No. 2023-
___________________________________
_ , Mayor
ATTE
ST:
_____________
_______________
Haley Reid, Acting City Clerk
915
to Reso. No. 2023-
EXHIBIT A
916
CH
ANGE ORDER
CHANGE ORDER NO.: 1 PROJECT NAME: ADA Ramps & Concrete Services
DATE OF ISSUANCE: 12/12/2023 CONTRACTOR: PBM Construction, Inc.
You are directed to make the following changes to the plans and specifications or do the following work not included in the plans and specifications on this contract.
J
USTIFICATION:
-In
crease contract amount by $65,500 for a total of $315,000 to accommodate additional ADA Ramp and construction services for upcoming scheduled road resurfacing projects.
CHANGE TO CONTRACT PRICE CHANGE TO CONTRACT TIME
Original Contract Price: $249,500 Original Contract Time: July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024, 365 Calendar Days
Current Contract price, as adjusted by previous
change orders: $249,500
Current contract time, as adjusted by previous
change orders: 0 business days
The Contract Price due to this Change
Order will be increased by $65,500
The Contract Time due to this Change Order will
be increased by 0 business days.
The new Contract Price due to this Change Order
will be: $315,000
The new Contract Time due to this Change Order
will be July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024, 365
Calendar Days
NOTE: TO BE EFFECTIVE, THIS ORDER MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER
OR HER DESIGNEE
Requested by: Rick Lawrence, Public Services Manager Approved by: __________________________ Aly Zimmerman, City Manager
We, the undersigned contractor, have given careful consideration to the change proposed, and agree, if the proposal is approved, that we will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may otherwise be noted above, and perform all services necessary for the work above specified and will accept as full payment therefore the prices shown above.
Accepted by: _______________________________
PBM Construction, Inc..
Date:____________________________
917
City Council
Staff Report
Subject:
Amendment to Lease Agreement for City of Rocklin Police Substation Date:
December 12, 2023
Submitted By:
Scott Horrillo, Captain
Rustin Banks, Chief
Department:
Police
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Smithway Rocklin, LLC, Successor In Interest to Smithway Associates, Inc.
Background:
On November 8, 2022, City Council approved a one-year lease agreement for a Police Substation pilot program in a commercial retail space near the intersection of Lonetree Boulevard and Blue Oaks Boulevard (6827 Lonetree Boulevard Suite 101A). The pilot program was intended to measure any positive or negative impacts that the substation would bring to the north-western portion of the city. One goal with this project was to reduce response times of priority I, II and III calls for service that are furthest from the main Police Department location on Rocklin Road, primarily Beat 4. The Police Department compared response times from May 1 – October 17 in 2022 to same time period in 2023. The average response time for beat 4 in 2022 was 9:41 (minutes:seconds) versus the average response in 2023 at 8:29, a difference of 1:12. This increased level of service can be attributed to the substation as there have not been similar decreases in any other beat city-wide.
A second indicator of benefit to the Police Department involved employee usage. When officers were asked about their experiences with the substation, across the board they stated it is a great asset and helps them with their daily work load. A few of the officers stated that once they leave the Police Department primary location at the beginning of their shift they seldom need to return until the end of their shift. If they need a place to work, they can do most of their police business from the substation. The substation allows officers to stay closer to their calls for service.
Police Department units spend time at the substation for a variety of purposes, including patrol briefings, investigation unit meetings, COPPS Team meetings, school resource officer meetings, and traffic unit meetings. The substation’s main room is also large enough that multiple employees can participate in on-line or video meetings and trainings.
Item Number 3Y.
918
As the sunset date for the pilot program lease approaches, staff recommends that the City Council approve the amendment to the lease and renew the space for the substation. It has shown to bring many benefits to the city and employees at a relatively low cost. The lease extension is for an additional 12 months (through December 2024), with all other lease terms remaining the same.
Fiscal Impact:
The Fiscal Year 2023/24 Operating Budget includes $12,000 in funding for January 2024 to June 2024. If the recommendation is approved, the additional funding needed for substation leasing will be included in future annual operating budgets.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Resolution Exhibit A - 6827 Lonetree Ste 101A - Amendment 1 919
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE
AGREEMENT WITH SMITHWAY ROCKLIN, LLC SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO SMITHWAY ASSOCIATES, INC.
WHEREAS, On November 8, 2022, City Council approved a Police Substation pilot program which involved occupying a commercial retail space near the intersection of Lonetree Blvd. and Blue Oaks Blvd; and
WHEREAS, the pilot program has been deemed a success with reduced responses times in beat 4 and high utilization rate of the substation by police officers and other members of law enforcement; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends the City continue leasing commercial retail space located at 6827 Lonetree Boulevard, Suite D101A, Rocklin, CA for the Rocklin Police Substation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rocklin as follows:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Rocklin hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Smithway Rocklin, LLC successor in interest to Smithway Associates, Inc. attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of December, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
____________________________________
, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Haley Reid, Acting City Clerk
920
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE (“ First Amendment ”) is made and entered into as of December 12, 2023 (the “Effective Date”) , by and between Smithway Rocklin, LLC , a California limited liability company, successor in interest to Smithway Associates, Inc., a California corporation (“ Landlord”), and Rocklin Police Department (“Tenant”).
RECITALS
A. Landlord and Tenant entered into that certain Lease Agreement (Office) dated as of December 1, 2022, concerning certain premises (“ Premises”) located at 6827 Lonetree Blvd, Suite 101A, Rocklin, California, and more particularly described in the Lease.
B. Landlord and Tenant desire to modify the Lease as set forth in this First Amendment, which modifications shall be deemed effective as of the date of this First Amendment as indicated above.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby amend the Lease and agree as follows:
1. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined in this First Amendment, but defined in the Lease, shall have the same meaning in this Amendment as in the Lease.
2. Modifications. Landlord and Tenant hereby agree that the Lease shall be modified and/or supplemented as follows:
(a) Section 3.1 - Term. Landlord and Tenant mutually agree that the Term of the Lease shall be extended thirteen (13) months to expire December 31, 2024 (“First Extension Term”). After the First Extension Term expires, Landlord and Tenant agree that the Term shall be month to month thereafter with a bilateral right to terminate with thirty (30) days’ notice.
(b) Section 5.3 - Additional Rent . Landlord and Tenant agree Landlord waived the Additional Rent due for the first month of the Term (December, 2022).
3. Miscellaneous.
(a) Effect of Amendments. Except to the extent the Lease is modified by this First Amendment, the remaining terms and provisions of the Lease shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. In the event of conflict between the terms of the Lease and the terms of this First Amendment, the terms of this First Amendment shall prevail.
(b) Entire Agreement. This First Amendment embodies the entire understanding between Landlord and Tenant with respect to its subject matter and can be changed only by an instrument in writing signed by Landlord and Tenant.
(c) Counterparts. This First Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, together, shall constitute one in the same First Amendment. (d) Corporate and Partnership Authority. If Tenant is a corporation or partnership, or is comprised of either or both of them, each individual executing this First Amendment for the corporation or partnership represents that he or she is duly authorized to execute and deliver this First Amendment for the corporation or partnership and that this First Amendment is binding upon the corporation or partnership in accordance with its terms.
(e) Attorney’s Fees. The provisions of the Lease respecting payment of attorney’s fees shall also apply to this First Amendment.
921
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the date and year first set forth above.
LANDLORD:
By:
Name: ___________________________
Its:
Date ____________________________
TENANT:
By:
Name: Aly Zimmermann
Its: City Manager
Date ____________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Name: Daniel Cucchi
Its: Interim City Attorney
Date ____________________________
ATTEST:
By:
Name: Haley Reid
Its: Acting City Clerk
Date ____________________________
922
City Council
Staff Report
Subject:
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant for Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP)
Date:
December 12, 2023
Submitted By:
Andrew Barrington, Officer
Neil Costa, Lieutenant
Rustin Banks, Chief
Department:
Police
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Ratifying the Submission of Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant Application for Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP).
Background:
The State of California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), through grant funding made available to California by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), annually funds over $80 million dollars in innovative, evidence-based education and enforcement programs and technologies designed to make California’s roadways safer. OTS works with approximately 300 state and local agencies to make the most effective use of federal grant program funds. The OTS mission is to effectively administer traffic safety grants that deliver innovative programs and eliminate traffic fatalities and injuries on California roadways.
On January 25, 2023 the Rocklin Police Department submitted a Grant Application to OTS for the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP). The application complied with the guidance provided in the California Office of Traffic Safety Grant Program Manual.
The application highlighted specific traffic accident primary collision factors and other influences that lead to fatal and/or injury collisions in Rocklin:
24% red light violations
19% unsafe speed
12% driving under the influence
In addition, it documented Rocklin’s increase in cell phone citations due to distracted drivers by approximately 5% year over year. In 2022, Rocklin Police Officers issued 460 cell phone citations.
This funding allows the Rocklin Police Department to conduct various operations and training Item Number 3Z.
923
to address these factors and other influences. Rocklin’s Grant performance measures will include:
Ten (10) Safety and/or Awareness Campaigns
Two (2) personnel become POST-certified NHTSA Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Two (2) personnel become POST-certified NFTSA Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement
Two (2) Driving Under the Influence (DUI) check points
Ten (10) DUI Saturation Patrol operations
Twelve (12) Traffic Enforcement operations related to traffic accident primary collision factors
Eight (8) Distracted Driving operations
Two (2) Motorcycle Safety Enforcement Operations
One (1) Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Operation
Two (2) Traffic Safety educational presentations
One (1) personnel attend DUI Checkpoint Planning and Management training
On July 14, 2023, the authorizing officer of the Office of Traffic Safety tentatively approved the City’s submittal, and on November 1, 2023, the Office of Traffic Safety approved this grant application for the full amount.
The Grant Agreement being presented today is the final document, pending the California Office of Traffic Safety’s own funding award from the Federal Government. The California Office of Traffic Safety awards funding for California law enforcement agency award recipients from a yearly funding that they receive from the Federal Government.
Fiscal Impact:
This grant funding does not require a City match and there is no impact to the City General Fund. If the grant is accepted, a budget amendment in the amount of $75,000 in Fiscal Year 2023/24 Operating Budget in the Police Department Grant Fund (244) will be necessary to account for and administer the grant, and will be incorporated in the next Quarterly Financial Report.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Resolution Exhibit A - Grant Agreement
924
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN
RATIFYING THE OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY (OTS) GRANT APPLICATION AND AWARD FOR
SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (STEP)
WHEREAS, the State of California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) through grant funding made available to California by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), OTS annually funds over $80 million dollars in innovative, evidence-based education and enforcement programs and technologies designed to make California’s roadways safer; and WHEREAS, OTS works with approximately 300 state and local agencies to make the most effective use of federal grant program funds; and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2023 Rocklin Police Department submitted a Grant Application to OTS for the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP). The application complied with the guidance provided in the California Office of Traffic Safety Grant Program Manual; and
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2023 the authorizing officer of the Office of Traffic Safety accepted the City’s submittal; and
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2023 the Office of Traffic Safety approved our grant for the full amount.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rocklin does resolve as follows:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Rocklin hereby ratifies the submission of Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant Application for Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) and accepts the award in the amount of $75,000 with the specific terms of the agreement for the period of October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2024 and authorizes the Chief of Police or his/her designee to sign subsequent amendments up to 10 percent, consistent with the application’s subject matter and scope of work, with City Attorney and Chief Financial Officer concurrence.
925
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of December, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
Ken Broadway, Mayor
ATTEST:
Haley Reid, Acting City Clerk
Resolution No. 2023-
926
10/19/2023 2:29:14 PM Page 1 of 18
State of California – Office of Traffic Safety
GRANT AGREEMENT
GRANT NUMBER
PT24163
1. GRANT TITLE
Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP)
2. NAME OF AGENCY 3. Grant Period
Rocklin From:
To:
10/01/2023
09/30/2024 4. AGENCY UNIT TO ADMINISTER GRANT
Rocklin Police Department
5. GRANT DESCRIPTION
Best practice strategies will be conducted to reduce the number of persons killed and injured in crashes involving alcohol and other primary crash factors. The funded strategies may include impaired driving enforcement, enforcement operations focusing on primary crash factors, distracted driving, night-time seat belt enforcement, special enforcement operations encouraging motorcycle safety, enforcement and public awareness in areas with a high number of bicycle and pedestrian crashes, and educational programs. These strategies are designed to earn media attention thus enhancing the overall deterrent effect.
6. Federal Funds Allocated Under This Agreement Shall Not Exceed: $75,000.00
7. TERMS AND CONDITIONS: The parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following which are by this reference made a part of the Agreement:
Schedule A – Problem Statement, Goals and Objectives and Method of Procedure Schedule B – Detailed Budget Estimate and Sub-Budget Estimate (if applicable) Schedule B-1 – Budget Narrative and Sub-Budget Narrative (if applicable) Exhibit A – Certifications and Assurances
Exhibit B* – OTS Grant Program Manual
Exhibit C – Grant Electronic Management System (GEMS) Access *Items shown with an asterisk (*), are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement as if attached hereto.
These documents can be viewed at the OTS home web page under Grants: www.ots.ca.gov.
We, the officials named below, hereby swear under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that we are duly authorized to legally bind the Grant recipient to the above described Grant terms and conditions.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto.
8. Approval Signatures
A. GRANT DIRECTOR B. AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL
NAME:
TITLE:
EMAIL:
PHONE:
ADDRESS:
Neil Costa
Lieutenant
(916) 316-9331
4080 Rocklin Road
Rocklin, CA 95677
ADDRESS: Rustin Banks
Chief of Police
(916) 625-5400
4080 Rocklin Road
Rocklin, CA 95677
{{_es_signer2_signature}} {{_es_signer2_date}} {{_es_signer4_signature}} {{_es_signer4_date}} (Signature) (Date) (Signature) (Date)
C. FISCAL OFFICIAL
D. AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL OF OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADDRESS: Daniel Choe
Deputy Director of Administrative Services
(916) 625-5024
3970 Rocklin Road
Rocklin, CA 95677
ADDRESS: Barbara Rooney
Director
(916) 509-3030
2208 Kausen Drive, Suite 300
Elk Grove, CA 95758
{{_es_signer3_signature}} {{_es_signer3_date}} {{_es_signer6_signature}} {{_es_signer6_date}} (Signature) (Date) (Signature) (Date)
Neil Costa (Oct 26, 2023 20:39 MDT)
Oct 26, 2023
Daniel Choe (Nov 1, 2023 08:49 PDT)
Daniel Choe
Nov 1, 2023
R. Banks (Nov 1, 2023 10:33 PDT)
R. Banks
Nov 1, 2023
Nov 1, 2023
927
10/19/2023 2:29:14 PM Page 2 of 18
E. ACCOUNTING OFFICER OF OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY 9. SAM INFORMATION NAME: Carolyn Vu
SAM #:
REGISTERED
ADDRESS:
CITY:
ZIP+4:
F9JTDAHKSBX5
3970 Rocklin Rd
Rocklin
95677-2720
ADDRESS: 2208 Kausen Drive, Suite 300
Elk Grove, CA 95758
10. PROJECTED EXPENDITURES
FUND CFDA ITEM/APPROPRIATION F.Y. CHAPTER STATUTE PROJECTED
EXPENDITURES
164AL-24.1 20.608 0521-0890-101 2022 43/22 BA/22 $14,280.00 402PT-24.1 20.600 0521-0890-101 2022 43/22 BA/22 $11,220.00 164AL-24 20.608 0521-0890-101 2023 12/23 BA/23 $27,720.00 402PT-24 20.600 0521-0890-101 2023 12/23 BA/23 $21,780.00
AGREEMENT
TOTAL $75,000.00
AMOUNT ENCUMBERED BY THIS DOCUMENT
I CERTIFY upon my own personal knowledge that the budgeted funds for the current budget year are available for the period and purpose of the expenditure stated above.
$75,000.00
PRIOR AMOUNT ENCUMBERED FOR THIS
AGREEMENT
$ 0.00
OTS ACCOUNTING OFFICER’S SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED TOTAL AMOUNT ENCUMBERED TO DATE {{_es_signer5_signature}} {{_es_signer5_date}} $75,000.00
Carolyn Vu (Nov 1, 2023 10:35 PDT)
Nov 1, 2023
928
10/19/2023 2:29:14 PM Page 3 of 18
State of California – Office of Traffic Safety
GRANT AGREEMENT
Schedule A
GRANT NUMBER
PT24163
1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
The City of Rocklin is a rapidly growing, primarily residential community of approximately 73,000 people. It is bordered to the north by Loomis and Lincoln and to the south and west by Roseville. There are two major freeways, Interstate 80 and Highway 65, which run through the city with numerous exits into Rocklin. There are 21 highly ranked public schools, with the newest just opening in August of 2022. These generate heavy morning and afternoon pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The schools accept students from neighboring cities, which further increases the traffic volume during those times. Sierra Community College, which hosts approximately 20,000 students per year at their Rocklin Campus, generates significant weekday traffic.
There are several major commercial stores on the northeast end of the city, in close proximity to I-80, including a Bass Pro Shop, Walmart Superstore, and a Target which draws a significant amount of traffic to the area during both weekdays and weekends. A nearby casino just outside of the city limits is a major area tourist attraction off of Highway 65 bringing vehicular traffic from all over the state into the northwest side of Rocklin.
The Rocklin Police Department’s Traffic Unit once consisted of three officers and a sergeant. During the economic recession of the late 2000s, the Traffic Unit was reduced to just two officers. In 2021, the Department began rebuilding the traffic unit with a new sergeant, two traffic officers, and plans for more in the near future.
Placer County has largely returned to normal from the COVID lockdowns of prior years, and we have seen a return to normalcy in terms of traffic patterns. For the first time in six years, speed slipped from the number one cause for injury crashes to the number two spot. Failure to stop for red lights became the number one cause for injury crashes in Rocklin representing 24% of all injury crashes. Many of these red light crashes occurred in the previously mentioned commercial area housing Target, Walmart, Bass Pro, etc. As Rocklin has continued to grow, both in population, and with major commercial establishments, we have seen more traffic from outside of Rocklin traveling to our city.
Despite slipping to second place, speed remains the most common traffic complaint from our residents, and still represents the cause of approximately 19% of all injury crashes. Furthermore, speed was found to be a contributing factor in two fatal crashes that occurred in October of 2022. And since as speed increases, so does the probability of injury and death when a vehicle is involved in a crash, speeding remains a primary concern for our department.
Our local date showed that DUI crashes were third to the above two PCFs, causing 12% of all injury crashes. The majority of DUI crashes occurred on the major arterial roads through Rocklin and those leading to and from the freeways.
Another significant problem within the city is the presence of distracted drivers. It is much more difficult to quantify through crash statistics because none of the cell phone laws can be used as a primary crash factor. Furthermore, cell phone use is much more difficult to prove at the scene of a crash, like unsafe speed can be proven through skids, or red light violations through traffic cameras, and because drivers in crashes are unlikely to admit they were using a cell phone to investigating officers. However, Rocklin PD officers have aggressively enforced cell phone violations over the past several years. In 2022 RPD officers issued 460 cell phone citations.
2. PERFORMANCE MEASURES
A. Goals:
1. Reduce the number of persons killed in traffic crashes.
2. Reduce the number of persons injured in traffic crashes.
3. Reduce the number of pedestrians killed in traffic crashes.
4. Reduce the number of pedestrians injured in traffic crashes.
5. Reduce the number of bicyclists killed in traffic crashes.
6. Reduce the number of bicyclists injured in traffic crashes.
7. Reduce the number of persons killed in alcohol-involved crashes.
8. Reduce the number of persons injured in alcohol-involved crashes. 929
10/19/2023 2:29:14 PM Page 4 of 18
9. Reduce the number of persons killed in drug-involved crashes.
10. Reduce the number of persons injured in drug-involved crashes.
11. Reduce the number of persons killed in alcohol/drug combo-involved crashes.
12. Reduce the number of persons injured in alcohol/drug combo-involved crashes.
13. Reduce the number of motorcyclists killed in traffic crashes.
14. Reduce the number of motorcyclists injured in traffic crashes.
15. Reduce hit & run fatal crashes.
16. Reduce hit & run injury crashes.
17. Reduce nighttime (2100 - 0259 hours) fatal crashes.
18. Reduce nighttime (2100 - 0259 hours) injury crashes.
B. Objectives: Target Number
1. Issue a press release announcing the kick-off of the grant by November 15. The kick-off press releases and media advisories, alerts, and materials must be emailed to the OTS Public Information Officer at [email protected], and copied to your OTS Coordinator, for approval 14 days prior to the issuance date of the release.
1 2. Participate and report data (as required) in the following campaigns; Quarter 1:
National Walk to School Day, National Teen Driver Safety Week, NHTSA Winter Mobilization; Quarter 3: National Distracted Driving Awareness Month, National Motorcycle Safety Month, National Bicycle Safety Month, National Click it or Ticket Mobilization; Quarter 4: NHTSA Summer Mobilization, National Child Passenger Safety Week, and California's Pedestrian Safety Month.
10 3. Develop (by December 31) and/or maintain a “DUI BOLO” program to notify patrol and traffic officers to be on the lookout for identified repeat DUI offenders with a suspended or revoked license as a result of DUI convictions. Updated DUI BOLOs should be distributed to patrol and traffic officers monthly. 12 4. Send law enforcement personnel to the NHTSA Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) (minimum 16 hours) POST-certified training. 2 5. Send law enforcement personnel to the NHTSA Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) 16 hour POST-certified training. 2 6. Conduct DUI/DL Checkpoints. A minimum of 1 checkpoint should be conducted during the NHTSA Winter Mobilization and 1 during the Summer Mobilization. To enhance the overall deterrent effect and promote high visibility, it is recommended the grantee issue an advance press release and conduct social media activity for each checkpoint. For combination DUI/DL checkpoints, departments should issue press releases that mention DL's will be checked at the DUI/DL checkpoint. Signs for DUI/DL checkpoints should read "DUI/Driver's License Checkpoint Ahead." OTS does not fund or support independent DL checkpoints. Only on an exception basis and with OTS pre-approval will OTS fund checkpoints that begin prior to 1800 hours. When possible, DUI/DL Checkpoint screeners should be DRE- or ARIDE-trained.
2 7. Conduct DUI Saturation Patrol operation(s). 10
8. Conduct Traffic Enforcement operation(s), including but not limited to, primary crash factor violations.
12 9. Conduct highly publicized Distracted Driving enforcement operation(s) targeting drivers using hand held cell phones and texting.
8 10. Conduct highly publicized Motorcycle Safety enforcement operation(s) in areas or during events with a high number of motorcycle incidents or crashes resulting from unsafe speed, DUI, following too closely, unsafe lane changes, improper turning, and other primary crash factor violations by motorcyclists and other drivers. 2 11. Conduct highly publicized pedestrian and/or bicycle enforcement operation(s) in areas or during events with a high number of pedestrian and/or bicycle crashes resulting from violations made by pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. 1 12. Conduct Traffic Safety educational presentation(s) with an effort to reach community members. Note: Presentation(s) may include topics such as distracted driving, DUI, speed, bicycle and pedestrian safety, seat belts and child passenger safety.
2 930
10/19/2023 2:29:14 PM Page 5 of 18
13. Participate in highly visible collaborative DUI Enforcement operations. 2
14. Participate in highly visible collaborative Traffic Enforcement operations. 2
15. Send law enforcement personnel to DUI Checkpoint Planning and Management training.
1 3. METHOD OF PROCEDURE
A. Phase 1 – Program Preparation (1st Quarter of Grant Year) The department will develop operational plans to implement the “best practice” strategies outlined in the objectives section.
All training needed to implement the program should be conducted in the first quarter. All grant related purchases needed to implement the program should be made in the first quarter. In order to develop/maintain the “DUI BOLOs,” research will be conducted to identify the “worst of the worst” repeat DUI offenders with a suspended or revoked license as a result of DUI convictions. The DUI BOLO may include the driver’s name, last known address, DOB, description, current license status, and the number of times suspended or revoked for DUI. DUI BOLOs should be updated and distributed to traffic and patrol officers at least monthly. Implementation of the STEP grant activities will be accomplished by deploying personnel at high crash locations.
Media Requirements Issue a press release approved by the OTS PIO announcing the kick-off of the grant by November 15, but no sooner than October 1. The kick-off release must be approved by the OTS PIO and only distributed after the grant is fully signed and executed. If you are unable to meet the November 15 deadline to issue a kick-off press release, communicate reasons to your OTS coordinator and OTS PIO.
B. Phase 2 – Program Operations (Throughout Grant Year) The department will work to create media opportunities throughout the grant period to call attention to the innovative program strategies and outcomes.
Media Requirements
The following requirements are for all grant-related activities:
Send all media advisories, alerts, videos, graphics, artwork, posters, radio/PSA/video scripts, storyboards, digital and/or print educational materials for grant-related activities to the OTS PIO at [email protected] for approval and copy your OTS coordinator. Optimum lead time would be 7 days before the scheduled release but at least 3 business days prior to the scheduled release date for review and approval is appreciated.
The OTS PIO is responsible for the approval of the design and content of materials. The agency understands OTS PIO approval is not authorizing approval of budget expenditure or cost. Any cost approvals must come from the Coordinator.
Pre-approval is not required when using any OTS-supplied template for media advisories, press releases, social media graphics, videos or posts, or any other OTS-supplied educational material.
However, copy the OTS PIO at [email protected] and your OTS coordinator when any material is distributed to the media and public, such as a press release, educational material, or link to social media post. The OTS-supplied kick-off press release templates and any kickoff press releases are an exception to this policy and require prior approval before distribution to the media and public.
If an OTS-supplied template, educational material, social media graphic, post or video is substantially changed, the changes shall be sent to the OTS PIO at [email protected] for approval and copy to your OTS Coordinator. Optimum lead time would be 7 days prior to the scheduled release date, but at least 3 business days prior to the scheduled release date for review and approval is appreciated.
Press releases, social media posts and alerts on platforms such as NextDoor and Nixle reporting immediate and time-sensitive grant activities (e.g. enforcement operations, day of event highlights or announcements, event invites) are exempt from the OTS PIO approval process. The OTS PIO and your Coordinator should still be notified when the grant-related activity is happening (e.g. car seat checks, bicycle rodeos, community presentations, DUI checkpoints, etc.).
Enforcement activities such as warrant and probation sweeps, court stings, etc. that are embargoed or could impact operations by publicizing in advance are exempt from the PIO 931
10/19/2023 2:29:14 PM Page 6 of 18
approval process. However, announcements and results of activities should still be copied to the OTS PIO at [email protected] and your Coordinator with embargoed date and time or with “INTERNAL ONLY: DO NOT RELEASE” message in subject line of email. Any earned or paid media campaigns for TV, radio, digital or social media that are part of a specific grant objective, using OTS grant funds, or designed and developed using contractual services by a subgrantee, requires prior approval. Please send to the OTS PIO at [email protected] for approval and copy your grant coordinator at least 3 business days prior to the scheduled release date.
Social media posts highlighting state or national traffic safety campaigns (Distracted Driving Month, Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month, etc.), enforcement operations (DUI checkpoints, etc.), or any other grant-related activity such as Bicycle rodeos, presentations, or events, are highly encouraged but do not require prior approval.
Submit a draft or rough-cut of all digital, printed, recorded or video material (brochures, posters, scripts, artwork, trailer graphics, digital graphics, social posts connected to an earned or paid media campaign grant objective) to the OTS PIO at [email protected] and copy your OTS Coordinator for approval prior to the production or duplication. Use the following standard language in all press, media, and printed materials, space permitting:
Funding for this program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Space permitting, include the OTS logo on all grant-funded print materials, graphics and paid or earned social media campaign grant objective; consult your OTS Coordinator for specifics, format-appropriate logos, or if space does not permit the use of the OTS logo. Email the OTS PIO at [email protected] and copy your OTS Coordinator at least 21 days in advance, or when first confirmed, a short description of any significant grant-related traffic safety event or program, particularly events that are highly publicized beforehand with anticipated media coverage so OTS has sufficient notice to arrange for attendance and/or participation in the event.
If unable to attend, email the OTS PIO and coordinator brief highlights and/or results, including any media coverage (broadcast, digital, print) of event within 7 days following significant grant- related event or program. Media and program highlights are to be reflected in QPRs. Any press releases, work plans, scripts, storyboards, artwork, graphics, videos or any educational or informational materials that received PIO approval in a prior grant year needs to be resubmitted for approval in the current grant year.
Contact the OTS PIO or your OTS Coordinator for consultation when changes from any of the above requirements might be warranted.
C. Phase 3 – Data Collection & Reporting (Throughout Grant Year)
1. Prepare and submit grant claim invoices (due January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30)
2. Prepare and submit Quarterly Performance Reports (QPR) (due January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30)
Collect and report quarterly, appropriate data that supports the progress of goals and objectives. Provide a brief list of activity conducted, procurement of grant-funded items, and significant media activities. Include status of grant-funded personnel, status of contracts, challenges, or special accomplishments.
Provide a brief summary of quarterly accomplishments and explanations for objectives not completed or plans for upcoming activities.
Collect, analyze and report statistical data relating to the grant goals and objectives.
4. METHOD OF EVALUATION
Using the data compiled during the grant, the Grant Director will complete the “Final Evaluation” section in the fourth/final Quarterly Performance Report (QPR). The Final Evaluation should provide a brief summary of the grant’s accomplishments, challenges and significant activities. This narrative should also include whether goals and objectives were met, exceeded, or an explanation of why objectives were not completed.
5. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
This program has full administrative support, and every effort will be made to continue the grant activities after grant conclusion.
932
10/19/2023 2:29:14 PM Page 7 of 18
State of California – Office of Traffic Safety
GRANT AGREEMENT
Schedule B
GRANT NUMBER
PT24163
FUND NUMBER CATALOG
NUMBER (CFDA)
FUND DESCRIPTION TOTAL AMOUNT
164AL-24 20.608 Minimum Penalties for Repeat
Offenders for Driving While
Intoxicated
$42,000.00
402PT-24 20.600 State and Community Highway
Safety
$33,000.00
COST CATEGORY FUND
NUMBER
UNIT COST OR
RATE
UNITS TOTAL COST TO
GRANT
A. PERSONNEL COSTS
Straight Time
$0.00
Overtime
DUI/DL Checkpoints 164AL-24 $10,400.00 2 $20,800.00
DUI Saturation Patrols 164AL-24 $1,440.00 10 $14,400.00 Collaborative DUI Enforcement 164AL-24 $1,440.00 2 $2,880.00 Traffic Enforcement 402PT-24 $720.00 12 $8,640.00
Distracted Driving 402PT-24 $720.00 8 $5,760.00
Motorcycle Safety 402PT-24 $720.00 2 $1,440.00
Pedestrian and Bicycle Enforcement 402PT-24 $720.00 1 $720.00 Collaborative Traffic Enforcement 402PT-24 $720.00 2 $1,440.00 Traffic Safety Education 402PT-24 $180.00 2 $360.00
Category Sub-Total $56,440.00
B. TRAVEL EXPENSES
In State Travel 402PT-24 $3,640.00 1 $3,640.00
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $3,640.00
C. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $0.00
D. EQUIPMENT
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $0.00
E. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
Lidar Device 402PT-24 $2,500.00 3 $7,500.00
DUI Checkpoint Supplies 164AL-24 $3,920.00 1 $3,920.00
Computer or Tablet 402PT-24 $3,500.00 1 $3,500.00
Category Sub-Total $14,920.00
F. INDIRECT COSTS
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $0.00
GRANT TOTAL $75,000.00
933
10/19/2023 2:29:14 PM Page 8 of 18
State of California – Office of Traffic Safety
GRANT AGREEMENT
Schedule B-1
GRANT NUMBER
PT24163
BUDGET NARRATIVE
PERSONNEL COSTS
DUI/DL Checkpoints - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.
DUI Saturation Patrols - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.
Collaborative DUI Enforcement - Overtime for grant funded Collaborative DUI Enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel
Traffic Enforcement - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.
Distracted Driving - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.
Motorcycle Safety - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Enforcement - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.
Collaborative Traffic Enforcement - Overtime for grant funded Collaborative Traffic Enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel
Traffic Safety Education - Overtime for grant funded traffic safety presentations or campaigns conducted by appropriate department personnel.
TRAVEL EXPENSES
In State Travel - Costs are included for appropriate staff to attend conferences and training events supporting the grant goals and objectives and/or traffic safety. Local mileage for grant activities and meetings is included. Anticipated travel may include the California Traffic Safety Summit and the OTS Traffic Safety Law Enforcement Forum. All conferences, seminars or training not specifically identified in the Budget Narrative must be approved by OTS. All travel claimed must be at the agency approved rate. Per Diem may not be claimed for meals provided at conferences when registration fees are paid with OTS grant funds.
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
-
EQUIPMENT
-
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
Lidar Device - Light detection and ranging device used to measure the speed of motor vehicles. This device will be used for speed enforcement. Costs may include lidar devices, batteries, tax, and shipping.
DUI Checkpoint Supplies - On-scene supplies needed to conduct sobriety checkpoints. Costs may include 28" traffic cones, MUTCD compliant traffic signs, MUTCD compliant high visibility vests (maximum of 10), traffic counters (maximum of 2), generator, gas for generators, lighting, reflective banners, electronic flares, PAS Device/Calibration Supplies, heater, propane for heaters, fan, anti-fatigue mats, and canopies.
Additional items may be purchased if approved by OTS. The cost of food and beverages will not be reimbursed. Each item must have a unit cost of less than $5,000 (including tax and shipping).
Computer or Tablet - For use in tracking or conducting grant activities and producing required reports. Costs may include a desktop computer, monitor, laptop, tablet, printer, software and accessories.
INDIRECT COSTS
-
STATEMENTS/DISCLAIMERS
There will be no program income generated from this grant.
934
10/19/2023 2:29:14 PM Page 9 of 18
Nothing in this “agreement” shall be interpreted as a requirement, formal or informal, that a particular law enforcement officer issue a specified or predetermined number of citations in pursuance of the goals and objectives here under.
The OTS grant funded activities must be separate from the CHP Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program activities and maintained under separate accounting/tracking/other codes (example: the same DUI checkpoint may not be funded by both the CHP and the OTS).
935
10/19/2023 2:29:14 PM Page 10 of 18
State of California – Office of Traffic Safety
GRANT AGREEMENT
Exhibit A
GRANT NUMBER
PT24163
Certifications and Assurances for Fiscal Year 2024 Highway Safety Grants (23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 or Section 1906, Public Law 109-59, as amended by Section 25024, Public Law 117-58)
The officials named on the grant agreement, certify by way of signature on the grant agreement signature page, that the Grantee Agency complies with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and directives and State rules, guidelines, policies, and laws in effect with respect to the periods for which it receives grant funding. Applicable provisions include, but are not limited to, the following:
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The State will comply with applicable statutes and regulations, including but not limited to:
23 U.S.C. Chapter 4—Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended; Sec. 1906, Public Law 109-59, as amended by Sec. 25024, Public Law 117-58; 23 CFR part 1300—Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs; 2 CFR part 200—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards; 2 CFR part 1201—Department of Transportation, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.
NONDISCRIMINATION
(applies to all subrecipients as well as States)
The State highway safety agency [and its subrecipients] will comply with all Federal statutes and implementing regulations relating to nondiscrimination (“Federal Nondiscrimination Authorities”). These include but are not limited to:
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin);
49 CFR part 21 (entitled Non-discrimination in Federally -Assisted Programs of the Department of Transportation— Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964); 28 CFR 50.3 (U.S. Department of Justice Guidelines for Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964); The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. 4601), (prohibits unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been acquired because of Federal or Federal-aid programs and projects); Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. 324 et seq.), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681-1683 and 1685-1686) (prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. 794 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability) and 49 CFR part 27;
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of age);
The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (Pub. L. 100-209), (broadens scope, coverage, and applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the definition of the terms “programs or activities” to include all of the programs or activities of the Federal aid recipients, subrecipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities are Federally-funded or not); Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12131-12189) (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing) and 49 CFR parts 37 and 38;
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (preventing discrimination against minority populations by discouraging programs, policies, and activities with disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low -income populations);
Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency (requiring that recipients of Federal financial assistance provide meaningful access for applicants and beneficiaries who have limited English proficiency (LEP));
Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government (advancing equity across the Federal Government); and Executive Order 13988, Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation (clarifying that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the grounds of gender identity or sexual orientation).
The preceding statutory and regulatory cites hereinafter are referred to as the “Acts” and “Regu lations,” respectively.
GENERAL ASSURANCES
936
10/19/2023 2:29:14 PM Page 11 of 18
In accordance with the Acts, the Regulations, and other pertinent directives, circulars, policy, memoranda, and/or guidance, the Recipient hereby gives assurance that it will promptly take any measures necessary to ensure that:
“No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity, for which t he Recipient receives Federal financial assistance from DOT, including NHTSA.”
The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 clarified the original intent of Congress, with respect to Title VI of the Civil Rig hts Act of 1964 and other non-discrimination requirements (the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973), by restoring the broad, institutional-wide scope and coverage of these nondiscrimination statutes and requirements to include all programs and activities of the Recipient, so long as any portion of the program is Federally assisted.
SPECIFIC ASSURANCES
More specifically, and without limiting the above general Assurance, the Recipient agrees with and gives the following Assura nces with respect to its Federally assisted Highway Safety Grant Program:
1. The Recipient agrees that each “activity,” “facility,” or “program,” as defined in 49 CFR part 21 will be (with regard to an “activity”) facilitated, or will be (with regard to a “facility”) operated, or will be (with regard to a “program”) conducted in compliance with all requirements imposed by, or pursuant to the Acts and the Regulations.
2. The Recipient will insert the following notification in all solicitations for bids, Requests For Proposals for work, or material subject to the Acts and the Regulations made in connection with all Highway Safety Grant Programs and, in adapted form, in all proposals for negotiated agreements regardless of funding source:
“The [name of Recipient], in accordance with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C 2000d to 2000d-4) and the Regulations, hereby notifies all bidders that it will affirmatively ensure that in any contract entered into pursuant to this advertisement, disadvantaged business enterprises will be afforded full and fair opportunity to submit bids in response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in consideration for an award.”
3. The Recipient will insert the clauses of appendix A and E of this Assurance (also referred in every contract or agreement subject to the Acts and the Regulations.
4. The Recipient will insert the clauses of appendix B of DOT Order 1050.2A, as a covenant running with the land, in any deed from the United States effecting or recording a transfer of real property, structures, use, or improvements thereon or interest therein to a Recipient.
5. That where the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance to construct a facility, or part of a facility, the Assurance will extend to the entire facility and facilities operated in connection therewith.
6. That where the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance in the form of, or for the acquisition of, real property or an interest in real property, the Assurance will extend to rights to space on, over, or under such property.
7. That the Recipient will include the clauses set forth in appendix C and appendix D of this DOT Order 1050.2A, as a covenant running with the land, in any future deeds, leases, licenses, permits, or similar instruments entered into by the Recipient with other parties:
a. for the subsequent transfer of real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program; and
b. for the construction or use of, or access to, space on, over, or under real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program.
8. That this Assurance obligates the Recipient for the period during which Federal financial assistance is extended to the program, except where the Federal financial assistance is to provide, or is in the form of, personal property, or real property, or interest therein, or structures or improvements thereon, in which case the Assurance obligates the Recipient, or any transferee for the longer of the following periods:
a. the period during which the property is used for a purpose for which the Federal financial assistance is extended, or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits; or b. the period during which the Recipient retains ownership or possession of the property.
9. The Recipient will provide for such methods of administration for the program as are found by the Secretary of Transportation or the official to whom he/she delegates specific authority to give reasonable guarantee that it, other recipients, sub-recipients, sub- grantees, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, transferees, successors in interest, and other participants of Federal financial assistance under such program will comply with all requirements imposed or pursuant to the Acts, the Regulations, and this Assurance.
10. The Recipient agrees that the United States has a right to seek judicial enforcement with regard to any matter arising under the Acts, the Regulations, and this Assurance.
By signing this ASSURANCE, the State highway safety agency also agrees to comply (and require any sub -recipients, sub-grantees, contractors, successors, transferees, and/or assignees to comply) with all applicable provisions governing NHTSA's access to records, accounts, documents, information, facilities, and staff. You also recognize that you must comply with any program or complian ce reviews, and/or complaint investigations conducted by NHTSA. You must keep records, reports, and submit the material for review 937
10/19/2023 2:29:14 PM Page 12 of 18
upon request to NHTSA, or its designee in a timely, complete, and accurate way. Additionally, you must comply with all other reporting, data collection, and evaluation requirements, as prescribed by law or detailed in program guidance.
The State highway safety agency gives this ASSURANCE in consideration of and for obtaining any Federal grants, loans, contrac ts, agreements, property, and/or discounts, or other Federal-aid and Federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof to the recipients by the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Highway Safety Grant Program. This ASSURANCE is binding on the State highway safety agency, other recipients, sub-recipients, sub-grantees, contractors, subcontractors and their subcontractors', transferees, successors in interest, and any other participants in the Highway Safety Grant Program. The person(s) signing be low is/are authorized to sign this ASSURANCE on behalf of the Recipient.
THE DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE ACT OF 1988 (41 U.S.C. 8103)
The Subgrantee will provide a drug-free workplace by:
a. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace, and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition;
b. Establishing a drug-free awareness program to inform employees about:
1. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
2. The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
3. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs;
4. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug violations occurring in the workplace;
5. Making it a requirement that each employee engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (a);
c. Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will—
1. Abide by the terms of the statement;
2. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five days after such conviction;
d. Notifying the agency within ten days after receiving notice under subparagraph (c)(2) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction;
e. Taking one of the following actions, within 30 days of receiving notice under subparagraph (c)(2), with respect to any employee who is so convicted—
1. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination;
2. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; f. Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of all of the paragraphs above.
POLITICAL ACTIVITY (HATCH ACT)
(applies to all subrecipients as well as States)
The State will comply with provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 1501-1508), which limits the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds.
CERTIFICATION REGARDING FEDERAL LOBBYING
(applies to all subrecipients as well as States)
CERTIFICATION FOR CONTRACTS, GRANTS, LOANS, AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement;
2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions;
3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub - awards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grant, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. 938
10/19/2023 2:29:14 PM Page 13 of 18
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
RESTRICTION ON STATE LOBBYING
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)
None of the funds under this program will be used for any activity specifically designed to urge or influence a State or loca l legislator to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific legislative proposal pending before any State or local legislative body. Such activities include both direct and indirect (e.g., “grassroots”) lobbying activities, with one exception. This does not preclude a State official whose salary is supported with NHTSA funds from engaging in direct communications with State or local legislative officials, in accordance with customary State practice, even if such communications urge legislative officials to favor or oppose the adop tion of a specific pending legislative proposal.
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION
(applies to all subrecipients as well as States)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PRIMARY TIER PARTICIPANT CERTIFICATION (STATES)
1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective primary tier participant is providing the certification set out below and agrees to comply with the requirements of 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.
2. The inability of a person to provide the certification required below will not necessarily result in denial of participation in this covered transaction. The prospective primary tier participant shall submit an explanation of why it cannot provide the certification set out below. The certification or explanation will be considered in connection with the department or agency's determination whether to enter into this transaction. However, failure of the prospective primary tier participant to furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such person from participation in this transaction.
3. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when the department or agency determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined that the prospective primary tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies a vailable to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause or default or may pursue suspension or debarment.
4. The prospective primary tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the department or agency to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective primary tier participant learns its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
5. The terms covered transaction, civil judgment, debarment, suspension, ineligible, participant, person, principal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, are defined in 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200. You may contact the department or agency to which this proposal is being submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.
6. The prospective primary tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or age ncy entering into this transaction.
7. The prospective primary tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled “Instructions for Lower Tier Participant Certification” including the “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transaction,” provided by the department or agency entering into this covered transaction, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions and will require lower tier participants to comply with 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.
8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant is responsible for ensuring that its principals are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise ineligible to participate in covered transactions. To verify the eligibility of its principals, as well as the eligibility of any prospective lowe r tier participants, each participant may, but is not required to, check the System for Award Management Exclusions website (https://www.sam.gov/).
9. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.
10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate the transaction for cause or default.
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS —
PRIMARY TIER COVERED TRANSACTIONS
939
10/19/2023 2:29:14 PM Page 14 of 18
1. The prospective primary tier participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its principals:
a. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in covered transactions by any Federal department or agency; b. Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; c. Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of this certific ation; and
d. Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or local) terminated for cause or default.
2. Where the prospective primary tier participant is unable to certify to any of the Statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR LOWER TIER PARTICIPANT CERTIFICATION
1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below and agrees to comply with the requirements of 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.
2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction wa s entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension or debarment.
3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
4. The terms covered transaction, civil judgment, debarment, suspension, ineligible, participant, person, principal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, are defined in 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200. You may contact the person to whom this proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.
5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated.
6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled “Instructions for Lower Tier Participant Certification” including the “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transaction,” without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions and will require lower tier participants to comply with 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.
7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant is responsible for ensuring that its principals are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise ineligible to participate in covered transactions. To verify the eligibility of its principals, as well as the eligibility of any pr ospective lower tier participants, each participant may, but is not required to, check the System for Award Management Exclusions website ( https://www.sam.gov/).
8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.
9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension or debarment.
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXC LUSION—
LOWER TIER COVERED TRANSACTIONS
1. The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is prese ntly debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in covered transactions by any Federal department or agency.
940
10/19/2023 2:29:14 PM Page 15 of 18
2. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
BUY AMERICA
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)
The State and each subrecipient will comply with the Buy America requirement (23 U.S.C. 313) when purchasing items using Federal funds. Buy America requires a State, or subrecipient, to purchase with Federal funds only steel, iron and manufacture d products produced in the United States, unless the Secretary of Transportation determines that such domestically produced items would be inconsistent with the public interest, that such materials are not reasonably available and of a satisfactory qualit y, or that inclusion of domestic materials will increase the cost of the overall project contract by more than 25 percent. In order to use Federal funds to purchase foreign produced items, the State must submit a waiver request that provides an adequate basis and justific ation for approval by the Secretary of Transportation.
CERTIFICATION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
No employee, officer, or agent of a State or its subrecipient who is authorized in an official capacity to negotiate, make, a ccept, or approve, or to take part in negotiating, making, accepting, or approving any subaward, including contracts or subcontracts, in connection with this grant shall have, directly or indirectly, any financial or personal interest in any such subaward. Such a financial or personal interest would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or personal inter est in or a tangible personal benefit from an entity considered for a subaward. Based on this policy:
1. The recipient shall maintain a written code or standards of conduct that provide for disciplinary actions to be applied for violations of such standards by officers, employees, or agents. a. The code or standards shall provide that the recipient's officers, employees, or agents may neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from present or potential subawardees, including contractors or parties to subcontracts.
b. The code or standards shall establish penalties, sanctions, or other disciplinary actions for violations, as permitted by State or local law or regulations.
2. The recipient shall maintain responsibility to enforce the requirements of the written code or standards of conduct.
DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
No State or its subrecipient, including its officers, employees, or agents, shall perform or continue to perform under a gran t or cooperative agreement, whose objectivity may be impaired because of an y related past, present, or currently planned interest, financial or otherwise, in organizations regulated by NHTSA or in organizations whose interests may be substantially affected by NHTSA activities. Based on this policy:
1. The recipient shall disclose any conflict of interest identified as soon as reasonably possible, making an immediate and full disclosure in writing to NHTSA. The disclosure shall include a description of the action which the recipient has taken or proposes to take to avoid or mitigate such conflict.
2. NHTSA will review the disclosure and may require additional relevant information from the recipient. If a conflict of interest is found to exist, NHTSA may (a) terminate the award, or (b) determine that it is otherwise in the best interest of NHTSA to continue the award and include appropriate provisions to mitigate or avoid such conflict.
3. Conflicts of interest that require disclosure include all past, present, or currently planned organizational, financial, contractual, or other interest(s) with an organization regulated by NHTSA or with an organization whose interests may be substantially affected by NHTSA activities, and which are related to this award. The interest(s) that require disclosure include those of any recipient, affiliate, proposed consultant, proposed subcontractor, and key personnel of any of the above. Past interest shall be limited to within one year of the date of award. Key personnel shall include any person owning more than a 20 percent interest in a recipient, and the officers, employees or agents of a recipient who are responsible for making a decision or taking an action under an award where the decision or action can have an economic or other impact on the interests of a regulated or affected organization.
PROHIBITION ON USING GRANT FUNDS TO CHECK FOR HELMET USAGE (applies to all subrecipients as well as States)
The State and each subrecipient will not use 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 grant funds for programs to check helmet usage or to create checkpoints that specifically target motorcyclists.
941
10/19/2023 2:29:14 PM Page 16 of 18
POLICY ON SEAT BELT USE
In accordance with Executive Order 13043, Increasing Seat Belt Use in the United States, dated April 16, 1997, the Grantee is encouraged to adopt and enforce on-the-job seat belt use policies and programs for its employees when operating company-owned, rented, or personally-owned vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for providing leadership and guidance in support of this Presidential initiative. For information and resources on traffic safety programs and policies for employers, please contact the Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS), a public-private partnership dedicated to improving the traffic safety practices of employers and employees. You can download information on seat belt programs, costs of motor vehicle crashes to employers, and other traffic safety initiatives at www.trafficsafety.org. The NHTSA website (www.nhtsa.gov) also provides informa tion on statistics, campaigns, and program evaluations and references.
POLICY ON BANNING TEXT MESSAGING WHILE DRIVING
In accordance with Executive Order 13513, Federal Leadership On Reducing Text Messaging While Driving, and DOT Order 3902.10, Text Messaging While Driving, States are encouraged to adopt and enforce workplace safety policies to decrease crashes caused by distracted driving, including policies to ban text messaging while driving company - owned or rented vehicles, Government-owned, leased or rented vehicles, or privately-owned vehicles when on official Government business or when performing any work on or behalf of the Government. States are also encouraged to conduct workplace safety initiatives in a manner commensurate with the size of the business, such as establishment of new rules and programs or re-evaluation of existing programs to prohibit text messaging while driving, and education, awareness, and other outreach to employees about the safety risks associated with texting while driving.
942
10/19/2023 2:29:14 PM Page 17 of 18
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADDING OR UPDATING GEMS USERS
1. Each agency is allowed a total of FIVE (5) GEMS Users.
2. GEMS Users listed on this form will be authorized to login to GEMS to complete and submit Quarterly Performance Reports (QPRs) and reimbursement claims.
3. Complete the form if adding, removing or editing a GEMS user(s).
4. The Grant Director must sign this form and return it with the Grant Agreement.
CURRENT GEMS USER(S)
1. Andrew Barrington
Title: Officer Media Contact: No
Phone: (916) 625-5400 ext 5821
Email: [email protected]
2. Neil Costa
Title: Lieutenant Media Contact: No
Phone: (916) 316-9331
Email: [email protected]
3. Angela Doyle
Title: Senior Accountant Media Contact: No
Phone: (916) 625-5033
Email: [email protected]
4. Zachary Lewis
Title: Office Media Contact: No
Phone: 9166255439
Email: [email protected]
5. Karen Smith
Title: Adminstrative Analyst Media Contact: No
Phone: 916-625-5363
Email: [email protected]
State of California – Office of Traffic Safety
OTS-55 Grant Electronic Management System (GEMS) Access Exhibit C
GRANT NUMBER
PT24163
GRANT DETAILS
Grant Number: PT24163
Agency Name: Rocklin Police Department
Grant Title: Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) Agreement Total: $75,000.00
Authorizing Official: Rustin Banks
Fiscal Official: Daniel Choe
Grant Director: Neil Costa
943
10/19/2023 2:29:14 PM Page 18 of 18
Complete the below information if adding, removing or editing a GEMS user(s)
GEMS User 1
Add/Change {{[]c11_es_:signer1}} Remove Access {{[] c12_es_:signer1}}
Add as a media contact? Yes {{[]c1_es_:signer1}} No{{[]c2_es_:signer1}} {{UserName1_es_:signer1 }} {{UserTitle1_es_:signer1 }} Name Job Title
{{UserEmail1_es_:signer1 }} {{UserPhone1_es_:signer1 }} Email address Phone number
GEMS User 2
Add/Change {{[]c13_es_:signer1}} Remove Access {{[]c14_es_:signer1}}
Add as a media contact? Yes {{[]c3_es_:signer1}}No {{[]c4_es_:signer1}} {{UserName2_es_:signer1 }} {{UserTitle2_es_:signer1 }} Name Job Title
{{UserEmail2_es_:signer1 }} {{UserPhone2_es_:signer1 }} Email address Phone number
GEMS User 3
Add/Change {{[]c15_es_:signer1}} Remove Access {{[]c16_es_:signer1}}
Add as a media contact? Yes {{[]c5_es_:signer1}}No {{[]c6_es_:signer1}} {{UserName3_es_:signer1 }} {{UserTitle3_es_:signer1 }} Name Job Title
{{UserEmail3_es_:signer1 }} {{UserPhone3_es_:signer1 }} Email address Phone number
GEMS User 4
Add/Change {{[]c17_es_:signer1}} Remove Access {{[]c18_es_:signer1}}
Add as a media contact? Yes {{[]c8_es_:signer1}}No {{[]c7_es_:signer1}} {{UserName4_es_:signer1 }} {{UserTitle4_es_:signer1 }}
Name
Job Title
{{UserEmail4_es_:signer1 }} {{UserPhone4_es_:signer1 }} Email address Phone number
GEMS User 5
Add/Change {{[]c19_es_:signer1}} Remove Access {{[]c20_es_:signer1}}
Add as a media contact? Yes {{[]c9_es_:signer1}}No {{[]c10_es_:signer1}} {{UserName5_es_:signer1 }} {{UserTitle5_es_:signer1 }} Name Job Title
{{UserEmail5_es_:signer1 }} {{UserPhone5_es_:signer1 }}
Email address
Phone number
Form completed by: {{Sig_es_:signer1:signature}} Date: {{Dte1_es_:signer1:date}}
As a signatory I hereby authorize the listed individual(s) to represent and have GEMS user access. {{Sig_es_:signer2:signature}} {{Name1_es_:signer2:fullname }} Signature Name
{{Dte2_es_:signer2:date}} Grant Director
Date Title
Neil Costa (Oct 19, 2023 14:43 PDT)
Oct 19, 2023
Neil Costa (Oct 26, 2023 20:39 MDT)
Neil Costa
Oct 26, 2023
944
City Council
Staff Report
Subject:
West Oaks Apartments / Design Review, DR2022-0010, Tentative Parcel Map, DL2023-0001 and Environmental, ENV2022-0002 Date:
December 12, 2023
Submitted By:
David Mohlenbrok, Director of Community Development
Bret Finning, Planning Services Manager
Nathan Anderson, Senior Planner
Department:
Community Development
Recommendation:
A
.
Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider Testimony.
B
.
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration Of Environmental Impacts (West Oaks Apartments / ENV2022- 0002).
C
.
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Tentative Parcel Map (West Oaks Apartments / DL2023-0001).
D
.
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Design Review (West Oaks Apartments / DR2022-0010).
Background:
The staff report for this item is included as Attachment 1 in order to maintain the integrity of the formatting.
Item Number 5A.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report
2. Resolution A - Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts
3. Resolution B - Tentative Parcel Map
4. Resolution B - Exhibit A - Tentative Map
5. Resolution C - Design Review
6. Resolution C - Exhibit A - Design Review
945
City Council Report
_________________________________________________________________________________ Subject: West Oaks Apartments
Design Review, DR2022-0010
Tentative Parcel Map, DL2023-0001
Environmental, ENV2022-0002
Date: December 12, 2023
Submitted By: David Mohlenbrok, Director of Community Development Bret Finning, Planning Services Manager
Nathan Anderson, Senior Planner
Department: Community Development
_________________________________________________________________________________ Recommendation:
The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the following:
A. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration Of Environmental Impacts (West Oaks Apartments / ENV2022-0002) B. A Resolution of the City Council of theCity of Rocklin Approving a Tentative Parcel Map (West Oaks Apartments / DL2023-0001)
C. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Design Review (West Oaks Apartments / DR2022-0010)
Proposal/Application Request:
The project is a request for approval of a Design Review (DR2022 -0010) to construct a multifamily development on approximately 15.9 gross acres. The development would be comprised of 371 units of market-rate rental housing. The development would consist of 15 three-story walk-up buildings, two (2) four-story apartment buildings with elevators and rooftop patios, and a one-story clubhouse with an outdoor pool, as well as associated parking and landscaping.
The project also includes a Tentative Parcel Map ( DL2023-0001) to abandon existing access and utilities easements and merge the six (6) existing parcels comprising the project site into three (3) individual parcels for phasing and financing purposes.
946
Project Location:
The project site is approximately 15.9 gross acres located west of the terminus of West Oaks Boulevard, east of Highway 65. The site consists of six (6) parcels totaling 12.5 acres located within the incorporated Rocklin City Limits (Assessor Parcel Numbers [APNs] 365-020-067, -068, -069, -070, -071, and -072) as well as an approximately 3.4-acre parcel, formerly part of the Caltrans right-of- way, located north of, and adjacent to, the other parcels. That piece, which is not currently within the incorporated boundaries of the City of Rocklin, has not yet been assigned an APN by the County.
An annexation application is currently being processed to bring the parcel into the City of Rocklin. (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Project Location
Project Applicant and Ownership:
The property owner is Black Iris Properties. The applicant is HRG Architects.
Summary of Planning Commission Hearing and Action:
On November 7, 2023, the Planning Commission (Commission) considered the proposed project.
Following a presentation from staff and a statement from the applicant, the Commission stated that there was concern about the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers, as the approval of the project would cause a shortfall in the number of sites needed to accommodate Rocklin’s Lower Income Category RHNA obligation (see SB 166 section below). However, the 947
Commission said that it understood that staff was going to work toward eliminating this shortfall early in 2024.
There was also some discussion about the phasing of the project with regard to the clubhouse. In the Planning Commission staff report and at the meeting, staff expressed some concern about the deferral of construction of the clubhouse building, swimming pool, and other common amenities until Phase 3. Based on the plan provided, these amenities would not be constructed until eight residential buildings totaling 78 units have already been built. While there are no specific requirements in the Rocklin Municipal Code or other adopted documents which require construction of these amenities concurrently or prior to construction of the residential units, staff indicated that it was seeking direction from the Planning Commission with regard to this timing.
The project team addressed this issue and stated that it would not be financially feasible to construct the clubhouse with the first phase. They stated that, because of their obligations to construct the bridge to access the site, it is imperative that these project units be constructed and occupied to allow for generation of funding prior to constructing the clubhouse and other site amenities. The project team noted that this initial vertical construction phase anticipates 21% completion of the entire project. The subsequent phase would construct the clubhouse as the first building. This strategy aligns with the preferred plan in market-rate apartment development, where the construction of the clubhouse is commonly deferred until after the initial phase of apartment occupancy. The Commission stated that it understood the applicant’s position and did not direct staff to modify any conditions of approval to require the clubhouse as part of an earlier phase.
Following this discussion with the applicant, the Commission opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The Commission then closed the public hearing and began deliberations. The Commission stated that, regardless of the fact that the project is not proposing any affordability, the project is well designed and fits very nicely into the University Architectural District. The Commission voted 3-0 (two members absent) to recommend approval of the project to the City Council.
Site Background:
The incorporated portion of the project site is located within the boundaries of the Sunset West General Development Plan area, which was annexed into the City of Rocklin in 1991. In 2005, the Atherton Center was approved by the City Council, which allowed for a Tentative Parcel Map (DL- 2004-08) and Design Review (DR-2004-24) to construct six office buildings totaling 543,478 square feet on the 12.5 total acres. Construction commenced in 2005, and several foundations and a drainage basin were constructed. However, this construction was halted due to financial issues. The project has been idle ever since. The Atherton Center included a bridge over the unnamed tributary to Pleasant Grove Creek, which is still the primary point of access for the project site. The approved bridge design and plans are now being processed as its own separate project through the City of Rocklin Engineering Division’s Improvement Plan process. The bridge construction must be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the approval of any building permits for the project.
In May 2022, as part of the West Oaks Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) project, the site was redesignated from Business Professional/Commercial/Light Industrial (BP/C/LI) to High Density 948
Residential (HDR) and was rezoned from Planned Development Business Professional /Commercial /Light Industrial (PD-BP/C/LI) to Planned Development, 24 Units Per Acre Minimum (PD-24+) in order to be consistent with State housing requirements, including Senate Bill 330.
In the late 2010’s Caltrans declared an approximately 3.4-acre area (shown inFigure 1), formerly part of the Caltrans Highway 65 right-of-way, to be surplus. The property was originally acquired by Caltrans when Highway 65 was constructed to potentially accommodate a street overcrossing of the freeway, but the overcrossing ultimately proved to be unnecessary. In 2022, a deed was recorded creating the surplus property as a separate parcel and transferring ownership to a private entity, Black Iris Properties, the applicant for the proposed West Oaks Apartments project.
The former Caltrans parcel is not currently within the incorporated boundaries of the City of Rocklin.
The owners, Black Iris Properties, have filed an application to annex the property into the City of Rocklin. The annexation application is being processed separately from the apartment design review and parcel map applications and is expected to be considered by the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in 2024. The annexation process will include applying General Plan land use and Zoning designations to the property to match those of the rest of the project site.
Site Characteristics:
The project site is located in the northwest portion of Rocklin at the terminus of West Oaks Boulevard, east of State Route 65. The project site encompasses approximately 15.9 total acres in a roughly square shape. The site is mostly vacant, and is covered with annual grassland. Riparian areas and an intermittent stream are adjacent to the south and eastern boundaries of the property.
Five concrete building pads were constructed in 2007 and then abandoned as part of the previously mentioned Atherton Center. These building pads occupy approximately 2.0 acres. The site also contains numerous other partially completed infrastructure features including storm and sewer lines, manholes, storm drain inlets, underground electrical conduit stubs, etc. The site is maintained through frequent mowing and vegetation is kept low and minimal. The property also contains an above ground storm water detention basin. These existing manmade features are proposed to be abandoned and removed as part of the site development.
Surrounding properties to the north of the project site include existing businesses within the Atherton Tech Center Business Park. Recreation Conservation property associated with an unnamed tributary to Pleasant Grove Creek is located to the south and to the east, with the James Apartments located beyond. The Arroyo Vista Apartments are located to the southeast. To the northeast is the Lonetree Apartments project (Phases 1 and 2), which was recently approved by the Rocklin City Council. To the west is State Route 65, with unincorporated Placer County uses located beyond. See Table 1 and Figure 2 for surrounding land uses.
949
Table 1. Surrounding Uses
Current Use Current General Plan / Zoning
Project Site Vacant High Density Residential (HDR) /
Planned Development, 24 Units Per Acre Minimum (PD-24+) North Unincorporated /
Office Buildings
Unincorporated Placer County /
Light Industrial (LI) /
Planned Development Light Industrial (PD-LI)
South Vacant Recreation Conservation (R-C) / Open Space (OS) East Vacant Recreation Conservation (R-C) / Open Space (OS) HDR and Planned Development, 18 Units Per Acre (PD-18)beyond West SR-65 /
Unincorporated Unincorporated Placer County
Figure 2. Current General Plan/Zoning
950
General Plan and Zoning Compliance:
As previously discussed, the project site was redesignated and rezoned in 2022 as part of the West Oaks RHNA project. The portions of the site already within the City limits have a General Plan designation of High Density Residential (HDR), which requires a minimum of 15 dwelling units per acre. The portions of the site already within the City limits are zoned Planned Development, 24 Units Per Acre Minimum (PD-24+) within the Sunset West General Development Plan.
While the total site is approximately 15.9 gross acres in size, 0.72-acre of this property, the northern/eastern portion of the annexation area, is located within the creek corridor and are therefore unbuildable. The net developable acreage is 15.18 acres. With 371 units on 15.18 net acres, the project density is approximately 24.4 acres. This density is consistent with the requirements of the HDR General Plan designation, as well as with the PD-24+ zoning district.
As a part of the annexation process, the 3.4 acres the applicant acquired from Caltrans is anticipated to receive General Plan land use and Zoning designations to match those of the rest of the project site. Unfortunately, the proposed unit mix on the site results in the portion of the project currently within the city limits having a density of only 22. 6 du/ac, less than the 24 du/ac minimum required by the zoning. When the units proposed on the area to be annexed are included, the project, as a whole, slightly exceeds 24 units per acre as noted above. As there is no absolute certainty that the annexation process will be completed and that the land use and zoning applied to the annexation area will be as anticipated, staff has included a condition of approval on the project requiring that the annexation be complete and the General Plan land use designation and zoning matching that of the southerly part of the project be in place prior to issuance of any building permits for any portion of the project.
Annexation Area:
As previously discussed, the project contains a 3.4-acre portion of property which was previously Caltrans right-of-way and was originally envisioned as an overpass into Placer County to the south.
This property is no longer needed by Caltrans and has been purchased by the project owner.
Based on the project plans, it is anticipated that the annexation area would ultimately include Buildings 16 and 17, which total 103 apartments. Because it is uncertain how long it will take to annex this area into the City, this portion of the project is designated as Project Phase 5 (of 5). As noted above, the project has been conditioned that will not allow any building permits to be issued for the project until the annexation is complete and the General Plan and zoning designations matching the rest of the project are in place.
Design Review:
General Design and Site Layout
The proposed project is an apartment community with 371 total units. The development would consist of 15 three-story walk-up buildings, two (2) four-story apartment buildings with elevators and rooftop patios, and a one-story clubhouse with an outdoor pool, as well as associated parking and landscaping. Unit sizes would range from studio through three-bedroom apartments. See Figure 3.
951
Amenities
On-site amenities for the project include a 6,500 square foot clubhouse and an outdoor pool, as well as approximately 2,000 square feet of additional outdoor space designated for outdoor patio and fitness areas adjacent to the clubhouse. The site's overall design will emphasize pedestrian circulation through the design of the landscape, pathways, and architecture.
Figure 3. Project Site Plan
952
Access and Circulation
Access to the project would be from an extension of West Oaks Boulevard across a bridge which is being constructed separately from this project. When the project site was partially developed as part of the previously described Atherton Center , that project included this bridge over the unnamed tributary to Pleasant Grove Creek. The approved bridge design and plans are now being processed as a separate project through the City of Rocklin Engineering Division’s Improvement Plan process.
The bridge will be required to be completed prior to issuance of any building permits for the West Oaks Apartments project.
Consistent with the requirements of the Rocklin Fire Department a 20-foot-wide Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) would be installed at the northwestern portion of the site (the annexation area), which connects through an office complex to the north (APN 017-281-010) to Menlo Drive. The EVA would include an electric gate to prevent access during non-emergency situations. See Figure 4.
Figure 4. Emergency Vehicle Access Location
Drive aisles (25 ‐foot minimum width) will provide internal access throughout the site. Accessible pedestrian paths around the buildings would provide a walking route for residents. Public sidewalks and bike lanes are incorporated into the bridge design connecting the project to West Oaks Boulevard, consistent with City standards.
953
Project Phasing
As previously discussed, the project construction is proposed to be phased and, to that end, the applicant has provided a conceptual phasing plan. Subsequent to successful completion of the annexation process, the applicant’s intention is to construct the drive aisles, EVA, and site improvements as Phase 1, construct five buildings with 43 total units as Phase 2, construct three buildings with 35 total units as part of Phase 2.1 (may be done in conjunction with Phase 2), construct four residential buildings with 83 units and the clubhouse building as Phase 3, construct three buildings with 107 units as Phase 4, and construct the final two buildings with 103 units as Phase 5.
See Figure 5.
Figure 5. Project Phasing Plan
954
Prior to issuance of building permits, the project has been conditioned to provide an updated and more detailed phasing plan which includes the following:
1) The building or buildings to be constructed and all appurtenant structures (walls, fencing, site amenities, etc.) with each Phase;
2) A Temporary Fencing Plan that shows how the residents of the occupied units will be separated from active construction areas;
3) Emergency Vehicle access through the site and available fire suppression services for each Phase, to be approved by the Fire Department;
4) The portion of landscaping to be completed with each phase (all landscaping along street frontages and the trees along State Route 65 shall be installed with Phase 1).
Building Architecture
The project design is consistent with the University Architectural District Guidelines. The project’s design concept consists of a contemporary architecture of horizontal rectilinear forms projecting in multiple planes. The building materials include cement plaster, cement board siding, and cultured stone veneer. The color scheme features neutral tones with pops of color in building accents. The colors/materials are included as Figure 6. Building renderings are included as Figures 7 through 10.
Figure 6. Colors/Materials
955
Figure 7. Four Story Building
Figure 8. Project Entry From Bridge
956
Figure 9. Highway 65 Perspective (No Tree Screen Shown) Figure 10. Club House
957
Building Height
Pursuant to the Sunset West General Development Plan, the PD-24+ zoning district allows for a maximum building height of 50 feet. However, the zoning district states that all development standards (including height) may be modified subject to justifications provided and accepted as part of a Design Review approval.
The proposed apartment buildings are a combination of three and four stories. The project requests a deviation to exceed the 50-foot height requirement on two (2) of the eighteen (18) buildings in the proposed project. These two buildings are labeled as Type C, numbers 15 & 16. These are located in the northwestern corner of the project site. Building 15 is part of Phase 4 and Building 16 is part of Phase 5.
The rationale behind the request for exceeding the 50-foot height requirement is to accommodate access from the stairs, elevator, and elevator vestibule to the rooftop patio. The California Building Code requires egress from the two stairwells when outdoor patios are provided on the rooftop of a four-story building. The elevator and stairwell “lobby” structures would top out at 59 feet. It is noteworthy that the parapet of these two buildings would be at 48-foot, and only the elevator and stairwell “lobbies” would require a deviation to the height limit. The other 16 buildings on the site do not seek any deviation from standards.
Staff has no objections to the requested height increase. The proposed building is not directly adjacent to any other buildings, with the nearest building being an office approximately 100 feet north of Building 16. The small portion of the building which exceeds the 50-foot height (shown above the red line on Figure 11) would have a minimal impact on the appearance or aesthetics of the building or on the structure’s visual impact.
Figure 11. Building Height Deviation
Pursuant to Section 17.72.070 of the Rocklin Municipal Code (RMC), residential buildings with a height of greater than 30 feet, or more than two stories, are subject to the approving authority of the City Council. Therefore, the Planning Commission is a recommending body and the City Council is required to take final action on this project.
958
Architectural Review Committee
On May 4, 2023, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) considered the architecture for the West Oaks Townhomes project. The ARC was supportive of the project’s architecture and determined that it generally complied with the University Architectural District requirements, as well as with other previously-approved apartment projects within the area.
The ARC recommended approval of the Project architecture 4-0 (one committee member absent).
Parking
Section 17.66.020 of the RMC states that apartments shall provide one and one-half paved parking spaces for each studio or one-bedroom unit, and two paved parking spaces for each unit with two or more bedrooms, plus 25 percent paved visitor parking spaces, further stipulating that at least one parking space per unit shall be covered. The project parking requirements are as follows:
Table 2 – Project Parking Requirements
Project Units Rocklin Zoning Code Req. Rocklin Zoning Code Spaces Req. 1 bedroom 157 1.5 spaces / unit 236 spaces
2+ bedroom 214 2 spaces / unit 428 spaces
Guest -- .25 spaces / unit 93 spaces
Total 371 -- 757
The project proposes 776 parking spaces onsite, which is 19 spaces more than the 757 required by the RMC for this development. Of these, 371 parking spaces are proposed to be covered, with 238 carport spaces and 133 private one and two-car garages spaces. Project parking is consistent with all standards of the RMC.
Landscaping
The overall landscape concept for the project is to create a consistent treatment of all landscaped areas with high quality outdoor environments and amenity areas. The project would install landscaping throughout the site ( Figure 12 ). Low-profile shrubs, including screening shrubs, are planned along with shade and canopy trees. Between the proposed covered parking spaces and parking lot landscaping, the project exceeds the 50% shade requirement. The project is also proposing to add two rows of deodar cedar trees along the project’s western boundary, which will help to visually screen SR-65 from the project, as well as to potentially reduce noise. 959
Figure 12. Landscaping Plan
Fencing and Walls
A 30-inch-tall tubular metal fence with masonry pilasters is proposed adjacent to the open space area (east and south side of the project). The pilasters would be spaced approximately every 40 feet.
Along the northern property line, a six-foot tall (minimum) masonry wall would be constructed, consistent with Section 17.08.080 of the RMC.
Pursuant to that section of the RMC, a solid six-foot-tall masonry wall is required in areas where a commercial or industrial zone abuts a residential zone. However, this standard condition does not apply to roadways or highways, unless required as a mitigation measure resulting from a noise analysis.
As part of the proposed project, in order to determine traffic noise levels on the project site, Saxelby Acoustics, LLC (Saxelby) prepared an exterior noise and exterior façade acoustical analysis, dated 960
May 4, 2023. Saxelby used a noise model to calculate traffic noise levels at the proposed residential uses due to traffic on SR-65. It was estimated that existing noise levels would increase by 4 dBA based upon the Noise Study Report for SR-65 Capacity and Operational Improvements Project (ICF International, January 2016). This future increase as a result of SR-65 widening is accounted for in the noise model.
Pursuant to the Saxelby study, noise levels at the common outdoor activity areas (i.e., clubhouse and pool area) of the proposed project would not exceed the City of Rocklin General Plan standard of 60 dBA Ldn, even as a result of the ultimate widening of the highway. It should be noted that the City of Rocklin outdoor activity area noise level standard applies to common outdoor activity areas for multi-family residential development and not to individual patios or balconies. In order to reduce interior noise levels to a less than significant level, numerous mitigation measures were identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, and have been included as conditions of project approval; these include thicker building walls and special low noise transmitting window panes on the buildings closest to SR-65. Because the outdoor activity area noise levels were below the General Plan noise standards, no sound wall is required on the western property line adjacent to SR-65, and none has been proposed. The barrier along this boundary would consist of the double row of deodar cedar trees discussed above, as well as the existing Caltrans chain link fence which separates the site from the highway.
Tentative Parcel Map:
A Tentative Parcel Map is proposed with this project, which would merge the six incorporated project parcels into three parcels (4.01 acres, 4.12 acres, and 4.25 acres respectively). Because the annexation area is not within the City boundaries, it is not included as part of this map, but would result in a fourth parcel upon its annexation into the City. The approval of the map would also allow for the abandonment of easements which were recorded as part of the previous office project on the site, but are no longer required.
Due to the prevailing high interest rates, the developer has stated that they are confronted with a difficult lending situation, making it particularly challenging to secure the necessary financing for this project as a whole through a single lender. However, by adopting the approach of subdividing the project into smaller parcels, the developer can effectively approach multiple lenders for competitive financing options.
The phasing map corresponds with the parcel map. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is included as Figure 13.
The map includes numerous new easements, including public utility, reciprocal access and egress, landscaping, drainage, and common clubhouse area, which would be recorded as part of the final map, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
961
Figure 13. Tentative Parcel Map
Emergency Vehicle Access Agreement:
As previously discussed, an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) is required as part of this project in order to comply with ingress and egress requirements of the California Fire Code. In addition, this EVA will be utilized to accommodate a private water easement to provide for a looped water line connection to the site, consistent with Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) requirements.
The project has been working with the property own er to the north on an agreement to obtain an easement to accommodate the EVA and waterline through their property. The project is conditioned that the easement must be in place and the EVA and water linesconstructed prior to issuance of any building permits, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Engineer.
Project Affordability:
General Plan Housing Element Policy 3.4 states the following:
Policy 3.4: Continue to work with developers requesting General Plan Amendments converting nonresidential designation to residential uses or from a higher density residential category to a lower density residential category to incorporate affordable housing as a compo nent of the overall development. As an objective, target up to ten percent of the units as affordable, depending on the level of affordability or other amenities provided. Pursue the inclusion of 962
extremely low-income units whenever possible in the negotiated target number of affordable units.
Since its submittal, staff has encouraged that the project provide a minimum of 10 percent of the development as affordable units. The applicant has provided the following response:
The project was studied to offer a portion of affordable housing unit to families in Rocklin.
Unfortunately, given the price of land, the current interest rates, construction costs escalation and the cost of development impact fees, the developer is not able to offer 10 percent of the projects units at HUD's definition of affordability as it makes the project financially challenging for market rate development.
As previously discussed, the project proposes to construct its final two buildings (103 total units) within the 3.4-acre annexation area. As this area is currently unincorporated, it does not contain a City of Rocklin land use designation and is not included in any zoning district. Therefore, concurrent with the annexation, a general plan amendment and rezone will be required to allow for development on this site. While staff discussed the potential of requiring a 10 percent affordability component for this portion of the project, it was ultimately determined that this would be inconsistent with the requirements of Policy 3.4, in that this portion of the project is currently not in the City and does not have any land use designation or zoning through the City, and as such the project would, arguably, not be converting a nonresidential designation to a residential designation, nor would it be converting a higher density residential category to a lower density residential category. Therefore, the City has no mechanism to require the developer to provide affordable units within any portion of the project.
Senate Bill 166 (No Net Loss Law):
SB 166, now codified as Government Code Section 65863 (No Net Loss Law), was adopted to ensure development opportunities remain available throughout the 8-year Housing Element planning period to accommodate a jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), especially for lower- and moderate- income households. When the 2021-2029 Housing Element was adopted, the City had a minimal surplus of parcels identified in its Available Sites Inventory to accommodate the Lower Category RHNA sites requirement.
Staff continually monitors the status of the RHNA sites inventory as projects come forward on sites listed in the current inventory. This project site is on the City’s RHNA list as a lower income site. It has been determined that approval of this project will cause a shortfall in the number of sites needed to accommodate Rocklin’s Lower Income Category RHNA obligation. In order to address this shortfall, the City will need to identify new site(s) for inclusion on the Affordable Sites inventory in order to backfill sites that have to be removed from the list due to the approval of entitlements for the development of those existing sites. In the next several months staff anticipates bringing forward General Plan Amendments and Rezones for properties already identified for residential development on the RHNA sites inventory as well as bringing forward proposed replacements for those sites that have fallen off the list due to development approvals.
Environmental Determination:
963
Consistent with the requirements of CEQA, an Initial Study was prepared to determine the West Oaks Apartments project’s potential impacts on the environment. The study found that the project could have significant impacts with regard to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Tribal Resources; however, it was also able to identify mitigation measures that would reduce each of these potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of environmental impacts was prepared for the project.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the West Oaks Apartments project to the City Council, as proposed and conditioned.
964
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN
APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
AND A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
West Oaks Apartments
(DR2022-0010, DL2023-0001, and ENV2022-0002)
WHEREAS, the City of Rocklin's Environmental Coordinator prepared an Initial Study on the West Oaks Apartments project (the "Project") which identified potentially significant effects of the Project; and
WHEREAS, revisions to and/or conditions placed on the Project, were made or agreed to by the applicant before the mitigated negative declaration was released for public review, were determined by the environmental coordinator to avoid or reduce the potentially significant effects to a level that is clearly less than significant and that there was, therefore, no substantial evidence that the Project, as revised and conditioned, would have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study and mitigated negative declaration of environmental impacts were then prepared, properly noticed, and circulated for public review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rocklin as follows:
Section 1. Based on the Initial Study, the revisions and conditions incorporated into the Project, the required mitigation measures, and information received during the public review process, the City Council of the City of Rocklin finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project, as revised and conditioned, may have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.
Section 3. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the City of Rocklin General Plan Environmental Impact Reports which are applicable to this Project have been adopted and undertaken by the City of Rocklin and all other public agencies with authority to mitigate the project impacts or will be undertaken as required by this project.
Section 4. The statements of overriding considerations adopted by the City Council when approving the City of Rocklin General Plan Update are hereby readopted for the purposes of this mitigated negative declaration and the significant identified impacts of this project related to aesthetics, air quality, traffic circulation, noise, cultural and paleontological resources, biological resources, and climate change and greenhouse gases. 965
of Reso No.
Section 5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts and Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared in connection with the Project, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, are recommended for approval for the Project.
Section 6. The Project Initial Study is attached as Attachment 1 and is incorporated by reference. All other documents, studies, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission has based its decision are located in the office of the Rocklin Community Development Director, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, California 95677.
The custodian of these documents and other materials is the City of Rocklin Community Development Director.
Section 7. Upon approval of the Project by the City Council, the City of Rocklin’s environmental coordinator shall file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of Placer County and, if the project requires a discretionary approval from any state agency, with the State Office of Planning and Research, pursuant to the provisions of section 21152(a) of the Public Resources Code and the State EIR Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of December, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmember(s):
NOES: Councilmember(s):
ABSENT: Councilmember(s):
ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):
____________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Haley Reid, Acting City Clerk
966
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF ROCKLIN
3970 Rocklin Road
Rocklin, California 95677
(916) 625-5160
ATTACHMENT 1
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
West Oaks Apartments
DR2022-0010, DL2023-0001, ENV2022-0002
The site consists of six (6) incorporated parcels, designated with Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 365-020-067, -068, -069, -070, -071, and -072, as well as an approximately 3.4-acre portion of former Caltrans right-of-way located north and adjacent to the other parcels.
October 13, 2023
PREPARED BY:
Nathan Anderson, Senior Planner, (916) 625-5114
CONTACT INFORMATION:
This Initial Study has been prepared by the City of Rocklin, as Lead Agency, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Any questions regarding this document should be addressed to David Mohlenbrok at the City of Rocklin Community Development Department, Planning Division, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, California 95677 (916) 625-5160.
APPLICANT/OWNER:
The property owner is Black Iris Properties. The project applicant is HRGA Young Kim. 967
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of an Initial Study
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970 for the purpose of providing decision-makers and the public with information regarding environmental effects of proposed projects; identifying means of avoiding environmental damage; and disclosing to the public the reasons behind a project’s approval even if it leads to environmental damage. The City of Rocklin has determined the proposed project is subject to CEQA and no exemptions apply.
Therefore, preparation of an initial study is required.
An initial study is a preliminary analysis conducted by the lead agency, in consultation with other agencies (responsible or trustee agencies, as applicable), to determine whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study concludes that the project, with mitigation, may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report should be prepared; otherwise, the lead agency may adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration.
This Initial Study (IS) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, §15000 et seq.), and the City of Rocklin CEQA Guidelines (1981, amended July 31, 2002).
This Initial Study has been prepared to identify and assess the anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed project. The document relies on a combination of a previous environmental document and site-specific studies to address in detail the effects or impacts associated with the proposed project. In particular, this Initial Study assesses the extent to which the impacts of the proposed project have already been addressed in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rocklin General Plan, as adopted by the Rocklin City Council on October 9, 2012 (the “General Plan EIR”).
B. Document Format
This Initial Study is organized into five sections as follows:
Section 1, Introduction: provides an overview of the project and the CEQA environmental documentation process.
Section 2, Summary Information and Determination: Required summary information, listing of environmental factors potentially affected, and lead agency determination.
Section 3, Project Description: provides a description of the project location, project background, and project components.
968
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
Section 4, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: provides a detailed discussion of the environmental factors that would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the screening from the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist.
Section 5, References: provides a list of reference materials used during the preparation of this Initial Study. The reference materials are available for review during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Division, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA, and can also be found on the City’s website under Planning Division, Current Environmental Documents.
C. CEQA Process
To begin the CEQA process, the lead agency identifies a proposed project. The lead agency then prepares an initial study to identify the preliminary environmental impacts of the proposed project. This document has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to analyze the possible environmental impacts of the project so that the public and the City of Rocklin decision-making bodies (Planning Commission, and/or City Council) can take these impacts into account when considering action on the required entitlements.
During the project approval process, persons and/or agencies may address either the Environmental Services staff or the City Council regarding the project. Public notification of agenda items for the City Council is posted 72 hours prior to the public meeting. The Council agenda can be obtained by contacting the Office of the City Clerk at City Hall, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA 95667 or via the internet at http://www.rocklin.ca.us.
Within five days of project approval, the City will file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. The Notice of Determination will be posted by the County Clerk within 24 hours of receipt.
This begins a 30-day statute of limitations on legal challenges to the approval under CEQA. The ability to challenge the approval in court may be limited to those persons who objected to the approval of the project, and to issues that were presented to the lead agency by any person, either orally or in writing, during the public comment period. 969
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
SECTION 2. INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY AND DETERMINATION
A. Summary Information
Project Title:
West Oaks Apartments
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rocklin, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA 95677
Contact Person and Phone Number:
David Mohlenbrok, Environmental Coordinator/Community Development Director, 916-625- 5162
Project Location:
The project site is approximately 15.9 gross acres located west of the terminus of West Oaks Boulevard, east of Highway 65. The site consists of six (6) incorporated parcels, designated with Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 365-020-067, -068, -069, -070, -071, and -072, as well as an approximately 3.4-acre portion of former Caltrans right-of-way located north and adjacent to the other parcels. That piece, which is currently unincorporated with no APN assigned, is part of an annexation which is being concurrently processed to bring the parcel into the City of Rocklin.
Project Sponsor’s Name:
The property owner is Black Iris Properties. The project applicant is HRGA Young Kim.
Current General Plan Designation: High Density Residential (HDR) Proposed General Plan Designation: No change requested
Current Zoning: Planned Development Residential 24 Units Per Acre Minimum (PD-24+) Proposed Zoning: No change requested
Description of the Project:
The project is a request for approval of a Design Review to construct a multifamily development on approximately 15.9 gross acres. The development would be comprised of 371 units consisting of studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments and two- and three-bedroom townhomes for market-rate rental. The development would consist of 15 three-story walk-up buildings, two (2) four-story apartment buildings with rooftop patios, and a one-story clubhouse with an outdoor pool, as well as associated parking and landscaping.
The project also includes a Tentative Parcel Map (DL2023-0001) to subdivide the site into three (3) individual parcels for phasing and financing purposes, and to abandon historic private 970
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
reciprocal access, public utility, and emergency access easements which were established as part of the previously-approved Atherton Center, a nonresidential project approved in 2006 on the property.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The project site is located in the northwest portion of Rocklin at the terminus of West Oaks Boulevard, east of State Route 65. To the north of the project site is existing businesses within the Atherton Tech Center Business Park. Recreation Conservation property associated with an unnamed tributary to Pleasant Grove Creek is located to the east, with the James Apartments located beyond. To the northeast is the Lonetree Apartments project (Phases 1 and 2), which was recently approved by the Rocklin City Council. To the west is State Route 65, with unincorporated Placer County uses located beyond.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required (e.g., Permits, Financing Approval, or Participation Agreement):
Rocklin Engineering Division approval of Improvement Plans Rocklin Building Inspections Division issuance of Building Permits Placer County Water Agency approval of construction of water facilities South Placer Municipal Utility District approval of construction of sewer facilities Placer County Air Pollution Control District approval of dust control plan B. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
Those factors checked below involve impacts that are “Potentially Significant”:
Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
None X None with Mitigation
Incorporated
971
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
C. Determination:
On the basis of this Initial Study:
I find that the proposed project WILL NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X I find that as originally submitted, the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment; however, revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent which will avoid these effects or mitigate these effects to a point where clearly no significant effect will occur. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached Environmental Checklist.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, to analyze the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or (MITIGATED) NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or (MITIGATED) NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
____________________________________________________October 13, 2023________ David Mohlenbrok Date
Community Development Department Director
972
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
SECTION 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project Location
The project site is approximately 15.9 gross acres located west of the terminus of West Oaks Boulevard, east of Highway 65. The site consists of six (6) incorporated parcels, designated with Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 365-020-067, -068, -069, -070, -071, and -072, as well as an approximately 3.4-acre portion of former Caltrans right-of-way located north and adjacent to the other parcels. That piece, which is currently unincorporated with no APN assigned, is part of an annexation which is being concurrently processed to bring the parcel into the City of Rocklin.
The City of Rocklin is located approximately 25 miles northeast of Sacramento, and is within the County of Placer. Surrounding jurisdictions include: unincorporated Placer County to the north and northeast, the City of Lincoln to the northwest, the Town of Loomis to the east and southeast, and the City of Roseville to the south and southwest.
B. Description
The project is a request for approval of a Design Review to construct a multifamily development on approximately 15.9 gross acres. The development would be comprised of 371 units consisting of studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments and two- and three-bedroom townhomes for market-rate rental. The development would consist of 15 three-story walk-up buildings, two (2) four-story apartment buildings with rooftop patios, and a one-story clubhouse with an outdoor pool, as well as associated parking and landscaping.
The project proposes 776 parking spaces onsite. 530 spaces are proposed as surface parking, with a portion of those to be covered to meet the zoning code requirement. There are also 246 parking spaces within the buildings. These are proposed as private one and two-car garages to the residents.
On-site amenities for the project include a 6,500 square foot clubhouse and an outdoor pool as well as an ample outdoor open space adjacent to the clubhouse. The site's overall design will have emphasis at pedestrian circulation through the design of the landscape, pathways, and architecture. The exterior design will be contemporary style utilizing materials of the cement plaster and cementitious siding to comply with the neighboring context as well as a city’s design guideline.
The project also includes a Tentative Parcel Map (DL2023-0001) to subdivide the site into three (3) individual parcels for phasing and financing purposes, and to abandon historic private reciprocal access, public utility, and emergency access easements which were established as part of the previously-approved Atherton Center, a nonresidential project approved in 2006 on the property, which has since expired.
973
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
Access to the project would be from an extension of West Oaks Boulevard across a bridge which is being constructed as a separate project. When the project site was previously partially developed as part of a project approved by the City of Rocklin, that project included a bridge over the unnamed tributary to Pleasant Grove Creek. The approved bridge design and plans are now being processed as its own separate project through the City of Rocklin Engineering Division’s Improvement Plan process. A 20-foot-wide Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) would be installed on the northwestern portion of the site, which connects to an office complex to the north.
SECTION 4. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Explanation of CEQA Streamlining and Tiering Utilized in this Initial Study This Initial Study will evaluate this project in light of the previously approved General Plan EIR, and the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area EIR, which are hereby incorporated by reference.
This document is available for review during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Division, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA, and can also be found on the City’s website under Planning Division, Publications and Maps.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 provides a means of streamlining analysis for qualifying projects.
Under Section 15183, effects are not considered “peculiar to the project or the parcel” if they are addressed and mitigated by uniformly applied development policies and standards adopted by the City to substantially mitigate that effect (unless new information shows that the policy or standard will not mitigate the effect). Policies and standards have been adopted by the City to address and mitigate certain impacts of development that lend themselves to uniform mitigation measures. These policies and standards include those found in the Oak Tree Ordinance (Rocklin Municipal Code, Chapter 17.77), the Flood Ordinance (Rocklin Municipal Code, Chapter 15.16), the Grading and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance (Rocklin Municipal Code, Chapter
15.28), the Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance (Rocklin Municipal Code, Chapter
8.30), and the Goals and Policies of the Rocklin General Plan. Where applicable, the Initial Study will state how these policies and standards apply to the project. Where the policies and standards will substantially mitigate the effects of the proposed project, the Initial Study concludes that these effects are “not peculiar to the project or the parcel” and thus need not be revisited in the text of the environmental document for the proposed project.
This Initial Study has also been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15063 and 15168.
Section 15063 sets forth the general rules for preparing Initial Studies. One of the identified functions of an Initial Study is for a lead agency to “[d]etermine, pursuant to a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process, which of a project’s effects were adequately examined by an earlier EIR or negative declaration… The lead agency shall then ascertain which effects, if any, should be analyzed in a later EIR or negative declaration.” (CEQA Guidelines, section 15063, subd. (b)(1)(C).). Here, the City has used this initial study to determine the extent to which the General Plan EIR has “adequately examined” the effects of the proposed project. 974
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
Section 15168 sets forth the legal requirements for preparing a “program EIR” and for reliance upon program EIRs in connection with “[l]ater activities” within the approved program. (See Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency (2005) 134 Cal.App.4 th 598, 614-617.) The General Plan EIR was a program EIR with respect to its analysis of impacts associated with eventual buildout of future anticipated development identified by the General Plan. Subdivision (c) of section 15168 provides as follows:
(c) Use with Later Activities. Later activities in the program must be examined in light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.
(1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration. That later analysis may tier from the program EIR as provided in Section 15152.
(2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record. Factors that an agency may consider in making that determination include, but are not limited to, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure, as described in the program EIR.
(3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into later activities in the program. (4) Where the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR.
(5) A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with later activities if it provides a description of planned activities that would implement the program and deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible.
With a good and detailed project description and analysis of the program, many later activities could be found to be within the scope of the project described in the program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required. 975
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
Consistent with these principles, this Initial Study serves the function of a “written checklist or similar device” documenting the extent to which the environmental effects of the proposed project “were within the scope of the program EIR” for the General Plan. As stated below, the City has concluded that the impacts of the proposed project are “within the scope” of the analysis in the General Plan EIR. Stated another way, these “environmental effects of the [site-specific project] were within the scope of the program EIR.” Where particular impacts were not thoroughly analyzed in prior documents, site-specific studies were prepared for the project with respect to impacts that were not “within the scope” of the prior General Plan EIR analysis. These studies are hereby incorporated by reference and are available for review during normal business hours at the Rocklin Community Development Department, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA 95677 and can also be found on the City’s website under Planning Division, Current Environmental Documents. The specific studies are listed in Section 5, References.
The Initial Study is a public document to be used by the City decision-makers to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the City as lead agency, finds substantial evidence that any effects of the project were not “within the scope” of the analysis in the General Plan EIR document AND that these effects may have a significant effect on the environment if not mitigated, the City would be required to prepare an EIR with respect to such potentially significant effects. On the other hand, if the City finds that these unaddressed project impacts are not significant, a negative declaration would be appropriate. If in the course of analysis, the City identified potentially significant impacts that could be reduced to less than significant levels through mitigation measures to which the applicant agrees, the impact would be considered to be reduced to a less than significant level, and adoption of a mitigated negative declaration would be appropriate.
B. Significant Cumulative Impacts; Statement of Overriding Considerations The Rocklin City Council has previously identified the following cumulative significant impacts as unavoidable consequences of urbanization contemplated in the Rocklin General Plan, despite the implementation of all available and feasible mitigation measures, and on that basis has adopted a statement of overriding considerations for each cumulative impact:
1. Air Quality:
Development in the City and the Sacramento Valley Air Basin as a whole will result in the following: violations of air quality standards as a result of short-term emissions from construction projects, increases in criteria air pollutants from operational air pollutants and exposure to toxic air contaminants, the generation of odors and a cumulative contribution to regional air quality impacts.
2. Aesthetics/Light and Glare:
Development in the City and the South Placer region as a whole will result in substantial degradation of the existing visual character, the creation of new sources of substantial light and 976
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
glare and cumulative impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, existing visual character and creation of light and glare.
3. Traffic and Circulation:
Development in the City and the South Placer region as a whole will result in impacts to segments and intersections of the state/interstate highway system.
4. Noise
Development in the City and the South Placer region as a whole will result in impacts associated with exposure to surface transportation and stationary noise sources, and cumulative transportation noise impacts within the Planning area.
5. Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Development in the City and the South Placer region as a whole will result in cumulative impacts to historic character.
6. Biological Resources
Development in the City and the South Placer region as a whole will result in the loss of native oak and heritage trees, the loss of oak woodland habitat, and cumulative impacts to biological resources.
7. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Development in the City and the South Placer region as a whole will result in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions.
C. Mitigation Measures Required and Considered
It is the policy and a requirement of the City of Rocklin that all public agencies with authority to mitigate significant effects shall undertake or require the undertaking of all feasible mitigation measures specified in the prior environmental impact reports relevant to a significant effect which the project will have on the environment. Project review is limited to effects upon the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project which were not addressed as significant effects in the General Plan EIR or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the General Plan EIR. This Initial Study anticipates that feasible mitigation measures previously identified in the General Plan and Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area EIR have been, or will be, implemented as set forth in that document, and evaluates this Project accordingly.
977
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
D. Evaluation of Environmental Checklist:
1) A brief explanation is provided for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer is explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site elements, cumulative as well as project-level impacts, indirect as well as direct impacts, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) If a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant.
4) Answers of “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” describe the mitigation measures agreed to by the applicant and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures and supporting explanation from earlier EIRs or Negative Declaration may be cross-referenced and incorporated by reference. 5) Earlier analyses may be used where an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration, and the City intends to use tiering. All prior EIRs and Negative Declarations and certifying resolutions are available for review at the Rocklin Community Development Department. In this case, a brief discussion will identify the following:
a) Which effects are within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and whether such effects are addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis; and
b) For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” the mitigation measures which are incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 978
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
E. Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code section 21099 (where aesthetic impacts shall not be considered significant for qualifying residential, mixed-use residential, and employment centers), would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Impact for which
General Plan EIR is
Sufficient
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
DISCUSSION OF DETERMINATION:
Project Impacts:
The development of a 371-unit multifamily residential community on 15.87 gross acres would change the existing visual nature / character of the project site and area. The development of the project site would create new sources of light and glare typical of urban development. As discussed below, impacts to scenic vistas or viewsheds would not be anticipated. 979
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
Prior Environmental Analysis:
As a “program EIR” under CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur to the visual character of the Planning Area as a result of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. When previously undeveloped land becomes developed, aesthetic impacts include changes to scenic character and new sources of light and glare (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011, pages
4.3-1 through 4.3-18). Mitigation measures to address these impacts are incorporated into the General Plan in the Land Use and the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Elements, and include policies that encourage the use of design standards for unique areas and the protection of natural resources, including open space areas, natural resource areas, hilltops, waterways and oak trees, from the encroachment of incompatible land use.
The General Plan EIR concluded that, despite the goals and policies addressing visual character, views, and light and glare, significant aesthetic impacts will occur as a result of development under the General Plan and further, that these impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Specifically, the General Plan EIR found that buildout of the Rocklin General Plan will change and degrade the existing visual character, will create new sources of light and glare and will contribute to cumulative impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, existing visual character and creation of light and glare. Findings of fact and a statement of overriding consideration were adopted by the Rocklin City Council in regard to these cumulative impacts, which were found to be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:
All applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, including the mitigation measures for aesthetic/visual impacts incorporated as goals and policies in the General Plan, will be applied to the project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City rules and regulations.
Significance Conclusions:
a. Scenic Vista - No Impact. While vacant or mostly vacant areas have a natural aesthetic quality, there are no designated scenic vistas within the City of Rocklin or Planning Area. Alteration of the vacant and undeveloped project site through the construction of a 371-unit multifamily community would change the visual quality of the project site and surrounding area. However, since there are no designated scenic vistas, no impact would occur in this regard. b. Scenic Highway – No Impact. The City of Rocklin does not contain an officially designated state scenic highway. State Route 65 (SR 65) borders the western portion of the City and is nearby the project site, but it is not considered a scenic highway. Likewise, Interstate 80 (I-80) traverses the eastern portion of the City but does not have a scenic designation. Therefore, the proposed project and the development of a 371-unit multi-family residential complex at this project site 980
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway and no impacts are anticipated in association with damage to scenic resources within a state scenic highway. c. Visual Character – Less than Significant Impact. The development of a 371-unit multi-family residential complex at this project site would result in the construction of structures which would alter the aesthetics of the project site and its surroundings.
Per Public Resources Code section 21071 (a) (2), the City of Rocklin is considered to be an urbanized area because although its population is less than 100,000 persons, the population of Rocklin and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities (the cities of Roseville and Lincoln) combined equals at least 100,000 persons. The 371-unit multi-family residential complex would be of consistent height and scale with surrounding existing and entitled development, including the recently approved Lonetree Apartments project (Phases 1 and 2) to the north, which is expected to commence construction soon, and including the nearby James Apartments and the Atherton Tech Center Business Park, as well as the anticipated future development of other surrounding vacant properties; there are no unusual development characteristics of this proposed project which would introduce incompatible elements or create aesthetic impacts not considered in the prior EIR. Existing buildings in the area include one-, two- and three-story office buildings, one-story light industrial warehouse buildings and three-story multi-family residential buildings. These buildings and the anticipated future development of buildings within the nearby and adjacent light industrial and high density residential and mixed use land use designations are collectively all of similar size and scale to the proposed project.
All development in the Rocklin Planning Area is subject to existing City development standards set forth in the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the City’s Design Review Guidelines which help to ensure that development form, character, height, and massing are consistent with the City’s vision for the character of the community. The proposed project at this project site would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Also applicable to this Project is the University District Architectural Guidelines, which are meant to inspire and provide designers with basic direction in developing projects that focus on high quality design and use of materials and require review by the City’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC). This project was reviewed by the ARC on May 4, 2023 and was recommended for approval.
The change in the aesthetics of the visual nature or character of the site and the surroundings is consistent with the surrounding existing development and the future development that is anticipated by the City’s General Plan. As noted above, the General Plan EIR concluded that development under the General Plan will result in significant unavoidable aesthetic impacts and Statements of Overriding Consideration were adopted by the Rocklin City Council in regard to these cumulative impacts. The proposed project at this site does not result in a change to the finding because the site would be developed with typical urban uses that are consistent and compatible with surrounding existing and anticipated future development. 981
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
d. Light and Glare – Less than Significant Impact. The development of a 371-unit multi-family residential complex at this project site would result in the construction of structures which would alter the aesthetics of the project site and its surroundings.
There are no specific features within the proposed project that would create unusual light and glare. New and/or increased sources of light and glare would be introduced to the project area.
However, implementation of existing City Design Review Guidelines and the General Plan policies addressing light and glare would also ensure that no unusual daytime glare or nighttime lighting is produced. These guidelines and policies would require the following: 1) all exterior lighting is to be designed and installed to avoid adverse glare on adjacent properties and to incorporate “dark sky” provisions; 2) Cut-off decorative light fixtures, or equivalent, shall be used for parking lot and building mounted lighting and mounted such that all light is projected directly toward the ground; 3) the lighting shall be reviewed and revised if needed to avoid “hot spots” under parking lot lights and to eliminate light spill over the property lines that exceeds 0.1 foot candles, and 4) light poles shall be a maximum of 20 feet in height as measured from grade to the top of the light fixture itself. However, the impacts associated with increased light and glare would not be eliminated entirely, and the overall level of light and glare in the Planning Area would increase in general as urban development occurs and that increase cannot be fully mitigated.
The General Plan EIR acknowledged that impacts associated with increased light and glare would not be eliminated entirely, and the overall level of light and glare in the Planning Area would increase in general as urban development occurs and that increase cannot be fully mitigated. As noted above, the General Plan EIR concluded that development under the General Plan will result in significant unavoidable aesthetic impacts and a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted by the Rocklin City Council in regard to these cumulative impacts. The project does not result in a change to the finding because the site would be developed with typical urban uses that are consistent and compatible with surrounding existing and anticipated future development.
982
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Impact for which
General Plan EIR
is Sufficient
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220
(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104 (g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
X
Agricultural Resources
983
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
DISCUSSION OF DETERMINATION:
DISCUSSION OF DETERMINATION:
Project Impacts:
There are no agricultural or forestry impacts for the project or project site due to a lack of these resources on the project site, as further discussed below.
Significance Conclusions:
a., b. and e. Conversion of Farmland, Conflict with Agricultural Zoning or Williamson Act - No Impact. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) land classifications system monitors and documents land use changes that specifically affect California’s agricultural land and is administered by the California Department of Conservation (CDC). The FMMP land classification system is cited by the State CEQA Guidelines as the preferred information source for determining the agricultural significance of a property (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). The CDC, Division of Land Resource Protection, Placer County Important Farmland Map of 2018 designates the project site as grazing land. This category is not considered Important Farmland under the definition in CEQA of “Agricultural Land” that is afforded consideration as to its potential significance (see CEQA Section 21060.1[a]), nor is it considered prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance; therefore, the proposed project would not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use. Also, the project site contains no parcels that are under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, because the project would not convert important farmland to non-agricultural uses, would not conflict with existing agricultural or forestry use zoning or Williamson Act contracts, or involve other changes that could result in the conversion of important farmlands to non-agricultural uses, there would be no agricultural use impacts. c. and d. Rezone or Conversion of Timberland, Forest Land– No Impact. The project site contains no parcels that are considered forestry lands or timberland. Therefore, because the project would not conflict with existing forestry use zoning or involve other changes that could result in the conversion of forest lands to non-forest uses, there would be no forestry use impacts. 984
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
Air Quality
III. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determination. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Impact for which
General Plan EIR is
Sufficient
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of applicable air
quality plan?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
DISCUSSION OF DETERMINATION:
Project Impacts:
In the short-term, air quality impacts from the proposed project will result from construction related activities associated with grading and excavation to prepare the site for the installation of utilities and above ground structures and improvements. These air quality impacts will primarily be related to the generation of airborne dust (Particulate Matter of 10 microns in size or less (PM10).
In the long term, air quality impacts from the proposed project will result from vehicle trip generation to and from the project site and the resultant mobile source emissions of air pollutants (primarily carbon monoxide and ozone precursor emissions).
As discussed below, a 371-unit multifamily residential development of this type would not be expected to create objectionable odors.
Prior Environmental Analysis:
As a “program EIR” under CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur to regional air quality as a result of the future urban 985
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included 8-hour ozone attainment, short-term construction emissions, operational air pollutants, increases in criteria pollutants, odors, and regional air quality impacts. (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011, pages 4.2-1 through 4.2-43). Mitigation measures to address these impacts are incorporated into the General Plan in the Land Use, the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation, and the Circulation Elements, and include policies that encourage a mixture of land uses, provisions for non-automotive modes of transportation, consultation with the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), and the incorporation of stationary and mobile source control measures.
The General Plan EIR concluded that, despite these goals and policies, significant air quality impacts will occur as a result of development under the General Plan and further, that these impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Specifically, the General Plan EIR found that buildout of the Rocklin General Plan and other development within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB) as a whole will result in the following: violations of air quality standards as a result of short-term emissions from construction projects, increases in criteria air pollutants from operational air pollutants and exposure to toxic air contaminants, the generation of odors and a cumulative contribution to regional air quality impacts. Findings of fact and a statement of overriding consideration were adopted by the Rocklin City Council in regard to these impacts, which were found to be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:
All applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, including the mitigation measures for air quality impacts incorporated as goals and policies in the General Plan, will be applied to the project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City rules and regulations.
Project Level Environmental Analysis:
The firm of Raney Planning & Management, Inc., a Sacramento area consulting firm with recognized expertise in air quality, prepared an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (AQGHG) report for the project area. The report, dated May 2023, is available for review during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Department, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA and are incorporated into this Negative Declaration by reference. City staff has reviewed the documentation and is also aware that Raney Planning & Management, Inc. has a professional reputation that makes its conclusions presumptively credible and prepared in good faith. Based on its review of the analysis and these other considerations, City staff accepts the conclusions in the Raney Planning & Management, Inc. report, which are summarized below.
The analysis was prepared to estimate the criteria pollutant emissions from project construction and operation, assuming development of 375 multi-family dwelling units, as well as a 15,000 986
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
square foot community clubhouse, and 942 parking spaces, consistent with the existing zoning standards in the Rocklin Municipal Code (RMC).
The report also analyzed the 3.38-acre unincorporated parcel located directly north of the incorporated project area. This portion of the project, which was previously Caltrans right-of- way, is currently going through an annexation process to bring the parcel into the City of Rocklin.
For the purpose of the study, this parcel assumed development of 101 multi-family residential dwelling units on-site, as well as 218 residential parking spaces, consistent with the RMC.
Therefore, the report analyzed a project total of 476 total units.
It should be noted that, subsequent to the preparation of the AQGHG report, the project was updated to include the currently proposed development of 371 multi-family dwelling units, which is a reduction of 109 units from the 476 units that were analyzed in the report, including the unincorporated area. Nonetheless, the assumptions and conclusions included in the report represent a conservative estimate, and actual project emissions for the current project would be lower than what is presented in the report.
The analysis was prepared to estimate the criteria pollutant emissions from project construction and operation. The short-term construction-related and long-term operational emissions of the development of a 476-unit multi-family residential complex project at this project site were estimated using the CalEEMod modeling program. CalEEMod estimates the emissions that result from various land uses, and includes considerations for trip generation rates, vehicle mix, average trip length by trip type, and average speed. Where project-specific data was assumed, that data was input into the CalEEMod model (i.e., construction phases and timing, inherent site or project design features, compliance with applicable regulations, etc.) Construction Emissions
During construction of the project, various types of equipment and vehicles would temporarily operate on the project site. Construction exhaust emissions would be generated from construction equipment, vegetation clearing and earth movement activities, construction workers’ commute, and construction material hauling for the entire construction period. The aforementioned activities would involve the use of diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment that would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants. Project construction activities also represent a source of fugitive dust, which includes particulate matter (PM) emissions. As construction of the proposed project would generate air pollutant emissions intermittently within the site and the vicinity of the site, until all construction has been completed, construction is a potential concern because the proposed project is in a non-attainment area for ozone and PM.
The project is required to comply with all PCAPCD rules and regulations for construction, including, but not limited to, the following, which would be noted with City-approved construction plans:
987
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
Rule 202 related to visible emissions; Rule 217 related to asphalt paving materials; Rule 218 related to architectural coatings; Rule 228 related to fugitive dust, and Regulation 3 related to open burning.
The analysis found that the overall project’s maximum daily emissions from construction operations would be as follows:
MAXIMUM UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (lbs/day)
Reactive Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrous Oxides
(NOx)
Inhalable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Maximum Daily Emissions 26.88 72.01 42.84
Placer County Air Pollution
Control District (PCAPCD)
Significance Thresholds
82 82 82
Exceedance of PCAPCD
Threshold
NO NO NO
As shown, the project’s short-term construction-related emissions are not anticipated to exceed the PCAPCD’s significance thresholds for emissions of ROG, NOx, and PM 10. Therefore, construction activities associated with development of the proposed project would not substantially contribute to the PCAPCD’s nonattainment status for ozone and PM10. Accordingly, construction of the proposed project would not violate any ambient air quality standards (AAQS) or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation or conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions of ROG, NOx and PM 10 would be generated by the project from both mobile and stationary sources. Day-to-day activities such as vehicle trips to and from the project site would make up the majority of the mobile emissions. Emissions would occur from stationary sources such as natural gas combustion from heating mechanisms, landscape maintenance equipment exhaust, and consumer products (e.g., deodorants, cleaning products, spray paint, etc.). The modeling performed for the project takes these factors into consideration.
The project is required to comply with all PCAPCD rules and regulations, such as those listed previously for construction, as well as the following for operations:
Rule 225 related to wood-burning appliances, and Rule 246 related to water heaters. 988
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
The analysis found that the overall project’s maximum operational emissions on a daily basis would be as follows:
MAXIMUM UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day)
Reactive Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrous Oxides
(NOx)
Inhalable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Maximum Daily Emissions 24.33 15.59 17.59
Placer County Air Pollution Control
District (PCAPCD) Significance
Thresholds
55 55 82
Exceedance of PCAPCD Threshold NO NO NO
As shown, the project’s operational emissions of ROG, NOx and PM 10 would be below the applicable PCAPCD thresholds of significance. Accordingly, the project’s operational emissions would not contribute to the PCAPCD’s nonattainment status of ozone and PM, operations of the project would not violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation and operationally-related impacts would be considered less than significant.
Cumulative Air Quality
Due to the dispersive nature and regional sourcing of air pollutants, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants, including ozone and PM, is a result of past and present development, and, thus, cumulative impacts related to these pollutants could be considered cumulatively significant.
The project is part of a pattern of urbanization occurring in the greater Sacramento ozone nonattainment area. The growth and combined vehicle usage, and business activity within the nonattainment area from the project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within Rocklin and surrounding areas, could either delay attainment of the standards or require the adoption of additional controls on existing and future air pollution sources to offset emission increases. Thus, the project could cumulatively contribute to regional air quality health effects through emissions of criteria and mobile source air pollutants.
The PCAPCD recommends using the region’s existing attainment plans as a basis for analysis of cumulative emissions. If a project would interfere with an adopted attainment plan, the project would inhibit the future attainment of AAQS, and thus result in a cumulative impact. As discussed above, the PCAPCD’s recommended thresholds of significance for ozone precursors and PM10 are based on attainment plans for the region. Thus, the PCAPCD concluded that if a project’s ozone precursor and PM10 emissions would be greater than the PCAPCD’s operational-level thresholds, the project could be expected to conflict with relevant attainment plans, and could result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. 989
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
As shown in the Maximum Unmitigated Operational Emissions table above, the proposed project would result in the generation of ROG, NOx and PM 10 emissions that would be below the applicable operational-level thresholds; therefore, impacts related to the cumulative emissions of criteria pollutants for which the PCAPCD area is in non-attainment would be considered less than significant.
The General Plan EIR identified a cumulative contribution to regional air quality impacts as a significant and unavoidable impact, and the City of Rocklin adopted Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations in recognition of this impact. The proposed development of a 371-unit multi-family residential project would not result in a change to this finding because the project does not result in short-term, long-term or cumulative air quality emissions that exceed the PCAPCD’s significance thresholds.
Significance Conclusions:
a. and b. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard – Less Than Significant Impact. The development of a 371-unit multi-family residential complex at this project site would result in construction and operational activities that would generate air quality emissions.
The proposed project area is located within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD). The SVAB is designated nonattainment for the federal particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) and the State particulate matter 10 microns in diameter (PM 10) standards, as well as for both the federal and State ozone standards. The federal Clean Air Act requires areas designated as federal nonattainment to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP contains the strategies and control measures for states to use to attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, rules, and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. In compliance with regulations, the PCAPCD periodically prepares and updates air quality plans that provide emission reduction strategies to achieve attainment of the NAAQS, including control strategies to reduce air pollutant emissions via regulations, incentive programs, public education, and partnerships with other agencies.
The current applicable air quality plan for the proposed project area is the Sacramento Regional 2009 NAAQs 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan(Ozone Attainment Plan), updated July 24, 2017.
The Ozone Attainment Plan demonstrates how existing and new control strategies would provide the necessary future emission reductions to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, including the NAAQS. It should be noted that in addition to strengthening the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 990
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) also strengthened the secondary 8-hour ozone NAAQS, making the secondary standard identical to the primary standard. The SVAB remains classified as a severe nonattainment area with an attainment deadline of 2027. On October 26, 2015 the USEPA released a final implementation rule for the revised NAAQS for ozone to address the requirements for reasonable further progress, modeling and attainment demonstrations, and reasonably available control measures (RACM) and reasonably available control technology (RACT). On April 30, 2018 the USEPA published designations for areas in attainment/unclassifiable for the 2015 ozone standards. The USEPA identified the portions of Placer County within the SVAB as nonattainment for the 2015 ozone standards. Due to the designation of the SVAB as nonattainment for the 2015 standards, the PCAPCD will work with other regional air districts to prepare a new ozone SIP for the revised 2015 standards.
General conformity requirements of the regional air quality plan include whether a project would cause or contribute to new violations of any NAAQS, increase the frequency or severity of an existing violation of any NAAQS, or delay timely attainment of any NAAQS. In order to evaluate ozone and other criteria air pollutant emissions and support attainment goals for those pollutants that the area is designated nonattainment, the PCAPCD has recently proposed updates to the District’s recommended significance thresholds for emissions of PM 10, and ozone precursors – reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NO X). On October 13, 2016 the PCAPCD adopted updated thresholds of significance of the aforementioned pollutants.
PCAPCD THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
POLLUTANT CONSTRUCTION THRESHOLD
(LBS/DAY)
OPERATIONAL THRESHOLD
(LBS/DAY)
ROG 82 55
NOx 82 55
PM10 82 82
Source: PCAPCD, 2017.
The significance thresholds, expressed in pounds per day (lbs/day), listed in the table above are the PCAPCD’s current recommended thresholds of significance for use in the evaluation of air quality impacts associated with proposed development projects. The City of Rocklin, as lead agency, is utilizing the PCAPCD’s recommended thresholds of significance for CEQA evaluation purposes. Thus, if a project’s emissions exceed the PCAPCD’s pollutant thresholds presented above, the project could have a significant effect on air quality, the attainment of federal and State AAQS, and could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Through the combustion of fossil fuels, motor vehicle use produces significant amounts of pollution. In fact, the PCAPCD cites motor vehicles as a primary source of pollution for residential, commercial, and industrial development. Because motor vehicles emit air quality pollutants during their operations, changing the amount of motor vehicle operations in an area would change the amount of air pollutants being emitted in that area. 991
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
As shown in the Construction Emissions and Operational Emissions tables above, the development of a 371-unit multi-family residential project’s construction and operational emissions of ROG, NOx, and PM 10 would be below the applicable PCAPCD thresholds of significance. These thresholds consider strategies for attaining air quality standards. Accordingly, the project’s construction and operational emissions would not contribute to the PCAPCD’s nonattainment status of ozone and PM, operations of the project would not violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation and construction-related and operationally-related impacts would be considered less than significant.
For cumulative emissions, the PCAPCD recommends using the region’s existing attainment plans as a basis for analysis of cumulative emissions and the PCAPCD concluded that if a project’s ozone precursor and PM10 emissions would be greater than the PCAPCD’s operational-level thresholds, the project could be expected to conflict with relevant attainment plans, and could result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. As shown in the Operational Emissions table above, the development of a 371-unit multi-family residential project would result in the generation of ROG, NOx and PM10 emissions that would be below the applicable operational-level thresholds. Thus, the development project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard and the impact would be considered less than significant.
c. Sensitive Receptors – Less than Significant Impact. The development of a 371-unit multi- family residential complex at this project site would result in construction and operational activities that would generate air quality emissions that could potentially impact sensitive receptors.
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others, due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and/or duration of exposure to air pollutants.
Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, childcare centers, playgrounds, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. The development of a 371-unit multi- family residential complex at this project site involves the development of residential uses; thus, the project would introduce sensitive receptors to the area. The nearest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are the multi-family residences directly to the east, as well as the Seavy Center School and the Western Sierra Collegiate Academy located approximately 200 feet and 500 feet north of the project site.
Emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) would result from the incomplete combustion of carbon- containing fuels such as gasoline or wood and are particularly related to traffic levels. Local mobile-source CO emissions near roadways are a direct function of traffic volume, speed and delay. Transport of CO is extremely limited because it disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. However, under specific meteorological 992
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
conditions, CO concentrations near roadways and/or intersections may reach unhealthy levels at nearby sensitive land uses, such as residential units, hospitals, schools, and childcare facilities.
Thus, high local CO concentrations are considered to have a direct influence on the receptors they affect. It should be noted that as older, more polluting vehicles are retired and replaced with newer, cleaner vehicles, the overall rate of emissions of CO for vehicle fleet throughout the State has been, and is expected to continue, decreasing. Therefore, emissions of CO would likely decrease from current levels over the lifetime of the project.
Localized concentrations of CO are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along streets and at intersections. Traffic congestion near a roadway’s intersection with vehicles moving slowly or idling could result in localized CO emissions at that intersection due to a vehicle engine’s inefficient combustion. High levels of localized CO concentrations are only expected where background levels are high. Accordingly, a land use project could result in impacts associated with localized CO concentrations at roadway intersections if the project generates substantial traffic.
Typically, according to the statewide CO Protocol document, signalized intersections operating at Level of Service (LOS) E or F, or projects that would result in the worsening of signalized intersections to LOS E or F, have the potential to result in localized CO concentrations in excess of the State or federal AAQS and potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations.
In accordance with the statewide CO Protocol, the PCAPCD has established screening methodology for localized CO emissions, which are intended to provide a conservative indication of whether project-generated vehicle trips would result in the generation of localized CO emissions that would contribute to an exceedance of AAQS and potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations. Per the PCAPCD’s screening methodology if the project would result in vehicle operations producing more than 550 lbs/day of CO emissions and if either of the following scenarios are true, the project could result in localized CO emissions that would violate CO standards:
Degrade the peak-hour level of service (LOS) on one or more streets at one or more intersections (both signalized and non-signalized) in the project vicinity from an acceptable peak-hour Level of Service (LOS) (e.g., LOS A, B, C, or D) to an unacceptable peak-hour LOS (e.g., LOS E or F); or
Substantially worsen an already existing unacceptable peak-hour LOS on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity. “Substantially worsen” includes an increase in delay at an intersection by 10 seconds or more when project- generated traffic is included (it should be noted that for purposes of CO analysis the threshold of significance is worse than LOS D, however for purposes of traffic analysis the City’s LOS threshold for acceptable operations is LOS C).
According to the air quality modeling performed in Raney’s 2022 report for the development of a 476-unit multi-family residential complex at this project site (the results of which are considered to be conservative because the proposed project is now 371 units), operation of the project on the northern parcel would result in maximum mobile source CO emissions of 25.27 993
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
lbs/day, and operation of the project on the southern parcel would result in maximum mobile source CO emissions of 107.94 lbs/day, for a collective total of 133.21 lbs/day. Consequently, CO emissions related to operation of the project would be far below the 550 lbs/day screening threshold used by PCAPCD. Therefore, according to the PCAPCD’s screening methodology for localized CO emissions, the project would not be expected to generate substantial concentrations of localized CO emissions.
In addition to the CO emissions discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are also a category of environmental concern. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook) provides recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses near sources typically associated with significant levels of TAC emissions, including, but not limited to, freeways and high traffic roads, distribution centers, and rail yards. CARB has identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC. High volume freeways/roadways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel traffic were identified as having the highest associated health risks from DPM.
Health risks from TACs are a function of both the concentration of emissions and the duration of exposure. Health-related risks associated with DPM in particular are primarily associated with long-term exposure and associated risk of contracting cancer.
Due to the nature of the project, relatively few vehicle trips associated with the project would be expected to be composed of heavy-duty diesel-fueled trucks and their associated emissions. The project would not involve any land uses or operations that would be considered major sources of TACs, including DPM, and the project does not involve long-term operation of any stationary diesel engine or other on-site stationary source of TACs. As such, the proposed project would not generate any substantial pollutant concentrations during operations.
Construction-related activities could result in the generation of TACs, specifically DPM, from on- road haul trucks and off-road equipment exhaust emissions. However, construction is temporary and occurs over a relatively short duration in comparison to the operational lifetime of a project.
Only portions of the site would be disturbed at a time throughout the construction period, with operation of construction equipment occurring intermittently throughout the course of a day, rather than continuously at any one location on the project site. Operation of construction equipment within portions of the overall development area would allow for the dispersal of emissions, and would ensure that construction activity is not continuously occurring in the portions of the project site closest to existing sensitive receptors. In addition, all construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the State’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation includes emissions reducing requirements such as limitations on vehicle idling, disclosure, reporting, and labeling requirements for existing vehicles, as well as standards relating to fleet average emissions and the use of Best Available Control Technologies. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable PCAPCD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. In addition, as noted above construction equipment would operate intermittently throughout the course of a day and only portions of the site would be disturbed at a time. Considering the intermittent nature of construction equipment, the duration of 994
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
construction activities, and the typical long-term exposure periods typically associated with health risks, the likelihood that any one sensitive receptor would be exposed to high concentrations of DPM for any extended period of time due to project construction would be low. Therefore, construction of the project would not be expected to expose any nearby sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of DPM or other TACs.
Emissions of TACs related to operational activities are typically associated with stationary diesel engines of land uses that involve heavy truck traffic or idling. The project is not expected to generate heavy truck traffic or involve the use of forklifts or other stationary diesel-fueled equipment. However, any potential future uses would be required to comply with all PCAPCD rules and regulations, including obtaining permits to operate, if any stationary diesel engines are proposed.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed 371-unit multifamily residential project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant.
d. Odors – Less Than Significant Impact. Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantitative methodologies to determine the presence of a significant odor impact do not exist. Certain land uses such as wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting operations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants have the potential to generate considerable odors. The proposed project does not involve such land uses nor is it located near any such land uses. Although less common, emissions of DPM from heavy-duty diesel truck traffic could result in objectionable odors. While the proposed project would increase the total amount of vehicle trips in the area, the increase in area vehicle activity would not necessarily create an increase in heavy-duty diesel truck traffic, because the traffic increase would mostly be a result of increased residential land uses. Residential land uses are not typically associated with heavy-duty diesel truck traffic, and thus the increase in daily trips attributable to residential land uses would mainly involve single passenger vehicles that are not typically considered to be sources of objectionable odors.
Diesel fumes associated with diesel-fueled equipment and heavy-duty trucks, such as from construction activities or operations of emergency generators, could be found to be objectionable. However, as addressed above, construction is temporary and construction equipment would operate intermittently throughout the course of a day and would likely only occur over portions of the project area at a time.
In addition, PCAPCD Rule 205, Nuisance, addresses the exposure of “nuisance or annoyance” air contaminant discharges, including odors, and provides enforcement of odor control. Rule 205 is complaint-based, where if public complaints are sufficient to cause the odor source to be a public nuisance, then the PCAPCD is required to investigate the identified source as well as determine an acceptable solution for the source of the complaint, which could include operational 995
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
modifications to correct the nuisance condition. Thus, although not anticipated, if odor or air quality complaints are made upon the development of the proposed project, the PCAPCD would be required to ensure that such complaints are addressed and mitigated, as necessary.
Because the proposed project does not include the development of odor-generating land uses or development in proximity to odor-generating land uses, because the increase in project area traffic would be largely through increased use of passenger vehicles rather than heavy-duty diesel trucks, and considering the intermittent nature and short-term duration of construction activities, the project would not be anticipated to result in the exposure of residences or other sensitive receptors to objectionable odors or result in other emissions such as those leading to the creation of objectionable odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to objectionable odors.
996
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
IV.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Impact
for which
General
Plan EIR is
Sufficient
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
X
Biological Resources
997
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
DISCUSSION OF DETERMINATION:
Project Impacts:
The development of a 371-unit multi-family residential complex at this project site would modify habitats through the removal of native and other plant materials on the project site and impacts to special status animal and plant species could occur due to their presence or potential presence on the project site. The project does not contain any oak trees, but based upon biological surveys, the project site includes a creek, associated riparian areas, seasonal wetlands and vernal pools.
Prior Environmental Analysis
As a “program EIR” under CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur to the biological resources of the Planning Area as a result of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included special-status species, species of concern, non-listed species, biological communities and migratory wildlife corridors (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011, pages 4.10- 1 through 4.10-47). Mitigation measures to address these impacts are incorporated into the General Plan in the Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, and include policies that encourage the protection and conservation of biological resources and require compliance with rules and regulations protecting biological resources, including the City of Rocklin Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance.
The General Plan EIR concluded that, despite these goals, policies and rules and regulations protecting biological resources, significant biological resources impacts will occur as a result of development under the General Plan and further, that these impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Specifically, the General Plan EIR found that buildout of the Rocklin General Plan will impact sensitive biological communities, will result in the loss of native oak and heritage trees, will result in the loss of oak woodland habitat and will contribute to cumulative impacts to biological resources. Findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations were adopted by the Rocklin City Council in regard to these impacts, which were found to be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:
All applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, including the mitigation measures for biological resources impacts incorporated as goals and policies in the General Plan, will be applied to the project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City rules and regulations.
998
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
Project-Level Environmental Analysis:
The firm of Salix Consulting, Inc., a Sacramento area consulting firm with recognized expertise in biological resources, prepared a Biological Resources Analysis Report for the approximately 16.3- acre total project site, which included both the incorporated and unincorporated portion of the project (proposed project site). The report, dated June 2022 and amended June 2023, is available for review during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Division, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA and is incorporated into this Mitigated Negative Declaration by this reference.
City staff has reviewed the documentation and is also aware that Salix Consulting, Inc. has a professional reputation that makes its conclusions presumptively credible and prepared in good faith. Based on its review of the analysis and these other considerations, City staff accepts the conclusions in the Salix Consulting, Inc. report, which is summarized below.
Project Site Description:
The study area encompasses approximately 16.3 total acres in a roughly square shape. Three biological communities are identified within the study area: annual grassland, riparian and an intermittent stream. Additionally, five concrete building pads were constructed in 2007 and then abandoned. These building pads occupy approximately 2.0 acres. The site also contains numerous other infrastructure features including manhole covers, storm drain inlets, electrical stubs, piping, etc. The site is maintained through frequent mowing and vegetation is kept low and minimal. The property contains an above ground detention basin that is maintained along with the rest of the property. The bottom of the basin is lined with landscape fabric, and it holds occasional water from winter rains. The feature is clearly intended to be a temporary structure but has remained with the abandoned development.
Biological Assessment Overview
As part of the assessment of the project site’s biological resources, queries of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (including the Rocklin USGS quadrangle which includes the project area and the eight other surrounding quadrangles including Roseville, Lincoln, Sheridan, Gold Hill, Folsom, Citrus Heights, Rio Linda and Pleasant Grove), United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) species lists, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soils survey, California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory and other literature reviews were conducted to provide updated information on special-status plant and wildlife species within the project region.
Field assessments of wildlife, habitats, and plants were conducted in whole or in part on June 9 and September 10, 2021, and May 10 and June 21, 2022, by Principal Biologist Jeff Glazner. All areas of the property were walked and evaluated to characterize existing conditions, to assess the potential for sensitive plant and wildlife resources to occur, and to determine if aquatic resources were present onsite. During the field assessment, biological communities were mapped and assessed for the potential to support special-status species. Plants and animals observed were documented, and ground photos were taken. Aerial photography was taken on 999
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
September 10, 2021, to obtain a high resolution ortho mosaic, which is presented in the Salix report.
Biological Communities
Three biological communities were identified on the overall project site: annual grassland, riparian, and intermittent stream. Vegetative cover is generally dominated by 14 +/- acres of annual grassland habitat, followed by 0.1 +/- acre intermittent stream and 0.2 +/- acre of riparian.
As previously stated, the remaining 2 +/- acres is developed building pad area from a previous project.
Special-Status Plant and Animal Species
Special-status plant and animal species are those that have been afforded special recognition by federal, State, or local resources or organizations. Listed and special-status species are of relatively limited distribution and may require specialized habitat conditions.
Plants
Of the eight (8) potentially-occurring plant species listed in the study, seven (7) species were identified as occurring within or near a five-mile radius of the study area and are marked with an asterisk (*) in the lists below. None of these species was determined to have any potential to occur within the study area due to lack of suitable habitats (vernal pools or other wetland habitats). The short reach of an unnamed tributary to Pleasant Grove Creek would not support these species.
Big-scale balsam-root (Balsamorhiza macrolepis)*
Hispid salty bird's-beak (Chloropyron molle hispidum)* Dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla)*
Bogg's Lake hedge-hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala)*
Ahart's dwarf rush (Juncus leiospermus ahartii)
Red Bluff dwarf rush (Juncus leiospermus leiospermus)* Legenere (Legenere limosa)*
Pincushion navarretia (Navarretia myersii myersii)*
In summary, eight (8) special-status plants are known from the region surrounding the study area, and seven (7) of these plants are known from within a five-mile radius. All eight (8) of the species were determined to have no potential for occurring onsite and were eliminated from further consideration. None were observed during the field surveys.
Wildlife
1000
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
Based upon a review of resource databases noted above, there are eighteen potentially occurring special-status animal species on the overall project site. These species are discussed in more detail below:
Of the 18 potentially-occurring animal species listed in the study, 12 species were identified as occurring within or near a 5-mile radius of the study area and are marked with an asterisk (*) in the lists below. Ten (10) species were determined to have no potential to occur within the study area due to lack of suitable habitats or microhabitats, such as vernal pools, wetlands, marshes, fresh-water streams below man-made barriers, and similar aquatic habitats, or due to the absence of host plants or the site being outside the range of the species. These have been dismissed from further consideration and include:
Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)*
Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus)
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus)* Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) (site outside range of species) Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi)*
Steelhead, Central Valley ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus)* California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii)
• Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii)*
Giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas)
The following seven (6) species have no potential to occur because the site lacks suitable nesting or foraging habitat (such as large/old growth trees close to a body of water, secondary cavities near open foraging areas, cliffs, banks, dunes, tall man-made structures, or marshes). Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)*
Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum)*
California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturnculus)* Song Sparrow - Modesto population (Melospiza melodia) White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus)*
Purple martin (Progne subis)*
Although not observed, burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)* has some potential to occur due to open character of the study area and potential for ground nesting. Burrowing owls usually occupy abandoned ground squirrel burrows but in areas with pipes along the ground and other openings for cover are present, they may find suitable non-squirrel occupation sites.
For Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) foraging and nesting, the proximity of the study area to one or more active nest sites determines the potential for development of the site to impact the hawk’s foraging and nesting behavior. In terms of distribution of the hawk, the study area is located at the eastern edge of the hawk’s range which is situated at the transition between the 1001
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
Sacramento Valley and the Sierra Nevada Foothills. The study area does not contain habitat to support Swainson’s hawk nesting. The study area could provide foraging habitat if active nests were found within 10 miles. The nearest reported CNDDB occurrence is a 2009 record at site 1.9 miles to the west along Pleasant Grove Creek in the City of Roseville near William Hughes Park.
Two additional occurrences are reported by the CNDDB along Pleasant Grove Creek 2.65 miles to the west and 3.49 miles to the southwest. Given the location and size of the study area and its proximity to known nest sites, the use of the study area for foraging cannot be discounted.
Additionally, it is necessary to avoid impacts to active nests with 0.25 mile of the study area. If active Swainson’s hawk nests are found within 0.25 mile of the construction area, construction within 0.25 mile of the nest should not commence until a qualified biologist determines that the young have fledged, or it is determined that the nesting attempt has failed.
In summary, 18 special-status animals are known from the region surrounding the study area. Of these species, only the burrowing owl has potential to occupy the site and Swainson’s hawk may forage within the study area if an active nest is detected within 0.25- mile of the study area. The property does not provide suitable habitat for any other the other special status species, except for bird foraging habitat.
Hydrology and Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
An unnamed intermittent stream flows through the study area. This feature carries seasonal flows and warm season urban runoff and is wet for much of the year. Any encroachment below the ordinary high-water mark would require permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Corps may require a Section 7 consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service for potential impacts to salmonids resulting in the issuance of a Biological Opinion by that agency.
Riparian Vegetation
The intermittent stream and associated riparian habitat cross the study area and are regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under the Fish and Game Code.
Crossing the intermittent stream, whether or not impacts occur below the OHWM would require a Lake & Streambed Alteration Agreement (Fish and Game Code Section 1602) from the (CDFW).
Significance Conclusions:
a. Effect on Protected Species – Less Than Significant With Mitigation . The development of a 371-unit multi-family residential complex at this project site would result in the construction and operational activities that would directly result in physical disturbance of the project site and its biological resources.
Special-Status Plants
1002
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
As noted above, while eight (8) special-status plant species were identified as occurring within the region surrounding the site, none of these were determined to have any potential to occur within the study area due to the lack of suitable habitats or soil substrates. No further studies are recommended or required.
Special-Status Wildlife
As noted above, eighteen (18) special-status animal species were identified through the database queries as occurring within the region surrounding the site. Only burrowing owl may occupy the site, and it is possible that Swainson’s hawks could use the site for foraging.
Foraging or Nesting Raptor/Passerine Species
Potential nesting habitat is present for birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act occurs in association with trees and shrubs located in the study area. If tree removal or other ground disturbance takes place during the breeding/nesting season (February 1 through August 31), disturbance of nesting activities could occur. To avoid impacts to nesting birds, disturbance should occur outside of the typical nesting season. If disturbance occurs at any time during the nesting season, a pre-construction survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist within two weeks prior to initiation of proposed development activities. If active nests are found during the pre-construction survey, buffer zones should be established around any identified nests, and the nests should be monitored by a qualified biologist until the offspring have fledged. Consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) may be warranted. If no nesting is found to occur, necessary vegetation removal could then proceed.
To address the project’s potential impacts to foraging or nesting raptor/passerine species, the following mitigation measure, agreed to by the applicant, is being applied to the project:
IV.- 1 The applicant/developer shall attempt to time the removal of potential nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds to avoid the nesting season (February 1 through September 15).
If tree and vegetation removal and/or project grading or construction activities would occur during the nesting season for raptors and migratory birds (February-September 15), the developer and/or contractor shall hire a qualified biologist approved by the City to conduct pre-construction surveys no more than 14 days prior to initiation of tree and vegetation removal activities. The survey shall cover all areas of suitable nesting habitat within 500 feet of project activity and shall be valid for one construction season. Prior to the start of tree and vegetation removal activities, documentation of the survey shall be provided to the City of Rocklin Engineering Department and if the survey results are negative, no further mitigation is required and necessary tree and vegetation removal may proceed. If there is a break in construction activities of more than 14 days, then subsequent surveys shall be conducted.
1003
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
If the survey results are positive (active nests are found), impacts shall be avoided by the establishment of appropriate buffers. The biologist shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the City to determine the size of an appropriate buffer area (CDFW guidelines recommend implementation of 500-foot buffers). Monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist may be required if the activity has the potential to adversely affect an active nest.
If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the non-breeding season (September 16 – January 31), a survey is not required and no further studies are necessary.
This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as notes on the project’s grading and/or Improvement Plans and shall be implemented prior to any grading or ground/vegetation- disturbing activities.
The applicant is agreeable to the above mitigation measure; implementation of the above measure will reduce impacts to foraging or nesting raptor/passerine species to a less than significant level.
Although the project site has been previously graded following the attainment of the necessary regulatory permits to allow for fill and excavation on the project site, and while none were located as part of the biological study, it is possible that Swainson’s hawks could use the site for foraging and there is still the potential for an active Swainson’s hawk nest tree to be located within 0.25 mile feet of the project site. To address the potential impact of the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, the following mitigation measure, agreed to by the applicant, is being applied to the project:
IV.-2 If an active Swainson’s hawk nest tree is located within 0.25 mile of the project site, prior to the start of grading or construction activity, the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat by providing 0.5 acre of replacement Swainson’s hawk habitat land for each acre of land to be developed. The mitigation may be in the form of mitigation bank credits, conservation easements or fee title to an appropriate entity. The location of the habitat area is encouraged, but not required to be within Placer County.
Habitats located within the north half of the Central Valley, from the Stanislaus River to Redding shall be deemed acceptable. The applicant shall verify that this condition has been met to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as notes on the project’s grading and/or Improvement Plans and shall be implemented prior to any grading or ground/vegetation- disturbing activities.
The applicant is agreeable to the above mitigation measure; implementation of the above measure will reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat to a less than significant level. 1004
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
As noted above, burrowing owls were not identified on the property during the site surveys, but there is still the potential for burrowing owls to be present on the project site. Because potential burrowing owl habitat is present onsite, the following mitigation measure, agreed to by the applicant, is being applied to the project:
IV.-3 Prior to any grading activities, the applicant/developer shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct a pre-construction take avoidance survey between 14 and 30 days prior to the commencement of construction, in accordance with the 2012 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 Staff Report) (CDFW 2012). The survey area shall include an approximately 500-foot buffer area around the footprint of work activities, where access is permitted. If the surveys are negative, then and a letter report documenting the results of the survey should be provided to the CDFW, City of Rocklin Environmental Coordinator and the project proponent for their records, and no additional measures are required. If construction does not commence within 14 days of the pre-construction survey, or halts for more than 14 days, a new survey shall be required.
If burrows are observed within 500 feet of the footprint of work activities, an impact assessment shall be prepared and submitted to the CDFW, in accordance with the 2012 Staff Report. If it is determined that project activities may result in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat, the biologist shall consult with CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan such that the habitat acreage, number of burrows, and burrowing owls impacted are replaced. The mitigation plan shall be implemented prior to any grading activities and/or prior to the issuance of Improvement Plans.
This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as notes on the project’s grading and/or Improvement Plans and shall be implemented prior to any grading or ground/vegetation- disturbing activities.
The applicant is agreeable to the above mitigation measure; implementation of the above measure will reduce impacts to burrowing owls to a less than significant level. b. and c. Riparian Habitat and Wetlands – Less Than Significant Impact.
The biological resource analysis survey conducted by Salix Consulting, Inc. indicates that the project site contains wetlands/waters that may be considered jurisdictional by the Army Corps of Engineers, RWQCB or CDFW. An unnamed intermittent stream flows through the study area.
This feature carries seasonal flows and warm season urban runoff and is wet for much of the year. Any encroachment below the ordinary high-water mark would require permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
The Corps may require a Section 7 consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service for potential impacts to salmonids resulting in the issuance of a Biological Opinion by that agency. 1005
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
The project is not anticipated to impact the wetlands/waters that may be considered jurisdictional because it does not include construction activities around or over the creek. As noted previously, access to the project site will be via a bridge over the unnamed tributary to Pleasant Grove Creek. When the project site was previously partially developed as part of a project approved by the City of Rocklin, that project included a bridge over the unnamed tributary to Pleasant Grove Creek. The approved bridge design and plans are now being processed as its own separate project through the City of Rocklin Engineering Division’s Improvement Plan process.
d. Fish and Wildlife Movement – Less than Significant Impact.
Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The fragmentation of undeveloped land by urbanization creates isolated “islands” of wildlife habitat. Fragmentation can also occur when a portion of one or more habitats is converted into another habitat, such as when woodland or scrub habitat is altered or converted into grasslands after a disturbance such as fire, mudslide, or grading activities. Wildlife corridors mitigate the effects of this fragmentation by: (1) allowing animals to move between remaining habitats, thereby permitting depleted populations to be replenished and promoting genetic exchange and diversity; (2) providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk of catastrophic events (such as fire or disease) on population or local species extinction, and (3), serving as a travel routes for individual animals as they move within their home ranges in search of food, water, mates and other needs.
The project site consists of vacant properties (with the exception of the previously constructed building pads and associated infrastructure) and the surrounding lands are designated as Recreation/Conservation and then existing businesses within the Atherton Tech Center Business Park to the north of the project site. The previously approved Lonetree Apartments project and the Atherton Tech Center Business Park are located directly to the northeast and north, respectively, and to the west is State Route 65. To the east of the project site is the James Apartments. Beyond that to the east is another vacant parcel designated for Light Industrial land uses, some office complexes, Kathy Lund Park and the site of the recently approved, but not yet completed, West Oaks Townhomes Subdivision which consists of 16 luxury small lot single family homes. To the south of the project site is vacant property designated as Recreation/Conservation and the Arroyo Vista apartments.
The project site is located within a mostly developed area that includes roads, existing residential, light industrial and office developments. The project site does include a creek and riparian habitat, and a riparian buffer was established along that creek in accordance with City policies.
To the degree that the creek and riparian area currently serve as a wildlife migration corridor, it is expected that the project’s preservation of the creek and riparian area will also preserve the ability for wildlife to use that corridor for movement. Therefore, the multi-family residential development is not anticipated to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites.
1006
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
e. Local Policies/Ordinances – No Impact.
The City of Rocklin General Plan policies OCR-42 and OCR-43 require all projects to mitigate for the loss of oak trees and the impacts to oak woodland that result from development. To comply with these policies, the City of Rocklin relies on the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance and the Oak Tree Preservation Guidelines to determine project impacts and appropriate mitigation for the removal of and construction within the dripline of native oak trees with a trunk diameter of 6 inches or more at 4.5 feet above ground level. Seven oak species and five hybrids between these species are defined as “native oaks” by the City. Per the City’s oak tree ordinance, the diameter at breast height (DBH) of a multiple trunk tree is the measurement of the largest trunk only, and heritage trees are defined as native oak trees with a trunk diameter of 24 inches or more.
The City of Rocklin commissioned the firm of Phytosphere Research to evaluate, characterize, and make recommendations on the City’s urban forest, and from that effort, a 2006 report titled “Planning for the Future of Rocklin’s Urban Forest” was produced. One of the findings of this report was that the City’s overall tree canopy cover has increased from 11% in 1952 to 18% in 2003 (a 63% increase) due to the protection of existing oaks and growth of both new and existing trees. This finding supports the City’s on-going practice of requiring mitigation for oak tree removal through its Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance as being an effective way to maintain or even increase urban forest canopy.
Although an arborist report was not submitted in association with the proposed project, based upon reviews of aerial photos and site visits, there are no native oak trees within the boundaries of the project site that would be regulated by the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance.
There are no facts or circumstances presented by the proposed project which create conflicts with other local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. f. Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan – No Impact.
The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Plan because the site is not subject to any such plan; therefore, there is no impact related to a conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan. 1007
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
V.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Impact
for which
General
Plan EIR is
Sufficient
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
X
Cultural Resources
DISCUSSION OF DETERMINATION:
Project Impacts:
The development of a 371-unit multi-family residential complex at this project site would result in ground disturbance which could potentially impact known or unknown/undiscovered historical, archaeological, sites and/or human remains as development occurs.
Prior Environmental Analysis:
As a “program EIR” under CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur to historical and cultural resources (including human remains) within the Planning area as a result of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included potential destruction or damage to any historical and cultural resources (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011, pages
4.8-1 through 4.8-21). Mitigation measures to address these impacts are incorporated into the General Plan in the Land Use and Open Space, Recreation and Conservation Elements, and include goals and policies that encourage the preservation and protection of historical and cultural resources and the proper treatment and handling of such resources when they are discovered.
The General Plan EIR concluded that despite these goals and policies, significant cultural resources impacts will occur as a result of development under the General Plan and further, that these impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Specifically, the General Plan EIR found that buildout of the Rocklin General Plan will contribute to cumulative impacts to historic character. Findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations were adopted by the Rocklin City Council in regard to these impacts, which were found to be significant and unavoidable.
1008
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:
Historically significant structures and sites as well as the potential for the discovery of unknown archaeological or cultural resources as a result of development activities are discussed in the Rocklin General Plan. Policies and mitigation measures have been included in the General Plan to encourage the preservation of historically significant known and unknown areas.
All applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, including the mitigation measures for cultural resources impacts incorporated as goals and policies in the General Plan, will be applied to the project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City rules and regulations.
Project-Level Environmental Analysis:
The firm of Peak & Associates, Inc., a Sacramento area consulting firm with recognized expertise in cultural resources, prepared a cultural resource report for the West Oaks Apartments project area. The report, dated May 4, 2023, is not available for public review due to the need to protect the confidentiality of Native American cultural place information in compliance with federal and State rules and regulations. The report’s basic findings are incorporated into this Mitigated Negative Declaration by this reference. City staff has reviewed the documentation and is also aware that Peak & Associates, Inc. has a professional reputation that makes their conclusions presumptively credible and prepared in good faith. Based on its review of the analysis and these other considerations, City staff accepts the conclusions in the Peak & Associates, Inc. report, which is summarized below.
In summary, the Peak & Associates, Inc. report included records searches of the North Central Information Center (NCIC), archival research, field parcel surveys and limited excavation efforts performed by a qualified archaeologist, a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a search of the Sacred Lands File Inventory, and notification of Native American contacts recommended by the NAHC. The records searches revealed that the project area contains one prehistoric period site, and three prehistoric period and one historic period resource are recorded within a one-quarter mile radius. The prehistoric period site on the project area was subjected to a shovel test excavation in 1992 and it was concluded that the site is not an important archaeological resource and requires no further consideration in the planning process.
During the most recent archaeological survey, the site appears to be lost in grading activities or buried in fill and no evidence of prehistoric or historic period cultural resources were observed.
However, the project site may contain unknown cultural resources that could potentially be discovered during construction activities.
Significance Conclusions:
1009
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
a. Historic Resources – Less Than Significant Impact. CEQA Statutes Section 21084.1 identifies historic resources as those listed in or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, based on a range of criteria, including association with events or patterns of events that have made significant contributions to broad patterns of historical development in the United States or California, including local, regional, or specific cultural patterns (California Register Criterion 1), structures which are directly associated with important persons in the history of the state or country (Criterion 2), which embody the distinctive characteristics of type, period, or other aesthetic importance (Criterion 3), or which have the potential to reveal important information about the prehistory or history of the state or the nation (such as archaeological sites) (Criterion 4).
In addition to meeting at least one of the above criteria, the structure must typically be over 50 years old (a state guideline rather than a statutory requirement) and have retained historic integrity sufficient to be clearly evident as a historic resource through a combination of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association with historic patterns. The definition of “integrity” in this context is based on criteria established by the National Register of Historic Places.
The project site is not known to contain any historic resources as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines (the project archaeologist concluded that there are no identified cultural resources on the project site that are considered eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places/Resources); therefore, no impacts to historic resources are anticipated. b. Archaeological Resources – Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. While no archaeological resources were found during the Peak & Associates, Inc. study, as noted above, the project site may contain unknown/undiscovered cultural resources.
To address the project’s potential impact of the discovery of unknown cultural resources, the following mitigation measure, agreed to by the applicant, is being applied to the project:
V.-1 If an inadvertent discovery of cultural materials (e.g., unusual amounts of shell, charcoal, animal bone, bottle glass, ceramics, burned soil, structure/building remains) or tribal cultural resources is made during project-related construction activities, ground disturbances in the area of the find shall be halted and a qualified professional archaeologist, the Environmental Coordinator and the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified regarding the discovery. The archaeologist shall determine whether the resource is potentially significant as per CEQA (i.e., whether it is a historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, a unique paleontological resource, or a tribal cultural resource) and shall develop specific measures to ensure preservation of the resource or to mitigate impacts to the resource if it cannot feasibly be preserved in light of costs, logistics, technological considerations, the location of the find, and the extent to which avoidance and/or preservation of the find is consistent or inconsistent with the design and objectives of the project. Specific measures for significant or potentially significant resources would include, but are not necessarily limited to, preservation in 1010
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
place, in-field documentation, archival research, subsurface testing, and excavation. The specific type of measure necessary would be determined according to evidence indicating degrees of resource integrity, spatial and temporal extent, and cultural associations, and would be developed in a manner consistent with CEQA guidelines for preserving or otherwise mitigating impacts to archaeological and cultural artifacts and tribal cultural resources.
In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains, until compliance with the provisions of Sections 15064.5 (e) (1) and (2) of the CEQA Guidelines, as well as Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, has occurred. If any human remains are discovered, all work shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and the County Coroner shall be notified, according to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The City’s Environmental Coordinator shall also be notified. If the remains are Native American, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which in turn will inform a most likely descendant. The descendant will then recommend to the landowner appropriate disposition of the remains and any grave goods, and the landowner shall comply with the requirements of AB2641 (2006).
This mitigation measure shall be incorporated as notes on the project’s grading and/or Improvement Plans and shall be implemented prior to any grading or ground/vegetation- disturbing activities.
The applicant is agreeable to the above mitigation measure; implementation of the above measure will reduce impacts to known and unknown/ undiscovered cultural resources to a less than significant level.
c. Human Remains – Less Than Significant Impact. No evidence of human remains is known to exist at the project site. However, in the event that during construction activities, human remains of Native American origin are discovered on the site during project demolition, it would be necessary to comply with state laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (Public Resources Code Section 5097). In addition, State law (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and the Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5) requires that the Mitigation Measure V.-1 be implemented should human remains be discovered; implementation of Mitigation Measure V.-1 will reduce impacts regarding the discovery of human remains to a less than significant level. 1011
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Impact
for which
General
Plan EIR is
Sufficient
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
X
DISCUSSION OF DETERMINATION:
Project Impacts:
The development of a 371-unit multi-family residential complex at this project site would result in construction and operational activities which would be anticipated to use energy resources, but it is anticipated such use would not be in a wasteful or inefficient manner, nor would such use conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Prior Environmental Analysis:
As a “program EIR” under CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur related to the cumulative demand for electrical and natural gas services as a result of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included an increased demand for electrical and natural gas services, energy consumption impacts, and a cumulative increase in demand for electrical and natural gas services and associated infrastructure and increased infrastructure expansions to serve future development (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011, pages 4.13-1 through 4.13-34, pages 4.13-23 through 4.13-32 and pages 5.0-47 through 5.0-48). Mitigation measures to address these impacts are incorporated into the General Plan in the Public Services and Facilities and Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Elements, and include goals and policies that encourage coordination with utility service providers and energy and resource conservation. The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in energy consumption impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24), through the application of development standards contained in the City’s Improvement Standards and Standard Specifications and in the Rocklin Municipal Code, through the application of General Plan goals and policies that would reduce energy consumption, and through compliance with local, state and federal standards related to energy consumption.
Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:
1012
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
The consumption of energy as a result of development activities is discussed in the Rocklin General Plan. Policies and mitigation measures have been included in the General Plan that encourage coordination with utility service providers and the conservation of energy and resources.
All applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, including the mitigation measures for greenhouse gas emissions impacts incorporated as goals and policies in the General Plan, will be applied to the project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City rules and regulations.
Significance Conclusions:
a. Wasteful, Inefficient or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy Resources – Less Than Significant Impact. The development of a multi-family residential project at this project site would result in construction and operational activities which would be anticipated to use energy resources. The project would use energy resources for the operation (i.e., electricity and natural gas), for on-road vehicle trips (i.e., gasoline, diesel fuel and electricity) generated by the project, and from off-road vehicles generated by and associated with the construction of the project.
The Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) provides both electrical and natural gas service within the City of Rocklin. According to PG&E, in 2015 Placer County used a total of 2,902 million kWh of electricity. The project would increase electricity use in the county by a minimal amount.
PG&E’s electrical service area extends far beyond Placer County, and draws on a variety of sources for electricity, including hydroelectric, natural gas, nuclear and renewable resources.
According to PG&E, in 2015 Placer County used approximately 78.8 million therms of natural gas.
Similar to electricity, the project’s natural gas use would represent a minimal increase of natural gas usage within the county, and a smaller portion of PG&E’s total natural gas service. PG&E would be able to absorb the additional demand for electricity and natural gas that would result from the project because it would represent a very minimal increase compared to PG&E’s current demand and supply, and because PG&E plans for additional development within its service area, including the City of Rocklin.
Project construction and operation would comply with CalGreen energy efficiency requirements, which would ensure that electricity use associated with the operation of the project would not be wasteful or inefficient.
Once constructed, the project would also increase the annual use of transportation fuel. The project is located in proximity to commercial services, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, which could reduce vehicle use and the associated fuel consumption. The project does not include any elements that would result in an unusually high use of transportation fuel as compared to other, similar, development.
1013
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
The project would be in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. In addition, energy providers are actively implementing measures to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and to improve energy efficiency. For example, PG&E is responsible for the mix of energy resources used to provide electricity for its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the Statewide Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g. solar and wind) within its energy portfolio. Based on this requirement, PG&E is expected to procure at least 50% of its electricity resources from renewable energy resources by 2030. In 2016, renewable resources provided 33% of PG&E’s electricity supply. Other Statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g. the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), would improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.
For the above reasons, the project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy use inefficiencies, and/or the energy intensiveness of materials by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operations, maintenance, and/or removal. PG&E, the electricity and natural gas provider to the site, maintains sufficient capacity to serve the project. The project would comply with all existing energy standards, including those established by the City of Rocklin, and would not result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. Although improvements to City’s pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit systems would provide further opportunities for alternative transit, the project would be linked closely with existing networks that, in large part, are sufficient for most residents or employees of the project and the City of Rocklin as a whole. For these reasons, and others (as described previously), the project would be expected to result in a less than significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation.
b. Conflict or Obstruct with State or Local Plan – Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not part of a state or local plan for renewable energy and the project itself does not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for energy efficiency. As noted above, the project would be required to comply with CalGreen energy efficiency requirements. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact with regard to conflicting with or obstructing a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
1014
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
VII.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Impact
for which
General
Plan EIR is
Sufficient
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone Map issued by the state
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially
result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table l8-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(l994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
X
Geology and Soils
1015
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
DISCUSSION OF DETERMINATION:
Project Impacts:
Branches of the Foothill Fault system, which are not included on the Alquist-Priolo maps, pass through or near the City of Rocklin and could pose a seismic hazard to the area including ground shaking, seismic ground failure, and landslides. Construction of the proposed project will involve clearing and grading of the site, which could render the site susceptible to a temporary increase in erosion from the grading and construction activities.
Prior Environmental Analysis:
As a “program EIR” under CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts of local soils and geology on development that would occur as a result of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included seismic hazards such as groundshaking and liquefaction, erosion, soil stability, and wastewater conflicts (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011 pages 4.6-1 through 4.6-27). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in geological impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of development standards contained in the City’s Improvement Standards and Standard Specifications and in the Rocklin Municipal Code, the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding geologic hazards and compliance with local, state and federal standards related to geologic conditions.
These goals, policies and standards include, but are not limited to, erosion control measures in the City’s Improvement Standards and Standard Specifications, the City’s Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, the City’s Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance, and goals and policies in the General Plan Community Safety Element requiring soils and geotechnical reports for all new development, enforcement of the building code, and limiting development of severe slopes.
Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:
All applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, including the mitigation measures for geology and soils impacts incorporated as goals and policies in the Rocklin General Plan will be applied to the project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City ordinances, rules and regulations.
In addition, the project would be subject to the provisions of the City’s Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. Chapter 15.28 of the Rocklin Municipal Code, Grading and Erosion Sediment Control, regulates grading activity on all property within the City of Rocklin to safeguard life, limb, health, property, and public welfare; to avoid pollution of watercourses with nutrients, sediments, or other earthen materials generated or caused by surface runoff on or across the 1016
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
permit area; to comply with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board; and to ensure that the intended use of a graded site is consistent with the City of Rocklin General Plan, provisions of the California Building Standards Code as adopted by the City relating to grading activities, City of Rocklin improvement standards, and any applicable specific plans or other land use entitlements. This chapter (15.28) also establishes rules and regulations to control grading and erosion control activities, including fills and embankments; establishes the administrative procedure for issuance of permits; and provides for approval of plans and inspection of grading construction and erosion control plans for all graded sites.
Also, a geotechnical report, prepared by a qualified engineer, will be required with the submittal of project improvement plans. The report will provide site-specific recommendations for the construction of all features of the building foundations and structures to ensure that their design is compatible with the soils and geology of the project site.
Significance Conclusions:
a., i. and ii. Fault Rupture, Ground Shaking – Less than Significant Impact. The City of Rocklin is located in an area known to be subject to seismic hazards, but it is not near any designated Alquist-Priolo active earthquake faults. The Foothill Fault System has been identified in previous environmental studies as potentially posing a seismic hazard to the area; however, the Foothill Fault system is located near Folsom Lake, and not within the boundaries of the City of Rocklin.
There are, however, two known and five inferred inactive faults within the City of Rocklin. Existing building code requirements are considered adequate to reduce potential seismic hazards related to the construction and operation of the multi-family development project to a less than significant level.
a., iii. and iv. Liquefaction, Landslides – Less than Significant Impact. The site does not contain significant grade differences and therefore, does not possess the slope/geological conditions that involve landslide hazards. The potential for liquefaction due to earthquakes and groundshaking is considered minimal due to the site-specific characteristics that exist in Rocklin; Rocklin is located over a stable granite bedrock formation and much of the area is covered by volcanic mud (not unconsolidated soils which have liquefaction tendencies). Application of development standards contained in the City’s Improvement Standards and Standard Specifications and in the Rocklin Municipal Code, the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding geologic hazards, and compliance with local, state and federal standards related to geologic conditions would reduce the potential impact from liquefaction and landslides for a multi-family development project to a less than significant level. b. Soil Erosion – Less Than Significant Impact. Standard erosion control measures are required of all projects, including revegetation and slope standards. The project proponent will be required to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan through the application of the City’s Improvement Standards and Standard Specifications as a part of the City’s development review process. The erosion and sediment control plan are reviewed against the Placer County 1017
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
Stormwater Management Manual and the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual. The erosion and sediment control plan includes the implementation of Best Management Practices/Best Available Technology (BMPs/BATs) to control construction site runoff. The project will also be required to comply with the City’s Grading and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance (Rocklin Municipal Code, Chapter
15.28), and the Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance (Rocklin Municipal Code, Chapter
8.30). The application of standard erosion control measures to the proposed multi-family development project, as well as compliance with the above noted Ordinances, would reduce potential erosion-related impacts to a less than significant level for on-site grading. c. and d. Unstable and Expansive Soil – Less Than Significant Impact. A geotechnical report, prepared by a qualified engineer, will be required with the submittal of the project improvement plans. The report will be required to provide site-specific recommendations for the construction of all features of the building foundations and structures to ensure that their design is compatible with the soils and geology of the project site. Through the preparation of such a report and implementation of its recommendations as required by City policy during the development review process, impacts associated with unstable soil or geologic conditions for the proposed multi-family development project would be reduced to a less than significant level. e. Inadequate Soils for Disposal - No Impact. Sewer service is available to the project site and the multi-family development project will be served by public sewer. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be necessary; therefore, there are no impacts associated with the disposal of wastewater.
f. Paleontological Resource and Unique Geological Feature – Less Than Significant Impact. The project site and project area are not known or considered likely to contain a unique paleontological resource or a unique geological feature; therefore, direct or indirect impacts from the project to these resources would be less than significant. 1018
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
VIII.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Impact for
which
General Plan
EIR is
Sufficient
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
X
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
DISCUSSION OF DETERMINATION:
Project Impacts:
An individual project, even a very large project, does not in itself generate enough greenhouse gas emissions to measurably influence global climate change. Global climate change is therefore by definition a cumulative impact. A project contributes to this potential cumulative impact through its cumulative incremental contribution combined with the emissions of all other sources of greenhouse gases (GHG).
Area- and mobile-source emissions of greenhouse gases would be generated by the construction and operation of the proposed project. Individual projects can contribute to greenhouse gas emission reductions by incorporating features that reduce vehicle emissions and maximize energy-efficiency.
Prior Environmental Analysis:
As a “program EIR” under CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur related to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included consistency with greenhouse gas reduction measure, climate change environmental effects on the City and generation of greenhouse gas emissions (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011, pages 4.15-1 through 4.15-25). Mitigation measures to address these impacts are incorporated into the General Plan in the Land Use and Circulation Elements, and include goals and policies that encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation and promote mixed use and infill development.
The General Plan EIR concluded that despite these goals and policies, significant greenhouse gas emission impacts will occur as a result of development under the General Plan and further, that 1019
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
these impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Specifically, the General Plan EIR found that buildout of the Rocklin General Plan will result in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions which are cumulatively considerable. Findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations were adopted by the Rocklin City Council in regard to this impact, which was found to be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:
Generation of greenhouse gas emissions as a result of development activities are discussed in the Rocklin General Plan. Policies and mitigation measures have been included in the General Plan that encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation and promote mixed use and infill development.
All applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, including the mitigation measures for greenhouse gas emissions impacts incorporated as goals and policies in the General Plan, will be applied to the project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City rules and regulations.
Project Level Environmental Analysis:
An Air Quality/GHG report was prepared by Raney Planning & Management for the project. The report, dated May 2023, is available for review during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Department, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA and are incorporated into this Negative Declaration by reference. City staff has reviewed the documentation and is also aware that Raney Planning & Management, Inc. has a professional reputation that makes its conclusions presumptively credible and prepared in good faith. Based on its review of the analysis and these other considerations, City staff accepts the conclusions in the Raney Planning & Management, Inc. report, which are summarized below.
The analysis was prepared to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions from project construction and operation. As discussed in the Air Quality section above, the report assumed development of 375 multi-family dwelling units, as well as a 15,000 square foot community clubhouse, and 942 parking spaces, consistent with the existing zoning standards in the Rocklin Municipal Code (RMC). The report also analyzed the 3.38-acre unincorporated parcel located directly north of the incorporated project area. This portion of the project, which was previously Caltrans right- of-way, is currently going through an annexation process to being the parcel into the City of Rocklin. For the purpose of the study, this parcel assumed development of 101 multi-family residential dwelling units on-site, as well as 218 residential parking spaces, consistent with the RMC. Therefore, the report analyzed a project total of 476 total units.
As previously described, subsequent to the preparation of the AQGHG report, the project site project was updated to include the currently proposed development of 371 multi-family dwelling units, which is a reduction of 109 units from the 476 units that were analyzed in the report, 1020
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
including the unincorporated area. Nonetheless, the assumptions and conclusions included in the report represent a conservative estimate, and actual project emissions for the current project would be lower than what is presented in the report.
The analysis was prepared to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions from project construction and operation. The short-term construction-related and long-term operational emissions of the development of a 476-unit multi-family residential apartment complex at this project site were estimated using the CalEEMod modeling program. CalEEMod estimates the emissions that result from various land uses, and includes considerations for trip generation rates, vehicle mix, average trip length by trip type, and average speed. Where project-specific data was assumed, that data was input into the CalEEMod model (i.e., construction phases and timing, inherent site or project design features, compliance with applicable regulations, etc.).
Greenhouse Gas Setting
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, similar to a greenhouse. The accumulation of GHG emissions has been implicated as a driving force for Global Climate change. Definitions of climate change vary between and across regulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be described as the changing of the earth’s climate caused by natural fluctuations and the impact of human activities that alter the composition of the global atmosphere.
Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emission of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, city and virtually every individual on Earth. A project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale relative to global emissions, but could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact. As such, impacts related to emissions of GHG are inherently considered cumulative impacts.
The major concern is that increases in GHG emissions are causing Global Climate Change. Global Climate Change is a change in the average weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the speed of global warming and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, the vast majority of the scientific community now agrees that there is a direct link between increased GHG emissions and long-term global temperature increases. Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, more drought years, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity. In California, GHGs are defined to include carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH 4), nitrous oxide (N 2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), nitrogen trifluoride (NF 3), and hydrofluorocarbons. 1021
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
To account for the warming potential of GHGs, GHG emissions are quantified and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e).
An individual project, even a very large project, does not in itself generate enough greenhouse gas emissions to measurably influence global climate change. Global climate change is therefore by definition a cumulative impact. A project contributes to this potential cumulative impact through its cumulative incremental contribution combined with the emissions of all other sources of greenhouse gases (GHG). In assessing cumulative impacts, it must be determined if a project’s incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable” (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 (h)(1) and 15130). To make this determination, the incremental impacts of the project must be compared to with the effects of past, current and probable future projects. To gather sufficient information on a global scale of all past, current, and probable future projects to make this determination is a difficult, if not impossible, task.
Implementation of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to increases of GHG emissions. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of carbon dioxide (CO 2) and, to a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N 2O) associated with area sources, mobile sources or vehicles, utilities (electricity and natural gas), water usage, wastewater generation, and the generation of solid waste. The primary source of GHG emissions for the project would be mobile source emissions. The common unit of measurement for GHG is expressed in terms of annual metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MTCO2e/yr).
Regulatory Framework
In recognition of the global scale of climate change, California has enacted several pieces of legislation in attempt to curb GHG emissions. Specifically, Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and more recently, Senate Bill (SB) 32, have established statewide GHG emissions reduction targets.
Accordingly, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has prepared the Climate Change Scoping Plan for California (Scoping Plan), approved in 2008 and updated in 2014 and 2017, which provides the outline for actions to reduce California’s GHG emissions and achieve the emissions reductions targets required by AB 32 and SB 32. In concert with statewide efforts to reduce GHG emissions, air districts, counties, and local jurisdictions throughout the State have implemented their own policies and plans to achieve emissions reductions in line with the Scoping Plan and emissions reduction targets, including AB 32 and SB 32.
On October 13, 2016 the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) adopted GHG emissions thresholds to help the district attain the GHG reduction goals established by AB 32 and SB 32. The updated thresholds specify a bright-line threshold for GHG emissions during construction activity of 10,000 MTCO 2e/yr. For operational emissions, the updated thresholds begin with a screening emission level of 1,100 MT CO 2e/yr. Any project below the 1,100 MT CO2e/yr threshold is judged by the PCAPCD as having a less than significant impact on GHG emissions within the District and thus would not conflict with any state or regional GHG emissions reduction goals. Projects that would result in emissions above the 1,100 MT CO 2e/yr threshold 1022
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
would not necessarily result in substantial impacts, if certain efficiency thresholds are met. The efficiency thresholds, which are based on service populations and square footage, are presented in the PCAPCD GHG Operational Thresholds of Significance table below.
PCAPCD GHG OPERATIONAL THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Efficiency Thresholds
Residential (MT CO2e/capita) Non-Residential (MT CO2e/1,000 sf) Urban Rural Urban Rural
4.5 5.5 26.5 27.3
Source: Placer County Air Pollution Control District, Placer County Air Pollution Control District Policy Review of Land Use Projects Under CEQA, October 13, 2016.
The PCAPCD further advises that regardless of emissions efficiency, should a project result in operational emissions in excess of 10,000 MTCO2e/yr, the project would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change.
Projects that fall below the 1,100 MT CO 2e/yr threshold or meet the efficiency thresholds are considered to be in keeping with statewide GHG emissions reduction targets, which would ensure that the proposed project would not inhibit the State’s achievement of GHG emissions reductions. Thus, projects which involve emissions below the 1,100 MT CO 2e/yr threshold or below the efficiency thresholds presented in the PCAPCD GHG Operational Thresholds of Significance table above are considered to result in less-than-significant impacts in regards GHG emissions within the District and would not conflict with any state or regional GHG emissions reduction goals. Finally, the PCAPCD has also established a Bright Line Cap, which shall be the maximum limit for any proposed project. The Bright Line Cap is 10,000 MT CO 2e/yr for all types of projects.
Significance Conclusions:
a. and b.) Generate Greenhouse Gas and Conflict with Greenhouse Gas Plan – Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to increases of GHG emissions. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and, to a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH 4) and nitrous oxide (N 2O) associated with mobile sources or vehicles, utilities (electricity and natural gas), water usage, wastewater generation, and the generation of solid waste. Because the proposed project involves increased vehicle use in the area, the GHG emissions related to increased vehicle use in the area must be analyzed. The common unit of measurement for GHG is expressed in terms of annual metric tons of CO 2 equivalents (MT CO2e), based on the global warming potential of the individual pollutants.
Similar to criteria air pollutants, the PCAPCD has identified the approximate size of a project for selected land use categories that would result in operational GHG emissions equal to the bright- line threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/yr and the screening level threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e/yr based 1023
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
on CalEEMod modeling. Thus, if a project is equal to or less than the size identified by the PCAPCD, the project would not be expected to result in emissions of GHG in excess of the applicable thresholds of significance.
Short-term emissions of GHG associated with construction of the project are estimated at the highest to be 1,315 MTCO2e/year, which is below the PCAPCD’s Bright Line Threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year threshold. Construction GHG emissions are a one-time release and are, therefore, not typically expected to generate a significant contribution to global climate change. Due to the size of the proposed project, the project’s estimated construction-related GHG contribution to global climate change would be considered negligible on the overall global emissions scale.
The long-term operational GHG emissions estimate for the development project incorporates the project’s potential area source and vehicle emissions, emissions associated with utility and water usage, and the generation of wastewater and solid waste. The annual GHG emissions associated with the project would be 3,443 MTCO 2e/year, which would be in excess of the 1,100 MTCO 2e significance threshold. However, the project’s operational GHG emissions would be below the PCACPD’s Bright Line Threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/yr.
The PCAPCD efficiency thresholds are broken down into residential or non-residential project types, and further broken down into urban or rural settings. Accordingly, the proposed project’s operational GHG emissions per capita are compared to the efficiency threshold for an urban residential project type of 4.5 MTCO 2e/yr/capita. Based on an estimated population for the project (Northern Parcel: 103 units x 2.6 persons per household = 267 residents, 655.23 MTCO2e/yr / 267 residents = 2.45 MTCO 2e/yr/capita; Southern Parcel: 268 units x 2.6 persons per household = 696 residents, 2788.06 MTCO 2e/yr / 696 residents = 4.00 MTCO 2e/yr/capita), the operational GHG emissions per capita are estimated to be 2.45 MTCO2e/yr/capita for the northern parcel, and 4.00 MTCO2e/yr/capita for the southern parcel which are below the applicable efficiency threshold of 4.5 MTCO2e/yr/capita. Collectively, the northern and southern parcel would generate 3443.29 MTCO 2e/yr / 963 residents = 3.57 MTCO2e/yr/capita, which is also below the applicable efficiency threshold of 4.5 MTCO2e/yr/capita.
Because the levels of construction emissions are below the 10,000 MTCO 2e/year significance threshold and the project’s operational GHG emissions per capita is estimated to be below the urban residential efficiency threshold of 4.5 MTCO2e/yr/capita, the project would not hinder the State’s ability to reach the GHG reduction target nor conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs and the impact of the project on global climate change would not be cumulatively considerable and therefore would be considered less than significant.
1024
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
X.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Impact
for which
General
Plan EIR is
Sufficient
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment.
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
DISCUSSION OF DETERMINATION:
Project Impacts:
The development and operation of a 371-unit multi-family residential complex at this project site would result in construction and operational activities which will include associated potential hazards and hazardous materials.
1025
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
As discussed below, compliance with the mitigation measures incorporated into the General Plan goals and policies and applicable City Code and compliance with applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations would reduce impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level.
Prior Environmental Analysis:
As a “program EIR” under CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated human health and hazards impacts that would occur as a result of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included wildland fire hazards, transportation, use and disposal of hazardous materials, and emergency response and evacuation plans (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011 pages 4.7-1 through 4.7- 30). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the Rocklin General Plan can introduce a variety of human health and hazards impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of development standards in the Rocklin Municipal Code, the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding hazardous conditions, and compliance with local, state and federal standards related to hazards and hazardous materials.
These goals, policies and standards include, but are not limited to, Chapter 2.32 of the Rocklin Municipal Code which requires the preparation and maintenance of an emergency operations plan, preventative measures in the City’s Improvement Standards and Standard Specifications, compliance with local, state and federal standards related to hazards and hazardous materials and goals and policies in the General Plan Community Safety and Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Elements requiring coordination with emergency management agencies, annexation into fee districts for fire prevention/suppression and medical response, incorporation of fuel modification/fire hazard reduction planning, and requirements for site-specific hazard investigations and risk analysis.
Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:
All applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, including the mitigation measures for human health and hazards impacts incorporated as goals and policies in the General Plan and the City’s Improvement Standards, will be applied to the project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with the Rocklin Municipal Code and other City rules and regulations.
In addition, Chapter 2.32 of the Rocklin Municipal Code requires the development of emergency procedures in the City through the Emergency Operations Plan. The Emergency Operations Plan provides a framework to guide the City’s efforts to mitigate and prepare for, respond to, and recover from major emergencies or disasters. To implement the Emergency Operations Plan, the City has established a Disaster Council, which is responsible for reviewing and recommending emergency operations plans for adoption by the City Council. The Disaster Council plans for the 1026
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
protection of persons and property in the event of fires, floods, storms, epidemic, riot, earthquake and other disasters.
Significance Conclusion:
a. and b. Transport, Use or Disposal of Hazardous Materials, Release of Hazardous Materials – Less than Significant Impact. Construction, operation and maintenance activities would use hazardous materials, including fuels (gasoline and diesel), oils and lubricants; paints and paint thinners; glues; cleaners (which could include solvents and corrosives in addition to soaps and detergents), and fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and yard/landscaping equipment. While these products noted above may contain known hazardous materials, the volume of material would not create a significant hazard to the public through routine transport, use, or disposal and would not result in a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition involving the release of hazardous materials. Compliance with various Federal, State, and local laws and regulations (including but not limited to Titles 8 and 22 of the Code of California Regulations, Uniform Fire Code, and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code) addressing hazardous materials management and environmental protection would be required to ensure that there is not a significant hazardous materials impact associated with the construction, operation and maintenance of the project.
c. Hazardous Emissions Near Schools – Less Than Significant Impact. There are two existing schools within one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) of the project site, namely the Seavy Center School and the Western Sierra Collegiate Academy. Although residential projects of this nature would not typically emit any significant amounts of hazardous materials, substances, or waste or be involved in the transportation of hazardous materials, substances, or waste, there are existing rules and regulations, as indicated above, that address hazardous materials management and environmental protection. Therefore, there is no impact related to hazardous emissions or hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school. d. Hazardous Site List – Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Government Code 65962.5 is known as the Cortese List. The Cortese database identifies public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program, sites with Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) having a reportable release and all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is known migration. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database and State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database were searched on September 25, 2023 and no open hazardous sites were identified on the project site; therefore, there is no impact related to a hazardous materials site on the project site.
e. Public Airport Hazards – No Impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport; therefore, there is no public or private airport hazard impact.
1027
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
f. Emergency Response Plan – Less than Significant Impact. The City’s existing street system, particularly arterial and collector streets, function as emergency evacuation routes. The project’s layout and design would not impair or physically interfere with the street system emergency evacuation route or impede an emergency evacuation plan; therefore, a less than significant impact on emergency routes/plans would be anticipated.
g. Wildland Fires – Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in a mostly developed area, surrounded by undeveloped recreation-conservation areas and light industrial, office and residential development. Additionally, the project has been reviewed by the Rocklin Fire Department and has been designed with adequate emergency access for use by the Rocklin Fire Department to reduce the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires to a less than significant level.
1028
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Reso No.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Impact
for which
General
Plan EIR is
Sufficient
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
X
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
X
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on-or offsite;
X
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
X
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
1029