as a result of the nearby Skyline development. We purchased our home on Argonaut Avenue before this development was constructed for many reasons, notably the tranquility that Argonaut Avenue provides. We have already seen this tranquility diminished as a result of the Skyline development. I have personally witnessed first-hand cars speeding upwards of 50 mph to and from the Skyline neighborhood, to the point where our neighborhood is, at times, unsafe for our four children (ages 6-14) to even play in our front yard. The addition of low-income, high-density housing at the end of Argonaut Avenue would undoubtedly worsen these conditions, increasing the risk to pedestrians, cyclists, children, and pets.

Additionally, there is currently little to no infrastructure in place to support a sudden increase in population. The area lacks access to public transportation, and the nearest grocery stores and essential services are several miles away. Without reliable transit options or nearby amenities, this development could place strain on existing roads and services, with few solutions in place.

Many residents in this area, including seniors and retired individuals, chose this neighborhood because of its quiet atmosphere and sense of security. Rezoning this parcel for high-density, low-income housing would dramatically alter the character of the neighborhood in a way that is neither planned for nor supported by the current infrastructure.
509
While we recognize the importance of providing affordable housing, we urge the City to carefully consider locations that are better equipped to support this kind of development, like areas with existing transit lines, nearby commercial services, and roadways designed to handle higher traffic volumes. The City has already designated over 100 acres for affordable housing in other areas which could be better suited and are already zoned for this use.

Despite my family’s younger demographic, we purchased our home on Argonaut Avenue as our “forever home” because we loved the tranquility, character, and safety the neighborhood provided. Some of these characteristics have already been diminished by the construction of the Skyline neighborhood. Please don’t diminish them even further by approving the rezoning of parcel 045-011-001-000 to allow for it to be developed with low-income housing.

We respectfully ask you to protect the integrity of our neighborhood and deny the rezoning request for parcel 045-011-001-000.

Thank you for your attention and thoughtful consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,
Vanessa Moon

65) From: Susan Manzer [email protected]

My husband and I are reaching out to share our concerns and ask that the city of Rocklin reconsider rezoning the property at the end of Argonaut Avenue, Parcel Number 045-011-001- 0000. We recently planted roots here from Tracy valley just 6 months ago and purchased a beautiful home around the corner from Argonaut on Sweetwater Drive. What attracted us to this beautiful neighborhood was the large lots, quiet neighborhood, and well maintained homes and yards that you would typically see in a gated community with HOAs. Bringing in a large multi- family complex to this location will increase noise, congestion, parking, and will diminish access for emergency vehicles when needed. We have already experienced access issues shortly after moving during the pipeline replacement project on Midas. One particular day my husband couldn’t return home because a tree removal company blocked off Mountain View and the Midas project blocked off access to Argonaut. This was very frustrating and concerning that he could not return home. There is only one ingress/egress street and this new development would further impact the congestion. Our neighborhood doesn’t have the infrastructure to support apartment living and low-income housing will not only decrease the value of our homes but take away our sense of safety and security.

Nathan, please place yourself in our shoes and help us be heard. I believe you would want the same for your family and neighborhood.

Thank you for your time.

Susan and Tim Manzer

66) From: Knox Mary Anne [email protected]

Dear Rocklin City Planning Commission and Rocklin City Council members,

My name is Mary Anne Knox. My family and I have resided in the Mission Hills, Green Valley 2 subdivision neighborhood for almost 40 years, purchasing our brand-new home directly from Ron Ward Construction and Ojai Stevens in the Summer of 1987. We raised our family here and 510
now enjoy seeing many new families moving into the neighborhood and raising their own young families.

I join all of my neighbors in voicing my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of parcel #045-011-001-0000 (Argonaut Avenue) from farmland to high-density, affordable housing.

While all of us are in favor and support the need for affordable housing; this housing needs to make common sense and be consistent with the established character and integrity of the existing neighborhood into which it is introduced. Mission Hills has a peaceful, residential character and enjoys adequate greenspace which makes the neighborhood so livable.

Rezoning to higher density housing would permanently alter and impact the quality of life in the region, decreasing home property values which all of us have invested in for years.

I don’t think that the City has sufficiently predicted the parking shortage which such a rezoning would affect the neighborhood. With the minimum standard of just one parking space per unit and no visitor parking required, our neighborhood streets will inevitably become overcrowded with automobiles parked in front of existing homes.

Additionally, such rezoning would put an enormous stress on our existing public services which are already stretched beyond their limits. Longer fire and police response times would result due to this rezoning, not to mention the additional strain on existing water, power, and sewer services. Has anyone consulted with Rocklin Unified School District to measure the impact these additional numbers would make on our neighborhood schools - Parker Whitney Elementary and Spring View Middle School?

Lastly, none of us can forget the massive inconvenience we all lived through due to the collapse of the tunnel below Midas Avenue requiring months of road closure and then later due to the PCWA re-construction work which closed major portions of Midas Avenue for months at at time. While these projects were necessary and ultimately beneficial - they were temporary and we all understood that. Rezoning to high-density would make this increased traffic congestion permanent!

In closing, I respectfully request that the City and Planning Commission reject this particular parcel rezoning in favor of awarding rezoning to any of the many, additional parcels within the City which already support the necessary infrastructure to make the project successful.

Respectfully submitted,
Michael and Mary Anne Knox
4605 Chelsea Place
Rocklin CA 95677
916-316-1081

67) From: [email protected]

Dear Planning Commission Members,

As residents of Rocklin since 1987, we write to you with our concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of the parcel at the end of Argonaut.

511
Argonaut is already an expressway. Many drivers do not follow the speed limit, nor do they stop at stop signs. Especially drivers coming down Hillside from the Skyline development. A tragedy is certain to happen.

Adding more traffic to Argonaut is a critical concern. Ingress and egress are limited and in the event of a fire, or other emergency, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get out of the neighborhood. And you want to add more traffic? Will you take responsibility for tragic outcomes?

Furthermore, you should already be aware of the traffic issues currently affecting Midas Ave. Especially during the start and end of each school day. And you want to add more traffic?

Another concern is water pressure and how additional residential units will increase the strain on the system, further reducing pressure.

And then there is the matter of how property values will be affected. As you know, one’s home is usually one’s greatest asset. Would you want your greatest asset devalued?

In light of these critical concerns, it is difficult to see how anyone (current residents and residents of future development) benefits. We urge you to carefully consider all of the concerns being raised.

Thank you.

Denise & Paul Johnston
4704 David Ct.

Rocklin, CA 95677

68) From: Kenneth F Kelsey [email protected]

Future high-density building in Mission Hills does not meet Rocklin’s criteria per its Residential Development Standards, page 7-66 (“preserving the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods”) AND page 7-95 (“avoiding locations that were largely adjacent to single-family land uses and [also needed to] consider sites that were in close proximity to arterials and transit routes, parks, services and places of employment.”).

The triangular shape of the parcel will render significant portions of the site unusable, presuming the city will enforce buffer zones along the railroad tracks. Buildings in excess of three stories will likely need to be utilized on the smaller area of developable land in order to build 30 dwelling units per acre of HDR land. This goes against City policy and does not fit in with the adjacent neighborhoods.

Sincerely,
Vickie Kelsey

69) From: Spencer Widmeyer [email protected]

Dear City of Rocklin Officials,
512

My name is Spencer Widmeyer, I live at 3775 Argonaut Avenue, Rocklin, CA 95677, I am a resident of the Mission Hills neighborhood, and I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 at the end of Argonaut for a large multi-family low-income apartment complex.

This development would negatively impact our community for the following reasons:

Traffic and Safety: There is only one ingress/egress route, already overburdened by existing developments. Adding over 270 additional residents and vehicles would create excessive congestion, safety risks, and delays for emergency vehicles.

Parking Overload: The minimal parking requirements per unit will flood our streets with parked cars, greatly diminishing the quality of life and creating dangerous conditions.

Quality of Life Impact: Mission Hills has been a safe, peaceful, and well-maintained neighborhood where seniors, retirees, and long-term homeowners reside. The proposed project would bring increased noise, congestion, and decreased property values.

Inadequate Infrastructure: Our area lacks public transportation and the necessary infrastructure to support a high-density development. The nearest grocery and pharmacy options are over 2.5 miles away, which poses a challenge for families without personal transportation.

Existing Affordable Housing Alternatives: The City of Rocklin has already set aside over 100 acres for affordable housing elsewhere. We urge you to use those spaces instead of disrupting an established neighborhood.

On behalf of myself and many fellow residents, I respectfully urge you to vote NO on the proposed rezoning of this parcel. Please protect the character, safety, and livability of the Mission Hills community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Spencer Widmeyer
3775 Argonaut Avenue

70) From: dan carrillo [email protected]

I live on Sweetwater dr ! I have seen the negative impact that skyline has had on the neighborhood ! More traffic , excessive speeding through the neighborhood ! Adding that many more residents with limited access would be too much ! Let’s put this proposed development in the developers neighborhood !
I would have no problem with that !
Dan Carrillo

71) From: [email protected]

513
To the Rocklin Planning commission and the Rocklin City Council:

My husband and I have lived at 3966 Argonaut Ave., for 21 years. We love our quiet well-kept neighborhood. I am writing about your rezoning parcel number APN 045-011- 001-000.

You no doubt have heard from many of our neighbors about concerns and issues. Already the traffic impact on Midas and Argonaut with the Skyline development is terrible. With only one way out of the neighborhood, adding another 300-500 cars would cause greater issues. In the City of Rocklin Housing Element 2021-2019, Adopted 8/21, you cite the following:
“The Zoning Ordinance also serves to preserve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods.”
I do not understand how low income housing would preserve the character and integrity of our existing neighborhood.

Future low income (high density housing) building in Mission Hills does not meet Rocklin’s criteria per its Residential Development Standards, page 7-66 “(preserving the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods”) and page 7-95 (“avoiding locations that were adjacent to single-family land use and consider sites that were in close proximity to transit routes, parks, services and places of employment”). Our area does not provide the nearby infrastructure that may be needed by low-income families. The closest grocery store would be an hour walk each way just to get food for a family to feed themselves. While we understand, the need for such housing this is not the area to for consideration.

We are extremely concerned about the potential of Low-income housing in our area. We moved to Rocklin over twenty years ago to get out of the Bay area and the continued down fall due to the population incoming. We waited over a year to find the right property in this quiet, well-maintained neighborhood. We are retired and this home is our safe place. We cannot afford the devaluation of our home due to low income housing moving in the area.

We look forward to hearing from the council on these matters. My hope is that you intend to address each one of these issues.

Please confirm that all emails you receive are considered written correspondence.

Respectfully,
Deborah and Joe Basile

72) From: Dan Durbin [email protected]

Hello,
My name is Dan Durbin. I live at 3971 Argonaut Ave. I am writing to you because I have questions/concerns over the rezoning of parcel number 045-011-001-000 to affordable income housing.

Here are my questions and concerns:
#1 Why put affordable housing in an established neighborhood? #2 Very few homes have just one car, so the minimum one car parking space allotted means the overflow parking will be on Argonaut Ave and other side streets. #3 If high density housing is built on that parcel that means EXTRA TRAFFIC on an already busy Midas.
#4 I realize the state is requiring the city of Rocklin to have a certain amount of affordable housing. Why not rezone some commercial land where there is more accessible public transportation, groceries/pharmacies, etc?

514
Please do not allow this rezoning, it will not benefit the neighborhood or the city of Rocklin.

Dan Durbin

73) From: June Macdonald [email protected]

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed RHNA rezoning of Parcel Number 045-011-001-000 in the city of Rocklin, CA. I have serious concerns about this parcel and believe the city must take these into consideration now and not at a later time. Please enter this letter into the record for the meeting to be held on August 5, 2025.

3. Insufficient Roadways: The surrounding roads are not designed to handle vehicles for 270 additional dwelling units (assuming 30 units/acre and at least 1 vehicle per unit).

5. Strain on Public Services: Our schools and first responder (police, fire) services are already operating at capacity. This rezoning and potential development will place an added burden on these vital public services, diminishing their quality for all Rocklin 515
residents. The truth of the matter is that there is insufficient police presence today to enforce traffic violations, which have skyrocketed with recent developments in the area.

For these reasons, this particular parcel should no longer be considered or recommended for rezoning to HDR. Thank you for your consideration of this matter and thank you for serving the residents of Rocklin.

Respectfully,
Donald and June Macdonald
3739 Hillside Drive

74) From: [email protected]

To: Rocklin City Council and Planning Commission
Regarding: Rezoning of Parcel #045-011-001-000

My name is Nancy Clinton. My husband and I have lived in Rocklin since 1984. In those 41 years of living in our home at 3774 Antelope Way, we’ve seen Rocklin grow and change in amazing ways.

Having been members of Sunset Whitney Country Club for 28 years, it was sad when Charley Gibson ruined our golf course for the sole purpose of wanting to build houses on it. I was pleased when the city of Rocklin came to the rescue and purchased the land to save that open space for recreational purposes for all of Rocklin residents to enjoy. The City Council recognized that additional homes in an already impacted area would be a problem with traffic on the neighboring streets.

Then came the 100+ homes built on the top of the hill off of Argonaut and Hillside. Even though Skyline Homes are lovely homes, the addition of these houses had made a noticeable difference to our area…more cars, some running stop signs and some even speeding at times. Getting onto Midas in the morning, especially when school is about to start, is a major problem. Traffic is backed up in both directions on Argonaut trying to turn onto Midas. When adding a passing freight train with over 100 cars, backup becomes even longer.

Hearing from my neighbors about the proposal to change the zoning of the property at the end of Argonaut, I could not believe it! This would be a major disaster to the neighborhood I have loved all these years. The traffic would be unbearable and a serious concern in times of emergencies.

Please do not allow a proposal to rezone this land at the end of Argonaut for additional housing to happen. Seeing Rocklin grow from the population of about 8,500 people, when we first moved to Rocklin, to what it is today has been amazing and rewarding.

The city of Rocklin has made wonderful choices for our community. They need to continue to do that…and adding more houses and traffic to our Mission Hills area would be a very poor decision and a catastrophe for our neighborhood!

Thank you for your dedication to making Rocklin the best it can be now and in its future.

Please say “no” to rezoning the property at the end of Argonaut.

Best regards,
Nancy Clinton
516

75) From: Jim Richard [email protected]

To whom it may concern,

Please stop destroying the town I was born and raised in, where I was married and where I am raising my child.

I live on 5th Street and was raised off Keller Ct and have lived here my entire life. My great grandfather owned much of the property in the Greensborough annexation zone. I have deep roots in this place and have watched as it has become less and less familiar and more congested with each passing year. I staunchly oppose the proposed developement of the Pacific Street Apartments and the proposed developement of the Midas and Pacific lot as well. Just an aside, I saw two beautiful deer over there just this morning. These developement will negatively impact the quality of life, ease of mobility and vehicle circulation for Rocklin residents and will bring in out of towners with no roots to the city which will degrade and disrupt our awesome history and heritage and change the face of the town that I was raised in. I live on 5th street near the school and if you lived here you would be aware of the already awful traffic conditions when school is in session.

Adding hundreds of people and vehicles to this neighborhood is a mistake and will degrade the quality of life for those of us trying to make and keep Rocklin home.

As a father trying to raise a family here and fighting to live in the same town I was raised in and give my son the same gift I was given I urge you to drop these projects and end this folly. It will not improve life for Rocklinites and will only serve to fill our streets with congestion, crowds and out-of-towners.

Regretfully,

James Keller

76) From: Bijan Setoudeh [email protected]

My name is Bijan setoudeh and my wife is Kimberly setoudeh. Will live at 4354 lakebreeze drive. Is there going to be a vote? What or who decides which site is going to be chosen? What effect does going to the meeting have? I don’t see anywhere in the notice I received that there is a vote. How are the parcels 045-011-017 & 045-011-012 going to be used when it is a wetland preserve? They’re going to just decimate all the wildlife in there? Also, will all these people have access right into our small neighborhood with one small park? Will there be a fence between the homes off lakebreeze drive and the new development? We have a small community paying a ton of money in mortgage and property taxes to enjoy this area and now these developments will encroach on that, bring tons of low income people to the area to use the same areas as our children when we have worked very hard and saved for years to get into this neighborhood and continue to to maintain the ability to live here. There are many other open lots to use outside of established neighborhoods that wouldn’t also destroy entire wetlands. We are completely against these locations for the record.

77) From: [email protected]
To the Rocklin Planning commission and the Rocklin City Council:

My husband and I have lived at 3966 Argonaut Ave., for 21 years. We love our quiet well-kept neighborhood. I am writing about your rezoning parcel number APN 045-011-001-000. 517
You no doubt have heard from many of our neighbors about concerns and issues. Already the traffic impact on Midas and Argonaut with the Skyline development is terrible. With only one way out of the neighborhood, adding another 300-500 cars would cause greater issues. In the City of Rocklin Housing Element 2021-2019, Adopted 8/21, you cite the following:
“The Zoning Ordinance also serves to preserve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods.”
I do not understand how low income housing would preserve the character and integrity of our existing neighborhood.

Future low income (high density housing) building in Mission Hills does not meet Rocklin’s criteria per its Residential Development Standards, page 7-66 “(preserving the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods”) and page 7-95 (“avoiding locations that were adjacent to single-family land use and consider sites that were in close proximity to transit routes, parks, services and places of employment”). Our area does not provide the nearby infrastructure that may be needed by low-income families.. The closest grocery store would be an hour walk each way just to get food for a family to feed themselves. While we understand, the need for such housing this is not the area to for consideration.

We look forward to hearing from the council on these matters. My hope is that you intend to address each one of these issues.

Please confirm that all emails you receive are considered written correspondence.

Respectfully,
Deborah and Joe Basile

78) From: Susan Manzer [email protected]

Hello Planning Commision, Rocklin Zoning and City Leadership, I am writing to express my strong concern regarding the proposed rezoning of the property located at Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 for the construction of a large multi-family complex. As an engaged resident of Rocklin, I have serious reservations about the potential negative impact this development would have, particularly in terms of increased traffic and its effect on local safety.

One of my primary concerns is the significant strain this development would place on our already overburdened roadways. The proposed project would rely on a single road for both ingress and egress, which would funnel all traffic through the intersection of Midas Avenue and Argonaut Avenue. This intersection is already heavily trafficked, with frequent congestion during peak hours. The addition of potentially hundreds of new residents in a large multi-family complex would exacerbate the situation dramatically, leading to gridlock and a higher risk of accidents.

Current traffic conditions at Midas and Argonaut are already challenging. During rush hours, this intersection is often backed up, with delays affecting both drivers and pedestrians. A sharp increase in traffic volume would make it nearly impossible for residents to navigate the area safely and efficiently, especially near the entrance to the Sunset Whitney Recreation Area.

Additionally, the potential bottleneck at this intersection could result in dangerous delays for emergency vehicles, worsening response times in a crisis, especially for a community with a higher geriatric population. Furthermore, local businesses and existing residents would bear the 518
brunt of these delays, leading to a decreased quality of life for those already living in this neighborhood.

I strongly urge the Planning Commission and local leaders to reconsider the proposed rezoning. The preservation of our community’s character and the maintenance of manageable traffic flow should be top priorities in any development decision. This proposed zoning would cause more harm than good.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Shaun Peterson

79) From: Frank Thomas

Regarding the City of Rocklin Rezone of Parcel 045-011-001-000 My wife and I were informed via a flyer left on our door that the city is considering rezoning a parcel located at the end of Argonaut Ave. We have been residents on Argonaut Ave since 2007 and have strong feelings against such a development. I am not going to write a detailed formal letter describing our thoughts and concerns. Instead, they are bulleted out below.

Our thoughts regarding this project and the neighborhood:
· Why is this parcel being proposed to be rezoned? o Proposed zoning change does not fit the context of this and the adjoining neighborhoods.
o There are no other large density projects in this or nearby surrounding neighborhoods.
o City of Rocklin does not own Northern Adjacent Property as this is outside of the city boundary.
§ Does County of Placer also need to comment? What are their thoughts? What are the those neighbors thoughts?

· The proposed site itself
o Three Story structures should not be permitted as this in no way fits the context of the surrounding neighborhood.
o Wedge shape property will not allow for good vehicle circulation within the development.
o Not a good site configuration for parking or building layouts. o Do not agree with (1) parking space per unit if that is what is being proposed. § Units will probably have (2) or more tenants per unit driving separately to their own jobs.
o Adjacent neighbors should never have any overflow parking from the development allowed onto their streets.
§ Not acceptable to impact Lemon Hill Drive with traffic and overflow apartment parking. The same with the end of Argonaut Ave.
§ Unfair for residents along Lemon Hill Drive to be forced to accept a secondary access into the apartment complex and the traffic/parking that would go along with it. § City police or code enforcement will be spending more time dealing with complaints from adjacent neighbors due to vehicles parked in front of their homes. This is not good use of taxpayer money.
o Where are construction crews going to park? They should not be parked on public streets while construction occurs.
519
o Multi-story Housing will affect the privacy of adjacent properties. This is not acceptable.
o The tenants would have limited amenities.
§ Site currently has no access to public transportation. § Housing would not be near services such as grocery or pharmacy. o Utilities. Can existing neighborhood utilities handle any type of large housing project? § Water, sewer, gas, electrical, data/internet, and fire water. o Wildlife does utilize this property to move to and from our neighborhood (along with a few other access points within the neighborhood).

· Fire Life Safety
o Will development allow for two exits from this property onto city streets? § Not acceptable to impact Lemon Hill Drive with traffic and overflow apartment parking. o Fire Water capacity for such a large development.
§ Has the City conducted a preliminary a fire water flow test at peak hours to determine if this type of project is actually feasible at this location? § Degradation of water lines to parcel should be considered for the final allowable fire water pressure.
§ Building sizes and construction types will determine fire water flows needed. § Fire pump and fire water storage tanks may be required.

· Current City Zoning
o Seems like there are plenty of multi-family development occurring along Pacific Street with opportunities for more to come. That is the location where this type of development should occur.
o Wasn’t the Rocklin Downtown District revitalization project supposed to be a combination of commercial and multi-family development?

· Previous Building Developments
o Final product (Skyline Homes) was not what City said it would be. It was too dense and views between homes are minimal.
§ The dust and noise from construction affected everyone in the neighborhood. § There are no views along Skyline Drive to the views beyond. Views are only visible from within a parcel itself.
o Construction impacts again- after roads just were repaved in our neighborhood. Who is going to pay for the deterioration of Argonaut Ave due to construction traffic?

· Traffic
o Project will create additional traffic on Argonaut and Midas Ave. § We are already impacted by morning rush hour and mid-afternoon traffic. o Traffic speeds already too high along Argonaut Ave. § As Argonaut is a wider than normal street people already drive faster than posted speed limits. Some use the bike lane to cut corners.
o People still roll through stop signs in neighborhood. o Neighborhood is still trying to adjust to the additional traffic from the Skyline residential project recently completed. Now more is being proposed upon us. Noise from additional traffic will be noticeable.

· Personal Safety
o Potential for theft and vandalism, which is currently pretty much non-existent within our neighborhood.
520
o More challenges crossing the street, especially from La Paloma Way onto Argonaut Ave. I can cross well before a car starting from the stop sign at Mountain View Dr. and Argonaut Ave can reach me, but I have been surprised a few times lately where cars came upon me at a high rate of speed while I was still crossing the road.

· What I liked about our Neighborhood
o I am newly retired. I like the qualities of our neighborhood. § The mixed of retirees and new families.
§ More new younger families now coming into the neighborhood with children. § Friendliness of our neighbors.
§ Safety, quietness, and well-kept yards.

· How Neighborhood has changed since the last development. o Traffic on Midas and Argonaut intersection is more noticeable, especially at peak traffic hours.
§ Even more so during the school year.
o I walk (2+) miles every morning through the neighborhood and do a shorter dog-walk in evenings.
§ I have noticed a lot more traffic in the mornings.
§ I have noticed more speeders coming down Argonaut towards Midas Ave.

· Conclusion
o Please do not set a precedent to have developers trying to purchase other properties with the hopes to rezone to multi-family housing units. o Initial feeling is to leave zoning as is.
o If city is serious about rezoning this needs to be voted on by the public. It should not be decided by only City Council and planners without extensive public buyoff. We know that not everyone is aware or can attend public hearings or council meetings. o Seems like this is a money grab from current property owners to ask for a higher selling price. This is disrespectful to our neighborhood which has already been impacted once with the development of the Skyline homes.

This proposal does not just affect the people who live along Argonaut Ave. This will affect this neighborhood along with the surrounding ones. Please consider what is right for all neighborhoods.

Sincerely,
Frank and Gina Thomas

80) From: Patti Gordon [email protected]

As a concerned resident, I urge the Planning Commission to reconsider the proposed rezoning that directly impacts Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 and the surrounding area. I believe this plan is not in the best interest of our city for several reasons, including:
 Increased Traffic Congestion: The current infrastructure in [Your Neighborhood/Area, if applicable, or refer to the area around the parcel] is already struggling to handle existing traffic. Increased density from this rezoning will exacerbate congestion, making daily commutes and local travel unbearable for residents.
 Strain on Public Services: Our schools, parks, and emergency services are already operating at capacity. This rezoning will place an undue burden on these vital public services, diminishing their quality for all Rocklin residents. 521
 Loss of Neighborhood Character/Green Space: The proposed changes will fundamentally alter the quiet character that makes our neighborhood desirable. This will negatively impact our quality of life and the aesthetic appeal of our community.  Decreased Property Values: I am concerned that the proposed rezoning will lead to a decrease in property values for homeowners in the affected areas due to increased traffic & accompanying noise, many cars parked on the street due to lack of parking in high density developments and possible environmental issues impacting nearby homes, properties and our newly preserved open space at the end of Clover Valley.

 I believe a more comprehensive and community-inclusive approach is needed before any rezoning decisions are made. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission:
 Conduct further public outreach and workshops specific to this parcel and its impacts. Many residents feel their voices have not been adequately heard throughout this process.
 Commission an independent study on the infrastructure impact (e.g., traffic, water, sewer capacity) resulting from this proposed rezoning. A thorough analysis is essential before proceeding.
 Explore alternative development strategies that are more compatible with existing neighborhoods and the current general plan for our city.

Sincerely,
Patti Gordon

81) From: Lori Peterson [email protected]

My name is Lori Peterson and I live on Sweetwater Drive in the Mission Hills neighborhood. I have lived here for 12 years and absolutely love it here. I also work for RUSD.

I have recently learned of a potential rezoning of the property at the upper end of Argonaut Ave (parcel number 045-011-001-0000). This would be a disastrous outcome to this neighborhood. If it became a large, multi-family complex, it would be detrimental to the property values in this highly-desirable neighborhood. Traffic congestion would increase exponentially, which would create a massive safety issue. SInce the completion of Skyline, the traffic level has been much higher, as well as an abundance of traffic safety violations. People run the stop signs at Argonaut and Hillside, and at Argonaut and Mountain View regularly. Adding potentially 300 more cars would be insane. If parking isn't adequate for the development, cars would be spilling onto our quiet streets in front of homes. Rockin has already designated over 100 acres for affordable housing in other, more appropriate areas, so why not use what they already have rather than add an additional area? There is zero nearby infrastructure needed by low-income families. The closest grocery store/pharmacy is Walmart Neighborhood Market, 2.5 miles away, or a 55 minute walk in each direction. Safeway on Granite Drive is also nearly 3 miles away, and an hour walk each way. There is no public transportation nearby.

Please take into consideration how rezoning this parcel for a low-income multi-family apartment complex would be absolutely wrong for this neighborhood and would forever change the area in a negative manner.
522

Please VOTE NO for the rezoning.

Thank you,
Lori Peterson

82) From: Lynne Jewell <[email protected]>

Please don't approve the rezoning of a multi-family unit for the top of Argonaut. This rezoning will make Argonaut more of a speedway than it already is. I walk this neighborhood nearly everyday. Others are out walking their dogs, or running, or walking with their friends, kids are on their bikes and scooters. A large multi-family complex is going to force every one of those cars down Argonaut. More cars going over the speed limit, and more cars treating stop signs as merely a suggestion. Once the cars get to Argonaut, most will turn onto Midas Avenue. Midas is already impacted during a good part of the day, which you surely must know. The backup can be quite lengthy with school drop-offs and pick-ups, commute traffic, and trains. If you have an emergency, good luck.

What about parking in this new development? One space per unit with no visitor parking is what I've heard. How can that be? It will almost always be at least two cars per unit. Which means all of those that don't have a space will be parking in front of homes down Argonaut.

I've lived in Mission Hill for over 30 years. I know change occurs. I used to see cows where the Yankee Hills development exists. I used to see beautiful open space where I now see the Skyline development. I also used to see many stars in the sky, but not so much anymore. If this rezoning is allowed, I'm sure my future will be more cars, more noise and more congestion on our roads.

Please do the right thing and don't approve
this rezoning.

Thank you,

83) From: Crystal Schubert <[email protected]>

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing as a concerned resident and homeowner in Rocklin on Bolton Way, regarding the proposed rezoning that would allow multi-family housing at a density of 24 units per acre near the dead end of Willard. I understand that the proposed development includes approximately 75 units, and I would like to respectfully express my strong concern over the significant impact this would have on our neighborhood.

Currently, the only access point to the proposed development appears to be where Willard dead ends. This means that all vehicle traffic to and from those 75 units would flow directly through our residential neighborhood, which was not designed to serve as a thoroughfare for high-density housing traffic.

The increased volume of vehicles poses serious safety concerns for all residents, particularly the many children who play outside on our quiet streets. Our neighborhood streets are narrow, and without the infrastructure to safely manage such a dramatic 523
increase in traffic, I fear that the risk of accidents involving children, pedestrians, or pets will increase significantly.

Additionally, I am deeply concerned about emergency preparedness and evacuation access. In the event of an emergency requiring a quick neighborhood evacuation—such as a fire or other natural disaster—our current road access is already limited. Adding 75 more units and potentially hundreds of residents would put an even greater strain on our single-access road, creating a bottleneck that could prevent timely evacuation or emergency response.

I urge the city to carefully consider the real-world implications of this rezoning, not just from a development and zoning perspective, but also from the lens of public safety, traffic impact, and neighborhood character. I believe alternative access points or traffic mitigation measures should be thoroughly evaluated before any final decision is made.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. I am not opposed to growth, but I believe it should be done responsibly and with full regard for the safety and well- being of current residents.

Sincerely,
Crystal Schubert

84) From: Wes <[email protected]>

Please DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN . We are putting up with all the xtra traffic on Hillside Dr(we are 3688 Hillside) and its impact.....this project will only FURTHER add to traffic issues....and what would happen should a fire or any such issue cause our area to mass evacuate;;;;;only 1 way out' You the Council are the boss here....use your good judgement ant tell these guys NO. GO SOME OTHER PLACE.... If I wasn't 95 yrs old Iwould get out my walker and have my 92 yr old wife of 73 years, drive me to the Tuesday meeting....I did attent all those where we were trying to stop the project at the top of the hill, but it just isn't a good idea to try to attend this one...do your job and think of us who would not benefit anyway from this add'l traffic on Argonaut Ave, intersection of Argonaut/Midas and Midad/Pacific.....Thanks, Wes and Beverly Roberts

85) From: Laura Ingram [email protected]

To the members of the planning commission concerning the proposed project on Del Mar : 045-011-001, -012, and -017.

I strongly disagree with the proposal of changing the zoning to permit a structure with so many residents for two incontrovertible reasons:

1) TRAIN STOPPAGES: The back up of traffic due to the train is becoming more and more of a problem to my street (Americana Way) with the already increased amount of cars due to the developments on both sides of Del Rio Court, which connects Americana Way to Del Mar. The speed limit is 25 MPH, and that speed is not being followed or enforced. Add stoppage due to the train and people become impatient and dangerous with trying to get out of the line. I already see road rage happening in these situations. I live near the corner of Americana Way and Independence so I have witnessed the increased traffic problems since 2009 when I moved here.

Adding cars coming and going at all times will be a disaster in the waiting. I share the same values in wanting homes and apartments available for low-income families...yet in 524
locations that can handle the extra traffic, areas not so close to this side of the train tracks and not single-laned roads in residential areas.

2) The area as a commercial zoning is also the most appropriate for THE PROTECTED WETLANDS that it will be directly bordering. These areas cannot be adequately protected. I doubt that the developers or the council will provide this protection once that many people that you are proposing live there.

Please DO NOT REZONE. I consider rezoning the most irresponsible decision for the lives of people already here and for the wetlands that you DO have a responsibility in protecting. There are more appropriate areas.

Thank you,
Laura Ingram

86) From: DeMello, Jennifer [email protected]

Dear City of Rocklin / Planning Department

I am writing as a concerned resident of Yankee Hill Estates regarding the proposed development of low-income housing adjacent to our neighborhood. While I fully support the need for inclusive housing solutions, I believe this project raises several serious concerns and WE VOTE NO TO RE-ZONE LAND BORDERING OUR SUBDIVISION (Parcel numbers 045-011-012 and 045-011-017.

Impact on Safety and Property Values:

Numerous studies have shown that certain types of high-density, low-income housing developments can correlate with increased crime rates and this potential shift in neighborhood dynamics may negatively affect property values and the overall sense of security for current residents.

Traffic and Infrastructure Strain:

The proposed access route through Jaybird Place would significantly increase traffic within our neighborhood. This poses a safety risk to children and pedestrians and could overwhelm existing infrastructure not designed for such volume.

Use of Private Amenities:

Our community park and shared spaces are maintained through HOA fees paid by residents. The anticipated use of these amenities by non-HOA members from the new development raises concerns about fairness and maintenance costs.

I respectfully urge the planning committee to reconsider the location and scope of this development. A more suitable site with better infrastructure and integration plans would better serve both future residents and the existing community.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Jennifer & Jeremy DeMello
Karyn & Steve Delph

525
87) From: cynthia webber [email protected]

My husband and I have lived on Argonaut Ave for the last 16 years and love the quietness of the neighborhood. When the 144 houses were built up on the hill, the trucks damaged our home by the weight of the trucks.

Th thought of more construction on a road with out on egress is unthinkable, for the fact that if there is a fire, how do people get out. Why isn't the lot on the corner of Taylor Rd and Midas being used for this housing project?

I value my property and would not like to see my house value go down because of low- income housing. I know people need tp live somewhere but Argonaut Ave is not the ideal location.

Cynthia Webber

88) From: The Carrs [email protected]

APN#045-011-001-000

As a long time resident of Rocklin (42 years total/10 years on 2nd street/32 years in the Mission Hills neighborhood), I have seen many changes to our town. Some changes were necessary and provided added value to our town and some changes only benefited the City itself and not the residents. This is part of being a community, not every issue can be agreed upon.

Affordable housing should enhance the area/neighborhood for the residents and the City, but placing a High density or Multi-family complex on the above mentioned APN would only have a negative impact. Rezoning this particular parcel makes no sense! The safety issue on Argonaut has already been tested by adding "Skyline" to the traffic flow to Midas Ave. The corner of Argonaut and Midas at any given moment is tense with frequent cars running the stop signs and having people getting agitated.(and when Springview School is in session it is a nightmare.) Keeping in mind a Government mandate that affordable housing needs to be placed in an accessible area for Public transportation, schools, jobs, stores and services (including Emergency services) just doesn't fit with this Parcel. The City of Rocklin can rezone Parcels along Pacific Street, Front Street or West Oaks Blvd----all within walking distance to stores and services. Additionally, the citizens of Rocklin have been trying to safeguard the "Clover Valley Area" and mitigate anymore damage to it the surrounding area, this rezoning and development would put that desire at risk.

Definitely not the highest and best use!!!!!

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

K.J. Carr/ 4005 Sweetwater Ct, Rocklin, CA

89) From: Jill Matthews [email protected]

All,

526
It has been brought to my attention that there may be plans to build an apartment complex at the end of Argonaut Avenue. I am adamantly opposed to this project for several reasons.

1. There is already way too much through traffic from Skyline and the surrounding homes. Building an apartment complex would only exacerbate the problem. Currently, the Midas and Argonaut intersection in high traffic times is jammed with commuters and students. Again, more traffic from apartments will make commute times longer and more frustrating.

2. Are you kidding me?! In Mission Hills?! This is a lovely area with multiple Ron Ward designed well-built homes. This is a highly desirable area for retirees as well as hard- working families who want safety and quiet in their neighborhoods. How can you possibly think that a Multi-Family apartment complex would be a good idea?

Apartments are a haven for thieves trying to break into cars or steal tires/wheels. I am and will continue to fight this proposal with all of my Mission Hills/Clover Valley neighbors. I paid way too much money for my home (purchased in 2022) to have an apartment complex reduce its value.

There are so many more areas in Roseville that have the land for this. You're all in for an uphill battle, I assure you!

Jill and Roger Hanne

90) From: Mark Rosen [email protected]

City officials,

I am Mark Rosen- Husband to Amber Rosen and Father to Leighton and Harper Rosen. We live on Pecan Court in Rocklin Ca. Over the last few years, we have dealt with an increase of traffic coming from the Skyline neighborhood above us and we got notice that there was potential for a new development coming at the end of Argonaut in our neighborhood. The lot in question has been an amazing place to walk to with the girls and our dog. Our neighborhood is safe and such an amazing place to live but even with the added 120 homes at the top of our hill, we have experienced more and more traffic and stop sign runners. This is mostly caused because argonaut is our main way into the neighborhood along with Midas being our main thoroughfare. I do worry about the kids riding their bikes more now as they ride to their friends and would hate to see more traffic come through.

I can only imagine the Mission Hills long-time residents will feel their safety, privacy and comfort will be diminished. Mission Hills has been a prized location in Rocklin for many years and I would assume this decision to add affordable housing will decrease the property values. As a real estate agent in Rocklin, I believe we need to cherish those neighborhoods that make this city so amazing and to keep the open land we have protected! Please do not allow this to happen in Mission Hills, nor any long established neighborhood as it will change the landscape of what Rocklin truly is....safe, protected, and cherished.

91) From: Tena Rakela [email protected]
527

Hello,
I am writing this message to convey my extreme concern over the rezoning of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000. I have lived in the Mission Hills neighborhood in Rocklin for over 35 years. It is a very safe, quiet and peaceful neighborhood despite the growth Rocklin has endured over the years. Ignoring our communities concerns, the City Council (CC) approved the 115+ Skyline homes up on the hill above Argonaut. This was done without any additional services to the community and has resulted in traffic backlogs at the only stop sign in/out of our neighborhood. Now the CC wants to add another housing development which will further impact us.

From my understanding this 9 acre rezoned lot could result into 100-150 low density units or 150-400 medium density units. With the developer only providing 1 car space per unit. Where will the needed over flow parking come from? Most likely it will bleed into the neighborhood on Argonaut. The same thing happened on my son's street in Seattle. All due to poor planning and not caring about the impact too citizens.

I have other concerns too such as:
* decreased property values
* increase in traffic congestion due to having only one access road * increased noise
* increase in crime

There's a vacant lot on the corner of Midas/Pacific St. which has been approved for apartments for over 20 years. Why isn't the developer being pressured to build there? Why isn't the city looking for larger areas of land to meet the state mandate for housing instead of over crowding existing neighborhoods? Please reconsider the approval of this development.

Sincerely, Christine Rakela

92) From: Karianne Morgan [email protected]

Please remove the above-referenced parcel from consideration of rezoning. This parcel is currently zoned as RA-5 (Rural Agriculture 5-Acre Minimum Lots), as it should remain.

It seems an enormous leap to consider rezoning to (Alternate) Mixed Use 24+.

As a homeowner of two residential single-family homes at the end of Argonaut Avenue, this potential re-zone will directly and negatively impact my neighbors and my family – from the higher traffic impacts, to the speeding impacts, to the noise impacts, to the safety impacts, to the property value impacts, etc. We have already consulted both an attorney and a public relations professional should this re-zone be pushed through as the inclusion of this parcel is egregious as is the lumping together of several parcels to avoid specific land-use oversights.

I invite all City Councilmembers, Planning Commission members, and City staffers to come and visit this parcel. I live five doors down from the property and have lived here for 20 years – and I’m still considered ‘new’ compared to the majority of homeowners in this neighborhood.
528
- See for yourself that any multi-use development and/or apartment dwellings do not work in this area – and are not consistent with the current character and integrity of the longstanding single-family residential neighborhood.
- See for yourself how far away it is from a main cross street (1 mile!) - See for yourself how far away it is from any public transportation stops (2+ miles!) - See for yourself how far away it is from a grocery store (3 miles!) - See for yourself how far away it is from a gas station (2 miles!) - See for yourself how horrible traffic is on Midas on school days, without adding more drivers.
- See for yourself that this parcel does not have the location nor the infrastructure to accommodate more residents! This is obvious.

While I am aware that Rocklin wants to comply with the state RHNA program, I don’t believe that this parcel fits criteria needed to support multi-unit dwellings. The other parcels slated for consideration are much closer to shopping, closer to public transportation, closer to major ingress/egress streets, and provide more advantages to those looking for apartment living. Those parcels appear to already have the infrastructure in place, this Argonaut parcel does not. Clearly Rocklin is trying to be compliant with this supposed mandate, but at the same time, we are an older community with limited build-out potential, and any re-zone has to make sense.

With that, I understand that a re-zone does not equal an immediate build, but it does grant permission for a build and makes it easier to take place. When I spoke on the phone with Arwyn in the Planning Department (on 7/11/2025), she explained that she expected the Planning Commission is going to push this through and recommend that the City Council approves it. I asked IF this is approved, by both the Planning Commission and the City Council if the property owner will be mandated to build multi- unit dwellings (apartments) – she said ‘they aren’t mandated, but they would be encouraged to do so.’ I asked IF this is approved how soon could owners start the design and construction processes. Would it be 3 months? 20 years? Never? – and she said, “It would be on the property owner’s schedule, but likely very soon.” Clearly this isn’t perceived by the Planning Department as a simple change in designation – the push is to move this forward and encourage development. And again, THIS parcel does not have the infrastructure support, nor incentives of other targeted lots.

I am uncertain why Rocklin is willing to gamble with the unknown. In general terms, this is a very safe and predictable part of town, with most residents living here for decades. I fear that rezoning this parcel and the impending development will cause many to flee and bring in more uncertainty. Why risk that?

Further, many neighboring property owners of this parcel are unaware that there is a potential to change the very make-up and security of our neighborhood. The City has not complied with proper notification of the public -- there is NO “Public Hearing” sign posted at the property in question. There is NO listing of this on the Public Hearing page of the Rocklin City site. And further, the letters that were sent to homeowners were vague, at best – listing 50+ parcel numbers with no streets, no coordinates and no maps included – so recipients had to determine that it was worth tracking down and finding all addresses for the parcel numbers to see if any are near us. It is as if the City and/or Planning Commission is intentionally misleading its residents by trying to sneak in the re- zones and avoiding public comment and discourse.

529
Please accept this as written correspondence and enter it into the public record.

Please reach out should you want to visit and/or if you have any questions.

REMOVE PARCEL 045-011-001-0000 (END OF ARGONAUT AVENUE) FROM RE- ZONING CONSIDERATION.

Karianne Morgan

93) From: Rachel Robles [email protected]

I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed rezoning of parcel number 045-011-001-0000 for an affordable multi-family housing complex.

While I fully support the need for thoughtful and inclusive housing solutions in our community, I have significant concerns about the scale, density, and potential impact of this specific project on the surrounding neighborhoods. These concerns include:

1. Traffic Congestion and Public Safety: The addition of a high-density residential complex in this area would significantly increase traffic volumes on nearby streets, many of which are already experiencing congestion since the recent completion of 115 homes constructed in the Skyline development above Argonaut Avenue. The addition of well over 270 drivers/residents from the proposed development would exacerbate congestion on Midas and Argonaut Avenues during high commute and school pick-up/drop-off hours. In addition, as a result of higher volume of traffic, serious safety risks for pedestrians, schoolchildren, and residents should be considered.

2. Strain on Local Infrastructure and Services: The City of Rocklin's schools, emergency services, and utility infrastructure in this area are not currently equipped to handle the sudden and significant population increase that such a development would bring. This could lead to diminished quality of public services and reduced response times.

3. Neighborhood Character and Property Values: The proposed development is not in keeping with the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhoods. A large complex of this nature may negatively impact nearby property values and alter the community fabric that current residents have invested in and worked to preserve.

4. Environmental and Open Space Concerns: The parcel in question may contain important open space or habitat that would be lost to overdevelopment. We ask that the Commission carefully consider environmental reviews and the long-term sustainability of land use decisions.

I urge the Planning Commission to reconsider the scale and design of this development proposal. A more balanced, mixed-income approach that aligns with Rocklin’s General Plan, preserves neighborhood integrity, and respects the limits of our infrastructure would better serve the long-term interests of all Rocklin residents.

Thank you for your time, service, and thoughtful consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,
Travis & Rachel Robles

94) From: Lisa Cole [email protected]

Dear Mr. Anderson,

My family has lived in the Mission Hills neighborhood for nearly nine years. We searched Rocklin high and low for the perfect house to raise our children and decided on a fixer-upper in this neighborhood because the piece of land and the neighbors and the 530
cul-de-sac were worth so much more to us. We enjoyed about five sweet, peaceful years before the Skyline homes were built above us and traffic increased. With more traffic, and only one ingress/egress street, came more noise, more dead family pets in the roads, more fear to let our children near the end of our once quiet cul-de-sac, less wildlife, damage to the oak trees and so much more that we didn’t expect. Now, we’re hearing the beautiful property at the end of Argonaut, less than a mile from our home, might be rezoned for affordable housing. Again, one ingress/egress, in a small quiet neighborhood far from resources. This tiny, quiet neighborhood simply cannot house more. It would be an absolute nightmare for everyone, including emergency services, if a housing complex was added. Rocklin must find better solutions than to destroy small, family-friendly neighborhoods. If not, I fear the result will be losing families like ours as we move to towns and cities that share our values. We’ve already been discouraged by so many choices Rocklin has made. The rate at which you add high density homes and franchise fast food businesses versus parks, protected green space, and libraries is astonishing.

Please give strong thought to your residents opinions and concerns. We are a small, but mighty, group of neighbors who love our home.

Sincerely,

Lisa Cole

Regarding Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000

95) From: Serge Drouin [email protected]

We are requesting that the Placer County council members do not move forward with considering the above mentioned parcels for rezoning of high density housing for any reason. The negative impact that rezoning this farmland will have on the neighboring community of Yankee Hill Estates will be devastating. The absolute increase in traffic and crime in an area that is already set to be negatively affected by development on Pacific and Grove and also the area where Kmart was located is more than any community should have to endure! Rocklin has an endless supply of areas that more than meets the requirements of the state for low income housing. Our home values are already set to be negatively impacted by this building.

We urge the members to not allow this rezoning to move forward.

Nancy and Serge Drouin

96) From: Rand Potrus [email protected]

Dear City of Rocklin
I am writing to you about the public hearing notice we received via mail (attached is a copy) scheduled on 8/5/2025. In reference to the Housing Element Program 10 – Housing Project.

Location 378-020-006
As a neighbor who has lived in this neighborhood since 2016, I am writing to respectfully express my concern regarding the potential sale of the 5-acre lot behind our homes for the development of affordable apartment complex.
531
Our community has always appreciated the growth of our city. However, the proposed apartment complex raises serious concerns about the future quality of life for those of us living nearby, including:
 Safety concerns with higher density and quality of residents it will bring to the area. We are worried about the safety of our families and children.  Loss of property value, as many homeowners paid thousands of dollars to purchase our properties. Having this project next door will negatively impact the value of our homes.
 Loss of privacy from multi-story buildings overlooking our backyards and homes.
 Increased noise and late-night activity affecting the peace of the neighborhood.  Traffic congestion and parking issues on already impacted streets.  Light pollution from parking lots and building security lights.

We respectfully ask that the city reconsider this project and allow time to explore alternatives that would be more compatible with the surrounding single-family homes and existing community character and the integrity of our neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration and for the work you do to serve our community.

Sincerely,
Rand Potrus Tuppo

97) From: Courtney Sales [email protected]

To whom it may concern,

I'm writing to voice my strong opposition to the rezoning of the land that borders our subdivision, parcels 045-011-001, 045-011-012 and 045-011-017.

Rocklin is a very desirable place to live for a number of reasons. Great schools, low crime, and people who care about their community. This is why we purchased our home in the Yankee Hills neighborhood over 3 years ago. It's quiet, there's only one way in and out of the community, we have a beautiful neighborhood park, and it's been a very safe place for us. We did a lot of research when we were purchasing our home and would never have chosen to live next to high density, low income apartments. This type of housing should be planned for, and a homebuyer should have visibility into future plans BEFORE purchasing a home. It shouldn't be accomplished by rezoning and coming as a complete surprise to the community.

The concerns I have are as follows:

Property Values and Safety: Oftentimes low-income housing can correlate with increased crime, which may impact overall property values as well as our neighborhood security.

Increased traffic: Since access to the complex may be routed through Jaybird place, this could significantly increase the neighborhood traffic and potentially impact the safety of children and pedestrians.

Overcrowded schools: My children attend Rocklin Elementary, which has already seen tremendous growth in the 3 years we've lived here. Low income apartments could significantly contribute to overcrowding of schools in this district.

532
No access to transportation or required resources: High density low-income housing should provide occupants easy access to low cost, public transportation to access community resources. None of the 3 parcels in question provide that. They're tucked away, requiring occupants to drive through neighboring communities to access these, again, leading to more congestion and potential safety issues on our streets.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Courtney Sales

98) From: Dannon McElroy [email protected]

Dear Planning Commissioners,

I am writing as a resident of Rocklin to express my strong opposition to the proposed Housing Element Program 10 – Alternative Sites project, specifically regarding the site selection and access planning that would directly impact my neighborhood. I reside at the end of a residential circle that currently has only one entrance and exit point. The proposed low-income housing development would place its primary access directly adjacent to our neighborhood entrance, fundamentally altering the character and safety of our residential area.

My primary concerns regarding this proposal are as follows:

Traffic Impact and Safety Concerns: Our residential circle currently experiences minimal traffic, consisting only of residents and their visitors. The proposed development would introduce significant additional vehicle traffic through what has historically been a quiet, low-traffic residential area. This dramatic increase in traffic volume poses substantial safety risks to the numerous children who live in our neighborhood, including my two toddlers who regularly play in the area alongside other neighborhood children. Many of the neighborhood's children play in front of my house and at the end of Willard and Bolton. Since I moved in there has always been a basketball hoop present that previous residents have passed down, children play baseball, ride bikes, do chalk-- all because it is safe. You are proposing to remove this safe play area for kids and instead have massive amounts of traffic drive down our streets.

Alternative Access Options Available: Based on my understanding of the site layout, alternative entrance locations exist for this development that would not direct traffic through our residential circle. The current proposal appears to select the access point that would create the greatest impact on existing residents when other viable options are available. If you must build here, it is imperative that you find an additional exit point and I request that you consider not allowing the multi-unit housing to drive through our neighborhood.

Alternative Site Availability: The staff report indicates this is part of the Alternative Sites program, suggesting that multiple potential locations have been identified for housing development. Given the significant negative impact this particular site would have on our established neighborhood traffic and character, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission consider alternative sites that would better balance the city's housing needs with the preservation of existing residential communities.

533
Quality of Life Impact: The transformation of our quiet residential area into a thoroughfare for a large housing development would fundamentally change the neighborhood character that drew families to settle here. This neighborhood has always been a family centered neighborhood. The increased traffic, noise, and activity would diminish the residential quality of life that current residents have invested in and rely upon.

Impact on Local Wildlife: Consideration should also be given to the wildlife that call that area home. This is a wonderful nature area home to coyotes, hawks, turkeys, and many other animals. It is part of the charm that drove me to purchase this house in the first place, let alone stay 16 years. If you must do something with the land, consider a small playground and nature area that would celebrate the space, rather than building housing on it and heavily congesting the area. The area is also technically in a flood zone and could prove to be a hazard for that reason, which is why I am required to have flood insurance.

While I understand the City is obligated to build more affordable housing, I urge you to understand that this is not the appropriate parcel to build on for that purpose. I am in support of building affordable housing, but to do so on site 1-21, you would be completely altering the traffic in our small neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood, and the lives of the families that currently live here in a negative way.

There are other sites better suited to support the City's initiatives. I invite you to come sit in front of my house on any day of the week and watch the children play in the afternoon.

Come get a personal feel for our neighborhood before destroying its character and safety. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the current proposal and direct staff to explore alternative sites or alternative access arrangements that would minimize the impact on established residential communities while still meeting the city's housing obligations.

Thank you for your consideration of these concerns and for your service to our community.

Respectfully submitted,

Dannon McElroy

99) From: Deanna Sager [email protected]

I am a Rocklin resident writing to strongly oppose the application for the General Plan Amendment and Rezone for an RHNA Alternative Site located at 1800 Wildcat Blvd. in Rocklin.

Building a complex of this size in the middle of neighborhoods with over 1,200 high-end homes is inconsistent with the existing community. The poor traffic ingress/egress will contribute to dangerous traffic conditions because the shape and access of the land to Wildcat is too limited for high volume land use. The City should be focusing on more appropriate sites such as the corridor along 65, University Avenue, or near Whitney High School.

Please vote NO on the proposed rezoning application for 1800 Wildcat.

Thank you.

The Sagers

534
100) From: Michelle Janzen [email protected]

I am a Rocklin resident writing to strongly oppose the application for the General Plan Amendment and Rezone for an RHNA Alternative Site located at 1800 Wildcat Blvd. in Rocklin.

Please vote NO on the proposed rezoning application for 1800 Wildcat.

Thank you.

101) From: Allison Neher [email protected]

Dear Planning Commission / City Council ,

I am writing to express my concern about the proposed low-income housing development planned for the area near Deergrass Circle near Delmar. While I understand the need for diverse housing options, I believe this specific location is not an appropriate site for such a development due to several significant issues that would negatively impact both current and future residents.

1. Lack of School Capacity
Our local schools are already operating at or near maximum capacity. Without additional resources, the influx of new families could overwhelm the district, reducing the quality of education for all children.

2. Insufficient Infrastructure
The surrounding streets were not designed to handle increased traffic flow. Additional congestion could create safety hazards, particularly in residential zones without sidewalks, crosswalks, or adequate street lighting.

3. No Local Parks or Recreational Facilities
There are no nearby parks or community centers to support the needs of additional families, which could impact residents’ quality of life and reduce opportunities for healthy outdoor activities.

4. Environmental Impact & Wildlife Displacement
This area is home to various wildlife species and green spaces. Construction and increased population density could significantly disrupt these ecosystems and cause irreversible environmental harm.

5. Zoning & Community Character
This proposal does not align with the existing neighborhood plan or the intended land- use zoning. Preserving the character of our community should be a priority in planning decisions.

535
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the city reconsider this proposal and explore alternative sites that are better equipped to handle the infrastructure, environmental, and community needs of such a development.

Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,
Allison Neher

102) From: emily Zick-Castro [email protected]

Dear City Planning Commission,

I am writing as a concerned resident of Willard Way regarding the proposed rezoning and development of a 75-unit apartment complex at the end of our street.

Willard Way is already heavily impacted by fast-moving traffic, and the proposed increase of 75–100 additional vehicles attempting to enter and exit through the single intersection at Willard and 3rd Streets would only make matters worse. This intersection already experiences congestion, and the added volume raises serious concerns about traffic safety—especially for families with young children and pedestrians in the neighborhood.

The fact that there is no proposed egress to Farron Street only worsens the potential traffic bottleneck and increases the burden on our local infrastructure. I urge the Commission to reconsider this proposal and prioritize the safety and quality of life for current Rocklin residents.

Please do not move forward with this development as currently proposed. I respectfully request that the city explore more suitable alternatives that will not compromise neighborhood safety and traffic flow.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Emily Zick-Castro

103) From: arild m [email protected]

The City of Rocklin has always been associated with a beautiful and safe lifestyle. I’m proud to have called Rocklin my home for the past 21 years and to have raised my five children in this friendly community. I came to this country 30 years ago as a refugee from the Soviet Union, with only $90 dollars in my pocket. Through hard work, a deep commitment to volunteerism, and a drive to support my family, I've built a life grounded in purpose and service. Based on firsthand experience, I firmly oppose placing subsidized housing in the heart of established middle-income neighborhoods. Such decisions often jeopardize community safety, increase traffic and noise, and degrade the quality of life residents have long worked to build and preserve. As a longtime resident of the Yankee Hill subdivision since its initial development, I’ve witnessed the negative effects of inadequate housing and infrastructure planning by the city: ● Our neighborhood has only one entrance connecting us to critical emergency services. 536
Although we were promised a secondary access route near Gayaldo Park, that path was eventually blocked, leaving us without a viable alternative. Considering an entrance through the end of Americana Way does not improve the situation either. ● One of the most persistent issues is the railroad crossing on Americana Way. Trains frequently obstruct this crossing for extended periods, disrupting traffic flow. ● Compounding these challenges is the lack of nearby police and fire stations. Available facilities are located across the railroad tracks, delaying emergency response times when every second counts. Introducing an apartment complex into our already burdened neighborhood will significantly disrupt the safety, wellbeing, and cohesion of both current residents and future tenants. Proceeding with this zoning change risks serious consequences, devaluing the integrity of our community and placing lives at risk. Finally, I want to highlight a few key concerns: 1. Evacuation & Fire Safety Concerns Yankee Hill has limited entry and exit routes, a serious flaw in the event of a wildfire—a risk that is far from hypothetical in California. Adding traffic from a large apartment complex would exacerbate this danger. At a minimum, this development must include an independent access point. 2. Safety and Security A dramatic increase in traffic from a nearby high- density complex would compromise the safety and privacy we currently enjoy. Higher volumes of vehicles and foot traffic could lead to speeding, pedestrian hazards, and increased concern over neighborhood security. 3. Parking Overflow Risk When the proposed complex lacks sufficient on-site parking, overflow into our subdivision is inevitable. This would reduce availability for current residents and create new enforcement challenges, impacting overall livability. My family hopes you will take these thoughts into consideration, and that the City of Rocklin will continue to serve its citizens while upholding the General Plan’s vision for inclusive, balanced, and forward-thinking community development.

Sincerely
Arild Mikityuk

104) From: Teresa Presel [email protected]

To Whom It May Concern: This letter is in regard to Housing Element Program 10: I want to start by recognizing the need to continue to add affordable housing to different areas so that all levels of income can enjoy the diversity that makes up Sacramento and the surrounding areas. I grew up in tiny apartments in depressed and low-income communities until I was finally able to purchase my first home. My husband and I would not have been able to buy this house if it were not for locations that offer lower prices.

But we understood that we needed to search in the areas that were more affordable for us and were encouraged to work hard to enable a move from the starter community to the Rocklin area. Community Impact: There is no way to gauge the true impact lower income multi-family housing has on communities like ours. While property value is at the top of the list of concerns, it is not the only one. We are also concerned as our community is backed up to a wildlife-inhabited area, which is one of the biggest reasons for paying more for our property. Adding hundreds of new residents in that space would take away the natural wildlife habitat and force them into a more human populated space putting the wildlife that lives here, our family, and pets in more danger. There are also significant impacts on the environment, with urban sprawl leading to the loss of natural habitats, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and reduced air and water quality. When we were searching for a new home, we were told that Loomis only allows 5-acre parcels in this space. The proposed development doesn't fit the current aesthetic and character of our surrounding area and would destroy the natural elements that exist and help to make this such a desirable community. There is also the potential impact to our 537
community park that is paid for by the residents of the Yankee Hill Estates. If an access road were built to connect the two different communities, this park would be accessible to folks in the new communities and could potentially cause overcrowding issues when residents in our community want to use the park facilities our HOA dues pay for. The current road infrastructure is already strained, and this project would likely exacerbate traffic congestion on Pacific/Taylor Road. Not to mention that if a connecting road between the new housing developments and Yankee Hills community is added, the current ingress/egress would become even more impacted potentially causing dangerous traffic issues given we have only one way in and out of our neighborhood.

There are also serious concerns about whether the current utilities (water, sewer, etc.) would be able to handle the increased demand from the new development. Schools: Our schools in Rocklin are currently at capacity, and adding more students would put a strain on resources. Despite ongoing political challenges, the Rocklin School District has seen an abundance of residential growth that requires the district to plan for additional classroom space and facilities. Because of the increased growth in residents in the Rocklin School District, funding the necessary expansions needed to accommodate the current level of growth presents challenges. If hundreds more were added to this already challenging issue, the students could be negatively affected by overcrowded classrooms and reduced access to their instructors as needed. While schools like Del Oro High School are far more difficult to get in to, even though that school is already at an approximate 24/1 ratio of student to teacher. If you add potentially hundreds more students in a very short period, they will also have a challenge preventing impact to the students in that school. Conclusion: We want to find a solution that addresses the need for affordable housing while also preserving the quality of life in our neighborhood. We're willing to work with the developer and city council to find a compromise that works for everyone and are open to exploring other options, such as smaller-scale developments or mixed-income housing in a different area. Thank you for your time and consideration in finding a different location for this type of housing and look forward to continued discussions. Sincerely, George and Teresa Presel

105) From: Gail Cornelius [email protected]

Please vote no on the proposed low income development at 1800 Wildcat Blvd. In Rocklin. "Low income" is not the main issue; much more important is the already existing traffic congestion that has been created by the numerous high density housing developments all along Wildcat, combined with parents delivering/picking up children from the high school and middle school and students going and coming in their own cars. Worst of all, anyone turning into or coming out from the St. Augustine property (as delivering or picking up from the Montessory School) must make a U-turn at the light at Iroquois or Bridlewood. Traffic backs up and stops behind these U- turners in the morning and afternoon, PLUS, other drivers often don't expect a U-turn and make a right hand turn when the U-turner moves. There have been multiple accidents at these intersections.

Alarmingly, given the family nature of the neighborhoods around St. Augustine, we have had to become extremely mindful of young riders of electric scooters and e-bikes zipping up and down the sloping Wildcat terrain both northbound and southbound in the St.

Augustine area.

538
One solution: City of Rocklin obtains the land and builds an e-bike park in the area at issue? I'd chip in just to get the kids safely off of Wildcat Blvd.! Or maybe St. Augustine donates the land for neighborhood use and gets some kind of consideration?

Please do not vote for more housing and even more dangerous congestion on an already over-trafficked Wildcat Blvd? This Please vote NO!

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Gail Cornelius

106) From: Julie Wong [email protected]

I am a Rocklin resident writing to strongly oppose the application for the General Plan Amendment and Rezone for an RHNA Alternative Site located at 1800 Wildcat Blvd. in Rocklin.

Please vote NO on the proposed rezoning application for 1800 Wildcat.

107) From: Rory Czapkay [email protected]

I am a Rocklin resident writing to strongly oppose the application for the General Plan Amendment and Rezone for an RHNA Alternative Site located at 1800 Wildcat Blvd. in Rocklin.

Please vote NO on the proposed rezoning application for 1800 Wildcat.

Thank you.

Rory Czapkay

108) From: Jennifer Poduska [email protected]

I am a Rocklin resident writing to strongly oppose the application for the General Plan Amendment and Rezone for an RHNA Alternative Site located at 1800 Wildcat Blvd. in Rocklin.

Please vote NO on the proposed rezoning application for 1800 Wildcat.

Thank you,
539
Jennifer Poduska

109) From: Chris Andrew [email protected]

I am a Rocklin resident writing to strongly oppose the application for the General Plan Amendment and Rezone for an RHNA Alternative Site located at 1800 Wildcat Blvd. in Rocklin.

Building a complex of this size in the middle of neighborhoods with over 1,200 high-end homes is inconsistent with the existing community. The poor traffic ingress/egress will contribute to dangerous traffic conditions because the shape and access of the land to Wildcat is too limited for high volume land use. The traffic in this area has already increased dramatically and will be much worse once the medical clinic is finished on the north side of Wildcat.

The City should be focusing on more appropriate sites such as the corridor along 65, University Avenue, or near Whitney High School. These appropriate sites aligned with past Rocklin developments of this type and is why Rocklin maintains a high standard among it's neighborhoods.

Please vote NO on the proposed rezoning application for 1800 Wildcat.

Thank you.

We, the undersigned, oppose the petition to rezone 1800 Wildcat for RHNA Alternative.

Chris Andrew

110) From: Joey Sanders [email protected]

Summary: Objection to the proposal for a low income 75 unit apartment complex at the end of Willard Way, Rocklin, CA 95677

My name is Joey Sanders. I own a home on Willard Way, Rocklin CA 95677. I understand there is a proposal for a low income 75 unit apartment complex at the end of Willard Way. I am submitting my objection to this plan. There is only one (1) entry and exit into the housing community in this area and it's on Willard Way. A 75-unit apartment complex would cause a huge traffic problem for residents living in the area now.

Joey Sanders

111) From: Sarah Andresen [email protected]

To the Rocklin City Council,
I am writing to state my strong and unequivocal opposition to the proposed rezoning of the land bordering our subdivision to allow for high-density and low-income apartment housing. This proposal is not only poorly planned—it will irreversibly harm the safety, infrastructure, and quality of life for the families who have invested in and built their lives in this community.

Our neighborhood is already at capacity. Traffic congestion on Yankee Hill and the surrounding streets is at dangerous levels, and the infrastructure simply cannot handle additional volume. These roads were never designed to accommodate the current traffic load, let alone the increased burden this development would bring. Introducing hundreds of additional residents and vehicles will cause gridlock, delay emergency response times, and make daily navigation of the community unbearable. 540
The safety hazards are already alarming. Reckless and speeding drivers cut through our streets daily, creating a constant risk to pedestrians—especially children. It is already unsafe for my child to play outside due to the frequency of near-miss incidents involving speeding vehicles. Adding more cars to this environment is inviting tragedy.

Equally concerning are the documented consequences of introducing high-density, low- income housing into already dense communities. Other cities have seen an undeniable rise in crime rates, drug-related activity, and police calls for service following similar developments. For example:
 In nearby Sacramento neighborhoods, high-density low-income complexes correlated with sharp increases in property crime and vehicle break-ins within two years of construction.
 In Stockton, traffic accidents rose significantly on streets adjacent to newly built low- income developments, as street congestion worsened and pedestrian safety declined.  In Roseville, residents reported their community park becoming overrun and unsafe, with vandalism and loitering increasing after a similar project opened.

Rocklin must learn from these cautionary examples instead of repeating their mistakes.

This is not speculation—it is a pattern that has played out repeatedly when cities force high-density projects into areas already struggling with congestion and strained resources.

The community park in our area will inevitably become overcrowded and degraded, depriving current residents—especially children—of safe, usable green space. This project will not “blend in” with our neighborhood; it will change its character entirely, for the worse.

We are not opposed to thoughtful, responsible growth. But this plan is irresponsible, incompatible with existing infrastructure, and dismissive of resident safety and quality of life. The City Council should prioritize resolving the traffic, safety, and livability issues we already face—not approving a project that will magnify them.

I strongly urge the Rocklin City Council to reject this rezoning proposal. I, along with many of my neighbors, will continue to oppose any plan that threatens the safety, stability, and well-being of our community.

Respectfully,
Sarah Huckabee

112) From: Hayleigh Evans <[email protected]>

Dear Council Member,
I am writing to you as a concerned parent of a student at Maria Montessori Charter Academy, located at 1850 Wildcat Blvd in Rocklin. It has come to our attention that a high-density apartment complex is being proposed for 1800 Wildcat Blvd—immediately adjacent to our school. I am reaching out to urge you to reconsider this development, as it poses serious concerns regarding the safety, security, and well-being of our children and the broader community.

Key Concerns:

1. Student Safety & Privacy:
 The proposed development site is approximately 10 feet higher in elevation than our school grounds. A multi-story building at this location would allow residents a full view into our campus, including outdoor play areas and classrooms, which raises serious concerns about student privacy and campus security.
 The project could interfere with designated Safe Routes to School, potentially endangering students who walk, bike, or scooter to campus. Additionally, families 541
currently using the adjacent church parking lot for drop-offs and pick-ups may be impacted by restricted access or increased traffic.

2. Public Safety & Crime Risk:
 Numerous studies and city planning data across the U.S. show a correlation between high-density, low-income housing and an increase in calls for police service and property-related crimes in nearby areas.
 While not all affordable housing developments experience this, placing such a project directly next to an elementary school creates increased vulnerability for young children.

The potential for increased loitering, trespassing, or other security-related issues should not be overlooked.
 Rocklin has long been recognized as a safe, family-oriented community. It is essential that any development supports—not compromises—that standard.

3. Operational & Financial Strain on the School:
 The proximity of a large residential complex could result in our school grounds being used as a de facto public park during non-school hours, creating wear and tear on our playgrounds, increased risk of vandalism, and associated costs that our public charter school is not equipped to absorb.

4. Loss of Educational Assets:
 The development would likely require removal of our cherished school garden, which plays a vital role in hands-on learning and environmental education for our students.

5. Traffic & Congestion:
 An influx of residents from 120+ apartment units would significantly impact already- congested roads, especially during critical school drop-off and pick-up times. This raises safety concerns and could result in longer commute times, increased emissions, and further logistical challenges for families and staff.

These concerns are not based on bias, but on the real logistical, environmental, and safety challenges that such a project presents—particularly in a location directly bordering a K–8 school.

We ask that you and your fellow council members give careful consideration to the long- term effects this development may have on student safety, community security, and the continued success of our school.

Please help us protect our children and preserve the integrity of our educational environment. Thank you for your time and dedication to serving our community.

Parent, Maria Montessori Charter Academy
Best Regards,
Hayleigh Evans

113) From: Dennis Boydstun [email protected]

Re: Re-zoning of Parcel #045-011-001-0000

My wife and I have lived at 3735 Mountain View Drive for since 1988, 37 years. We walk our dog every day up Argonaut and down Sweetwater, plus the cut de sacs. We have met and know many of our neighbors on those walks. We also see many people driving through our neighborhood that we don’t recognize, many of them Amazon delivery drivers in private vehicles.

We are here to tell all of you that it is NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD to rezone Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 to build a Large Multi- 542
Family Complex at the end of Argonaut. It is just a wrong fit for this quiet upscale neighborhood of well kept homes owned by a demographic of fairly well off people.

Here is a list of key points as to why we are not in favor of re-zoning to build a lower income multi-family housing development (APARTMENTS) at the end of Argonaut.

There is only one ingress/egress street, which has already been further taxed by Skyline’s homes. Of whose owners have a series problem with stop signs at Hillsdale and Argonaut and Mountain View and Argonaut. Midas is even more impacted. Argonaut and Midas have horrible traffic backups during morning and afternoon commute times and further impacted by by the middle school traffic and children walking and riding bikes to and from school. Both developments would be further harmed by well over 270 additional drivers and tenants.

A great number of people in Mission Hills are seniors and / or retired, as well as many original owners who chose to stay in this area due to its safety, quiet, privacy, well-built and well-maintained homes and yards for a reason - much of which will diminish significantly with the increase noise, congestion, parking, and even diminished access for emergency vehicles when needed.

The Planning Commission authorized the “applicant’ to request that the minimal standard of ONE parking space per unit (which is a joke, as there will likely be two or more drivers per unit, as well as providing no visitor parking. If this happens, and it will happen, our streets will be inundated with parked cars in front of our homes. In addition the visiting traffic will bring people traveling through our neighborhood that do not belong in our neighborhood.

Mission Hills has been a prized area to purchase for years, and what makes it so valuable will decrease all of our property values when congestion, etc. arrives on our door steps.

Rocklin has already designated over 100 aces for affordable housing in other area, so why not use what they have rather than add yet another area in our neighborhood?

Our area does not provide the nearby infrastructure that may be needed by a low income family (public transportation, groceries, etc.) The closet grocery store/pharmacy is Walmart Neighborhood Market 2.5 miles away, or 55 minute walk or Safeway/CVS on Granite Drive, 2.9 miles away and also a 55 minute walk one way. There is also no public transportation nearby.

I can pretty much assure you that if you lived in our neighborhood you would not be approving this project.

Thank you,

Dennis and Maru Boydstun

114) From: Jennifer Batt [email protected]

543
Good Afternoon,

As a resident of Yankee Hill Estates, I am writing to express concern for the re-zoning of property adjacent to my neighborhood for the purpose of allowing high density low income apartments to be built.

The space in question is a wetland preserve with a creek running through it. It is important to preserve this green space adjacent to our neighborhood. I am concerned about the environmental impact of developing housing on a nature preserve.

I am concerned that this rezoning will decrease home property values and bring increased crime to our neighborhood.

I am also concerned that there will be increased traffic if the access to this complex is routed through Jaybird place (a shared road to all Yankee Hill homes). This increased traffic could also impact the safety of children and other pedestrians throughout the neighborhood.

I am also concerned that there will be increased use of the very small park within the neighborhood that would be beyond what it is outfitted for.

Overall, I see the need to create low income housing options within Rocklin. However, I am concerned that this space is not designed for that use and the negative impact it could have on myself and my neighbors. I would propose to utilize other space closer to shopping centers, creating a more walkable city area for those with low income, lessening their need to have a vehicle.

Respectfully,

Jennifer Batt

115) From: VERNON CARLSON [email protected]

Dear City Council Members,
I am writing as a concerned resident of Rocklin regarding the proposed rezoning of land bordering our neighborhood to allow the construction of high-density, low-income housing.

While I understand the need for diverse housing options in our city, I strongly urge the Council to reconsider this particular project due to several significant concerns:

1. Public Safety: Numerous studies have linked high-density, low-income housing developments to increased rates of criminal activity in surrounding neighborhoods.

Introducing this type of development so close to existing single-family residential areas may lead to a rise in incidents that could compromise the safety of families and children in our community.

2. Traffic and Road Safety: The current infrastructure is not equipped to handle the volume of traffic that such a development would bring. Increased congestion on local roads could result in more accidents, longer commute times, and overall reduced quality of life for current residents.

3. Property Values and Community Stability: The construction of high-density housing in close proximity to established neighborhoods has been shown to negatively impact 544
surrounding property values. This can erode the financial security of homeowners and potentially alter the character and cohesion of our community.

I respectfully ask that the Council seriously evaluate alternative locations for such a project—areas where the impact on existing neighborhoods would be minimized and where infrastructure is better suited to support additional housing density.

I would appreciate the opportunity for this message to be read and considered during the upcoming City Council meeting. As a resident and stakeholder in this community, I am deeply invested in ensuring that Rocklin continues to be a safe, thriving place for families.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Vernon & Wai Carlson

116) From: Cynthia Barnes [email protected]

Hello, my name is Cynthia Barnes. I live at 4256 Americana Way. I strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of parcels 045-011-012 and 045-011-017 to build low income apartments. The need is great for low income housing, and also affordable housing for middle income residents of Rocklin. There seems to be a glut of new higher end housing. The proposed low income apartments will be situated back in a corner on the east side of Rocklin, no services nearby, and built over Antelope Creek which is a protected salmon habitat. How is this even possible? This is not well thought out. Are the residents of this planned complex expected to live in an area that is isolated from shopping and bus services? What if they don't have transportation? And if they do have transportation, what route will they use to get to Pacific St? There are 20 homes on Americana Way, the street I live on, and yet there is a lot of traffic due to the 141 homes that are on Del Rio. Those residents use Americana to get through to Pacific, instead of going down Del Mar. There are 179 homes in Yankee Hills Estates to the west of my home on the other side of the wetlands and Antelope Creek. The only exit from the development is over the train tracks at Pacific and Americana. It is out of the way for residents to drive up to Del Mar to exit on Pacific. People take the shortest route, that is common knowledge. The longer freight trains now cause traffic to back up on Americana, Pacific and Del Mar. If there is an emergency there will be no access in and out of the area. Where will be the exits from the planned apartments? Why would the city put an apartment complex in the middle of a commercially zoned area? Why will the people who will live in these apartments be sequestered from the rest of the Rocklin community without any services? What is going to be the impact on the salmon and the wetlands? It will be considerable, I'm sure. What will be done about the already fast heavier traffic we see daily on Americana? I've contacted the city and police dept on many occasions asking for help. We've asked for speed limit signs and also undulations, which were denied. Please reconsider this.rezoning change. Open areas of Rocklin are quickly disappearing. Once Antelope creek has been damaged from the construction and human interference it will never be restored. We owe it to our children to make responsible planning decisions that will benefit the entire community of Rocklin.

Thank you, Cynthia Barnes 4256 Americana Way. 916-710-0298

117) From: Margie Richmond [email protected]

Dear Council Members and Planning Commission Members,

545
I would like to ask that Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 be removed from consideration for rezoning under RHNA. This property is not right for High Density Housing and zoning it as such would be a mistake.

Margie Richmond

546
Post-Planning Commission
Public Correspondence
(Received 8/06/25 through 8/19/25)

118) From: Jamie Howard Sears [email protected]

Hello, I am unable to make the meeting about the affordable housing proposal to rezone our neighborhood. I am not against affordable housing. But the area you are trying to rezone is a small neighborhood with one road to enter and exit. An additional 75+ cars on our streets will be disastrous. It isn't easy to exit our street as is during school pick up and drop off times. You can't put a light in because traffic would back up onto Sunset. I implore you to please reconsider putting the complex here and find a more suitable solution to work with the traffic influx.

Thank you for your attention to this matter

Jamie Howard-Sears
3523 Willard Way, Rocklin, CA 95677

119) From: Eileen P [email protected]

Hello Michael, Jared, Gregg, Twiana, Roberto, and Nathan,

Thank you all very much for how you handled things last night at the Planning Commission meeting. I felt it was educational for all of us. I appreciate the work you put into balancing the desires of the community while trying to satisfy the state requirements.

Your transparency and realistic approach was notable.

Thank you for listening to many residents (over 2 hours!!!) and for reading all of our lengthy emails and letters.

See you at the next meeting where I hope the City will give further support. And just know, that if you want to fight the state, it sure looks like you’ll have a community with you!!

Regards,

Eileen

120) From: HS [email protected]

Dear Planning Commission,
re: 8/4/25 Public Hearing Agenda
547
I am a Rocklin resident writing to strongly oppose the application for the General Plan Amendment and Rezone for an RHNA Alternative Site located at 1800 Wildcat Blvd. in Rocklin.

Please vote NO on the proposed rezoning application for 1800 Wildcat.

Thank you.

121) From: Courtney Paris [email protected]

Hello,

I received a notice of a potential zoning change for parcel number 010-210-002. I am incredibly concerned and disheartened that we would change the integrity of this historic site on Front st to allow for multilevel housing. When we bought here in 2018 on second street, we were captured by the historic charm, the oak trees and the quiet neighborhood. A change like this will jeopardize not only our property values but also the traffic on our quiet street. Our infrastructure cannot allow another street opening on second street unless it is an EVA, as it is already a narrow street. Additionally, our schools are already impacted. - my own child had to be waitlisted in order to get into our home school. Lastly, when we purchased our home, the zoning for this parcel on second street was residential. Had it been zoned for high density, it would have impacted our purchase. We strongly ask that you consider and honor the original general map of this historic district and keep the zoning as is.

Thank you,

Courtney

122) From: Tiffany Pluciennik <[email protected]>

Dear Vice Mayor Bass,
My name is Tiffany Pluciennik, and I’m a Rocklin resident and parent of a student at Maria Montessori Charter Academy (MMCA), a public K–8 charter school immediately adjacent to the proposed Sierra Wilds development at 1800 Wildcat Boulevard.

After reviewing the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s April 8, 2025 Technical Assistance Letter, I understand the City’s legal limitations in enforcing a specific level of commercial integration due to the ambiguous “integrated with” zoning language (HCD Letter PDF). However, this makes it even more critical to 548
fully assess, and mitigate, the unusual safety, legal, and operational risks that arise from placing this project in such proximity to a public school.

Key Concerns and Questions for Consideration
 Smoking Restrictions vs. Private Residence Rights - State law prohibits marijuana use within 1,000 feet of a public elementary school and restricts tobacco within a smaller radius. Yet, these activities are otherwise lawful inside private residences. How will the City reconcile this clear conflict if apartment balconies and patios are positioned within that 1,000-foot zone and overlook school grounds?
 Direct Line-of-Sight Over School Grounds - The California Department of Education has previously acknowledged the significance of what students can see and hear from adjacent developments. In this case, the 2nd and 3rd stories of the two closest apartment buildings would have uninterrupted overwatch of our entire school site, including the playground, garden, and classroom areas.
 Project Footprint and School Lot Shape - MMCA’s flag-shaped parcel means that the narrow “flagpole” portion connects the school’s main campus to Wildcat Boulevard, while most of the property sits behind the frontage. The proposed development would run directly along the school’s longest property line, placing residential activity and a dog park against the core instructional and play areas. This configuration increases exposure and reduces the buffer space normally separating a school from unrelated high-density residential use, raising safety concerns during arrival, dismissal, and recess.  Regulatory Inconsistency - Under California’s Title 5 school site standards, a new school could not be approved this close to certain types of existing development due to safety and environmental concerns. Yet, there is no comparable review or mitigation requirement when new residential buildings are proposed next to an existing school.

This regulatory gap leaves local jurisdictions as the final safeguard for ensuring student safety.
 Construction and Operational Disruption - Noise, dust, shared-parking loss, and direct interference with school garden access will degrade the learning environment and limit secure, supervised outdoor space.

Request for Action
I respectfully ask you to:
 Evaluate this project through a public safety lens independent of zoning compliance, given the unprecedented adjacency to a K–8 school.
 Seek enforceable conditions of approval requiring increased setbacks, privacy screening, restricted balcony orientation, and access control measures to eliminate direct line-of-sight and uncontrolled interaction with school grounds.  Address legal conflicts between state smoking restrictions and private residence rights within the 1,000-foot school buffer zone before site plan approval.

Thank you for considering these objective, fact-based safety concerns as part of your leadership role in safeguarding both Rocklin’s housing goals and the well-being of our children.

Warm regards,
Tiffany Pluciennik
549
Rocklin Resident & MMCA Parent
[email protected]

123) From: Dawn and Dean Sanguinetti [email protected]

Dear Members of the City Council,
Thank you for your continued commitment to addressing our community’s housing needs. While I strongly support affordable housing in principle, I am writing to respectfully express concerns about the proposed location of a high-density residential affordable housing development directly adjacent to Maria Montessori Charter School and behind the housing community on Redmond and Syracuse drives.

This letter is not in opposition to affordable housing—but rather to the placement of this specific project, which presents serious logistical, safety, and land-use challenges.

Traffic Congestion and Student Safety
This proposed development will substantially increase vehicle traffic along school- adjacent corridors during peak hours.
 Morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up congestion is already a concern. Adding hundreds of new residential units will worsen congestion and increase the risk of accidents which are likely to involve children.
 The increased traffic for deliveries, transport services, maintenance, and utilities work require additional traffic calming measures, signage, and crossing infrastructure would be necessary—but those come with funding and enforcement challenges.

School Overcrowding and Strained Public Resources
High-density housing often brings a significant increase in families with school-age children. The schools in our area are already at capacity with many having to be rerouted from their “home” schools:
 Class sizes may exceed state or district guidelines.
 Public services like special education, after-school programs, and student counseling will face strain without adequate advance planning or budget augmentation.  This can erode the quality of education for current and future students.

Security and Perimeter Challenges
Placing a dense residential complex directly next to a school can complicate security protocols.
 Schools are required to maintain controlled perimeters and limit unauthorized access. A multi-family complex next door increases the number of non-school-affiliated adults in the immediate area.
 Additional fencing, surveillance, or security staff may be required—further burdening school district budgets.

Incompatible Land Use and Noise Conflicts
High-density housing is inherently more active and increases noise, especially in evenings and weekends, which:
 Conflicts with the quiet, structured environment schools need during instructional hours.  May raise concerns about open recreational spaces being used for unintended purposes.
 Could limit future school site expansion or modification, placing long-term constraints on educational infrastructure.

Infrastructure and Environmental Concerns
This co-location of a school and a dense residential project may overburden:
 Sewer, water, and stormwater systems in the area, which were not designed for this level of density.
550
 Green space and recreation areas, which are limited in many school zones and necessary for both student and community well-being.
 Emergency response access, with fire and medical services needing clear ingress and egress during high-volume periods.

Closing Recommendation
We respectfully urge the City Council to consider alternative locations for this housing development—locations that can accommodate density without placing undue pressure on schools or jeopardizing student safety. Alternatively, we ask that the city consider scaling the project appropriately and working in close coordination with residents to mitigate impacts.

Affordable housing is vital—but responsible urban planning means placing it where it can succeed without undermining critical public institutions like our neighborhood schools.

Thank you for your attention and thoughtful leadership on this matter.

Sincerely,
Dawn Sanguinetti
916-430-1781

124) From: Donald Blodger [email protected]

On behalf of the residents of the Mission Hills neighborhood of Rocklin, we would like to express our gratitude for the gracious open forum meeting last night regarding the rezoning of the end of Argonaut Ave.

We so appreciate your professionalism, willingness to listen to all different points of view, and most importantly, to take a firm stand when, in the short term, a decision might alleviate the state compliance pressure, but one that would never stand the test of time or common sense in the long run. Specifically recommending removing Argonaut Ave. from the rezoning list.

We sincerely thank you for listening and considering all that was presented, which ranged from snarky to the mundane to well-thought-out analyses and everything in between. And those of us who received personal calls from someone on the planning commission or city council really appreciated you going beyond the ubiquitous and frustrating “thank-you for your feedback” email.

You have a difficult job, and I think we all learned more of the difficulties and all the variables you have to balance at the same time to keep Rocklin the city we have come to know and love.

We clearly do not know the “inside baseball” of working with the State of California and their mandates, but another thing came through last night, and that is that we would prefer you to lean into fighting the state rather than just rolling over. Again, we do not know precisely what fighting the state means, but as one person succinctly said to you … “We still live in a democracy.”

551
Again, thank you for serving Rocklin so well and diligently. We will rally the troops again to attend the city council meeting on August 26 at 6pm.

Cheers,
Don & Victoria Blodger
4605 Lemonhill Drive
916.296.8080

125) From: Patrick Warren [email protected]

Hello I’m writing this short message in regards to the planned usage change to the parcel on the end of Willard way to high density. I’m in opposition to this and as a home owner in the close vicinity I think it’s a bad idea. Thank you for your consideration.

Patrick Warren

5605 Bolton way.

126) From: Nicholas Peterson [email protected]

My name is Nick Peterson and I live at 3738 Mountain View Dr. in Rocklin.

My wife and I, along with our two daughters, moved to Rocklin in early 2020, just before the onset of the pandemic. In relocating from San Jose, we were searching for a place to raise our children in a safe, peaceful environment—away from the fast-paced, congested atmosphere of the Bay Area. Rocklin has always held a special place in our hearts, as my wife's parents have lived here for over 25 years. Our many visits over the years helped us fall in love with this wonderful city, and we were excited to finally call it home.

We feel truly blessed to have found a neighborhood that reflects the values and lifestyle we envisioned for our family. Rocklin offers the kind of community where children can safely play outside, neighbors know each other, and families feel supported. It has become everything we hoped for and more.

However, in late 2020, just a few months after settling in, a large-scale development began along Skyline Drive, directly above our property. The construction brought an immediate and unwelcome increase in traffic, noise, and safety concerns. Non-resident drivers accessing Argonaut Avenue often disregard traffic signs—particularly the stop sign at Mountain View and Argonaut, which is routinely ignored. This dangerous behavior has been reported multiple times to Rocklin PD, and we believe it is only a matter of time before a serious accident occurs if this issue is not addressed.

Even now, after construction has concluded, the addition of 100+ new homes has introduced 200–300 new residents and an estimated 100–200 more vehicles to our local streets. Argonaut and Midas Avenues—already limited in access—now face heavier congestion and safety concerns due to increased traffic from residents, delivery vehicles, and service providers.

552
I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of the property parcel located at the end of Argonaut Avenue to allow for multi-family or low- income housing. This rezoning could add another 250–500 residents to an already burdened neighborhood infrastructure. It would fundamentally alter the quality of life that existing residents have come to cherish and worked hard to protect.

Such a decision will severely impact traffic flow, emergency response access, and pedestrian safety throughout the area. The scale and density of the proposed development are incompatible with the neighborhood’s existing layout, traffic patterns, and infrastructure capacity.

Furthermore, there are already several parcels of land within the City of Rocklin that are zoned for multi-family and affordable housing. These locations—unlike the parcel in question—are far better suited to handle the necessary infrastructure, transportation access, parking requirements, and service demands that come with higher-density housing. Development should focus first on these appropriately zoned areas before pursuing rezoning of existing low-density residential neighborhoods.

We chose this neighborhood because of its family-friendly environment, sense of community, and slower pace of life—something that’s becoming increasingly rare. We’ve found a place where children can be outside, build friendships, and experience the kind of childhood we had always hoped to give them. The proposed rezoning would bring permanent, life-altering changes that threaten the safety, accessibility, and character of our neighborhood.

We respectfully ask that you reconsider the proposed rezoning of this parcel. We urge the City Council to prioritize existing residents and to direct future development toward areas that are properly planned and zoned for higher-density housing.

I will be attending this evening’s City Council meeting to express my opposition in person. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Nick Peterson
3738 Mountain View Drive

127) From: Nicolette [email protected]

Counsel Members,

As a long time resident of Rocklin, former homeless program director, and currently small business owner, would like to express my protest against the proposal of using 045-011-012 AND 045-011-017 as high density options to meet RHNA requirements.

These are not good options. It will be more harmful for the community, and the city. 553
128) From: D B <[email protected]>

Dear City of Rocklin,

I am a local homeowner and resident in the neighborhood near Willard Way. Recently, a neighbor shared a photo of a public notice that appears to suggest a potential plan to develop multi-family apartments near the end of Willard Way.

Before anything else, I would like to confirm whether this is accurate:

 Is there an official development proposal under review or approval for apartment buildings in or around that area?

If such a project is indeed being considered, I would like to respectfully express my strong opposition for the following reasons:

1. Traffic and Accessibility:

Willard Way is a small, residential street with only a single entry and exit. It is not designed to handle the volume of traffic that a large apartment complex would create.

Increased congestion could cause serious delays and inconvenience for current residents.

2. Child Safety Concerns:

This neighborhood has many families with young children, and the end of Willard Way is often used as a safe space for kids to gather and play. Adding a high-density residential building would increase traffic and pose significant safety risks to these children.

3. Alternative Access Point Recommendation:

If development is ultimately approved, I urge the city to consider using the intersection of Front St and Farron St as the main access point for any such project. That location is far more suitable for vehicle flow and would minimize disruption to the current Willard Way residents.

4. Quality of Life Impact:

Residents here already cope with the noise and disruption caused by nearby train tracks. Adding a large development project with potential long-term construction noise and new traffic would further reduce the quality of life in our peaceful neighborhood.

Thank you for your time and for considering the voices of local residents. I sincerely hope the city will take our concerns into account before moving forward with any development plans.

Sincerely,
Simon

554
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN APPROVING AN AUGUST 2025 ADDENDUM TO THE 2012 GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND A STATUTORY EXEMPTION FOR THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM 10 – ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR INCLUSION IN THE

APPROVED INVENTORY OF SITES FOR THE

REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) PROJECT
(2021-2029 Housing Element Program 10 – Alternative Sites / ENV2025-0009)

WHEREAS, on October 9, 2012, the City Council of the City of Rocklin approved and certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2012 General Plan Update (Resolution No. 2012 -170) (State Clearinghouse Number 2008072115). The 2012 General Plan Environmental Impact Report analyzed the environmental effects of development at a program level throughout the City; and

WHEREAS, on October 24, 2021, the City Council of the City of Rocklin adopted the 2021-2029 Housing Element (Resolution No. 2021-153) and approved an Addendum to the 2012 General Plan Environmental Impact Report for the 2021 -2029 Housing Element (Resolution No. 2021-152); and

WHEREAS, the 2021-2029 Housing Element, Program 10 – Inventory of Sites for Housing/Rezone Implementation committed the City to rezoning and amending the land use designation of approximately 240 total acres of land to meet the State’s mandated inventory of “Low” and “Moderate” income to comply with the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); and

WHEREAS, o n December 10, 2024, the City Council of the City of Rocklin approved a General Plan Amendment (Resolution No. 2024 -274) and adopted the Residential Minimum Density Overlay (RMDO) District (Ordinance No. 1183) to support the implementation of Program 10; and

WHEREAS, due to the app lication for and the approval of several development projects subsequent to the adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element and Program 10, several of the originally identified sites had been removed from the Inventory of Sites list, and alternative sites are required to be rezoned and redesignated to accommodate the City’s RHNA requirements; and

WHEREAS, P ublic Resources Cod e Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 11 requires the City to analyze the proposed 2021- 2029 Housing Element Program 10 – Alternative Sites for Inclusion in the Approved Inventory of Sites for RHNA project to determine whether further environmental analysis is required; and

555

Page 2 ends

Rocklin City CouncilAugust 26, 2025

Rocklin City Council
August 26, 2025