PH1 RHNA Alternative Sites - Correspondence from the Public — Rocklin City Council, August 26, 2025

CORRESPONDENCES FROM THE PUBLIC
City Council Regular Meeting
August 26, 2025

PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
PH1 2021-2029 Housing Element Program
10 - Alternative Sites/ General Plan
Amendments GPA2025-0001 and GPA
2024-0001; Rezone, Z2025-0001;
Environmental Review, ENV2025-0009
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

From: sprina
To: Meeting Comments
Subject: 2021-2029 Housing Element Program 10
Date: Sunday, August 24, 2025 10:12:25 PM
To Rocklin Planning Commission
This is in regards to rezoning of APNs: 045-011-012 & 045-011-017. City council meeting on August 26.

We live in Yankee Hill estates on Aitken Dairy Rd.

We do not want to see the rezoning of
these two parcels nor the development of high density low income apartments on these parcels if there would be a road connecting the proposed development to Yankee Hill Estates. The amount of traffic this could potentially add to Aitken Dairy Rd could be more than double the existing amount since the likely street connection via Jaybird Place is towards the back of our development.

Please do not approve the zoning change for the parcel numbers listed above.

Sincerely,
Steve and Vicki Prina

2 Brothers Development in our neighborhood due to the increased number of vehicles on Argonaut Ave. (The traffic study conducted for that development was not done during school time, therefore did not accurately reflect the true volume.)
 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 high-density 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 high- density housing 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 high-density housing next to properties of our 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.

I ask for your support in demanding a more thoughƞul and community-centric approach to development in Rocklin. The long-term implicaƟons of this rezoning extend beyond our city limits and could set a precedent for inappropriate development throughout the district.

Thank you for your Ɵme and consideraƟon of this criƟcal maƩer.

Sincerely,
Andrea Jensen
Argonaut Avenue
Rocklin, CA 95677
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

From: Margurite Palmatier
To: Meeting Comments
Subject: APN 010-191-004)
Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025 5:43:32 PM
The parcel at the terminus of Willard Way (APN
010-191-004) is proposed to be rezoned to a zoning designation of Mixed Use 24+ Dwelling Units/Acre (MU-24+). This zoning designation would
potentially support a multi-family housing development.

The APN 010-191-004 proposed 75 unit Apartment Complex on Faron Street and Willard Way in Rocklin needs to be rethink. Traffic, exiting and entering onto Willard Way on a daily basis would be way too much traffic for our small neighborhood. 75 units is a lot of traffic along with their family members and friends visiting. If they are having parties or just get together's, I'm sure they would be parking on our streets, due to not enough parking spaces in the apartment complex.

Maybe they have too many
vehicles and decide to park them on our street, right outside their complex for days at a time. Please rethink this option?
Also;

1. The apartment parking overflow traffic ends up, landing on our Willard Way neighborhood streets.

The constant driving back-and-forth will be alarming our Ring Alarms constantly, where we would not be able to detect whether someone's entering into our homes or just driving by.

UNSAFE FOR ALL OF US!

2. Allowing Section 8 apartments in our neighborhood, increases the overflow of foot traffic and vehicles, making our neighborhood unsafe and bringing added drugs, alcohol, etc. to our neighborhood.

3. Speeding traffic on a very busy residential street
where children are playing
constantly.

4. There is too many Vehicles who park on Willard Way streets every day because they don't use their garages and they park on the street along with their family members who live with them, making streets too narrow too travel on a daily basis.

5. It's very congested when you get to the corner of Willard Way making the turn because of all the parked cars.

6. Exiting Willard Way onto 3rd Street is very dangerous because of the traffic light, school traffic, along with all the other vehicles who are doing their daily task, work, etc.

7. There needs to be one way in and the same way out for the apartment complex, Not Willard Way!

8. "Perhaps they can make this an Emergency Exit only, where Police and Firetrucks can gain entrance only.

9. Emergency only: a temporary access, where if they have no access to enter or exit Faron Street due to a
city emergency, such as a flood or a large railroad acreage fire where people need to exit out of their apartments quickly.

I hope you take our concerns into consideration for the safety of our families that have lived here for 20+ years. We love living in our small neighborhood and feel safe with our neighbors.

We hate to see it go downhill and unsafe our children in our neighborhood with so much traffic.

This neighborhood was not built to have 300+ vehicles entering and exiting on a daily basis. What I mean by this is even though there is 75 units, those people have people living with them that drive also and go to and from work. * Please, Willard Way should not be an option.

Thank you!
Margurite Toste
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

From: Joey Sanders
To: Meeting Comments
Subject: August 26th City Council Meeting
Date: Friday, August 22, 2025 4:36:05 PM
I am writing to express my objection to the proposed rezoning of the parcel at the end of Willard Way (APN 010-191-004). My home lies on Willard Way. The neighborhood is very quiet with not a lot of traffic. Many children and animals play around the area. There is only one in-out street to the neighborhood and it is right in front of my house at Willard and 3rd. Proposing to build a 50-75 multi-unit complex at the end of this street would cause many traffic problems. As well as potential crime in the area and property values of all the existing homes devalued.

I would not have bought my home here if this rezoning had been in place when I bought, as I'm sure most if not all of the families living here now would not have done either.

Please include my comments in the meeting minutes at the next city council meeting on August 26, 2025.

Thank you,
Joey Sanders
Willard Way
Rocklin, CA 95677

2 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.

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,
Bruno Aburto
August 20, 2025
Dear R
ocklin City Councilmembers:

We are writing to vehemently express our opposition to the proposed rezoning of vacant parcel 010-191-004-000 located at the terminus of Willard Way . This parcel is not appropriate for dense development, and the development of a multi -use or dense residential project in this location would negatively impact the quality of life and safety for all the existing residents in the vicinity .

Most importantly, the current property owner , JMC Homes, who is a knowledgeable property developer in the Sacramento Region, is also opposed to the rezoning of this site and has detailed many technical concerns about the proposed rezoning of this parcel that were detailed in a letter to the Planning Commission dated June 18, 2025. While we are not opposed to the development of this parcel, we do not believe that this parcel is appropriate for denser use and would like to highlight some of the many concerns that we and our neighbors have, in hopes that the Council will reconsider the ill-advised rezoning of this parcel.

Safety/Access: This parcel is surrounded by single -family residential lots on the east, north, and west sides and the railroad tracks on the south side. The only current access point for the parcel is on the west side of the parcel off Willard Road. There is another potential alternative access point on the east side off of Farron Street; however, th at property is owned by the railroad, making access there highly unlikely.

We strongly oppose any additional traffic through Willard Way. There is only a single entrance/exit for this neighborhood that already serves 11 5 families. There have already been incidents of blocked access to and from the neighborhood, including a car fire that left residents stranded for a considerable length of time . In addition to there only being one entrance/exit point to the neighborhood for so many of us, there are visibility and traffic concerns as well. The streets are narrow, lined with cars on both sides of the street, and usually filled with children out playing. At the single entrance/exit to the neighborhood, there is an offset that makes visibility difficult at the intersection of Willard and Bolton, and it is within a short distance of the 3rd Street exit. This is compounded by the fact that the exit onto 3 rd Street also has poor visibility to the right, and the speed and queuing on 3rd Street at Sunset impacts access to the neighborhood. 3 rd Street is subject to extensive traffic from the baseball fields, park, and particularly the middle school traffic. If the re was ever a need to access or evacuate this area quickly, it could already quickly become unsafe based on the current conditions without any additional density.

Density: This parcel is surrounded by single -family homes. This site is not appropriate for mixed - use or increased density purposes. The proposed density of 24+ du/acre would be a 2.5X increase over the existing density. This proposed zoning is denser than the density being proposed in this action for many nearby vacant parcels that have better access and far fewer compatibility issues than this parcel. There are currently no parcels in the area with zoning as intense as is being proposed for this parcel, especially when accessed primarily through less -intensive-use parcels on underdeveloped streets. We were unable to find another parcel zoned for mixed-use located on the Rocklin Zoning Map that is accessed off minor or residential streets . T his proposed action would make this the only parcel where this condition exists.

Flooding/ Topography: This parcel is on a hill that slopes down to a drainage canal, with portions of the parcel and neighboring parcels located in a flood zone. The canal winds through the existing residential neighborhood. The canal and surrounding parcels are subject to routine seasonal flooding, and adding additional impermeable area above the c anal would require extensive grading, drainage, and storm water retention or would subject the existing properties to severe flooding/ flood risk. Additionally, this parcel is located in the Quarry Architectural District. The site contains multiple rock outcroppings, abandoned quarry, and large oak trees that should be preserved. There is no site design that can accommodate the constraints of this parcel and meet the proposed new density that would not result in a 3+-story building on a hill tower ing over the yards of the existing single-family homes. Additionally, a tall multi-story building in close proximity to the railroad tracks creates visibility and safety concerns.

Infrastructure Design: The current context, character, and infrastructure of the existing neighborhood (roads, water, sewer, electricity) were not designed to support mixed -use 24 -unit- per-acre structures. The utilities and other infrastructure are not sized appropriately for commercial and multi -family use, and there is already limited parking on the existing residential streets.

Equity: More expensive subdivisions that do not have the same development constraints have been able to exclude themselves from development with the support of the Council. This neighborhood is one of the more affordable neighborhoods in the City ; however, that does not mean that this site is automatically appropriate for higher density. Many of our neighbors came to speak out against the rezoning of this parcel at the August 5, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, but were not able to enter the Council Chambers due to overcrowding and could not provide public comment. I spent the weekend speaking to many of our neighbors about this proposal and was not able to find a single neighbor who supported the rezone. We are including a petition signed by 73 of our neighbors opposing the proposed rezone of parcel 010-191-004-000.

For all of these reasons, we urge you to find that the parcel is not appropriate for denser use and leave the existing zoning designation in place.

Thank you for your review and consideration of our concerns.

Sincerely,
Andrew and Emilie Costan

This rezone would put undue pressure on an already overused ingress/egress of Mountain View Drive after the Skyline development, making it unsafe for crossing the street, children playing, riding bicycles, etc.

TRAFFIC CONTROLS. Stop signs are constantly being run on Argonaut/Hillcrest, Argonaut/Mountain View, Argonaut/Midas, Mountain View/Midas, even when cars or pedestrians & bicycles ridden by children are present.

Speed limits are totally ignored with cars travelling well above the posted limits.

Increased traffic would make matters dire due to the number of families with children that live in the Mission Hills neighborhood.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. Changing the zoning to higher density housing units will greatly affect what is now basically open space/ranch property which will be detrimental to the quality of air, wildlife, birds and vegetation.

PROPERTY VALUES. Higher density than the surrounding Mission Hills and Skyline neighborhoods will have an enormous impact on the value of the beautiful housing that is in this area and result in lower values.

HIGHER CRIME RATE. Higher density equals higher crime rates.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
tJOOJ�1C�e-
Sincerely,
Don and Shari Carter
Mountain View Drive
Rocklin, CA 95677
Copy to: Avinta Madhukansh-Sing, City Clerk Rocklin

2 Once developed, harm from secondary financial impacts would also include increased costs for increased demand of up to 289 units 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.

Increased Traffic and Related Issues:

There are existing traffic issues in Rocklin today. The 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 City Council is certainly already aware that legitimate traffic concerns exist for Argonaut and Midas today. Additional traffic from up to 289 units on the Subject Parcel would be more than double the traffic load that was already added by the Los Cerros development. High density housing at the end of Argonaut would only exacerbate the existing issues and would be unacceptable.

For surface streets and collectors such as Argonaut and Midas, 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.

The existing traffic issues today are also, in part, due to the Rocklin City Planning Commissions’ and City Councils’ 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. Repeating this mistake would be negligent and counter to the City’s fiduciary duty to the 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 currently 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.

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

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

From: Tena Rakela
To: Meeting Comments
Subject: Fw: Rezoning of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 1:38:06 PM
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
Begin forwarded message:

On Monday, August 4, 2025, 3:22 PM, Tena Rakela <[email protected]> wrote:

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
to 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 RakelaS
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
August 26, 2025
To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is in regard to Housing Element Program 10 and more specifically the following parcels in question:
• APN 045-011-012 and
• APN 045-011-017
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 our first 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: It is diffi cult 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. The lower income units typically have poor upkeep and even though not all lower income apartments are riddled with crime, they do lean more towards that spectrum just by the fact that the folks that live there struggle financially and do whatever they can to get by using whatever resources and skills they have available to them. I know as I grew up in those communities and am all to o familiar with how it works.

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 (the area that also surrounds this community) only allows 5 -acre parcels and the proposed development doesn't ﬁt the current aesthetic and character and would destroy the natural elements that exist and help to make this such a desirable community.

In addition, if an access road were built to connect the two different communities, our neighborhood amenities that our HOA dues and property taxes pay for would be accessible to folks in the new communities and could potentially cause overcrowding issues, increased crime, accelerated deterioration due to overuse, and not to mention the increased traffic issues that are already present g iven our community only has one ingress/egress. While that new road would potentially add a second egress, it would be offset by hundreds more cars that would have access to it, making an already strained infrastructure even worse.

Utilities: There are strong concerns about whether the current utilities (water, sewer, etc.) would be able to handle the increased demand from the new development. The huge increase in demand on our gas and electric resources would add additional strain to PG&E’ s system th ereby increasing our already exorbitantly high gas and electricity rates even more. With no other options for gas and electricity providers other than PG&E, they know they have a monopoly in Rocklin and by law of supply and demand, when demand goes up, they can and will raise prices which we will have no option but to pay.

Safety & Security: Law enforcement agencies across the greater Sacramento area struggle to hire and if you add 100s of new residents in lower to moderate income communities in a very short period , the staffing required to meet those new demands would ta ke a toll even on Ro cklin PD. While they have been able to maintain a staffing level of about 88 officers by utilizing recruiting efforts that include lateral transfers , th ose resources are quickly diminishing due to the lack of new recruits and high retirement numbers in other agencies.

Schools: Our schools in Rocklin are currently at capacity, and adding more students would put a strain on resources. 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 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.

Conc
lusion: 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 in this area or mixed-income housing in a different area.

We feel that smaller higher income level developments would add less strain on infrastructure, safety & secu rity, and schools. It would also pre vent the need for the additional access road connecting to Jaybird Place thereby leaving our current traffic levels and natural wildlife habitats and wetland preserves unaffected within the Yankee Hills Estates community. This would in turn preserve our amenities and limit use to those that reside in our neighborhood and take ownership and responsibi lity for how well it is maintained.

Thank you for your time and consideration in ﬁnding a different location for this type of low to moderate housing and look forward to continued discussions.

Sincerely,
George and Teresa Presel
August 4, 2025
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 diffe rent 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 start er 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 th e 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 hundre ds of new residents in that space would take away the natural wildlife habitat and for ce 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, w e 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 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 cau sing dangerous traffic issues given we have only one way in and out of our neighborhood. T here 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 e xpansions needed to accom modate th e current level of growth presents c hallenges. If hundre ds more were added to this already challenging issue, the students c ould be n egatively affected by overcrowded c lassrooms 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 appro ximate 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 cons ideration in ﬁnding a different location for this type of housing and look forward to continued discussions.

Sinc
erely,
Geor
ge and Teresa Presel

2 There is no room for a roundabout. A traffic light would not decrease traffic. Neither action would reduce the traffic impact. In fact, a traffic light could increase waiting and therefore the environmental and safety impacts. Additional traffic also poses a hazard to public safety because emergency respo
nse 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. Walkers, cyclists, and others would also be confronted with additional risk.

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.

Increased traffic will result in more speeding and more aggressive driving as has been documented (Federal Highway Administration of the Department of Transportation). Children play on those streets. Residents walk on those streets. Cyclists train on those streets. And they all will face the higher risk of more speeding cars and distracted drivers.

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. Rezoning to HDR MU-24+ does not constitute responsible use.

Additional Impacts:

Public Utilities and Services
The responsibility for providing public safety, well-maintained roads, sufficient water supplies and electricity are the duties of government. Unfortunately, Rocklin 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. The general response to these issues is that developer fees and increased tax revenues provide an offset. However, that is unlikely to be the case with the rezone of Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 given the placement of the property, the many negative impacts already mentioned, and the cost to attempt to mitigate impacts. Other areas can be rezoned far more readily and though there would be safety and environmental questions to b
e answered, suitable properties would create fewer issues and could have a positive impact on the community.
3 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 outlined below:

1. “It’s the law”
The law does not specify which parcels must be rezoned. The legal obligation to meet a housing target does not mean that you must rezone this specific parcel -- especially given the many negative impacts on the community.

The decision to rezone this property without the consent of the property owner who, in the public meeting, made it clear that he was not in favor of the rezoning of his family’s home, is also questionable.

Unilateral rezoning may be legal but is it right? Rezoning may impair the ability to obtain permits when required. Or worse. There are instances of jurisdictions rezoning property then serving the owner with violation notices because the owners’ use, which did not change with rezoning, did not meet the new zoning requirement. Ask yourself, “How would I feel if this were me and my home?”
Unilateral rezoning may be legal by California law. But it is not “right.” To reiterate my public statement at the August 5 meeting, the fact that it’s legal does not make it ethical.

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 other parcels where HD zoning could be imposed with far fewer impacts. Many parcels zoned PD-Res could be easily changed. In addition, the city could benefit from rezoning “under-
utilized” commercial properties to HD, resulting in higher revenues to the city via increased local spending by new residents while also helping to satisfy the state requirements.

3. “It supports the community”
This is the only statement that might withstand a cursory inspection; however, in this context it could be claimed that “it supports the community” is an emotional argument, not a logical one.

Rezoning Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 to HDR MU-24+ will not support the community. It will undermine it. “Community support” does not impose the egregious impacts that rezoning Parcel Number 045-011-001-
0000 will enable, especially in light of the other areas where rezoning could occur with far less impact
In other words, 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.
4 I strongly request that the City Council adopt the Rocklin Planning Commission’s recommendation to remove Parcel Number 045-011-001-0000 from the list of properties targeted for rezoning to high- density housing.

Respectfully,
Nadara Craun
Argonaut Ave.

Rocklin, CA 95677
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

From: Margurite Palmatier
To: Martin Christensen
Subject: Re: Proposed Rezoning of Parcel at end of Willard Way Date: Monday, August 25, 2025 11:31:34 AM
The parcel at the terminus of Willard Way (APN
010-191-004) is proposed to be rezoned to a zoning designation of Mixed Use 24+ Dwelling Units/Acre (MU-24+). This zoning designation would
potentially support a multi-family housing development.

Maybe they have too many
vehicles and decide to park them on our street, right outside their complex for days at a time. Please rethink this option?
Also;

1. The apartment parking overflow traffic ends up, landing on our Willard Way neighborhood streets.

The constant driving back-and-forth will be alarming our Ring Alarms constantly, where we would not be able to detect whether someone's entering into our homes or just driving by.

UNSAFE FOR ALL OF US!

2. Allowing Section 8 apartments in our neighborhood, increases the overflow of foot traffic and vehicles, making our neighborhood unsafe and bringing added drugs, alcohol, etc. to our neighborhood.

3. Speeding traffic on a very busy residential street
where children are playing
constantly.

5. It's very congested when you get to the corner of Willard Way making the turn because of all the parked cars.

6. Exiting Willard Way onto 3rd Street is very dangerous because of the traffic light, school traffic, along with all the other vehicles who are doing their daily task, work, etc.

7. There needs to be one way in and the same way out for the apartment complex, Not Willard Way!

8. "Perhaps they can make this an Emergency Exit only, where Police and Firetrucks can gain entrance only.

I've seen it done in some of the developments in Rocklin.

I hope you take our concerns into consideration for the safety of our families that have lived here for 20+ years. We love living in our small neighborhood and feel safe with our neighbors.

We hate to see it go downhill and unsafe our children in our neighborhood with so much traffic.

Thank you!
Margurite Toste
* I'm sorry for the bold writing. This was copy and paste from my iPhone.

Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 21, 2025, at 3:37 PM, Martin Christensen
<[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Margaret,
I received your voicemail regarding the proposed rezoning of the parcel at the end of Willard Way (APN 010-191-004). The proposal to rezone this property will be going forward on the August 26
th City Council Meeting, which will be held at 6pm in the Council Chambers located on the second floor of City Hall. The parcel at the terminus of Willard Way (APN 010-191-004) is proposed to be rezoned to a zoning designation of Mixed Use 24+ Dwelling Units/Acre (MU-24+). This zoning designation would potentially support a multi-family housing development. However, at this time there is not a project proposed on the site. Issues such as access to the parcel would be discussed and analyzed once a project specific development application is submitted for the site.

If you have concerns regarding the proposed zoning designation for this parcel, I would encourage you to attend the City Council Meeting and express your concerns during the public comment period of the meeting. Additionally, you can also email [email protected]
or reply to this email prior to the City Council
Meeting on August 26th, and provide a letter citing your concerns. City Staff will ensure your letter is included in the project correspondence that is provided to the City Council members prior to the meeting. Please feel free to give me a call or reply to this email if you have any further questions.

Thank you,
<image001.jpg>
Martin Christensen | Planning/Building Technician II
Community Development Department | City of Rocklin
3970 Rocklin Road | Rocklin, CA 95677
[email protected] | (916) 625-5167 | www.rocklin.ca.us Breann M. Moebius
[email protected]
2150 River Plaza Drive #450
Sacramento, CA 95833-4136
T 916.925.6620
F 916.925.1127
hefner-law.com
August 22, 2025
Rocklin City Council
3970 Rocklin Road
Rocklin, CA 95677
Re: August 26, 2025 Agenda, Item PH1
Objection to Inclusion of College Park Parcel B-2 (Site 1-20) Dear Mayor Gayaldo and Members of the City Council:

On behalf of the Sierra Joint Community College District (“College”), this letter objects to the inclusion of Site 1-20 (APN 045-150-070) in the proposed revisions to the inventory of sites to satisfy the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA” or “RHNA list”) for the City of Rocklin (“City”). Site 1-20 is part of the approved College Park General Development Plan (“College Park”) and is referred to as Parcel B-2 within College Park.

Parcel B-2 is approximately 11.7 acres and has an existing zoning of Planned Development

15.5+ (“PD-15.5+”). With the approval of College Park, the City and developers entered into the Development Agreement by and between The City of Rocklin and Sierra Joint Community College District, Evergreen Sierra East LCC, Cresleigh Homes Corporations, and USA Properties, Inc. Relative to College Park (“Development Agreement”).

The Development Agreement vests the College with the right to develop Parcel B- 2 at a range of residential densities between 182 to 468 total units. Ignoring the College’s vested rights, City staff ask your City Council to violate the terms of the Development Agreement and increase the minimum density to 24 units per acre and, with inclusion on the RHNA list, potentially compel the College to develop 300 units at Parcel B-2 through the state’s “no net loss” law. Inclusion of Parcel B-2 on the City’s RHNA list will jeopardize future development of Parcel B-2 and violate the College’s vested rights under the Development Agreement.

College Park made significant contributions to the City’s affordable housing goals, which included the College contributing a 7.3-acre parcel for an affordable site and the developers, including the College, providing more than $4 million to the affordable housing developer for site infrastructure and subsidy funding. These were substantial concessions by the market rate developers, including the College, to ensure that College Park did its part to meet the City’s affordable housing goals. Any action by the City that could be interpreted or even compelled through future changes in state law to require Parcel B-2 to include deed-restricted affordable housing will violate the Development Agreement. Nor can the City, in good faith, represent to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) that there is any potential for Parcel B-2 to accommodate affordable housing given the concessions already made for affordable Objection to Site 1-20
College Park Parcel B-2
August 22, 2025

Page 2 ends

housing in the Development Agreement. The City has no reasonable expectation that Parcel B-2 should or could ever develop with affordable housing. Making any such representation to HCD through inclusion on the RHNA list will not withstand scrutiny.

The College therefore requests your Council remove Parcel B-2 (Site 1-20) from the proposed inventory of sites at your August 26, 2025 meeting and direct staff to exclude Parcel B-2 from any future RHNA list. If Parcel B-2 is included in any RHNA list, the College will pursue all available legal remedies, including requesting an enforcement action with the HCD Accountability and Enforcement Division and pursuing all other legal remedies to protect the College’s vested development rights. In any such action, the City will be responsible for the College’s attorney’s fees as provided for in section 17 of the Development Agreement as well as in an action for an unconstitutional taking of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

1. The Development Agreement prohibits the City from increasing the minimum density of Parcel B-2.

Section 4.2 of the Development Agreement provides that the “permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, . . . shall be those set forth in the Project Approvals.” Recital F of the Development Agreement identifies the Project Approvals for College Park to include the General Development Plan establishing zoning for Parcel B-2 of PD-15.5+ with a minimum of 15.5 units per acre and maximum density of 40 units per acre. The City Ordinance adopting the College Park General Development Plan and Rezoning expressly designated the 11.7 acres of Parcel B-2 “for future high density residential ranging from 182 to 468 total units.” Section 4.1 of the Development Agreement provides that “Developers have the vested right to develop the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Project Approvals . . . .” The College therefore has the vested right to develop Parcel B-2 consistent with the PD-15.5+ zoning, which would allow the College to determine the appropriate development for Parcel B-2 within the approved density range. Depending on market conditions, the College may pursue a residential product type with a reduced density or may pursue a residential product type with an increased density. The point is that the Development Agreement vests the College with the flexibility to make this determination based on market conditions and other circumstances at the time of development. The proposed inclusion of Parcel B-2 and imposition of the RES-24+ overlay and identification of a 300-unit capacity in the proposed Table 7-43 will deprive the College of its vested right to develop Parcel B-2 consistent with the density range in the Project Approvals.

It is also worth noting that, at the request of the City Council, Section 4.6 was added to the Development Agreement to provide that the “City and Developer or Developers who own Parcel B-2 shall meet and confer in good faith, prior to the approval of improvement plans for College Park to determine whether City and the owner of Parcel B-2 can amend Objection to Site 1-20
College Park Parcel B-2
August 22, 2025

Page 3 ends

the high density residential general plan designation to another more flexible use for the Parcel B-2 area.” Unilaterally imposing the RES-24+ overlay will violate Section 4.6 of the Development Agreement, which obligates the City to meet and confer in good faith with the College to consider another more flexible use for Parcel B-2.

2. Including Parcel B-2 on Table 7-43 to meet RHNA could compel the College to develop Parcel B-2 with at least 300 units in violation of vested Development Agreement rights.

The California Legislature originally enacted the “no net loss” provisions in section 65863 in 2002 and it has been amended numerous times to impose more demanding requirements. At the time of development of Parcel B-2, more exacting standards for properties on the RHNA list could be in effect. Currently, section 65863 seeks to ensure that approval of development has “no net loss” of sites to meet a local agency’s RHNA.

Subsection 65863(b)(1) specifically provides:
(1) No city, county, or city and county shall, by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action, reduce, or require or permit the reduction of, the residential density for any parcel identified to meet its current share of the regional housing need or any unaccommodated portion of the regional housing need from the prior planning period to, or allow development of any parcel at, a lower residential density, as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (g), unless the city, county, or city and county makes written findings supported by substantial evidence of both of the following:
(A) The reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element.
(B) The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584.

The finding shall include a quantification of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the housing element to accommodate that need by income level.

Subsection 65863(g)(1) defines “lower residential density” to include either:
(A) For sites on which the zoning designation permits residential use and that are identified in the local jurisdiction’s housing element inventory described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, fewer units on the site than were projected by the jurisdiction to be accommodated on the site pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2.

Objection to Site 1-20
College Park Parcel B-2
August 22, 2025

Page 4 ends

(B) For sites that have been or will be rezoned pursuant to the local jurisdiction’s housing element program described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583, fewer units for the site than were projected to be developed on the site in the housing element program.

Therefore, if the City includes Parcel B-2 on the proposed RHNA list, the City will not be able to approve a project on Parcel B-2 with less than the stated 300-unit capacity on the proposed Table 7-43 unless the City identifies additional vacant sites to meet the RHNA allocation or make up for any shortfall. Even if the identified 300-unit capacity is reduced, the same “no net loss” provisions will apply.

The August 26, 2025 staff report states: “Because Rocklin is nearing full buildout, the City has very few vacant or underutilized parcels left that meet the State’s criteria. This reality significantly limits the City’s flexibility in meeting its RHNA obligations.” Subjecting Parcel B-2 to the “no net loss” provisions through inclusion on the RHNA list, especially when the City knows it has few sites remaining to cover any shortfall, jeopardizes the future ability to develop Parcel B-2 consistent with the Project Approvals in direct violation of the Development Agreement.

3. Inclusion of Parcel B-2 at the minimum density consistent with the Project Approvals will not comply with the City’s obligations.

Even if the proposed RHNA list is revised to reflect the Project Approvals and thereby remove the RES-24+ overlay and identify a unit capacity consistent with the approved minimum density of 182 units, the City will still be violating state law. Subsection 65583.2(c) provides that the RHNA “inventory shall specify for each site the number of units that can realistically be accommodated on that site and whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing, moderate-income housing, or above moderate- income housing.” (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subds. (c).)
Here, the proposed RHNA list states that Parcel B-2 could accommodate moderate- income housing even though the City knows there is no realistic possibility that Parcel B-2 will include affordable housing at any income level given the substantial affordable housing obligations for College Park in the Development Agreement. The substantial concessions already made in the Development Agreement for affordable housing make affordable housing at Parcel B-2 economically infeasible. The Development Agreement also protects against any future requirement that Parcel B-2 include affordable housing. The City has no realistic expectation that a single deed-restricted affordable unit will, should, or could be constructed at Parcel B-2. Any statement to the contrary in the RHNA list is false.1 1 Subsection 65583.2(c)(2)(B) also provides that “[a] site larger than 10 acres shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning Objection to Site 1-20
College Park Parcel B-2
August 22, 2025

Page 5 ends

4. Inclusion of Parcel B-2 on the RHNA list violates vested Development Agreement rights and will result in a regulatory taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

The United State Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that even in the absence of a physical invasion, “regulations that restrict an owner’s ability to use his own property,” including zoning ordinances, can arise to a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. (Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021) 594 U.S. 139, 141 S.Ct. 2063, 2071; accord Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1, 13 [regulatory taking can result “from the application of zoning laws or regulations which limit development of real property”].) “Where a regulation places limitations on land that fall short of eliminating all economically beneficial use, a taking nonetheless may have occurred, depending on a complex of factors including the regulation’s economic effect on the landowner, the extent to which the regulation interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.” (Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001) 533 U.S. 606, 617.) “Even if the agency withdraws the regulation, the property owner may have a right to just compensation for the temporary taking while the regulation was in effect.” (Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 761, 773; accord Lockaway Storage v. County of Alameda (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 161, 184.) As the California Supreme Court has recognized, “the expense of a meritorious taking claim will not be borne by the owner, [and] . . . the owner’s reasonable costs and attorney fees must be reimbursed by the local entity if the owner establishes that the restriction on land use is a compensable taking.” (Hensler v. City of Glendale, supra, 8 Cal.4th at 15.) Rezoning Parcel B-2 to increase the minimum density and subjecting Parcel B-2 to the “no net loss” provisions of state law despite vested rights to develop at a lower density will result in a regulator taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality provides other evidence to the department that the site can be developed as lower income housing.” The College Park Project Approvals repeatedly identify Parcel B-2 as 11.7 acres.

The County of Placer GIS identifies the Site 1-20 APN as 13.4 acres, which includes a portion along the northern boundary that the College Park approvals anticipate will undergo a boundary line adjustment once the Department of Toxic Substances Control cleanup is complete. Potentially to overcome this requirement in state law, the proposed Table 7-43 mistakenly identifies Parcel B-2 as 10 acres.

It is also unclear why the proposed action before the Planning Commission sought to impose a MU-24+ overlay on Parcel B-2 and then the overlay was subsequently changed to RES- 24+ in the materials before your City Council. The College objects to inclusion on the RHNA list regardless of whether an overlay of any kind is imposed because the mere inclusion on the RHNA list jeopardizes future development of Parcel B-2 consistent with the vested rights in the Development Agreement.

Objection to Site 1-20
College Park Parcel B-2
August 22, 2025

Page 6 ends

5. The College did not receive notice of the inclusion of Parcel B-2 on the RHNA list prior to the Planning Commission hearing.

The College would have submitted this objection in advance of the Planning Commission hearing but was unaware of the inclusion of Parcel B-2. The College appreciates staff proactively reaching out last week when the College did not participate in the Planning Commission hearing on this item. On the date this letter was submitted, the College located a generic Planning Commission notice that omitted a recipient and did not identify the proposed overlay. The notice identified parcels for potential inclusion on the RHNA list by APN only and did not provide “a general description, in text or by diagram, of the location of the real property” that would be the subject of the hearing. (Gov. Code, § 65094.) The College reserves any and all rights to challenge inclusion of Parcel B-2 based on the lack of notice required under the Planning and Zoning Law and deprivation of procedural due process. (See generally Harris v. County of Riverside (9th Cir. 1990) 904 F.2d 497, 501-502 [holding that a rezone affecting the plaintiff and adjacent landowner required the county to comply with the procedural due process clause because it “concerned a relatively small number of persons,” as compared to the related general plan amendment that affected the entire population, and “‘exceptionally affected’ [plaintiff] ‘on an individual basis’ by severely altering the permissible uses of [his] land”].) * * *
In closing, we appreciate that state housing laws obligate the City to identify sufficient sites to meet its RHNA obligations and that the City has a diminishing inventory of potential vacant sites. While this may require some difficult decisions for City Council, those decisions cannot infringe on vested development rights. Nor can your City Council represent to HCD that Parcel B-2 has any potential to develop with affordable housing when College Park has already donated substantial real property and funding for affordable housing through the Development Agreement. We therefore request that your City Council remove Parcel B-2 from the RHNA list and direct staff to exclude the parcel from any future list. Absent removal of Parcel B-2, the College will be forced to protect its vested property rights and request that HCD direct the City to remove Parcel B-2 because it has no realistic capacity for affordable housing.

Very truly yours,

HEFNER, STARK & MAROIS, LLP
By
Breann M. Moebius
cc: William Duncan, Superintendent/President, Sierra Joint Community College District Aly Zimmermann, City Manager
Objection to Site 1-20
College Park Parcel B-2
August 22, 2025

Page 7 ends

David Mohlenbrok, Director of Community Development
Matthew McOmber, City Attorney
Crystal Hodgson, Assistant City Attorney
Holly Tiche, Sierra Joint Community College District
Rob Cole, Cole Partners Development Company
Deana Ellis, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Cresleigh Homes

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.

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
David Ct.

Rocklin, CA 95677
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

From: Jeremy Screeton
To: Meeting Comments
Subject: Support for Removal of APN 045-011-017-000 from RHNA Housing Sites Date: Monday, August 18, 2025 4:14:04 PM
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing as a concerned resident regarding the upcoming hearing on August 26, 2025, for the 2021–2029 Housing Element Program 10 – Alternative Sites. Specifically, I want to express my strong support for the Planning Commission’s recommendation to remove APN 045-011-017-000 from the list of potential RHNA housing sites.

Our neighborhood is directly adjacent to this parcel, and placing high-density, low-income housing here would have serious negative impacts:

1. Traffic and Safety: Our neighborhood streets are not designed for the additional traffic that would come with a high-density development. Increased congestion raises safety risks for children, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

2. Neighborhood Character: Rocklin’s General Plan emphasizes protecting the unique character of established neighborhoods. A sudden shift to high-density housing next to a single-family community is incompatible and would fundamentally change the livability of the area.

3. Schools and Infrastructure: Our schools and local infrastructure are already under pressure. Adding a concentrated development in this location would strain resources, reducing quality of life for both existing and future Rocklin families.

4. Better Alternatives Exist: The Planning Commission carefully reviewed multiple parcels and concluded this site should not be included. We respectfully ask that the City Council honor that professional recommendation and focus on alternative sites that better align with Rocklin’s growth vision and infrastructure capacity.

We fully understand Rocklin’s obligation to meet state housing requirements, but it is equally important that these decisions are made thoughtfully and in ways that strengthen, not harm, existing communities. Preserving the integrity and safety of our neighborhood is essential to maintaining Rocklin’s reputation as a family-friendly, well-planned city.

For these reasons, I urge you to adopt the Planning Commission’s recommendation and formally remove APN 045-011-017-000 from the housing element update.

Thank you for your time, your service, and your careful consideration of the families who live here.

Respectfully,
Jeremy Screeton
Lakebreeze Drive
Rocklin, CA 95677

From: >
Sent: T uesday, August 26, 2025 10:37 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Jill Gayaldo <[email protected]>; Ken Broadway <[email protected]>
Subject: Rocklin City Council meeting 8-26-25 Housing Element Program 10 - rezoning RHNA alternative sites

Hello,
I tried to speak to speak at the meeting this evening but my microphone on my computer was not working. I wanted to speak in regard to parcel #045-061-027 and a potential re zoning is being considered with large apartment complex for low-income housing. This is not the correct location for this consideration.

This parcel is adjacent to my community, Crowne Point. Crowne Point has large 10,000 sq foot minimum lots. The Woods is in the process of being built and will become a part of Crowne Point, their lots vary in size some larger than 10K sq ft and some are smaller. This parcel in question is adjacent to The Woods on 2 sides. This type of low-income housing development does not belong in this location.

This particular parcel is currently residential with 2 homes’ driveways that intersect parcel #045-061-027. The traffic ﬂow to this parcel will come off of Barton Road. Public transportation is not available near this site. People who live in this housing complex might jump the fence and walk through our gated community to get to services off of Sierra College Blvd. This would be terrible for our neighborhood.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

I respectfully ask that parcel 045-061-027 be removed from the list for multifamily housing list of locations.

Thank you,
Carolyn

Carolyn Petree

Rocklin City CouncilAugust 26, 2025

Rocklin City Council
August 26, 2025