Rocklin City Council
August 12, 2025

Reso. No. 2025-
of revenue bonds in an outstanding principal amount not to exceed $70,000,000. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that this resolution constitutes approval of the proposed plan of finance for the Project for the purposes of (a) Section 147(f) of the Code by the applicable elected representative of a governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Project is to be located, in accordance with said Section 147(f) and (b) Section 4 of the Agreement.

Section 3. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which they deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this resolution and the financing transaction approved hereby.

Section 4. The adoption of this Resolution shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to (i) provide any financing for the Project; (ii) approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, construction, development or equipping of the Project; or (iii) make any contribution or advance any funds whatsoever to the Authority.

Section 5. The City Clerk shall forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Authority in care of its counsel:

Ronald E. Lee, Esq.

Jones Hall LLP
4 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 406
San Mateo, CA 94402
Section 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of August, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

_____
Jill Gayaldo, Mayor

ATTEST:

__________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk

540

Reso. No. 2025-

EXHIBIT A

CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK

I, Avinta Singh, City Clerk of the City of Rocklin, hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Rocklin duly and regularly held in Rocklin, California, on August 12, 2025, of which meeting all of the members of said Board had due notice.

I further certify that I have carefully compared the foregoing copy with the original minutes of said meeting on file and of record in my office; that said copy is a full, true and correct copy of the original resolution adopted at said meeting and entered in said minutes; and that said resolution has not been amended, modified, rescinded or revoked in any manner since the date of its adoption, and the same is now in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this certificate and affixed the seal of the City of Rocklin hereto this 12th day of August, 2025.

____________________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk

541
124310

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF ROCKLIN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that at 6:00 p.m., or as
soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, on TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2025, at City of Rocklin City Council Chambers, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin California 95677, the City Council of the City of Rocklin (the “City Council”) will conduct a public hearing (the “Public Hearing”) as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to a proposed plan of finance that includes the issuance and reissuance from time to time, by the California Municipal Finance Authority (the “Authority”), of one or more series of revenue bonds in an outstanding principal amount not to exceed $70,000,000 (the “Bonds”), to finance and refinance the acquisition, development, construction and equipping of a 288-unit multifamily rental housing facility for low-income households located at 801 University Avenue in the City of Rocklin, California (the “City”). The facilities are to be owned and operated by Rocklin 688, L.P., a California limited partnership, or another entity created by USA Properties Fund, Inc., or an affiliate thereof (the “Borrower”).

The Bonds and the obligation to pay principal thereof and interest thereon and any redemption premium with respect thereto do not constitute indebtedness or an obligation of the City, the Authority, the State of California or any political subdivision thereof, within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation, or a charge against the general credit or taxing powers of any of them. The Bonds shall be a limited obligation of the Authority, payable solely from certain revenues duly pledged therefor and generally representing amounts paid by the Borrower. The Public Hearing is intended to comply with the public approval requirements of Section 147(f) of the Code.

Interested persons wishing to express their views on the issuance of the Bonds or on the nature and location of the facilities proposed to be financed and refinanced may attend the public hearing or, prior to the hour of 5:00p.m. on Tuesday, August 12, 2025, submit written comments addressed to the City Clerk, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, California 95677, or by email to the City Clerk at [email protected].

Court challenges to any public hearing items may be
limited to only those issues which are raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009).

The location of the public meeting is fully accessible to mobility impaired individuals. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Rocklin encourages those with disabilities to participate fully in the public hearing process. If you have special needs, including, but not limited to, non-English speaking assistance, in order to allow you to attend or participate in this public hearing process, please contact our office at (916) 625-5560 well in advance of the public hearing or program you wish to attend so that we may make every reasonable effort to accommodate you.

At the time and place noted above, all persons interested in the above matters may appear and be heard.

Dated and published: July 18, 2025
PUBLISHED IN THE PLACER HERALD ON JULY 18, 2025
542
City Council
Staff Report

Subject:

Rocklin Municipal Code Kennel Ordinance Amendments / Zoning Ordinance Amendment, ZOA2025-0002
(Continued from June 24, 2025)
Date:

August 12, 2025
Submitted By:

Bennett Smithhart, Senior Planner
Arwen Wacht, Planning Manager
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 Rocklin Municipal Code Section 17.64.070 - Kennels. (Kennel Ordinance / ZOA2025-0002).

Background:

Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of an ordinance, which requires a two-meeting process. The ordinance will be introduced for a first reading on August 12, 2025, and then may be adopted by the City Council at the August 26, 2025, City Council meeting.

Proposal:

The proposal is an amendment of the Rocklin Municipal Code (RMC) to modify Section

17.64.070 – Kennels, allowing for Outdoor Dog Enclosures, subject to review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

Proponent:

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

Location:

The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would apply to commercial and industrial zones within the City, excluding the Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) zone.

Continued from June 24, 2025 City Council Meeting:

This item was continued from the June 24, 2025 City Council meeting date to the August 12, 2025 City Council meeting date to allow for sufficient time for review and deliberation by the City Council.

Item Number PH2.

543
Planning Commission Hearing:

On May 20, 2025, the Planning Commission (Commission)
reviewed the proposed amendment. Following staff’s presentation, the Commission had questions and discussed the proposed development standards for outdoor dog enclosures and the public interest that led to the amendment. Following staff’s responses to the Commission, the item was opened up for public comment and there were no speakers. The Commission then voted 5-0 to recommend approval to the City Council.

Background:

On October 24, 2017, the City of Rocklin adopted an amendment to the Rocklin Municipal Code (RMC) to regulate the operation of kennels within City limits (ZOA2017-0005). The amendment aligned Title 6 (Animals), with Title 17 (Zoning), by specifying that kennels are permitted only as allowed under zoning regulations. As part of this 2017 amendment, definitions for “kennels” and “veterinary clinics” in Title 17 were revised for clarity. Chapter

17.64, "Special and Prohibited Uses," was also updated to reaffirm that kennels used for the breeding and raising of animals for sale remain a prohibited use. In addition, Section

17.64.070, "Kennels." was introduced to outline where boarding kennels may be located, the permit process, and operational requirements applicable to all kennels. The ordinance amendment allowed boarding kennels to operate in all commercial and industrial zoning districts within the City, provided they obtain an Administrative Kennel Permit issued by the department director. Continued operation is subject to ongoing compliance with defined operational standards.

Staff has initiated a zoning ordinance amendment to revise the kennel ordinance, with the goal of updating operational standards, ensuring consistency with standard kennel practices, and aligning local regulations with best practices in the industry to foster more efficient and compliant kennel operations in Rocklin.

Summary of the Proposed Changes:

The RMC currently allows for kennel operations that are restricted to indoor spaces only, with these operations subject to approval through an administrative permit process. Staff has recognized that allowing for outdoor dog enclosures would provide local kennel operations with greater flexibility and enhance the quality of the stay at the kennel for the dogs, as they would be able to enjoy outdoor time. In response, the proposed kennel ordinance amendment would permit both indoor operations and those with indoor and outdoor enclosures, contingent upon the submission of specific requirements such as design plans, operational details, descriptions of surrounding businesses, and noise studies. The proposed kennel ordinance amendment would also change the approval process for all kennel types from requiring an Administrative Kennel Permit to requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approved by the Planning Commission. This shift ensures more enforceable operational standards and a comprehensive evaluation of zoning, safety, and community impact factors before a kennel may operate. The current RMC Section 17.64.070 "Kennels," with the proposed redline changes is included as Attachment 2.

Conclusion:

The approval of the proposed kennel ordinance amendment would allow for kennels with outdoor dog enclosures to be situated in specific commercial and industrial areas, subject to certain conditions and development standards, and approval of a CUP. These conditions would include the establishment of a buffer zone to minimize the impact on neighboring properties and locational criteria for proximity to roadways. Additionally, the ordinance would require the submission of a noise study to assess potential disturbances, as well as detailed 544
outdoor dog enclosure design plans that outline the layout and aesthetics of the outdoor enclosures. These measures are intended to ensure that the kennels are responsibly integrated into their surroundings, balancing the needs of the animals with the potential concerns of the local community.

Existing indoor-only kennels that were previously approved under an administrative permit are allowed to continue operating as legal non-conforming uses, provided they remain in compliance with all applicable regulations, zoning codes, and operational standards as set forth in the kennel ordinance. Any modifications, expansions, or changes to the use of such kennels shall be subject to review and approval in accordance with current zoning and land use regulations.

Recommendation:

The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council Introduce, Waive the Full Reading and Read by Title Only, an Ordinance to amend Rocklin Municipal Code Section

17.64.070 - Kennels.

Environmental Analysis:

The proposed text amendments to Section 17.64.070 are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15061(b)(3), as the activity is not expected to result in a direct physical change, nor is it reasonably foreseeable to cause an indirect physical change to the environment.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no direct fiscal impact to the General Fund from the staff recommendation.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance - Kennel Ordinance Amendments

2. Rocklin Municipal Code Section 17.64.070 (redlined)
545

Ordinance No. XXXX
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN
AMENDING ROCKLIN MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.64.070 – KENNELS (Kennel Ordinance / ZOA2025-0002)

The City Council of the City of Rocklin finds as follows:

A. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend Sect ion 17.64.070 of Title 17 of the Rocklin Municipal Code (RMC) to clarify regulati ons governing the operation of kennels within the City of Rocklin. This Ordinance is intended to further assist in protecting public heal th, s afety, and welfare, promote responsible kennel management, and ensure appropriate conditions for the animals house d within these facilities. These kennel regulation amendments have been further designed to ensure compatibility with surrounding develop ment and adjacent tenants. Staff has receive d concerns regarding the placement of kennel operations, particularly near office-type uses, as dog vocalizations, while not exceeding applicable noise standards, may still be audible and impact neighboring tenan ts. R ocklin’s zoning code currently lacks a mechanism to regulate the compatibility of kennels with various individual business operations, such as offices, that may be quieter than other offices within the land use zone district. To address this, the ordi nance amendment requires applicants to submi t adjacent tenant floor plans and business descriptions for review as part of the Conditional Use Permit review process, allowing for case-by-case evaluation.

B. The proposed amendments to the RMC are consistent with and implement the policies of the City of Rocklin's General Plan.

C. The proposed amendments to the RMC are not likely to create serious health problems or create nuisances on or near affected properties.

D. Authority. The City Council enacts thi s o rdinance under the authority granted to c ities by Article XI, Section 7 of th e California Constitution and Government Code section 37100.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Findings. The finding s and recitals set forth above are true and correct.

Section 2. Amendment to Code . The Rocklin Munici pal Code Section

17.64.070 “Kennels” is hereby amended to read as follows:

546

Ordinance No. XXXX
Chapter 17.64 - SPECIAL AND PROHIBITED USES

17.64.070 – Kennels

A. Kennels, f or boarding of ani mals for commercial or non commercial purposes, except those prohibited by Section 17.64.030.A, are permitted in the following zone districts subject to issuance of a conditional use permit and compliance with the criteria set forth in Sections 17.64.070.B and C below:

1. C-2: retail business zone;

2. C-3: general and service commercial zone;

3. C-4: limited general retail and service commercial zone;

4. C-H: highway commercial zone;

5. M-1: manufacturing zone;

6. M-2: heavy industrial zone;

7. Planned development zone districts equivalent to the above.

B. Application Submittal. Applications for a Conditional Use Permit for a Ken nel shall include the items specified in Section 1 7.70.030 – Application, an d shall also include, but not be limited to the following:

1. Design plans fo r any exterior modifications related to the Outdoor Dog Enclosure, such as walls, fencing, lighting, hardscape, and plantings;

2. A written statement of compatibility, including all relevant deta ils of the proposed use, such as abutting business operations (if located in a multi - tenant building or adjacent to other surrou nding uses), type of use, operating hours, number of employees, parking, traffic impacts, and other pertinent information;

3. When proposed w ithin an exis ting multi -tenant building, the a pplicant shall provide a floor plan of their entire tenant space, as well as all adjacent tenant space; and

4. If any component of the Kennel is proposed to be outdoors, a noise study (prepared by a qualified n oise professional) is required to demonstrate compliance with the noise standards of the General Plan Noise Element.

C. All kennels shall comply with the following criteria:

1. The kennel use facili ty, premises, and surround ing area shall be regularly cleaned and maintenance shall be conducted in acc ordance with applicable health and sanitation standards.

2. All ani mals housed in the facility shall b e cared for in accordance with Chapter 11 (Pet Boa rding Facilities) of the C alifornia Heal th and Safety Code (Sections 122380-122388).

3. The building or tenant space in which the kennel is located shall be improved and m aintained such that animals housed there do not cause regular annoyance and disturban ce to persons in the surro unding area, 547

Ordinance No. XXXX
including but no t limited to noise, odor, waste disposal, etc. A medical- grade filtration system shall be installed to prevent the s pread of noxious odors.

4. The ken nel use shall be conducted entirely within a build ing with no outside activities or storage, except:
(a) When a n oise study is submitted and approved wit h the project application demonstrating compliance with applicable n oise regulations;
(b) When the hou rs for any outdoor kenn el operations are restricte d to between the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM;
(c) When located more than 200 feet from the boundary of any residentially zoned parcel;
(d) When located on parcels that d irectly abut a State Highway, Interstate Highway, or Arterial Road, as designated in the General Plan Circulation Element, and the noise from the roadway facilities is the predominant noise source at the kennel location; and (e) When a sign is installed an d maintained at the edge of the pub lic right-of-way that clearly displays the name an d telephone number of a de signated business representat ive r esponsible for addressing noise or odor complaints.

5. The operations of the kennel shall comply with all appli cable regulations and requirements of county and stat e agencies. All health and safet y permits shall be posted in a public location.

Section 3. Environmental. The proposed amendments to t he Roc klin Municipal Code will not result in a direct or reasonabl y foreseeable indi rect physical change to the environ ment under CEQA, and are therefore exempt under sections 15060(c)(2) and 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Section 4. Severability. If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phr ase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of c ompetent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remai ning port ions of the Ordinance . The City Council hereby d eclares that it would hav e adopted the Ordina nce and each sect ion, sub -section, sente nce, clause, phrase or portion ther eof, irrespective of t he fact that any one or more sect ions, sub- sections, sent ences, claus es, phrases or por tions be declared invalid o r unconstitutional.

Section 5. Effective Da te. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the day of its adoption.

Section 6. Publication. Within 15 day s of the passage of th is 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 t he ordinance, the Cit y Clerk, if so directed by the City Attorney and within 1 5 days, shall cause a su mmary of the ordinance, prepared by the 548

Ordinance No. XXXX
City Attorney and with the names of the City Counc il members voting fo r and against the ordinance, to be published in the Placer Herald, and shall post in the office of th e City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of the ordinance, along with the names of those City Council members voting for and agai nst the ordinance. The p ublication of a summary of t he ordinance in lieu of the full text of th e ordinance is authorized only where the requirements of Government Code section 36933(c)(1) are met.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rocklin held on August 12, 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: 08.12.2025
Second Reading:

Effective Date:

549

ATTACHMENT 1

Proposed revisions to Rocklin Municipal Code (RMC) Section 17.64.070. Deletions to this section appear in red strike through and additions to this section are in blue underline.

Chapter 17.64 - SPECIAL AND PROHIBITED USES

17.64.070 – Kennels
A. Kennels, for boarding of animals for commercial or noncommercial purposes, except as specified in Section 17.64.030.A, are permitted in the following zone districts subject to issuance of a n administrative permit conditional use permit by the economic and community development director and compliance with the criteria set forth in Sections 17.64.070.B and C below:

1. C-1: neighborhood commercial zone;

2.1. C-2: retail business zone;

3.2. C-3: general and service commercial zone;

4.3. C-4: limited general retail and service commercial zone;

5.4. C-H: highway commercial zone;

6.5. M-1: manufacturing zone;

7.6. M-2: heavy industrial zone;

8.7. Planned development zone districts equivalent to the above.

B. Permit Approval/Modification/Revocation.

1. Consistent with the provisions of this chapter, the economic and community development director shall issue an administrative permit to operate a kennel if, in the opinion of the economic and community development director, the premises on which the kennel will be located has been improved and is of sufficient size to accommodate the number of animals which the owner of such kennel anticipates will be on the premises, without causing any disturbance or annoyance to persons in the surrounding area subject to ongoing compliance with the criteria set forth in this chapter and any special conditions of approval deemed necessary by the economic and community development director.

2. A permit to operate a kennel may be modified or revoked by the economic and community development director when he/she determines any of the following:
(a) That the animals in the kennel are causing continual annoyance and disturbance to persons in the surrounding area;
(b) That the animals within the kennel are not being given proper care; 550
(c) That circumstances have changed since the issuance of the kennel license, and in view of such circumstances, the premises are no longer suitable for the operation of a kennel.

3. Any person whose license to operate a kennel is denied, modified or revoked by the economic and community development director may appeal such determination, in accordance with the procedures specified in Chapter 17.86 of this title.

C. All kennels shall comply with the following criteria:

1. The premises and surroundings are maintained in a clean and sanitary state;

2. All animals housed in the facility are kept in good health, well fed, watered, and receive adequate care and exercise;

3. The building or tenant space in which the kennel is located shall be improved and maintained such that animals housed therein do not cause regular annoyance and disturbance to persons in the surrounding area, including but not limited to noise, odor, waste disposal, etc.;

4. The use shall be conducted entirely within a building with no outside activities or storage;

5. The facility shall comply with all applicable regulations and requirements of county and state agencies;

6. The economic and community development director may place such conditions on the permit as may be necessary to protecting the public health, safety and welfare.

B. Application Submittal. Applications for a Conditional Use Permit for a Kennel shall include the items specified in Section 17.70.030 – Application, and shall also include, but not be limited to the following:

1. Design plans for any exterior modifications related to the Outdoor Dog Enclosure, such as walls, fencing, lighting, hardscape, and plantings; and

2. A written statement of compatibility, including all relevant details of the proposed use, such as abutting business operations (if located in a multi -tenant building or adjacent to other surrounding uses), type of use, operating hours, number of employees, parking, traffic impacts, and other pertinent information; and

3. When proposed within an existing multi -tenant building, the applicant shall provide a floor plan of their entire tenant space, as well as all adjacent tenant space; and

4. If any component of the Kennel is proposed to be outdoors, a noise study (prepared by a qualified noise professional) is required to demonstrate compliance with the noise standards of the General Plan Noise Element.

C. All kennels shall comply with the following criteria:
551

1. The kennel use facility, premises, and surrounding area shall be regularly cleaned and maintenance shall be conducted in accordance with applicable health and sanitation standards;

2. All animals housed in the facility shall be cared for in accordance with Chapter 11 (Pet Boarding Facilities) of the California Health and Safety Code (Sections 122380-122388).

3. The building or tenant space in which the kennel is located shall be improved and maintained such that animals housed there do not cause regular annoyance and disturbance to persons in the surrounding area, including but not limited to noise, odor, waste disposal, etc. A medical -grade filtration system shall be installed to prevent the spread of noxious odors;

4. The kennel use shall be conducted entirely within a building with no outside activities or storage, except:
(a) When a noise study is submitted and approved with the project application demonstrating compliance with applicable noise regulations; and (b) When the hours for any outdoor kennel operations are restricted to between the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM; and
(c) When located more than 200 feet from the boundary of any residentially zoned parcel; and
(d) When located on parcels that directly abut a State Highway, Interstate Highway, or Arterial Road, as designat ed in the General Plan Circulation Element and the noise from the roadway facilities is the predominant noise source at the kennel location; and
(e) When a sign is installed and maintained at the edge of the public right -of- way that clearly displays the na me and telephone number of a designated business representative responsible for addressing noise or odor complaints.

5. The operations of the kennel shall comply with all applicable regulations and requirements of county and state agencies. All health and safety permits shall be posted in a public location.
552
City Council
Staff Report

Subject:

Whitney Walk Residential / Environmental, ENV2025-0007; General Development Plan, PDG2024-0002; Design Review, DR2024-0005; Tentative Subdivision Map, SD2024-0001; Tree Preservation Permit, TRE2024-001
Date:

August 12, 2025
Submitted By:

Arwen Wacht, Planning Manager
David Mohlenbrok, Community Development Director
Department:

Community Development
Recommendation:

Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider the Following Actions:

A
.

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving an Addendum to the 2015 Sunset Hills Townhomes Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and to the 2016 South Whitney Mixed-Use Townhomes and Medical Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (Whitney Walk Residential / ENV2025- 0007);
B
.

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Design Review (Whitney Walk Residential / DR2024-0005);
C
.

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Tentative Map and an Oak Tree Preservation Permit (Whitney Walk Residential / SD2024-0001 and TRE2024-0001);
D
.

Introduce, Waive the Full Reading and Read by Title Only, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Repealing Ordinance No. 1036 (Sunset Hills Townhomes General Development Plan) and Ordinance No. 1052 (South Whitney Mixed Use General Development Plan), and Adopting the Whitney Walk General Development Plan (Whitney Walk Residential / PDG2024-0002).

Background:

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

Item Number PH3.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Staff Report - Whitney Walk Residential

2. SR Attachment 1 - Comment Letter Dated June 17 2025

3. SR Attachment 2 - Kimley-Horn Response Memo Dated August 5, 2025

4. Resolution A -
CEQA Addendum - Whitney Walk

5. Resolution A Exhibit A - CEQA Initial Study/Addendum

6. Resolution B - Design Review - Whitney Walk
553

7. Resolution B Exhibit A

8. Resolution C - Tentative Map and Oak Tree Preservation Plan Permit Whitney Walk

9. Resolution C Exhibit A

10. Ordinance - General Development Plan Whitney Walk

11. Ordinance Exhibit A

12. Ordinance Exhibit B
554

City Council
Staff Report

_______________________________________________________________________

Subject: Whitney Walk Residential
Environmental / ENV2025-0007
General Development Plan / PDG2024-0002
Design Review / DR2024-0005
Tentative Subdivision Map / SD2024-0001
Tree Preservation Permit / TRE2024-0001

Date: August 12, 2025

Submitted By: Arwen Wacht, Planning Manager
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:

August 12, 2025 – First reading of ordinance and final action on resolutions:

A. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving an Addendum to the 2015 Sunset Hills Townhomes Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and to the 2016 South Whitney Mixed-Use Townhomes and Medical Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (Whitney Walk Residential / ENV2025-0007);

B. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Design Review (Whitney Walk Residential / DR2024-0005);

C. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Tentative Map and an Oak Tree Prese rvation Permit ( Whitney Walk Residential / SD2024 - 0001 and TRE2024-0001); and

D. Introduce, Waive the Full Reading and Read by Title Only, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Repealing Ordinance No. 1036 (Sunset Hills Townhomes General Development Plan) and Ordinance No. 1052 (South Whitney Mixed Use General Development Plan), and Adopting the Whitney Walk General Development Plan (Whitney Walk Residential / PDG2024-0002).

555
August 26, 2025 – Final action for ordinance:

Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Repealing Ordinance No. 1036 (Sunset Hills Townhomes General Development Plan) and Ordinance No. 1052 (South Whitney Mixed Use General Development Plan), and Adopting the Whitney Walk General Development Plan (Whitney Walk Residential / PDG2024-0002).

Note: The validity of the resolutions approving the Design Review, and the Tentative Map and Oak Tree Preservation Permit is contingent upon the City Council’s second reading and adoption of the concurre nt General Development Plan (PDG2024 -0002) ordinance at the August 26, 2025, City Council Meeting.

Proposal/Application Request:

The applicant is seeking approval of an Addendum (ENV2025 -0007) to two previously adopted Initial Studies/Mitigated Negative Declarations (2015 Sunset Hills Townhomes IS/MND & 2016 South Whitney Mixed Use Townhomes and Medical Center IS/MND), to repeal two General Development Plans and adopt a new General Development Plan for the project site (PDG2024 -0002), a Design Review (DR2024 -0005), and a Subdivision Map (SD2024-0001) and Oak Tree Preservation Permit (TRE2024-0001) to develop three parcels with 170 single-family residences on 12.85± acres.

Project Location:

The proposed Whitney Walk Residential project site is located south of Sunset Boulevard, on the east and west sides of South Whitney Boulevard. The proposed project site consists of 12.85± acres a cross three parcels: APNs 016 -210-011 (Parcel 1, 6.6± acres), 016 -240- 044 (Parcel 2, 4.6± acres), and a portion of 016 -240-039 (Parcel 3, 1.7± acres). The proposed project would be constructed on land that is currently vacant. Figure 1 illustrates the project location, the three parcels, and aerial image.

Figure 1. Project Location

556
Table 1. Site and Project Information
General Plan Designation: High Density Residential (HDR) Recreation/Conservation (R-C)
Design Review District: Citywide Design Review
General Development Plan
Area:

Sunset Hills Townhomes (W of S. Whitney Blvd.)
South Whitney Mixed Use (E of S. Whitney Blvd.)
Zoning: Planned Development-Residential (PD-R)
Open Area (OA)
Existing Use of Site: Undeveloped
Total Parcel Area: 14.04± acres (only 12.85± acres included in this proposal)
Proposed Density: 16.34± dwelling units per acre

Summary of Planning Commission Hearing and Action:

On June 17, 2025, the Planning Commission (Commission) reviewed the proposed project.

Staff presented the project details along with a Blue Memo which included public comments provided that day by a resident outlining his concerns regarding traffic and neighborhood compatibility. This comment letter is included as Attachment 1. The applicant subsequently provided a written response from their traffic engineer to address the concerns raised by the Blue Memo comment letter, which is included as Attachment 2. The Commission h ad several questions for staff and the applicant specific to: parking; the difference between what has been previously approved versus what is currently being proposed; affordable housing, street parking, and traffic; Level of Service; access points; and gated communities.

The Commission opened the public hearing, and three members of the public spoke in opposition to the proposal specific to: traffic; housing product proposed is not consistent with the surrounding area; proposal is too dense for the area and this property ; additional cars driving too fast on Pinnacles Drive; and parking issues in the neighborhood with this development. After closing the public hearing, the Commission deliberated and then expressed support for the proposal . The Commission voted 4-0-1 (one recusal), to recommend approval of the project as conditioned.

Following the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant made staff aware that one of the conditions of approval [Fire – Condition 4(b)] regarding no parking along South Whitney Boulevard was not consistent with the existing neighborhood and requested that City Fire and Engineering reconsider the condition. Following review of the condition and the site, both City Fire and Engineering have agreed to the deletion of Condition 4(b) of the Design Review resolution.

Site Background and Characteristics:

Parcels 1 and 2 of the pro posal are located south of Sunset Boulevard and west of South Whitney Boulevard, while Parcel 3 is located across South Whitney Boulevard to the east.

The zoning designation for the all three parcels within the project area is Planned Development – Residential (PD -R) and Open Area (OA) and the General Plan land use designation is High Density Residential (HDR) and Recreation/Conservation (R -C). The project area is vacant and located within an area developed primarily with residential and retail commercial uses. Table 2 and Figure 2 illustrate the existing uses in more detail.

557

Table 2. Surrounding Uses
Current Use Zoning General Plan
Project
Site Vacant
Planned Development-
Residential (PD-R), Open
Area (OA)
High Density Residential
(HDR),
Recreation/Conservation
(R-C)
North
Single-Family
Residential &
Commercial
Residential Single Family
7,500 SF Minimum Lots (R1-

7.5), Retail Business (C-2)
Medium Density
Residential (MDR), Retail
Commercial (RC)
South
Townhomes /
Single-Family
Residential
Planned Development-
Residential (PD-R),
Residential Single Family
6,000 SF Minimum Lots (R1-
6), Duplex/Triplex (R-2)
Medium Density
Residential (MDR)
East Retail Commercial Retail Business (C-2) Retail Commercial (RC) West
Single-Family
Residential /
Townhomes
Planned Development-
Commercial (PD-C)
Medium Density
Residential (MDR)

Figure 2. Current General Plan / Zoning Designations

Two general development plans (GDP) exist on the three project parcels: The Sunset Hills GDP and the South Whitney Mixed Use GDP. Together, both GDPs proposed 168 residential 558
units and 7,981-square feet of medical office space. The Sunset Hills development, approved June 9, 2015, proposed the development of 26 building lots on an 11.2 -acre site containing 148 condominium units and two common area lots (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Previously Approved Sunset Hills Project

The South Whitney Mixed Use Project, approved June 28, 2016, proposed the construction and operation of a mixed -use development on a 2.8 -acre site consisting of four residential buildings with a total of 20 units, and a 7,891-square foot medical office building (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Previously Approved South Whitney Mixed-Use Project

559

The applicant is now proposing a 170 -unit single-family residential development including 110 attached single -family units and 60 detached single -family units on ±10.4 acres of developable area across the three project parcels (approximately 1.9 acres of the combined westerly sites and approximately 0.4 acres of the easterly site will be private open space).

See Figure 5 for the project’s proposed site plan.

Figure 5. Proposed Site Plan

Ingress/egress to the proposed site is by private Street “A” and Alleys “8” and “9” from South Whitney Boulevard, and by private Street “B” and Alleys “1” and “2” from Chalmette Court.

Garage parking available with each unit is accessed via the privately maintained alleys.

Pedestrian circulation is accommodated by privately maintained paseos and sidewalks within the development, by existing sidewalks along South Whitney Boulevard and Chalmette Court, and by proposed improvements along the site’s Sunset Boulevard frontage.

Proposed amenities on the site include turf areas, picnic and game areas, a dog park, and a small playground. Street, landscape, alley, common area, and paseo ownership and maintenance will be managed by the development’s Homeowner’s Association.

General Plan Compliance:

The majority of the westerly sites (Parcels 1 & 2) and the majority of the portion of the easterly parcel (Parcel 3) included in the project have a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential (HDR). The remainder of the parcels within the project area have a General Pl an land use designation of Recreation/Conservation (R -C), which will not be included in the developed area and will be set aside as private open space for this development. Figure 6 illustrates the General Plan land use designation of the project parcels.

560
Figure 6. General Plan Land Use Designation

The purpose of the HDR designation is to provide “areas for multi-family homes, conveniently near commercial and public facilities, arterial and collector streets and other intensive uses,” with a minimum density of 15.5 or more dwelling units per acre required.

Although not traditional multi-family homes, the project proposes a total of 170 attached and detached dwelling units over 10.4 acres of developable land, which yields 16± dwelling units per acre. The project site is located adjacent to neighborhood commercial, near other Central Rocklin commercial, civic areas, and schools, and on Sunset Boulevard, the city’s only arterial north-south thoroughfare. South Whitney Boulevard is also a main east-west collector in the south area of the city. The proposed project is consistent with the intent and required density of the HDR General Plan land use designation. It should be noted that, although the project meets the intent of the HDR land use designation, the current General Development Plan does not permit single -family homes, which is the catalyst for the proposed Whitney Walk General Development Plan.

Senate Bill 166 (No Net Loss)
Senate Bill 166 (SB 166), now codified as Government Code Section 65863 (No Net Loss Law), was adopted to ensure that development opportunities remain available throughout the eight (8) year Housing Element planning period to accommodate a jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), especially for lower- and moderate-income households.

When the 2021-2029 Housing Element was adopted, the City had a minimum surplus in its Available Sites Inventory to accommodate the Lower Income Category RHNA. St aff continually monitors the status of the inventory compared to the remaining RHNA as affordable units are built and projects come forward on sites listed in the current inventory. It has been determined that there will be a shortfall within the Moderate Category when entitlements for the Whitney Walk Residential project are approved. The City cannot deny a project because it involves a shortfall and the City cannot require a developer to provide a replacement site if they are not requesting a General Plan Amendment and Rezone that 561
would create the shortfall. The City is currently in the process of identifying another site(s) as a replacement for the shortfall and/or redesignating and rezoning another site(s) (not already listed on the inventory) to make up for the shortfall within 180 days of taking final action on the development project, as required by SB 166.

Zoning Compliance:

The zoning of Planned Development Residential (PD-R) and Open Area (OA) for the project parcels corresponds with the assigned General Plan land use designations of High Density Residential (HDR) and Recreation/Conservation (R-C). The original intent of the Sunset Hills GDP was to develop parcels 1 and 2 with townhomes (multi -family residential) and it does not list single-family residential as a permitted use. Similarly, the intent of the South Whitney Mixed-Use GDP was to allow multi -family residential uses, but it does not explicitly permit single-family residential. Currently, the proposed project is not consistent with the bas e zoning; however, with the establishment of the proposed Whitney Walk General Development Plan, single-family homes will be permitted on the project site and would allow deviations from the development standards listed in the existing GDPs to accommodate the proposed high-density single-family development. Because single-family residential is not a permitted use in the current GDP area, development standards must also be established for that use. The following is a summary of the development standards proposed for the Whitney Walk GDP:

Table 3. Proposed Development Standards for the Whitney Walk GDP Development Standard Detached Single-Family Attached Single-Family Minimum Lot Area 1,885 square feet 1,027 square feet
Minimum Lot Width 29 feet 18.5 feet
Principal Structure Building Setbacks
Front: 10 feet 8 feet
Side: 0 feet / 3.5 feet 0 feet / 3.5 feet
Rear: 3 feet 3 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage 70 percent 75 percent
Maximum Building Height
Principal: 35 feet 40 feet
Principal w/ Use Permit: 50 feet 50 feet
Accessory: 20 feet 20 feet

In addition to the development standards discussed above, the Whitney Walk GDP will include parking standards specific to the development. Chapter 17.66 Off-Street Parking requires any single-family development to “provide a minimum of two paved parking spaces per dwelling unit, which shall be located within the buildable portion of the lot, excluding all required front, side and rear yard setbacks”, which could be accomplished by either of the following:

a) A two-car garage at least four hundred square feet in area shall be provided. The two - car garage shall be at least twenty feet in width and twenty feet in length. A driveway pad at least twenty feet in length immediately contiguous to the front of the garage opening shall also be provided.

b) As an alternative to subdivision 1 of this subsection, a one -car garage at least two hundred forty feet in area and a carport or uncovered parking space may be provided.

The one-car garage shall be at least twelve feet in width an d twenty feet in length. The carport or uncovered parking space shall be paved and at least ten feet in width and twenty feet in length. Both the garage and the carport or parking space shall be located 562
within the buildable portion of the lot, excluding all required front, side and rear setbacks.

A driveway pad the width of the garage door and carport opening and immediately contiguous to the garage door and carport shall be provided. The driveway shall be at least twenty feet in length.

The Whitney Walk GDP is consistent with requirements for the two -car garages but due to the development’s density and layout, they are unable to provide a standard twenty -foot driveway for each garage and are proposing to exclude the requirement for garage driveways. The GDP text referring to the parking requirements is as follows:

PARKING STANDARDS
Single-family dwellings and duets on individual lots shall provide a minimum of two paved parking spaces per dwelling unit, which shall be located within a two -car garage of at least four hundred square feet in area.

Currently, the project site is within two separate GDPs. To address this, the applicant has proposed the repeal of the Sunset Hills Townhomes GDP and the South Whitney Mixed - Use GDP. Additionally, a new Whitney Walk GDP is proposed to encompass the project site and assign project -specific development standards to the proposed development.

Tentative Subdivision Map:

Subdivision Design
The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map would subdivide the three project parcels (totaling ±12.85 acres) into a total of 198 lots. One hundred and seventy (170) single -family residential, two (2) open space, nine (9) alley, one (1) private street, and sixteen (16) landscape lots would be created with approval of their proposed tentative map. Figure 7 illustrates the proposed subdivision. The proposed residential lots range in size from 1,027 square feet to 2,654 square feet, with an average lot size of 1,458 square feet. The proposed Whitney Walk GDP corresponds to these values.

Figure 7. Tentative Subdivision Map

563
The 170 single-family lots proposed are significantly smaller than traditional single-family lots in the City. Typical lot sizes range from a minimum of approximately 3,000 square feet to a maximum of three acres for single -family homes. Generally, these lot sizes comply with development standards within the Rocklin Municipal Code (RMC) related to the base zone, however, Chapter 17.60 PD Zone allows flexibility with those standards (discussed above) through an established Planned Development, upon City Council approval.

The proposed project features two dedicated open space parcels equaling approximately

2.3 acres. Lot “J” (18,104 square feet) is located within the easterly area of the project while Lot “T” (81,085 square feet) is located in the westerly area. The total square footage of the open space has been deducted from the total developable acreage for purposes of calculating density.

Circulation
Internal circulation within the proposed subdivision is accomplished with two private streets and seven private alleys in the westerly portion, and by two private alleys in the easterly portion, all of which have been conditioned to be privately owned and maintained by the development’s Home Owner’s Association.

Street “A” will allow “right in” ingress from and “right out” egress onto South Whitney Boulevard while Street “B” allows access from Chalmette Court. Each alley provides access to private garages; alleys “1”, “2”, and “3” (westerly portion of development) provide access to Chalmette Court, and alleys “8” and “9” (easterly portion of the development) provide access to and from South Whitney Boulevard. Additionally, sidewalks are proposed on all streets, as well as within the proposed paseos separating the rows of the attached single - family units to accommodate pedestrian circulation throughout the development.

Design Review
Pursuant to the RMC, Design Reviews are discretionary entitlements that provide an opportunity for the City and outside agencies to analyze proposed development, determine if the proposal is consistent with applicable land use designations, zoning, other applicable codes, as well as architectural and site design standards. Staff analyzes the site design; access, circulation, and parking; landscaping; walls and fences; architecture; and signage for compliance with the Citywide Design Review Criteria and other City codes and standards such as the provision of adequate on-site parking. Design Review is by and large the analysis of the aesthetics of a development and how it fits within the context of the surrounding area.

Additionally, for those projects within Architectural Review Districts, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) reviews and recommends to the Planning Commission approval of a project that meets the minimum requirements for the specific District.

Historically, staff and the Planning Commission have been charged with reviewing development proposals as noted above, for consistency with land use, zoning, and design review guidelines, and for compatibility with surrounding development. When establishing land use and zoning designations on a broad scale, such as durin g the development or update of a City-wide General Plan, or on a slightly lesser scale during the development or update of a General Development Plan, overall factors such as land use balance, compatibility and fiscal considerations are analyzed and consid ered. Generally speaking, projects that involve only Design Review entitlements are analyzed specific to the items discussed in the above paragraph and do not involve an in-depth review of land use balance or fiscal considerations such as the desirability of a particular use in support of the overall long-term economic goals of the City.
564

Per Section 17.72.070(C) of the RMC, any decision by the design review board or the council on a design review application shall be based on consideration of the following:

1. Relationship between the site design and the surrounding development, natural features and constraints and traffic flow;

2. Height, bulk and area;

3. Orientation of buildings and structures (with emphasis on energy consumption for heating, cooling, lighting);

4. Color scheme and materials;

5. Style, type and orientation of lighting;

6. Dimensions and placement of signs and graphics;

7. Landscaping (with emphasis on aesthetics, use of water and maintenance needs);

8. Parking design, including ingress and egress patterns;

9. Other design review criteria, which may be adopted from time to time by resolution of the council.

Building Architecture
The project site is not located within any of the four Architectural Districts established by the City Council, but must be consistent with the Citywide Design Review Criteria. Figure 8 illustrates a rendering of the view from South Whitney Boulevard looking northwest from the intersection at Chalmette Court.

Figure 8. South Whitney Boulevard Frontage

The applicant has proposed three architectural styles for the development: Modern Agrarian, Napa Farmhouse, and California Bungalow. The styles will be applied to both the attached and detached single-family floorplans.

565
Figure 9. Proposed Architectural Styles

Modern Agrarian: Per the project’s architect, the Modern Agrarian style reinterprets the traditional California farmhouse with a clean, minimalist approach that emphasizes simplicity and material contrast. Characterized by low -pitched 4:12 rooflines and consistent 12-inch eaves and rakes, these homes exhibit a balanced profile with a strong horizontal emphasis. Horizontal lap siding with a 6-inch reveal pairs with light sand-finish stucco and accent paneling to create a textured but restrained exterior. Gable ends feature horizontal siding, reinforcing the overall horizontality of the style and providing a streamlined alternative to traditional gable detailing. Window detailing includes straightforward 3-inch surrounds and horizontal muntins that subtly reference barn sash windows, further grounding the design in its rural roots while embracing a modern sensibility.

Napa Farmhouse: Per the project’s architect, drawing inspiration from the relaxed elegance of California’s wine country, the Napa Farmhouse style blends agrarian traditions with refined detailing and vertically oriented materials. Steeper 7:12 roof pitches and matching 12 -inch eaves and rakes lend these homes a stately yet welcoming presence. Vertical siding with a 6 -inch reveal and light sand -finished stucco with rev eal channels contribute to the vertical rhythm of the facades. Vertical gable vents reinforce the farmhouse vernacular, while simple 3-inch window surrounds and horizontal muntins add a tailored and consistent appearance. This style’s color palette and textures echo the warmth and simplicity of wine country living, adding variety to the streetscape while maintaining visual continuity throughout Whitney Walk.

California Bungalow: Per the project’s architect, the California Bungalow style offers a take on early 20th -century Craftsman and Arts & Crafts architecture, blending familiar proportions with contemporary materials and a light, inviting aesthetic. Featuring a 4:12 roof pitch with 12-inch eaves and rakes, these homes are scaled for comfort and charm.

Board and batten siding with 16 -inch on-center battens creates a dynamic façade with subtle texture and rhythm, while smooth, light sand-finish stucco provides visual balance. 566
Gable ends are highlighted by 4x6 outlookers that nod to traditional Craftsman detailing, adding architectural interest without overstating massing. Trim elements include a distinctive 2-inch over 4-inch treatment at the head and sill, along with a 4-inch jamb trim for a layered and finished look. Windows are intentionally left free of muntins to give the style a clean, modern edge that updates the bungalow tradition.

Detached Single-Family Units
Of the 170 units proposed, 60 will be constructed as detached si ngle-family units located to the west of South Whitney Boulevard. Each of the 60 detached units will include a two -car garage, two to three bedrooms (option for an office in lieu of a third bedroom), three bathrooms, kitchen, great room, and laundry room. The applicant has provided three floorplans ranging in size from 1,593 square feet to 1,788 square feet (Figure 10).

Detached single -family units will include an approximately 400 -square-foot garage to accommodate two cars, as well as three bins for trash, recycling, and yard waste. The height of the detached single-family units range from 27’-4” to 32’-2” to accommodate the existing topography on the site. The average height of the buildings will be approximately 29 feet.

Figure 10. Detached Single-Family Floorplans

Setbacks for the proposed buildings are identified in the Whitney Walk GDP, as the proposed setbacks are significantly less than required in typical single -family zones. The setbacks proposed for the detached single-family units are:
 Interior Side: 0 / 3.5 feet
 Front: 10 feet
 Rear: 3 feet

567
Attached Single-Family Units (Duets)
110 attached single -family units (referred to as “duets”) across 55 buildings are proposed.

Each building will be situated on a separate parcel (110 parcels total) and will be attached to one other unit by a common wall. Parcels 61 – 140 (westerly portion of project site) will be

18.5 feet in width and 59.5 feet in length, for an area of 1,100± square feet, while sites 141 – 170 will be 18.5 feet in width and 67 feet in length, for an area of 1,239± square feet.

The duets will be three stories (37’-7” in height) and will include the three architectural styles discussed above throughout the development. The floor plans for all two -unit buildings are identical and will include a two-car garage (with tandem parking), three bedrooms, and three bathrooms. Figure 11 illustrates the floorplan for the duets.

Figure 11. Duet Floorplan

Landscaping
Landscaping on the site includes 222 trees, various shrubs and groundcover, and turf areas.

Of the 222 trees proposed, 13 are Valley Oak and the majority of the remainder are deciduous trees such as elm, maple, and linden. The site includes two stormwater detention basins, common outdoor grass areas, picnic areas, and a d og park. All landscaping on the site will be owned and maintained by the development’s Home Owner’s Association. Figure 12 illustrates the proposed landscaping for the site.

568
Figure 12. Proposed Landscaping

Oak Tree Removal
The applicant has completed an arborist report to consider the health and size of the existing oak trees on the project site. A total of 148 trees were identified on the site, including 147 protected trees, 15 of which are considered heritage trees (diameter at Breast Height (DBH) of 24 inches or more) by the City of Rocklin Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 17.77 of the RMC). The applicant is proposing the removal of 44 healthy oak trees and 5 diseased or dying oaks. Per the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, oak tree removal requires on -site mitigation of two to one (two trees planted for each one removed) or payment of a fee in lieu 569
of on -site mitigation. Conditions of approval ha ve been included to address these requirements and also provides that no oak trees may be removed until after the applicant has received approval of improvement plans for the project from the City Engineer.

Environmental Determination
Addendum
The 2015 Sunset Hills Townhomes Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND) addressed the development of 26 residential building lots (148 townhomes total) and was approved by the Rocklin City Council on June 9, 2015. The 2016 South Whitney Mixed Use Townhomes and Medical Center IS/MND (South Whitney IS/MND) addressed the development of a mixed -use community consisting of townhomes in four buildings totaling 20 units and a medical office building. The South Whitney IS/MND was approved June 28, 2016 by the Rocklin City Council.

CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 require that either the Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency prepare an Addendum to a certifi ed Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent e nvironmental document have occurred (refer to the discussion below regarding criteria described in Section 15162). The purpose of an Addendum is to document that no new significant impacts, nor a substantial increase in the severity of previously identifie d significant impacts, would result from the proposed project as described in the Addendum prepared for this project, relative to the project as analyzed in the 2015 Sunset Hills Townhomes IS/MND and 2016 South Whitney Mixed Use Townhomes and Medical Center IS/MND.

The Whitney Walk Residential 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 Guidelin es, an EIR Addendum has been prepared to document that no additional review or analysis is needed.

The EIR Addendum determined that the proposed 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 project would have one or more significant effects not disc ussed in the previous IS/MND; (2) that significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the previous IS/MND; (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 IS/MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment and that the project proponents have decline d to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Therefore, an Addendum was prepared to comply with CEQA.

Section 15164(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the decision -making body shall consider the addendum with the previously approved IS/MNDs prio r to deciding on the project.

570

The previously approved environmental documents can be found on the City’s website at:

Sunset Hills Townhomes Mitigated Declaration:

https://www.rocklin.ca.us/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/sunset_hills_mnd_reso_2015-142.pdf?1749761260

South Whitney Mixed Use Mitigated Negative Declaration:

https://www.rocklin.ca.us/sites/main/files/file-attachments/2016- 177_mnd_0.pdf?1749761297

Public Correspondence:

The City received one (1) letter of non-support for the project as proposed as Attachment

1. Recommendation:

The Planning Commission and s taff recommend that the City Council approve the Whitney Walk project, as proposed and conditioned.

571
June 17, 2025
City of Rocklin Planning Department
3970 Rocklin Road
Rocklin CA

RE: Whitney Walk Residential Project
Project comments

The project being discussed tonight is formerly known as Sunset Hills Townhouses. A project submitted in 2013 and ultimately approved in 2015.

Project comments

 As shown in three different traffic studies – April 3, 2025 report from Kimley Horn, December 2013 from Omni Means, and November 2018 from KD Anderson – the intersections of Sunset and South Whitney and Sunset at Springview operate below the acceptable level of service – LOS.
 This deficiency has been known since 2013 when the Sunset Hills Townhomes project was approved and again in 2018 when the Quarry Place project was approved.  There is no zoned high density residential development any where near the proposed project. It is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.  The project appears to try to fit this greater development to match the currently built Atlantis Sunset project of 52 units instead of trying to blend in with the current mix of single family and duplex homes.
 15’ setback front and rear. 15’ from South Whitney which is also not compatible with this neighborhood.
 1,358 daily trips generated from this project.
 Proposes to include off street parking to meet the total parking required.  Adds three new driveways – one about 200’ south of the intersection of South Whitney and Sunset Blvd and two on the north bound side of South Whitney.  Note that the three proposed driveways on South Whitney are not included in this traffic study.
 There is no discussion of queuing issues from Sunset onto South Whitney with the proposed driveway so close to the existing intersection.  Three is no discussion of the number of U turns required to access the development on the east side of South Whitney which is the only way to access this development from Sunset.
 Proposed GDP building heights are proposed for 40 and 50 feet in height which is not compatible with this neighborhood.

The Whitney Walk GDP is consistent with requirements for the two-car garages but due to the development’ s density and layout, they are unable to provide a standard twenty-foot driveway for each garage and are proposing to exclude the requirement for garage driveways.

572
Per Section 17.72.070(C) of the RMC, any decision by the design review board or the council on a design review application shall be based on consideration of the following:

1. Relationship between the site design and the surrounding development, natural features and constraints and traffic flow;

How does this development meet the first requirement for design review approval? There is no relationship between this site design and the surrounding development. How does this neighborhood benefit from?

 On street parking.
 40 & 50 foot building heights.
 Reduced set backs.
 No standard 20’driveway lengths.
 1,358 daily trips generated from this project

Traffic impacts

From the Quarry Place traffic impact prepared by:

KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

November 12, 2018

Daily traffic conducted by the City of Rocklin indicated that in 2010 Sunset Blvd carried 17,519 vehicles per day north of South Whitney Blvd to Topaz Avenue and 24,092 to the south between Third Street and Pacific Street.

Based on the City’s significance threshold, if an intersection is already operating at an unsatisfactory Level of Service, an increase of 5 percent (i.e., an addition of 0.05) to the v/c ratio at a signalized intersection would be considered a measurable worsening of intersection operations and therefore would constitute a significant project impact.

Intersection Level of Service. Table 2 identifies current intersection Levels of Service at the study locations. As shown, with one exception, the overall Level of Service at each location meets the City’s LOS C goal. The Sunset Blvd / 3rd Street / Springview Drive intersection operates at LOS D in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. The Rocklin General Plan and CIP indicate that this intersection will someday be widened to provide three through lanes in each direction, and with that improvement the intersection would operate with a Level of Service that satisfied the minimum LSO C standard.

TABLE 2

EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Level of service of Sunset and Springview Dr. is D with no project – Quarry Park. 573

Level of service of Sunset and Springview Dr. all to E in AM peak hour.

The Sunset Blvd / 3rd Street / Springview Drive intersection is projected to operate at LOS F.

The feasibility of improving this intersection was evaluated as part of the GPU EIR. The General Plan anticipated that Sunset Blvd would be widened to provide three through lanes in each direction through the intersection, but this level of improvement would still yield LOS F.

The GPU DEIR suggested that possible mitigation to improve LOS at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Springview Drive would include adding two left turn lanes on eastbound Sunset Boulevard to northbound 3rd Street. This mitigation measure would improve this intersection to LOS D but would still not meet the City’s LOS C standard. The GPU EIR indicated that City staff recommended that this mitigation is feasible but would not result in an acceptable LOS.

This intersection is identified under Policy C-10.B as an exception to the City’s LOS C standard

From the traffic report prepared by:

Omni Means
December 2013

574
The 2011 Draft General Plan quotes the following under Section C - Circulation Element:
"(C-10 A.) Maintain a minimum traffic Level of Service "C" for all signalized intersections during the p.m. peak hour on an average weekday, except in the circumstances described in C-10.B and C. below"

"(C-10 B.) Recognizing that some signalized intersections within the City serve and are impacted by development located in adjacent jurisdictions, and that these impacts are outside the control of the City, a development project which is determined to result in a Level of Service worse than "C' may be approved, if the approving body finds (1) the diminished level of service is an interim situation which will be alleviated by the implementation of planed improvement or (2) based on the specific circumstances described in Section C below, there are no feasible street improvement that will improve the Level of Service to "C" or better as set forward in the Action Plan for the Circulation Element.”
Existing conditions

905 daily trips estimated from this 2013 report.
50% of these trips are estimated east bound onto Sunset Blvd approaching Springview.

Existing plus project

575
As shown in the table, as with Existing conditions, for the AM peak hour in Existing Plus Project conditions, the intersection at the South Whitney Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard is projected to operate at unacceptable LOS D. The increase in V/C ratio of Existing Plus Project conditions is not more than 5% (or 0.05) from the Existing conditions. Based on the significance criteria discussed previously, the addition of project trips does not contribute to a significant impact.

Even though the level of service LOS degrades to D is accepted from the code section above as the overall degradation is less than 5% of existing conditions.

SHORT TERM NO PROJECT TRAFFIC OPERATION
Short Term No Project peak hour traffic conditions were simulated by superimposing new trips generated by the approved/pending projects over Existing base traffic volumes at the study intersections, as discussed previously. The resulting Short Term No Project peak hour intersection traffic volumes are shown on Figure 7. Short Term No Project intersection operations were quantified utilizing Short Term conditions lane geometries and control (which are same as Existing conditions). Table 6 provides a summary of the resulting intersection levels of service. Since Driveway #1 provides access to the office site, it has been included in the analysis under “no project” conditions.

As shown in Table 6, the intersection at South Whitney Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard is expected to operate below acceptable LOS C. In Short Term No Project conditions, the South Whitney Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard intersection is forecasted to operate at an unacceptable LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour condition.

As shown in Table 8, the intersection at South Whitney Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard is projected to operate below acceptable LOS C. Under Cumulative No Project conditions, the South Whitney Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard intersection is forecasted to operate at an unacceptable LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours. The six-lane improvement on Sunset Boulevard is not adequate to accommodate the Cumulative volumes and additional intersection improvements (like lane channelization) are required to provide acceptable operations. The GP EIR also identified the intersection of Whitney/Sunset as going to LOS F in the cumulative condition (Table 4.4-28, page 4.4-73), but page 4.4-76 identifies a mitigation
measure that would improve LOS to C, so perhaps the traffic study needs to assume that mitigation 576
improvement in the cumulative condition (but such an improvement is not yet a part of the City’s CIP Program).

From the traffic study prepared by:

Kimley Horn
April 3, 2025

Table 3 presents the peak-hour intersection LOS analysis results. As indicated in Table 3, the study intersections operate between LOS A and F in the Existing (2024) and Existing (2024) plus Project scenarios. As shown, Intersection #2 (Sunset Boulevard @ S Whitney Boulevard) and Intersection #3 (Sunset Boulevard @ Springview Drive/3rd Street) operate unacceptably with and without the project and the project does not add more than five seconds of delay to the intersections. Therefore, the deficiency is not considered project induced. Delay per vehicle is shown to decrease at Intersection #2 during the PM Existing (2024) plus Project scenario. The lower delay from the project can be attributed to the method in which delay is calculated for intersections. The model calculates average delay for all vehicles; therefore, an increase of vehicles to lower-delay movements would lower the total intersection average.

577

Sunset at Coronado Way intersection degrades to LOS of E.

Sunset at S. Whitney intersection degrades to LOS of F.

Sunset at Springview intersection degrades to LOS of F.

But, this is OK because: the project does not add more than five seconds of delay to the intersections. Therefore, the deficiency is not considered project induced.

Note that the three proposed driveways on South Whitney are not included in this traffic study.

Our ask is:

Review the density and re-design of this re-submittal consistent with the stated Rocklin Municipal Code as shown below:

Per Section 17.72.070(C) of the RMC, any decision by the design review board or the council on a design review application shall be based on consideration of the following:

1. Relationship between the site design and the surrounding development, natural features and constraints and traffic flow;

Do not approval the project as submitted which increases the traffic congestion problems at Sunset and South Whitney and Sunset and Springview.

578
Re-approve the previous application – Sunset Hills Townhomes with a lower density of 148 air space condominiums.

Sincerely,

Tim Page – longtime citizen of Rocklin
579

kimley-horn.com 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95814 916 858 5800

Memorandum

To: Rob Parish
From: Curtis Yee, PE

Re: Whitney Walk
Comment-Response Memorandum
Date: August 5 , 2025

The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to resident comments related to the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) completed by Kimley-Horn on May 22, 2025. The resident comments were addressed to the City of Rocklin and dated June 17, 2025.

Comment: “As shown in three different traffic studies – April 3, 2025 report from Kimley Horn, December 2013 from Omni Means, and November 2018 from KD Anderson – the intersections of Sunset and South Whitney and Sunset at Springview operate below the acceptable level of service – LOS.”

Response: The comment appears to refers to an older version of the TIS. However, consistent with the older version, the final TIS found that the Sunset Boulevard intersections with South Whitney and Springview Drive/3rd Street do operate at a level of service (LOS) below the City’s General Plan Policy of LOS “C”.

Per Policy C-10.B of the City’s General Plan Update, Sunset Boulevard at Springview Drive/3rd Street is identified as an exception to the City’s LOS “C” standard and is, therefore, not considered “deficient”.

Additionally, the City’s policy only considers a deficiency to be “project induced” if the project results in the average intersection delay increasing by 5 seconds or more. The increase in delay due to the project was found to be less than 5 seconds for the Sunset Boulevard intersection with South Whitney Boulevard, as a result, this is condition is not considered a project induced deficiency.

Comment: “1,358 daily trips generated from this project.”

Response: The comment appears to call attention to the trip generation characteristics of the project.

Table 1 presents a daily, weekday AM, and weekday PM peak-hour trip generation data comparison for the project and the previously approved projects on this project site. As shown, the proposed project “Whitney Walk (2025)” generates slightly higher trips than previously considered.

Table 1 – Project Trip Generation

Trips Trips Trips Trips
Whitney Townhomes Project
(2013) 905 71 12 59 83 56 27
South Whitney Medical Center and
Townhomes Project (2015)* 159 14 2 12 16 11 5
1,064 85 14 71 99 67 32
Whitney Walk
(2025) 1,358 95 27 68 119 71 48
294 10 13 -3 20 4 16
*Excludes trips generated by Medical Office Building use from prior study Project Daily
Trips
AM Peak-Hour
Net Difference in Trips
Subtotal
PM Peak-Hour
Total
Trips
In Out Total
Trips
In Out
580

Whitney Walk Page 2 of 3
Comment-Response Memorandum August 5, 2025

Comment: “Note that the three proposed driveways on South Whitney are not included in this traffic study.”

Response: The comment appears to refer to an older version of the TIS. The May 22, 2025 version of the TIS includes analysis of the proposed driveways on South Whitney Boulevard. As presented in the study and in Table 2 below, the driveways operate at LOS A and B.

Table 2 – Project Driveway Intersection Levels of Service

Comment: “There is no discussion of queuing issues from Sunset onto South Whitney with the proposed driveway so close to the existing intersection.”

Response: The queueing analysis focuses on the turning movements that have an existing storage pocket to which the project contributes. Nevertheless, the queues for the eastbound through-right movement from Sunset Boulevard on to South Whitney Boulevard are estimate and are shown in Table 3 and the project report’s appendices. As shown in Table 3, the queues attributed to the eastbound through-right movement at Sunset Boulevard and South Whitney Boulevard are anticipated to be within the available storage under Existing (2024) plus Project and Cumulative (2044) plus Project conditions.

Table 3 – 95%-ile Queue Summary

Comment: “Three is no discussion of the number of U turns required to access the development on the east side of South Whitney which is the only way to access this development from Sunset.”

Response: Trip distribution considers southbound U-turns at South Whitney Boulevard at Chalmette Court/Bryce Way for vehicles that are inbound from Sunset Boulevard. See below and report appendices for traffic volumes at South Whitney Boulevard at Chalmette Court/Bryce Way. As shown below, the southbound U-turn volume on Whitney Boulevard increases between no project and plus project scenarios, with U-turn volumes all operating acceptably in the Existing (2024), Existing (2024) plus Project, Cumulative (2044), and Cumulative (2044) plus Project scenarios.

Delay [sec] LOS Delay [sec] LOS
AM 9.2 A 13.4 B
PM 9.7 A 11.6 A
AM 9.4 A 9.8 A
PM 9.5 A 12.5 A
AM 9.4 A 9.8 A
PM 9.6 A 12.6 A
7 S Whitney Boulevard @ Driveway 3 SSSC
5 S Whitney Boulevard @ Driveway 1 SSSC
6 S Whitney Boulevard @ Driveway 2 SSSC
Cumulative (2044) plus
ProjectID Intersection Control Peak Hour
Existing (2024) plus
Project
AM Peak-
Hour
PM Peak-
Hour
#2, Sunset Boulevard @ S Whitney
Boulevard EBTR
821 714
831 745
697 573
705 590
Existing (2024)
1,400Existing (2024) plus Proposed Project
Cumulative (2044)
Cumulative (2044) plus Proposed Project
Intersection / Analysis Scenario Movement Available
Storage (ft)
95%-tile Queue (ft)
581

Whitney Walk Page 3 of 3
Comment-Response Memorandum August 5, 2025

Existing Peak-Hour Volumes AM(PM) Existing plus Project Peak-Hour Volumes AM(PM)
Cumulative Peak-Hour Volumes AM(PM) Cumulative plus Project Peak-Hour Volumes AM(PM)
582
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROCKLIN APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE 2015 SUNSET HILLS

TOWNHOMES INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS/MND) AND TO THE 2016 SOUTH WHITNEY MIXED-USE TOWNHOMES AND MEDICAL

CENTER INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS/MND)

(Whitney Walk Residential / ENV2025-0007)

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Rocklin finds as follows:

A. The City Council of the City of Rocklin approved an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Sunset Hills Townhomes project by Resolution No. 2015-142 on June 9, 2015.

B. The City Council of the City of Rocklin approved an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the South Whitney Mixed -Use project by Resolution No. 2016-177 on June 28, 2016.

C. A specific project, Whitney Walk Residential, is now proposed on the project sites. The project, a single -family residential development consisting of 170 units, is substantially consistent with the anticipated site development as it was analyzed in the Sunset Hills Townhomes project and South Whitney Mixed-Use project IS/MNDs.

D. 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 Whitney Walk Residential project to determine whether further environmental analysis is required.

E. An Addendum to the Sunset Hills Townhomes project and South Whitney Mixed-Use project IS/MNDs was prepared for the Whitney Walk Residential Project consistent with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, which requires analysis of the proposed project and its consistency with the previously adopted Sunset Hills Townhomes project and South Whitney Mixed-Use project IS/MNDs.

F. Based on the analysis and findings contained in the Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/ Addendum attached hereto as Exhibit A , it was determined that no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration is required to be prepared for the project.

G. The City Council of the City of Rocklin has received and considered the Sunset Hills Townhomes project and South Whitney Mixed-Use project IS/MNDs together with the Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Stu dy/Addendum, which analyzed the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. 583

Reso No. 2025-

H. The Planning Commission of the City of Rocklin recommended the Addendum for approval on June 17, 2025 with a vote of 4-0-1 (one recusal).

Section 2. The City Council of the City of Rocklin hereby approves the Whitney Walk Residential project Initial Study/Addendum to the Sunset Hills Townhomes project and South Whitney Mixed -Use project IS/MNDs (Exhibit A) prepared for the City of Rocklin Community Development Department, dated June 2025, on file with the Community Development Department and incorporated herein by this reference.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of August, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

____________________________________
Jill Gayaldo, Mayor

ATTEST:

_____________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk
584

Reso No. 2025-
Exhibit A
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum to the Sunset Hills Townhomes project and South Whitney Mixed Use project IS/MNDs (ENV2025-0007)

585
Whitney Walk Residential Project
Initial Study/Addendum
Prepared by:

City of Rocklin
Community Development Department
3970 Rocklin Road
Rocklin, CA 95677
With technical support from:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
Project Applicant:

Whitney Sunset 14, LLC
1031 Roseville Parkway, Suite 148
Roseville, CA 95678
June 2025

EXHIBIT A
ENV2025-0007
Recommended for Approval by the Planning Commission
on June 17, 2025 David Mohlenbrok
586

This page intentionally left blank
587

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

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

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 2012 City of Rocklin General Plan Environmental Impact Report ...................................... 2

2.2 2015 Sunset Hills Townhomes Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration .................... 2

2.3 2016 South Whitney Mixed Use Townhomes and Medical Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration .......................................................................................................... 3

3.0 PURPOSE OF GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ................................................................................. 4

4.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 4

4.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 4

4.2 Description of Proposed Project ......................................................................................... 5

4.2.1 Proposed Project Components .............................................................................. 6

4.2.2 Entitlement Requirements..................................................................................... 9

4.3 Previously Disclosed Impacts .............................................................................................. 9

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 10

5.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 10

5.1.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis .......................................................... 10

5.1.2 Aesthetics Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project ................................. 11

5.1.3 Aesthetics Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 12

5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................. 12

5.2.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis .......................................................... 12

5.2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project .................................................................................................................. 13

5.2.3 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Mitigation Measures .................................. 13

5.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 13

5.3.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis .......................................................... 13

5.3.2 Air Quality Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ....................................... 14

5.3.3 Air Quality Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 23

5.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 23

5.4.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis .......................................................... 23

5.4.2 Biological Resources Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ........................ 25

5.4.3 Biological Resources Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 26

5.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 27

5.5.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis .......................................................... 27

5.5.2 Cultural Resources Impacts Associated with Proposed Project .......................... 28

5.5.3 Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures ............................................................. 29

5.6 Geology/Soils .................................................................................................................... 30

5.6.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis .......................................................... 30

5.6.2 Geology/Soils Impacts Associated with Proposed Project .................................. 31

5.6.3 Geology/Soils Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 32 588

ii

5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 32

5.7.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis .......................................................... 32

5.7.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ............. 33

5.7.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation Measures ............................................... 35

5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 35

5.8.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis .......................................................... 35

5.8.2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Associated with Proposed Project .. 38

5.8.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measures ..................................... 40

5.9 Hydrology/Water Quality.................................................................................................. 41

5.9.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis .......................................................... 41

5.9.2 Hydrology/Water Quality Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ................ 43

5.9.3 Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation Measures .................................................. 45

5.10 Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... 45

5.10.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis .......................................................... 45

5.10.2 Land Use and Planning Impacts Associated with Proposed Project .................... 46

5.10.3 Land Use and Planning Mitigation Measures ...................................................... 47

5.11 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 47

5.11.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis .......................................................... 47

5.11.2 Mineral Resources Impacts Associated with Proposed Project .......................... 48

5.11.3 Mineral Resources Mitigation Measures ............................................................. 48

5.12 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 48

5.12.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis .......................................................... 48

5.12.2 Noise Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ............................................... 49

5.12.3 Noise Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 51

5.13 Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 51

5.13.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis .......................................................... 51

5.13.2 Population and Housing Impacts Associated with Proposed Project .................. 52

5.13.3 Population and Housing Mitigation Measures .................................................... 53

5.14 Public Services................................................................................................................... 53

5.14.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis .......................................................... 53

5.14.2 Public Services Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ................................. 54

5.14.3 Public Services Mitigation Measures ................................................................... 54

5.15 Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 54

5.15.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis .......................................................... 54

5.15.2 Recreation Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ....................................... 55

5.15.3 Recreation Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... 56

5.16 Transportation .................................................................................................................. 56

5.16.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis .......................................................... 56

5.16.2 Transportation Impacts Associated with Proposed Project ................................ 57

5.16.3 Transportation Mitigation Measures ................................................................... 61

5.17 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................ 62

5.17.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis .......................................................... 62

5.17.2 Utilities and Service Systems Impacts Associated with Proposed Project .......... 63

5.17.3 Utilities and Service Systems Mitigation Measures ............................................. 64

6.0 CEQA DETERMINATION.................................................................................................................. 64

7.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 66

589

iii

LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Page
Table 1: Neighboring Land Uses 5
Table 2: Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day) 16 Table 3: Maximum Unmitigated Operational Emissions (lbs/day) 17 Table 4: Operational GHG Emissions 32
Table 5: Project Trip Generation 56
Table 6: Existing and Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service 56 Table 7: Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service 57

LIST OF APPENDICES

A Figures
B Air Quality/ Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
C Biological Resource Reports
D Cultural Resources Assessment
E Transportation Impact Study
F Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report
G Noise Report

590

iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
AB Assembly Bill
ADT Average Daily Trip
amsl above mean sea level
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number

BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAU Business as Usual
BMP Best Management Practices

C-2 Retail Business
CARB California Air Resources Board
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CalTLC California Tree and Landscape Consulting, Inc.

Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CCI Consolidated Communications
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
COC Contaminants of Concern
CRA Cultural Resources Assessment
CY cubic yards

DBH Diameter at Breast Height
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
Du/ac Dwelling units per acre

EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
ESL Environmental Screening Levels

GHG Greenhouse Gas

HDR High-Density Residential
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning

IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

kW kilowatt
591

v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont.)
LOS Level of Service

MM Mitigation Measure
MT Metric Tons

NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCIC North Central Information Center
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Service NSLU Noise Sensitive Land Uses

OA Open Area

PCAPCD Placer County Air Pollution Control District
PCFCWCD Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District PD-16 Planned Development, 16 units per acre
PD-17 Planned Development, 17 units per acre
PD-R Planned Development, Residential
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PM Particulate Matter
PRC Public Resources Code

R-C Recreation Conservation
RC Retail Commercial
REC Recognized Environmental Conditions
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

Sf square feet
SFRWQCB San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board SIP State Implementation Plan
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SPMUD South Placer Municipal Utility District
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

TIM Traffic Impact Mitigation
TIS Transportation Impact Study
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UST Underground Storage Tank

592

vi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont.)
VIMS Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

WRL Western Regional Landfill
WTP Water Treatment Plant

593
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Rocklin (City) General Plan was updated in 2012 and consists of a program that provides for orderly and systematic development of lands throughout the City while ensuring the provision of necessary public services to support proposed land use development. In 2015 the City approved the Sunset Hills Townhomes project on a portion of the current subject project site located on the west side of South Whitney Boulevard. This project went unrealized and in 2016 an additional project on a portion of the current project site located on the east side of South Whitney Boulevard was considered and approved by the City (the South Whitney Mixed Use Townhomes and Medical Center). Likewise, this development failed to materialize and the current project applicant, Whitney Sunset 84, LLC, is seeking entitlements from the City’s Community Development Department for the proposed project, detailed in the Description of Proposed Project section of this document (Section 4.2) below.

The City, as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has determined that the Whitney Walk Residential Project (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 CEQA Guidelines.

The CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 require either the Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency to prepare an Addendum to a certified Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the 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 proposed project as described in this Addendum, relative to the project as analyzed in the 2015 Sunset Hills Townhomes IS/MND and 2016 South Whitney Mixed Use Townhomes and Medical Center IS/MND.

Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines state that an Addendum to a previously certified EIR or IS/MND may 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 or IS/MND 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 or IS/MND 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 or IS/MND 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 or IS/MND; significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or IS/MND; mitigation measures or alternatives 594
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

2 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 or IS/MND 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 or IS/MND. The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with the adopted EIR or IS/MND prior to making a decision on the project.

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
This section summarizes the findings of the 2012 Rocklin General Plan EIR as well as of two previously adopted IS/MNDs that tier off the 2012 General Plan EIR and addressed the proposed development of this project site: The 2015 Sunset Hills Townhomes IS/MND (2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND) and the 2016 South Whitney Mixed Use Townhomes and Medical Center IS/MND (2016 South Whitney IS/MND).

2.1 2012 CITY OF ROCKLIN GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT
The 2012 General Plan EIR provided an environmental analysis for the proposed General Plan Update, which included the Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Rocklin Redevelopment Project. This General Plan Update replaced the previously adopted 1991 General Plan. The General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to air quality, aesthetics/light and glare, transportation and circulation, noise, cultural and paleontological resources, biological resources, climate change, and greenhouse gases would remain significant and unavoidable. The General Plan EIR was certified by the City Council on October 9, 2012.

2.2 2015 SUNSET HILLS TOWNHOMES INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The 2015 Sunset Hills Townhomes IS/MND (2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND) addressed the development of 26 residential building lots. The project would also remove the existing driveway access to the Sunset Rocklin Townhomes off of Chalmette Court and would provide a new access route from South Whitney Boulevard through the project site to the Sunset Rocklin Townhomes containing 148 air space condominium units and two common area lots on an approximately 11.2-acre site generally located at the southwesterly corner of the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and South Whitney Boulevard, on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 045-021-028 (now 016-210-011) and 016-240-044. It was anticipated that site development would involve some clearing and grading of the site, trenching and digging for underground utilities and infrastructure, and ultimately the construction of new roadways, driveways, buildings, and landscaping. It was also anticipated that the project would require the approval of General Development Plan/Rezone, Tentative Subdivision Map, Design Review and Oak Tree Preservation Plan Permit entitlements from the City of Rocklin, changing the zoning from Retail Business (C-2) to Planned Development, 17 units per acre (PD-17) and Open Area (OA). 595
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

3 The 2015 IS/MND serves the function of a written checklist or similar device documenting the extent to which the environmental effects of the proposed Sunset Hills Townhomes project were covered in the 2012 program EIR for the General Plan. The City concluded that the impacts of the project as described in the 2015 IS/MND are within the scope of the analysis in the General Plan EIR. Stated another way, these “environmental effects of the [site-specific project] were covered in the program EIR.” Where particular impacts were not thoroughly analyzed in that prior document, the City required the preparation of additional site-specific studies. The Sunset Hills Townhomes IS/MND was adopted by the City on June 9, 2015.

2.3 2016 SOUTH WHITNEY MIXED USE TOWNHOMES AND MEDICAL

CENTER INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The 2016 South Whitney Mixed Use Townhomes and Medical Center IS/MND (South Whitney IS/MND) addressed the development of a mixed-use community consisting of townhomes in four buildings totaling 20 units and approximately 47,104 square feet and a medical office building totaling approximately 7,891 square feet, with associated landscaping, parking and signage collectively on a 2.8- acre site generally located on the southeast side of South Whitney Boulevard, between Sunset Boulevard and Bryce Way on APN 016-240-039. It was anticipated that this project would require Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map, General Plan Amendment, Rezone, General Development Plan and Oak Tree Preservation Plan entitlements. This was anticipated to require changing the General Plan designation from Retail Commercial (RC) to High Density Residential (HDR), RC, and Recreation- Conservation (R-C), as well as changing the zoning from C-2 to Planned Development Residential 16 units per acre (PD-16), OA, and C-2.

Similarly, to the 2015 Sunset Hills Townhomes IS/MND, the 2016 South Whitney Mixed Use Townhomes and Medical Center IS/MND serves the function of a written checklist or similar device documenting the extent to which the environmental effects of the project were covered in the 2012 program EIR for the General Plan. The City concluded that the impacts of the project as described in the 2016 IS/MND are within the scope of the analysis in the General Plan EIR. Stated another way, these “environmental effects of the [site-specific project] were covered in the program EIR.” Where particular impacts were not thoroughly analyzed in that prior document, the City required the preparation of additional site- specific studies. The South Whitney Mixed Use Townhomes and Medical Center IS/MND was adopted by the City on June 7, 2016.

The 2015 Sunset Hills Townhomes IS/MND and 2016 South Whitney Mixed Use Townhomes and Medical Center IS/MND tier off of the 2012 General Plan EIR, which evaluates the effects of General Plan implementation at a program level for all environmental topics. The 2015 Sunset Hills Townhomes IS/MND and 2016 South Whitney Mixed Use Townhomes and Medical Center IS/MND comprehensively addressed the potential environmental effects of the development of medium and high-density housing as well as a Medical Center, and combined cover an area that includes the proposed Whitney Walk project site (the proposed Whitney Walk Residential project site does not propose development on the entirety of the previously approved South Whitney Mixed Use Townhomes and Medical Center project site). The Revised Project would include construction of medium and high-density residential, consistent with the General Plan Amendment and Rezone included as part of the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs, and would be located on a project site previously analyzed under the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs. Thus, the proposed Whitney Walk Residential project would be consistent with the previously certified IS/MNDs.

Further details of the proposed Whitney Walk project are provided in Section 4.0, Project Location and Description.
596
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

4 3.0 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 Sunset Hills Townhomes General Development Plan (PDG2013-0003) and the South Whitney Mixed Use General Development Plan (PDG2015-0005) were previously crafted for the project site to establish allowed uses and development standards for the PD-R and OA zones as well as to address compatibility of the development with the surrounding residential and commercial projects by establishing design standards. More specifically, the General Development Plans and zone changes previously approved for the project site were developed to make the zoning of the property consistent with the General Plan designations; encourage a creative and more efficient approach to the use of land; maximize the choice in the type of housing available in Rocklin; and provide adequate protection of the environment and of the health, safety, and comfort of the residents of the City.

The Sunset Hills Townhomes and South Whitney Mixed Use General Development Plans serve as the regulatory land use document for the project area. The Sunset Hills Townhomes General Development Plan covers an approximately 11.2 gross acre site generally located at the southwest corner of South Whitney Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard (APNs 016-210-011 and 016-240-044), and the South Whitney Mixed Use General Development plan covers an approximately 2.81 gross acre site generally located on the southerly side of South Whitney Boulevard between Sunset Boulevard and Bryce Way (APN 016- 240-039). The General Development Plans created a new residential zone district, applied the PD-R and OA zone districts to the property, and established residential development criteria for the proposed PD- R zoning designation. A new General Development Plan for the proposed Whitney Walk project is being developed, and would supersede the Sunset Hills Townhomes General Development Plan as well as a portion of the South Whitney Mixed Use General Development Plan. This General Development Plan covers the entire 12.99-acre Whitney Walk project site and would not change the PD-R and OA zoning.

All provisions of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 17 of the Rocklin Municipal Code) apply to this project unless otherwise specified in the General Development Plans.

4.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

4.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed Whitney Walk Residential project site is located within the City of Rocklin (City), Placer County, California, at the southwest corner of Sunset Boulevard and South Whitney Boulevard. The proposed project site consists of 12.99±acres on three parcels (APNs 016-240-044, 016-210-011, and a portion of 016-240-039). The proposed project would be constructed on land that is currently vacant.

Refer to Figure 1 for the site and vicinity map and Figure 2 for the aerial map (Note: All figures are located in Appendix A).

The project site is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 206 feet (ft) to 296 ft above mean sea level (amsl), and is located within an area characterized primarily by residential and commercial development, and also open space. The project site is surrounded by Sunset Boulevard, commercial uses, and single-family detached unit residences to the north; open space associated with Antelope 597
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

5 Creek, commercial uses, and apartments to the east; Bryce Way and single-family detached and attached residences to the south; and Chalmette Court, Pinnacles Drive, townhomes, and single-family detached residences to the west. South Whitney Boulevard runs north to south through the project site.

Neighboring land uses are summarized in Table 1, Neighboring Land Uses.

Table 1: Neighboring Land Uses
Direction Land Use
North Sunset Boulevard, Restaurant/Cafes, Single-Family Detached Residences, Retail East Open Space, Apartment Communities, Retail
South Bryce Way, Single-Family Attached and Detached Residences West Chalmette Court, Pinnacles Drive, Rocklin Sunset Townhomes, Single-Family Detached Residences
The General Plan land use designation for the three currently vacant parcels is: High-Density Residential (HDR) for APN 016-240-044; HDR and Recreation-Conservation (R-C) for APN 016-210-011; and HDR, R- C, and Retail Commercial (RC) for APN 016-240-039. The purpose of HDR designated areas is to provide areas for multi-family homes, conveniently near commercial uses, employment centers, arterial and collector streets and other intensive uses. HDR designated places are characterized as areas of multi- family development in close proximity to commercial and public facilities, arterial and collector streets, and other intensive uses, and should have a density of at least 15.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a population of at least 40 du/ac (City 2012).

The zoning designation for APN 016-240-044 is Planned Development – Residential (PD-R), for APN 016- 210-011 is PD-R and Open Area (OA), and for APN 016-240-039 is PD-R, OA, and Retail Business (C-2).

The PD zone is intended to provide the means for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design than is provided under the strict application of the zoning and subdivision ordinances, while at the same time protecting the public health, safety and welfare and property values. Various land uses may be combined in a planned development zone including combinations of residential, commercial, industrial, utility, institutional, educational, cultural, recreational and other uses, provided the combination of uses results in a balanced and stable environment. In order for a zone to be considered PD, an application is submitted in the form of a general development plan, which would include a map of proposed boundaries and patterns of land use complete with acreage, residential density, and intensity for nonresidential uses.

The proposed Whitney Walk Residential project would be primarily located on PD zoned land and has been designated for future residential use (PD-R) in accordance with City of Rocklin Ordinance Nos. 1036 and 1052. A General Development Plan covering the entire 12.99-acre Whitney Walk project site is being prepared and would not change the future zoning designations of PD-R and OA.

4.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed Whitney Walk Residential project includes the development of a total of 170 single-family detached and attached units (each on individual lots) on 12.99-acres, with 140 units on parcels 016-210- 011 and 016-240-044 (west of South Whitney Boulevard), and 30 units on parcel 016-240-039 (east of South Whitney Boulevard). The proposal includes private driveways, alleys, parking, open space and landscaping including two drainage basins.
598
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

6 4.2.1 Proposed Project Components

4.2.1.1 Residential Units
The 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND proposed the development of 26 building lots on an 11.2-acre site containing 148 condominium units and two common area lots, while the 2016 South Whitney IS/MND proposed the construction and operation of a mixed-use development on a 2.8-acre site consisting of four buildings totaling 20 units as well as an approximately 7,891-sf medical office building. Combined, the two IS/MNDs proposed 168 units.

For the Whitney Walk project, the 170 proposed residential lots would range in lot size from 1,885 sf to 2,654 sf and would consist of 60 single-family detached units and 110 single-family “duet”, or attached, units. A single-family duet unit is a type of residential housing consisting of two individually owned units attached by a common wall. The project as a whole would have a proposed density of 16.4 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Parcels 016-210-011 and 016-240-044 would be developed with 60 detached units, 80 duet units, and open space (Lot T) while parcel 016-240-039 would be developed with 30 duet units and open space (Lot J).

The single-family detached units would have 2-car garages with a courtyard option, while the single- family duet units would have one 2-car garage per unit. Seven single-family detached units would have driveways that are more than 20 feet long; remaining driveways would have 2-to 4-foot-long driveways off of the proposed private alleyways. The floorplans for all units would include a full kitchen, living space, bedroom(s), bathroom(s), and indoor storage, and the units would be separated by private, 22- foot-wide concrete private alleys and 4-to 5-foot-wide sidewalks. The project would no longer include mixed-use development or a medical office building. The project design would be consistent with existing City development standards set forth in the City’s Zoning Ordinance as well as the City’s Design Review Guidelines. A site plan is included as Figure 1, showing the layout of the proposed project components.

4.2.1.2 Building Height
The proposed Whitney Walk General Development Plan identifies the maximum building height within the PD-R zoning district to be 35 feet for single-family detached units and 40 feet for duet units without a use permit, and 50 feet with a use permit. The proposed units would be 2- and 3-stories, and would be less than 30-feet to the building eave, with the ridge of the roof approximately 35-38-feet tall.

4.2.1.3 Landscaping
There would be approximately 102,582-square feet (sf) of open space on the project site, and 93,263-sf would be landscaped. Two bioretention basins (A and B) would be constructed as part of the Whitney Walk Residential project, with one being located in Lot K and the other located in Lot Q. As shown in the Figure 3, Lots K-S, and U-Z would be dedicated to landscaping, Lot J would be dedicated to 17,662-sf (0.40-acre) open space, and Lot T would be dedicated to 84,920-sf (1.95-acres) of open space.

Each proposed residential lot would include a landscaped area, and all landscaped areas would include low water use plants to conserve water. A total of 128 trees are located on the project site, with 127 of those being oak trees. The oak tree species include interior live oak, valley oak, and blue oak. A total of 49 oak trees are proposed to be removed. The remaining 79 trees are proposed to remain on the project site and be incorporated into the project design.
599
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

7 4.2.1.4 Access and Circulation
Regional access to the project would be provided by US Interstate (I-) 80 and State Route (SR-) 65. The I- 80/Pacific Street/Taylor Road interchange is approximately 1.3-miles south of the site and the SR- 65/Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Boulevard interchange is approximately 0.78-miles southwest of the site. Primary vehicle access to the units on the western side of South Whitney Boulevard would be from the proposed 46-feet (ft) wide access driveway labeled Street A off South Whitney Boulevard, the proposed 46-ft-wide access driveway labeled Street B off Chalmette Court, and two proposed 22-ft-wide alleys labeled Alley 1 and Alley 2 off Chalmette Court. Primary vehicle access to the units on the eastern side of South Whitney Boulevard would be from the 22-ft-wide Alleys 8 and 9 off South Whitney Boulevard. Proposed Street A and Street B would be the main internal drive aisles that would connect to Alleys 1-7. Alleys 8 and 9 would be directly accessed by South Whitney Boulevard. All of the proposed streets and alleys on the project site will be private.

Primary pedestrian access to the project site would be from 4-foot-wide sidewalks constructed alongside the proposed Streets A and B, which would connect to the existing sidewalk and pedestrian infrastructure surrounding the proposed project site. The proposed project would construct sidewalk, curb, and gutter along its frontage and the southern side of Sunset Boulevard to connect to the City planned sidewalk from the project limits to Coronado Street. Standard crosswalks exist on all approaches at Intersection #2 (Sunset Boulevard at South Whitney Boulevard.

An existing bus stop is located at South Whitney Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard fronting the project site. This bus stop is served by Placer County Transit Route 20 fixed route bus service which serves Lincoln and Rocklin with service at one-hour headways Monday through Saturday. Rocklin Dial-a-Ride demand response transit service serves the area as well..

4.2.1.5 Parking
The parking standard identified in the project’s General Development Plan is two covered parking spaces per unit. The proposed project would include 340 private garage spaces (120 single family detached and 220 duet attached), 14 driveway spaces, 68 on-street parking stalls on the internal roadways (all resident and visitor stalls), and 4 off-street stalls. Each single-family detached and duet units would have 2 garage spaces, and the 7 single-family detached units would have driveways that are more than 20 feet long (providing 14 parking spaces). The proposed garages on the project site would also provide bicycle storage. Additionally, existing parking along the north and east sides of Chalmette Court would be signed “No Parking” due to the proposed private alley and street connections.

4.2.1.6 Fencing and Signage
Proposed open view fencing and a rockery retaining wall would be located along the western boundary of the residential units, adjacent to the open space area on the western side of the project site.

Proposed open view fencing would be located in the northwestern corner of the project site, and along the northern project boundary, parallel to Sunset Boulevard. A proposed 6-ft-tall retaining wall would be located in the northeastern corner of the western portion of the project site, adjacent to the shared property line with the existing retail use at the southwest intersection of Sunset Boulevard and South Whitney Boulevard.

Another 6-ft-tall retaining wall would be located on the southern side of the residential units located on the eastern side of South Whitney Boulevard. Proposed post and cable fencing would be located on the 600
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

8 eastern boundary of the residential units, adjacent to the open space area located on the eastern side of the project site.

No signage is proposed with this application.

4.2.1.7 Utilities
Water
Water service would be extended into the project site by connecting to the existing 16-inch water main off of South Whitney Boulevard and the existing 12-inch to 6-inch water main off of Chalmette Court.

The proposed project would construct a new 10-inch water main underneath Streets A and B connecting to both existing water mains to serve the units on the western side of South Whitney Boulevard, while a new 12-inch water main would connect to the existing 16-inch water main on South Whitney Boulevard to serve the units on the eastern side of South Whitney Boulevard. Another new 6- inch water main would be constructed at the western edge under South Whitney Boulevard. Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) would provide water services to the project site.

Existing fire hydrants are located on the western side of South Whitney Boulevard, at the intersection of South Whitney Boulevard and Chalmette Court, and at the end of Chalmette Court. Proposed fire hydrants would be located on the eastern side of South Whitney Boulevard, at the intersection of the proposed Streets A and B, at the intersection of Street A and Alley 4, and along Street B near the intersection with Chalmette Court.

Wastewater
Existing sewer lines occur along Chalmette Court and South Whitney Boulevard that would serve the project site. A new sewer service manhole would be constructed at the existing 6-inch sewer service lines, and the proposed project would install a new sewer main along Alleys 1-9 and Street A which would provide service to each proposed residential unit through sewer tie-ins. South Placer Municipal Utility District (SPMUD) would provide sanitary sewer services to the project site.

Stormwater
Existing stormwater mains serving the project site are located on Chalmette Court and along the western side of South Whitney Boulevard. An additional storm drain exists within the 12-foot-wide public access and public utility easement located immediately north of proposed Lot K. The proposed project would install a proposed storm drain to run along Street A and B, ultimately connecting to Bioretention Basin A. The proposed project would also include installation of a new drain inlet in Bioretention Basin B. Storm drains would be maintained by the City.

Solid Waste
Recology™ would provide garbage collection services to the project site. The residential units would be served by individual wheeled trash receptacles that would be collected by Recology™ on a weekly basis from the alleys separating each row of units.

601
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

9 Electrical/ Telecommunications
Gas, electricity, and communication services would be provided to the proposed project site via existing gas, communication, and overhead utility lines. Gas and electricity services would be provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), telephone services would be provided by Consolidated Communications (CCI), and cable would be provided by Astound Broadband™.

The project design incorporates sustainable features consistent with the California Green Building Standards Codes (CALGreen). The project would be all electric, tie into existing PG&E lines, and include the installation of on-site solar electricity generation. .

4.2.1.8 Project Construction
Construction would commence in spring 2026 with construction completed by early winter 2027. Project construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, underground utilities (trenching), paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Demolition would include an existing sidewalk on Chalmette Court. Per the project engineer, 22,500-cubic yards (CY) of soil would be exported during grading. It is assumed that construction equipment would be staged on the project site, and that construction would occur five days per week with equipment operating for up to eight hours per day.

4.2.2 Entitlement Requirements
The following entitlements are required to implement the proposed project:
• Establishment of the Whitney Walk General Development Plan to replace the Sunset Hills Townhomes General Development Plan (PDG2013-03 and Z2013-04) and incorporate the portion of the parcel currently within the South Whitney Mixed Use General Development Plan (PDG2015-0005 and Z2014-0009) into the new General Development Plan. This would include removing the properties from each of those existing General Development Plan areas. • Tree Preservation Plan Permit
• Tentative Map
• Lot Line Adjustment
• Design Review of the site design, architecture, and landscaping for this project.

4.3 PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED IMPACTS
As disclosed in the 2012 General Plan EIR, implementation of the City of Rocklin General Plan will result in significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality, aesthetics/light and glare, transportation and circulation, noise, cultural and paleontological resources, biological resources, and climate change and greenhouse gases. Land use, geology and soils, human health hazards, hydrology, population and housing, public services, utilities and service systems, and water resources were also analyzed in detail in the 2012 General Plan EIR; however, the project was determined to have a less than significant impact on these issue areas, with no mitigation required. Additionally, energy and wildfire were added 602
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

10 as environmental issue areas after the release of the 2012 General Plan EIR, and therefore were not discussed in the General Plan EIR.

As disclosed in the 2015 Sunset Hills Townhomes IS/MND, implementation of the Sunset Hills Townhomes project would result in no impact on agricultural resources and less than significant impacts on aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems, with no mitigation required. Biological resources and cultural resources were also analyzed in detail and were determined to have a less than significant impact with mitigation, while mineral resources were determined to have been adequately analyzed in the General Plan EIR with no further analysis required.

As disclosed in the 2016 South Whitney Mixed Use Townhomes and Medical Center IS/MND, implementation of the South Whitney Townhomes project would result in no impact on agricultural resources and less than significant impacts on aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems, with no mitigation required. Biological resources and cultural resources were also analyzed in detail and were determined to have a less than significant impact with mitigation, while mineral resources were determined to have been adequately analyzed in the General Plan EIR with no further analysis required.

The proposed project would not result in changes to any of the prior conclusions, as described below under Environmental Analysis.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This Addendum includes the following analysis to demonstrate that environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are consistent with those disclosed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

5.1 AESTHETICS

5.1.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis
As a “program EIR” under CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the 2012 General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur to the visual character of the General Plan Area as a result of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. The General Plan EIR found that implementation of the 2012 General Plan would have no impact on scenic vistas or state scenic highways since there are no designated scenic vistas or officially designated state scenic highways in the City or General Plan Area. The General Plan EIR concluded, however, that implementation of the 2012 General Plan would have significant and unavoidable impacts on the existing visual quality and would create a new source of substantial light or glare. Mitigation measures to address these impacts were incorporated into the General Plan in the Land Use and the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Elements as goals and policies, and included policies that encourage the use of design standards for unique areas and the protection of natural resources, including open space areas, natural resource areas, hilltops, waterways and oak trees, from the encroachment of incompatible land uses. The General Plan EIR ultimately determined that impacts to aesthetic resources would be significant and unavoidable.
603
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

11 The 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND tiered off of the General Plan EIR, and found that implementation of the 2015 Sunset Hills Townhomes project would have no impact on scenic vistas or state scenic highways as there are no designated scenic vistas or officially designated state scenic highways within the City or on the Sunset Hills Townhomes project site. The 2015 IS/MND went on to determine that while the Sunset Hills Townhomes project required approval of a rezone and would change the visual nature of the project site, the change in the aesthetics of the visual nature or character of the site and its surroundings would be consistent with development anticipated by the City’s General Plan. The 2015 IS/MND also included all applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, including the mitigation measures for aesthetic/visual impacts incorporated as goals and policies in the General Plan, to serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards or conditions of approval for the Sunset Hills Townhomes project to ensure consistency with the General Plan. Thus, since the Sunset Hills project site would be developed with typical urban uses that are consistent and compatible with surrounding existing and anticipated future development, the IS/MND concluded that implementation of the Sunset Hills Townhomes project would have a less than significant impact on the existing visual quality and that there would be no new impact compared to what was analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR.

The 2016 South Whitney IS/MND also tiered off of the General Plan EIR, and found that implementation of the South Whitney Mixed Use project would have no impact on scenic vistas or state scenic highways as there are no designated scenic vistas or officially designated state scenic highways in the or on the South Whitney project site. The 2016 IS/MND went on to determine that the change in the aesthetics of the visual nature or character of the site and the surroundings from implementation of the South Whitney project is consistent with the surrounding development and the future development that is anticipated by the City’s General Plan. The 2016 IS/MND concluded that the South Whitney project does not result in a change to the General Plan EIR finding because the site would be developed with typical urban uses that are consistent and compatible with surrounding existing and anticipated future development, and there would be a less than significant impact to aesthetic resources with no new impact compared to what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

5.1.2 Aesthetics Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project The 2012 General Plan EIR states that there are no designated scenic vistas in the City. Because recognized or recorded scenic vistas or views, as defined in the CEQA Guidelines, do not exist in the project area, the proposed project is not anticipated to impact scenic vistas or viewsheds. The project site is not located near a state scenic highway or other designated scenic corridor; therefore, impacts to these resources would not be anticipated.

While new and/or increased sources of light and glare would be introduced to the project area, the proposed project would be anticipated to change the visual nature or character of the site and its surroundings in a manner generally anticipated by, and consistent with, urbanization considered in the General Plan. The surrounding area is developed with retail commercial and residential uses. As described in Section 2.0, Project Background, APNs 016-210-011 and 016-240-044 are part of the Sunset Hills Townhomes General Development Plan and were covered by the 2015 IS/MND, while APN 016-24- 039 is part of the South Whitney Mixed Use General Development Plan and was covered in the 2016 IS/MND. The Sunset Hills Townhomes project proposed a residential development containing 148 2- to 3-story condominium units and two common area lots, and the Whitney Walk Residential project proposes a residential development containing 140 single-family 2- to 3-story townhome units on APNs 016-210-011 and 016-240-044. The South Whitney Mixed Use project proposed 20 units in four 2- to 3- 604
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

12 story townhome buildings as well as an approximately 7,891-sf medical office building on APN 016-240- 039. The Whitney Walk Residential project proposes 30 single-family duet units in 2- to 3-story townhome buildings on 1.28 acres of the parcel. The remainder of the parcel would not be part of the proposed Whitney Walk Residential project.

The proposed Whitney Walk Residential project would have a residential density of 16.7 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), consistent with the 15.5 minimum du/ac established for the PD-R zone in City Ordinances No. 1036, 1052, and the proposed General Development Plan for the Whitney Walk Residential project. Thus, development of the proposed project would not result in new significant aesthetic impacts greater than those identified in the 2015 or 2015 IS/MNDs. Additionally, the proposed residences would be designed and constructed to match the visual character of surrounding residential and commercial developments. Construction of the proposed project would not interfere with scenic corridors or scenic highways.

Although the proposed project would result in an increase in nighttime lighting at the site, the proposed Whitney Walk Residential community would not significantly worsen lighting impacts over what was identified in the 2015 or 2016 IS/MNDs. As a part of the design and development review process for this project, the City will require that “all exterior lighting shall be designed and installed to avoid adverse glare on adjacent properties. Cut-off shoebox type lighting fixtures, or equivalent, shall be used and mounted such that all light is projected directly toward the ground. The lighting design plan shall be approved by the Director of Community Development for compliance with this condition.” Adherence to the design and development review process standards would minimize light and glare impacts to a less than significant level. Additionally, compliance with the City’s Design Review Guidelines, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan policies would ensure visual compatibility with existing development.

These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City rules and regulations. Therefore, aesthetics impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in more significant aesthetics impacts than what was evaluated in the 2015 or 2016 IS/MNDs.

5.1.3 Aesthetics Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures from the 2015 or 2016 IS/MNDs apply to the proposed project.

5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

5.2.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis
Impacts to agricultural resources were not discussed in the 2012 General Plan EIR, but were analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs. The 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND tiered off of the General Plan EIR, and found that implementation of the 2015 Sunset Hills Townhomes project would have a less than significant impact on prime farmland, unique farmland, farmland of statewide importance, Williamson Act contracts, forest land, or timberland. The 2016 South Whitney IS/MND also tiered off of the General Plan, and found that implementation of the 2016 South Whitney Townhomes project would have no impact on agricultural or forestry resources.

The 2015 IS/MND determined that APNs 016-210-011 and 016-240-044 are not considered prime farmland, agricultural or forestry lands. The IS/MND analyzed that the proposed Sunset Hills 605
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

13 Townhomes project would not result in the conversion of designated prime farmlands to non- agricultural use, nor would it result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Additionally, the Sunset Hills Townhomes project site is zoned for urban land uses and is not located adjacent to land in productive agriculture or lands zoned for agricultural uses or timberland production, and would not conflict with Williamson Act contracts. Thus, the IS/MND concluded that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on agricultural and forestry resources and no mitigation would be required.

The 2016 IS/MND determined that APN 016-240-039 is not prime farmland, active agricultural, or forestry land. The site has not been in active agricultural use for more than 20 years, and has been zoned for urban development for more than 10 years. Therefore, the IS/MND analyzed that the proposed South Whitney Townhomes project would not result in the conversion of designated prime farmlands to non-agricultural use, nor would it result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Additionally, the project site is not located adjacent to land in productive agriculture or lands zoned for agricultural uses or timberland production. Thus, the IS/MND concluded that the proposed South Whitney Townhomes project would have no impacts to agricultural and forestry resources and no mitigation would be required.

5.2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Implementation of the proposed project would occur within the boundaries of the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs as described above, and would thus not be located on land considered as prime farmland, agricultural land, zoned for agricultural use, forest land, or under a Williamson Act contract. According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation, the proposed project site is classified as Urban and Built-Up Land and does not contain any Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (CDC 2025a). The proposed project site does not contain agricultural or forest land, and is not used or zoned for agricultural or timberland production.

Implementation of the proposed project would have no impacts to agriculture and forestry resources, and the proposed project would have no new impacts compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2012 EIR or 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

5.2.3 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Mitigation Measures Because there would be no impacts to agriculture and forestry resources, no mitigation is required.

5.3 AIR QUALITY

5.3.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis
As a “program EIR” under CEQA Guidelines section 15168, the 2012 General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur to regional air quality as a result of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included 8-hour ozone attainment, short- term construction emissions, operational air pollutants, increases in criteria pollutants, odors, and regional air quality impacts (City 2011). Mitigation measures to address these impacts are incorporated into the General Plan in the Land Use, the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation, and the Circulation Elements, and include policies that encourage a mixture of land uses, provisions for non- 606
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

14 automotive modes of transportation, consultation with the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), and the incorporation of stationary and mobile source control measures.

The 2012 General Plan EIR concluded that, despite these goals and policies, significant air quality impacts would occur as a result of development under the General Plan and further, that these impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Specifically, the General Plan EIR found that buildout of the General Plan and other development within the air basin as a whole would result in the following:
violations of air quality standards as a result of short-term emissions from construction projects, increases in criteria air pollutants from operational air pollutants and exposure to toxic air contaminants, the generation of odors and a cumulative contribution to regional air quality impacts.

Findings of fact and a statement of overriding consideration were adopted by the Rocklin City Council in regard to these impacts, which were found to be significant and unavoidable.

The 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND analyzed that construction activities associated with the Sunset Hills Townhomes project would involve the use of diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment that would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants. However, the IS/MND determined that the project’s short- term construction-related emissions would be below the PCAPCD thresholds of significance and that therefore, construction activities associated with the development of the proposed project would not substantially contribute to the PCAPCD’s non-attainment status for ozone and PM. The IS/MND concluded that the project would be considered to have a less than significant impact associated with construction emissions. Additionally, the IS/MND analyzed that the proposed project’s operational emissions are anticipated to be lower than that which could be generated by the level of development that was anticipated in the General Plan EIR. The IS/MND also concluded that sensitive receptors would not be exposed to significant levels of pollutant concentrations and impacts related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants would be less than significant, and that the proposed project would not create objectionable odors nor would the future residents or of the project be substantially affected by any existing objectionable odors. The IS/MND included project-specific mitigation measures such as Mitigation Measure III.-1, requiring the prohibition of wood burning appliances, and Mitigation Measure III.-2, requiring payment of off-site mitigation fees. Overall, the IS/MND determined that compliance with the mitigation measures incorporated into the General Plan goals and policies and project-specific mitigation measures would reduce impacts to air quality to a less- than-significant level.

The 2016 South Whitney IS/MND analyzed that construction exhaust emissions would be generated from construction equipment, vegetation clearing and earth movement activities, construction workers’ commute, and construction material hauling for the entire construction period, and that the aforementioned activities would involve the use of diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment that would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants. However, the IS/MND concluded that the South Whitney Townhomes project’s short-term construction-related emissions are not anticipated to exceed the PCAPCD’s significance thresholds for emissions of ROG, NOx and PM10, which means the proposed project would have less than significant construction-related impacts to air quality. No project-specific mitigation measures were included.

5.3.2 Air Quality Impacts Associated with Proposed Project An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis was prepared to analyze potential air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project (HELIX 2025). As discussed in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, implementation of the 607
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

15 proposed project would not significantly contribute to local emissions in the area during both construction and operation. Construction and operational emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.0 software. Modeling assumptions are provided in the technical report referenced as Appendix B, available for review during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Department, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA. The estimated emissions are provided below.

5.3.2.1 Consistency with Air Quality Plans
The PCAPCD along with other local air districts in the Sacramento region are required to comply with and implement the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to demonstrate how and when the region can attain the federal ozone standards. Accordingly, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) prepared the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan in December 2008, with input from the other air districts in the region. The Placer County Air District adopted the Plan on February 19, 2009. California Air Resources Board (CARB) determined that the Plan meets Clean Air Act requirements and approved the Plan on March 26, 2009, as a revision to the SIP. An update to the Plan, the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (2013 SIP Revisions), has been prepared and was approved and adopted on September 26, 2013. The 2013 Revisions to the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (2013 Plan) have been submitted to the US Environmental Protection Agency as a revision to the SIP. Accordingly, the 2013 Plan is the applicable air quality plan for the proposed site. A project would conflict with, or obstruct, implementation of the 2013 Plan if that project generates greater emissions than what has been projected for the site in the emission inventory of the 2013 Plan. Both the 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND and the 2016 South Whitney IS/MND analyzed this impact and determined that the proposed projects would not generate vehicle trips greater than the number that could be generated if the project site was built out per the Retail Commercial land use designation that was in place at the time that emission inventories were conducted for the 2013 Plan.

5.3.2.2 Construction Emissions
During construction of the proposed project, various types of equipment and vehicles would temporarily operate on the site. Construction-related emissions would be generated from construction equipment, vegetation clearing and earth movement activities, construction workers’ commute, and construction material hauling for the entire construction period. Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, underground utilities (trenching), paving, building construction, and architectural coatings. Construction was assumed to occur five days per week with equipment operating for up to eight hours per day. Per the project engineer, 22,500-CY of soil would be exported during grading, and a water truck would be provided for fugitive dust control. The aforementioned activities would involve the use of diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment that would generate emissions of criteria pollutants.

The proposed project construction activities also represent sources of fugitive dust, which include particulate matter (PM) emissions. Estimated unmitigated construction-related emissions for the existing land use designation scenario and the proposed project are presented in 608
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

16 Table 2: Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day) .

609
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

17 Table 2: Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOX PM10
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 9.8 35.9 6.3
PCAPCD Significance Threshold 82.0 82.0 82.0 Exceeds Threshold? No No No
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A of Appendix B); Thresholds PCAPCD 2017 ROG = reactive organic gas; NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter As shown in Table 2, the proposed project’s construction-related emissions would be significantly below the applicable PCAPCD thresholds of significance for ROG, NOX, and PM10. Additionally, the City requires project applicants to sign the City’s “Mitigation for Air Quality Impacts” form and agree that the mitigation measures listed on the form would be incorporated as part of the proposed project’s description. An essential mitigation obligation is the preparation of a Construction Emission/Dust Control Plan in compliance with PCAPCD regulations. Therefore, prior to the construction of the proposed project, the project applicant would be required to prepare a Construction Emission/Dust Control Plan prior to commencement of any grading or building construction activities and would then be reviewed and approved by either the PCAPCD or the City Engineer. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with PCAPCD rules and regulations related to construction emissions.

Because the proposed project’s estimated unmitigated construction emissions of ROG, NOX, and PM10 would be below the applicable PCAPCD thresholds of significance, construction activities associated with development of the proposed project would not contribute to the PCAPCD’s nonattainment status for ozone. Accordingly, construction of the proposed project would not violate any ambient air quality standards (AAQS) or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, and there would be a less than significant impact.

5.3.2.3 Operational Emissions
Operational emissions of ROG, NOX, and PM10 would be generated by the proposed project and would include mobile (transportation), area, energy, water/wastewater, solid waste, and refrigerants. Day-to- day activities, such as the future resident vehicle trips to and from the site, would make up the majority of the mobile emissions. Area sources include emissions from landscaping equipment, the use of consumer products, and the reapplication of architectural coatings for maintenance. Per the project engineer, the proposed project would be all electric and the project would not include fireplaces or wood stoves.

The maximum unmitigated operational emissions for the existing land use designation scenario and the proposed project are presented in
610
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

18 Table 3: Maximum Unmitigated Operational Emissions (lbs/day) . As shown, the project’s operational emissions of ROG, NOX and PM10 would be significantly below the applicable PCAPCD thresholds of significance. Accordingly, the project’s operational emissions would not substantially contribute to the Placer County nonattainment status for ozone and PM10, and the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

611
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

19 Table 3: Maximum Unmitigated Operational Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOX PM10
Maximum Daily Operational Emissions 7.1 5.1 9.2
PCAPCD Significance Threshold 55.0 55.0 82.0
Exceeds Threshold? No No No
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A of Appendix B); Thresholds PCAPCD 2017

5.3.2.4 Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others, due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and/or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Sensitive receptors are typically defined as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (i.e., children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill) are likely to be located.

Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics.

The closest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are the Rocklin Sunset Townhomes located approximately 40-feet across Chalmette Court and west of the project site. Additional existing sensitive receptors are single family homes located approximately 80-feet across Chalmette Court and southwest of the project site. The closest school to the project site is Parker Whitney Elementary School, located approximately 1,618-feet (0.3-mile) to the northwest. There are no hospitals within 0.5-mile of the project site. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on sensitive receptors as further discussed below.

Localized CO Emissions
Vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO in California. In an urban setting, the highest CO concentrations are generally found near congested intersections. Under typical meteorological conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as distance from the emissions source (i.e., congested intersection) increases. Project-generated traffic has the potential of contributing to localized “hot spots” of CO off-site. Because CO is a byproduct of incomplete combustion, exhaust emissions are worse when fossil-fueled vehicles are operated inefficiently, such as in stop-and-go traffic or through heavily congested intersections. However, the volume of traffic required for CO concentrations to exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS is very high. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) provide screening guidance in their CEQA Guidelines concerning the volume of traffic which could result in a CO Hotspot: intersections which carry more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; or intersections which carry more than 24,000 vehicles per hour and where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway) (BAAQMD 2022).

The proposed project involves the development of residential uses; thus, the project would introduce sensitive receptors to the area. The highest volume intersection in the project area would be the I-80 and the Rocklin Road interchange, approximately 1.6-miles northeast of the project site. Per the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2022 traffic census, I-80 carries a peak hour traffic volume of 10,500 average daily trips (ADT) at the Rocklin Road interchange (Caltrans 2024). This traffic volume is significantly below the 44,000 vehicles per hour screening level for CO hotpots suggested by the BAAQMD. Therefore, long-term operation of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial localized concentrations of CO and there would be a less than significant impact. 612
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

20 Toxic Air Contaminants (DPM)
There are two gasoline dispensing facilities located in the vicinity of the project site (QuikStop and Chevron located at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard/Whitney Boulevard). The QuikStop has four fuel dispensing stations and is located approximately 115-feet from the project boundary and the Chevron has eight fuel dispensing stations and is located approximately 290-feet from the project boundary. The CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective recommends that a 50-foot separation distance be provided for typical fuel dispensing facilities (which the QuikStop and Chevron are based on their number of fuel dispensing stations) and sensitive receptors (the residential component of the project). As the project significantly exceeds the recommended separation distance, the project would not result in an increased exposure to sensitive receptors to localized concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TAC) from gasoline dispensing facilities.

For freeways and roads with high traffic volumes, the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective recommends “Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500-feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.” However, as the shortest distance between the South Whitney Project and SR 65 and I-80 is approximately 3,900-feet and 5,300-feet respectively, the project would not be exposed to TAC emissions impact from freeway sources. Considering this information, operation of the project would not expose off-site sensitive receptors to substantial DPM concentrations and there would be a less than significant impact.

Criteria Pollutants
Criteria pollutants are defined by state and federal law as a risk to the health and welfare of the public.

In general, criteria air pollutants include the following compounds:
• Ozone (O3)
• Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
• Particulate matter (PM), which is further subdivided:
o Coarse PM, 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10)
o Fine PM, 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5)
• Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
• Lead (Pb)
Criteria pollutants can be emitted directly from sources (primary pollutants; e.g., CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead), or they may be formed through chemical and photochemical reactions of precursor pollutants in the atmosphere (secondary pollutants; e.g., ozone, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5). PM10 and PM2.5 can be both primary and secondary pollutants. The principal precursor pollutants of concern are reactive organic gases ([ROGs] also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs])1 and nitrogen oxides (NOX).

1 CARB defines and uses the term ROGs while the USEPA defines and uses the term VOCs. The compounds included in the lists of ROGs and VOCs and the methods of calculation are slightly different. However, for the purposes of estimating criteria pollutant precursor emissions, the two terms are often used interchangeably. 613
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

21 The descriptions of sources and general health effects for each of the criteria air pollutants are shown in Table 1, Common Sources and Human Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants of Appendix B. Specific adverse health effects on individuals or population groups induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables such as cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and characteristics of exposed individuals (e.g., age, gender). Criteria pollutant precursors (ROG and NOX) affect air quality on a regional scale, typically after significant delay and distance from the pollutant source emissions. Health effects related to ozone and NO2 are, therefore, the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region.

Emissions of criteria pollutants from vehicles traveling to or from the project site (mobile emissions) are distributed nonuniformly in location and time throughout the region, wherever the vehicles may travel.

As such, specific health effects from these criteria pollutant emissions cannot be meaningfully correlated to the incremental contribution from the project and the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

5.3.2.5 Pollutants of Principal Concern
Emissions of pollutants have the potential to adversely affect sensitive receptors within the proposed project area. Pollutants of principal concern include emissions leading to odors, emissions of dust, or emissions considered to constitute air pollutants. Air pollutants have been discussed above. Therefore, the following discussion focuses on emissions of odors and dust during construction and operation of the proposed project.

Odors
Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantitative methodologies to determine the presence of a significant odor impact do not exist. Certain land uses such as wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting operations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants have the potential to generate considerable odors. The proposed project would not include any such uses, and residential projects are not typically associated with the generation of unpleasant odors during operation.

Diesel fumes from construction equipment and heavy-duty trucks could be found to be objectionable; however, as addressed above, operation of construction equipment would be regulated by PCAPCD rules and regulations, and would occur intermittently throughout the course of a day. All construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the statewide In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. In addition, construction activities would be restricted to certain hours per the City’s Construction Noise Guidelines. Overall, construction is temporary, construction equipment would operate intermittently throughout the course of the day, and construction would likely only occur over portions of the improvement area at a time. For the aforementioned reasons, the proposed project would not result in any noticeable objectionable odors associated with construction.

In addition, PCAPCD Rule 205, Nuisance, addresses the exposure of “nuisance or annoyance” air contaminant discharges, including odors, and provides enforcement of odor control. Rule 205 is complaint-based, where if public complaints are sufficient to cause the odor source to be considered a 614
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

22 public nuisance, then the PCAPCD is required to investigate the identified source, as well as determine and ensure a solution for the source of the complaint, which could include operational modifications to correct the nuisance condition. Thus, although not anticipated, if odor or air quality complaints are made upon development of the proposed project, the PCAPCD would be required (per PCAPCD Rule 205) to ensure that such complaints are addressed and mitigated, as necessary. Impacts would be less than significant and would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts related to odors than what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

Dust
As noted previously, construction of projects within Placer County are required to comply with all applicable PCAPCD rules and regulations. The aforementioned rules would act to reduce construction- related dust by implementing dust control measures. For example, PCAPCD Rule 228 requires implementation of dust control measures, such as minimizing track-out on to paved public roadways, limiting vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces to 15-miles per hour, and stabilization of storage piles and disturbed areas. Following construction, vehicles operating within the proposed project site would be limited to paved areas of the site, which would not have the potential to create substantial dust emissions. Thus, proposed project operations would not include sources of dust that could adversely affect a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant and would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts related to dust than what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

5.3.2.6 Cumulative Emissions
By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development within the region. The project would generate criteria pollutants and precursors in the short-term during construction and the long-term during operation. To determine whether a project would result in cumulatively considerable emissions that would violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, a project’s emissions are evaluated based on the quantitative emission thresholds established by the PCAPCD. Additionally, to aid in determining an individual project’s cumulative contribution to regional air quality, the PCAPCD suggests a cumulative threshold of significance for operational emissions of 10 pounds per day for ROG and NOX. Thus, if the proposed project would result in an increase of more than 10 pounds per day of ROG and/or NOX (ozone precursors) during operations, the project could potentially result in a significant contribution towards a cumulative air quality impact, and mitigation would be recommended.

As shown in Table 2, Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions, the project’s short-term construction-related emissions are not anticipated to exceed the PCAPCD’s significance thresholds for emissions of ROG, NOX, and PM10. Accordingly, construction activities associated with development of the proposed project would not substantially contribute to the PCAPCD’s nonattainment status for ozone and PM10. Additionally, prior to the construction of the proposed project, the project applicant would be required to prepare a Construction Emission/Dust Control Plan prior to commencement of any grading or building construction activities and would then be reviewed and approved by either the PCAPCD or the City Engineer. Thus, the project would be required to comply with PCAPCD rules and regulations related to construction emissions. As shown in Table 3, Maximum Unmitigated Operational Emissions, the project’s operational emissions of ROG, NOX and PM10 would be below the applicable PCAPCD thresholds of significance and the project’s operational emissions would not substantially 615
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

23 contribute to the Placer County nonattainment status for ozone and PM10 and the proposed project would not result in a significant contribution towards a cumulative air quality impact. Impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially more severe impact would occur compared to what was analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

5.3.3 Air Quality Mitigation Measures
Because of the conclusions of the project-specific Whitney Walk Residential Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis summarized above, mitigation Measure 4.2-1 from the General Plan EIR as well as Mitigation Measures III.-1 and III.-2 from the Sunset Hills IS/MND would not be applicable to the proposed project. The South Whitney IS/MND did not identify any mitigation measures related to air quality.

5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

5.4.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis
The 2012 General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur to the biological resources of the General Plan Area as a result of future urban development. These impacts included special-status species, species of concern, non-listed species, biological communities and migratory wildlife corridors.

Mitigation measures to address these impacts are incorporated into goals and policies in the General Plan in the Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, and include policies that encourage the protection and conservation of biological resources and require compliance with rules and regulations protecting biological resources, such as the City of Rocklin Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The General Plan EIR concluded that, despite these goals, policies and rules and regulations protecting biological resources, significant biological resources impacts could occur as a result of development under the General Plan and further, that these impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Specifically, the General Plan EIR found that buildout of the Rocklin General Plan could impact sensitive biological communities, result in the loss of native oak and heritage trees, and thus result in the loss of oak woodland habitat.

The 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND tiered off of the General Plan EIR, and found that based on a review of information contained in the General Plan EIR (2012) and a review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory database and aerial photography, the site does not contain areas of Waters of the U.S. (wetlands) as defined in the Clean Water Act; therefore impacts to wetland resources are not anticipated. The IS/MND went on to determine that the Sunset Hills project site has the potential, although limited, to contain special-status wildlife species, including potential nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds, and included Mitigation Measure IV-1 requiring avoidance of construction activities during nesting bird season. The IS/MND determined that implementation of this measure would reduce impacts to nesting raptors and migratory birds to a less than significant level.

The IS/MND went on to find that due to the proximity of local roadways to the site and the amount of surrounding development, the proposed project would not be anticipated to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, and additionally that since there are no native wildlife nursery sites on the project site or in the immediate vicinity, the project is not anticipated to interfere or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
616
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

24 The Sunset Hills project site, at the time of drafting the 2015 IS/MND, included a total of 88 protected trees within the boundaries of the project site. Three trees were recommended for removal by an arborist, and 50 of the protected trees were proposed for removal as a part of the Sunset Hills Townhomes project. To reduce the severity of potential impacts, the IS/MND included Mitigation Measure IV-2, requiring mitigation consistent with the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, indication on construction documents of which trees are to be removed, and preparation of a final list by a project arborist. The IS/MND found that implementation of this Mitigation Measure would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, and went on to find that the project site is not within a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan area, nor is it within a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan area. Thus, the 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND ultimately concluded that compliance with the mitigation measures incorporated into General Plan goals and policies and project- specific mitigation measures described above would reduce impacts to biological resources to a less- than-significant level.

The 2016 South Whitney IS/MND also tiered off of the General Plan EIR and determined that the proposed project would have a minor impact on biological resources (largely native and exotic grasses) as site development occurs. Based on a review of information contained in the General Plan EIR (2012) and a review of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory database and aerial photography, the South Whitney Townhomes and Medical Center project site does not contain areas of Waters of the U.S. as defined in the Clean Water Act; therefore, the IS/MND concluded that impacts to wetland resources are not anticipated.

Similar to the Sunset Hills project site, the South Whitney project site has the potential, although limited, to contain special-status wildlife species, specifically potential nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds. To address the potential impacts to nesting raptors and migratory birds, the IS/MND included Mitigation IV.-1, as described in the paragraph above. The IS/MND concluded that with implementation of this Mitigation Measure, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

The South Whitney project site is adjacent to Antelope Creek and consistent with City goals and policies, the project established an open space/riparian corridor parallel to the creek that would not be developed and would serve as a wildlife movement corridor. Due to the proximity of local roadways to the site, the amount of surrounding development and the preservation of the open space/riparian corridor, the IS/MND determined that the proposed project is not anticipated to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. The IS/MND went on to find that there are no native wildlife nursery sites on the project site or in the immediate vicinity; therefore, the proposed project was not anticipated to interfere or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

While no trees were recommended for removal by an arborist, 22 of the native oak trees on the South Whitney project site were proposed for removal. The IS/MND included Mitigation Measure IV.-2, as described in the paragraph above, to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level and to ensure compliance with the City’s Oak Preservation Ordinance. The IS/MND went on to find that the project site is not within a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan area, nor is it within a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan area; therefore, no impact is anticipated.

The IS/MND ultimately concluded that compliance with the mitigation measures incorporated into General Plan goals and policies and the project-specific mitigation measure described above would reduce impacts to biological resources to a less-than-significant level. 617
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

25 5.4.2 Biological Resources Impacts Associated with Proposed Project A Riparian Habitat Assessment was prepared by SWCA in October 2024 to assess riparian habitat adjacent to Antelope Creek and document it in a letter report to assist in the City of Rocklin development planning process. Additionally, an Arborist Report was prepared by California Tree and Landscape Consulting, Inc. (CalTLC) in February 2022. Both reports are incorporated by reference as Appendix C and available for review during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Department, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA.

The site is primarily a disturbed vacant field dominated by normative grasses, native oak trees, and ornamental plantings along the edges adjacent to the existing residential and commercial developments. Based on a review of information contained in the 2012 General Plan EIR and previously conducted environmental analysis, the site does not contain areas of Waters of the U.S. as defined in the Clean Water Act, and impacts to wetland resources are not anticipated with construction and implementation of the proposed project. The project site has the potential, although limited, to contain special-status wildlife species, specifically potential nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds.

However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.-1 from the 2015 and 2016 IS/MND requiring nesting bird surveys, potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level and there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impacts.

The surrounding area is partly developed in an urban fashion. The proposed project site is surrounded by Sunset Boulevard, commercial uses, and single-family detached unit residences to the north; open space associated with Antelope Creek, commercial uses, and apartments to the east; Bryce Way and single-family attached and detached residences to the south, and Chalmette Court, Pinnacles Drive, townhomes, and single-family residences to the west. South Whitney Boulevard runs north to south through the project site. Consistent with City goals and policies, the project has established an open space/riparian corridor parallel to the creek that will not be developed and serves as a wildlife movement corridor. Due to the proximity of local roadways to the site, the amount of surrounding development and the preservation of the open space/riparian corridor, the proposed project is not anticipated to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors and there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impact compared to what was analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

There are no native wildlife nursery sites on the project site or in the immediate vicinity; therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to interfere or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites and there would be no new significant or more severe impact than was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

The City regulates the removal of and construction within the dripline of native oak trees with a trunk diameter of 6-inches or more under the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance and the Oak Tree Preservation Guidelines. Seven oak species and five hybrids between these species are defined as “native oaks” by the City. Per the City’s oak tree ordinance, the diameter at breast height (DBH) of a multiple trunk tree is the measurement of the largest trunk only, and heritage trees are defined as native oak trees with a trunk diameter of 24-inches or more. California Tree and Landscape Consulting, Inc. inventoried and evaluated the trees protected by the Oak Tree Preservation code, Chapter 17.77. A total of 148 trees were evaluated as part of the Arborist Report conducted in 2022, of which 128 were on the project site.

All 128 on-site trees are protected by size and species according to the City of Rocklin Tree Preservation 618
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

26 ordinance, 13 of which have heritage status (CalTLC 2022). 49 of the native oak trees are proposed for removal as a part of the development of the Whitney Walk project, five of which have an arborist rating of 0, 1, or 2 indicating a dead or dying tree. The proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure IV.-2 from the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs, which implements the recommendations included in the Arborist Report and would reduce potential impacts to oak trees to a less than significant level as well as ensuring compliance with the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The proposed Whitney Walk Residential project would not create conflicts with other local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impacts compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

The project site is not within a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan area, nor is it within a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan area; therefore, no impact is anticipated and there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impacts compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

In conclusion, compliance with the mitigation measures incorporated into General Plan goals and policies and the project-specific mitigation measure described above would reduce impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level, and there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impact compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

5.4.3 Biological Resources Mitigation Measures
Although the proposed Whitney Walk Residential site has been previously graded, it has the potential to result in significant impacts to nesting birds and raptors and oak trees. The proposed project would implement Mitigation Measures IV.-1 and IV.-2 from the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs as included below.

Implementation of such measures would reduce all impacts to below a level of significance. However, consistent with the 2012 EIR, potential impacts to native oak trees, in addition to cumulative impacts to biological resources, would remain significant and unavoidable.

IV.-1 The applicant/developer shall attempt to time the removal of potential nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds to avoid the nesting season (February - August).

If vegetation removal and/or project grading or construction activities occur during the nesting season for raptors and migratory birds (February-August), the applicant/developer shall hire a qualified biologist approved by the City to conduct pre- construction surveys no more than 14 days prior to initiation of development activities.

The survey shall cover all areas of suitable nesting habitat within 500 feet of project activity and shall be valid for one construction season. Prior to the start of grading or construction activities, documentation of the survey shall be provided to the City and if the survey results are negative, no further mitigation is required and necessary tree removal may proceed. If there is a break in construction activities of more than 14 days, then subsequent surveys shall be conducted.

If the survey results are positive (active nests are found), impacts shall be avoided by the establishment of appropriate buffers. The biologist shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the City to determine the size of an appropriate buffer area (CDFW guidelines recommend implementation of 500-foot 619
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

27 buffers). Monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist may be required if the activity has the potential to adversely affect an active nest.

If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the non-breeding season (September - January), a survey is not required and no further studies are necessary.

IV.-2 Prior to the issuance of improvement plans or grading permits, the applicant shall:
a) Clearly indicate on the construction documents that oak trees not scheduled for removal will be protected from construction activities in compliance with the pertinent sections of the City of Rocklin Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. b) Mitigate for the removal of oak trees on the project site consistent with the requirements of the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance (Rocklin Municipal Code Section 17.77.080.B). The required mitigation shall be calculated using the formula provided in the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance and to that end the project arborist shall provide the following information:
a. The total number of surveyed oak trees;
b. The total number of oak trees to be removed;
c. The total number of oak trees to be removed that are to be removed because they are sick or dying, and
d. The total, in inches, of the trunk diameters at breast height (TDBH) of all surveyed oak trees on the site in each of these categories.

5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

5.5.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis
As discussed in the 2012 General Plan EIR, future development allowed under the proposed General Plan could destroy or alter historic buildings resulting in the loss of historic character-defining features of buildings. Indirect impacts could also occur from conflicts resulting from placing new, modern development next to historic structures. The EIR also analyzed that development under the proposed General Plan Update could directly and indirectly impact significant archaeological or paleontological resources, and included General Plan policies that provide mitigation to bring proposed General Plan impacts to a less than significant level. The EIR concluded that despite these goals and policies, significant cultural resources impacts would occur as a result of development under the General Plan and further, that these impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Specifically, the General Plan EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would contribute to cumulative impacts to historic character. Findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations were adopted by the Rocklin City Council in regard to these impacts, which were found to be significant and unavoidable The 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND determined that the project site may contain unknown cultural resources that could potentially be discovered during construction activities, and included Mitigation Measure V.-1 to address the potential discovery of unknown cultural resources. This Mitigation Measure requires that a qualified professional archaeologist, the City’s Environmental Services Manager, and the Native 620
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

28 American Heritage Commission (NAHC) be contacted should there be inadvertent discovery of cultural materials such as unusual amounts of shell, charcoal, animal bone, bottle glass, ceramics, burned soil, structure, or building remains within the project site. The 2015 IS/MND went on to determine that with implementation of the mitigation measures incorporated into the General Plan goals and policies as well as implementation of the project-specific Mitigation Measure V.-1, impacts due to development or operation of the Sunset Hills Townhomes project would be less than significant.

The 2016 South Whitney IS/MND determined that, based on a cultural resources report prepared by Peak & Associates, records searches of the North Central Information Center, archival research, field parcel surveys and limited excavation efforts performed by a qualified archaeologist, queries sent to the NAHC and Native American contacts, no prehistoric or historic properties are located within the project site. The field survey conducted as part of the cultural resources assessment resulted in a conclusion that there were no prehistoric or historic period resources located in the project area and thus there were no resources eligible for the California Register. Therefore, the IS/MND concluded that development and operation of the proposed South Whitney Mixed Use Townhomes project would not impact known sites of historical or cultural significance on the project site. However, the IS/MND went on to determine that the project site may contain unknown cultural resources that could potentially be discovered during construction activities, and that implementation of the mitigation measures incorporated into the General Plan goals and policies as well as implementation of the project-specific Mitigation Measure V.-1 described above would reduce potential impacts to be less than significant.

5.5.2 Cultural Resources Impacts Associated with Proposed Project 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 (Public 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” (21808.3.1 [a]), and that “the lead agency may certify an 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 and IS/MND, 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 or IS/MND, 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 an additional certification of an environmental impact report nor will it result in an additional adoption of a mitigated negative declaration; therefore, the AB 52 procedures specified in PRC Sections 21080.3. 1(d) and 21080.3.2 do not apply and no tribal consultation under AB 52 is required.

HELIX prepared a Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) for the proposed Whitney Walk project, referenced as Appendix D and available for review during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Department, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA. HELIX conducted background research and a field survey to prepare the CRA, and requested a records search for the project site at the California Historical 621
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

29 Resources Information System, North Central Information Center (NCIC) at California State University, Sacramento on January 16, 2025. The records search identified eight reports that had previously been conducted within a 0.25-mile radius of the project, and two that included the project site. No previously documented cultural resources were identified within the project site or within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site. Additionally, a HELIX Archaeologist completed a pedestrian survey of the project site, and did not identify any precontact or historic-era cultural materials or features. On January 21, 2025, HELIX requested a search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File (SLF) to identify recorded locations of Native American sacred sites or human remains within the project site, to which the NAHC responded with a negative results letter. In conclusion, the efforts of the CRA determined that there were no precontact or historic-era cultural resources located within the project site, and therefore the project would not impact known sites of historical or cultural significance. However, the project site may contain unknown historical resources (PRC § 5024.1(c)) or unique archaeological resources (PRC § 21083.2(g)) that could potentially be discovered during construction activities. With Mitigation Measure V.-1 from the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs which is described below and requires halting of ground disturbing activities in the case of inadvertent discovery of cultural materials, impacts would be reduced to less than significant and the proposed project would have no new or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed in the 2015 or 2016 IS/MNDs.

5.5.3 Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures
To address the potential discovery of unknown cultural resources, Mitigation Measure V.-1 from the 2015 and 2016 ISMNDs remains applicable to the project:

V.-1 If an inadvertent discovery of cultural materials (e.g., unusual amounts of shell, charcoal, animal bone, bottle glass, ceramics, burned soil, structure/building remains) is made during project- related construction activities, ground disturbances in the area of the find shall be halted and a qualified professional archaeologist, the City of Rocklin Environmental Services Manager and the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified regarding the discovery. The archaeologist shall determine whether the resource is potentially significant as per CEQA (i.e., whether it is a historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, or a unique paleontological resource) and shall develop specific measures to ensure preservation of the resource or to mitigate impacts to the resource if it cannot feasibly be preserved in light of costs, logistics, technological considerations, the location of the find, and the extent to which avoidance and/or preservation of the find is consistent or inconsistent with the design and objectives of the project. Specific measures for significant or potentially significant resources would include, but are not necessarily limited to, preservation in place, in-field documentation, archival research, subsurface testing, and excavation. The specific type of measure necessary would be determined according to evidence indicating degrees of resource integrity, spatial and temporal extent, and cultural associations, and would be developed in a manner consistent with CEQA guidelines for preserving or otherwise mitigating impacts to archaeological and cultural artifacts.

In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains, until compliance with the provisions of Sections 15064.5 (e)(1) and (2) of the CEQA Guidelines, as well as PRC Section 5097.98, has occurred. If any human remains are discovered, all work shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and the County Coroner shall be notified, according to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The City’s Environmental Services Manager shall also be notified. If the remains are Native American, the 622
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

30 Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which in turn will inform a most likely descendant. The descendant will then recommend to the landowner appropriate disposition of the remains and any grave goods, and the landowner shall comply with the requirements of AB 2641 (2006).

5.6 GEOLOGY/SOILS

5.6.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis
The 2012 General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts of local soils and geology on development that would occur as a result of the future urban development under the General Plan. These impacts included seismic hazards such as groundshaking and liquefaction, erosion, soil stability, and wastewater conflicts. The EIR found that while development and buildout of the General Plan could result in geological impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of development standards contained in the City’s Improvement Standards and Standard Specifications and in the Rocklin Municipal Code, the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding geologic hazards and compliance with local, state and federal standards related to geologic conditions. These goals, policies and standards include, but are not limited to, erosion control measures in the City’s Improvement Standards and Standard Specifications, the City’s Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, the City’s Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance, and goals and policies in the General Plan Community Safety Element requiring soils and geotechnical reports for all new development, enforcement of the building code, and limiting development of severe slopes. The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact on geology/soils.

The 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND tiered off of the General Plan EIR, and found that there are two known and five inferred inactive faults within the City, but that existing building code requirements would be adequate to reduce potential seismic hazards related to construction or operation of the Sunset Hills Townhomes project to a less than significant level. Additionally, the IS/MND found that since Rocklin is located over a stable granite bedrock formation and much of the area is covered by volcanic mud rather than unconsolidated soils which have liquefaction tendencies, the potential for liquefaction due to earthquakes and ground shaking on the project site would be minimal and there would be a less than significant impact.

The IS/MND discussed potential impacts related to erosion and/or runoff, finding that since the project proponent would be required to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan through the application of the City’s Improvement Standards and Standard Specifications as a part of the City’s development review process, the application of standard erosion control measures to the proposed project and compliance with the applicable City ordinances would reduce potential erosion-related impacts from the Sunset Hills Townhomes project to a less than significant level for on-site grading. Additionally, a geotechnical report, prepared by a qualified engineer, would be required with the submittal of the project improvement plans, and through the preparation of such a report and implementation of its recommendations as required by City policy during the development review process, impacts associated with unstable soil or geologic conditions would be reduced to a less than significant level. Ultimately, the IS/MND concluded that compliance with the City’s development review process, the City’s Improvement Standards and Standard Specifications and the Uniform Building Code would reduce any potential geology and soils impacts from construction or implementation of the Sunset Hills Townhomes project to a less than significant level, and no project-specific mitigation would be required. 623
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

31 The 2016 South Whitney IS/MND also tiered off of the General Plan EIR, and found that branches of the Foothill Fault system pass through the City and could pose a seismic hazard to the area including ground shaking, seismic ground failure, and landslides. Construction of the proposed South Whitney Townhomes and Medical Center project would involve clearing and grading of the site, which could render the site susceptible to a temporary increase in erosion from the grading and construction activities. However, the IS/MND determined that existing building code requirements in the City are considered adequate to reduce potential seismic hazards. The IS/MND went on to analyze that the potential for liquefaction on the site is considered minimal due to the stable granite bedrock formation that underlies Rocklin, and that there would be a less than significant impact related to liquefaction.

The IS/MND also analyzed potential erosion-related impacts due to construction and operation of the South Whitney Townhomes project, determining that since the applicant would be required to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan and implement Best Management Practices (BMP), impacts due to construction or operation related erosion would be less than significant. Additionally, the proposed South Whitney Townhomes project would be subject to the provisions of the City’s Grading and Erosion Sediment Control Ordinance, which regulates grading activities, ensures avoidance of pollution to watercourses caused by surface runoff, and requires compliance with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A geotechnical report would also be required with the submittal of project improvement plans, bringing impacts related to unstable soil or geologic conditions to a less than significant level. No septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system was necessary for the project, and thus the IS/MND concluded that compliance with the City’s development review process, the City’s Improvement Standards and Specifications, and the Uniform Building Code would reduce any potential geology and soils impacts from the South Whitney Townhomes project to a less than significant level with no project-specific mitigation measures required.

5.6.2 Geology/Soils Impacts Associated with Proposed Project Placer County lies between two seismically active regions in the western U.S., and tectonic stresses associated with the North American-Pacific Plate boundary can generate damaging earthquakes along faults 30- to 100-miles to the west of the county. Placer County itself is traversed by a series of northwest-trending faults that are related to the Sierra Nevada uplift. The City of Rocklin is located in an area known to be subject to seismic hazards, but is not near any designated Alquist-Priolo active earthquake faults. While there are two known and five inferred inactive faults that are part of the Foothill Fault System within the City of Rocklin, the proposed project would comply with existing building code requirements to reduce potential seismic hazards related to the construction and operation to a less than significant level.

The City is located over a stable granite bedrock formation and much of the area is covered by volcanic mud rather than unconsolidated soils. Thus, the project site is not located over soils with liquefaction tendencies. Additionally, the project site does not contain significant grade differences, and has an average elevation of approximately 245-ft above mean sea level (amsl). Therefore, the project site does not possess the slope/geological conditions that involve landslide hazards.

Construction of the proposed project would involve some clearing and grading of the site, which could render the site susceptible to a temporary increase in erosion from the grading and construction activities. However, the project proponent would be required to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan through the application of the City’s Improvement Standards and Standard Specifications as a part of the City’s development review process. The erosion and sediment control plan would be 624
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

32 reviewed against the Placer County Stormwater Management Manual and the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual, and would include the implementation of BMPs to control construction runoff. In addition, the proposed project would comply with the City’s Grading, Erosion, and Sedimentation Control Ordinance as well as the Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance, which would further reduce potential erosion-related impacts. In conclusion, the application of standard erosion control measures to the proposed project, as well as compliance with the above noted Ordinances, would reduce potential erosion-related impacts to a less than significant level.

A geotechnical report, prepared by a qualified engineer, would be required with the submittal of the project improvement plans, and would provide site-specific recommendations for the construction of all features of the building foundations and structures to ensure that their design is compatible with the soils and geology of the project site. Through the preparation of such a report and implementation of its recommendations as required by City policy during the development review process, impacts associated with unstable soil or geologic conditions would be reduced to a less than significant level.

The proposed project does not include installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, and would tie into the City’s existing sewer service. Thus, construction and operation of the proposed Whitney Walk project would have no impacts associated with the disposal of wastewater.

With compliance with the City’s development review process and the Uniform Building Code, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on geology and soils.

5.6.3 Geology/Soils Mitigation Measures
No Mitigation Measures related to geology/soils were identified in the General Plan EIR, the Sunset Hills IS/MND, nor the South Whitney IS/MND.

5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

5.7.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis
As a “program EIR” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, the General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur related to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included consistency with greenhouse gas reduction measure, climate change environmental effects on the City and generation of greenhouse gas emissions (City 2011). Mitigation measures to address these impacts are incorporated into the General Plan in the Land Use and Circulation Elements and include goals and policies that encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation and promote mixed use and infill development. The General Plan EIR ultimately concluded that despite these goals and policies, significant greenhouse gas emission impacts would occur as a result of development under the General Plan and further, that these impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Specifically, the General Plan EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would result in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions which are cumulatively considerable. Findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations were adopted by the Rocklin City Council in regard to this impact, which was found to be significant and unavoidable.
625
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

33 The 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND tiered off the 2012 General Plan EIR, and determined that the project’s construction carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions would be a total of approximately 760.45 MT CO2e for the project’s assumed two-year construction period. Due to the size of the proposed project, the project’s estimated construction-related GHG contribution to global climate change would be considered negligible on the overall global emissions scale. The analysis also found that the operation of the project would result in 1,674.11 MT CO2e on an annual basis. Consistent with the PCAPCD’s recommendation, the City as lead agency chose to utilize a threshold of significance for GHG emissions based on the CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan that a development project must show a minimum GHG emission reduction of 15 percent from projected 2020 business as usual (BAU) levels (i.e., 2010 levels) by the year 2020. The projected BAU GHG emissions were estimated to be approximately 19,688.58 MT CO2e. The project would result in 8.5 percent of the GHG emissions generated by BAU conditions and would result in approximately a 91.5 percent reduction in annual GHG emissions from the projected 2020 BAU level by 2020. Thus, the IS/MND concluded that impacts from construction or operational GHG emissions would be less than significant. The IS/MND went on to determine that short-term construction emissions are a one-time release of GHGs and are not expected to significantly contribute to global climate change of the lifetime of the proposed project. The IS/MND found that as the project’s 91.5 percent reduction from BAU exceeds the City’s 15 percent minimum reduction threshold per the 2008 CARB Scoping Plan, the proposed project would not be expected to hinder the State’s ability to reach the GHG reduction target or conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation related to GHG reduction and the impact would be less than significant.

The 2016 South Whitney IS/MND also tiered off the 2012 General Plan EIR, and determined that GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed project would be short-term and were estimated to be 283.80 MT CO2e. The PCAPCD has established GHG thresholds of significance or other guidance for determining the significance of a land use development project’s GHG impacts. For project level short-term construction GHG emissions, the PCAPCD has adopted a threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year. For residential land use development projects in an urban area, the PCAPCD has adopted a long-term operational GHG emissions efficiency threshold of 4.5 MT CO2e per capita per year, or a de minimis level of 1,100 MT CO2e per year (PCAPCD 2017). The construction GHG emissions would be 283.80 MT CO2e, which is below the 1,100 MTCO2e per year threshold. Additionally, due to the size of the proposed project, the project’s estimated construction-related GHG contribution to global climate change would be considered negligible on the overall global emissions scale. Thus, the IS/MND concluded that the impact from construction emissions would be less than significant. The IS/MND also analyzed operation GHG emissions for the proposed South Whitney project, and found that the operation of the project would result in 570.83 MT CO2e on an annual basis. Because the level of emissions is lower than the 1,100 MT CO2e significance threshold, the IS/MND concluded that the impact from operational emissions would be less than significant. Additionally, the IS/MND analyzed that since the level of emissions is lower than the significance threshold, the proposed project would not hinder the State’s ability to reach the GHG reduction target nor conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation related to GHG reduction.

5.7.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Associated with Proposed Project An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis was prepared to analyze potential air quality and GHG emission impacts resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project and is included as Appendix B (HELIX 2025). As discussed in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, given the relatively small levels of emissions generated by a typical development in relationship to the total amount of GHG emissions generated on a national or global basis, individual development projects are 626
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

34 not expected to result in significant, direct impacts with respect to climate change. However, given the magnitude of the impact of GHG emissions on the global climate, GHG emissions from new development could result in significant, cumulative impacts with respect to climate change. Therefore, the potential for a significant GHG impact is limited to cumulative impacts.

The AQ/GHG Impact Analysis estimated project construction emissions based on the timeline provided by the project engineer and on CalEEMod defaults. Assuming construction would commence in spring 2026 and be completed by early winter 2027, the AQ/GHG Impact Analysis determined that short-term construction of the project would result in a total of 358 MT of CO2e during 2025, a total of 471 MT of CO2e during 2026, and a total of 460 MT of CO2e during 2027 based on the anticipated construction schedule. Thus, based on the temporary nature of construction activities and since GHG emissions would not exceed the PCAPCD project level construction GHG threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year, the proposed Whitney Walk project would have a less than significant impact on construction GHG emissions. The AQ/GHG Impact Analysis estimated project operational emissions based on a 2.6 person per household average (U.S. Census Bureau 2025) for a total population of 442 people generated by the project. As seen in Table 4, Operational GHG Emissions, the proposed project would include mobile sources such as passenger cars, trucks, and buses; area sources such as fireplaces; energy sources such as electricity and natural gas; water use; wastewater generation; solid waste disposal; and refrigerants.

Table 4

OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Emission Source 2028 Emissions
(MT CO2e per year)
Mobile 1,701.00
Area 2.11
Energy 101.00
Water 9.47
Waste 36.30
Refrigerants 0.31
Total 1,851.00
Total per capita (442 people) 4.2
PCAPCD Threshold 4.5
Exceed Threshold? No
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A of Appendix B); de minimis level PCAPCD 2017 GHG = greenhouse gas; MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent As shown above, the majority of operational GHG emissions would come from mobile sources. Since emissions would not exceed the PCAPCD’s threshold of 4.5 MT CO2e per capita per year, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on operational GHG emissions. In summary, implementation of the proposed Whitney Walk project would not result in annual construction or operational GHG emissions which exceed the PCAPCD’s thresholds. Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment and would have no new or substantially more severe impact compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

There are numerous State plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles (AB 1493), the LCFS, and regulations requiring an increasing fraction of electricity to be generated from renewable sources are being implemented at the Statewide level; as such, compliance at the project level is not 627
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

35 addressed. Therefore, the project would not conflict with those plans and regulations. Additionally, as discussed above, the proposed project would not exceed the PCAPCD’s thresholds. The project would be constructed in accordance with the energy-efficiency standards, water reduction goals, and other requirements contained in the applicable Title 24 Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and Title 24 Part 11 CALGreen Standards.

A Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis was prepared for the project by Kimley Horn (referenced as Appendix E) and is available for review during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Department, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA. The VMT analysis compared proposed project VMT against the Placer County VMT per capita threshold to determine if it would result in a significant VMT impact.

The County significance thresholds are calculated at 15 percent below the Countywide VMT per capita of 18.16. The analysis found that the project’s average VMT per capita is estimated to be 13.75 VMT per capita, which is 1.69 VMT per capita below the County’s threshold of 15.44 VMT per capita. Therefore, the project is anticipated to generate at least 15 percent less VMT per capita than the Countywide average and would meet the 15 percent reduction required by SB 743.

In addition, the project site has a General Plan land use designations of HDR, R-C, and RC and is zoned PD-R, OA, and C-2. The project’s proposed single-family residential land use would be consistent with the HDR General Plan land use designation. Therefore, the project’s contribution to population growth in the City would be consistent with the growth projections in the City’s General Plan and the growth projections used to develop the CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan and the SACOG’s 2020 RTP/SCS. The proposed Whitney Walk Residential project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and would have no new significant or substantially more severe impact compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

5.7.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation Measures
Because impacts to GHG emissions would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.

5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

5.8.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis
The 2012 General Plan EIR addressed Hazards and Hazardous Materials in Chapter 4.7, Human Health/Hazards. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would greatly enhance the ability to protect the people and property of the city against fire-related loss and damage by continuing to enforce local, state, and federal fire and safety codes, and coordinating with Cal-Fire in the effort to provide fire protection services, fire prevention programs, and fire evacuation routes. Policy S-18, coupled with the existing Rocklin Municipal Code (Chapter 15.04), requires new development to incorporate fire prevention measures including design of sites to provide a fuel reduction area between proposed uses and the wildland-urban interface, inclusion of sprinkler systems, and use of fire-safe planting materials. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of these policies as well as compliance with the City of Rocklin Municipal Code would reduce potential impacts related to the exposure of people or structures to significant risk of loss of injury or death involving wildland fires to be less than significant.
628
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

36 The 2012 General Plan EIR went on to find that while implementation of the General Plan could result in safety hazards associated with operations at public airports and private airstrips adjacent to areas proposed for development, the General Plan area is not located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan, nor is it located within 2-miles of a public airport, public use airport, or private airport or airstrip, and thus the impact to public airports and private airstrips would be less than significant. The General Plan EIR also found that development could create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or through the reasonably foreseeable upset or accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Further, development could occur on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled by Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or environment. However, the General Plan EIR concluded that current local, state, and federal standards and the proposed Rocklin General Plan Update’s mitigating policies as well as their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than significant. For emergency response and evacuation plans, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the proposed project could impair implementation of or physically interfere with adopted emergency response and evacuation plans.

However, the General Plan EIR concluded that the proposed General Plan’s mitigating policies and their associated action steps would ensure the impact will be less than significant and also less than cumulatively considerable.

The 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND tiered off of the 2012 General Plan EIR and determined that construction, operation and maintenance activities would use hazardous materials, including fuels (gasoline and diesel), oils and lubricants; paints and paint thinners; glues; cleaners (which could include solvents and corrosives in addition to soaps and detergents), and fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and yard/landscaping equipment. While these products may contain known hazardous materials, the IS/MND found that the volume of material would not create a significant hazard to the public through routine transport, use, or disposal and would not result in a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition involving the release of hazardous materials. The IS/MND went on to determine that compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations addressing hazardous materials management would ensure that there is not a significant impact associated with construction, operation, or maintenance of the proposed Sunset Hills project. Thus, the IS/MND concluded that hazards to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be considered less than significant.

The IS/MND went on to analyze impacts related to hazardous materials emissions or handling, and found that although residential projects of this nature would not typically emit any significant amounts of hazardous materials, substances, or waste or be involved in the transportation of hazardous materials, substances, or waste, there are existing rules and regulations that address hazardous materials management and environmental protection and would ensure project impacts are less than significant. Additionally, the IS/MND found that since the Sunset Hills project site is not on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, there would be no impact related to significant hazards to the public or environment associated with nearby known hazardous waste sites.

With regards to airport land use plans or public and private airstrips, the IS/MND found that the proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip 629
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

37 and therefore would result in a less than significant safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Since the City’s existing street system functions as emergency evacuation routes, the IS/MND determined that the Sunset Hills project design and layout would not impair or physically interfere with emergency evacuation routes or impede emergency evacuation plans, and thus would have a less than significant impact. Additionally, the Sunset Hills project was reviewed by the Rocklin Fire Department and was designed with adequate emergency access to reduce the risk or loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires to a less than significant level. Thus, the 2015 IS/MND concluded that compliance with the mitigation measures incorporated into the General Plan goals and policies and applicable City Code and compliance with applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations would reduce impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials to a less than significant level.

The 2016 South Whitney IS/MND also tiered off of the 2012 General Plan and determined that construction, operation and maintenance activities would use hazardous materials, including fuels (gasoline and diesel), oils and lubricants; paints and paint thinners; glues; cleaners (which could include solvents and corrosives in addition to soaps and detergents), and fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and yard/landscaping equipment. While these products may contain known hazardous materials, the IS/MND found that the volume of material would not create a significant hazard to the public through routine transport, use, or disposal and would not result in a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition involving the release of hazardous materials. The IS/MND went on to determine that compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations addressing hazardous materials management would ensure that there is not a significant impact associated with construction, operation, or maintenance of the proposed Sunset Hills project. Thus, the IS/MND concluded that hazards to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be considered less than significant.

The proposed South Whitney project would not be located within 0.25-mile of a school, and the IS/MND determined that although townhome and medical center projects of this nature would not typically emit any significant amounts of hazardous materials, substances, or waste or be involved in the transportation of hazardous materials, substances, or waste, there are existing rules and regulations, as indicated above, that address hazardous materials management and environmental protection.

Therefore, the IS/MND concluded that a less than significant hazardous materials emission or handling impact would be anticipated.

The South Whitney project site is not on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, however the adjacent QuikStop Market at 2850 Sunset Boulevard was noted as having a permitted Underground Storage Tank (UST) and also as a Leaking UST site. The Leaking UST case was closed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board on September 1, 2006, and thus the IS/MND determined that there would be no significant hazard to the public or to the environment associated with nearby known hazardous waste sites.

With regard to airport land use plans or public and private airstrips, the IS/MND found that the proposed South Whitney project is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore would result in a less than significant safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Since the City’s existing street system functions as emergency evacuation routes, the IS/MND determined that the South Whitney project design and layout would not impair or physically interfere with emergency evacuation routes or impede emergency evacuation plans, and thus would have a less than significant impact.
630
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

38 The South Whitney project was reviewed by the Rocklin Fire Department and was designed with adequate emergency access to reduce the risk or loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires to a less than significant level. Thus, the 2016 IS/MND concluded that compliance with the mitigation measures incorporated into the General Plan goals and policies and applicable City Code and compliance with applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations would reduce impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials to a less than significant level.

5.8.2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Associated with Proposed Project
Construction and operation of the proposed Whitney Walk Residential Project is not anticipated to involve the transportation, use and disposal of large amounts of hazardous materials. Construction activities would involve the transportation, use and disposal of small amounts of hazardous materials, and operation could include the use hazardous materials, including fuels (gasoline and diesel), oils and lubricants; paints and paint thinners; glues; cleaners (which could include solvents and corrosives in addition to soaps and detergents), and fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and yard/landscaping equipment. However, while these products may contain known hazardous materials, the volume would not create a significant hazard through routine transport, use, or disposal. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local laws such as Title 8 and 22 of the California Code of Regulations, the Uniform Fire Code, and the California Health and Safety Code to ensure that there is not a significant hazardous materials impact associated with the construction, operation, or maintenance of the proposed project. Thus, hazards to the public or environment involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be considered less than significant, and there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

The proposed project is not located within 0.25-mile of a school, and would construct a residential development consisting of single-family attached and detached townhomes. Projects of this nature do not typically emit significant amounts of hazardous materials, substances, or waste and are not involved in the transportation of hazardous materials, substances, or waste. However, as described above, compliance with federal, state, and local laws would address hazardous materials management and environmental protection. Construction and operation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact, and there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impact compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

The Whitney Walk Residential project site is not on the Cortese List, which identifies public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program, sites with Underground Storage Tanks (UST) having a reportable release and all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is known migration. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database and State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database were searched on March 21, 2025 and no open hazardous sites were identified on the proposed project site. 6303 Emerald Drive, located 0.35-mile east of the proposed project, was included in the DTSC EnviroStor database as having contaminated soil and halogenated solvents present. However, site screening was completed by the DTSC on May 10, 2000 and it was determined that no further action was required.

In October, 2018, GRS prepared a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the subject properties. The Phase I ESA did not identify any Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC) at the site. 631
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

39 However, the project applicant requested a soil gas survey to determine whether the property has been impacted by off‐site facilities. As such, GRS initiated a Phase II Environmental Assessment Limited Subsurface Investigation for the subject site in January 2019. The results of that investigation found that elevated concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOC) – primarily benzene and ethylbenzene – were present in subsurface vapor samples collected from various locations across the site. GRS concluded that these elevated concentrations were likely from a historical off‐site release from a nearby neighboring gas station. GRS further recommended that if the property were to be developed in the future, “It would be prudent during new construction to install STEGO™ vapor barrier systems under the new building footprints and/or install vapor mitigation systems in general accordance with ASTM E1465‐ 08a”.

Consequently, a limited Phase II Soil Vapor Analysis was prepared by Almar Environmental, Inc. (Almar) in November 2019 to determine if future development would, indeed, require a vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS). The assessment consisted of the installation, sampling, and analysis of five sub-surface soil vapor sampling points from strategic locations across the project site under the direction of a State of California Professional Geologist. Almar’s investigation indicated that VOCs, primarily BTEX compounds including benzene and ethylbenzene, were detected at concentrations exceeding laboratory detection limits in each of the four samples submitted for analysis. Additionally, it indicated that of the detected compounds, only benzene and chloroform were found to exceed the corresponding Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Environmental Screening Limits (ESL) for both commercial/industrial and residential properties. Almar concluded that while these chemicals exist at concentrations exceeding ESLs, it does not necessarily warrant an immediate threat to human health and that additional investigations may be warranted.

As such, an updated Phase II Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Youngdahl Consulting, Inc. (Youngdahl) in October 2024 and attempted to repeat the previous study with the additional collection of total petroleum hydrocarbons soil samples, as well as oxygen and carbon dioxide gases. The updated Phase II ESA is summarized below, referenced as Appendix F, and is available for review during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Department, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA.

The updated Phase II ESA consisted of the collection of soil samples to analyze for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as diesel, motor oil, and gasoline, as well as soil vapor samples to analyze for VOCs, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. The main contaminants of concern (COC) previously identified by GRS and Almar in soil vapor were VOCs, primarily benzene and ethylbenzene. The three temporary soil vapor wells constructed for Youngdahls’s investigation were dug to depths of 5-feet at locations identified from previous Phase II ESA work by Almar, southwest of the location of potentially leaking USTs. These samples identified the presence of benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, xylenes, and chloroform. The soil gas samples were also analyzed for oxygen and carbon dioxide, with oxygen concentrations ranging from 21 to 22 percent and carbon dioxide from 0.24 to 0.81 percent.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) Human Health Risk Assessment Note 3, the federal EPA, and the San Francisco RWQCB identify Environmental Screening Levels (ESL) for constituents in soil, air, and tap water. By definition, any detected concentration found to be below its corresponding ESL can be assumed to not pose a significant threat to human health, water resources, or the environment.

Of the detected compounds found during this current investigation, none had concentrations exceeding DTSC, USEPA, or San Francisco RWQCB ESLs. The benzene, ethylbenzene, and TPH soil concentrations were all determined to be low enough to meet the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Low Threat Closure Policy criteria indicating that no further action is needed. 632
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

40 Furthermore, using the 2023 Supplemental Guidance document for screening and evaluating vapor intrusion published by the SWRCB and DTSC relating soil gas concentrations to expected indoor gas concentrations, the presence of oxygen and carbon dioxide shows the presence of a bioattenuation zone in the project site’s soil, allowing a bioattenuation factor of 0.001 and a soil gas to indoor air attenuation factor of 0.03. A bioattenuation factor is a measure of how much a contaminant's concentration is reduced due to natural biological processes, such as microbial degradation, as it migrates through the subsurface environment, and is used to account for biodegradation in soil or groundwater before a contaminant reaches indoor air or other receptors.

With a factor of 0.001 and an indoor air attenuation factor of 0.03, contaminant concentrations would be reduced by approximately 99.9 percent due to biological degradation before reaching the point of concern, after which approximately 3 percent of the remaining contaminant in soil gas would transfer into indoor air (Youngdahl 2024). While the detected compounds identified in the investigation are already all at levels below the corresponding ESLs, the presence of a bioattenuation zone would further reduce potential environmental impacts. Chloroform was found in samples at a concentration of 2.6 x 10-3 micrograms per cubic meter, however the Youngdahl report determined that chloroform is considered to be a common contaminant due to chlorination of drinking water supplies and is generally not required to undergo mitigation.

Based on the data collected during the investigation, review of historical data, and the above conclusions, Youngdahl concluded that no further environmental action would be required for the proposed project site (Youngdahl 2024), and no vapor barrier system or vapor mitigation system is required for the project. There would be no significant hazard to the public or to the environment associated with nearby known hazardous waste sites, and therefore the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and no new significant or substantially more severe impact compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

The proposed Whitney Walk Residential Project is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and there are no public or private airports located within the City. Thus, the proposed project would result in a less than significant safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area, and no new significant or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

The proposed Whitney Walk Residential Project would construct two private streets that would connect to South Whitney Boulevard and Chalmette Court. These roads would provide access to the City’s existing street system, which functions as emergency evacuation routes. Thus, the project’s design and layout would not impair or impede with the street system emergency evacuation route or impede an emergency evacuation plan, and would have a less than significant impact on emergency routes and plans. The project has also been designed to provide emergency access to the Rocklin Fire Department.

Fire hydrants would be installed and fire lanes would be marked to reduce the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. There would be a less than significant impact, and no new significant or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

5.8.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measures No Mitigation Measures related to hazards and hazardous materials included in the General Plan EIR, the Sunset Hills IS/MND, nor the South Whitney IS/MND would apply to the proposed project. 633
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

41 5.9 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY

5.9.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis
The 2012 General Plan EIR analyzed Hydrology/Water Quality in Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. The EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan could result in a substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern in the City, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site or may result in a violation of a water quality standard or waste discharge requirement. However, the EIR found that existing development standards in the Municipal Code and the proposed Rocklin General Plan Update’s mitigating policies and their associated action steps would ensure the impact would be less than significant.

The EIR went on to analyze potential impacts to groundwater quality, and found that construction and operational activities associated with implementation of the General Plan could result in the degradation of groundwater quality, but that compliance with existing development standards in the Municipal Code and implementation of policies included in the Rocklin General Plan would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. The EIR also determined that implementation of the General Plan is not expected to result in a depletion of groundwater supplies nor would it interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table, and that impacts would be less than significant.

Regarding drainage impacts, the EIR analyzed that construction and operation of the General Plan could result in a substantial alteration of an existing drainage pattern, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, which may substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site or could result in the creation or contribution of runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage system. The EIR concluded that since the General Plan would be developed in accordance with City and Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (PCFCWCD) development standards, and with inclusion of the goals and policies listed in the General Plan, proposed impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

The General Plan EIR went on to analyze flood impacts, finding that buildout of the General Plan could result in the placement of housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, and may impede or redirect flood flows or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding.

The EIR determined that existing development standards in the City Municipal Code and proposed policies included in the City General Plan would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Regarding potential impacts related to risk of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, the EIR found that General Plan policies such as ones requiring site-specific geotechnical studies and engineering analysis of new development projects would ensure that, while implementation of the General Plan is not expected to be impacted from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, there would be a less than significant impact. Finally, the EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan could contribute to cumulative flood conditions downstream by increasing impervious surfaces and altering drainage conditions in the Planning Area. However, EIR concluded that existing City and PCFCWCD development standards and the proposed Rocklin General Plan Update’s mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the cumulative impact would be less than significant. 634
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

42 The 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND tiered off of the 2012 General Plan and analyzed potential impacts to hydrology/water quality resulting from the development and operation of 148 air space condominium units and two common area lots on an approximately 11.2-acre project site. The IS/MND determined that grading activities associated with the proposed Sunset Hills project that would remove vegetation and expose soil to wind and water erosion could potentially impact water quality. Waterways in the Rocklin area have the potential to flood and expose people or structures to flooding, and the IS/MND found that the Sunset Hills project would result in the creation of additional impervious surfaces. The IS/MND analyzed potential impacts related to stormwater runoff and found that since stormwater runoff from the Sunset Hills project site would be collected in stormwater drainage pipes and would be directed through water quality treatment devices (included as BMPs) before entering the City’s storm drain system to filter out potential pollutants, and since the City’s storm drain system maintains the necessary capacity to support development on the Sunset Hills project site, violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would not be anticipated and there would be a less than significant impact.

Additionally, the IS/MND determined that the Sunset Hills project would be subject to the provisions of the City’s Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, which regulates grading activities on all property within the City to safeguard life, limb, health, property, and public welfare; to avoid pollution of watercourses with nutrients, sediments, or other earthen materials generated or caused by surface runoff on or across the permit area; to comply with the City’s NPDES permit; and to ensure that the intended use of a graded site is consistent with the General Plan, provisions of the California Building Standards Code as adopted by the City relating to grading activities, City of Rocklin improvement standards, and any applicable specific plans or other land use entitlements. The ordinance also establishes rules and regulations controlling grading and erosion control activities, establishes the administrative procedure for the issuance of permits, and provides for approval or plans and inspection of grading construction and erosion control plans for all sites.

In addition to the Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, the City of Rocklin Municipal Code Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance prohibits the discharge of any materials or pollutants that cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water quality standards, other than stormwater, into the municipal storm drain system or watercourse and requires the preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The IS/MND determined that with compliance with the aforementioned ordinances and with goals and policies included in the General Plan EIR, there would be a less than significant impact related to runoff and stormwater discharge.

The IS/MND went on to find that the Sunset Hills project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area because the City’s policies of requiring new developments to detain on-site drainage such that the rate of runoff flow is maintained at pre-development levels and to coordinate with other projects’ master plans to ensure no adverse cumulative effects would be applied.

The Sunset Hills project also proposed to comply with City policies by using a stormwater basin for detention to accommodate the proposed project’s drainage runoff flows. The IS/MND concluded that substantial erosion, siltation or flooding, on- or off-site, and exceedance of the capacity of existing or planned drainage systems would not be anticipated to occur and that the Sunset Hills project would have a less than significant impact.

Finally, the IS/MND determined analyzed that since the Sunset Hills project is located in Zone X on FEMA Map Panel 06061CO477G, effective November 21, 2021, the project site is not located within a 100 or 500-year flood zone. The IS/MND concluded that since the Sunset Hills project site is also not located 635
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

43 within the potential inundation area of any dam or levee failure, nor is it located near any significant bodies of water or steep hills, it would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of flooding. The IS/MND ultimately concluded that construction and implementation of the Sunset Hills Townhomes project would have a less than significant impact.

The 2016 South Whitney IS/MND also tiered off of the General Plan EIR and analyzed potential impacts to hydrology/water quality related to the development and operation of a mixed-use community consisting of townhomes in four buildings totaling 20 units and a medical office building totaling approximately 7,891-square feet, with associated landscaping, parking and signage on a 2.8-acre site.

The IS/MND determined that grading activities associated with the proposed South Whitney project that would remove vegetation and expose soil to wind and water erosion could potentially impact water quality. Waterways in the Rocklin area have the potential to flood and expose people or structures to flooding, and the proposed South Whitney project would result in the creation of additional impervious surfaces.

The IS/MND found that since stormwater runoff from the South Whitney project site would be collected in stormwater drainage pipes and would be directed through water quality treatment devices (included as BMPs) before entering the City’s storm drain system, and since the City’s storm drain system maintains the necessary capacity to support development on the proposed South Whitney project site, violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would not be anticipated.

Additionally, the IS/MND determined that the proposed South Whitney project would be subject to the provisions of the City’s Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and the Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance. The IS/MND determined that with compliance with the aforementioned ordinances and with goals and policies included in the General Plan EIR, there would be a less than significant impact related to runoff and stormwater discharge. The IS/MND found that, with application of City policies requiring new developments to detain on-site drainage such that the rate of runoff flow is maintained at pre-development levels and to coordinate with other projects’ master plans to ensure no adverse cumulative effects, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area.

Finally, the IS/MND determined that according to FEMA Map Panel 06061CO477F, effective November 21, 2001, the Sunset Hills Townhomes project would be located in Flood Zone X. Flood Zone X indicates that the project sit not located within a 100-year or 500-year flood hazard area, and the IS/MND found that since the project site is not located within the potential inundation area of any dam or levee failure and is not located sufficiently near any significant bodies of water or steep hillsides, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of flooding and there would be a less than significant impact. The IS/MND concluded that construction and operation of the South Whitney project would result in a less than significant impact to hydrology/water quality.

5.9.2 Hydrology/Water Quality Impacts Associated with Proposed Project The proposed Whitney Walk Residential Project would include the construction and operation of 170 total residential townhome lots on a 12.99-acre site for single-family detached and attached units.

Grading and vegetation removal activities could result in the exposure of raw soil materials to the natural elements, potentially increasing the amount of silt and debris carried by runoff. Additionally, since the proposed project is a residential development, residential activities such as the conventional 636
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

44 maintenance of yards, e.g., using fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, and other chemicals in and around the home could cause potential pollutants to enter stormwater runoff. The State Water Resources Control Board is responsible for implementing elements of the Clean Water Act and has issued a statewide General Permit for construction activities within the state. The State General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit is implemented and enforced by Regional Water Quality Control Boards and applies to construction activities that disturb 1-acre or more, such as the proposed project.

In addition, the Rocklin Municipal Code Grading and Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance as well as the Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance would apply to the proposed project, and require the implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs. The Whitney Walk Residential Project would be served by stormwater drainage pipes installed as part of the project, which would then direct stormwater through water quality treatment structures and a stormwater basin (as BMP features) before entering the City’s storm drain system. Additionally, the City’s storm drain system maintains the necessary capacity to support development on the proposed project site. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impact compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

As part of the City’s development review process, the proposed project would be required to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan that would address the potential for polluted water runoff during construction and include the implementation of BMP to control construction site runoff. Since the proposed project would comply with both the City’s development review process, the Grading and Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance, as well as the Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance as described in Section 5.9.1 above, impacts related to polluted water runoff would be less than significant.

There would be no new significant or substantially more severe impact compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

Development of the proposed Whitney Walk Residential project would not alter the course of a stream or river, and would include two on-site stormwater basins (Drainage Basin A and B) for detention to accommodate the proposed project’s drainage runoff flows. Drainage Basin A would be surrounded by a rock retaining wall and would be connected to the proposed storm drains along Streets A and B; thus, the proposed project would comply with City policies of requiring new developments to detain on-site drainage such that the rate of runoff flow is maintained at pre-development levels. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact and there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

According to the FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer viewer Map Panel 06061CO477G, effective date November 21, 2001 (FEMA 2025), APNs 016-210-011, 016-240-044, and 016-240-039 are primarily located in Flood Zone X, and a portion of APN 016-240-039 is located within Zone AE. Zone X is classified as an area outside the 100-year flood zone and above the 500-year flood level, while Zone AE delineates the 100-year flood zone. The project footprint has been developed to remain outside of Zone AE, and would not place any buildings or project components within the 100-year floodplain. The project site is also not located within the potential inundation area of any dam or levee failure, nor is the project site located sufficiently near any significant bodies of water or steep hillsides to be at risk from inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow (FEMA 2025). The proposed project would have a less than significant impact and would have no new significant or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed in the 2015 or 2016 IS/MNDs.
637
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

45 In conclusion, the proposed Whitney Walk Residential Project would comply with the General Plan goals and policies, the Grading and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, the Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance, and the City’s Improvement Standards to reduce impacts to hydrology/water quality to a less than significant level, and there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impacts compared to what was analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

5.9.3 Hydrology/Water Quality Mitigation Measures
No Mitigation Measures related to hydrology/water quality included in the General Plan EIR, the Sunset Hills IS/MND, nor the South Whitney IS/MND would apply to the proposed project.

5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING

5.10.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts on land use and planning in Chapter 4.1, Land Use. The General Plan EIR determined that no aspect of the proposed General Plan would divide the city or any of its 17 neighborhood areas (i.e., no new roadways or land uses that would divide or disrupt existing land use patterns and established communities), and that future expansion of the boundaries of the City or its Sphere of Influence would be severely limited due to the City being mostly surrounded by the City of Roseville on the south and west, the City of Lincoln on the north, and the Town of Loomis on the east. Therefore, impacts were determined to be less than significant. The General Plan EIR went on to determine that implementation of the proposed project could create conflicts between adjacent land uses including unincorporated Placer County, the City of Lincoln, the Town of Loomis, and the City of Roseville, but that with the Land Use policies from the General Plan in place to safeguard against placement of incompatible uses adjacent to one another, no land use conflicts are anticipated between the Rocklin General Plan Land Use Diagram and adjacent land uses in unincorporated Placer County, the Cities of Roseville and Lincoln, and/or the Town of Loomis; there would be a less than significant impact.

The 2012 General Plan EIR went on to analyze potential impacts to applicable habitat conservation plans. While Placer County has prepared a Placer County Conservation Plan, a Natural Community Conservation Plan, and Habitat Conservation Plan, the City has chosen not to participate and would not be subject to the plans. Therefore, the General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would not result in conflicts with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, and there would be no impact. The General Plan EIR ultimately concluded that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact, and that the General Plan’s contribution to cumulative land impacts would also be less than cumulatively considerable.

The 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND tiered off the General Plan EIR, and included APNs 016-210-011 and 016- 240-044 in its analysis. The 11.2-acre project site was designated HDR and was Recreation/Conservation (R/C) on the General Plan land use map, and was zoned Retail Business (C-2) at the time the IS/MND was drafted. The IS/MND determined that the project would require a rezone to Planned Development Residential, 17 units per acre (PD-17) and Open Area (OA) as well as a General Development Plan to allow residential uses on the site as the Sunset Hills Townhomes project proposed, and that with this rezone the proposed project would be consistent with the site’s land use and zoning designations. The development of the project would not conflict with land use designations, and it would not be anticipated to have an impact on land use and planning. The IS/MND went on to find that the proposed Sunset Hills project is compatible with the adjacent properties designated for and developed with 638
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

46 Medium-High and Medium Density Residential uses and the adjacent Retail Commercial uses, and that the proposed project is not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan area. Thus, the IS/MND ultimately concluded that compliance with the mitigation measures incorporated into the General Plan goals and policies would ensure that development of the infill site would not result in significant impacts to land use and planning.

The 2016 South Whitney IS/MND also tiered off of the General Plan EIR and determined that 47,104 sf of townhomes in 4 buildings and a 7,891-sf medical office would not physically divide an established community. At the time the IS/MND was drafted, the South Whitney project site was designated on the City’s General Plan land use map as Retail Commercial (RC) and was zoned Retail Business (C-2). As part of project approval, the project site required a General Plan Amendment to High Density Residential (HDR) and a Rezone and General Development Plan to Planned Development Residential, 16 dwelling units per acre (PD-16). The IS/MND found that since the C-2 zoning designation is consistent with the Retail Commercial (RC) land use designation and the proposed PD-16 zoning designation is consistent with the proposed HDR land use designation, the proposed project would be consistent with the site’s land use and zoning designations upon project approval and the development of the project would not conflict with land use designations and would not be anticipated to have an impact on land use and planning. The IS/MND went on to find that since the proposed project is not located within the area of a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, there would be no impact. The IS/MND ultimately concluded that compliance with the mitigation measures incorporated into the General Plan goals and policies would ensure that development of the infill site would not result in significant impacts to land use and planning.

5.10.2 Land Use and Planning Impacts Associated with Proposed Project The proposed Whitney Walk Residential Project is located within an area characterized primarily by low, medium, and high-density residential uses. The project site is surrounded by Sunset Boulevard, commercial uses, and single-family detached unit residences to the north; open space associated with Antelope Creek, apartments, and retail to the east; Bryce Way and single-family attached and detached residences to the south, and Chalmette Court, Pinnacles Drive, townhomes, and single-family detached residences to the west. South Whitney Boulevard runs north to south through the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not divide an established community and there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impact compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

The General Plan land use designation for the three currently vacant parcels is: High Density Residential (HDR) for APN 016-240-044; HDR and Recreation-Conservation (R-C) for APN 016-210-011; and HDR, R- C, and Retail Commercial (RC) for APN 016-240-039. The purpose of HDR designated areas is to provide areas for multi-family homes, conveniently near commercial uses, employment centers, arterial and collector streets and other intensive uses. HDR designated places are characterized as areas of multi- family development in close proximity to commercial and public facilities, arterial and collector streets, and other intensive uses, and should have a density of at least 15.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a population of at least 40 per acre (City 2012).

The zoning designation for APN 016-240-044 is Planned Development – Residential (PD-R), for APN 016- 210-011 is PD-R and Open Area (OA), and for APN 016-240-039 is PD-R, OA, and Retail Business (C-2).

The PD zone is intended to provide the means for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design than is provided under the strict application of the zoning and subdivision ordinances, while at 639
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

47 the same time protecting the public health, safety and welfare and property values. Various land uses may be combined in a planned development zone including combinations of residential, commercial, industrial, utility, institutional, educational, cultural, recreational and other uses, provided the combination of uses results in a balanced and stable environment. For a zone to be considered PD, an application is submitted in the form of a general development plan, which would include a map of proposed boundaries and patterns of land use complete with acreage, residential density, and intensity for nonresidential uses. After review by the planning director, the proposed general development plan is submitted to the planning commission as a proposed rezoning of the property to the PD zone.

The project proposal would be primarily located on PD zoned land and has been designated for future residential use (PD-R) in accordance with City of Rocklin Ordinance No. 1036, 1052, and the General Development Plan currently being prepared for the project. The proposed Whitney Walk Residential Project would have a housing density of 16.7 du/ac, consistent with the density requirements included in Ordinance No. 1036,1052, and in the proposed General Development Plan. The proposed project does not propose changes to the General Plan, nor does it propose different land uses at the site from what is proposed in the new General Development Plan or what was certified in Ordinances 1036 and 1052. The proposed project would support the goals in the General Plan related to housing availability in the City, and would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project, adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Thus, there would be a less than significant impact and no new impact compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

The proposed project is not located within the area of a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan; therefore, no impact has been identified and there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impact compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

5.10.3 Land Use and Planning Mitigation Measures
Because impacts to land use and planning would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.

5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES

5.11.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis
The 2012 General Plan EIR did not contain a chapter dedicated to mineral resources, but did address them in Chapter 4.6, Geology and Soils. The General Plan EIR determined that since the City has no mineral resources as classified by a State Geologist, the General Plan area has no known or suspected mineral resources that would be of value to the region or to residents of the state. Thus, the General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would have no impact on mineral resources.

The 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND tiered off of the 2012 General Plan EIR and determined that the Sunset Hills project site would not be located on known mineral resources since there are no known or suspected mineral resources located within the City. The IS/MND concluded that construction and operation of the Sunset Hills Townhomes project would have no impact on mineral resources. 640
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

48 The 2016 South Whitney IS/MND also tiered off of the 2012 General Plan EIR and determined that, since there are no mineral resources within the City, there are no known or suspected mineral resources present on the project site. The IS/MND concluded that construction and operation of the South Whitney Townhomes and Medical Center project would have no impact on mineral resources.

5.11.2 Mineral Resources Impacts Associated with Proposed Project The proposed Whitney Walk Residential Project site is located within the boundaries of the General Plan area, which does not contain known or suspected mineral resources. The proposed project would be constructed on developed open space land which is not used or zoned for mineral extraction.

Additionally, the site has not been associated with mineral mining, and therefore there would be no impacts to the loss of a known mineral resource or locally important mineral resource as a result of construction or operation of the proposed project. The proposed Whitney Walk Residential project would have no impact on mineral resources, and would not result in more significant aesthetics impacts than what was evaluated in the 2015 or 2016 IS/MNDs.

5.11.3 Mineral Resources Mitigation Measures
Because impacts to mineral resources would not occur, no mitigation is required.

5.12 NOISE

5.12.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis
The 2012 General Plan EIR analyzed noise impacts in Chapter 4.5, Noise, and found that the potential for noise conflicts from development under the proposed General Plan includes conflicts resulting from adjacent land uses and their operational aspects, construction activities and noise sensitive land uses, and exposure to groundborne vibration. While generally addressed through the land use designation and zoning identification process, the General Plan EIR determined that there is the potential that some development allowed under current land use designations and zoning would have operational aspects that could create noise impacts on other adjacent land uses, and that stationary source noise levels from activities on uses for which the City has limited control could result in noise levels that exceed the City’s maximum allowable noise standards. The General Plan EIR included goals and actions from the General Plan to reduce potential impacts; however, the General Plan EIR ultimately concluded that it may not be possible to fully mitigate traffic and/or railroad noise in all areas, particularly in existing development that may be constrained due to age, placement, or other factors that limit the feasibility of mitigation.

The 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND tiered off of the General Plan EIR and determined that potential noise impacts can be categorized into short-term construction noise impacts and long-term or permanent noise impacts. The IS/MND found that since the proposed project would comply with City-adopted standard conditions of project approvals addressing short-term impacts, as well as the City of Rocklin Construction Noise Guidelines, impacts related to ambient noise would be less than significant. The IS/MND went on to find that the project would comply with the City’s exterior noise level standard of 60 dB Ldn, and that there would be no airport-related noise impacts. Ultimately, the IS/MND concluded that construction and operation of the proposed Sunset Hills project would have a less than significant impact with compliance with General Plan goals and policies and the City of Rocklin Construction Noise Guidelines.
641
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

49 The 2016 South Whitney IS/MND also tiered off of the General Plan EIR and determined that while development of the South Whitney project could result in an increase in short-term noise impacts from construction activities, but that development and operation of the project was not anticipated to have significant long-term operational noise impacts. The IS/MND found that the proposed project is predicted to comply with the City of Rocklin 60 dB Ldn and 45 dB Ldn exterior and interior noise level standards for residential uses. In addition, the IS/MND found that the project would comply with the City’s interior noise level standard for office uses, and that parking lot activities would comply with the City’s stationary noise source criteria at the residential portion of the project site. Ultimately, the IS/MND concluded that compliance with General Plan goals and policies and the City of Rocklin Construction Noise Guidelines would reduce noise related impacts to a less-than-significant level.

5.12.2 Noise Impacts Associated with Proposed Project
The following analysis is based on the Noise and Vibration Assessment prepared by HELIX in March 2025 refenced as Appendix G to this document and available for review during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Department, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA. The 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND proposed the development of 26 building lots on an 11.2-acre site containing 148 condominium units and two common area lots, while the 2016 South Whitney IS/MND proposed the construction and operation of a mixed-use development on a 2.8-acre site consisting of four buildings totaling 20 units as well as an approximately 7,891-sf medical office building. Combined, the two IS/MNDs proposed 168 units. The proposed project proposes the development of 170 total residential lots on a 12.99-acre site for single-family detached and attached units, with parcels 016-210-011 and 016-240-044 proposed to be developed with 140 units, and parcel 016-240-039 to be developed with 30 units. The proposed project would include parking and landscaping including two drainage basins, and would no longer include mixed use development or a medical office building.

An on-site source of vibration during project construction would be a vibratory roller (primarily used to achieve soil compaction as part of the foundation and paving construction), which could be used within approximately 40-feet of the existing Rocklin Sunset Townhomes across Chalmette Court to the west. A large vibratory roller creates approximately 0.21-in/sec PPV at a distance of 25-feet (Caltrans 2020). At 40-feet, vibratory roller would create a PPV of 0.125-in/sec, which would not exceed the Caltrans damage potential criteria of 0.4-inch per second PPV for residential buildings in good repair with gypsum board walls. Once operational, the project would not be a source of groundborne vibrations. Therefore, although project construction vibrations may be perceptible to occupants of nearby buildings, the project would not result in the generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. The impact would be less than significant, and there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impact than what was analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

The Noise and Vibration Assessment determined that the proposed Whitney Walk Residential Project would not exceed thresholds for off-site existing traffic noise levels. The maximum change in CNEL because of project-generated traffic would be 0.8 dBA CNEL along Chalmette Court in the Existing (2024) Plus Project scenario and 0.5 CNEL in the Cumulative (2044) Plus Project scenario. A 0.8 dBA change in ambient noise level would be lower than the threshold and would not be discernable. Therefore, the project’s contribution to traffic would not generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.

Potential on-site noise sources could include heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, and were analyzed as part of the Noise and Vibration Assessment using the CadnaA software. Modeling 642
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

50 assumed one hour of continuous operation of HVAC condensers. Modeled noise levels were analyzed at receivers placed five feet inside the property line of nearby noise sensitive land uses (NSLU) at a height of five feet above the ground. The assessment determined that noise generated on the project site would not exceed the City’s General Plan daytime standard of 55 dBA LEQ or nighttime standard of 45 dBA LEQ, measured at 5-feet above the ground and a minimum of 5-feet inside the property line at the nearest residential land uses surrounding the project site. Thus, the impact to ambient noise levels as a result of construction and operation of the proposed Whitney Walk Residential Project would be less than significant, and there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impact than what was analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MND.

Construction noise impacts would be temporary and would cease completely at the completion of project construction. Construction of the project would require the use of heavy off-road equipment for site demolition, site preparation, grading, installation of underground utilities/infrastructure, construction of new buildings, and paving. The magnitude of the noise impact would depend on the type of construction activity, equipment, duration of each construction phase, distance between the noise source and receiver, and any intervening structures. The closest existing NSLU to the project site are the Rocklin Sunset Townhomes located approximately 40-feet west of the project site across Chalmette Court and single-family homes located adjacent to the project site southeast of South Whitney Boulevard.

Heavy earthmoving equipment would be used during grading and excavation for underground utilities, including rubber-tired dozers, backhoes, and graders. Heavy off-road construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location and would not be in constant use during the 8-hour operating day. Further, not all the pieces of equipment would be used near off-site residential property lines.

Equipment is assumed to operate at the center of the project, and the two noisiest pieces of construction equipment are assumed to operate concurrently near each other. For grading on the portion of the project site northwest of South Whitney Boulevard, the two noisiest pieces of construction equipment would be a dozer and a scraper, and the center of the site would be approximately 290-feet from the closest residences, the townhomes on Chalmette Court.

The Noise and Vibration Assessment determined that the combined noise of a dozer and grader at a distance of 290-feet would be 66.5 dBA LEQ, and that for 8-hours of equipment daytime operation, the resulting 24-hour ambient noise from the construction equipment would be 61.7 CNEL. The existing ambient traffic noise for the townhomes on Chalmette Court is 55.7 CNEL. Therefore, the temporary increase in ambient noise resulting from project construction would be 6.0 dBA, less than the 10 dBA threshold. For grading on the portion of the project site southeast of South Whitney Boulevard, the two noisiest pieces of construction equipment would be a dozer and a scraper, and the center of the site would be approximately 130-feet from the closest residence, a single-family home on South Whitney Boulevard. The combined noise of a dozer and grader at a distance of 130-feet would be 73.5 dBA LEQ.

For 8-hours of equipment daytime operation, the resulting 24-hour ambient noise from the construction equipment would be 68.7 CNEL. The existing ambient traffic noise for the residences on South Whitney Boulevard is 59.5 CNEL. Therefore, the temporary increase in ambient noise resulting from project construction would be 9.2 dBA, less than the 10 dBA threshold.

In accordance with the City of Rocklin Construction Noise Guidelines, project construction activity would be prohibited before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, or before 8:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. on weekends to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or Building Official. Construction noise associated with City-approved grading and building construction permits is not subject to the City’s General Plan non- 643
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

51 transportation noise standards. As discussed above, noise from project construction equipment would not result in a temporary increase in ambient noise exceeding the 10 dBA threshold. Therefore, project construction would not generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity, and there would be a less than significant impact. There would be no new significant or substantially more severe impact compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

The closest airport to the project site is the Lincoln Regional Airport, approximately 5.7-miles to the northwest, and Sacramento McClellan Airport, approximately 11.8-miles to the southwest. The project would not be located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or private airstrip. The people residing or working in the project area would not be exposed to excessive noise levels and no impact would occur, consistent with the prior analyses. Therefore, there would be no impact related to airports, airport land use plans, or private airstrips, and implementation of the proposed Whitney Walk Residential Project would not result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

The proposed project would site new NSLU near existing sources of traffic noise on Sunset Boulevard, South Whitney Boulevard, and other area streets. In accordance with the 2015 California Supreme Court decision in California Building Industry Association v Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD, an effect of the environment on a project is not generally a CEQA impact. However, the noise and vibration assessment determined that traffic noise at the faces of project residences facing Sunset Boulevard would exceed 65 CNEL and these residences would have the potential to have interior noise levels exceeding the City standard of 45 CNEL. HELIX completed an exterior-to-interior noise analysis for the habitable rooms of the project residential unit most exposed to noise from Sunset Boulevard. Based on the project architectural plans and assuming exterior wall with typical construction meeting current building code and dual pane windows meeting current building code, the maximum interior noise levels for a habitable room would be 40.5 CNEL, well below the City’s residential interior noise standard of 45 CNEL.

In conclusion, the project would not result in a temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of City Standards, the generation of excessive ground-borne vibration, or exposure of persons to excessive noise from aircraft or airport operations. The project would not result in new or substantially more severe noise and vibration impacts compared to what was analyzed in the Sunset Hills IS/MND and South Whitney IS/MND. Traffic noise at project buildings adjacent to Sunset Boulevard would not result in interior noise levels exceeding the City residential standard of 45 CNEL.

5.12.3 Noise Mitigation Measures
No Mitigation Measures related to noise included in the General Plan EIR, the Sunset Hills IS/MND, nor the South Whitney IS/MND would apply to the proposed project.

5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING

5.13.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis
The 2012 General Plan EIR determined that development and buildout of the General Plan could result in population and housing impacts, but that implementation of the General Plan would not contribute to a significant generation of growth that would substantially exceed any established growth projections nor would it displace substantial numbers of housing units or people. Moreover, the General Plan EIR 644
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

52 analyzed that implementation of the General Plan would not construct off-site infrastructure that would induce substantial development, unplanned or otherwise. As such, population and housing impacts were determined to be less than significant.

The 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND tiered off of the General Plan EIR and determined that since the project site was vacant at the time of drafting the IS/MND, the project would not displace existing residents or existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Additionally, the IS/MND found that because the project site is currently designated for HDR and was analyzed as such in the General Plan EIR, the addition of 148 condominium units is not considered to induce substantial population growth because it is located in an area that has already been planned for residential uses, and that the addition of 148 condominium units into a City that is projected to have approximately 29,283 DUs at the buildout of the General Plan does not represent a significant addition. The IS/MND concluded that the Sunset Hills project would have a less than significant impact.

The 2016 South Whitney IS/MND also tiered off of the General Plan EIR and determined that since the project site was vacant at the time of drafting the IS/MND, there would be no impact to existing residents or housing. The IS/MND also found that while the site was designated on the City’s General Plan land use map as RC and was zoned C-2, and a since a portion of the project site was proposed as High Density Residential HDR and PD-16. The addition of 20 townhome housing units and offices was not considered to induce substantial population growth in an area, nor does the addition of 20 townhome housing units into a City that is projected to have approximately 29,283 DUs at the buildout of the General Plan represent a significant addition. The 2016 IS/MND concluded that the South Whitney project would have a less than significant impact on population and housing.

5.13.2 Population and Housing Impacts Associated with Proposed Project The General Plan land use designation for the three currently vacant parcels is: High Density Residential (HDR) for APN 016-240-044; HDR and Recreation-Conservation (R-C) for APN 016-210-011; and HDR, R- C, and Retail Commercial (RC) for APN 016-240-039.. The purpose of HDR designated areas is to provide areas for multi-family homes, conveniently near commercial uses, employment centers, arterial and collector streets and other intensive uses. HDR designated places, and should have a density of at least

15.5-du/ac with a population of at least 40 per acre, and the General Development Plans that cover the proposed project site also indicate a minimum density of 15.5-du/ac. The proposed Whitney Walk project would have a density of 16.7-du/ac, and would thus be consistent with the General Plan designation as well as the zoning designation of the site. Additionally, since the project site was analyzed for High Density Residential in the General Plan EIR, and in previous IS/MNDs, the change from 168 to 170 residential units is not considered to induce substantial population growth because it is located in an area that has already been planned for residential uses. The addition of 148 condominium units into a City that is projected to have approximately 29,283 DUs at the buildout of the General Plan does not represent a significant addition, and thus the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and no new impact compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

The proposed Whitney Walk Residential Project site is currently vacant, and the implementation of the proposed project would not displace any people or residences. There would be no impact, and no new significant or substantially more severe impact than what was analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs. 645
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

53 5.13.3 Population and Housing Mitigation Measures
As impacts to population and housing would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.

5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES

5.14.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis
The 2012 General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts on the demand for fire and police protection and school and recreation facilities as a result of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan and determined that these impacts included increased demand for fire, police and school services, provision of adequate fire flow, and increased demand for parks and recreation. The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan could result in public services and facilities impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with state and local standards related to the provision of public services and facilities and through the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding impacts to public services and facilities. Thus, the General Plan EIR concluded that there would be a less than significant impact to public services.

The 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND tiered off of the General Plan EIR and determined that development of the proposed project could increase the need for fire and police protection services. The IS/MND found that operation and maintenance funding for fire suppression and police protection is provided through financing districts and from general fund sources. The proposed project would pay construction taxes, participate in any applicable financing districts and contribute to the general fund through property and sales taxes. Participation in these funding mechanisms would ensure fire and police protection service to the site; therefore, the IS/MND concluded that fire and police protection impacts would be anticipated to be less than significant. The IS/MND went on to determine that since the proposed project would be required to pay applicable school impact fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance to finance school facilities, participation in these funding mechanisms, as applicable, would reduce school impacts to a less than significant level as a matter of state law. In summary, the IS/MND concluded that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on public services.

The 2016 South Whitney IS/MND also tiered off of the General Plan EIR and determined that development of the proposed project could increase the need for fire and police protection services.

The IS/MND found that operation and maintenance funding for fire suppression and police protection is provided through financing districts and from general fund sources. The proposed project would pay construction taxes, participate in any applicable financing districts and contribute to the general fund through property and sales taxes. Participation in these funding mechanisms would ensure fire and police protection service to the site; therefore, the IS/MND concluded that fire and police protection impacts would be anticipated to be less than significant. The IS/MND went on to determine that since the proposed project would be required to pay applicable school impact fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance to finance school facilities, participation in these funding mechanisms, as applicable, would reduce school impacts to a less than significant level as a matter of state law. In summary, the IS/MND concluded that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on public services.
646
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

54 5.14.2 Public Services Impacts Associated with Proposed Project Consistent with the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs, the proposed Whitney Walk Residential Project could also increase the need for fire protection services, police, and police patrol. The proposed project would pay construction taxes, participate in any applicable financing districts and contribute to the general fund through property and sales taxes which would contribute to operation and maintenance of these services and would reduce potential fire or police protection impacts to a less than significant level.

The proposed project would not result in a significantly greater demand for school services over what was analyzed in the 2015 or 2016 IS/MNDs, and would pay the applicable Rocklin Unified School District fees under Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code 65995. Thus, school impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant.

In conclusion, while the proposed project may increase the need for public services, compliance with General Plan goals and policies and payment of necessary fees, including participation in any applicable financing district, would reduce the impact to a less than significant level and there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impacts than what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

5.14.3 Public Services Mitigation Measures
Because impacts to public services would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.

5.15 RECREATION

5.15.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis
The 2012 General Plan EIR analyzed impacts to recreation in Chapter 4.12, Public Services, and determined that while development and buildout of the General Plan could result in recreation facilities impacts. The General Plan has established a parkland standard of 5-acres per 1,000 population, and has adopted goals and policies to ensure that this standard is met. These goals and policies call for the provision of new park and recreational facilities as needed by new development through parkland dedication and the payment of park and recreation fees. Thus, due to buildout and growth of the General Plan, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of General Plan goals and policies.

The 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND tiered off of the General Plan EIR, and determined that since the project is a residential project, it could increase demand for recreational facilities. The City provides parkland dedication and/or collection of park fees to mitigate for the increased recreational impacts of new residential developments at the time that a parcel or subdivision map is recorded. Additionally, the IS/MND found that the proposed project includes a tot lot area and a community pool and that there are several City parks that exist in the project area, including Johnson-Springview Park on 5th Street, Sunset East Park on Willowynd Drive and Vista Grande Park on Onyx Drive. The IS/MND went on to determine that through implementation of the City’s park standards and funding mechanisms that would be contributed to by the project applicant paying park and recreation fees as required by the City’s subdivision ordinance, the Sunset Hills project would have less than significant impacts caused by the need to expand recreational facilities.
647
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

55 The IS/MND also found that although use of City parks would be anticipated, the project would not be anticipated to significantly increase the use of existing recreational facilities such that substantial deterioration of these facilities would occur or be accelerated. The project would not require the construction of any other new, or expansion of an existing, public recreational facility; therefore, the IS/MND concluded that the project would have less than significant impacts regarding the increase in use of recreational facilities. The IS/MND ultimately made the determination that compliance with General Plan goals and policies and payment of necessary fees, including park and recreation fees, would ensure the impacts to recreational facilities are less than significant from construction and operation of the Sunset Hills project.

The 2016 South Whitney IS/MND also tiered off of the General Plan. The residential portion of the proposed South Whitney project included a small gazebo shade structure to provide an opportunity for outdoor recreation. Employees and residents of the project could utilize City recreational facilities but the IS/MND determined that the use is anticipated to be minimal and is not anticipated to significantly increase the use of existing facilities to the extent that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, nor is the minimal use anticipated to require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities; therefore, the IS/MND found that the project would have less than significant impacts regarding the increase in use of recreational facilities. The IS/MND ultimately concluded that compliance with General Plan goals and policies and payment of necessary fees, including park and recreation fees, would ensure the impacts to recreational facilities are less than significant.

5.15.2 Recreation Impacts Associated with Proposed Project The General Plan parkland standard is 5-acres per 1,000 population. The City’s subdivision ordinance provides for the collection of park and recreation fees and/or parkland dedication for new residential developments at the time properties are subdivided. The fees are used to fund the acquisition and development of park and recreation facilities commensurate with the established parkland standard.

Fees are also collected through an annual tax on each dwelling unit to fund park maintenance.

Approximately 2.36-acres of the project site would be dedicated open space, and no park or recreational facilities would be constructed as part of the proposed project. Several City parks exist within one mile of the project area, including Johnson-Springview Park on 5th Street, Sunset East Park on Willowynd Drive and Vista Grande Park on Onyx Drive. The proposed Whitney Walk Residential Project could impact recreation by constructing a residential facility contributing to the need for additional recreational facilities in the City. However, this impact was anticipated and provided for through implementation of the City’s park standards and funding mechanisms, such as the Community Park and Recreational Facilities Improvement Fee . The project applicant would pay park and recreation fees as required by the City’s subdivision ordinance, and therefore the project would have a less than significant impact caused by the need to expand recreational facilities and would have no new significant or substantially more severe impact compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

Although use of City parks would be anticipated, the project would not be anticipated to significantly increase the use of existing recreational facilities such that substantial deterioration of these facilities would occur or be accelerated. Thus, compliance with General Plan goals and policies and payment of necessary fees, including park and recreation fees, would ensure the impacts to recreational facilities 648
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

56 are less than significant and there would be no new significant or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

5.15.3 Recreation Mitigation Measures
Because impacts to recreation would be less than significant, no mitigation is required

5.16 TRANSPORTATION

5.16.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis
The 2012 General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan would include impacts on signalized intersections in Rocklin, Loomis, Roseville, Lincoln and Placer County, state/interstate highway segments and intersections, transit service, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and conflicts with at-grade railways.

Goals and policies to address these impacts are incorporated into the General Plan in the Circulation Element, and include policies that require the monitoring of traffic on City streets to determine improvements needed to maintain an acceptable level of service, updating the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and traffic impact fees, providing for inflationary adjustments to the City’s traffic impact fees, maintaining a minimum level of service (LOS) of “C” for all signalized intersections during the PM peak period on an average weekday, maintaining street design standards, and interconnecting traffic signals and consideration of the use of roundabouts where financially feasible and warranted to provide flexibility in controlling traffic movements at intersections. However, the General Plan EIR concluded that despite these goals and policies, significant transportation impacts would occur as a result of development under the General Plan and further, that these impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Specifically, the General Plan EIR found that buildout of the Rocklin General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes at state/interstate highway intersections and impacts to state/interstate highway segments. Findings of fact and a statement of overriding consideration were adopted by the Rocklin City Council in regard to these impacts, which were found to be significant and unavoidable.

The 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND tiered off of the General Plan and found that capacity or LOS impacts from the proposed project are not anticipated since the Sunset Hills project would not result in any significant traffic impacts more severe than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The City finds pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, subdivision (C) (4), that these cumulative “environmental effects of the [site-specific project] were covered in the program EIR.” The IS/MND went on to find that payment of traffic impact fees would reduce traffic impacts from the proposed project to a less than significant level.

The Sunset Hills project was not found to be located near an airport nor a flight path, and evaluated by the City’s Engineering Services Manager to assess such items as hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. Thus, the IS/MND determined that a less than significant hazard or emergency access impact is anticipated as part of the Sunset Hills Project. The IS/MND went on to analyze that 296 garage spaces and 74 visitor spaces are required; the Sunset Hills project was anticipated to provide 296 garage spaces and 82 visitor spaces. Therefore, the IS/MND determined that there would not be an inadequate parking supply. Finally, the IS/MND determined that since there are existing Class II bike facilities along South Whitney Boulevard and proposed Class II bike facilities along Sunset Boulevard in the vicinity of the project and since the proposed project would not conflict with these bike lane locations or with other policies or programs promoting alternative transportation, there would be a less than significant 649
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

57 impact. The 2015 IS/MND ultimately concluded that compliance General Plan goals and policies and payment of traffic impact mitigation fees would reduce transportation and traffic impacts to a less than significant level.

The 2016 South Whitney IS/MND also tiered off of the General Plan and found that capacity or level of service impacts from the proposed project are not anticipated since the South Whitney project would not result in any significant traffic impacts more severe than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The City finds pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, subdivision (C) (4), that these cumulative “environmental effects of the [site-specific project] were covered in the program EIR.” The IS/MND went on to find that payment of traffic impact fees would reduce traffic impacts from the proposed project to a less than significant level.

The South Whitney project was not found to be located near an airport nor a flight path and evaluated by the City’s Engineering Services Manager to assess such items as hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. Thus, the IS/MND determined that a less than significant hazard or emergency access impact is anticipated as part of the South Whitney Project. The IS/MND went on to analyze that 40 parking spaces would be required; the South Whitney project was anticipated to provide 40 parking spaces. Therefore, the IS/MND determined that there would not be an inadequate parking supply. The IS/MND went on to analyze that in the vicinity of the project there are existing Class II bike facilities along South Whitney Boulevard and proposed Class II bike facilities along Sunset Boulevard, and that the proposed project does not conflict with these bike lane locations or with other policies or programs promoting alternative transportation. The 2016 IS/MND ultimately concluded that compliance General Plan goals and policies and payment of traffic impact mitigation fees would reduce transportation and traffic impacts from the South Whitney project to a less than significant level.

5.16.2 Transportation Impacts Associated with Proposed Project Kimley Horn prepared a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) for the Whitney Walk project in May of 2025, referenced as Appendix E and available for review during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Department, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA.

The number of projected trips generated by the proposed project in all scenarios was approximated in the TIS using data included in the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The average rate for ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing) and Land Use Code 215 (Single-Family Attached Housing) were used to represent the single- family residential project. The proposed residential project (170 single-family units) would generate an estimated 1,358 daily trips, with 95 and 119 trips occurring during the AM and PM peak-hours, respectively. Refer to Table 5, Project Trip Generation, to see the estimated vehicle trips that would be generated by the project.

Primary vehicle access to the units on the western side of South Whitney Boulevard is provided via the proposed 46-feet (ft) wide access driveway (Driveway 1), the proposed 46-ft-wide access driveway on Chalmette Court, and two proposed 22-ft wide alleys off Chalmette Court. Primary vehicle access to the units east of South Whitney Boulevard is provided via the 22-ft wide alleys (Driveways 2 and 3) off South Whitney Boulevard. The 46-ft driveways along South Whitney Boulevard and Chalmette Court are proposed to be the main internal drive aisles and connect to all alleys on the site west of South Whitney Boulevard. Driveways 2 and 3 would be directly accessed by South Whitney Boulevard. All of the proposed streets and alleys on the project site will be private. 650
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

58 Table 5: Project Trip Generation
Land Use Category Size Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total IN OUT Total IN OUT
% Trips % Trips % Trips % Trips
Single-Family
Detached Housing
(LU 210)
60 DU
566 42 26% 11 74% 31 56 63% 35 38% 21
Single-Family
Attached Housing
(LU 210)
110
DU
792 53 30% 16 70% 37 63 57% 36 43% 27
Net External Trips 1,358 95 27 68 119 71 48
DU = Dwelling Units
Source: Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition
The study intersections operate between LOS A and F in the Existing (2024) and Existing (2024) plus Project scenarios. See Table 6: Existing and Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service below.

Table 6: Existing and Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ID Intersection Control Peak Hour
Cumulative (2044) Cumulative (2044)
plus project
Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS
1 Sunset Boulevard @ Coronado
Way/Topaz Avenue
Signal
AM 31.3 C 31.4 C
PM 21.8 C 21.0 C
2 Sunset Boulevard @ South
Whitney Boulevard
Signal
AM 209.4 F 201.0 F
PM 204.0 F 185.4 F
3 Sunset Boulevard @
Springview Drive/3rd Street
Signal
AM 137.6 F 137.5 F
PM 43.3 D 44.0 D
4 S Whitney Boulevard @
Chalmette Court AWSC
AM 5.7 A 5.6 A
PM 6.2 A 6.0 A
5 S Whitney Boulevard @
Driveway 1 SSSC
AM 9.2 A
PM 9.7 A
6 S Whitney Boulevard @
Driveway 2 SSSC
AM 9.4 A
PM 9.5 A
7 SSSC AM 9.4 A
651
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

59 S Whitney Boulevard @
Driveway 3 PM 9.6 A
Note: Bold represents unacceptable operations.

Side Street Stop Controlled (SSSC) intersections are reported by the worst approach’s delay. The reported LOS corresponds to the worst approach.

As seen in Table 6, the Sunset Boulevard at S. Whitney Boulevard Intersection operates unacceptably with and without the project, and the project does not add more than five seconds of delay to the intersection. Therefore, the deficiency is not considered project induced. The aforementioned intersections, as well as the Sunset Boulevard at Coronado Way/Topaz Avenue, would operate between LOS A and LOS D during the weekday AM and PM peak-hours under the Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions. Additionally, the Sunset Boulevard at Springview Drive/3rd Street Intersection is shown to operate at LOS D and F. Policy C-10.B of the City’s General Plan Update identifies the Sunset Boulevard at Springview Drive/3rd Street Intersection as an exception to the City’s LOS “C” Standard. Therefore, the high delay at this Intersection is not considered deficient.

Peak hour traffic volumes for Cumulative (2044) conditions were obtained using the City of Rocklin Travel Demand Model. Projected growth was determined by interpolating between the model’s base year (2016) and future year (2036) and applying the growth factor to Existing (2024) counts to reach Cumulative (2044) conditions. Proposed project traffic was added to the Cumulative (2044) peak-hour traffic volumes to establish the Cumulative (2044) plus Project peak-hour traffic volumes. The Cumulative scenario assumed the build-out of Sunset Boulevard to a six-lane facility from Stanford Ranch Road to Pacific Street, per Figure 4.4-12 of the General Plan EIR. The analysis also assumed intersection improvements at Sunset Boulevard and Whitney Boulevard that were identified in the General Plan EIR.

The study intersections operate between LOS A and LOS F under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project scenarios, and the following two intersections operate unacceptably with and without the project: (#1) Sunset Boulevard at Coronado Way/Topaz Avenue, and (#2) Sunset Boulevard at S Whitney Boulevard. See Table 7: Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service below.

Table 7: Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ID Intersection Control Peak Hour
Cumulative (2044) Cumulative (2044)
plus project
Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS
1 Sunset Boulevard @ Coronado
Way/Topaz Avenue
Signal
AM 47.1 D 47.1 D
PM 23.4 C 23.4 C
2 Sunset Boulevard @ South
Whitney Boulevard
Signal
AM 193.7 F 191.2 F
PM 157.3 F 157.6 F
3 Sunset Boulevard @
Springview Drive/3rd Street
Signal
AM 221.7 F 223.2 F
PM 129.0 F 130.5 F
652
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

60 4 S Whitney Boulevard @
Chalmette Court AWSC
AM 10.5 B 11.4 E
PM 9.6 A 10.7 E
5 S Whitney Boulevard @
Driveway 1 SSSC
AM 13.4 B
PM 11.6 A
6 S Whitney Boulevard @
Driveway 2 SSSC
AM 9.8 A
PM 12.5 A
7 S Whitney Boulevard @
Driveway 3 SSSC
AM 9.8 A
PM 12.6 A
Note: Bold represents unacceptable conditions. Shaded cells represent project induced deficiencies.

SSSC intersections are reported by the worst approach’s delay. The reported LOS corresponds to the worst approach.

As shown in Table 7, Intersections #1 and #2 operate unacceptably with or without the project, and the project would not add more than five seconds of delay to any intersection. As such, the deficiencies are not considered project induced.

Vehicle queuing was evaluated for the study intersections and determined that, at Intersection #2 (Sunset Boulevard at South Whitney Boulevard), the project contributes to a deficient westbound-left turn queue in the Existing conditions. However, this improves in the Cumulative condition due to assumed improvements shown in the General Plan. Since the General Plan improvements for the intersection include a northbound free-right turn, it was determined that minimal queuing would occur in the Cumulative condition. Intersection #3 (Sunset Boulevard at Springview Drive/3rd Street) was also found to exceed the existing storage for the eastbound left turn lane during the AM peak-hour for existing, existing plus proposed project, cumulative, and cumulative plus proposed project conditions.

According to the queuing evaluation results, the proposed project would not contribute more than 1 vehicle length for the eastbound left turn, and would thus have a negligible impact to the existing storage capacity.

Kimley-Horn identified a 400-foot extension of the westbound left turn pocket at Intersection #2 to accommodate existing and project traffic. The lengthening of the storage can be accommodated within the existing landscaped median, and would require the installation of new loops, detector handholds, and possibly new conduit and pull boxes to accommodate the new loops. The project would be conditioned to include this improvement. Thus, the proposed project would not result in any significant traffic impacts more severe than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, subdivision (C) (4), these cumulative “environmental effects of the [site- specific project] were covered in the program EIR.”
In addition to the level of service analysis, a VMT analysis was prepared for the project by Kimley Horn (referenced as Appendix E) and compared it against the Placer County VMT per capita threshold to determine if it would result in a significant VMT impact. The County significance thresholds are calculated at 15 percent below the Countywide VMT per capita of 18.16. From Kimley-Horn’s analysis, the project’s average VMT per capita is estimated to be 13.75 VMT per capita, which is 1.69 VMT per capita below the County’s threshold of 15.44 VMT per capita. Therefore, the project is anticipated to 653
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

61 generate at least 15 percent less VMT per capita than the Countywide average and would meet the 15 percent reduction required by SB 743.

The development of the proposed project would not result in project effects that are substantially more significant than analyzed in the 2012 General Plan EIR. Extension of the existing storage at the Sunset Boulevard at South Whitney intersection as well as goals, policies, and actions included in the General Plan would be satisfactory to reduce traffic impacts from the proposed project to a less than significant level. There would be no new significant or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

The proposed project is not located near an airport or within a flight path, and thus would have no impact on air traffic and no new significant or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

The City of Rocklin’s Zoning Ordinance contains off-street parking requirements for different types of development projects. The project requires two paved parking spaces per single-family detached dwelling unit pursuant to Rocklin Zoning Code Section 17.66.100, for a total of 340 parking spaces. The proposed project would include 340 private garage spaces (120 single family detached and 220 duet attached), 14 driveway spaces, 68 on-street parking stalls on the internal roadways (all resident and visitor stalls), and 4 off-street stalls. Each single-family detached and duet units would have 2 garage spaces each, and 7 single-family detached units would have driveways that are more than 20 feet long (resulting in 14 parking spaces).. Therefore, the proposed Whitney Walk Residential Project complies with the Zoning Code would have a less than significant impact regarding inadequate parking, and no new significant or substantially more severe impact compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

Whitney Boulevard has existing Class II bicycle lanes along both sides of the roadway proximate to the site. Sunset Boulevard does have any striped bike lane from Pacific Street to Topaz Avenue/Coronado Way. Class II bikeways along Sunset Boulevard from Springview Drive/3rd Street to Topaz/Coronado are proposed as part of the General Plan, and no additional bicycle improvements were recommended in the TIS. The project proposes to construct sidewalk along its Sunset Boulevard frontage to connect to the City planned sidewalk from the project limits to Coronado Street, and there are currently sidewalks along Whitney Boulevard fronting the project site that would not be modified as part of the proposed project, and standard crosswalks exist at all intersections. Transit service is provided by Placer County Transit, with the nearest transit stop located at S. Whitney Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard fronting the project site. The transit stop is served by Placer County Transit Route 20 fixed route bus service which serves Lincoln and Rocklin with service at one-hour headways, Monday through Saturday. Rocklin Dial-a- Ride demand response transit service serves the area as well. Thus, the proposed project does not interfere with the existing bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities or services. There would be a less than significant impact, and no new impact compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

5.16.3 Transportation Mitigation Measures
Compliance with General Plan goals and policies, and the payment of applicable traffic mitigation fees will reduce impacts to transportation to be less than significant level, no mitigation is required. 654
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

62 5.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

5.17.1 Summary of Prior Environmental Analysis
The 2012 General Plan EIR determined that while development and buildout of the General Plan would result in utilities and service system impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding impacts to utilities and service systems. These goals and policies include, but are not limited to, requiring studies of infrastructure needs, proportional share participation in the financial costs of public services and facilities, coordination of private development projects with public facilities and services needed to serve the project and encouraging energy conservation in new developments.

The 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND tiered off of the General Plan EIR, and determined that the project would increase the need for utility and service systems, but not to an extent that would impact the ability of the utility and service providers to adequately provide such services. The IS/MND found that the proposed project is responsible for complying with all requirements of the South Placer Municipal Utility District, including compliance with wastewater treatment standards established by the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board. The IS/MND also went on to analyze the capacity of the existing Dry Creek and Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plants, finding that both plants are well within their operating capacities and there remains adequate capacity to accommodate the projected wastewater flows from this project. Thus, the IS/MND determined that there would be a less than significant impact on wastewater treatment. Regarding stormwater impact, the IS/MND determined that the proposed project would be conditioned to require connection into the City’s storm drain system, with BMP features located within the project’s drainage system at a point prior to where the project site runoff will enter the City’s storm drain system. The IS/MND also found that the project site would be served by the Foothill Water Treatment Plant (WTP), and that the proposed Sunset Hills project’s estimated maximum daily water treatment demands would not exceed the plant’s permitted capacity. Because the proposed project would be served by a water treatment plant that has adequate capacity to meet the project’s projected demand and would not require the construction of a new water treatment plant, the IS/MND concluded that the proposed project’s water supply and treatment facility impacts would be considered less than significant. The IS/MND went on to analyze impacts to landfills, determining that development of the project site with urban land uses was included in the lifespan and capacity calculations of the landfill, and a less than significant landfill capacity impact would be anticipated.

Additionally, the IS/MND determined that the Sunset Hills project would comply with all Federal, State, and local regulations regarding trash and waste and other nuisance-related issues as may be applicable.

The IS/MND concluded that the proposed project is not anticipated to interfere with existing operations or exceed the service capacity of utilities or service systems because the development of this site with urban uses was anticipated in the General Plan and thus, utilities and service system requirements have been anticipated and planned. The 2015 IS/MND ultimately came to the determination that compliance with General Plan goals and policies and payment of necessary fees would ensure the impacts to public services are less than significant.

The 2016 South Whitney IS/MND also tiered off of the General Plan EIR, and determined that since both the Dry Creek and Pleasant Grove wastewater treatment plants are well within their operating capacities and there remains adequate capacity to accommodate the projected wastewater flows from this project, there would be a less than significant wastewater treatment impact. The IS/MND went on to determine that the proposed project would be conditioned to require connection into the City’s 655
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

63 storm drain system, with BMP features located within the project’s drainage system at a point prior to where the project site runoff will enter the City’s storm drain system. Additionally, the IS/MND determined that because the proposed project would be served by a water treatment plant that has adequate capacity to meet the project’s projected demand and would not require the construction of a new water treatment plant, the proposed project’s water supply and treatment facility impacts would be considered less than significant. Since development of the project site with urban land uses was included in the lifespan and capacity calculations of the landfill, the IS/MND concluded that there would be a less than significant landfill capacity impact.

Finally, the IS/MND determined that the proposed project would comply with all Federal, State, and local regulations regarding trash and waste and other nuisance-related issues as may be applicable, and that the proposed project is not anticipated to interfere with existing operations or exceed the service capacity of utilities or service systems because the development of this site with urban uses was anticipated in the General Plan. The 2016 IS/MND ultimately concluded that implementation of the South Whitney project would have a less than significant impact.

5.17.2 Utilities and Service Systems Impacts Associated with Proposed Project The proposed Whitney Walk Residential Project would be served by the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) for its potable water needs. The PCWA has a Master Plan, which is periodically updated, to provide water to projects located within their service boundary. The plan includes future expansion as necessary, and includes the option of constructing additional treatment plants. The PCWA collects hook- up fees to finance the maintenance and expansion of its facilities, and has planned for growth in the City. The proposed project would tie into the water supply off of S. Whitney Boulevard and Chalmette Court underground and would be served by the Foothill WTP, which treats water diverted from the American River Pump Station near Auburn. The proposed Whitney Walk Residential Project’s estimated maximum daily water treatment demands would be consistent with that of the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs, and would not exceed the plant’s permitted capacity. Because the proposed project would be served by a water treatment plant that has adequate capacity to meet the project’s projected demand and would not require the construction of a new water treatment plant, the proposed project’s water supply and treatment facility impacts would be considered less than significant. There would be no new significant or substantially more severe impacts compared to what was analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

The Western Regional landfill (WRL), which serves the Rocklin area and would serve the project site, has a total capacity of 36 million cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29 million cubic yards. The current permitted lifespan of the WRL is until 2058. On December 8, 2022, the Western Placer Waste Management Agency (WPWMA) adopted the Waste Action Plan, which provides for future expansion of the WRL to the west of the current landfill, that will provide landfill capacity until the year 2110.

Development of the project site with urban land uses was included in the lifespan and capacity calculations of the landfill, and thus construction and operation of a residential development would have a less than significant impact on landfill capacity.

Trash would be collected from the project site from individual trash toters by Recology™, and the proposed project would be required to comply with all Federal, State, and local regulations regarding trash and waste and other nuisance-related issues as may be applicable as well as Recology’s access requirements. Federal and State regulations regarding solid waste consist of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations and the California Integrated Waste Management Act regulating waste reduction. These regulations primarily affect local agencies and other agencies such as the Landfill 656
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

64 Authority. With compliance with these regulations, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and no new significant or substantially more severe impact compared to what was analyzed in the 2015 and 2016 IS/MNDs.

The proposed Whitney Walk Residential Project would no longer construct 168 units and a medical center building as envisioned in the Sunset Hills and South Whitney IS/MNDs, and would instead construct 170 units with no medical center building. Thus, the proposed project would result in no new significant or substantially more severe impact related to electricity and natural gas because the demands for those services are not significantly increased as a result of the Whitney Walk Residential project.

As described in the 2012 General Plan, the proposed Whitney Walk Residential Project site was anticipated to be developed with urban uses. Since the proposed project would develop the site with single-family attached and detached residences, the project would be consistent with the determination made in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not interfere with existing operations or exceed the service capacity of utilities or service systems. Thus, the proposed Whitney Walk project would have no new significant or substantially more severe impacts related to utilities and service systems.

5.17.3 Utilities and Service Systems Mitigation Measures Because impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.

6.0 CEQA DETERMINATION
Section 15164(a) of the Guidelines states the following:

The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred.

Section 15164(b) of the Guidelines also states the following:

An Addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 call for the preparation of a subsequent EIR of negative declaration have occurred.

As presented in the analysis above, the proposed revisions to the 2015 Sunset Hills IS/MND and 2016 South Whitney IS/MND 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, new information associated with the proposed revisions does not indicate that the proposed project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; that significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible; or 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, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative. Therefore, an Addendum was prepared to comply with CEQA. 657
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum I May 2025 As the Lead Agency for the proposed project revision, the City of Rocklin is issuing this Addendum in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Signature:

HELIX Environmental Planning
David Mohlenbrok, Community Development Director
City of Rocklin Community Development Department
Date: °Tune.. \ 0 J '202-5
65 658
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

66 7.0 REFERENCES
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. 2022 CEQA Guidelines, Chapter 3 – Screening for Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors. Revised April 20, 2023. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines- 2022/ceqa-guidelines-chapter-4-screening_final-pdf.pdf?sc_lang=en City of Rocklin (City). 2012. City of Rocklin General Plan. Accessed on January 29, 2025 at:
https://www.rocklin.ca.us/post/general-plan-documents.
2011. General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. Available at:
https://www.rocklin.ca.us/post/draft-general-plan-update-environmental-impact-report-0. 2015. Sunset Hills Townhomes Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. 2016. South Whitney Mixed Use Townhomes and Medical Center Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.

California Department of Conservation (CDC). 2025. DLRP Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.
2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April. Available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2024. 2022 Traffic Census. Available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census.

California Tree and Landscape Consulting, Inc. (CalTLC). 2022. Preliminary Arborist Report & Tree Inventory. Available as Appendix C and during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Department, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2025. National Flood Hazard Layer viewer Map Panel 06061CO477G. Effective date November 21, 2001. Available at:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529 aa9cd.

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX). 2025a. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis.

Available as Appendix B and during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Department, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA.
2025b. Cultural Resources Assessment. Available as Appendix D and during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Department, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA. 2025c. Noise Report. Available as Appendix G and during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Department, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA. 659
Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/Addendum | May 2025

67 Kimley-Horn. 2025. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis. Available as Appendix E and during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Department, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA. 2025. Transportation Impact Study. Available as Appendix E and during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Department, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA.

SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2024. Riparian Habitat Assessment for the Wildcat West Property, Rocklin, Placer County, California/SWCA Project NO. 72241. Available as Appendix C and during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Department, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2025. QuickFacts for Rocklin City, California. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/rocklincitycalifornia/PST045224.

Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc. (Youngdahl). 2024. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. Available as Appendix F and during normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning Department, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA.

660
Appendix A
Figures
661
!c
?¤ Sierra College Blvd
Sunset Blvd
Douglas Blvd
Blue Oaks Blvd
Pleasant Grove Blvd
Whitney Blvd
Lincoln
Loomis
Rocklin
Roseville
Granite Bay
Figure 1
Site and Vicinity Map
T:\PROJECTS\S\SaeteasInvestments_08755\00003_WhitneyWalkResidential\Map\WhitneyWalkResidential.aprx 3/11/2025 Source: Base Map Layers (Esri, USGS, NGA, NASA)
Whitney Walk Residential Project
Amador
El Dorado
Nevada
Sacramento
Solano
Sutter
Yolo
Yuba
Placer
0 1 Miles
K
Project Site
Project Site
USGS 7.5 Min. Los Gatos Quad
Township 9N, Range 1E, Section 9
Approximate Location:
-121.982068 37.166099
NAD 1983 State Plane CA Zone II (US Feet)
Approximate Acreage: ±12.99 Acres
662
Figure 2
Aerial Map
T:\PROJECTS\S\SaeteasInvestments_08755\00003_WhitneyWalkResidential\Map\WhitneyWalkResidential.aprx 5/22/2025 Source: Aerial (DigitalGlobe, 4/26/2022)
Whitney Walk Residential Project
Sunset Blvd
B
r
y
c
e
W
a
y
P a r a g o
n
S t
W
h
i
t
n
e
y
B
l
v
d
Zion Ct
C
h
a
l
m
e
tt
e
C
t
S
W
h
i t
n
e
y
B
l v
d
Pinnacles Dr
Butano Way
0 200 Feet
Legend
Project Site - 12.99 Acres
K
Legend
Project Site - 12.9 Acres
663
Whitney Walk Residential Project
Fig3_SitePlan_20250207.indd
Site Plan
Figure 3
Source: TSD Engineering, 2024
664
Figure 4
Project Parcels
T:\PROJECTS\S\SaeteasInvestments_08755\00003_WhitneyWalkResidential\Map\WhitneyWalkResidential.aprx 5/22/2025 - SAB Source: Aerial (DigitalGlobe, 4/26/2022)
Whitney Walk Residential Project
Sunset Blvd
B
r
y
c
e
W
a
y
P a r a g o
n
S t
W
h
i
t
n
e
y
B
l
v
d
Zion Ct
C
h
a
l
m
e
tt
e
C
t
S
W
h
i t
n
e
y
B
l v
d
Pinnacles Dr
Butano Way
016-240-039-000
016-240-044-000
016-210-011-000
0 200 Feet
Legend
Project Site - 12.97 Acres
Project Parcels
K

Pro roject Pa Parc rcels
Legend
PPro rorojjeecctt SSiite tete -- 111222...9999 AAccre reress 665

Appendix B - G
These Appendices are available for review during
normal business hours at the City of Rocklin Planning
Department, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA.
666
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW

(Whitney Walk Residential / DR2024-0005)

The City Council of the City of Rocklin does resolve as follows:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Rocklin finds and determines that:

A. The Design Review (DR2024-0005) approves the site design, including associated parking, landscaping, drive aisles, frontage and road way improvements (on- and off-site) architectural designs, colors and materials for the proposed Whitney Walk Residential project, a 170-unit single-family attached and detached residential development on 12.85± acres. The site consists of three (3) parcels, designated as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers ( APNs) 016-210-011, 016-240-044, and a por tion of 016 - 240-039.

B. The Whitney Walk Residential Project Initial Study/ Addendum, prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, verified that the project will have no impacts beyond those identified in the Sunset Hills Townhomes and S outh Whitney Mixed -Use Initial Studies/Mitigated Negative Declarations and therefore has been approved via City Council Resolution No.2025-__.

C. The design of th e site is compatible with the adjacent area, surrounding development, natural features , constraints, and traffic flow . The architectural design, colors and materials, and landscaping of the proposed project is c onsistent with approved and anticipated proje cts on surrounding properties. The architectural design of the site will have no impact to natural features within the area or traffic flow upon completion of all on- and off-site improvements shown in Exhibit A.

D. The height, bulk, a rea, color scheme and m aterials of the buildings and structures are compatible with surrounding development. Colors and materials have been selected to be compatible with existing development adjacent to the project, and to be consistent with the Citywide Design Guidelines.

E. The buildings and structures have been oriented with consideration given to minimizing energy consumption and maximizing use of natural lighting. The project design incorporates sustainable fe atures consistent with the California Gr een Building Standards Code (“CALGreen”). The position of some of the buildings in a north -south orientation maximizes passive solar access and natural lighting. The project shall be consistent with all California Building Code requirements.

F. Parking is consistent with requirements set forth in the proposed Whitney Walk General Development Plan of providing a minimum of two paved parking spaces 667