Agenda packet — Rocklin City Council, January 14, 2025 (part 4 of 5)

Resolution No. 2025-
Section 4. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to record said Notice in the Office of the Placer County Recorder when fully executed and notarized and within ten (10) days of Council approval.

Section 5. The City Manager is hereby authorized to make any necessary financial, budgetary, and accounting transactions in connection with the Five Star Blvd., Destiny Dr., and Mission Hills Phase IV and to undertake all actions necessary to close out the project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of January 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

___________________________
Jill Gayaldo, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk
747
Recording Requested by and Return to:

No Fee Per Gov’t Code §27383
City Clerk
City of Rocklin
3970 Rocklin Road
Rocklin, CA 95677

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public work known as the Five Star Boulevard, Destiny Drive. and Mission Hills Phase IV Reconstruction Project is complete. The locations of said project are Five Star Boulevard, Destiny Drive, and Argonaut Avenue, Rocklin, CA. The owner of said project is the City of Rocklin. The date of completion was September 20, 2024. The contractor on the project was McGuire and Hester, Inc., and the surety on said project was Western Surety Company.

I, Justin Nartker, being first duly sworn, depose and say: I am the Public Works Director of the City of Rocklin, a general law city in the State of California, owner of the property described in the above Notice.

I am duly authorized to make this verification for and on behalf of the City of Rocklin. I have read the Notice of Completion, and know its contents and the facts stated therein are true.

ATTEST:
________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk
City of Rocklin
______________________________________________
Justin Nartker, Public Works Director - City of Rocklin – 3970 Rocklin Road- Owner of the Public Work Improvement
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: Signature:__________________________________
Justin Nartker, Public Works Director
Rocklin, California
748
749
750
City Council
Staff Report

Subject:

BARRO Zone Modifications / Zoning Ordinance Amendment,
ZOA2024-0003
Date:

January 14, 2025
Submitted By:

Nathan Anderson, Senior Planner
David Mohlenbrok, Community Development Director
Department:

Community Development
Recommendation:

Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider the Following Action:

Introduce, Waive the Full Reading and Read by Title Only, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Amending Sections of Chapter 17.59 – Business Attraction, Retention, and Revitalization Overlay (BARRO) Zone and Amending the Citywide Zoning Map to Add Approximately Five Acres Into the BARRO Zone (BARRO Zone Modifications / ZOA2024- 0003)
Background:

The staff report is included as Attachment 1 in order to maintain the integrity of the formatting.

Item Number PH1.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Staff Report

2. Ordinance -
BARRO Zone Amendments with Exhibits
751
City Council
Staff Report
________________________________________________________________________ Subject: BARRO Zone Modifications
Zoning Ordinance Amendment, ZOA2024-0003
Date: January 14, 2025
Submitted By: Nathan Anderson, Senior Planner
David Mohlenbrok, Community Development Director
Department: Community Development
________________________________________________________________________ Recommendation:

As the entitlement request includes a legislative action which requires approval of an ordinance, a two-meeting process is required.

The Planning Commission and staff recommend City Council approval of the following:

January 14, 2025 – First reading of ordinance:

Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Amending Sections of Chapter

17.59 – Business Attraction, Retention, and Revitalization Overlay (BARRO) Zone and Amending the Citywide Zoning Map to Add Approximately Five Acres Into the BARRO Zone (BARRO Zone Modifications / ZOA2024-0003)
Proposal:

The proposed project seeks to amend specific sections of Chapter 17.59 – Business Attraction, Retention, and Revitalization Overlay (BARRO) Zone in the Rocklin Municipal Code to:
752
A) Allow for approval of conditional use permits for specific “active street life” uses that are not outlined in standard zoning districts, including but not limited to breweries, wineries, event centers, artisan food production and tasting rooms, art galleries, etc.; B) Authorize the Community Development Director to refer certain projects to the Planning Commission;
C) Increase the maximum acreage of parcels subject to the BARRO Zone development standards, from three (3) acres to five (5) acres, to align with Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
D) Minor modifications to align with State law.

In addition, the proposed project seeks to amend the Citywide Zoning Map to modify the boundaries of the BARRO Zone to add approximately five (5) acres of vacant property located northwest of the Quarry Adventure Park.

Proponent:

The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment was initiated by the City of Rocklin.

Summary of Planning Commission Hearing and Action:

On December 3, 2024, the Planning Commission (Commission) considered the proposed project. Staff presented the project details, after which the Commission asked about the public hearing process for Conditional Use Permits within the BARRO Zone. Staff explained that while the specifics are still being finalized, these hearings will follow the same public notice procedures as Planning Commission and City Council meetings. The hearings will be held at City Hall, with the Director serving as the approving authority. These meetings will provide an opportunity for public input before the Director makes a decision on the application.

During the public hearing, no members of the public offered comments. The Commission expressed unanimous support for the project and voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed BARRO Zone Modifications.

Location:

The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would apply within areas designated as BARRO Zone on the official Citywide Zoning Map.

The proposed modifications to the Citywide Zoning Map would include the additions of Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 010-170-026 and 010-170-001, as well as portions of APNs 010-170-028 and 010-230-015, not including the developed Quarry Adventure Park area.

Background:

In July 2012, the City Council approved the creation of the BARRO Zone (ZOA-2011-03).

This zone was codified in the Rocklin Municipal Code (RMC) as Chapter 17.59. The primary purpose of the zone is to create an opportunity to utilize an alternative zoning tool to attract, retain, and revitalize businesses and improve facades/streetscapes in older areas of town and improve older developments of the City where vacancies are high. 753
Unlike the traditional approval process, the BARRO Zone allows for a streamlined regulatory process by allowing staff level review and approval. The BARRO Zone delegates the responsibility for approval to the Community Development Director, eliminating the need for the preparation of staff reports, minutes, agendas, etc. Therefore, the cost of approving these small projects is significantly less and the review period is much faster than the traditional process. While traditional design review / conditional use permit fees which typically range from approximately $15,000 to $25,000 and typically take 4-6 months, BARRO Zone approvals typically cost less than $6,000 and typically take 1-2 months.

The BARRO Zone is also designed to increase flexibility, particularly within the downtown area along Pacific Street, by allowing a mix of commercial and residential uses by right. Staff is tasked with evaluating each project on its own merits as it pertains to Design Guidelines based on the following direction from City Council:

The Community Development Director is hereby authorized to exercise wide latitude and significant discretion in determining if, when and how to apply specific provisions of the Rocklin Downtown Revitalization Plan and Design Guidelines and the Citywide Design Review Guidelines, and as applicable to a particular project site based on the unique characteristics of the project site and the immediately surrounding properties in order to achieve the best possible project consistent with the overall goal of promoting the development of economically viable, cohesive, and attractive neighborhoods.” (RMC Section 17.75.070.C.2.B)
In September 2014, the BARRO Zone was amended to expand the overlay into three additional areas, including:
 The two existing shopping centers at Stanford Ranch and Park Drive  The Fairway Downs Center at Fairway Drive and Sunset Boulevard  The Sierra Meadows Shopping Center at Granite Drive and Sierra Meadows Drive The current boundaries of the BARRO Zone, as reflected on the Citywide Zoning Map, are shown in yellow on Figure 1.
754
Figure 1. Existing BARRO Zone Boundaries (Yellow)
Proposed Modifications:

Allowed Uses
While staff recognizes the BARRO Zone as a valuable tool for encouraging mixed-use development and simplifying the application process, it falls short in actively promoting vibrant, pedestrian-oriented uses in the downtown area. Currently, none of Rocklin’s zoning districts are designed to facilitate these types of active, community-centered uses that would draw people to the area, such as breweries, art studios, or entertainment venues. The BARRO Zone has the potential to fill this gap by effectively creating a district that not only supports mixed-use, but also intentionally encourages dynamic businesses and experiences that contribute to a lively street presence.

Expanding the BARRO Zone’s potential to prioritize active, street-level uses could significantly enhance downtown Rocklin, attracting a diverse mix of businesses and fostering a stronger sense of community. By integrating these uses within the BARRO Zone framework, Rocklin could create a distinctive and inviting downtown that meets the needs of both residents and visitors while driving economic growth and adding vibrancy to the city center in a way that existing zoning districts do not currently facilitate. 755
As more residents move into the area and new businesses emerge, Rocklin’s downtown could evolve into a lively, self-sustaining neighborhood that appeals to various interests. The flexibility to allow for breweries, wineries, live music venues, art galleries, and other interactive uses within the BARRO Zone could greatly enhance downtown’s atmosphere and strengthen its community appeal. These types of active businesses not only encourage foot traffic but also create natural spaces for social interaction, benefiting other establishments in the area, including Quarry Park. By drawing people into the district, the BARRO Zone could help transform downtown Rocklin into a hub of activity and connection, supporting both local businesses and community life.

To facilitate a more vibrant downtown environment, staff is proposing modifications to Section 17.59.080 (Permitted Uses) of the BARRO Zone. These changes would retain the existing permitted uses within the BARRO Zone, while also allowing for the following additional uses, subject to review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP):

1. Breweries, distilleries, and wineries;

2. Live music;

3. Event centers;

4. Artisan food and beverage production/tasting rooms;

5. Art galleries and creative studios (ceramics/pottery, paint & sip businesses, etc.) open to the public; and

6. Other similar uses, as determined by the Community Development Director, that enhance street life and promote business activity.

These proposed additions aim to encourage active, pedestrian-friendly uses that can help transform downtown into a lively, engaging destination, fostering social interaction and supporting a diverse mix of businesses, but the performance standards for neighborhood compatibility currently within the BARRO Zone would still be applicable.

Approval Authority
As previously discussed, staff considers the BARRO Zone a valuable tool, offering administrative approvals that help property owners and potential business owners reduce costs and time. However, staff believes that not all potential uses, especially some of those discussed earlier, should be approved administratively within the BARRO Zone without undergoing a public hearing. Currently, the Community Development Director lacks a codified authority to refer a project within the BARRO Zone to the Planning Commission for review. Under the current framework, the only available option is for the Director to deny the application, which would allow the applicant to appeal the decision to the Planning Commission.

This process creates unnecessary complications for projects that may have staff support but could benefit from the Planning Commission’s perspective. To address this, staff recommends modifying Section 17.59.050 (Authority For Approvals; Determination; Fees) to authorize the Director with discretionary authority to elevate any project within the BARRO Zone to the Planning Commission for review, and to require the applicant to pay application fees more in line with a standard entitlement process, as follows:
756
The Community Development Director shall have the authority to elevate any project within the BARRO Zone to the Planning Commission if the Director determines that the project may impact, or would not be compatible with, surrounding properties, or that the project could adversely impact surrounding uses due to project elements including, but not limited to, traffic, noise and safety impacts. The Director may elevate the review at any stage of the process to ensure proper evaluation of potential impacts. If the Director determines that elevation to the Planning Commission is necessary, additional fees may be imposed to compensate the City for the cost of processing the application.

Project Site Limitations
RMC Section 17.59.070 (Limitations on Approval Authority) currently specifies that administrative approvals in the BARRO Zone are limited to projects of a size and scope consistent with the standards for in-fill development outlined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, CCR Section 15332—In-Fill Development Projects.

However, Section 17.59.070.B restricts BARRO Zone projects to sites no larger than three acres, which was consistent with the three-acre limit established by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research when that categorical exemption category was created in 1998; however, that size limitation has since been amended to reflect that CEQA Section 15332 now allows in-fill projects on sites up to five acres in size.

Although few areas within the BARRO Zone can support projects larger than three acres, staff is proposing the inclusion of a new site within the boundaries of the BARRO Zone, discussed below, which spans approximately five acres. Given that this site size aligns with current CEQA Section 15332 standards, staff recommends increasing the maximum project size permitted within the BARRO Zone to five acres. This adjustment would align the BARRO Zone standards with State CEQA Guidelines and support potential development opportunities on larger sites.

Modifications to Comply with State Law
Following a review of the proposed amendments by the City Attorney’s Office, it was determined that further revisions to Section 17.59.050 are necessary to ensure compliance with State law. Specifically, Government Code Section 65905 mandates that applications for a conditional use permit must include a noticed public hearing. This hearing may be conducted by the Community Development Director and does not require review by the Planning Commission or City Council.

To address this requirement, staff proposes adding the following language:

Projects within the BARRO Zone which include an application for a conditional use permit shall require a noticed public hearing process, pursuant to State law. Following this hearing, the community development director shall have the authority to act on the application.

Expansion of BARRO Zone Boundaries
The proposed project seeks to amend the Citywide Zoning Map to modify the boundaries of the BARRO Zone to add approximately five (5) acres of vacant property located northwest of the Quarry Adventure Park. This area includes Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 010- 757
170-026 and 010-170-001, as well as portions of APNs 010-170-028 and 010-230-015, not including the developed Quarry Adventure Park area. See Figure 2.

Figure 2. BARRO Zone Expansion Area in Red (Parcel Line Overlays in White) The property identified as APN 010-170-026, covering approximately three (3) acres, is known as the Big Gun site. Located directly behind City Hall, the Big Gun Quarry was the last operational granite quarry in the area. Until 2017, the site housed several large quarry structures, including the Big Gun cutting shed, related buildings, and mining equipment.

Although properties on both sides of Pacific Street were initially included within the BARRO Zone boundaries when the overlay was established in 2012, the Big Gun site was excluded at that time, presumably due to the presence of these structures.

The City subsequently removed these structures and equipment from the site. With their removal, this property, along with other properties previously mentioned, can now be incorporated into the BARRO Zone area without concerns about the site's historic significance. See Figure 3 for an aerial photo of the site from 2016, which shows the former mining structures.
758
Figure 3. Former Big Gun Site (Aerial Photo from 2016) The Big Gun site is currently owned by the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency to the City of Rocklin. On January 23, 2024, the Rocklin City Council adopted a Resolution of the Successor Agency approving a purchase and sale agreement for this property with G3 Concepts.

G3 Concepts develops both commercial and multifamily projects, including the SLO Public Market in San Luis Obispo, which they currently own and operate with over 20 diverse business types. Their concept for the Big Gun site is a “Rocklin Public Market” project, which would be a public market building, featuring food and beverage vendors on the first floor, with an open area on the second floor for events and overflow seating. A second, stand- alone building would house a potential brewery, distillery, and pub, complete with a private outdoor covered patio. Additional buildings will include more traditional retail space, office space, and a few residential units.

This property is currently zoned Planned Development General Retail Service Commercial (PD-C4). The zoning was established and is further defined by the Rocklin Civic Center Plan.

The PD-C-4 zone in the Civic Center Master Plan area defaults to the C-4 Zone in the Rocklin Municipal Code. While the C-4 Zone allows for a variety of retail, restaurant, and offices uses, 759
it does not provide for brewery / distilleries uses, nor does it allow for the residential uses envisioned as part of the potential project.

Although no project application has been submitted for this or any other use on the site, staff is proactively working to support the site's potential development if a future application is received.

Conclusion:

The approval of the proposed BARRO Zone amendments would have the potential to enable future development on the former Big Gun site and could contribute to energizing development throughout the downtown area. It is important to note that approving these changes to the BARRO Zone does not authorize any specific development project. Instead, it establishes a framework for the City to review and potentially approve these types of uses in the BARRO Zone in the future. If a “Rocklin Public Market” or similar project is proposed within this area, the approved amendments would allow staff to bring a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for this project to the Planning Commission in a public hearing.

Environmental Determination:

The proposed BARRO Zone modifications do not authorize any development project.

Instead, each future development proposal will undergo an appropriate environmental review at the time it is submitted. The proposed text amendments to Chapter 17.59 and the modification to expand the BARRO Zone boundaries by approximately five acres are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15061 (b)(3), as the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment.
760
ORDINANCE NO.

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN AMENDING SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 17.59 – BUSINESS ATTRACTION, RETENTION, AND

REVITALIZATION OVERLAY (BARRO) ZONE AND AMENDING THE CITYWIDE

ZONING MAP TO ADD APPROXIMATELY FIVE ACRES INTO THE BARRO ZONE The City Council of the City of Rocklin does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend specific sections of the Rocklin Municipal Code (RMC) and Citywide Zoning Map as follows:

A. To modify Section 17.59.080 – Permitted Uses to allow for approval of additional uses within the Business Attraction, Retention, and Revitalization Overlay (BARRO) Zone, subject to review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Such uses include the following:
a. Breweries, distilleries, and wineries;
b. Live music;
c. Event centers;
d. Artisan food and beverage production/tasting rooms;
e. Art galleries and creative studios (ceramics/pottery, paint & sip businesses, etc.) open to the public; and
f. Other similar uses, as determined by the Community Development Director, that enhance street life and promote business activity B. To modify Section 17.59.050 – Authority for Approvals; Determination; Fees to authorize the Community Development Director (Director) to elevate any project within the BARRO Zone to the Planning Commission for review and approval and to make other modifications to this section to ensure compliance with State law.

C. To modify Section 17.59.050 – Authority for Approvals; Determination; Fees to require the Community Development Director to hold a public hearing for projects within the BARRO Zone which include an application for a conditional use permit, consistent with State law.

D. To modify Section 17.59.070(B) – Limitations on Approval Authority to increase the maximum acreage of projects subject to the BARRO Zone development standards, from three (3) to five (5) acres, to align with Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

E. To modify the Citywide Zoning Map boundaries of the BARRO Zone to add approximately five (5) acres of vacant property located northwest of the Quarry Adventure Park, consisting of Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 010-170-026 and 010-170-001, as well as portions of APNs 010-170-028 and 010-230-015. 761

Page 2 ends

Ordinance No.

Section 2. Authority. The City Council enacts this ordinance under the authority granted to cities by Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution and Government Code section 37100.

Section 3. Amendment to Code . The City Council hereby approves the amendments to Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter 17.59 “Business Attraction, Retention, and Revitalization Overlay Zone” as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and the amendment to the Citywide Zoning Map as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 4. Environmental. The proposed amendments to the Rocklin Municipal Code and to the Citywide Zoning Map will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment under CEQA, and are therefore exempt under sections 15060(c)(2) and 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Section 5. Severability.If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 6. Effective Date. Within 15 days of the passage of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause the full text of the ordinance, with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the ordinance, to be published in the Placer Herald. In lieu of publishing the full text of the ordinance, the City Clerk, if so directed by the City Attorney and within 15 days, shall cause a summary of the ordinance, prepared by the City Attorney and with the names of the City Council members voting for and against the ordinance, to be published in the Placer Herald, and shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of the ordinance, along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the ordinance. The publication of a summary of the ordinance in lieu of the full text of the ordinance is authorized only where the requirements of Government Code section 36933(c)(1) are met.
762

Page 3 ends

Ordinance No.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rocklin held on January 14, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rocklin held on __________, 20__, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
____________________________________
Jill Gayaldo, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk
First Reading:

Second Reading:

Effective Date:
763

Page 1 ends

To Ordinance No.

EXHIBIT A
Chapter 17.59 is hereby amended as follows. Amendments to this chapter appear in strike/add format and are highlighted.

Chapter 17.59 BUSINESS ATTRACTION, RETENTION, AND REVITALIZATION

OVERLAY ZONE

17.59.010 Business Attraction, Retention, and Revitalization Overlay zone.

This chapter establishes the Business Attraction, Retention, and Revitalization Overlay zone (the "BARRO zone"). The creation of this overlay zone provides a mechanism for a person to propose a commercial, residential or residential— nonresidential—mixed-use development that is beneficial to the community and implements the city's general plan policy of flexibility and innovation in development and planning techniques. Development of property within the overlay zone is subject to the regulations of Title 17 as modified by this chapter. The properties included within the Business Attraction, Retention, and Revitalization Overlay zone shall be indicated on the official zoning maps of the city by distinct shading over the affected properties. (Ord. No. 986, § 2(Exh. B), 8-14-2012)

17.59.020 Findings.

In approving this chapter, the city council of the city of Rocklin finds and determines that:

A. The continued vitality of older commercial areas is essential to the economic well-being of the city and to the needs of citizens.

B. Fees, project entitlement processes, and development standards created primarily for the development of raw land have the unintended consequence of discouraging the improvement and renovation of older developments; especially those that consist of a single building, a small commercial cluster, and/or undersized and underutilized lots.

C. Many of the properties located within the Business Attraction, Retention, and Revitalization Overlay zone are characterized by structures that are sixty to one hundred plus years old, small lots, and/or outdated development patterns.

As a result, the strict application of the development standards found in this title effectively act to discourage the use, redevelopment, and enhancement of individual properties and clusters of properties within the BARRO zone area.

D. Providing a process for revitalization of older commercial areas focused on flexible development standards, streamlined approval processes, and reduced application fees, will benefit the city by improving their appearance and economic vitality, providing opportunities for pedestrian friendly amenities, and when appropriate, allowing for small scale residential development. 764

Page 2 ends

To Ordinance No.

E. The BARRO zone district currently contains a mix of residential and commercial structures and uses. The creation and implementation of the BARRO zone creates a bridge tool for development in the BARRO zone district. The city council finds that inclusion of both commercial and residential uses in the BARRO zone is consistent with and implements the Rocklin General Plan including the following land use goals and policies:

1. Goal for Commercial Land Use: To retain and renew existing commercial land uses and designate sufficient new commercial areas to meet future city needs.

2. Policies for Commercial Land Use:
a. To promote and renew as needed, the Pacific Street, Rocklin Road, Sunset Boulevard, and Granite Drive business districts in order to provide diversified business opportunities.
b. To approve designation of sufficient commercial land to meet the future needs of the city.
c. To ensure that adequate parking and access are included in approved commercial development plans.
d. To avoid "strip commercial" land uses in newly developing areas by encouraging the "village concept" of grouping commercial land use in village core areas.
e. To minimize conflicts between new commercial land uses and other land uses, especially residential, park, and recreational uses.

To promote flexibility and innovation in commercial land use through the use of planned unit developments, developer agreements, specific plans and other innovative development and planning techniques.
f. To maintain development standards and develop new standards, including off-site parking provisions, unique to the central commercial area of Rocklin along Pacific Street from Midas to Farron Streets. g. To encourage use of the Rocklin Downtown Revitalization Plan and Design Guidelines when considering projects in the area generally abutting Rocklin Road and Pacific Street from Midas Avenue to Farron Street.

3. Goal for Residential Land Use: To designate, protect, and provide land to ensure sufficient residential development to meet community needs.

4. Policies for Existing Residential Land Use:
a. To protect existing residential areas from the intrusion of incompatible land uses.
b. To preserve and enhance the quality of existing residential areas by continuing to provide high-quality public services, by rehabilitating useful structures and by removing substandard units.
765

Page 3 ends

To Ordinance No.
c. To continue programs for the prevention of blight, considering all public and private resources available, including: enforcement of all codes, neighborhood rehabilitation programs, and redevelopment agency actions.
d. To encourage active involvement by individuals and citizen organizations in maintaining and upgrading existing residential neighborhoods.
e. To encourage preservation and adaptive reuse of significant historic structures and sites.
f. To require that new development in or near existing residential areas be compatible with those existing neighborhoods.
g. To promote flexibility and innovation in residential land use through the use of planned unit developments, developer agreements, specific plans, mixed use projects, and other innovative development and planning techniques.
h. To maintain development standards unique to Old Town Rocklin that encourage residential development on small lots.
(Ord. No. 986, § 2(Exh. B), 8-14-2012)

17.59.030 Purpose and intent.

This Business Attraction, Retention, and Revitalization Overlay zone concept is an opportunity to utilize an alternative zoning tool for those properties that are within the boundaries of the BARRO zone. The property owner shall have the choice of developing property pursuant to the provisions of the underlying zone, or developing property pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. It is the intent of the city council to create an overlay zone district in Title 17, Zoning of the Rocklin Municipal Code that will provide for the following:

A. Implement a streamlined entitlement review and approval process, and a reduced fee structure, for in-fill development projects within the BARRO zone area;
B. Allow for reduced infrastructure development standards and greater flexibility in the application of the city's approved design guidelines and development standards within the overlay zone in a manner grounded in market realities; C. Improve the appearance and economic vitality of small and/or older commercial structures and developments and thereby contribute to the overall improvement of older commercial areas by making the regulatory process easier for the owners and tenants to negotiate;
D. Create a vibrant commercial destination with an active street life that would attract travelers and commuters who use Pacific Street as a regional transportation corridor, and where local residents have services, shops, and jobs;
766

Page 4 ends

To Ordinance No.

E. Protect, preserve and maintain the integrity of the existing single-family residential neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the BARRO zone area through innovative and thoughtful design techniques;
F. Allow for the use of varying architectural design themes, but require that each design is thoughtfully blended and is compatible with adjoining and adjacent development;
G. Maintain land use and development options so as individual properties become available for development, there are choices between commercial, residential or mixed use projects which are appropriate for current market conditions; H. Encourage compatibility between residential and commercial uses in areas where residential zones directly abut commercial zones, by permitting greater design flexibility across the existing boundaries of the two zones; and I. Encourage within the BARRO zone the inclusion of a public open space amenity, or some form of physical interface for the pedestrian. Such features may include:

1. Formal Plazas. A formal plaza would be a publicly accessible open space which has a design that is influenced by classical urban planning design. A formal plaza would typically include some sort of central water fountain and/or symmetrical landscaping.

2. Urban Gardens. An urban garden can be located on the ground level, or on upper levels of a structure. Urban gardens include ornamental landscaping arranged in raised or at-grade planters or planting areas, potted plants and trees. Many times there are sculptures or other forms of public art that are included within the urban garden.

3. Covered Colonnades. Colonnades are linear in design and generous in depth. The intent is to provide a comfortably wide, covered pathway that is adjacent to the openings of a building. Sometimes the second floor of a building is utilized to create the "covered" element of the colonnade.

4. Sidewalk Dining. Sidewalk dining may occur wherever a sidewalk space is ample enough to accommodate dining furniture without impeding pedestrian access of the sidewalk. Sidewalk dining may be defined with a railing or planters, or be open and accessible.

5. Pedestrian Alleys and Walkways. A pedestrian alley or walkway is typically a "lane" that does not follow the alignment of a vehicular street, but provides a pedestrian access to either a public space or some other feature within the interior of a development. Pedestrian alleys or walkways must be designed in such a manner so as to be inviting to pedestrians.

Therefore, issues such as lighting, security, line of sight, cleanliness and visual appeal are important considerations to a well designed pedestrian alley or walkway. Sometimes public art, street furniture and access to shops and public spaces are features of pedestrian alleys and walkways. 767

Page 5 ends

To Ordinance No.

J. Ensure that the appearance and effects of buildings and uses are harmonious with the character of the area in which they are located. (Ord. No. 986, § 2(Exh. B), 8-14-2012)

17.59.040 Applicability; conflicts.

A. The provisions of this Chapter 17.59 shall apply to those areas indicted on the zoning map of the city of Rocklin by distinct shading or other identification, and in a manner consistent with the identification of boundaries for other zones set forth in Title 17, shown on the zoning map of the city of Rocklin, and prior decisions of the city regarding the actual boundaries of properties within city land use zones.

B. Conflict. Should a provision of this Chapter 17.59 conflict with any other provision of Title 17 of the Rocklin Municipal Code, or any other city resolutions, ordinances, or regulations of the city, this chapter shall control.
(Ord. No. 986, § 2(Exh. B), 8-14-2012)

17.59.050 Authority for approvals; determination; fees.

A. Pursuant to Chapter 17.72.020.C, the city council designates and authorizes the community development director as the approving authority for design review approvals issued in conformance with this chapter for projects within those areas affected by the Business Attraction, Retention, and Revitalization Overlay zone.

B. Notwithstanding Section 17.70.020, the city council designates the community development director as the approving authority for conditional use permits issued in conformance with this chapter for projects within those areas affected by the Business Attraction, Retention, and Revitalization Overlay zone.

C. The community development director shall review the application for its compliance with the citywide design review guidelines and the Rocklin Downtown Revitalization Plan and Design Guidelines and the conformity of the proposed project with the surrounding properties. The community development director shall have the authority to, and shall take action to grant, grant with conditions, or deny the application based on the information contained in the application and any information obtained from the staff review of the project.

D. Notwithstanding other provisions for fees adopted by city ordinance or resolution, the fees applicable to review and approval of entitlements issued in conformance with this chapter for projects within the BARRO zone shall be determined on the fully loaded hourly rate for city staff utilized to review and approve the project development entitlements, up to a maximum fee as follows:

1. Design review approvals $3,500.00

2. Conditional use permits $2,000.00

3. Environmental review $3,000.00
768

Page 6 ends

To Ordinance No.

E. The community development director shall prescribe the forms and documents to be filed for a permit under the provisions of the BARRO zone.

F. When a project subject to design review also requires a discretionary permit, or modification thereof, under Chapter 17.70, the design review application shall be made, processed and heard simultaneously with the other discretionary permit, unless this requirement is waived by the community development director.

G. For design review applications, the community development director may act on the application without a formally noticed public hearing. Notice of a pending application pursuant to the BARRO zone regulations shall be posted on the proposed project site and on the city of Rocklin website. Such notice shall specify that any interested person may view the application materials at the city of Rocklin offices during business hours; the ten-day time period when the public may submit written comments on the proposed project to the city; the date whereon the community development director is expected to take action on the proposed project; and the date by which anyone may appeal of the final action of the community development director in the manner provided by Chapter 17.86.

H. Projects within the BARRO Zone which include an application for a conditional use permit shall require a noticed public hearing process, pursuant to State law.

Following this hearing, the community development director shall have the authority to act on the application.

I. The Community Development Director shall have the authority to elevate any project within the BARRO Zone to the Planning Commission if the Director determines that the project may impact, or would not be compatible with, surrounding properties, or that the project could adversely impact surrounding uses due to project elements including, but not limited to, traffic, noise and safety impacts. The Director may elevate the review at any stage of the process to ensure proper evaluation of potential impacts. If the Director determines that elevation to the Planning Commission is necessary, additional fees may be imposed to compensate the City for the cost of processing the application. (Ord. No. 986, § 2(Exh. B), 8-14-2012)

17.59.060 Special standards.

To encourage economic development, reinvestment, and enhancement of the properties within the boundaries of the district the following special standards shall apply:

A. Nonconforming Standards. Properties located within the Business Attraction, Retention, and Revitalization Overlay zone shall be exempted from the following specific provisions of Title 17, Chapter 17.62, Nonconforming Uses and Structures of the Rocklin Municipal Code:

17.08.080—Commerce or Industry Abutting Residential zone.

17.62.050—Off-street parking deficiency.
769

Page 7 ends

To Ordinance No.

17.62.080—Nonconforming use—Conforming structure.

17.62.090—Conforming use—Nonconforming building—Repair and maintenance.

17.62.100—Conforming use—Nonconforming building—Enlargements.

17.62.120—Conforming use—Nonconforming building—Restoration.

17.62.130—Nonconforming use and building—Termination of use.

17.62.140—Nonconforming use and building—Additions, enlargements, repairs.

17.75.070.C.2.—Permit requirements and procedures (signs).

B. Design Guidelines. The community development director is hereby authorized to exercise wide latitude and significant discretion in determining if, when, and how to apply specific provisions of the Rocklin Downtown Revitalization Plan and Design Guidelines and Design Review Guidelines (Feb. 2008, as amended) applicable to a particular project site based upon the unique characteristics of the project site and the immediately surrounding properties in order to achieve the best possible project consistent with the over all goal of promoting the development of economically viable, cohesive, and attractive neighborhoods.

C. Parking. Parking is typically one of the most challenging development standards to meet when attempting to develop older in-fill sites. By its very nature, parking requires a significant dedication of land which cannot be translated into leasable sales area or saleable square footage. However, adequate and easily accessible parking is critical to the long term success and viability of any development.

1. Parking requirements shall be determined on a project specific basis by the community development director after consideration of the on-site parking standards listed in the Rocklin Zoning Code for the type of development proposed, the physical constraints of the property in question, the availability of nearby on-street parking and public parking facilities, and other potential mitigating factors.

2. The Old Town area has a series of public parking lots that can be used to assume some or all of the required off-street parking for new development within the BARRO zone district.

3. Residential uses will be required to provide on-site parking for each residential unit; however, the guest parking requirements may be a candidate for transfer to nearby public parking lots. Commercial uses may propose to transfer up to their entire on-site parking obligation to public parking lots, however, they will be encouraged to maintain handicapped accessible parking on their property, as well as loading areas.

D. Performance Standards for Neighborhood Compatibility. The purpose of this subsection is to ensure that uses in the BARRO zone are not adversely impacted by the adjacent uses, both on-site and off-site, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, and safety impacts. In the interests of both the residents 770

Page 8 ends

To Ordinance No.
and the businesses, no project entitlement shall be approved for a project combining residential and commercial uses on the same site, unless the project is designed to meet the following performance standards, in addition to all other applicable regulations of this chapter.

1. Noise.
a. Residential units shall be constructed so that interior noise levels do not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB(A) in any habitable room.
b. Commercial uses shall be designed and operated, and hours of operation limited where appropriate, so that neighboring residents are not exposed to offensive noise, especially from traffic or late-night activity.
c. Common walls between residential and nonresidential uses shall be constructed to minimize the transmission of noise and vibration.

2. Security.
a. The residential units shall be designed with specific consideration towards the security of residents, including, but not limited to, the provision of separate and secured entrances.
b. Nonresidential and residential uses located on the same floor of the same building shall not have common entrance hallways or common balconies.
c. Parking spaces for nonresidential and residential uses shall be specifically designated by posting, pavement marking, and/or physical separation.

3. Lighting.
a. All outdoor lighting associated with commercial uses shall be designed so as not to substantially and adversely impact surrounding residential uses, while also providing a sufficient level of illumination for access and security purposes. Such lighting shall not blink, flash, occilate, or be of unusually high intensity of brightness. b. Parking areas shall be illuminated so as to provide appropriate visibility and security during hours of darkness.

4. Odors, Dust, Vibration. No commercial use shall be designed or operated so as to expose residents to offensive odors, dust, electrical interference, and/or vibration.

5. Refuse Storage and Location. The residential units shall maintain a separate refuse storage container from that used by the commercial uses.

It shall be clearly marked for residential use only, and use by commercial uses is prohibited.

6. To the extent feasible, the five factors listed above shall be considered and incorporated into the design of all nonresidential projects abutting 771

Page 9 ends

To Ordinance No.
existing residential zones. Residential projects abutting existing nonresidential projects shall be designed to incorporate as many design features as necessary to mitigate for the five factors listed above. (Ord. No. 986, § 2(Exh. B), 8-14-2012)

17.59.070 Limitations on approval authority.

The administrative approval authority set forth in this chapter shall be limited to projects of a size and scope which are consistent with the standards for in-fill development set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines CCR Section 15332—In-Fill Development Projects and the further restrictions set forth in this section. Those standards are as follows:

A. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and the general plan policies set forth in subsection 17.59.020E. above, as well as the zoning designation and regulations stated in this chapter.

B. The proposed development is on a project site of no more than three five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

C. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.

D. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, or water quality.

E. The site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

F. A project proposing additional story on buildings originally approved by the city council are ineligible for administrative review and approval under this chapter and shall be subject to design review as set forth in Chapter 17.72. (Ord. No. 986, § 2(Exh. B), 8-14-2012)
772

Page 10 ends

To Ordinance No.

17.59.080 Permitted uses.

A. All permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the underlying zone are permitted uses unless the community development director determines that the proposed use warrants the application of operational conditions. In those cases where operational conditions of approval are necessary to make the proposed use compatible with the surrounding uses, a conditional use permit shall be required. In addition, to promote an active street life, enhance the vitality of businesses, and reduce vehicular traffic, residential structures and uses are permitted in the BARRO zone district.
(Ord. No. 986, § 2(Exh. B), 8-14-2012)
B. The following uses may be permitted, subject to review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP):

1. Breweries, distilleries, and wineries

2. Live music

3. Event centers

4. Artisan food and beverage production/tasting rooms

5. Art galleries and creative studios (ceramics/pottery, paint & sip businesses, etc.) open to the public

6. Other uses of a similar nature, as determined by the Community Development Director, that enhance street life and promote business activity

17.59.090 Appeal.

Any person dissatisfied by an act or determination of the community development director relating to the approval or denial of a project application under this chapter, or the interpretation or enforcement of this chapter, may appeal such act or determination to the planning commission as provided in Chapter 17.86. (Ord. No. 986, § 2(Exh. B), 8-14-2012)
773

Page 1 ends

To Ordinance No.

EXHIBIT B
The Citywide Zoning Map is hereby amended to add the following area to the Business Attraction, Retention, and Revitalization Overlay (BARRO) Zone. These modifications include the following:

Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) as listed below and as shown on the following figure.

Only the portions of the figure shown in red shall be added to the existing BARRO Zone area, shown in yellow.
 010-170-026
 010-170-001
 010-170-028 (portion)
 010-230-015 (portion)
774
City Council
Staff Report

Subject:

University Avenue Apartments / General Plan Amendment, GPA2023- 0001, General Development Plan Amendment, PDG2023-0004, Rezone, Z2023-0003, Design Review, DR2023-0006, Environmental, ENV2024-0015
Date:

January 14, 2025
Submitted By:

Nathan Anderson, Senior Planner
David Mohlenbrok, Community Development Director
Department:

Community Development
Recommendation:

Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider the Following Actions:

A
.

B
.

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving an Amendment to the General Plan of the City of Rocklin to Change the Land Use Designation of Approximately 0.41 Acre of a 12.72 Acre Site from Recreation Conservation (R-C) to Mixed Use (MU) (University Avenue Apartments / GPA2023-0001).

C
.

Introduce, Waive the Full Reading and Read by Title Only, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Amending the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan and Rezoning 12.72 Acres from Planned Development Light Industrial and Open Space to Planned Development Residential 22 Units Per Acre Minimum (PD-22+) (University Avenue Apartments / PDG2023-0004, Z2023-0003).

D
.

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Design Review (University Avenue Apartments / DR2023-0006).

Background:

The staff report is included as Attachment 1 in order to maintain the integrity of the formatting.

Item Number PH2.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Staff Report

2. SR Attachment 1 - USA Properties Letter

3. SR Attachment 2 - Jessup University Letter

4. Resolution A

5. Resolution A Exhibit A - University Avenue Apartments CEQA Addendum

6. Resolution B

7. Resolution B Exhibit A - General Plan Amendment
775

8. Ordinance C

9. Ordinance C Exhibit A - General Development Plan Amendment

10. Ordinance C Exhibit B - Rezone Map

11. Resolution D

12. Resolution D Exhibit A - Design Review
776
City Council
Staff Report
_______________________________________________________________________ Subject: University Avenue Apartments
General Plan Amendment, GPA2023-0001
General Development Plan Amendment, PDG2023-0004
Rezone, Z2023-0003
Design Review, DR2023-0006
Environmental, ENV2024-0015
Date: January 14, 2025
Submitted By: Nathan Anderson, Senior Planner
David Mohlenbrok, Community Development Director
Department: Community Development
________________________________________________________________________ Recommendation:

As the entitlement request includes a legislative action which requires approval of an ordinance, a two-meeting process is required.

The Planning Commission and staff recommend City Council approval of the following:

January 14, 2025 – First reading of ordinance and final action on resolutions:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving an Addendum to the Northwest Rocklin (Sunset Ranchos) Annexation Environmental Impact Report (University Avenue Apartments / ENV2024-0015)
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving an Amendment to the General Plan of the City of Rocklin to Change the Land Use Designation of Approximately

0.41 Acre of a 12.72 Acre Site from Recreation Conservation (R -C) to Mixed Use (MU) (University Avenue Apartments / GPA2023-0001)
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Design Review (University Avenue Apartments / DR2023-0006)
Introduce, Waive the Full Reading and Read by Title Only, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Amending the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan and Rezoning 12.72 Acres from Planned Development Light Industrial and Open Space to Planned Development Residential 22 Units Per Acre Minimum (PD-22+) (University Avenue Apartments / PDG2023-0004, Z2023-0003)
777
January 28, 2025 – Final action for ordinance:

Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Amending the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan and Rezoning 12.72 Acres from Planned Development Light Industrial and Open Space to Planned Development Residential 22 Units Per Acre Minimum (PD-22+) (University Avenue Apartments / PDG2023-0004, Z2023-0003) Proposal/Application Request:

The project is a request for approval of a Design Review (DR2023-0006) to allow for the development of a 324-unit rental apartment community on 12.72 total acres. The project proposes a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom units in twelve (12) three-story buildings arranged around the site. Of these units, 307 would be market-rate units and 17 units (approximately 5 percent of the project) would be affordable to very low-income households.

The project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA2023-0001) to change the land use designation of a 0.41-acre portion of the site from Recreation Conservation (R-C) to Mixed Use (MU). A General Development Plan Amendment (PDG2023-0004) and Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Z2023-0003) are requested to change the zoning designation of

12.31 acres of the site from Planned Development Light Industrial (PD-LI) and 0.41-acre of the site from Open Space (OS) to Planned Development Residential 22 Units Per Acre Minimum (PD-22+).

Project Location:

The project site consists of two (2) parcels, totaling 12.72 gross acres. The project site consists of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 017-276-005 and -006 ( Figures 1 and 2 ).

The site is located west of University Avenue, east of Highway 65, and north of Sunset Boulevard. Jessup University is located across University Avenue to the east.

Figure 1. Project Location
778
Figure 2. Project Site
Summary of Planning Commission Hearing and Action:

On December 3, 2024, the Planning Commission (Commission) reviewed the proposed project. Staff presented the project details along with a Blue Memo outlining five (5) requested condition modifications for the Design Review. During the presentation, the Commission inquired about the possibility of adding a pedestrian crossing on University Avenue. Staff explained that, due to the lack of a traffic light and visibility challenges on the curved roadway, a mid-block crossing would not be safe in this location, and that there would be a crosswalk at the signalized intersection to the south associated with the Estia project.

Kris Steward, representing the applicant team, addressed the Commission and submitted a letter from USA Properties Fund into the public record. The letter stated that following City Council approval of the land use entitlements, USA Properties Fund intends to transition the project to a 100% affordable community comprising 322 units for low and very-low-income households. This letter is included as Attachment 1.

The Commission opened the public hearing, but no public comments were received. After closing the public hearing, the Commission deliberated, with some questions directed to staff 779
regarding parking. Staff acknowledged ongoing concerns about the project's parking inventory, which falls significantly below the requirements of the Rocklin Municipal Code (RMC). However, staff noted that the project exceeds State parking standards due to its affordability component, and for that reason, it is supported.

Following staff’s responses, the Commission expressed confidence in the project, stating it aligns well with the area’s needs. The Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend approval of the project, incorporating the modifications outlined in the Blue Memo. Staff has updated the Design Review resolution to reflect this direction.

Site Background and Characteristics:

The property was annexed into the City of Rocklin as part of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area in 2004. The site consists of two (2) parcels, which consist of Parcels 5 (6.75 acres) and 6 (5.97 acres) of the William Jessup University Tentative Parcel Map (DL2015-0005) which was approved on July 19, 2016 via Resolution PC-2016-26.

The roughly rectangular project site is vacant and undeveloped. The site is characterized by rocky rolling terrain, gently sloping north at elevations ranging from 140 to 155 feet.

Vegetation consists of annual grassland dominated by non-native annual grasses with no trees. The site contains approximately 0.237 acres of wetland resources including seasonal wetland swales, vernal pools, and intermittent drainage.

In 2005-2006, a paved utility road, sewer, and drainage improvements were installed along the south and west boundaries of the site as part of a South Placer Municipal Utility District (SPMUD) sewer project. As such, the total net acreage of the site, excluding the 1.49-acre sewer easement, is 11.23 acres. A 20-foot sewer easement contains a sewer line with a paved sewer access road over the line. Culverts beneath the sewer access road enable drainage from the southerly portion of the site to drain to wetland features and a pond north of the site.

Surrounding Uses:

The site is bordered by University Avenue to the east, with the Jessup University campus located beyond. To the west is State Route 65 (SR-65) and surrounding landscaping, with a light industrial park beyond SR-65 in unincorporated Placer County. To the north lies open space containing wetland resources and a pond, and some vacant land designated for light industrial uses. South of the site is the approved but not yet constructed Estia at Rocklin residential project, which will feature 200 detached rental units. 780
Table 1. Surrounding Uses
Current Use Current General Plan / Zoning
Project
Site Vacant Mixed Use (MU) and Recreation-Conservation (R-C) / Planned Development Light Industrial (PD-LI) and Open Space (OS) North Vacant
Open Space R-C and Light Industrial (LI) / OS and PD-LI South Vacant
(Estia at Rocklin)
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) /
Planned Development Residential 10 Dwellings Per Acre (PD-10) East Jessup
University
LI /
Planned Development Light Industrial (PD-LI)
West SR-65 /
Unincorporated Unincorporated Placer County
Figure 3. Existing General Plan and Zoning
781
General Plan Compliance:

The site is designated Mixed Use (MU) and Recreation/Conservation (R-C) in the General Plan. Almost all of the site is designated MU, the remainder includes three small areas totaling 0.41 acres adjacent to the north property line which are designated R-C. Pursuant to the Rocklin General Plan Land Use Element, the MU designation allows for any combination of residential and non-residential uses. If developed as residential, the MU designation allows a density range of 10-40 units per acre. The R-C designation is applied to lands of existing and future recreational use and areas of important environmental resources, initially at a conceptual level, and then through field verifications when project applications are received those boundaries are refined. The 0.41-acre portion of the site designated R-C does not contain grasslands or wetland resources, as confirmed by a biological resources assessment that was prepared for the project.

General Plan Amendment
The project includes a request for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the three small areas totaling 0.41-acre area from R-C to MU, consistent with the rest of the site (Figure 4).

Figure 4. General Plan Amendment
782
Zoning Compliance:

The site is designated in the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan (GDP) with a combination of Planned Development Light Industrial (PD-LI) and Open Space (OS). The PD-LI zoning applies to 12.31 acres of the site, with the exception of the three previously- discussed areas totaling 0.41 acre on the north property line, which are zoned OS. The PD- LI zoning is intended for light industrial uses, such as manufacturing, assembly, research and development, and office uses.

General Development Plan Amendment/Rezone
A General Development Plan Amendment/Rezone is requested to change the zoning of the full 12.72-acre site from a combination of PD-LI and OS to Planned Development Residential 22 Units Per Acre Minimum (PD-22+) (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Rezone
783
It should be noted that, although the project site’s PD-LI zoning designation is inconsistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of MU and does not allow for any residential uses, as discussed below the proposed project is not technically required to rezone the 12.31 acres of the site designated as PD-LI, as the proposed project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation.

Nevertheless, because the project requires a rezone for the 0.41-acre portion of the project, the applicant has agreed to rezone the remainder of the project site to establish conformity with the proposal and the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan. Specifically, a General Development Plan Amendment/Rezone is proposed to change the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan and zoning designations of the site from PD-LI and OS to PD-22+.

The PD-22+ district requires a minimum density of 22 dwelling units per acre. With 324 units on 12.72 total acres, the proposed project would be developed at a density of approximately

25.5 dwelling units per acre and would be consistent with the district.

Affordable Housing:

Of the 324 units, 17 will be designated as rental units affordable to very-low-income households, with incomes capped at 50% of the area median income (AMI). These affordable units will have maximum income and rent restrictions recorded in an affordability agreement for a 55-year term.

The remaining 307 units will be market-rate. Since the project’s submission, staff has encouraged the applicant to increase the number of affordable units. Because the City does have an urgent need for very-low-income housing, staff has expressed that the proposed 5% allocation of affordable units falls short of what is needed to help the City meet its affordable housing requirements.

General Plan Housing Element Policy 3.4 encourages the City to work with developers seeking General Plan Amendments converting non-residential designation to residential uses or from higher-density residential categories to lower-density categories to incorporate affordable housing as a component of the overall development. The policy goes on to note that as an objective, target up to ten percent of the units as affordable, depending upon the level of affordability of other amenities required. However, all but 0.41-acre of this site is already designated as Mixed Use, which permits residential development at a density range of 10-40 dwelling units per acre by right, and the 0.41-acre Recreation Conservation portion was determined through a biological resources assessment to not have the qualities that warrant that land use designation. As such, the City’s ability to require the developer to provide more affordable units than what is currently proposed is limited because the project is not converting from a higher-density residential category to a lower-density residential category, and because the small portion of the project site that is being converted from a 784
non-residential designation to a residential use was determined to not have the qualities that justified the non-residential designation.

Design Review:

General Design and Site Layout
The proposed project is an apartment community with 324 total units with a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom units ranging from 722 to 1,240 square feet. The average unit size is 993 square feet. Residential units would be located in 12 three-story buildings arranged throughout the site. See Figure 6.

Figure 6. Project Design and Layout
A single-story clubhouse/amenity building containing lounge areas, meeting space, fitness room, and the leasing office is near the project entry. A swimming pool, playground, outdoor kitchen, and other outdoor amenities are internal to the site. Vehicle access will be provided from a driveway on University Avenue, and drive aisles will access the site. Surface parking 785
lots adjacent to the residential buildings will include 571 off-street parking spaces. All units are accessible by sidewalks among the buildings and outdoor amenities.

Amenities
Community amenities include an approximately 6,350 square foot single-story clubhouse/amenity building near the project entry with lounge areas, large-screen television, meeting space, working spaces, fitness room, and leasing office. Outdoor amenities feature a swimming pool, playground with play equipment, outdoor game and lawn area, pet wash station, patio with an outdoor kitchen, bar seating, and tables adjacent to the clubhouse and pool area. Two amenity areas with hardscape features, outdoor seating, and grills are in central landscaped areas.

Access and Circulation
Vehicular access to the project would be provided via a new 40-foot-wide driveway on University Avenue, located at the northeastern corner of the site. Internal vehicle circulation would be facilitated by 26-foot-wide drive aisles, ensuring connectivity throughout the site.

The main entry on University Avenue would remain ungated, while a gated Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) point in the site’s southwest corner would connect to the Estia at Rocklin project to the south.

Accessible pedestrian pathways are planned around the buildings, offering convenient walking routes for residents. These paths would also connect to the sidewalks along University Avenue, enhancing pedestrian connectivity.

Frontage Improvements
Frontage improvements would be required along University Avenue in order to ensure safe access to the project site. Specifically, the proposed project would include the widening of University Avenue from two 12-foot lanes to four 12-foot lanes and construction of a raised median, extending north and south of the project driveway. University Avenue would also be restriped along the project frontage such that the outer two lanes would allow northbound and southbound through traffic, and the inner two lanes would allow left-turn movements into the project driveway and right-turn movements into the Jessup University driveway located just south of the project driveway, respectively (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Frontage Improvements
786
Project Phasing
Site grading will occur in one phase, and approximately 300,000 cubic yards of material will be moved, with no import or export of material. The project will be graded and constructed in a single phase and will take approximately fourteen months to complete.

Utilities
The project site does not currently include utilities infrastructure; however, the proposed project would include water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater improvements, which would connect to existing infrastructure in the project vicinity.

Sanitary sewer service for the proposed project would be provided by the South Placer Municipal Utility District (SPMUD). The proposed on-site sanitary sewer system would connect to an existing 22-inch stubbed trunk sewer line located along the western boundary of the site.

Potable water would be provided to the proposed project by Placer County Water Agency (PCWA). The proposed project would connect to the existing 12-inch water line on University Avenue by way of two new connections located at the northern and southern portions of the site.

Development of the project site would require installation of on-site drainage facilities and alteration of site topography to accommodate the proposed land uses. The site’s stormwater facilities would be developed within 15 drainage management areas (DMAs) located throughout the entirety of the project site. Stormwater runoff from each DMA would be conveyed through a pipe system which would route stormwater to a series of water quality basins on site prior to being discharged through three existing culverts located along the northeastern, northwestern, and western boundaries of the site towards the existing open space to the north. The existing culverts located along the northwestern and western boundaries of the site also include an existing outfall structure to help facilitate stormwater drainage.

Building Architecture
The project contains four residential building types (A through D), as well as the aforementioned clubhouse building. All residential building types are aesthetically similar to one another, although they vary in size and configuration.

The project design aligns with the City Design Review Guidelines and the University Architectural District Guidelines. The proposed concept features a contemporary style characterized by rectilinear forms projecting across multiple planes. The buildings showcase strong geometric elements, incorporating a mix of materials such as cement plaster, vertical tile, and decorative perforated metal panels, along with a thoughtfully curated color palette to create depth and shadowing.

The primary finish is a concrete plaster system with scored construction joints, forming an irregular grid window pattern complemented by horizontal siding. Flat rooflines of varying heights add interest to the massing and form of the three-story buildings. The design employs a cohesive color scheme, including pearly white, light gray, light tan, brown-beige, toffee brown, and slate blue-beige. Visual interest is further enhanced through recessed planes, metal railings on balconies, perforated metal panels, and accent lighting. 787
Building renderings and elevations are included as Figures 8 through 10.

Figure 8. University Avenue Rendering
Figure 9. Freeway Rendering
788
Figure 10. Building Elevations
789
Figure 11. Colors and Materials
Building Height
Pursuant to the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan, the PD-22+ zoning district allows for a maximum building height of 50 feet. The proposed apartment buildings are three stories. The structures are proposed with a maximum height of approximately 33 feet to the roof and 40 feet to the parapet. Parapets are designed to screen mechanical equipment and rooftop photovoltaic panels from ground-level views.

Architectural Review Committee
The project is located within the University Architectural District. According to the Architectural Guidelines, the University District is the City’s most modern architectural district.

Buildings should utilize an appropriate combination of modern architectural features, including strong linear emphasis, geometric projections and cantilevers, strong voids, vibrate use of color, complex geometric forms, etc.

The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) considered the project at its regular meeting on November 16, 2023. Following staff’s presentation, the ARC expressed concerns about the buildings’ lack of articulation. The ARC requested that the buildings be modified to add angular elements in order to provide variation to the building rooflines. The ARC requested 790
that the project be brought back to that body for review prior to moving forward to the Planning Commission.

The project was brought back to the ARC on June 20, 2024. Subsequent to the previous meeting, staff had worked with the applicant to modify the project in order to make the design consistent with ARC recommendations. In order to address comments, the applicant modified the three buildings that would be most visible from SR-65 and from University Avenue, to change the sloping parapet from 1:12 to 2:12, add higher windows, and add more color to the street elevations.

The ARC recommended approval of the Project architecture 4-0 (one committee member absent).

Parking
Section 17.66.020 of the RMC specifies parking requirements for apartments, mandating:
 1.5 paved parking spaces per unit for studios and one-bedroom units.  2 paved parking spaces per unit for two or more bedrooms.  An additional 25% paved visitor parking spaces, with at least one covered parking space per unit.

Based on these numbers, the project would require the following:

Table 2 – City Parking Requirements
Project
Units
Ratio of Parking Spaces
Required
Total Parking Spaces
Required
1 bedroom 74 1.5 spaces / unit 111 spaces
2+ bedroom 250 2 spaces / unit 500 spaces
Guest -- .25 spaces / unit 81 spaces
Total 324 -- 692 spaces
The project proposes 307 market-rate units (94.8%) and 17 affordable units (5.2%) for very- low-income households. Under State Density Bonus Law (Government Code 65915-65918), eligible projects (including projects which provide a minimum 5% of the total units of housing development for rental or sale to very low income households) are eligible for reduced parking requirements as follows:
 1 space per unit for studios and one-bedroom units.
 1.5 spaces per unit for two- and three-bedroom units.  No guest parking required.

Based on this, the project could be constructed based on the following parking requirements:
791
Table 3 – Density Bonus Parking Reductions
Project
Units
Ratio of Parking Spaces
Required
Total Parking Spaces
Required
1 bedroom 74 1 spaces / unit 74 spaces
2+ bedroom 250 1.5 spaces / unit 375 spaces
Guest -- 0 spaces / unit 0 spaces
Total 324 -- 449 spaces
Based on the strict application of Density Bonus standards, the project would only require 449 parking spaces, at a ratio of 1.4 spaces per unit with no guest parking.

The project proposes 571 uncovered parking spaces adjacent to the apartment buildings, along with a density bonus concession to deviate from the development standard outlined in RMC 17.66.020.A, which requires one covered parking space per unit.

The applicant asserts that the proposed parking ratio of 1.8 spaces per unit strikes a balance between the State Density Bonus Law standard (1.4 spaces per unit) and the RMC requirement (2.1 spaces per unit). The plan provides 122 additional spaces (27%) above the State Density Bonus Law requirement.

According to the applicant, the proposed parking ratio aligns with the parking supply at other apartment communities owned and managed by USA Properties, ensuring sufficient availability for residents and guests.

During the project entitlement process, staff raised concerns about the proposed 1.8 spaces per unit parking ratio, particularly the lack of designated guest parking. This concern is amplified by the absence of nearby alternative parking options, as the surrounding areas include:
 Wetlands/open space to the north.
 The Estia project to the south.
 SR-65 to the west.
 University Avenue to the east, which prohibits street parking.

Staff also opined that the Density Bonus parking reduction should not apply to the entire project, given that only 5% of the units are affordable while the remaining 95% are market rate. Staff suggested that the reduced parking standards should apply proportionally to the affordable units only.

However, the applicant contended that the State Density Bonus Law applies the reduced parking standards to the entire development, not just to the affordable units. The applicant referenced Government Code 65915 (p)(5) to emphasize that the parking standards apply to any development meeting the requirements, supporting the interpretation that the reduced standard applies project-wide. The applicant stated that if the parking ratios were intended to apply solely to affordable units, the statute would explicitly state so. The City Attorney's Office reviewed this issue early in the process and confirmed the applicant's interpretation of the law.
792
While staff maintains concerns about the parking needs of the proposed parking, the applicant’s plan complies with applicable State Density Bonus Law standards, providing 122 more parking spaces than required. Therefore, the project’s parking plan meets the regulatory requirements and is consistent with applicable standards.

Landscaping
The project proposes to install landscape improvements throughout the site and on the University Avenue frontage. The landscape concept is water-efficient, low-maintenance, and will complement the buildings and enhance the site’s aesthetic. Low-profile landscaping, screening shrubs, and shade and canopy trees are planned. The planting design features various Mediterranean-style, native, drought-tolerant, and low-fuel species to create layers of color and text to complement the architectural style and setting. HVAC units will be roof- mounted and screened from sight to create more areas for landscaping. See Figure 10.

Figure 10. Landscaping Plan
Fencing and Walls
Post and cable fencing would be installed on the north and east sides of the site between the project and the adjacent sewer access road. The pool will be enclosed by a six-foot black open-view tubular steel fence, and trash enclosures will be constructed of concrete masonry with metal gates. Retaining walls, varying in height, are planned on various site segments, including the site’s south edge. A six-foot masonry wall will be installed on the shared property line with the Estia project to the south. The University Avenue frontage will not be fenced. Retaining walls are also used on the site. A gate is planned on the SPMUD utility maintenance road entrance near University Avenue.
793
Environmental:

Wetlands
As described in the Aquatic Resources Delineation (ARD) that was conducted for the project site by Madrone Ecological Consulting on December 8, 2022, the project site contains a total of approximately 0.237-acre of vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, and seasonal wetland swales ( Figure 11 ). An additional 0.042-acre of intermittent drainage, a 0.122-acre intermittent stream, and a 1.342-acre pond are located directly west and north of the project site. However, such off-site aquatic resources would not be disturbed by the proposed project.

Based on a verification letter provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on June 13, 2023 (included as part of Appendix C to the Project Addendum), the USACE concurred that the 0.237-acre of on-site aquatic resources are potential jurisdictional aquatic resources regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As such, the proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements of Mitigation Measure QMM-3(b) included in the 2002 EIR, which requires the applicant/developer to obtain all required permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and to enter into a Streambed Alteration Agreement with California Fish and Wildlife. Compliance with Mitigation Measure QMM-3(b) would ensure that the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to aquatic resources.

Figure 11. Aquatic Resources Delineation
794
Addendum
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area Project was approved by the City Council on July 9, 2002 via Resolution No. 2002-230.

The University Avenue Apartments project does not trigger the need for supplemental or subsequent review under Section 15162 of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR Addendum has been prepared to document that no additional review or analysis is needed.

The EIR Addendum determined that the proposed University Avenue Apartments project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects due to substantial Project changes or a substantial change in circumstances. Furthermore, no new information is available that would indicate (1) that the University Avenue Apartments project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; (2) that significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (3) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible; or (4) that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment and that the Project proponents have declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Section 15164(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to deciding on the Project. Therefore, the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Final EIR can be found at the following link:
https://www.rocklin.ca.us/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/b_final_eir_northwest_rocklin_annexation__appendices.pdf?1552330058 Public Correspondence:

The City received a letter of support for the project from Jessup University, which is included as Attachment 2.

Recommendation:

The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council approve the University Avenue Apartments project to the City Council, as proposed and conditioned. 795
3200 Douglas Blvd. Suite 200 Roseville, CA 95661 ph (916) 773-6060 fx (916) 786-8150 www.usapropfund.com November 22, 2024
Sherri Conway
Assistant City Manager
City of Rocklin
3970 Rocklin Road
Rocklin, CA 95677
Re: University Avenue Apartments
Withdrawal of Affordable Housing Financial Assistance and 100% Affordable Project Dear Ms. Conway:

Thank you for meeting with us last month to discuss the proposed University Avenue Apartments community. USA Properties Fund, Inc. (USA) has been working diligently with the City on the proposed University Avenue Apartments project (UAA Project) since late 2022.

As we reported in our August 12, 2024 letter, we intend to orient the community as an affordable housing community financed with tax-exempt bonds and low-income housing tax credits. After layering on tax- exempt bonds and low-income housing tax credits, the project will have a financial gap. We propose to fill part of the gap with a private ground lease structure available to sizeable projects proposed by strong sponsors in desirable locations. We successfully closed recently on the financing for a ground-up development in Orange County in which we employed this innovative structure and are scheduled to close another in Roseville December of this year.

We are writing today to confirm the primary points of our October 23, 2024 meeting.

1. We withdraw our August 12, 2024 request of the City of Rocklin for financial assistance for the UAA Project. With improvements to the interest rate and construction cost environment, financial assistance is no longer necessary from the City.

2. We recently purchased the 12.7-acre project site from William Jessup University, and it is important that we secure land use entitlements before further advancing our financing strategy. The project is scheduled for hearing at the Planning Commission on December 3, 2024, and the City Council on January 14, 2025.

3. The current UAA Project includes 5% of the units (17 units) as affordable to very-low income households. After land use entitlements are secured, we intend to shift to a 100% affordable community with 322 units affordable to low, and very-low-income units. 796
3200 Douglas Blvd. Suite 200 Roseville, CA 95661 ph (916) 773-6060 fx (916) 786-8150 www.usapropfund.com

4. Soon after the City Council’s action on the land use entitlements, we will adjust the project building configurations slightly to reflect the 100% affordable scenario and request substantial conformance review from the City. The project plans will retain the design elements recommended by the Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council.

Please let us know if you have questions or need additional information. Thank you for working with us to deliver more quality affordable housing to Rocklin residents.

Very truly yours,
USA Properties Fund, Inc.

Milo Terzich Le Anne Thomas
Vice President Director of Acquisitions
cc: Aly Zimmerman, City of Rocklin
Elizabeth Sorg, City of Rocklin
David Mohlenbrok, City of Rocklin
Nate Anderson, City of Rocklin
Kris Steward, Plan Steward
Rich Truembler, USA Properties Fund
Darren Bobrowsky, USA Properties Fund
797
ATTACHMENT 1

John Jackson, PhD
Jessup University
2121 University Drive
Rocklin, CA 95747

November 22, 2024

City Manager Aly Zimmerman
Rocklin Planning Commission Members
Rocklin City Council Members

Dear City Manager Zimmerman, Planning Commission and City Council Members,

I write to indicate my very strong support for the University Apartments project adjacent to Jessup University. The project, situated right off University Avenue and across the street from Jessup, is being built on land previously owned by the University. One of the reasons we were grateful for USA Properties' pursuit of this land purchase from Jessup was their intent to build units that could become a key source of housing for our faculty, staff, and students. We believe that the City of Rocklin continues to need access to all levels of housing, ranging from affordable to moderate to high-income household units. This project will strengthen our city's housing inventory and provide access for many in the broader community as well as those who want to be particularly close to Jessup.

Please give every consideration to the approval of this project for the sake of our community and our University.

Thank you in advance for your support.

Sincerely,

John Jackson, PhD
President

798
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF ROCKLIN APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE NORTHWEST ROCKLIN (SUNSET RANCHOS) ANNEXATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (University Avenue Apartments / ENV2024-0015)
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Rocklin finds as follows:

A. The City Council of the City of Rocklin approved and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area by Resolution No. 2002-230 on July 9, 2002.

B. The City Council of the City of Rocklin approved an Addendum to the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area Environmental Impact Report (“NWRA EIR”) by Resolution No. 2008-252 on September 23, 2008. This Addendum was for a modification to reconfigure allowed uses within the NWRA EIR area.

C. The original NWRA EIR analyzed the environmental effects of development in the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area development project which included development of the University Avenue Apartments project area.

D. A specific project, University Avenue Apartments, is now proposed on the project site. The project, a multifamily apartment development consistent of 324 residential units on 12.72 acres, is substantially consistent with the anticipated site development as it was analyzed in the NWRA EIR and the Addendum to the NWRA EIR.

E. Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 11 requires the City to analyze the proposed University Avenue Apartments project to determine whether further environmental analysis is required.

F. The City’s NWRA EIR remains relevant despite changed plans or circumstances that would result from implementation of the University Avenue Apartments project, because the changes involve the development of the same project site.

G. An Addendum to the NWRA EIR was prepared for the University Avenue Apartments project, consistent with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which analyzes the proposed project and its consistency with the prior NWRA EIR and the Addendum to the NWRA EIR.

H. Based on the analysis and findings contained in the University Avenue Apartments Project Addendum attached hereto as Exhibit A, it was determined that no 799

Page 2 ends

Reso No. 2025-
subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required to be prepared for the project.

I. The City Council of the City of Rocklin has received and considered the 2002 NWRA EIR together with the University Avenue Apartments Project Addendum, which analyzed the potential environmental effects of the proposed project.

J. The Planning Commission of the City of Rocklin unanimously (5-0) recommended the project for approval on December 3, 2024.

Section 2. The City Council of the City of Rocklin hereby approves the University Avenue Apartments Project Addendum to the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Environmental Impact Report (Exhibit A) prepared for the City of Rocklin Community Development Department, dated August 2024, on file with the Community Development Department and incorporated herein by this reference.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of January, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
____________________________________
Jill Gayaldo, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk
800

Page 1 ends

Reso No. 2025-
Exhibit A
Addendum to the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Environmental Impact Report 801
City of Rocklin
Community Development Department
U
niversity Avenue Apartments Project
A
ddendum to the Northwest Rocklin Annexation
(Sunset Ranchos) Environmental Impact Report
(SCH 99102012)
August 2024
Prepared by
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A, Sacramento, CA 95834

EXHIBIT A
802
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page i
August 2024
Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Project Background .............................................................................................. 1

1.2 Purpose of General Development Plan ................................................................ 2

1.3 Plan Area Location ............................................................................................... 2

1.4 CEQA Requirements ........................................................................................... 2

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 4

2.1 2002 EIR Original Project Description .................................................................. 4

2.2 Addendum No. 1 .................................................................................................. 5

2.3 General Development Plan Amendment .............................................................. 5

2.4 Description of Proposed Project ........................................................................... 6

2.4.1 Project Location and Setting ...................................................................... 6

2.4.2 Project Description ..................................................................................... 6

2.4.3 Project Approvals ..................................................................................... 17

2.4.4 Density Bonus.......................................................................................... 17

2.5 Previously Disclosed Impacts............................................................................. 20

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 20

3.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................... 20

3.1.1 Summary of Aesthetics Impacts from 2002 EIR ....................................... 20

3.1.2 Aesthetics Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ............................. 21

3.1.3 Aesthetics Mitigation Measures ............................................................... 22

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................... 23

3.2.1 Summary of Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impacts from 2002 EIR .... ............................................................................................................... 23

3.2.3 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ..................................................................................................... 23

3.2.4 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Mitigation Measures ........................ 23

3.3 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 24

3.3.1 Summary of Air Quality Impacts from 2002 EIR ....................................... 24

3.3.2 Air Quality Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ............................. 24

3.3.4 Air Quality Mitigation Measures ............................................................... 27

3.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................... 30

3. 4.1 Summary of Biological Resources Impacts from 2002 EIR ...................... 30

3.4.2 Biological Resources Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ............ 31

3.4.3 Biological Resources Mitigation Measures ............................................... 36

3.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 42

3.5.1 Summary of Cultural Resources Impacts from 2002 EIR ......................... 42

3.5.2 Cultural Resources Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ............... 42

3.5.3 Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures .................................................. 44

3.6 Energy ............................................................................................................... 46

3.6.1 Summary of Energy Impacts from 2002 EIR ............................................ 46

3.6.2 Energy Impacts Associated with Proposed Project .................................. 46

3.6.3 Energy Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 48 803
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page ii
August 2024

3.7 Geology/Soils ..................................................................................................... 48

3.7.1 Summary of Geology/Soils Impacts from 2002 EIR ................................. 48

3.7.2 Geology/Soils Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ........................ 48

3.7.3 Geology/Soils Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 49

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................. 50

3.8.1 Summary of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts from 2002 EIR ........... 50

3.8.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ..... ............................................................................................................... 51

3.8.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation Measures .................................... 54

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................... 54

3.9.1 Summary of Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts from 2002 EIR ...... ............................................................................................................... 54

3.9.2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ..................................................................................................... 55

3.9.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measures .......................... 56

3.10 Hydrology/Water Quality .................................................................................... 57

3.10.1 Summary of Hydrology/Water Quality Impacts from 2002 EIR ................. 57

3.10.2 Hydrology/Water Quality Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ....... 58

3.10.3 Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation Measures.......................................... 59

3.11 Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................... 62

3.11.1 Summary of Land Use and Planning Impacts from 2002 EIR ................... 62

3.11.2 Land Use and Planning Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ......... 63

3.11.3 Land Use and Planning Mitigation Measures ........................................... 64

3.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................. 64

3.12.1 Summary of Mineral Resources Impacts from 2002 EIR .......................... 64

3.12.2 Mineral Resources Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ................ 64

3.12.3 Mineral Resources Mitigation Measures .................................................. 64

3.13 Noise ................................................................................................................. 65

3.13.1 Summary of Noise Impacts from 2002 EIR .............................................. 65

3.13.2 Noise Impacts Associated with Proposed Project .................................... 65

3.13.3 Noise Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 67

3.14 Population and Housing ..................................................................................... 70

3.14.1 Summary of Population and Housing Impacts from 2002 EIR .................. 70

3.14.2 Population and Housing Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ........ 71

3.14.3 Population and Housing Mitigation Measures .......................................... 71

3.15 Public Services .................................................................................................. 72

3.15.1 Summary of Public Services Impacts from 2002 EIR ............................... 72

3.15.2 Public Services Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ..................... 73

3.15.3 Public Services Mitigation Measures ........................................................ 73

3.16 Recreation ......................................................................................................... 75

3.16.1 Summary of Recreation Impacts from 2002 EIR ...................................... 75

3.16.2 Recreation Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ............................ 75

3.16.3 Recreation Mitigation Measures ............................................................... 75

3.17 Transportation .................................................................................................... 76 804
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page iii
August 2024

3.17.1 Summary of Transportation Impacts from 2002 EIR ................................ 76

3.17.2 Transportation Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ....................... 77

3.17.3 Transportation Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 80

3.18 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................. 81

3.18.1 Summary of Utilities and Service Systems Impacts from 2002 EIR .......... 81

3.18.2 Utilities and Service Systems Impacts Associated with Proposed Project .... .............................................................................................................. 81

3.18.3 Utilities and Service Systems Mitigation Measures .................................. 83

3.19 Wildfire ............................................................................................................... 83

3.19.1 Summary of Wildfire Impacts from 2002 EIR ........................................... 83

3.19.2 Wildfire Impacts Associated with Proposed Project .................................. 84

3.19.3 Wildfire Mitigation Measures .................................................................... 85

4.0 CEQA DETERMINATION ............................................................................................. 87

5.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 88

Appendices
Appendix A – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Appendix B – Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix C – Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
Appendix D – Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix E – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix F – Stormwater Control Plan
Appendix G – Environmental Noise Assessment
805
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 1 ends

August 2024

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following includes a discussion of the project background, the purpose of the General Development Plan, the Plan Area location, and the CEQA requirements for the preparation of an Addendum.

1.1 Project Background
The Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project analyzed in the 2002 Northwest Rocklin Annexation (Sunset Ranchos) Final Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) (SCH 99102012) (hereafter “2002 EIR”) consists of a program that provides for the orderly and systematic development of lands around the City of Rocklin and provides the necessary public services to support the proposed suburban land uses. The Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project proposed to annex approximately 1,871 acres of land located within the City of Rocklin’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) from Placer County. The annexed land would be developed and managed in accordance with a General Development Plan comprised of three geographic areas: Sunset Ranchos, the State Route (SR) 65 Corridor, and Parcel K. In general, the land would be developed with residential uses, business professional uses, commercial uses, light industrial uses, open space, parks, and schools. The 2002 EIR was certified on July 9, 2002 (City Council Resolution 2002-230).

Addendum No. 1 to the 2002 EIR was released in 2008 to address the proposed Whitney Ranch Phase II Project, a component of the overall Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project located in northwest Rocklin. The Whitney Ranch Phase II Project consisted of a request for approval of a large lot tentative subdivision map that would divide the 641-acre site into 51 large parcels referred to as Units. A small lot tentative subdivision map was also being processed concurrently that would further subdivide most of the residentially designated Units into a total of 1,376 single-family residential lots. In 2019, the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan Amendment was adopted, providing updated guidance for the development within the three geographic planning areas, including updated Development Units.

Since adoption of Addendum No. 1 to the Final EIR and Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan Amendment, additional changes related to the proposed development have been identified within the Sunset Ranchos geographic planning area. Such changes include the University Avenue Apartments Project (proposed project), evaluated in this Addendum. The proposed project would include the development of 12 three-story apartment buildings with a total of 324 units, including 307 market rate units and 17 units reserved for very -low income households, as well as associated site improvements. Further details of the proposed project are provided below under Project Description.

The City of Rocklin determined as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that the proposed project does not trigger the need for supplemental or subsequent review under Section 15162 of CEQA Guidelines, as detailed below. Therefore, the proposed project is the subject of this Addendum, prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

The CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 requires either the Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency to prepare an Addendum to a certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent environmental document have occurred (refer to the discussion below regarding criteria described in Section 15162). The purpose of this Addendum is to document that no new significant impacts, nor a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts, would result from the Project as described in this Addendum, relative to the project as analyzed in the 2002 EIR.

806
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 2 ends

August 2024

1.2 Purpose of General Development Plan
A General Development Plan is a planning document that defines, in detail, the development criteria for a project area. Chapter 17.60 of the Rocklin Municipal Code establishes the Planned Development process as a “means to provide for greater flexibility in environmental design than is provided under the strict application of the zoning and subdivision ordinances.” With that intent, the Northw est Rocklin General Development Plan has been crafted to allow the integrated development of the 1,871- acre project in a manner that will a) promote the development of developable areas and avoid sensitive environmental areas, b) encourage creative and innovative design by allowing flexibility in property development standards, c) encourage the preservation of open space, and d) accommodate various types of large scale, complex and phased development in the planning area. More specifically, the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan:

1. Establishes the interrelationship among land uses in the plan area.

2. Specifies permitted and conditionally permitted uses for all parcels and the intensity of the uses.

3. Establishes development standards such as the lot sizes, building setbacks, and height limits.

4. Identifies the width and general location of roadways necessary to serve the development.

5. Identifies the needs and supply sources of water, sewer, drainage, and other public service needs of the project.

6. Provides guidance for the preparation of tentative maps, with regards to design features such as street alignments and cross-sections, lot size and lot orientation.

The Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan serves as the regulatory land use document for the North west Rocklin area. All provisions of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 17 of the Rocklin Municipal Code) apply to this project unless otherwise specified in the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan.

1.3 Plan Area Location
The Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan proposed by the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project is approximately 1,871 acres located in the northwest corner of the City of Rocklin. Rocklin is located in the County of Placer, about 20 miles northeast of the City of Sacramento. The Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan area is contiguous to SR 65 on the west and the Twelve Bridges Specific Plan area in the City of Lincoln on the north. Within the City of Rocklin, the Whitney Oaks project is to the east with Sunset West and Stanford Ranch on the south. West of the plan area is SR 65 and the Sunset Area Plan in Placer County.

As discussed above, the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan area contains three distinct geographic planning areas: Sunset Ranchos, SR 65 Corridor, and Parcel K. Sunset Ranchos is the largest of the three planning areas, occurring in the center of the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan area. Sunset Ranchos is 1,296.3 acres and contains Development Units 1 through 69. The SR 65 corridor is the next largest of the three planning areas and occurs within the west portion of the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan area. The SR 65 Corridor is 527.8 acres and contains Development Units 104, 105, 106, 107A -B, 108A-B, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113A-C, 114, 115, and 116. Parcel K is the smallest of the three planning areas and occurs in the eastern portion of the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan area.

Parcel K is 47 acres and is not divided into Development Units.

1.4 CEQA Requirements
In Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College (2016) 1 Cal.5th 926 (San Mateo I ), t he California Supreme Court added an additional first step for determining whether a project can rely on a previously adopted CEQA document. As determined 807
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 3 ends

August 2024
by the Court, an agency must first determine whether the previous CEQA document remains relevant to evaluate the changed plans and circumstances proposed by the project. Specifically, the Court noted that the proper inquiry is whether or not the initial environmental document retains informational value in light of the proposed modifications, or if it has become irrelevant. In the case of the proposed project, the project site is located within the boundaries of the 1,871 -acre Northwest Rocklin General Development Area evaluated within the 2002 EIR. Therefore, the City has determined that the analysis included in the Northwest Rocklin General Development Area EIR would remain relevant to the proposed project.

An Addendum to an EIR is appropriate under State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for projects where there are no substantial changes to the project, or in circumstances surrounding the project, and where the project would not have new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than those disclosed in the previously certified EIR.

Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines state that an Addendum to a previously certified EIR can be prepared for a project if the criteria summarized below are satisfied:

• No Substantial Project Changes. There are no substantial changes proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
• No Substantial Change in Circumstances. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
• No New Information of Substantial Importance. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known or could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, which shows any of the following: the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the adopted EIR. The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with the adopted EIR prior to making a decision on the project.

None of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) would occur with implementation of the proposed project because:

a) The revisions to the Project evaluated in the 2002 EIR, as described in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this Addendum, would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. b) While some circumstances and existing conditions surrounding the Project have changed from those described in the 2002 EIR, the changes relate mostly to ongoing implementation of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project analyzed in the 2002 EIR .

Existing conditions on and surrounding the project site generally remain as described in 808
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 4 ends

August 2024
the 2002 EIR and are not substantially different from those described in that document .

Therefore, any changes in circumstances or conditions that have occurred would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
c) There is no new information of substantial importance. There is no information available that indicates that the Project would result in significant effects that were not addressed in the previous EIR or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or that mitigation measures or alternatives are available and feasible that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment , but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.

Under California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15162(a)(1), the requirements to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR are triggered when substantial changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous EIR. Such language implies that a new or revised mitigation measure that does not require a major revision could be adopted on the basis of an addendum, rather than a supplemental EIR. Similarly, the provisions of CCR Section 15162(a)(3)(c-d) require a further EIR only if newly feasible or considerably different mitigation becomes available but is not adopted. Such provisions also imply that newly feasible or different mitigation can be adopted based on an addendum without the need for a supplemental EIR. All additional mitigation measures included herein will be included as project conditions to address project-specific impacts. The project applicant has agreed in advance to accept all such mitigation measures.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A description of the original Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project, the Whitney Ranch Phase II Project, which was evaluated in a previous Addendum to the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project, and the proposed University Avenue Apartments Project (proposed project) is provided below.

2.1 2002 EIR Original Project Description
The Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project analyzed in the 2002 EIR would provide for the orderly and systematic development of lands around the City of Rocklin and provide the necessary public services to support the proposed suburban land uses. 1 The project proposed to annex approximately 1,871 acres of land located within the City of Rocklin’s SOI from Placer County.

Implementation of the project would result in 3,140 single-family dwelling units, 1,150 multi-family dwelling units, 32.5 acres of business professional uses, 164.4 acres of business professional/commercial uses, 96.6 acres of commercial uses, 187.9 acres of light industrial uses, 263.6 acres of open space, 55.6 acres of parks, and the designation of one high school and three elementary school sites. The annexed land would be developed and managed in accordance with a General Development Plan comprised of three geographic areas: Sunset Ranchos, SR 65 Corridor, and Parcel K. Each of these areas is described below.

The Sunset Ranchos community was proposed to consist of residential development with parks, school sites, open space, and commercial areas. The Sunset Ranchos site encompasses approximately 1,296 acres and was proposed for 3,009 single- family dwelling unit s, 1,150 multi-family dwelling units, one 50 -acre high school site, three 10 -acre elementary schools,

55.6 acres of parks, 194.2 acres of open space, 33.9 acres of commercial sites, and 9.6 acres of business professional uses. The SR 65 Corridor area would consist of business professional, commercial, light industrial, and open space uses. Development of Parcel K would consist of low

1 City of Rocklin. Northwest Rocklin Annexation (Sunset Ranchos) Environmental Impact Report (SCH #99102012).

March 20, 2002.
809
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 5 ends

August 2024
and medium density residential housing, and open space. The Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project would amend the City’s General Plan to apply specific land use designations to the project area, pre-zone the area as “Planned Development”, and create a General Development Plan that would provide specific detail regarding implementation of the Planned Development consistent with the General Plan land use designations. The elements of the annexation, General Plan amendment, pre-zoning, and General Development Plan were evaluated in the 2002 EIR.

The proposed project site analyzed herein is a 12.72-acre parcel located within the SR 65 Corridor of the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan area that was previously anticipated for light industrial development within the 2002 EIR. Specifically, based on the City’s development standards, a total of up to 244,600 square feet (sf) of light industrial uses could be developed on the proposed project site.

2.2 Addendum No. 1
The Whitney Ranch Phase II Project evaluated in Addendum No. 1 to the Final EIR was comprised of 641 acres within the Sunset Ranchos planning area of the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan.2 The project included a request for approval of a large lot tentative subdivision map that would divide the 641- acre site into 51 Units. The project also requested a small lot tentative subdivision map that would further subdivide most of the residentially designated Units into a total of 1,376 single-family residential lots. The Whitney Ranch Phase II Project also included construction of on- site streets, public pedestrian and bicycle trails, landscaping, fencing, water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities, utilities (including telephone, electrical, and natural gas lines), storm water detention areas, off-site sewer improvements, and the off-site widening of West Oaks Boulevard.

The Whitney Ranch Phase II Project would differ from the 2002 EIR by reducing the development of residential units by approximately 60 homes and increasing open space by about 55 acres.

Commercial land uses would increase slightly by about 3 acres, but business professional land uses would be reduced slightly from the totals analyzed in the 2002 EIR. The location of backbone infrastructure, including major streets, would remain unchanged. The existing boundaries for developable areas would remain the same except for one small change in the former Unit 37. As such, the Whitney Ranch Phase II Project generally consisted of renumbering of Units and adjustments to land use designations, densities, and development standards at various locations throughout the General Development Plan.

Associated entitlements included an Oak Tree Preservation Plan Permit to address the proposed removal of oak trees, a General Plan Amendment and General Development Plan Amendment to reflect renumbering of Units, and adjustments to land use designations, densities, and development standards and various locations throughout the project. The final entitlement request consisted of approval of architectural and landscaping Design Review for single-family residential homes on proposed lots that are less than 6,000 square feet (sf) in area.

2.3 General Development Plan Amendment
As discussed above, the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan Amendment was adopted in 2019 and provides updated guidance for the development within the three geographic planning areas.3 The 2019 Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan Amendment serves as the most recent guidance for future development. The Amendment also includes updated Development Units, as listed above under Section 1.3 of this Addendum.

2 City of Rocklin. Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report – Northwest Rocklin Annexation (Sunset Ranchos). 2008.
3 City of Rocklin. Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan Amendment. October 2019. 810
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 6 ends

August 2024

2.4 Description of Proposed Project
The proposed project’s location and setting, as well as the project components and project approvals are described below.

2.4.1 Project Location and Setting
The project site is located northeast of the intersection of SR 65 and Sunset Boulevard in the City of Rocklin, California, within the SR 65 Corridor of the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan area (see Figure 1). The approximately 12.72- acre project site, identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 017- 276-005 and - 006, is undeveloped and contains approximately

0.238-acre of wetland resources.

A paved utility road, sewer, and drainage improvements are located along the northern and western boundaries of the site as part of a South Placer Municipal Utility District (SPMUD) project.

As such, the total net acreage of the site, excluding the 1.49-acre sewer easement, is 11.23 acres.

Surrounding existing uses include undeveloped land, open space , and a pond to the north; William Jessup University to the east, across University Avenue; a light industrial business park to the west beyond SR 65; and the approved, but not yet constructed, Estia at Rocklin Residential Project and the University Square Retail Project to the south, which will include development of 200 detached rental units and eight buildings totaling 108,500 square feet, respectively (see Figure 2).

The City of Rocklin General Plan designates the site as Mixed Use (MU) and Resource- Conservation (R-C) and the site is zoned Planned Development Light Industrial (PD-LI) and Open Space (OS) within the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan area. The project site is located within the University Architectural District of the City, for which the City has adopted specific Design Review Objectives and Criteria.

2.4.2 Project Description
The proposed project would include the development of 12 three-story apartment buildings with a total of 324 units, including 307 market rate units and 17 units reserved for very -low income households (see Figure 3). The development would include a unit mix of 74, 722-sf one-bedroom units; 169, 994-sf two-bedroom units; and 81, 1,240 sf three-bedroom units (see Table 1). Two of the market rate units would be reserved for managers. The unit floorplans would include a full kitchen, living area, bedroom(s), bathroom(s), storage, washer and dryer, and a patio/balcony.

Overall, the proposed project would have a density of 25.5 units per acre with a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.67 and site coverage of 23 percent.

Table 1
Residential Unit Summary
Bedrooms /
Bathrooms Unit Area Number of Units
Percentage of
Total Units
1 Bedroom / 1 Bath 722 sf 74 Units 23%
2 Bedroom / 2 Bath 994 sf 169 Units 52%
3 Bedroom / 2 Bath 1,240 sf 81 Units 25%
Total 324 Units 100%

The proposed project would also include the development of a 5,390 -sf, single-story clubhouse consisting of lounge areas, meeting space, fitness room, and leasing office. Other amenities would include a swimming pool with bar seating and tables, playground, outdoor game and lawn area, dog park, pet wash station, patio with an outdoor kitchen, two outdoor seating and barbeque areas, and bicycle parking.
811
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 7 ends

August 2024
Figure 1
Regional Project Location
Project Location
812
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 8 ends

August 2024
Figure 2
Project Vicinity Map
813
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 9 ends

August 2024
814
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 10 ends

August 2024
Figure 3
Project Site Plan
815
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 11 ends

August 2024
Project Design
The proposed project would be designed consistent with the City’s Design Review Objectives and Criteria and the University Architectural District Design Review Objectives and Criter ia. The proposed project’s design concept consists of contemporary style buildings with alternating building materials (cement plaster, vertical tile, decorative perforated metal panels) and colors.

The exterior finish would be a concrete plaster with scored construction joints that create an irregular grid window pattern and horizontal siding. Varying flat rooflines would be used to break the massing and form of the three-story buildings.

The three building types would feature a similar color scheme (pearly white, light grey, light tan, brown beige, toffee brown, and slate blue beige). Color changes, recessed planes, metal railings on balconies, perforated metal panels, and light fixtures would also be used to create visual interest.

The maximum building height would be approximately 33 feet to the roof and 40 feet to the parapet. Parapets would screen mechanical equipment and rooftop photovoltaic solar panels from ground view. The following includes a description of the proposed fencing, signage, and landscaping features, and refuse collection areas.

Fencing
Post and cable fencing would be installed on the north and east sides of the project site between the project and the adjacent sewer access road. The proposed pool would be enclosed by a six- foot black open-view tubular steel fence. In addition, retaining walls of varying height are proposed within the site and along various segments of the project site’s boundaries, such as along the site’s southern edge. A six-foot masonry wall would also be installed on the shared property line with the approved Estia at Rocklin Residential Project to the south. The University Avenue frontage would not be fenced.

Signage
One freestanding community-identification monument sign is proposed on the University Avenue frontage south of the project site entry. Monument sign building materials and colors are proposed to complement the project design style and palette.

Landscaping
Landscaping within the project site would consist of a uniform palette of accent, shade, subordinate, and screening trees, as well as various decorative shrubs and several lawn areas throughout the site (see Figure 4). Landscaping improvements would include the use of low water, drought-tolerant plant materials.

Refuse Collection
Trash enclosures would be constructed throughout the site to accommodate trash and recycling dumpsters. Each trash enclosure would be constructed using tan, split-face concrete masonry units and metal doors painted to match the building color schemes.

Parking, Access, and Circulation
Project site access would be provided by way of a new 40-foot-wide driveway on University Avenue, located at the northeastern corner of the site. From the project access point, internal vehicle circulation would be provided by 26-foot-wide drive aisles between on-site buildings and parking areas. A gated emergency vehicle access (EVA) would also be provided in the project site’s southwest corner and would connect to the Estia at Rocklin Residential Project to the south.

816
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 12 ends

August 2024
Figure 4
Landscaping Plan
817
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 13 ends

August 2024
Frontage improvements would be required along University Avenue in order to ensure safe access to the project site. Specifically, the proposed project would include the widening of University Avenue from two 12- foot lanes to four 12 -foot lanes and construction of a raised median, extending north and south of the project driveway. University Avenue would also be restriped along the project frontage such that the outer two lanes would allow northbound and southbound through traffic, and the inner two lanes would allow left -turn movements into the project driveway and right-turn movements into the William Jessup University Driveway located just south of the project driveway, respectively (see Figure 5).

Accessible pedestrian paths would be provided around each of the buildings, and would connect to the existing sidewalks on University Avenue.

Under State Density Bonus Law, the proposed project would be required to include a total of 449 parking spaces (1.4 spaces per unit). If the proposed project did not include a density bonus, under Rocklin Municipal Code Section 17.66.020, 692 parking spaces (2.13 spaces/unit) would be required. The project would include a total of 571 uncovered parking spaces on- site (1.76 spaces/unit), including spaces for residents and guests. Bicycle parking would also be provided throughout the site adjacent to apartment buildings and at the clubhouse.

Sanitary sewer service for the proposed project would be provided by the SPMUD, which handles wastewater treatment and disposal within the project area. The proposed on-site sanitary sewer system would connect to an existing 22-inch stubbed trunk sewer line located along the western boundary of the site.

Potable water would be provided to the proposed project by Placer County Water Agency (PCWA). The proposed project would connect to the existing 12- inch water line on University Avenue by way of two new connections located at the northern and southern portions of the site.

Development of the project site would require installation of on -site drainage facilities and alteration of site topography to accommodate the proposed land uses. The site’s stormwater facilities would be developed within 15 drainage management areas (DMAs) located throughout the entire ty of the project site (see Figure 7). Storm water runoff from each DMA would be conveyed through a pipe system which would route stormwater to a series of water quality basins on site prior to being discharged through three existing culverts located along the northeastern, northwestern, and western boundaries of the site towards the existing open space to the north.

The existing culverts located along the northwestern and western boundaries of the site also include an existing outfall structure to help facilitate stormwater drainage.

Sustainability Features
The project design would incorporate sustainable features consistent with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), including electric vehicle charging spaces and rooftop photovoltaic systems.

818
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 14 ends

August 2024
Figure 5
Frontage Improvement Plan
819
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 15 ends

August 2024
Figure 6
Utility Plan

820
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 16 ends

August 2024
Figure 7
Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan
821
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 17 ends

August 2024

2.4.3 Project Approvals
The proposed project would require the City’s approval of the following entitlements:

• General Plan Amendment to change 0.41-acre of the project site from R-C to MU; • General Development Plan Amendment/Rezone to change the project site from PD-LI and OS to PD-22+; and
• Design Review.

In addition, the proposed project would be conditioned to include a lot merger to merge APN 017- 276-005 (6.75 acres) and APN 017-276-006 (5.97 acres) into a single parcel.

General Plan Amendment and Rezone
The project site is currently designated MU (12.31 acres) and R -C (0.41 -acre) by the City’s General Plan. The proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the 0.41-acre area on-site from R-C to MU (see Figure 8).

Similarly, the project site is designated as PD -LI (12.31 acres) and OS (0.41 -acre) within the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan and the City’s zoning code. A lthough the project site’s PD-LI zoning designation is inconsistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of MU, the proposed project would not be required to rezone the 12.31 acres of the site designated as PD-LI as the proposed project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation.

The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) clarifies that if the zoning standards and criteria of a project site are inconsistent with applicable, objective General Plan standards of the same site, and the development project is consistent with the applicable objective General Plan standards for the site, then a housing development project cannot be found inconsistent with the standards and criteria of the zoning designation. Further, if such an inconsistency exists, the lead agency may not require rezoning before housing development project approval. Nevertheless, the City will rezone the project site t o establish conformity with the project site’s General Plan land use designation. Specifically, a General Development Plan Amendment/Rezone is proposed to change the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan and zoning designations of the site from PD-LI and OS to PD-22+ (see Figure 9).

Design Review
The City of Rocklin has adopted Design Review Objectives and Criteria that are applicable to specific types of residential and non-residential projects Citywide. Topics covered include, but are not limited to site planning; building design, color, materials, and articulation; signage (building mounted and freestanding) ; landscaping; pedestrian amenities ; loading facilities ; walls; mechanical equipment screening; trash enclosures; and small lot residential subdivisions. All applicable development projects are required to undergo design review during the project approval process to ensure that the project is consistent with the City’s Design Review Objectives and Criteria.

2.4.4 Density Bonus
As discussed above, the proposed project would provide a total of 17 (5 percent of the total units) affordable housing units for very low-income households, and would therefore, be entitled to a 20 percent density bonus, pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. In addition, the proposed project would be entitled to one incentive/concession and a potentially unlimited number of development standard waivers. Incentives or concessions are defined as:

822
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 18 ends

August 2024
Figure 8
Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations 823
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 19 ends

August 2024
Figure 9
Existing and Proposed General Development Plan/Zoning Designations

824
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 20 ends

August 2024
• A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural design requirements, such as a reduction in a setback or minimum square footage requirements;
• Approval of mixed use zoning; or
• Other regulatory incentives or concessions which result in identifiable and actual cost reductions.

As discussed above, the proposed project would include a concession to allow for a reduced number of covered parking spaces as compared to what is typically required by Rocklin Municipal Code Section 17.66.020.

2.5 Previously Disclosed Impacts
As disclosed in the 2002 EIR, implementation of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project will result in significant but mitigable (to less-than-significant levels) impacts on geology, soils and seismicity; land use; public safety and hazards; and public services. S ignificant and unavoidable impacts to air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; hydrology, water quality and flooding; noise; public utilities; transportation/circulation; and visual resources were also identified. Population, employment and housing was also analyzed in detail in the 2002 EIR; however, the project was determined to have a less-than-significant impact on this issue area, with no mitigation required. Agricultural resources and mineral resources were identified during the initial environmental review process (prior to the preparation of the 2002 EIR) as having no potential for impacts and, thus, were not examined in detail in the 2002 EIR. Additionally, energy and wildfire were added as environmental issue areas after the release of the 2002 EIR, and therefore were not discussed in the 2002 EIR. The proposed project would not result in changes to any of the prior conclusions, as described below under Environmental Analysis.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In cases where an approved project has already undergone environmental review, and the environmental document has been adopted by the lead agency, the lead agency can restrict the current review to the incremental effects of the modified project, rather than having to reconsider the overall impacts of the project. In such cases, as the project under review constitutes only a modification of a previously approved project, the “baseline” for the purposes of CEQA is adjusted such that the originally approved project is assumed to exist. As discussed above, the project site was previously anticipated for development of up to 244,600 sf of light industrial use s within the 2002 EIR. Thus, the environmental baseline for this Addendum is appropriately considered to be the approved conditions of the site, as anticipated by the 2002 EIR.

This Addendum to the Northwest Rocklin Annexation (Sunset Ranchos) EIR (2002 EIR) includes the following analysis to demonstrate that environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are consistent with the impacts identified within the 2002 EIR.

3.1 Aesthetics
The following includes a discussion of the previous impacts identified in the 2002 EIR, the impacts associated with the proposed project, and a description of the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to aesthetics.

3.1.1 Summary of Aesthetics Impacts from 2002 EIR
The 2002 EIR found that implementation of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project would result in a significant and unavoidable aesthetic impact due to substantially altering the existing visual character of the site. Development of the project would result in the conversion of grassland and open space to developed, urban area. However, proposed residential development was 825
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 21 ends

August 2024
determined to be typical of the residential development in the adjacent areas in Rocklin, and the project would not affect scenic highways. The Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan would help new development integrate with existing residential areas by containing policies guiding visual quality of future structures. The project would preserve areas of open space and open space corridors. Trees and landscaping would also be incorporated to enhance the visual quality of the site. Impacts related to cons tructing a development that is considered visually incompatible with surrounding uses would be less than significant. However , impacts related to substantially altering the existing visual character of the site would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project was also found to result in significant impacts related to altering lighting in the area. The proposed development would include new sources of nighttime lighting that would be substantially greater than existing conditions and could interfere with neighboring properties. Additionally, construction of stadiums and ballparks would require large light fixtures that would substantially increase nighttime lighting in surrounding areas. The 2002 EIR included a measure requiring the project applicant to ensure that roadway streetlights on the project site adhere to the City of Rocklin light standards. The 2002 EIR also includes Mitigation Measure MMM-3(a), which would reduce lighting impacts from proposed commercial properties to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure MMM-3(b) would reduce lighting impacts from stadiums and ballparks, but such impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The project was found to not substantially increase glare, and impacts r elated to glare would be less than significant.

3.1.2 Aesthetics Impacts Associated with Proposed Project The proposed project would include the development of 12 three-story apartment buildings with a total of 324 units on a site which was previously anticipated for light industrial uses within the 2002 EIR.

According to the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan, the maximum allowable height for development within the PD-LI zone is 30 feet (or 50 feet with approval of a use permit), and the maximum allowable lot coverage is 50 percent. The proposed project would be built at a maximum of 38 feet (including the parapet s to hide rooftop mechanical equipment and solar panels) and 40-feet-three-inches on corners with sloped parapet rooflines , and would have a maximum lot coverage of 23 percent . As such, while the proposed project would result in the development of a different land use as compared to what was anticipated in the 2002 EIR, the proposed project would generally be consistent with the development standards assumed for the site. The maximum allowable height for development within the PD-22+ zone is 5 0 feet. The proposed project’s maximum heights of 38 feet and 40-feet-three-inches on corners with sloped parapet rooflines would be below the 50- foot maximum height requirement, and therefor e, approval of a use permit would not be required. Overall, the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to substantially altering the existing visual character of the site.

In addition, existing uses surrounding the project site include undeveloped land, open space and a pond to the north; William Jessup University to the east, across University Avenue; a light industrial business park to the west beyond SR 65; and the approved, but not yet constructed, Estia at Rocklin Residential Project and the University Square Retail Project to the south, which will include development of 200 detached rental units and eight buildings totaling 108,500 square feet, respectively. Several additional residential developments are also located further north and east of the site. Therefore, the proposed project would be considered generally visually compatible with the existing and planned surrounding uses.

826
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 22 ends

August 2024
Furthermore, the area of disturbance associated with the proposed project would not extend beyond the boundaries of the overall Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area analyzed in the 2002 EIR. According to the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Scenic Highway System Lists,4 additional State scenic highways have not been designated in the project area since the 2002 EIR was drafted, and SR 65, adjacent to the project site, is not designated as a State scenic highway. As such, the currently proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway.

Development of the proposed project would involve new sources of light and glare associated with lighting fixtures within the proposed buildings and parking areas. Headlights from vehicles driving within the project site would also result in sources of light and glare. However, such sources of light and glare would not be substantially more intensive than what was anticipated for the site within the 2002 EIR. For instance, light and glare associated with light industrial uses would be generated by vehicles traveling on SR 65 and University Avenue in the project vicinity, and from lighting fixtures within the buildings and parking areas. In addition, since the 2002 EIR was certified, lighting technology has improved considerably including LED components, lower spillover, and programmable levels. As such, the proposed lighting is anticipated to have a lesser impact than what was previously anticipated in the 2002 EIR. The proposed project would also be subject to the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6 CCR), which regulates outdoor lighting characteristics of new development such as maximum power and brightness, shielding, and controls to turn lighting on and off. Furthermore , the proposed project would be required to incorporate the aesthetics required measure listed in the 2002 EIR requiring the applicant to ensure roadway streetlights on the site adhere to the City of Rocklin light standards.

Given the above, the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to aesthetics.

3.1.3 Aesthetics Mitigation Measures
The following presents the mitigation measure applicable to the proposed project related to aesthetics.

Prior Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures MMM-3(a) and MMM-3(b) are related to lighting standards for development of commercial properties and high intensity light producing uses such as stadiums and ball fields, none of which would be developed as part of the proposed project. Thus, Mitigation Measures MMM-3(a) and MMM-3(b) are not applicable to the proposed project and have been omitted from this Addendum . The aesthetics required measure ( i.e., REQ-MM) in the 2002 EIR would be applicable to the proposed project and is provided below.

REQ-MM The project applicant shall ensure that roadway streetlights on the project site adhere to the City of Rocklin light standards.

Modified Mitigation Measures
None Required.

4 California Department of Transportation. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.

Accessed August 2023.
827
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 23 ends

August 2024
New Mitigation Measures
None Required.

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The following includes a discussion of the previous impacts identified in the 2002 EIR, as well as the impacts associated with the proposed project.

3.2.1 Summary of Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impacts from 2002 EIR
The 2002 EIR did not contain an agricultural resources chapter; however, potential impacts to agricultural resources resulting from implementation of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project were analyzed within the Land Use chapter. As discussed in the 2002 EIR, although the Sunset Ranchos portion of the site was designated for Residential -Agriculture by the Placer County General Plan, this region was not being used for agricultural uses. The City of Rocklin adopted Planning Reserve and Light Industrial land use designations for the region.

The 2002 EIR determined that no parcels within the project were under a Williamson Act contract, so a conflict with a Williams on Act contract would not occur. Additionally, the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program had not identified any Prime, Unique, or Important Farmlands within the project area. No agricultural uses existed within the project area, with the exception of seasonal livestock grazing within Parcel K. As determined by the California Department of Conse rvation, soils within Grazing Land are not suitable for growing crops. Significant impacts to agriculture and forestry resources would not occur with implementation of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project, and no mitigation was required.

3.2.3 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impacts Associated with Proposed Project
The area of disturbance associated with the proposed project would not extend beyond the boundaries of the overall Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area analyzed in the 2002 EIR, which is not considered as prime farmland or agricultural land, zoned for agricultural use or forest land, or under a Williamson Act contract. According to the Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the project site contains lands designated as Grazing Land.5 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in more significant impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources than what was previously evaluated in the 2002 EIR.

Given the above, the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to agriculture and forestry resources.

3.2.4 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Mitigation Measures The following presents the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to agriculture and forestry resources.

Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Modified Mitigation Measures
None Required.

5 Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed August 2023. 828
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 24 ends

August 2024
New Mitigation Measures
None Required.

3.3 Air Quality
The following includes a discussion of the previous impacts identified in the 2002 EIR, the impacts associated with the proposed project, and a description of the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to air quality.

3.3.1 Summary of Air Quality Impacts from 2002 EIR
Construction of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project was determined to generate criteria air pollutants that would exceed Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) thresholds, resulting in significant impacts. The 2002 EIR included three required measures to help lower such emissions, including requiring the applicant to comply with all PCAPCD rules and regulations, the Uniform Building Code, and Title 24 of the CCR. The 2002 EIR also included Mitigation Measures GMM -1(a) and GMM -1(b) to minimize construction emissions. However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Operation of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project was determined to result in significant generation of both vehicle and area source air pollutants, increasing total air pollutant emissions.

The 2002 EIR identified five required measures to minimize the release of pollutants during operation, including the three required measures discussed above. The measures also required that only United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) certified woodstoves shall be installed, the project shall comply with all Environmental Protection Agency regulations to wood burning stoves, and the project shall comply with all federal EPA -mandated requirements. The 2002 EIR also included Mitigation Measures GMM-2(a) thro ugh GMM -2(g) to further reduce operational emissions. However, operational emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project was determined to result in less -than-significant impacts related to increasing carbon monoxide (CO) at some intersections and potentially exposing sensitive receptors to stationary source pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs).

Therefore, mitigation is not required for these issues. However, the required measures discussed above would still be incorporated.

The Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project, in combination with other cumulative development, was found to potentially hinder the PCAPCD’s ability to bring the region into attainment for ozone (O
3) and particulate matter 10 microns in diameter (PM10). Implementation of Mitigation Measure GMM-5, which simply requires implementation of Mitigation Measures GMM-1 and GMM-2, would reduce impacts, but such cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Potential cumulative impacts related to increasing CO concentrations at some intersections was found to be less than significant, and mitigation was not required.

3.3.2 Air Quality Impacts Associated with Proposed Project The project site is located within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the PCAPCD. The SVAB is designated nonattainment for the federal particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5) and the State 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 federal ambient air quality standards (AAQS).

829
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 25 ends

August 2024
The current applicable air quality plan for the 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 Federal Clean Air Act requirements, including the federal AAQS.

In addition to strengthening the 8 -hour ozone federal AAQS, the USEPA also strengthened the secondary 8-hour ozone federal AAQS, making the secondary standard identical to the primary standard. The SVAB remains classified as a severe nonattainment area for ozone 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 reasonabl y 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.
6 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 AAQS, increase the frequency or severity of an existing violation of any AAQS, or delay timely attainment of any AAQS. 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 adopted recommended thresholds of significance for emissions of PM
10 and the ozone precursors reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NO X). On October 13, 2016, the PCAPCD adopted updated significance thresholds for the aforementioned pollutants. The significance thresholds, expressed in pounds per day (lbs/day), listed in Table 2 are the PCAPCD’s current thresholds of significance for use in the evaluation of air quality impacts associated with proposed development projects.

In order to determine whether the proposed project would result in new or more severe significant impacts as compared to what was assumed for the site in the 2002 EIR and 2008 Addendum, emissions have been estimated for both the Approved Conditions and Proposed Project scenarios using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022 web-based software – a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify air quality emissions, including greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions, from land use projects. The model applies inherent default values for various land uses, including construction data, trip generation rates, vehicle mix, trip length, average speed, compliance with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), etc. Where project-specific data was available, such data was input into the model (e.g., construction phases and timing, inherent site or project design features, compliance with applicable regulations, etc.).

Table 2
PCAPCD Thresholds of Significance (lbs/day)
Pollutant Construction Threshold Operational Threshold ROG 82 55
NOX 82 55
PM10 82 82
Source: Placer County Air Pollution Control District. CEQA Handbook. 2017.

6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Nonattainment and Unclassifiable Area Designations for the 2015 Ozone Standards. April 30, 2018.
830
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 26 ends

August 2024
The modeling for the Approved Conditions Scenario assumed the following:

• Construction would begin in January 2025;
• The land use would be 244,600 sf of general light industrial uses.

The modeling for the Proposed Project Scenario assumed the following:

• Construction would begin in January 2025 and occur over approximately two years; • The proposed project would result in the development of a 324-unit multi-family apartment complex; and
• Trip generation rates were updated based on a project -specific traffic analysis prepared by Kimley Horn;
• Fireplaces would not be included within the proposed development.

All CalEEMod results are included in Appendix A to the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project, which is included as Appendix A of this Addendum.

The results of the emissions analysis for construction and operational emissions are discussed separately below.

Table 3 presents the estimated unmitigated construction-related emissions under the Approved Conditions Scenario and the Proposed Project Scenario.

Table 3
Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX PM10
Approved Conditions Scenario 6.44 31.7 21.2
Proposed Project Scenario 8.09 31.7 21.2
Net Change +1.65 +0.0 +0.0
PCAPCD Significance Threshold 82.0 82.0 82.0
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO
Source: CalEEMod, April 2024 (see Appendix A).

As shown in Table 3, implementation of the Proposed Project Scenario would result in a net increase in ROG by 1.65 lbs/day as compared to the Approved Conditions Scenario. In addition, emissions of NO
X and PM 10 would be similar under the Proposed Project Scenario and the Approved Conditions Scenario. However, the total construction-related emissions associated with the Proposed Project Scenario would be below the applicable PCAPCD thresholds of significance for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not violate any AAQS or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

Table 4 presents the estimated unmitigated operational emissions under the Approved Conditions Scenario and the Proposed Project Scenario.

Table 4
Maximum Unmitigated Operational Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX PM10
Approved Conditions Scenario 9.31 2.17 2.89
Proposed Project Scenario 19.4 11.8 19.1
Net Change +10.09 +9.63 +16.21
PCAPCD Significance Threshold 55.0 55.0 82.0
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO
Source: CalEEMod, April 2024 (see Appendix A).
831
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 27 ends

August 2024
As shown in the table, similar to the above, implementation of the Proposed Project Scenario would result in a net increase in ROG, NO X, and PM10 as compared to the Approved Conditions Scenario. However, the total operational emissions associated with the Proposed Project Scenario would be below the applicable PCAPCD thresholds of significance for all criteria pollutants. Accordingly, operations of the proposed project would not violate any AAQS or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

Additionally, as discussed above, impacts related to emissions of localized CO and exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations were determined to be less than significant within the 2002 EIR. Given the area of disturbance associated with the proposed project would not extend beyond the boundaries of the overall Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area analyzed in the 2002 EIR, the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in any new significant impacts associated with CO or TACs during construction.

With regard to operational CO emissions, according to the modeling performed for the Proposed Project Scenario, operation of the project would result in maximum mobile source CO emissions of 93.5 lbs/day, an increase in 67.4 lbs/day as compared to the 26.1 lbs/day of mobile source CO emissions generated under the Approved Conditions Scenario. However, CO emissions related to operation of the proposed project would be below the 550 lbs/day screening threshold used by PCAPCD.

The proposed multi-family residences would not involve long-term or frequent operations of any stationary diesel engines. Thus, project operations would not result in the production of substantial concentrations of TAC emissions.

In addition, considering the low level of emissions estimated to occur from the proposed project, implementation of the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in measurable health effects or a substantial contribution to net health effects in the project region.

Given all of the above, the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to air quality.

3.3.4 Air Quality Mitigation Measures
The following presents the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to air quality.

Prior Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures GMM-1(a), GMM-2(b), GMM-2(e), GMM-2(f), and GMM-5 from the 2002 EIR remain applicable to the proposed project and would further reduce air quality impacts .

Additionally, the applicable air quality required measures (REQ-MM) from the 2002 EIR are provided below. All other mitigation measures included in the 2002 EIR related to air quality are related to design features (i.e., woodburning fireplaces) that would not be included as part of the proposed project, or apply to land uses that would not be developed as part of the proposed project (i.e., single-family residences, commercial land uses). Such measures are not applicable to the proposed project and, therefore, have been omitted from this Addendum.

GMM-1(a) Prior to commencement of grading, the project applicant shall submit a Construction Emission/dust control plan for approval by the City engineer and the Placer County Air Pollution Control District. This plan shall specify measures to reduce dust pollution during all phases of construction. These measures may include the following:
832
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 28 ends

August 2024
(i) Traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces shall be posted at 25 mph or less.
(ii) All grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph.
(iii) All trucks leaving the site shall be washed off to eliminate dust and debris. (iv) All construction equipment shall be maintained in clean condition. (v) All exposed surfaces shall be revegetated as quickly as feasible. (vi) If fill dirt is brought to the construction site, tarps or soil stabilizers shall be placed on the dirt piles to minimize dust problems.
(vii) Water or dust palliatives shall be applied on all exposed earth surfaces as necessary to control dust. Construction contracts shall include dust control treatment as frequently as necessary to minimize dust.
(viii) No open burning of any kind.

GMM-2(b) Tree planting programs shall include planting at least one tree per lot, for shade.

GMM-2(e) To reduce emissions associated with landscape management the project applicant shall landscape with native drought -resistant species, where appropriate, to reduce water consumption, emissions from lawn equipment and to provide passive solar benefits.

GMM-2(f) Low NO
x hot water heaters shall be installed per Air District Rule.

GMM-5 Implement Mitigation Measures GMM-1, GMM-2, and GMM-4.

REQ-MM The project applicant shall comply with all of Placer County Air Pollution Control District’s rules and regulations.

REQ-MM The project applicant shall comply with all requirements in the Uniform Building Code.

REQ-MM The project applicant shall comply with all requirements in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24.

Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to the City of Rocklin’s standard air quality conditions of approval listed below. Adherence to the conditions would ensure impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant.

1. Prior to commencement of grading, the developer shall submit a Construction Emission / Dust Control Plan for approval by the City Engineer and the Placer County Air Pollution Control District. This plan must address how the project meets the minimum requirements of sections 300 and 400 of Rule 228-Fugitive Dust.

2. Any diesel-powered equipment used during project construction shall be Air Resources Board (ARB) certified.

3. The prime contractor shall submit to the Placer County Air Quality Control District a comprehensive inventory (e.g., make, model, year, emission rating) of all the heavy-duty off-road equipment (50 horsepower or greater) that will be used in aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. If any new equipment is added after submission of the inventory, the prime contractor shall contact the District prior to the new equipment being utilized. At least three business days prior to the use of subj ect heavy -duty off -road equipment, the project representative shall provide the District with the anticipated 833
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 29 ends

August 2024
construction timeline including start date, name, and phone number of the property owner, project manager, and on-site foreman.

4. Construction equipment exhaust emissions shall not exceed Placer County APCD Rule 202 Visible Emission limitations. Operators of vehicles and equipment found to exceed opacity limits are to be immediately notified by APCD to cease operations and the equipment must be repaired within 72 hours.

5. Processes that discharge 2 pounds per day or more of air contaminants, as defined by California State Health and Safety Code Section 39013, to the atmosphere may require a permit. Developers / Contractors should contact the Placer County Air Pollution Control District prior to construction or use of equipment and obtain any necessary permits.

6. During construction, the contractor shall minimize idling time to a maximum of 5 minutes for all diesel-powered equipment.

7. Traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces shall be posted at 15 mph or less.

8. During construction the contractor shall utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel (e.g., gasoline, biodiesel, natural gas) generators to minimize the use of temporary diesel power generators.

9. All construction equipment shall be maintained in clean condition.

10. The prime contractor shall be responsible for keeping adjacent public thoroughfares clean of silt, dirt, mud, and debris, and shall “wet broom” the streets (or use another method to control dust as approved by the City) if silt, dirt mud or debris is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares.

11. If fill dirt is brought to or exported from the construction site, tarps or soil stabilizers shall be placed on the dirt piles to minimize dust problems.

12. All grading operations shall be suspended when fugitive dust emissions exceed Placer County Air Pollution Control District Rule 228 -Fugitive Dust limitations. The prime contractor shall be responsible for having an individual who is CARB -certified to perform Visible Emissions Evaluations (VEE). This individual shall evaluate compliance with Rule 228 on a weekly basis.

13. Fugitive dust emissions shall not exceed 40 percent opacity and shall not go beyond the property boundary at any time. If lime or other drying agents are utilized to dry out wet grading areas, the developer shall ensure such agents are controlled so as not to exceed District Rule 228-Fugitive Dust limitations.

14. The prime contractor shall suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (including instantaneous gusts) are excessive and dust is impacting adjacent properties.

15. Water shall be applied to control fugitive dust, as needed, to prevent impacts offsite.

Operational water trucks shall be onsite to control fugitive dust. Construction vehicles leaving the site shall be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked off-site.

16. In order to minimize wind driven dust during construction, the prime contractor shall apply methods such as surface stabilization, establishment of a vegetative cover, paving, (or use another method to control dust as approved by the City).

17. Open burning of any kind shall be prohibited. All removed vegetative material shall be either chipped on site or taken to an appropriate recycling site, or if a site is not available, a licensed disposal site.

18. Chemical soil stabilizers, vegetative mats, or other appropriate best management practices, in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications, shall be applied to all-inactive construction areas (previously graded areas which remain inactive for 96 hours).

19. All exposed surfaces shall be revegetated as quickly as feasible.

Modified Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GMM-1(b) from the 2002 EIR remains applicable to the proposed project and would further reduce air quality impacts. However, requirements regarding heavy-duty off-road 834
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 30 ends

August 2024
equipment have become more stringent since the certification of the 2002 EIR. Therefore, Mitigation Measure GMM-1(b) has been modified to remove outdated fleet standards (modified text is double-underlined).

GMM-1(b) The contractor shall reduce NO X and ROG emissions by complying with the construction vehicle air pollutant control strategies developed by the Placer County Air Pollution Control District. The contractor shall include in construction contracts the following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective:

(i) Contractors' construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned during construction activity.
(ii) Contractors shall use low emission mobile construction equipment where possible.
(iii) Construction equipment exhaust emissions shall not exceed District Rule 202 Visible Emission limitations.
(iv) The prime contractor shall submit to the District a comprehensive inventory (i.e., make, model, year, emission rating) of all the heavy -duty off -road equipment (50 horsepower or greater) that will be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. District personnel, with assistance from the California Air Resources Board, will conduct initial Visible Emission Evaluations of all heavy-duty equipment on the inventory list.
(v) Construction contracts shall stipulate that all equipment with horsepower ratings of 350 or greater, including scrapers, used during project grading shall meet the CARB’s Tier 3 emissions standards or cleaner.

In lieu of or in addition to this requirement, an applicant can use other measures to reduce particulate matter and nitrogen oxide emissions from their project through the use of emulsified diesel fuel and/or particulate matter traps. The District shall be contacted to discuss this measure.

New Mitigation Measures
None Required.

3.4 Biological Resources
The following includes a discussion of the previous impacts identified in the 2002 EIR, the impacts associated with the proposed project, and a description of the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to biological resources.

3.4.1 Summary of Biological Resources Impacts from 2002 EIR The 2002 EIR determined that implementation of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project may result in the loss of rare plant populations, which could result in potentially significant biological impacts. Such impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance with implementation of Mitigation Measures QMM -1(a) through QMM-1(c). The project would also result in the loss of native oak trees, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts.

Construction of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project was determined to have the potential to result in the loss of wetlands; however, such impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance with Mitigation Measures QMM -3(a) and QMM -3(b). Similarly, the project was determined to result in potentially significant impacts to stream channels through alteration or degradation of such channels during construction and grading activities. Impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance with Mitigation Measure QMM-4. 835
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 31 ends

August 2024
The Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project was determined to have the potential to result in the disturbance of nesting migratory birds or raptors. Impacts would be lowered to below a level of significance through Mitigation Measures QMM -6(a) through QMM -6(c). The project was also determined to have the potential to result in the loss of federally listed vernal pool crustaceans and their habitat. Impacts would be lowered to below a level of significance through Mitigation Measures QMM-7(a) and QMM-7(b). The Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project was determined to result in less -than-significant impacts related to the loss of individual elderberry longhorn beetles and their habitat, and would not conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

The 2002 EIR determined that implementation of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project, in combination with other development projects occurring in western Placer County, may contribute to regional loss of wetlands and habitat for plants and wildlife. Implementation of Mitigation Measures QMM-1 and QMM-3 through QMM-7 would lower such impacts, but cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

3.4.2 Biological Resources Impacts Associated with Proposed Project
The following includes an analysis of potential biological resource impacts associated with the proposed project in comparison to the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project.

Because trees do not occur on the project site, the biological resources required measure (REQ- MM) identified in the 2002 EIR related to such is not required.

Special-Status Species
The area of disturbance associated with the proposed project would not extend beyond the boundaries of the overall Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area analyzed in the 2002 EIR. According to the 2002 EIR, a total of five special- status plant species (Bogg’s Lake hedge hyssop, hoary navarretia, depauperate milk vetch, slender Orcutt grass, and Sacramento Orcutt grass) have the potential to occur within the Northwest Rocklin Annexation area. In addition, the 2002 EIR identified 17 special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur within the Northwest Rocklin Annexation area (vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, valley elderberry longhorn beetle [VELB], California red -legged frog, California tiger salamander, western spadefoot toad, western pond turtle, loggerhead shrike, yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, tricolored blackbird, American badger, and several other nesting birds and raptors, such as white-tailed kite, northern harrier, Cooper’s hawk, Swainson’s hawk, and western burrowing owl).

In order to ensure that additional special-status species have not populated the project site since the 2002 EIR was certified , a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) was prepared for the proposed project by Madrone Ecological Consulting (see Appendix B). 7 The BRA included queries
of databases including the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare Plants, as well as several field surveys of the project site, which were conducted in December 2022 and April 2023.

According to the BRA, 11 special-status plant species and 25 special-status wildlife species have been identified within the project region. Of the 11 special-status plant species, two species, Bogg’s Lake hedge hyssop and Sacramento Orcutt grass, were identified in the 2002 EIR.

Additionally, of the 25 special-status wildlife species, 10 species, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, VELB, California red -legged frog, western spadefoot, western pond turtle,

7 Madrone Ecological Consulting. Biological Resources Assessment – University Avenue Apartments. February 2024.
836
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 32 ends

August 2024
loggerhead shrike, tricolored blackbird, white- tailed kite, and Swainson’s hawk, were previously identified in the 2002 EIR. However, due to a lack of suitable habitats and/or the project site being situated outside of the known distribution and/or elevation of the species, the majority of special- status species identified within the 2002 EIR and the updated CNDDB search as having potential to occur in the greater project region would not occur on-site. According to the BRA, eight special- status plant species (big-scale balsamroot, dwarf downingia, Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop, woolly rose-mallow, Ahart’s dwarf rush, legenere, pincushion navarretia, and Sacramento Orcutt grass), and seven special-status wildlife species (Crotch’s bumble bee, western bumble bee, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, conservancy fairy shrimp, western pond turtle, and burrowing owl), as well as other nesting birds and raptors protected by the migratory bird treaty act (MBTA), have the potential to occur on- site. Such species are discussed in further detail below.

Because elderberry shrubs do not occur on the project site, the biological resources required measure (REQ-MM) identified in the 2002 EIR related to such is not required.

Special-Status Plants
As discussed above, several field surveys of the project site were conducted in December 2022 and April 2023, which included protocol -level surveys of the project site for the eight aforementioned special -status plant species with potential to occur on -site, consistent with Mitigation Measure QMM-1(a) of the 2002 EIR. Based on the results of the protocol-level surveys, only one special -status plant species, dwarf downingia, was observed on- site. However, as discussed above, the 2002 EIR included Mitigation Measures QMM-1(b) and QMM-1(c), to reduce impacts to special-status plant species to a less-than-significant level. Modifications to Mitigation Measures QMM-1(b) and QMM-1(c) were recommended in the BRA, which are provided below.

In addition, the BRA recommends conducting a Worker Environmental Awareness Training (WEAT) prior to any ground- disturbing or vegetation- removal activities, which is required as project-specific Mitigation Measure BIO -1, below. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures QMM-1(b) and QMM-1(c), and BIO-1, the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to special-status plants.

Crotch’s Bumble Bee and Western Bumble Bee
According to the BRA, the CNDDB does not list any occurrences of Crotch’s bumble bee within five miles of the project site. However, iNaturalist lists one Research Grade record from June 2021 approximately two miles to the northwest of the site, in the Orchard Creek Mitigation Bank.

In addition, the CNDDB, Bumble Bee Watch, and iNaturalist do not list any verified occurrences of western bumble bee within five miles of the project site . Further, the BRA notes that t he site has a shallow floral profile that blooms for only a short period in the spring, so the site is not favorable for nesting, but could be used for foraging. As such, according to the BRA, while Crotch’s bumble bee and western bumble bee are unlikely to nest within the project site, the site could be used for foraging.

However, according to the BRA, i f Crotch’s bumble bee or western bumble bee, or their nests, are present in the project site at the time of construction, individuals of the species could be injured or killed. As such, the BRA includes recommendations, which are presented as new project - specific Mitigation Measure BIO-2, to ensure impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee and western bumble bee do not occur as a result of project construction activities. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to Crotch’s bumble bee or western bumble bee.

837
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 33 ends

August 2024

838
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 34 ends

August 2024
Vernal Pool Branchiopods
As discussed above, vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp were identified within the 2002 EIR as having potential to occur within the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area.

The CNDDB documents 33 occurrences of vernal pool fairy shrimp and two occurrences of vernal pool tadpole shrimp within five miles of th e project site. In addition, approximately 0.132-acre of seasonal wetland swale and 0.105-acre of vernal pool are located within the project site. Such aquatic resources represent suitable habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp. However, the vernal pools and seasonal wetland swales throughout the project site are generally not deep enough to support vernal pool tadpole shrimp. While the CNDDB does not document any occurrences of conservancy fairy shrimp within five miles of the project site, the vernal pools and seasonal wetland swales throughout the project site represent suitable habitat for the species.

In compliance with Mitigation Measure QMM -7(a), wet-season surveys of the project site were conducted every two weeks during the 2023-2024 wet season, and, as of May 2024, the dry - season survey for the project site is complete . Both the wet- and dry-season surveys produced negative results, as federally listed vernal pool branchiopods were not located within the project site. In addition, as described in Section 2.4.1, Project Location and Setting, of this Addendum, the Estia at Rocklin Residential Project site is located directly adjacent to the proposed project site to the south . Wet- and dry-season branchiopod surveys conducted on the Estia at Rocklin site in 2021- 2022 were negative for vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and conservancy fairy shrimp.

Based on the above , the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to vernal pool branchiopods, and Mitigation Measure QMM-7(b) would not be required.

Western Pond Turtle
As discussed above, western pond turtle was identified within the 2002 EIR as having potential to occur within the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area.

The CNDDB does not document any occurrences of western pond turtle within five miles of the project site. In addition, the project site lacks permanent water to support the species. However, a pond located approximately 160 feet to the north of the project site may provide suitable aquatic habitat. Females move overland for up to 100 meters (325 feet) in the spring and summer to find suitable sites for egg-laying. Therefore, while the project site would not provide suitable nesting habitat/substrate due to the on-site soil types, the northern 165 feet of the project site may support dispersing turtles. Consequently, if individual pond turtles are present within the project site during construction, they could be injured or killed. As such, the BRA includes recommendations, which are presented as new project -specific Mitigation Measure BIO -3, to ensure impac ts to western pond turtle do not occur as a result of project construction activities. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -3, the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to western pond turtle.

Burrowing Owl
As discussed above, burrowing owl was identified within the 2002 EIR as having potential to occur within the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area.

The CNDDB documents two occurrences of burrowing owl within five miles of the project site, the closest of which is located approximately 3.5 miles to the northwest on the Moore Ranch 839
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 35 ends

August 2024
Conservancy property. Cornell Lab’s eBird indicates that at least one owl wintered in the area around the pond north of the project site in 2021. Additionally, the grasslands throughout the project site represent suitable foraging habitat for the species. However, ground squirrel burrows or debris piles suitable for nesting were not observed during field surveys. Furthermore, the volcanic soils on-site limit burrowing opportunities. As such, the species is unlikely to breed within the project site. However, adjacent off-site areas to the north provide suitable nesting conditions.

Additionally, culverts under the utility access road could be used by burrowing owl as refugia. If burrowing owls were nesting on- site, disturbance or removal of burrows could adversely impact the species. Additionally, burrowing owls nesting in avoided areas adjacent to construction activities could be disturbed by construction, which could result in nest abandonment. As such, the BRA includes recommendations, which are presented as new project -specific Mitigation Measure BIO-4, to ensure impacts to burrowing owl do not occur as a result of project construction activities. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -4, the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to burrowing owl.

Other Raptors and Migratory Birds
As discussed above, several raptors and migratory birds, including loggerhead shrike, yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, tricolored blackbird, white-tailed kite, northern harrier, Cooper’s hawk, and Swainson’s hawk, were identified within the 2002 EIR as having potential to occur within the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area.

According to the BRA, the project site contains suitable nesting habitat for grasshopper sparrow.

In addition, the project site could provide nesting habitat for other nesting raptors and migratory birds protected by the MBTA. Construction activities that adversely affect the nesting success of raptors and migratory birds (i.e., lead to the abandonment of active nests) or result in mortality of individual birds constitute a violation of State and federal laws. Thus, in the event that such species occur on-site during the breeding season, project construction activities could result in an adverse effect to species protected under the MBTA.

In addition, the non- native annual grassland within the project site provides suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk, white -tailed kite, and other more common raptors. A s such , approximately 12.4 acres of suitable foraging habitat within the project site w ould be impacted during project implementation.

Given that impacts to migratory birds and raptors protected under the MBTA were previously anticipated in the 2002 EIR, the 2002 EIR included Mitigation Measures QMM-6(a) through QMM-6(c) to ensure that the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project would not result in any additional impacts to nesting birds and raptors . Modifications to Mitigation Measures QMM-6(a) through QMM-6(c) were recommended in the BRA, which are provided below. In addition, the BRA includes recommendations specific to Swainson’s hawk, which are required as project - specific Mitigation Measure BIO-5 and BIO-6, below. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures QMM-6(a) through QMM-6(c), BIO-5, and BIO-6, the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to migratory birds and raptors protected under the MBTA, including Swainson’s hawk.

Aquatic Resources
Mitigation Measure QMM-3(a) requires that wetland delineations be conducted on vacant land in the SR 65 Corridor prior to approval of tentative maps, design review, or use permits . In compliance with Mitigation Measure QMM- 3(a), an Aquatic Resources Delineation (ARD) was conducted for the project site by Madrone Ecological Consulting on December 8, 2022, the results 840
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 36 ends

August 2024
of which are presented in the Aquatic Resources Delineation Report included as Appendix C to this Addendum.8 As described therein, and presented in Table 5, a total of approximately 0.237- acre of vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, and seasonal wetland swales are located throughout the project site (see Figure 10). A n additional 0.043- acre of intermittent drainage, a 0.122- acre intermittent stream, and a 1.342-acre pond are located directly west and north of the project site.

However, such off-site aquatic resources would not be disturbed by the proposed project.

Table 5
On-Site Aquatic Resources
Aquatic Resource Acreage
Seasonal Wetland Swale 0.132
Vernal Pool 0.105
Intermittent Drainage <0.001
Approximate Total 0.237
Source: Madrone Ecological Consulting, 2023.

Based on a verification letter provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on June 13, 2023 (included as part of Appendix C to this Addendum), the USACE concurred that the

0.237-acre of on- site aquatic resources are potential jurisdictional aquatic resources regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As such, the proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements of Mitigation Measure QMM -3(b) included in the 2002 EIR.

Compliance with Mitigation Measure QMM-3(b) would ensure that the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to aquatic resources.

Conclusion
Given the above, the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to biological resources.

3.4.3 Biological Resources Mitigation Measures
The following presents the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to biological resources.

Prior Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures QMM-3(b) and QMM-

4. For the reasons stated above, all other mitigation measures included in the 2002 EIR are not applicable to the proposed project, and have been omitted from this Addendum.

QMM-3(b) City shall require the Project Applicant and/or any developers filing tentative maps to mitigate impacts to ensure the avoidance of any net loss of seasonal wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the United States, or the bed, channel, or bank of any stream. Such avoidance may be achieved by implementing and complying with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and under Sections 1600- 1607 of the California Fish and Game Code, as administered by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), which includes obtaining all required permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and entering into a Streambed Alteration Agreement with CDFG and complying with all terms and conditions of those permits and agreements.

8 Madrone Ecological Consulting. Aquatic Resources Delineation Report – University Avenue Apartments. January 2023.
841
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 37 ends

August 2024
Figure 10
Aquatic Resources Delineation
842
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 38 ends

August 2024
QMM-4 Implement Mitigation Measure QMM-3(b).

Modified Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures QMM- 1(b) and QMM -1(c) from the 2002 EIR have been modified, as presented below, based on recommendations included in the BRA prepared for the proposed project (modified text is double-underlined).

QMM-1(b) Disturbed special-status plant populations shall be transplanted to an approved mitigation site and/or mitigation credits shall be purchased in an approved mitigation bank to ensure no net loss of rare plant populations. To ensure implementation of such requirements, the project applicant shall prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for the population of dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla) that is present on the project site. The plan shall identify a relocation site and provide detail regarding how seed from the population will be collected and transported to the relocation site.

QMM-1(c) Transplanted populations will be monitored by a qualified biologist/botanist for a period of 5 years, as required by the mitigation and monitoring plan for the population of dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla) that is present on the project site. The plan shall also outline the monitoring period, monitoring methods, and performance standards for the relocation. If there is greater than 80 percent survival of transplanted individuals the mitigation will be considered a success.

Additional plants will be required if the 80 percent survival goal is not met.

QMM-6(
a) The project applicant, in consultation with the City of Rocklin and CDF WG, shall conduct a pre- construction breeding- season survey ( approximately generally February 15 through August 30 September 1) of the project site and all accessible areas within a 500- foot radius of proposed construction areas no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction. during the same calendar year that construction is planned to begin. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified raptor biologist to determine if any birds -of-prey or other protected birds ( e.g., migratory songbirds) are nesting on or directly adjacent to the project site. No surveys would be needed if construction activities occur outside of the dates shown.

If phased construction procedures are planned for the project, the results of the abov
e survey shall be valid only for the season when it is conducted. A new survey shall be conducted for construction occurring in subsequent seasons. If a break in construction activity of more than 14 days occurs, then subsequent surveys shall be conducted.

A report shall be submitted to the City of Rocklin within 14 days of the completed survey(s), following the completion of the raptor nesting survey that includes, at a minimum, the following information:

A description of methodology including dates of field visits, the names of survey personnel with resumes, and a list of references cited and persons contacted. A map showing the location(s) of any raptor or other bird nests observed on the project site.

If the above survey does not identify any nesting raptor species on the project site, no further mitigation shall be required. However, should any raptor species be 843
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 39 ends

August 2024
found nesting on the project site, the following mitigation measure (QMM -6(b)) shall be implemented.

QMM-6(b) The project applicant, in consultation with the City of Rocklin and CDF WG, shall avoid all birds -of-prey nest sites located in the project site during the breeding season while the nest is occupied with adults and/or young. The occupied nest shall be monitored by a qualified raptor biologist to determine when the nest is no longer used. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a nondisturbance buffer zone around the nest site. The size of the buffer zone will be determined in consultation with the City and CDFG. Highly visible temporary construction fencing shall delineate the buffer zone. Specifically, if active raptor or tricolored blackbird nests are found, construction activities shall not take place within 500 feet of the nest/colony until the young have fledged. If active nests for any other bird covered under the MBTA are found, a 100-foot nondisturbance buffer shall be established until the young have fledged. These nondisturbance buffers may be reduced if a smaller buffer, along with nest monitoring (if applicable), is proposed by the qualified project biologist and approved by the City. The reduced buffer distance shall take into consideration the natural history of the species of bird nesting, the proposed activity level adjacent to the nest, habituation to existing or ongoing activity, and nest concealment (are there visual or acoustic barriers between the proposed activity and the nest). The qualified project biologist can visit the nest as needed to determine when the young have fledged the nest and are independent of the site or the nest can be left undisturbed until the end of the nesting seas on.

Construction activities may only resume within the buffer zone after a follow -up survey by the qualified project biologist has been conducted and a report has been prepared indicating that the nest (or nests) are no longer active.

Should construction activities cause a nesting bird to vocalize, make defensive flights at intruders, get up from a brooding position, or fly off the nest in a manner that would be considered a result of construction activities, then the established exclusionary buffer shall be increased such that activities are far enough from the nest to stop agitated behavior. The exclusionary buffer shall remain in place until the chicks have fledged or as otherwise determined by the qualified project biologist in consultation with the City.

QMM-6(c) If a legally protected species nest is located in a tree designated for removal, the removal shall be deferred until after August 30 th September 1st or until the adults and young are no longer dependent on the nest site as determined by a qualified biologist.

New Mitigation Measures
The following project -specific mitigation measures would ensure that the currently proposed project does not result in new or more severe significant impacts related to biological resources.

BIO-1 Prior to any ground- disturbing or vegetation -removal activities, a Worker Environmental Awareness Training (WEAT) shall be prepared and administered to the construction crews. The WEAT shall include the following: discussion of the state and federal Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the project’s permits and CEQA documentation, and associated mitigation measures; consequences and penalties for violation or noncompliance with these laws and regulations; identification of special-status wildlife, location of any avoided Waters of the U.S; hazardous substance spill prevention and containment measures; and 844
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 40 ends

August 2024
the contact person in the event of the discovery of a special-status wildlife species.

The WEAT shall also discuss the different habitats used by the species' different life stages and the annual timing of these life stages. A handout summarizing the WEAT information shall be provided to workers to keep on-site for future reference.

Upon completion of the WEAT training, workers shall sign a form stating that they attended the training, understand the information presented and shall comply with the regulations discussed. Workers shall be shown the project limits during the WEAT training; worker access shall be restricted along undeveloped project limits to minimize the potential for inadvertent environmental impacts. Proof of compliance with the aforementioned requirements shall be submitted to the City of Rocklin Community Development Department.

BIO-2 Prior to any ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey for Crotch bumble bee and western bumble bee. The survey shall be conducted within the active flight period for workers and males (early April through early November); surveys conducted outside of the active flight period are unlikely to detect bumble bee colonies as bumble bees are either relatively inactive or hibernating. During the survey, all appropriate areas within the project site shall be surveyed for active bumble bee colonies. The survey shall be conducted during appropriate weather (not during cool overcast, rainy, or windy days). The biologist shall walk accessible areas of the project site and inspect all suitable habitat for bumble bee activity.

If an active bumble bee colony is found within the project site, the species using the colony shall be identified. If the bee colonies are either Crotch bumble bee or western bumble bee, the colony shall be avoided, if possible, and work shall not occur within 50 feet of the colony until the biologist confirms that the bees have completed nesting. If the colony is in a location proposed for impact and avoidance is not possible, the project applicant shall translocate nesting substrate in accordance with the latest scientific research to a suitable location (i.e., a location that supports similar or better floral resources as the project area). Should Crotch bumble bee or western bumble bee be listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prior to the start of project construction, additional coordination with CDFW may be necessary prior to colony translocation. Proof of compliance with the aforementioned requirements shall be submitted to the City of Rocklin Community Development Department.

BIO-3 A qualified biologist shall conduct a western pond turtle survey no more than 48 hours prior to construction in areas within 325 feet of the limits of the perennial pond north of the project site. If western pond turtles or nests are not found, further mitigation is not required. If a western pond turtle is observed within the proposed disturbance area, a qualified biologist shall relocate the individual to suitable habitat outside of the disturbance area prior to construction. If a western pond turtle nest is observed within the disturbance area, the nest shall be fenced off and avoided until the eggs hatch. The exclusion fencing shall be placed no less than 25 feet from the nest. A qualified biologist shall monitor the nest daily during construction to ensure that hat chlings do not disperse into the construction area.

Relocation of hatchlings shall occur as stipulated above, if necessary. Proof of compliance with the aforementioned requirements shall be submitted to the City of Rocklin Community Development Department.

845
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 41 ends

August 2024
BIO-4 Within 14 days prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey of suitable burrowing owl habitat within the project area. The survey shall include the suitable habitat areas and accessible areas of suitable habitat within 250 feet. During the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), the survey shall document whether burrowing owls are nesting in the project area or within 250 feet. During the non-breeding season (September 1 to January 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in the project area. If there is a break in construction activity of more than 14 days, then subsequent surveys shall be conducted. A report summarizing the preconstruction survey(s) for burrowing owl, shall be provided to the City within 14 days of the completed survey(s). If no burrowing owls and/or active burrows are located during the survey, no additional mitigation is required.

If active burrows are detected within the survey area during the breeding season, the nest site(s) shall be avoided and protected with a 250- foot no- disturbance buffer. If active burrowing owl burrows/refugia are found during the non- breeding season, active burrow(s)/refugia shall be avoided and protected with a 160- foot no-disturbance buffer. Measures such as visual screens may be used to further reduce the buffer with City approval and provided a qualified biologist confirms that such measures do not caus e agitated behavior in the owls. In either case, buffer zones shall be flagged or otherwise clearly marked. The no- disturbance buffers may be removed when a qualified biologist confirms that the burrow(s) is no longer occupied by adults or young birds.

BIO-5 If construction activity begins during the active Swainson’s hawk nesting season (generally February 1 through September 1), a qualified biologist shall conduct a targeted Swainson’s hawk nest survey no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction. The biologist shall thoroughly survey all publicly accessible areas within a 0.25-mile radius of the proposed construction area. A report summarizing the preconstruction survey(s) for Swainson’s hawk shall be provided to the City within 14 days of the com pleted survey(s). If active nests are not located during the surveys, additional mitigation is not required. If active Swainson’s hawk nests are found within 0.25 mile of the construction area, construction within 0.25 mile of the nest will not commence until a qualified bi ologist determines that the young have fledged or it is determined that the nesting attempt has failed. If the project applicant desires to work within 0.25 mile of the nest, the qualified biologist shall recommend an appropriate buffer and consult with the City to determine if the nest buffer can be reduced and what (if any) nest monitoring is necessary. If a break in construction activity of more than 14 days occurs, then subsequent surveys shall be conducted.

BIO-6 Prior to the approval of improvement plans or grading 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 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.

846
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 42 ends

August 2024

3.5 Cultural Resources
The following includes a discussion of the previous impacts identified in the 2002 EIR, the impacts associated with the proposed project, and a description of the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to cultural resources.

3.5.1 Summary of Cultural Resources Impacts from 2002 EIR As discussed in the 2002 EIR, no known historic properties have been listed within the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project site. However, prehistoric resources that could be eligible for the NHRP have been identified within the project boundaries. Additionally, there is the potential for the inadvertent discovery of previously known historic resources, prehistoric resources , and human remains. Further, the construction of off-site infrastructure such as utilities would have the potential to damage or destroy undiscovered archaeological or historic resources. Therefore, impacts related to historic resources, prehistoric resources, and human remains would be potentially significant. Such impacts could be reduced to below a level of significance with implementation of Mitigation Measures NMM-1(a), NMM-1(b), NMM-2(a), NMM-2(b), and NMM-

3. The 2002 EIR also found that the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project, in combination with additional development in the City and County, could result in significant cumulative impacts to previously identified or unidentified cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NMM-4 would lessen such impacts, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

3.5.2 Cultural Resources Impacts Associated with Proposed Project Senate Bill (SB) 18 was signed into law in September 2004 and became effective in March 2005.

SB 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) requires city and county governments to consult with California Native American tribes early in the planning process with the intent of protecting traditional tribal cultural places. The purpose of involving tribes at the early stage of planning efforts is to allow consideration of tribal cultural places in the context of broad local land use policy before project-level land use decisions are made by a local government. As such, SB 18 applies to the adoption or substantial amendment of general or specific plans. The process by which consultation must occur in these cases was published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research through its Tribal Consultation Guidelines: Supplement to General Plan Guidelines (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2005). The proposed project is seeking an amendment of the City’s General Plan, and therefore tribal consultation under SB 18 is required.

To initiate the SB 18 process, on April 20, 2023, the City of Rocklin requested the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to provide a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of Placer County. On May 30, 2023, the NAHC provided the City with a list containing five different tribes and ten different contact persons amongst the five tribes. On June 1, 2023 the City sent certified letters to the identified tribes and contact persons, notifying them of the project and the opportunity to consult under SB 18, and requesting that if they had an interest in conducting formal consultation on the project to notify the City withing 90 days of the receipt of their letter, but if they did not contact the City within that 90- day period then the City will assume consultation is not desired. Only one tribe, the Colfax-Todds Valley Consolidated Tribe (CTVCT) responded within the 90- day period, and they indicated a desire to conduct a site visit and to receive a copy of the project’s cultural resources report. On October 5, 2023, a site visit with the CTVCT was conducted, and on November 16, 2023, a copy of the project’s cultural resources report was provided to the CTVCT. On May 8, 2024, the CTVCT contacted the City indicating that after reviewing the cultural report they did not feel an additional site visit was needed and requesting the City to inform them if any inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are made during construction. The City indicated they would apply an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources condition of approval to the project, and concluded the SB 18 consultation process.

847
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 43 ends

August 2024
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) established a formal consultation process for California Native American tribes as part of CEQA and equates significant impacts on tribal cultural resources with significant environmental impacts (Publi c Resources Code Section 21084.2). AB 52 consultation requirements went into effect on July 1, 2015 for all projects that had not already published a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration or published a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report prior to that date (Section 11 [c]). Specifically, AB 52 requires that “prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project, the lead agency shall begin consultation” (21083.3.1 [a]), and that “the lead agency may certify and environmental impact report or adopt a mitigated negative declaration for a project with a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource only if” consultation is formally concluded (21082.3 [d]). However, in the case of the current proposed project, the lead agency has prepared this Addendum to a previously certified EIR, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. An addendum was determined to be the most appropriate document because none of the conditions described in Section 15162, calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR, have occurred. The Addendum addresses minor technical changes or additions and confirms that the proposed project is consistent with what was previously analyzed under the certified EIR. As such, the Addendum will not result in additional certification; therefore, the AB 52 procedures specified in PRC Sections 21080.3.1 (d) and 21080.3.2 do not apply and tribal consultation under AB 52 is not required.

The area of disturbance associated with the proposed project would not extend beyond the boundaries of the overall Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area analyzed in the 2002 EIR.

Nonetheless, to ensure that site-specific impacts related to cultural resources would not occur, a Cultural Resources Inventory Report was prepared for the proposed project by ECORP. 9 To determine whether historic or archeological resources are located on the project site, an archival review was conducted as part of the Cultural Resources Inventory Report prepared for the proposed project. The archival review included a records search of the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) performed by the Nort h Central Information Center (NCIC). The CHRIS records search included review of archaeological resource records, historic properties records, and official records and maps of archaeological sites and surv eys in Placer County. In addition to the CHRIS records search, a search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was conducted. Finally, a pedestrian survey of the project site was conducted by ECORP on September 29, 2023. The survey included a general surface reconnaissance of all visible open land surfaces in the project area, including places where burrowing animals, exposed banks and inclines, and other activities had revealed subsurface stratigraphy and soil contents.

According to the CHRIS records search, 13 previous cultural resource investigations have been conducted in or within 0.5-mile of the project site, covering approximately 80 percent of the total area surrounding the project site. The studies revealed the presence of pre- contact sites, including lithic scatters and habitation sites, and historical sites, including rock walls and sites associated with historic mining activities within the general project area; however, archaeological or historic resources have not been recorded within the project site boundaries or within 0.25-mile of the site. Furthermore, the NAHC SLF search returned negative results, failing to indicate the presence of Native American resources within the project area. Finally, pre-contact or historic-era cultural materials were not observed on- site during the pedestrian survey. Overall, the Cultural Resources Inventory Report concluded that known cultural resources are not present on the

9 ECORP Consulting, Inc. Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the University Avenue Apartments Project.

November 2023.
848
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 44 ends

August 2024
project site, and the potential for encountering any undiscovered cultural resources during construction of the proposed project is low.

As such, the proposed project would not result in a new significant impact related to cultural resources as compared to the analysis within the 2002 EIR. In addition, while unlikely, if previously unknown resources are encountered during construction activities the proposed project would be required to comply with all mitigation measures related to cultural resources included in the 2002 EIR, as applicable.

3.5.3 Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures
The following presents the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to cultural resources.

Prior Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures NMM-1(a), NMM-1(b), NMM-3, and NMM-4 from the 2002 EIR, as described below, remain applicable to the proposed project. All other m itigation measures included in the 2002 EIR related to cultural resources are not applicable to the proposed project, as they are related to an identified prehistoric resource that is not located on or within the vicinity of the project site, and, therefore, have been omitted from this Addendum.

NMM-1(a) If, during construction, the project applicant, any successor in interest, or any agents or contractors of the applicant or successor discovers a cultural resource (such as CA -PLA-616) that could qualify as either an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource, work shall immediately stop within 100 feet of the find, and both the City of Rocklin and a representative of the Indian Community shall be immediately notified. Work within the area surrounding the find (i.e., an area created at a 100-foot radius emanating from the location of the find) shall remain suspended while a qualified archaeologist, retained at the applicant's expense, conducts an onsite evaluation, develops an opinion as to whether the resource qualifies as either an historical resource or an unique archaeological resource, and makes recommendations regarding the possible implementation of avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation measures. Based on such recommendations, as well as any input obtained from the Indian Community within 72 hours (excluding weekends and State and federal holidays) of its receipt of notice regarding the find, the City shall determine what mitigation is appropriate.

At a minimum, any Native American artifacts shall be respectfully treated and offered to the Indian Community for permanent storage or donation, at the Indian Community's discretion, and any Native American sites, such as grinding rocks, shall be respectfully treated and preserved intact. In considering whether to impose any more stringent mitigation measures, the City shall consider the potential cost to the applicant and any implications that additional mitigation may have for project design and feasibility. Where a discovered cultural resource is neither a Native American artifact, a Native American site, an historical resource, nor a unique archaeological resource, the City shall not require any additional mitigation, consistent with the policies set forth in Public Resources Code sections 21083.2 and 21084.1.

849
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 45 ends

August 2024
NMM-1(b) If, during construction, the project applicant, any successor in interest, or any agents or contractors of the project applicant or successor discovers any human remains, the following steps should be taken:

(1) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
(A) The project applicant or its successor in interest contacts the Placer County Coroner so that Coroner can determine whether any investigation of the cause of death is required, and
(B) If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American:

1. The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours (excluding weekends and State and federal holidays).

2. After hearing from the Coroner, the project applicant or its successor in interest shall immediately notify the City of Rocklin and a representative from the Indian Community of the Coroner's determination, and shall provide the Indian Community the opportunity, within 72 (excluding weekends and State and federal holidays) hours thereafter, to identify the most likely descendant.

3. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American.

4. The most likely descendent, as identified by either the Native American Heritage Commission or the Indian Community, may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98, or (2) Subject to the terms of paragraph (3) below, where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a locati on not subject to further subsurface disturbance.
(A) The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours (excluding weekends and State and federal holidays) after being notified by the Commission. (B) The Indian Community is unable to identify a most likely descenda nt, or the most likely descendant identified by the Indian Community failed to make a recommendation within 72 hours (excluding weekends and State and federal holidays) after the project applicant or its successor notified the Indian Community of the discovery of human remains; or (C) The landowner or its authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant identified by the Commission, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
(3) In the event that the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American in origin, and the Native American Heritage Commission and the Indian Community agree that the remains are of a person associated with the historic United Auburn Indian Community , the project applicant or its successor, if permitted by state law, shall provide the remains and any associated grave goods to the Indian Community with the understanding 850
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 46 ends

August 2024
that the Indian Community will provide for burial with appropriate dignity at an appropriate location that will not be subject to future disturbance.

NMM-3 In the event that cultural resources are uncovered during project construction (e.g., foundations, historic tools, refuse/trash piles, shell deposits, arrowheads, chip stone, objects that appear to be out of place are observed), implement Mitigation Measures NMM-1(a) through (b).

NMM-4 Implement Mitigation Measure NMM-1.

Modified Mitigation Measures
None Required.

New Mitigation Measures
None Required.

3.6 Energy
The following includes a discussion of the previous impacts identified in the 2002 EIR, the impacts associated with the proposed project, and a description of the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to energy.

3.6.1 Summary of Energy Impacts from 2002 EIR
The 2002 EIR did not include a chapter designated to energy; however, impacts related to electricity and natural gas were included within the Public Utilities chapter. As discussed in Section 3.18.1 of this Addendum, the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project, alone and in combination with future development in the City, was determined to result in less-than-significant impacts related to increasing the demand for electrical and natural gas facilities and supply.

Implementation of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to energy.

3.6.2 Energy Impacts Associated with Proposed Project
Discussions regarding the proposed project’s potential effects related to energy demand during construction and operations are provided below.

Construction Energy Use
Construction of the proposed project would involve on -site energy demand and consumption related to use of oil in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel for construction worker vehicle trips, hauling and materials delivery truck trips, and operation of off -road construction equipment. In addition, diesel -fueled portable generators may be necessary to provide additional electricity demands for temporary on- site lighting, welding, and for supplying energy to areas of the site where energy supply cannot be met via a hookup to the existing electricity grid. Project construction would not involve the use of natural gas appliances or equipment.

All construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the CARB In- Use Off- Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. The In- Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation is intended to reduce emissions from in-use, off-road, heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California by imposing limits on idling, requiring all vehicles to be reported to CARB, restricting the addition of older vehicles into fleets, and requiring fleets to reduce emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing exhaust retrofits. In addition, as a means of reducing emissions, construction vehicles are required to become cleaner through the use of renewable energy resources. The In- Use Off -Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation would therefore help to improve fuel efficiency f or 851
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 47 ends

August 2024
equipment used in construction of the proposed park project. Technological innovations and more stringent standards are being researched, such as multi -function equipment, hybrid equipment, or other design changes, which could help to further reduce demand on oil and limit emissions associated with construction.

Based on the above, the temporary increase in energy use during construction of the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in peak or base demands or require additional capacity from local or regional energy supplies. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to energy conservation and fuel efficiency, which would help to reduce the temporary increase in demand. Furthermore, regulations pertaining to energy use, including, but not limited to, State and federal vehicle standards, are much more stringent than the regulations in place at the time the 2002 EIR was prepared. Finally, the area of disturbance associated with the proposed project would not expand beyond the boundaries of the overall Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area analyzed in the 2002 EIR. Therefore, construction energy usage related to the proposed park project would be less than what was anticipated in the 2002 EIR.

Operational Energy Use
Energy use associated with operation of the proposed project would be typical of residential uses, requiring electricity for interior and exterior building lighting, operation of stoves, kitchen and cleaning appliances, and more. Maintenance activities during operations, such as landscape maintenance, would involve the use of electric or gas -powered equipment. In addition to on-site energy use, the proposed project would result in transportation energy use associated with vehicle trips generated by employee commutes, residents, and the movement of goods.

The proposed project would be subject to all relevant provisions of the most recent CBSC, including the CALGreen Code and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Adherence to the most recent CALGreen Code and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards would ensure that the proposed structures consume energy efficiently through the incorporation of such features as efficient water heating systems, high-performance attics and walls, and high-efficacy lighting. The CALGreen Code requires that new residential buildings use a combination of energy efficiency and distributed renewable energy generation to meet all annual energy needs. Required compliance with the standards and regulations noted above would ensure that the building energy use associated with the proposed project would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

With regard to transportation energy use, the proposed project would comply with all applicable regulations associated with vehicle efficiency and fuel economy. In addition, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure is available within the project site and vicinity. The availability of such transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure in the site vicinity would help to reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) associated with the project and reduce fuel consumption. Furthermore, regulations pertaining to energy usage, such as State and federal vehicle standards, are much more stringent than the regulations that were in place at the time the 2002 EIR was prepared.

Therefore, operational energy usage from buildout of the proposed project would be less than what was anticipated in the 2002 EIR.

Conclusion
Based on the above, compliance with the State’s latest Energy Efficiency Standards would ensure that the proposed project would implement all necessary energy efficiency regulations during construction and operations. Additionally, the inclusion of sustainable features by the proposed project would further reduce any impacts associated with energy consumption. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to energy. 852
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 48 ends

August 2024

3.6.3 Energy Mitigation Measures
The following presents the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to energy.

Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Modified Mitigation Measures
None Required.

New Mitigation Measures
None Required.

3.7 Geology/Soils
The following includes a discussion of the previous impacts identified in the 2002 EIR, the impacts associated with the proposed project, and a description of the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to geology and soils.

3.7.1 Summary of Geology/Soils Impacts from 2002 EIR
The Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project was determined to be subject to less -than-significant levels of seismic ground shaking. The project included a measure requiring the project to be consistent with the California Building Code and Uniform Building Code, which would further reduce seismic ground shaking impacts. The 2002 EIR also determined that the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project would cause a less -than-significant impact related to topographic alteration and soil disturbance that could lead to increased erosion potential. An additional measure requiring compliance with the General Development Plan Grading Guidelines would further minimize these impacts. Additionally, the 2002 EIR determined that the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project, in combination with buildout under the General Plan, would result in a less - than-significant impact related to exposing people and property to seismic hazards such as seismic ground shaking, hazards associated with geologic or soil conditions, and potential effects of erosion. Such impacts would be further minimized through compliance with the California Building Code and Uniform Building Code.

The 2002 EIR identified that potentially significant geologic or soil-related impacts that could result from implementation of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project was limited to soil hazards. Site development would occur in areas underlain with Mehrten Formation, granitic materials, or in areas with shallow or expansive soils, which could present geotechnical hazards or require special construction methods. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures OMM -2(a) and OMM-2(b) identified in the 2002 EIR, impacts would be less than significant.

3.7.2 Geology/Soils Impacts Associated with Proposed Project The proposed project would include the development of 12 three-story apartment buildings with a total of 324 units on a site which was previously anticipated for light industrial uses within the 2002 EIR. The area of disturbance associated with the proposed project would not extend beyond the boundaries of the overall Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area analyzed in the 2002 EIR. Thus, the proposed project would not result in any additional impacts related to geology and soils beyond what was anticipated for the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project. Nonetheless, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable mitigation measures included in the 2002 EIR, including OMM-2(a) which requires the preparation of a geotechnical investigation for new development projects within the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area.

853
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 49 ends

August 2024
In compliance with Mitigation Measure OMM -2(a) a project -specific Geotechnical Investigation was prepared by Geocon Consultants, Inc (see Appendix D) .10 According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site is not located on any known active earthquake fault trace. In addition, the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the potential for ground rupture due to on-site active faulting was determined to be low.

According to the Geotechnical Investigation, a portion of the project site is underlain by Mehrten Formation soils. The Geotechnical Investigation determined that, based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site, liquefaction and expansive soils do not pose a potential hazard to the proposed project. The primary geotechnical constraints identified in the Geotec hnical Investigation included the presence of cemented and caliche horizons within the on-site soils and weakly to strongly cemented or shallow strong (unweathered), hard formational material (Mehrten Formation and Valley Springs Formation soils). According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the presence of cemented soil or strong bedrock material will increase excavation difficulty during construction and has the potential to impede water infiltration which may create zones of perched groundwater. Nonetheless, the Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the project site does not contain soil or geologic conditions that would preclude development of the site as planned, provided the recommendations contained in Geotechnical Investigation are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. In compliance with Mitigation Measure OMM -2(a), the proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance wit h the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the proposed project.

3.7.3 Geology/Soils Mitigation Measures
The following presents the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to geology/soils.

Prior Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures OMM-2(a) and OMM-2(b) from the 2002 EIR, as described below, remain applicable to the proposed project. In addition, the two geologic required measures (REQ-MM) from the 2002 EIR also remain applicable to the proposed project, and are provided below.

OMM-2(a) Consistent with the City's Community Safety Element Policy 1, as well as State and local requirements, the City shall require soils and/or geotechnical analysis of new development proposals in areas with possible soil instability, earthquake faults or other geologic hazards. Preliminary reports must be submitted during review of tentative map, use permit, or design review applications. Final reports are required to be submitted concurrent with improvement plans. The geotechnical investigation shall be prepared by a professional engineer or geologist registered in the State of California in accordance with State regulations and to the satisfaction of the City. The City shall ensure recommendations pertaining to site preparation, construction, and building and roadway design are identified in the geotechnical report and are incorporated into each project design through the plan check and inspection process.

10 Goecon Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation - William Jessup University Proposed Multi- Family Development, University Avenue, Rocklin, California. March 2023. 854
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 50 ends

August 2024
OMM-2(b) If blasting activities are to occur in conjunction with site development, the contractor shall conduct the blasting activities in compliance with State and local regulations. The contractor shall obtain a blasting permit from the City of Rocklin prior to commencing any blasting activities. Information submitted in order to obtain a blasting permit includes a description of the work to be accomplished and a statement of necessity for blasting as opposed to other methods considered, including avoidance of hard rock areas, safety measures to be implemented, such as blast blankets, and traffic ground shaking impacts. The contractor shall coordinate any blasting activities with police and fire departments to ensure proper site access control, traffic control, and public notification including the media, affected residents, and businesses, as appropriate. Blasting specifications and plans shall include a schedule that outlines the time frame that blasting will occur to limit noise and traffic inconveniences.

REQ-MM Development of the proposed project shall be consistent with the California Building Code and Uniform Building Code.

REQ-MM The project applicant shall comply with the proposed General Development Plan Grading Guidelines (See Appendix B of the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan).

Modified Mitigation Measures
None Required.

New Mitigation Measures
None Required.

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The following includes a discussion of the previous impacts identified in the 2002 EIR, the impacts associated with the proposed project, and a description of the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to greenhouse gas emissions.

3.8.1 Summary of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts from 200 2 EIR
The 2002 EIR did not address GHG emissions for the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project.

However, GHG emissions were broadly analyzed in Addendum No. 1 to the 2002 EIR. As discussed in Addendum No. 1, tools to evaluate the significance of a single project’s contribution to global climate change resulting from GHG emissions did not exist at the time the report was prepared in 2008. No quantitative emission thresholds or similar criteria had been establis hed and formally adopted to evaluate whether a single project’s contribution to the cumulative global climate change impact would be considerable. Therefore, Addendum No. 1 included a qualitative analysis of GHG emissions resulting from the project.

Addendum No. 1 determined that long-term operation of the project would generate GHG emissions from area and mobile sources, and indirectly from stationary sources associated with energy consumptions. GHG emissions generated by the project would primarily consist of carbon dioxide (CO
2), and mobile sources consisting of vehicle trips would be the primary source of GHG emissions. However, Addendum No. 1 determined that GHG emissions from the project would be small compared to globally generated emissions. Therefore, although quantitative thresholds were not available to use, the project’s contribution as a percentage of state or global emissions was determined to be minor. Additionally, the project would implement the City of Rocklin’s GHG 855
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 51 ends

August 2024
emission reduction strategies to further reduce emissions. Therefore, Addendum No. 1 determined that implementation of the project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to GHG emissions.

3.8.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Associated with Proposed Project
As discussed above, GHG emissions were not addressed in the 2002 EIR. However, potential impacts related to GHG emissions do not constitute “new information of substantial importance” as defined by CEQA Guidelines section 15162, as GHG emissions were known as potential environmental issues before 2002, when the original Northwest Rocklin Annexation EIR was certified.11 In Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development (CREED) v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, concluded that the issue of GHG emissions and climate change could have been raised at the time that the original EIR was prepared (in 1994). For this reason, the lead agency was not required to prepare a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. In the CREED case, the court noted that scientists and the government have been aware that GHG emissions could trigger climatic changes as early as the 1970’s, or before. Specifically, the Court of Appeal noted that in Massachusetts v. E.P.A. (2007) 549 U.S. 497, 507, the United States Supreme Court stated the following:

In the late 1970’s, the Federal Government began devoting serious attention to the possibility that carbon dioxide emissions associated with human activity could provoke climate change. In 1978, Congress enacted the National Climate Program Act, 92 Stat. 601, which required the President to establish a program to ‘assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and man- induced climate processes and their implications[.]’ [citation] President Carter, in turn, asked the National Research Council, the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences, to investigate the subject. The Council’s response was unequivocal: ‘If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible. A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late.

The Court of Appeal concluded by stating that “[t]he effect of GHG emissions on climate could have been raised in 1994 when the City considered the FEIR.” In Concerned Dublin Citizens v.

City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District adopted this reasoning as its own, reaching exactly the same conclusion on similar facts.

Again, in Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, considered whether the lack of GHG and climate change analysis in a 1997 EIR and 2003 SEIR precluded adoption of an addendum. The court relied on previous case law to conclude that the potential environm ental impact of GHG emissions was known or could have been known at the time of certification of the 1997 EIR and 2003 SEIR. The court thus upheld the eighth addendum that the City of San Jose had prepared after having completed the 1997 and 2003 EIRs.

The conclusions that were made in the CREED, Dublin Citizens, and Citizens Against Airport Pollution cases can also be made regarding the 2002 EIR. Under the law, as set forth in these cases, the City need not undertake the preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR based solely on issues relating to climate change. Thus, the overall creation of GHG emissions from development within the project site cannot under the law constitute a new significant impact or

11 As explained in a series of cases, most recently in Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.

App. 4 th 1301. Also see, Citizens of Responsible Equitable Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515.
856
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 52 ends

August 2024
new information of substantial importance. Nonetheless, in order to take a conservative approach, a discussion of GHG emissions associated with the proposed project has been provided.

In addition to the City’s General Plan Update, a number of regulations have been enacted since the 2002 EIR was approved for the purpose of, or with an underlying goal for, reducing GHG emissions, such as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) and the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Code. The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards is a portion of the CBSC, which expands upon energy efficiency measures from the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Such regulations have become increasingly stringent since the 2002 EIR was adopted. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations associated with GHG emissions, including the CALGreen Code and California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Code.

On October 13, 2016, the PCAPCD adopted GHG emissions thresholds for construction and operations in concert with the criteria pollutant threshold update. For project construction, the PCAPCD established a threshold of 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (MTCO
2e/yr). Should construction of a proposed project emit GHG emissions in excess of 10,000 MTCO2e/yr, the project would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change.

The PCAPCD’s operational thresholds begin with a screening emission level of 1,100 MTCO2e/yr.

Any project below the 1,100 MT CO 2e/yr threshold is judged by the PCAPCD as having a less - than-significant impact on GHG emissions within the PCAPCD 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 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 Table 6.

Table 6
PCAPCD Operational GHG Efficiency Thresholds of Significance Residential (MTCO2e/capita) Non-Residential (MTCO2e/1,000 sf) Urban Rural Urban Rural

4.5 5.5 26.5 27.3
Source: Placer County Air Pollution Control District. CEQA Handbook. 2017.

The PCAPCD further advises that regardless of emissions efficiency, should a project result in operational emissions in excess of 10,000 MTCO
2e/yr, the project would be considered to have
a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change.

Construction GHG Emissions
Table 7 below presents the estimated unmitigated maximum construction-related GHG emissions under the Approved Conditions Scenario and the Proposed Project Scenario.

Table 7
Unmitigated Annual Construction GHG Emissions
Maximum GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr)
Approved Conditions Scenario 585
Proposed Project Scenario 753
Net Change +168
PCAPCD Significance Threshold 10,000.00
Exceeds Threshold? NO
Source: CalEEMod, April 2024 (see Appendix A).
857
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 53 ends

August 2024
As shown in the table, construction of the Proposed Project Scenario would result in a net increase in GHG emissions as compared to construction of the Approved Conditions Scenario. However, the total maximum annual emissions related to construction of the Proposed Project Scenario would be well below the PCAPCD’s bright-line threshold of 10,000 MTCO 2e/yr. Therefore, project
construction would not be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change.

Operational GHG Emissions
Table 8 presents the estimated operational GHG emissions at full buildout for the Approved Conditions Scenario and the Proposed Project Scenario.

Table 8
Unmitigated Operational GHG Emissions
Emission Source
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr)
Approved
Conditions
Scenario
Proposed
Project
Scenario Net Change
Mobile 548 3,560 +3,012
Area 3.58 4.03 +0.45
Energy 311 390 +79
Water 93.8 17.9 -75.9
Waste 71.8 74.8 +3
Refrigerants - 0.38 +0.38

TOTAL ANNUAL GHG
EMISSIONS 1,028 4,047 +3,019
PCAPCD Screening Level
Threshold 1,100.00
Source: CalEEMod, January 2024 (see Appendix A).

As shown in the table, operations of the Proposed Project Scenario would result in a net increase in GHG emissions as compared to the Approved Conditions Scenario. In addition, the Proposed Project Scenario would result in operational GHG emissions in excess of the 1,100 MTCO 2e/yr operational threshold of significance. Because the net change in emissions would exceed the PCAPCD’s screening level threshold, the project’s increase in emissions has been further evaluated in comparison with the efficiency thresholds, presented in Table 6. The estimated net increase in per capita emissions for the proposed project are presented below in Table 9 and compared with the applicable PCAPCD efficiency threshold.

As shown in Table 9, the proposed project’s net increase of operational GHG emissions would be below the applicable PCAPCD efficiency threshold. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not be considered to generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Table 9
Unmitigated Project Operational GHG Emissions Per Capita Project Emissions
(MTCO2e/yr/capita)
PCAPCD Efficiency Threshold for Urban
Residential Projects
(MTCO2e/yr/capita)

3.36 4.5
Notes: The estimated population for the project at buildout is based on a 2.77 persons per household rate for the City of Rocklin.

Source: Esri Community Profile – City of Rocklin, January 4, 2023. 858
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 54 ends

August 2024
In addition, the Addendum to the Northwest Rocklin Annexation EIR determined that implementation of City policies and the applicable mitigation measures within the Northwest Rocklin Annexation EIR would reduce all impacts associated with GHG emissions and climate change to a less-than-significant level. The proposed project would not result in any new or more severe impacts than those identified in the Northwest Rocklin Annexation EIR and the associated Addendum.

3.8.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation Measures
The following presents the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to GHG emissions.

Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Modified Mitigation Measures
None Required.

New Mitigation Measures
None Required.

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following includes a discussion of the previous impacts identified in the 2002 EIR, the impacts associated with the proposed project, and a description of the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to hazards and hazardous materials.

3.9.1 Summary of Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts from 2002 EIR
The 2002 EIR determined that the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project would not result in significant impacts related to the use, generation, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials within the site. The 2002 EIR also identified a measure requiring compliance with Titles 8 and 22 of the CCR, the Uniform Fire Code, and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code , as well as any other applicable regulation. Impacts related to the use, generation, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

The Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project was determined to have the potential to expose construction workers and the public to contaminated soil and/or groundwater. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures LMM -2(a) through LMM-2(d) would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Implementation of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project was determined to increase the potential for wildland fires and create emergency ingress/egress problems, resulting in a potentially significant impact. The 2002 EIR identified Mitigation Measures LMM-3(a) through LMM-3(c) to reduce impacts, in addition to five required measures related to potential fire hazards and emergency ingress/egress. Implementation of such measures would reduce impacts related to wildland fires and emergency ingress/egress to a less-than-significant level.

859
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 55 ends

August 2024
Development of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project, in combination with future buildout in the City of Rocklin, was determined to have a less -than-significant impact related to increasing the number of people who could be exposed to potential hazards associated with potentially contaminated soils and groundwater and increasing transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials. However, implementation of the project, in combination with future buildout in the City of Rocklin, was determined to result i n a potentially significant impact related to increasing the number of people exposed to hazards associated with wildland fires. Implementation of Mitigation Measure LMM-5, which requires implementation of Mitigation Measure LMM -3, would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

The 2002 EIR determined that all impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

3.9.2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Associated with Proposed Project
Residential developments are not typically associated with the routine transport, use, disposal, or generation of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. Future operations of the proposed residences on the project site could involve the use of common household cleaning products, fertilizers, and herbicides on- site, any of which could contain potentially hazardous chemicals; however, such products would be expected to be used in accordance with label instructions. Due to the regulations governing use of such products and the amount that could reasonably be used on the site, routine use of such products would not represent a substantial risk to public health or the environment. In addition, the site was previously anticipated for development with light industrial uses, which could involve the routine transport, use, disposal, or generation of hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts related to the transport, use, disposal, or generation of substantial amounts of hazardous materials would be less than what was anticipated within the 2002 EIR for the project site.

Construction of t he proposed project would involve the use of heavy equipment, which would contain fuels and oils, and various other products such as concrete, paints, and adhesives. Small quantities of potentially toxic substances (e.g., petroleum and other chemicals used to operate and maintain construction equipment) would be used at the project site and transported to and from the site during site preparation and grading activities. However, the project contractor would be required to comply with all California Health and Safety Codes and local City ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials. In addition, the area of disturbance associated with the proposed project would not extend beyond the boundaries of the overall Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area analyzed in the 2002 EIR. Thus, the proposed project would not result in any additional impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials during construction activities beyond what was anticipated for the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable mitigation measures included in the 2002 EIR.

In compliance with Mitigation Measure LMM-2(a) of the 2002 EIR, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ( ESA) was prepared by Geocon Consultants, Inc. for the proposed project (see Appendix E).
12 The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to review past and present land use practices and activities at and near the project site for evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) that could result in impacts to soil, soil vapor, surface water, and/or groundwater at, beneath, or originating from the project site. As part of the process, the Phase I ESA included review of historical documentation, aerial photography, regulatory agency files, environmental

12 Geocon Consultants, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - William Jessup University Apartments, University Avenue, Rocklin, California. November 2022.
860
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 56 ends

August 2024
sites radius reports, and site reconnaissance. According to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), RECs are defined as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property due to a release to the environment; under conditions indicative of a release to the environment or under conditions that pose a material threat of future release.” According to the Phase I ESA, Geocon Consultants did not identify evidence of any RECs, controlled RECs, or historical RECs associated with the project site or any sites within the project vicinity.

The California EPA has compiled a list of data resources that provide information regarding the facilities or sites identified as meeting the “Cortese List” requirements, pursuant to Government Code 65962.5. The components of the Cortese List include the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, 13 the list of leaking underground
storage tank (UST) sites from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB’s) GeoTracker database,
14 the list of solid waste disposal sites identified by the SWRCB, and the list of active Cease and Desist Orders (CDO) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAO) from the SWRCB.15 The project site is not included on the DTSC Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. In addition, the project site is not listed on the SWRCB’s list of solid waste disposal sites, list of leaking UST sites, or list of active CDO and CAO.

Impacts related to wildfire are discussed in Section 3.19 of the Addendum. As noted therein, the project site is not located in a State Responsibility Area (SRA), and the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to wildfire.

3.9.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measures The following presents the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to hazards and hazardous materials.

Prior Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures LMM -2(b), LMM-2(d), LMM-3(c), and LMM -5 remain applicable to the proposed project and are provided below. The proposed project would also adhere to the four applicable required measures (REQ-MM) listed in the 2002 EIR related to hazards and hazardous materials, which are also provided below. All other mitigation measures included in the 2002 EIR related to hazards and hazardous materials contain requirements for the City to implement on a plan-wide level, or are related to areas of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area located within an SRA. Such measures are not applicable to the proposed project, and, therefore, have been omitted from this Addendum.

LMM-2(b) If evidence of soil contamination, such as stained or odorous soils, or other evidence of hazardous materials is encountered during construction or development activities, work shall cease until an environmental professional, retained at the developer's expense, has evaluated the situation and identified

13 Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed August 2023. 14 State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ map/?myaddress=California&from=header&cqid=8858350455. Accessed August 2023. 15 CalEPA. Cortese List Data Resources . Available at: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed August 2023.
861
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 57 ends

August 2024
necessary and appropriate follow-up actions. As part of this process, the City shall ensure that any necessary investigation and/or remediation activities conducted in the project area are coordinated with Placer County Division of Environmental Health, and, if needed, other appropriate State agencies.

LMM-2(d) If, during construction of the proposed project, groundwater is encountered and dewatering activities are required, the water shall be analyzed by an environmental professional, retained at the applicant's expense, to determine if the water contains unsafe levels of pesticides, herbicides, nitrates, or other contaminants. Work shall not continue until results of the water analyses have been reported and the Placer County Division of Environmental Health has been informed of the results and has provided guidance.

LMM-3(c) Implement Mitigation Measure KMM-5.

LMM-5 Implement Mitigation Measure LMM-3.

REQ-MM The project applicant shall comply, at a minimum, with t he provisions of Titles 8 and 22 of the Code of California Regulations, the Uniform Fire Code, and Chapter

6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, as well as any other applicable regulation.

REQ-MM Fire Flow requirements shall be met.

REQ-MM All roofs shall be fire resistive – Class-A type.

REQ-MM Development of the site shall be carried out in accordance with RFD rules and regulations and the Uniform Fire & Building Code Regulations adopted by the City of Rocklin.

Modified Mitigation Measures
None Required.

New Mitigation Measures
None Required.

3.10 Hydrology/Water Quality
The following includes a discussion of the previous impacts identified in the 2002 EIR, the impacts associated with the proposed project, and a description of the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to hydrology and water quality.

3.10.1 Summary of Hydrology/Water Quality Impacts from 2002 EIR The 2002 EIR found that implementation of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project could result in exposure of persons or structures to hazards associated with a 100-year flood. However, impacts would be reduced to a less -than-significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure PMM-1. The Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project was also determined to have potentially significant impacts related to increasing the rate of stormwater runoff from newly created impervious surfaces, which could contribute to localized or downstream flooding. Impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance through implementation of Mitigation Measures PMM-2(a) through PMM-2(c). Similarly, the project’s potential to increase stormwater runoff was determined to cause potentially significant impacts related to increasing water surface elevations 862
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 58 ends

August 2024
that would contribute to localized or downstream flooding. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PMM-3 (which simply involves implementing Mitigation Measures PMM-2(a) through PMM-2(c)) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project were determined to have a less -than-significant impact related to degrading water quality through the increased generation of sediment. Still, the 2002 EIR provided a measure requiring compliance with the State General Construction Activity Permit, which includes the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of Best Management Practices ( BMPs)/Best Available Technology (BAT) to control construction site runoff. Stormwater runoff from implementation of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project was determined to potentially contain urban contaminants that could degrade water quality. Impacts would be reduced to a less -than-significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure PMM-5.

The Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project, in combination with other development in the City of Rocklin and the Orchard Creek and Pleasant Grove Creek watersheds, was determined to have the potential to increase impervious surfaces and urbanization that could cumulatively increase urban contaminant loading, adversely affecting water quality. The 2002 EIR identified Mitigation Measure PMM-7, which simply requires implementation of Mitigation Measure PMM-5. The 2002 EIR also included a measure requiring the incorporation of techniques to minimize pollutants and sediments from entering the water. However, impacts would remain significant and unmitigable.

The Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project, in combination with future development that could occur within the City of Rocklin and the Orchard Creek and Pleasant Grove Creek Watersheds, could increase the rate of stormwater runoff from newly created impervious surfaces. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure PMM-8, which simply requires implementation of mitigation measure PMM -2, impacts would be reduced to a less -than-significant level. The Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project, in combination wit h future development that could occur within the City of Rocklin and the Orchard Creek and Pleasant Grove Creek Watersheds, could also increase the volume of stormwater runoff from newly created impervious surfaces. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

3.10.2 Hydrology/Water Quality Impacts Associated with Proposed Project
According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 06061C0933H, the project site is located within Zone X, which is considered an area of minimal flood hazard.16 Therefore, the project site is not at a significant risk of experiencing flood-related hazard, and impacts related to flooding would be less than those identified in the 2002 EIR. Mitigation Measure PMM-1 included in the 2002 EIR would not be applicable to the proposed project.

During construction activities, t he proposed project would be subject to the federal, State, and local regulations regarding water quality, specified in the 2002 EIR. For example, the proposed project’s construction activities would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit that regulates stormwater leaving construction sites. As part of compliance, a SWPPP that includes BMPs/BAT would be prepared, implemented, and monitored. BMPs/BAT implemented as part of the SWPPP would be designed to prevent or reduce potential erosion and include erosion control measures. Furthermore, t he area of disturbance associated with the proposed project would not extend beyond the boundaries

16 FEMA. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Accessed August 2023. 863
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 59 ends

August 2024
of the overall Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area analyzed in the 2002 EIR. Thus, the proposed project would not result in any additional impacts related to hydrology and water quality during construction beyond what was anticipated for the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable mitigation measures included in the 2002 EIR.

While the proposed project would result in an increase of 8.9 acres of impervious surfaces, which would increase urban runoff as compared to the current project site conditions, as discussed above, the proposed project would not extend beyond the boundaries of the overall Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area analyzed in the 2002 EIR. In addition, the proposed project would have a maximum lot coverage of 23 percent, as compared to the maximum lot coverage of 50 percent allowed by the PD -LI zone development standards . As such, while the proposed project would result in the development of a different land use as compared to what was anticipated for the site in the 2002 EIR, the proposed project would result in similar, or less, impervious surface area than what was analyzed in the 2002 EIR. In addition, the proposed project would implement all requirements of the NPDES permitting process, as well as all other applicable State and local requirements.

Additionally, during operations, the proposed project would include on-site stormwater facilities to provide storm water quality treatment and volume capture in accordance with the current Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual per the City's MS4 permit requirements, and peak management at pre- project levels for on- site runoff. The site’s stormwater facilitie s would be developed within 15 DMAs located throughout the entirety of the project site (see Figure 7). As discussed in the Stormwater Control Plan prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix F), 17 stormwater runoff from each DMA would be conveyed through a pipe system which would route stormwater to a series of water quality basins on site prior to being discharged through three existing culverts located along the northeastern, northwestern, and western boundaries of the site towards the existing open space to the north. The existing culverts located along the northwestern and western boundaries of the site also include an existing outfall structure to help facilitate stormwater drainage. Consistent with State requirements, the on- site stormwater system would be designed sufficient to adequately handle the project’s stormwater runoff (i.e., post - development stormwater runoff would not exceed pre -development runoff), which would ensure that the proposed project would not have the potential to violate any storm water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality in excess of what was previously anticipated for the site by the 2002 EIR. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable mitigation measures included in the 2002 EIR.

3.10.3 Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation Measures
The following presents the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to hydrology/water quality.

Prior Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures PMM-2(a), PMM-2(b), PMM-2(c), PMM-3, PMM-5, PMM-7, and PMM-8 from the 2002 EIR remain applicable to the proposed project and are provided below. Additionally, the

17 Ubora Engineering & Planning, Inc. Stormwater Control Plan for a Regulated Project: University Ave Apartments.

April 4, 2023.
864
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 60 ends

August 2024
two required measures (REQ-MM) related to hydrology and water quality from the 2002 EIR are applicable to the proposed project and are also provided below. All other mitigation measures included in the 2002 EIR related to hydrology and water quality are not applicable to the proposed project, and, therefore, have been omitted from this Addendum.

PMM-2(a) On-site detention shall be provided to meet Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (PCFCWCD) criteria set forth in Section VII of PCFCWCD's Stormwater Management Manual (SWMM). The SWMM requires, if on- site detention basins are to be used to mitigate downstream flooding effects due to project related increased peak flows, that the objective flow shall be taken as the estimated predevelopment peak flow rate less 10 percent of the difference between the estimated pre- development and post -development peak flow rates from the site. This standard shall be used for storm frequencies of 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year storm events. In no case shall the objective flow be less than the flows indicated in Figure 7- 1 of the SWMM. However, in the event the results of stormwater runoff modeling indicate that on- site detention would exacerbate downstream flooding conditions when applying PCFCWCD numerical criteria, the City shall coordinate with the PCFCWCD to identify appropriate use, location, and sizing of project detention fac ilities and implement a solution that will ensure conformance with PCFCWCD standards.

PMM-2(b) Installation and design of detention basins shall be in accordance with PCFCWCD's SWMM and in conformance with all applicable existing Master Plans, should such plans be adopted during project development. The results of hydrologic modeling shall be used to confirm that the capacity of the on- site detention facilities is adequate to detain the stormwater runoff anticipated following development of the proposed project. In concert with the proposed project's stormwater system design, the capacity of off-site culverts or existing and/or planned regional detention facilities shall be evaluated to determine whether oversizing is necessary to accommodate the project's incremental contribution.

PMM-2(c) Prior to approval of tentative maps, design review, or use permits, supplemental drainage studies shall be prepared for the SR 65 Corridor portion of the project site to comply with Policy 3 of the Community Safety element of the Rocklin General Plan. The supplemental studies shall use the information developed in TLA’s drainage reports pertaining to Sunset Ranchos and Parcel K, and other relevant information as appropriate. Conformance with section VII of PCFCWCD’s Stormwater Management Manual (SW MM) shall be incorporated into project designs.

PMM-3 Implement Mitigation Measures PMM-2(a), PMM-2(b), and PMM-2(c).

PMM-5 Project Conditions of Approval shall specify that appropriate BMPs and Best Available Technologies (BAT) be incorporated into project design to reduce urban pollutants in runoff, consistent with goals and standards established under federal and State non-point source discharge regulations (NPDES permit) and Basin Plan water quality objectives. Stormwater runoff BMPs selected from the Storm Water Quality Task Force ( California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook, 1993), the Bay Area Stormwat er Management Agencies Association Start at the Source Design Guidance Manual, or equally effective measures shall be identified prior to final design approval. To maximize effectiveness, the selected BMPs/BATs shall be based on finalized site- specific hydrologic conditions, with 865
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 61 ends

August 2024
consideration for the types and locations of development. Mechanisms to maintain the BMPs/BATs shall be identified in the Conditions of Approval.

Typical BMPs and BATs that could be used at the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Application of appropriate signage to all storm drain inlets indicating that they outlet to the natural drainageways;
• Application of a street sweeping program to remove potential contaminants from street and roadway surfaces before they reach drainages; • Installation of oil and grit separators in all drop inlets to capture potential contaminants which enter the storm drain system;
• Minimize sources of concentrated flow by maximizing use of natural drainages to decelerate flows, collect pollutants and suspended sediment; • Establish vegetation in stormwater drainages to achieve optimal balance of conveyance and water quality protection characteristics; • Placement of velocity dissipaters, rip -rap, and/or other appropriate measures to slow runoff, promote deposition of waterborne particles, and reduce the erosive potential of storm flows;
• Prompt application of soil protection and slope stabilization practices to all disturbed areas;
• Use sedimentation basins to collect and temporarily detain storm water runoff to provide ample settling time before runoff is discharged; • Creation of storage basins consisting of depressed areas, usually lined, that are sized to hold storm runoff and settle out material (the facility usually has a type of outlet device that is above the bottom of the basin or a small rip rapped berm over which the treated water can flow); • Creation of a below-ground storage basin consisting of vertical or horizontal corrugated metal or HDPE pipes sized to allow the volume of water required to be treated to percolate into the ground;
• Use of fossil filters consisting of small filters that are placed like troughs around the inside top drain inlets or at ditch outlets; • Creation of underground storm water interceptors, which are underground tanks, similar to septic tanks, that are designed to allow material to settle out and also can have a grease trap to separate oil and petroleum products, prior to discharge; and,
• Use of rock-lined ditches, which are surface ditches that are lined with rock, with or without filter material, with the rock lining material designed to allow water to filter into the ground.

Provisions for the maintenance and periodic inspection of permanent facilities outside of the public right -of-way will be provided for in the CC&Rs. These provisions would include periodic inspection, cleaning, and the replacement of filter materials, as necessary to retain the integrity of the BMP/BAT.

PMM-7 Implement Mitigation Measure PMM-5.

PMM-8 Implement Mitigation Measure PMM-2.

866
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 62 ends

August 2024
REQ-MM Comply with the provisions of the State General Construction Activity Permit, which requires the preparation of a SWPPP and the implementation of BMPs/BATs to control construction site runoff.

Typical BMPs/BATs that could be used during construction of the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Temporary facilities such as waddles, sandbags, and hay bales may be used during construction. Temporary facilities are designed to help control dust and will capture a majority of the siltation resulting from construction activities prior to discharging into existing natural channels. In addition, they will trap possible fuel and oil spills from construction equipment to prohibit contamination of surface flows or groundwater. The construction contractor would be required to monitor and maintain all BMPs/BA Ts during construction to ensure they function properly.

REQ-MM The project developer should comply with the following mitigation from the 1990 City of Rocklin General Plan Update EIR to prevent the degradation of water quality. The project developer should incorporate techniques such as, but not limited to, the prohibition of grading, placement of fill or trash, or alteration to vegetation within designated setback buffer areas, and the installation of feasible measures of minimizing pollutants and sediment from water originating from surfaced areas.

Modified Mitigation Measures
None Required.

New Mitigation Measures
None Required.

3.11 Land Use and Planning
The following includes a discussion of the previous impacts identified in the 2002 EIR, the impacts associated with the proposed project, and a description of the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to land use and planning.

3.11.1 Summary of Land Use and Planning Impacts from 2002 EIR The Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project was found to result in less -than-significant impacts related to converting agricultural and grazing land to non -agricultural use, resulting in less-than- significant impacts. The project was also found to result in less-than-significant impacts related to allowing development of land uses that could be incompatible with existing or planned surrounding land uses. The 2002 EIR found that implementation of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project could allow development of land uses that could be internally incompatible.

However, the 2002 EIR identified mitigation measure EMM -3, which requires implementation of Mitigation Measures FMM-5, HMM-4, HMM-5, and MMM-3. These mitigation measures would be implemented at the time of approval of the subsequent development entitlements (i.e., use permits, tentative maps, and/or design review). Implementation of Mitigation Measure EMM-3 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Implementation of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project was found to result in less -than- significant impacts related to consistency with the City’s General Plan or other City plans, policies, or ordinances. The project was also found to result in less -than-significant impacts related to consistency with Placer County LAFCO guidelines and policies. The Northwest Rocklin 867
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 63 ends

August 2024
Annexation Project was determined to potentially restrict the amount of right-of-way available for a State highway interchange at North Whitney Boulevard (Parkway A), resulting in a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure EMM-6 from the 2002 EIR would reduce impacts to a less -than-significant level. Therefore, the 2002 EIR determined that the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to land use with mitigation.

3.11.2 Land Use and Planning Impacts Associated with Proposed Project
The proposed project would include the development of 12 three-story apartment buildings with a total of 324 units on a site which was previously anticipated for light industrial uses within the 2002 EIR.

In addition, existing uses surrounding the project site include undeveloped land, open space and a pond to the north; William Jessup University to the east, across University Avenue; a light industrial business park to the west beyond SR 65; and the approved, but not yet constructed, Estia at Rocklin Residential Project and University Square Retail Project to the south, which will include development of 200 detached rental units and eight buildings totaling 108,500 square feet, respectively. Several additional residential developments are also located further north and east of the site. Therefore, the proposed project would be considered generally compatible with the surrounding land uses.

Furthermore, the area of disturbance associated with the proposed project would not extend beyond the boundaries of the overall Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area analyzed in the 2002 EIR. While the proposed project would include a General Plan Amendment to change 0.41-acre of the project site from R -C to MU, the majority of the project site (i.e., 12.31 acres) has been previously anticipated for urban development.

The project site is designated as PD -LI (12.31 acres) and OS (0.41 -acre) within the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan and the City’s zoning code. Although the project site’s PD-LI zoning designation is inconsistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of MU, the proposed project would not be required to rezone the 12.31 acres of the site designated as PD- LI as the proposed project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation. The HAA clarifies that if the zoning standards and criteria of a project site are inconsistent with applicable, objective General Plan standards of the same site, and the development project is consistent with the applicable objective General Plan standards for the site, then a housing development project cannot be found inconsistent with the standards and criteria of the zoning designation. Further, if such an inconsistency exists, the lead agency may not require rezoning before housing development project approval. Nevertheless, the City will re zone the project site to establish conformity with the project site’s General Plan land use designation. Specifically, a General Development Plan Amendment/Rezone is proposed to change the Northwest Rocklin General Development Plan and zoning designations of the site from PD-LI and OS to PD -22+ 868
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 64 ends

August 2024
(see Figure 9). Thus, the proposed project would not result in any additional impacts related to land use and planning beyond what was anticipated for the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project.

3.11.3 Land Use and Planning Mitigation Measures
The following presents the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to land use and planning.

Prior Mitigation Measures
As discussed above, the 2002 EIR identified Mitigation Measure EMM -3, which requires implementation of Mitigation Measures FMM -5, HMM -4, HMM -5, and MMM -3. However, as discussed throughout this Addendum, Mitigation Measures FMM-5, HMM-4, HMM-5, and MMM-3 are not applicable to the proposed project. Thus, Mitigation Measure EMM -3 has been omitted from this Addendum.

Modified Mitigation Measures
None Required.

New Mitigation Measures
None Required.

3.12 Mineral Resources
The following includes a discussion of the previous impacts identified in the 2002 EIR, the impacts associated with the proposed project, and a description of the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to mineral resources.

3.12.1 Summary of Mineral Resources Impacts from 2002 EIR The 2002 EIR did not contain a mineral resources chapter because the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project area was not known to contain mineral resources, so the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan would not occur. Significant impacts to mineral resources would not occur with implementation of the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project, and no mitigation was required.

3.12.2 Mineral Resources Impacts Associated with Proposed Project The area of disturbance associated with the proposed project would not extend beyond the boundaries of the overall Northwest Rocklin Annexation Area analyzed in the 2002 EIR. Thus, the proposed project would not result in any additional impacts related to mineral resources beyond what was anticipated for the Northwest Rocklin Annexation Project.

3.12.3 Mineral Resources Mitigation Measures
The following presents the mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project related to mineral resources.

869
University Avenue Apartments Project
Addendum

Page 65 ends

Rocklin City CouncilJanuary 14, 2025

Rocklin City Council
January 14, 2025