Agenda packet — Rocklin City Council, August 25, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

ROCKLIN CITY COUNCIL
City Council Regular Meeting
City Hall - Council Chambers
3970 Rocklin Rd. Rocklin, CA
95677
Website:
www.rocklin.ca.us
August 25, 2026
Closed Session 5:00 p.m.

General Session 6:00 p.m.

DAVID BASS,

Mayor

BILL HALLDIN,

Vice Mayor

KEN BROADWAY,

Council Member

JILL GAYALDO,

Council Member

GREG JANDA,

Council Member

ALY ZIMMERMANN,

City Manager

MATTHEW MCOMBER,

City Attorney

DANIEL CHOE,

City Treasurer

AVINTA SINGH,

City Clerk

HOW TO PARTICIPATE
The City of Rocklin welcomes your interest and involvement in the City's legislative process. The City Council has established a procedure for addressing the Council. Persons wishing to address the City Council are asked to voluntarily complete and submit a speaker identification sheet to the City Clerk.

Speaker identification sheets are available near the entrance of the Council Chambers. For items listed on the agenda, any person may address the City Council at the time the item is considered. Speakers are requested to restrict their comments to the item as it appears on the agenda and stay within the required three-minute time limit. The Brown Act does not permit the City Council to take action on items brought up under Citizens Addressing the City Council. The meeting is held pursuant to City
Council Procedural Rules.

WRITINGS RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA POSTING
Any writing or documents related to an agenda item for this meeting provided to the City Council, Public Financing Authority or Successor Agency will be made available for public inspection at City Hall, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, during normal business hours.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you require special assistance to participate in this meeting or other services in conjunction with this meeting, including receiving notices, agendas, and other writings in appropriate alternative formats, please contact our office at (916) 625- 5560 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed so that we may make every reasonable effort to accommodate you.

LEVINE ACT PROVISIONS
The Levine Act requires a party (or the party’s agent(s)) to a proceeding before the City of Rocklin that
involves any action or consideration to their contract, license, permit, or other entitlement for use, to
disclose any campaign contribution made to a City elected or appointed officer (including Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, and members of other City boards and commissions) totaling more than $500 within the 12 months before the City decision.

AUDIO/VISUAL PRESENTATIONS
If making a presentation regarding an agenda item, all audio/visual materials must be submitted to the City Clerk or Secretary at least 72 hours in advance. The City is not responsible for the compatibility or operation of non-city devices or the functionality of non-city presentations.

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda of August 25, 2026
1 POSTING OF AGENDA
In accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) this agenda was posted on the City's bulletin board at City Hall, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, and City of Rocklin website at www.rocklin.ca.gov.

AGENDA

MEETING

INSTRUCTIONS

Members of the public may watch the meeting via live stream at:
https://ca-rocklin.civicplus.com/705/City-Council-Agendas-Minutes

The meeting will also be available through Zoom using Webinar ID 833 5913 1676
and
Passcode
201997
.

Members of the public are welcome to attend the meeting in person or participate virtually.

For those wishing to make a comment in person, although not required, complete a speaker card and present it to the meeting clerk. For those unable to attend in person, but wishing to make a public comment, a written public comment may be submitted via email to [email protected]. Emailed comments will be accepted until 3:00 p.m. on the meeting day and will be distributed to the City Council and treated as a public record.

The meeting will also be offered via Zoom Webinar and will include closed captioning. The public is welcome to make public comments through Zoom (audio only) using the steps below:

How to Make a Public Comment by Zoom
When joining the meeting, attendees will be muted by default. Please use the “Raise Hand” feature to inform the meeting clerk that you would like to make a public comment. Information on how to use the raise hand feature can be found on the Zoom website.

Zoom Participation by Computer or Smartphone
Members of the public may join the meeting from a computer using the web browser or the Zoom desktop application. The public can also participate using the Zoom mobile app available on an Apple iOS or Android device.

Click the link below to join the Zoom meeting:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83359131676?pwd=RYaheHV1gjJroZNbVTYMEQ3pKO3qtV.1

ZOOM Participation by Telephone
1 .

Dial (669) 900-6833.
2 .

When asked for the meeting ID, enter
833 5913 1676
.
3 .

When asked for your participant ID,
press #
to continue.
4 .

When asked for the meeting passcode, enter
201997
.

Meeting participants will be muted by default. To inform the meeting clerk that you would like to make a public comment, dial *9 to “raise your hand.” The clerk will unmute you when it is your turn to speak.

CALL TO ORDER
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda of August 25, 2026
2 CS1.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.95, Liability Claim. Claimant: Jason Boyer. Agency Claimed Against: City of Rocklin.

CS2.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4), Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation - Initiation of Litigation: two (2) potential cases.

C1.

Minutes of the August 11, 2026, Regular Meeting of the City Council C2.

Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions
C3.

Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act Plan Change

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION

CLOSED SESSION

AGENDA REVIEW

CITIZENS ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL
This is an opportunity for public comment on matters not listed on the agenda. Public comment on items listed on the agenda will be taken when the agenda item is called.

REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
Reports from the City Council will include any AB1234 Reports.

CONSENT CALENDAR
All items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered and acted upon by one Motion. Anyone may request an item be removed for separate consideration.

Recommendation:

Approve the Minutes of the August 11, 2026, Regular Meeting of the City Council.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Making Appointments to the Arts Commission, Community Recognition Commission, and Planning Commission.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Fixing the Employer Contribution under the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act at an Equal Amount for Employees and Annuitants.

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda of August 25, 2026
3 C4.

Intention to Annex Placer Creek Apartments into Community Facilities District No. 1 C5.

Intention to Annex Placer Creek Apartments into Community Facilities District No. 5 C6.

Wildcat West Notice of Completion of Public Improvements C7.

SACOG Federal Funding Program Application
C8.

Sunset Whitney Connector Bridge Mitigation Bank Credits – Delegation of Acquisition Authority to City Manager
C9.

City of Rocklin Fire Department's State Mandated Annual Fire Inspection Report

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin of Intention to Annex Territory to Rocklin Community Facilities District No. 1 (Annexation No. 97) and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein (Placer Creek Apartments, APN 017-084-012-000).

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin of Intention to Annex Territory to Rocklin Community Facilities District No. 5 (Annexation No. 82) and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein (Placer Creek Apartments, APN 017-084-012-000).

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Accepting the Public Work Known as Wildcat West (SD-2022-0001), Approving the Notice of Completion, and Authorizing and Directing the Senior Engineer to Execute Said Notice on Behalf of the City (KB Home Sacramento Inc., a California corporation).

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Authorizing Applications for Grant Funding from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 2026 Federal Funding Programs; Authorizing the City Manager to Submit City of Rocklin SACOG 2026 Federal Funding Program Application Priorities; and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute all Grant Documents and Timely Project Delivery Requirements.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Repealing City Council Resolution No. 2026-099 and Approving and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents for the Acquisition of Mitigation Bank Credits for the Sunset Whitney Connector Bridge Project.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Acknowledging the City of Rocklin Fire Department’s Compliance with Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the California Health and Safety Code.

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda of August 25, 2026
4 C10.

California State Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant Award and Agreement C11.

CAD-to-CAD Solutions Agreement
P1.

Oaths of Office for Incoming Commission Members
P2.

Summer Civic Career Program (SCCP) Presentation
PH1.

Midas Apartments / Design Review, DR2026-0002; and Environmental, ENV2026- 0008
D1.

Northwest Rocklin Community Parks Master Plan

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Accepting an Award from the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) for the Regional Crash Response and Extrication Improvement Program and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Grant Agreement and Necessary Grant Documentation.

Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving the Solutions Agreement with CentralSquare Technologies, LLC and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement and Subsequent Amendments.

PRESENTATIONS
In addition to those items listed on the agenda, the Mayor may add additional ceremonial matters.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings may be reordered by the Mayor with the consent of the legislative body.

Recommendation:

Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider the Following Actions:

A
.

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Notice of Exemption (Midas Apartments / ENV2026-0008).

B
.

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Design Review (Midas Apartments / DR2026-0002).

DISCUSSION ITEMS
Discussion Items include oral presentations including those recommending "receive and file".

Recommendation:

Receive a Presentation of the Draft Master Plan for the Northwest Rocklin Community Parks and Provide Direction to Staff.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda of August 25, 2026
5 City Council
Staff Report

Subject:

Minutes of the August 11, 2026, Regular Meeting of the City Council Date:

August 25, 2026
Submitted By:

Avinta Singh, City Clerk
Department:

City Clerk's Office
Recommendation:

Approve the Minutes of the August 11, 2026, Regular Meeting of the City Council.

Item Number C1.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft City Council Meeting Minutes of August 11, 2026 6 DRAFT Meeting Minutes of August 11, 2026 Rocklin City Council 1 | P a g e

ROCKLIN CITY COUNCIL

City Council Regular Meeting
City Hall – Council Chambers
3970 Rocklin Rd. Rocklin, CA 95677
Website: www.rocklin.ca.us

August 11, 2026
Closed Session 5:30 p.m.

General Session 6:00 p.m.

-DRAFT-

CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Bass called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Councilmembers Ken Broadway, Jill Gayaldo, Bill Halldin, Greg Janda Mayor David Bass

Absent: None

PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION

There were none.

Members of the City Council left the Council Chambers and convened Closed Session at 5:30 p.m.

CLOSED SESSION

CS1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1), Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation: Julie Kassis v City of Rocklin, Placer County Superior Court, Case NO. M-CV-0097248.

Members of the City Council returned to the Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m.

7 DRAFT Meeting Minutes of August 11, 2026 Rocklin City Council 2 | P a g e

REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION

There was no reportable action.

CALL GENERAL SESSION TO ORDER

Mayor Bass called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mayor Bass led the pledge of allegiance.

AGENDA REVIEW

There were no changes to the agenda.

CITIZENS ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL

Mr. Greg Roberson, Rocklin Area Chamber of Commerce Board Chair, addressed the City Council and introduced the new Chamber CEO Kathleen McCorry.

Rocklin Area Chamber of Commerce CEO Kathleen McCorry addressed the City Council and expressed that she looked forward to working with the City of Rocklin.

Ritika Phanse addressed the City Council and spoke about the annual Teacher Appreciation event held in in May 2026 at Rocklin Elementary School organized by the organization Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh USA.

REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER

Council Member Broadway participated in Rocklin Police Activities League (Rock PAL) back to school shop with a co p program, also supported by the Rocklin Rotary Club; participated in National Night Out on August 4, 2026 recognizing efforts by communities to keep their neighborhoods safe and thanked public safety staff for their involvement ; and along with Vice Mayor Halldin and Council Member Gayaldo attended the ribbon cutting event for the new playground structure at Night Ridge Park.

Council Member Gayaldo reported attendance at the Placer Mosquito Vector Control District Board meeting; and attended a Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Transportation Committee meeting.

Vice Mayor Halldin commended Mayor Bass for his delivery at the State of the City event at Sierra College held on June 25, 2026; thanked Destiny Church for organizing two days of fireworks at their Celebrate America event; and shared that since May there were two 8 DRAFT Meeting Minutes of August 11, 2026 Rocklin City Council 3 | P a g e

groundbreakings on affordable housing projects : the 110-unit Pacific Street Apartments and 180 -unit The Steven senior apartment complex across from Sierra College, and noted that the 324-unit affordable housing complex by USA Properties on University Avenue was underway.

Council Member Janda reported attendance at the Pioneer Community Energy Board meeting.

City Manager Zimmermann shared that all Placer County Library locations will be closed on August 20, 2026 due to staff training and development; and shared that the City had launched its refreshed website : www.rocklin.ca.gov, expressing her appreciation to Management Analyst Haley Reid and City staff for their eff orts to improve public accessibility and transparency and ensure compliance with state law.

CONSENT CALENDAR

C1. Minutes of the June 15, 2026, Special Meeting of the City Council Action: Approved the Minutes of the June 15, 2026, Special Meeting of the City Council.

C2. Minutes of the June 23, 2026, Regular Meeting of the City Council Action: Approved the Minutes of the June 23, 2026, Regular Meeting of the City Council.

C3. Legal Search Subscription Agreement Amendment
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 2026-116 of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Ratifying the Amendment to the Subscription Agreement with LexisNexis.

C4. Quarterly Treasurer's Report
Action: Received the Treasurer's Report for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2026.

C5. Intention to Annex Quick Quack Lonetree Boulevard into Community Facilities District No. 1
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 2026-117 of the City Council of the City of Rocklin of Intention to Annex Territory to Rocklin Community Facilities District No. 1 (Annexation No. 96) and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein (Quick Quack Lonetree Boulevard, APN 017-284-004-000).

C6. First Amendment to the Special Tax and Assessment District Administration Services Contract
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 2026-118 of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the First Amendment to the Agreement for Special Tax and Assessment District Administration Services with Willdan Financial Services.
9 DRAFT Meeting Minutes of August 11, 2026 Rocklin City Council 4 | P a g e

C7. Accounts Paid List: April to June 2026
Action: Received the Accounts Paid List for April 1, 2026 to June 30, 2026.

C8. Various Personnel Updates
Action:

A. Adopted Resolution No. 2026-119 of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving the Negotiated Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Rocklin and AFSCME Council 57, Local 146 AFL -CIO Representing Rocklin Public Services Employees Bargaining Unit, for the Term of the July 1, 2026 - June 30, 2029, and Adopting the Updated Salary Schedule.

B. Adopted Resolution No. 2026-120 of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Side Letter of Agreement to the Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Rocklin and AFSCME Council 57, Local 146 AFL-CIO Representing Rocklin Public Services Employees Bargaining Unit.

C. Adopted Resolution No. 2026-121 of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Adopting the Corrected Consolidated Salary Schedule, Refle cting the Previously Approved Salary Adjustments for City Manager and City Attorney.

D. Adopted Resolution No. 2026-122 of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Side Letter of Agreement to the Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Rock lin and the Rocklin Firefighters, Local 522.

C9. Software License Platform Agreement Amendment
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 2026-123 of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Necessary Documents to Add Services to the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement with Dell Marketing, L.P.

C10. Sunset Whitney Connector Bridge Contract Award
Action:

A. Adopted Resolution No. 2026-124 of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts and a Mitigation Monitoring Program.

B. Adopted Resolution No. 2026-125 of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Awarding a Construction Contract for the Sunset Whitney Connector Bridge Project to Central Valley Engineering & Asphal t, Inc., Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Contract and Approve Change Orders, and Approving a Budget Appropriation.

C11. Sierra College Boulevard at I-80 Resurfacing Project Contract Award Action: Adopted Resolution No. 2026-126 of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Awarding a Construction Contract for the Sierra College Boulevard at I -80 10 DRAFT Meeting Minutes of August 11, 2026 Rocklin City Council 5 | P a g e

Resurfacing Project to George Reed Inc., Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Contract and Approve Change Orders.

C12. California Highway Patrol Grant Award
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 2026-127 of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Agreement with the Department of California Highway Patrol and Oth er Necessary Documentation to Use the Grant Funds.

C13. Fiscal Year 2026/27 Irrigation and Landscaping Supply Purchases Action: Adopted Resolution No. 2026-128 of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase Goods and Supplies from Heritage Landscape Supply Group, Inc. for Fiscal Year 2026/27.

C14. Construction Cooperation and Reimbursement Agreement with South Placer Municipal Utility District for Bluffs Phase II
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 2026-129 of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving the Construction Cooperation and Reimbursement Agreement with South Placer Municipal Utility District for Sewer Improvements During the Bluffs Subdivision Reconstruction Phase II Project and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement.

C15. Park Drive Dig Outs Project – Notice of Completion Action: Adopted Resolution No. 2026-130 of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Accepting the Public Work Known as the Park Drive Dig Outs Project, Approving the Notice of Completion Thereof, and Authorizing and Directing the Execution and Recordation of Said Notice on Behalf of the City (JB -TC Ventures, LLC. DBA JB Bostick Company).

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no public comments from attendees in person or via Zoom.

Motion to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. C1 through C15, by Council Member Broadway, seconded by Council Member Janda. Passed by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers Broadway, Gayaldo, Halldin, Janda Mayor Bass
Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None

11 DRAFT Meeting Minutes of August 11, 2026 Rocklin City Council 6 | P a g e

PUBLIC HEARINGS

PH1. Sierra Wilds Apartments (Continued from May 12, 2026) / Environmental, ENV2025-0008; and Design Review, DR2025-0005
Action: Conducted a Public Hearing and Considered the Following Actions:

A. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Notice of Exemption / CEQA Determination (Sierra Wilds Apartments / ENV2025- 0008).

B. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Design Review (Sierra Wilds Apartments / DR2025-0005).

Mayor Bass opened the public hearing for Item No. PH1. He read a technical assistance letter on use-by-right processing under the Housing Element law which was received late in the afternoon on August 10, 2026 from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) urging approval of the project.

Principal Planner Nathan Anderson presented the item to the City Council.

Members of the City Council asked questions which were responded to by Principal Planner Anderson, City Manager Zimmermann, City Attorney Matthew McOmber, Fire Chief Reginald Williams, Deputy Fire Chief Ryan Brayton, and Community Development Director David Mohlenbrok.

Ms. Lauren Alexander, Project Manager with Pacific West Communities, Inc. addressed City Council questions.

PUBLIC COMMENT

The following speakers addressed the City Council expressing concerns about the proposed Sierra Wilds Apartments development project:

Ms. Kathleen Patterson
Ms. Tiffany P
Ms. Cheryl Keller
Ms. Kate Livengood
Mr. Scott Simpson
Ms. Adrienne Garcia
Ms. Britt Hillison
Mr. Paul Brigearts
Mr. Syd Fong
Ms. Stefanie Baldonade
Ms. Carol Royal
Ms. Chrystee Boothby
Ms. Laura Crouch
12 DRAFT Meeting Minutes of August 11, 2026 Rocklin City Council 7 | P a g e

Mr. Dave Patterson

The City Council recessed at 8:01 p.m. and the public hearing reconvened at 8:12 p.m.

Public Comment resumed after the recess.

PUBLIC COMMENT

The following speakers addressed the City Council expressing general support of the project and need for affordable housing:

Mr. Virgil Nelson
Ms. Elizabeth Gonzalez

The following speakers addressed the City Council expressing concerns about the proposed Sierra Wilds Apartments development project:

Ms. Lorinda Odell
Ms. Hadi Pojda
Ms. Tina Laube
Ms. Amy Hansen
Ms. Denise Morgan
Mr. Shane Steffen
Mr. Oscar Hernandez
Mr. David McClain
Mr. Brent Boothby
Mr. Dan King
Ms. Shelly Burba
Ms. Susan Weckter
Ms. Hailey Fowler
Ms. Jessica Brenner
Ms. Tarah Crow
Ms. Mandy Fong
Ms. Brandi Armstrong
Mr. Peter Liu
Ms. Mina Zheng
Mr. John Nguyen
Ms. Julia Becker
Ms. Lindsay Roche
RUSD Board Trustee Derek Counter
Mr. Alan Guillen Sanchez
Mr. Umer Waris
Ms. Joy T
13 DRAFT Meeting Minutes of August 11, 2026 Rocklin City Council 8 | P a g e

Mr. Nelson Medeiros

Mr. Sam Bacal -Graves, attorney with Stoel Rives representing the applicant, addressed City Council questions during the public comment period.

There were no public comments from attendees via Zoom.

City Council comments and discussion followed. Project Manager Alexander addressed questions for the City Council that were raised during the public comment period.

The City Council recessed at 10:28 p.m. and the public hearing reconvened at 10:37 p.m.

City Council comments and discussion continued.

Due to the City Council meeting approaching 11:00 p.m. and per the City Council Procedural Rules for extending the time of adjournment for hearings in progress, Council Member Broadway made a motion to extend the length of the meeting, seconded by Vice Mayor Halldin. Passed by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers Broadway, Gayaldo, Halldin, Janda Mayor Bass
Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None

The City Council requested further information on the following topics of concern as related to the proposed project: emergency vehicle access by the Fire Department; impacts of construction on health and safety of students including a construction management plan; clarification on a potential deceleration lane; noise impacts on students and their ability to learn; and to provide additional time for staff to review the legal questions raised in recent letters submitted for the project.

Motion to continue Public Hearing Item No. PH 1 to the September 22, 2026 City Council Meeting to be held in the Rocklin City Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. by Council Member Broadway, seconded by Vice Mayor Halldin . Motion passed by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers Broadway, Gayaldo, Halldin, Janda Mayor Bass
Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None
14 DRAFT Meeting Minutes of August 11, 2026 Rocklin City Council 9 | P a g e

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

Council Member Broadway requested information on managing damage to City parks resulting from regular use.

ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Bass adjourned the meeting at 11:14 p.m.

_____________________________
David Bass, Mayor

This is to certify that the foregoing is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of August 11, 2026 as
approved by the Rocklin City Council.

_______________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk
15 City Council
Staff Report

Subject:

Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions
Date:

August 25, 2026
Submitted By:

Avinta Singh, City Clerk
Department:

City Clerk's Office
Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Making Appointments to the Arts Commission, Community Recognition Commission, and Planning Commission.

Background:

On June 8, 2026 and June 15, 2026, the City Council Ad Hoc Selection Committees conducted interviews with qualified applicants to fill vacancies and make appointments on various City Commissions. A Special City Council Meeting was also held on June 15, 2026.

Arts Commissioner Holly Clark resigned from the Commission on June 22, 2026. On August 17, 2026, a City Council Subcommittee conducted an interview with a qualified applicant to fill the unscheduled vacancy on the Arts Commission.

Exhibit A to the Resolution identifies the recommended appointments and reappointments to the Arts Commission, Community Recognition Commission, and Planning Commission.

Fiscal Impact:

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

Item Number C2.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution
16 Resolution No. 2026- August 25, 2026 Page 1 of 1
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN

MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE ARTS COMMISSION, COMMUNITY

RECOGNITION COMMISSION, AND PLANNING COMMISSION

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

Section 1 . The City Council of the City of Rocklin does hereby appoint and reappoint the following individual s to the Arts Commission, Community Recognition Commission, and Planning Commission of the City of Rocklin commencing August 25, 2026 as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and hereby incorporated herein by this reference.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of August, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

David Bass, Mayor

ATTEST:

Avinta Singh, City Clerk
17 Exhibit A
to Reso. No. 2026-

EXHIBIT A

APPOINTMENT:

ARTS COMMISSION
RMC Chapter 2.36 & 2.43
Four-Year Term

Appointee Term Expires
Patty Rosenberg 6/30/2029

REAPPOINTMENTS:

COMMUNITY RECOGNITION COMMISSION
RMC Chapter 2.36 & 2.45
Four-Year Term

Appointee Term Expires
Bonnie Neumann 6/30/2030
Michelle Sutherland 6/30/2030
Michele Vass 6/30/2030

PLANNING COMMISSION
RMC Chapter 2.36 & 2.40
Four-Year Term

Appointee Term Expires
Twianna Armstrong 6/30/2030
Michael Barron 6/30/2030
Jared Thomas 6/30/2030

18 City Council
Staff Report

Subject:

Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act Plan Change Date:

August 25, 2026
Submitted By:

Meagan Bushey, Administrative Services Manager
Tameka Usher, Administrative Services Director
Department:

Administrative Services - Human Resources
Recommendation:

Background:

The City participates in the CalPERS medical program, which is governed under California Government Code Section 22920 and subject to the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA). Among other requirements, PEMHCA mandates equal employer contributions for active employees and retirees.

Staff has conducted extensive research on ways to improve medical benefits for active employees and to reduce financial exposure associated with retiree medical costs.

On August
11, 2026, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) transitioning AFSCME Council 57, Local 146 AFL-CIO, representing Rocklin Public Services Employees Bargaining Unit, to the PEMHCA minimum.

The City negotiated a second tier for retiree
medical contributions for AFSCME Council 57, Local 146 AFL-CIO, representing Rocklin Public Services Employees Bargaining Unit, providing that the the new second tier applies to new hires effective July 1, 2026, and does not affect current employees or retirees. The City is transitioning the health contribution from the prior $1,200 per month contribution to the PEMHCA minimum contribution. Transitioning to the PEMHCA minimum, currently $162 per month and increasing to $167 per month in the 2027 benefit year, gives the City the flexibility to increase the medical contribution (up to 100% of the Kaiser Employee + one premium for the calendar year 2026) into a cafeteria plan for active employees without affecting the contribution to retirees.

California Government Code Section 22892(a) requires that the City Council approve any change to the employer contribution amount through a resolution.

Item Number C3.

19 Fiscal Impact:

There is no direct fiscal impact from the staff recommendation. The estimated annual fiscal impact for AFSCME, approximately $379,000, was addressed during the approval of the AFSCME MOU and is included in the Fiscal Year 2026/27 Operating Budget.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution
20 Resolution No. 2026- August 25, 2026 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN

FIXING THE EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES’ MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT AT AN

EQUAL AMOUNT FOR EMPLOYEES AND ANNUITANTS

WHEREAS, the City of Rocklin is a contracting agency under Government Code Section 22920 and subject to the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (the “Act” or “PEMHCA”)); and

WHEREAS, Government Code Section 22892(a) provides that a contracting agency subject to the Act shall fix the amount of the employer contribution by resolution; and

WHEREAS, Government Code Section 22892(b) provides that the employer contribution shall be an equal amount for both employees and annuitants, but may not be less than the amount prescribed by Section 22892(b) of the Act;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rocklin

a) That the employer contribution for each employee or annuitant shall be the amount necessary to pay the full cost of their enrollment, including the enrollment for family members, in a health benefits plan up to a maximum of:

Medical Group Monthly Employer Health
Contribution
001 Management PEMHCA Minimum (no change)
002 Confidential PEMHCA Minimum (no change)
003 Public Service (Misc.) PEMHCA Minimum
004 Police PEMHCA Minimum (no change)
005 Fire PEMHCA Minimum (no change)
006 Hourly PEMHCA Minimum (no change)
008 Unrepresented PEMHCA Minimum (no change)
014 Public Safety Managers PEMHCA Minimum (no change)

plus administrative fees and Contingency Reserve Fund assessments; and be it further resolved

b) City of Rocklin has fully complied with any and all applicable provisions of Government Code Section 7507 in electing the benefits set forth above; and be it further resolved

c) That the participation of the employees and annuitants of City of Rocklin shall be subject to determination of its status as an “agency or 21 Resolution No. 2026- August 25, 2026 2 of 2
instrumentality of the state of political subdivision of a State” that is eligible to participate in a governmental plan within the meaning of Section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, upon publication of final Regulations pursuant to such Section. If it is determined that that City of Rocklin would not qualify as an agency or instrumentality of the state or political subdivision of a State under such final Regulations, CalPERS may be obligated, and reserves the right to terminate the hea lth coverage of all participants of the employer; and be it further resolved

d) That the City Council (executive body ) appoint and direct, and it does hereby appoint and direct, the City Manager to file with the CalPERS Board a verified copy of this resolution, and to perform on behalf of the City of Rocklin all functions required of it under the Act; and be it further resolved

e) That coverage under the Act be effective on January 1, 2027.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of August 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

David Bass, Mayor

ATTEST:

Avinta Singh, City Clerk

EMPLOYEES
22 City Council
Staff Report

Subject:

Intention to Annex Placer Creek Apartments into Community Facilities District No. 1
Date:

August 25, 2026
Submitted By:

Megan Bressem, Management Analyst
Daniel Choe, Administrative Services Deputy Director
Department:

Administrative Services - Finance
Recommendation:

Background:

Placer Creek Apartments, APN 017-084-012-000, is a multi-family residential development located southeast of the intersection of Whitney Ranch Parkway and University Avenue. The annexation map is included as Attachment 2. The development of Placer Creek Apartments is conditioned on, among other things, annexation into Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 1.

CFD No. 1 provides financing for the operation and maintenance of fire protection and suppression services and paramedic services. The landowners have submitted a petition and waiver letter for CFD No. 1 (Attachment 3), which requests the annexation to occur and waives some of the procedural requirements for processing the annexation. With the petitions and waivers, the City Council may adopt the resolution of intention (Attachment 1) at this meeting, and proceed with the public hearing and election, and order the annexation at its meeting on October 13, 2026.

Fiscal Impact:

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

Annexation into CFD No. 1 would allow special taxes to be levied and collected to pay for services provided to the annexation territory.

Item Number C4.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Annexation Map

3. Waiver of Notice Letter
23 Resolution No. 2026- August 25, 2026 Page 1 of 2
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN

OF INTENTION TO ANNEX TERRITORY TO ROCKLIN COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1 (ANNEXATION NO. 97) AND TO

AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES THEREIN
(Placer Creek Apartments, APN 017-084-012-000)

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

Section 1. The City Council finds that there exists in the City of Rocklin a district known as Rocklin Community Facilities District No. 1 (the "CFD") formed and established pursuant to Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code (Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Government Code section 53311 et seq. (the "Act")).

Section 2. The City Council further finds that the public convenience and necessity require that certain territory be added to the CFD.

Section 3. The territory included in the existing CFD is as shown on the amended maps thereof filed in Book 1 of Maps of Community Facilities Districts to which maps reference is hereby made. The territory proposed to be annexed to the CFD is as shown on the Annexation M ap No. 97 to the CFD on file with the City Clerk, the boundaries of which territory are hereby preliminarily approved and to which map reference is hereby made for further particulars. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause to be recorded in the office of the Placer County Recorder the Annexation Map No. 97 to the CFD, showing the territory to be annexed, within fifteen days of the date of adopting of this resolution. Said territory is commonly known as Placer Creek Apartments.

Section 4. The public services authorized for the existing CFD are fire protection and suppression services and ambulance and paramedic services. The services to be provided in the territory proposed to be annexed to the CFD are fire protection and suppression services and ambulance and paramedic services as described in section 3 of Resolution No. 86 -102 adopted by the Council on May 27, 1986 ("Resolution of Formation"). It is presently intended that the public services shall be shared without preference or priority by the existing territory in the CFD and the territory proposed to be annexed to the CFD.

Section 5. Except where funds are otherwise available, a special tax sufficient to pay for all such services will be annually levied and collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes on each building within the territory proposed to be annexed to the CFD at the following rates:

a) Single family detached: $274.00
b) Condominium: $274.00
c) Multi-family with up to four units: $411.00
24 Resolution No. 2026- August 25, 2026 Page 2 of 2
1 d) Multi-family with five or more units: $861.14
e) Commercial: $358.81
f) Light industrial: $430.58

Section 6. Beginning July 1, 202 7 and each July 1 thereafter, the maximum annual tax rates assigned to each building category shall be increased to an amount equal to 103% of the amount in effect in the prior year.

Section 7. No alteration in the special tax rate authorized to be levied in the existing CFD shall be made as a result of the proposed annexation.

Section 8. A public hearing on the matter of the proposed annexation to Rocklin Community Facilities District No. 1, and for consideration and final determination of whether the public interest, convenience and necessity require the annexation of territory to the CFD and the levy of special taxes therein, shall be held on October 13, 2026, at 6:00 P.M. in the City of Rocklin Council Chambers, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, California.

Section 9. The City Clerk is hereby directed to give notice of the hearing in accordance with sections 53339.4, 53322 and 53322.4 of the Act by publication in the Placer Herald once at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing and by first -class mail to each registered voter and each landowner within the territory proposed to be annexed to the CFD at least 15 days before the hearing. The notice shall be substantially in the form specified in section 53339.4 of the Act.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of August, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

________________________________
David Bass, Mayor

ATTEST:

____________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk
25 WHITNEY RANCH PARKWAY
APN: 017-084-012-000
NOTE:

CITY CLERK'S STATEMENT__________ _________________________ _____________________________________ RECORDER'S STATEMENT______ _______________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________

CITY COUNCIL'S STATEMENT
__________ _____________________________ ________________________________________________________________ PLACER CREEK APARTMENTSANNEXATION MAP NO. 97 OFCOMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1BOOK OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS, PAGE

RSC ENGINEERING
ANNEXATION AREA10.041± ACRES
N.T.S.ORTHN
SITE

UNIVERSITY AVENUESAGITTARIA CIRCLE

BENGAL LOOP
26 27
28 City Council
Staff Report

Subject:

Intention to Annex Placer Creek Apartments into Community Facilities District No. 5
Date:

August 25, 2026
Submitted By:

Megan Bressem, Management Analyst
Daniel Choe, Administrative Services Deputy Director
Department:

Administrative Services - Finance
Recommendation:

Background:

Placer Creek Apartments, APN 017-084-012-000, is a multi-family residential development and is located southeast of the intersection of Whitney Ranch Parkway and University Avenue.

The annexation map is included as Attachment 2. The development of Placer Creek Apartments is conditioned on, among other things, annexation into Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 5. CFD No. 5 finances the operation and maintenance of publicly owned parks, parkways, landscaping and street/parkway lighting. The rate and method of apportionment of the special tax levy to pay for the services provided to the annexation territory is included as Exhibit A to the Resolution of Intention (Attachment 1). The landowners have submitted petition and waiver letters for CFD No. 5 (Attachment 3), which requests the annexation to occur and waives some of the procedural requirements for processing the annexation. With the petitions and waivers, the City Council may adopt the Resolution at this meeting, and proceed with the public hearing and election, and order the annexation at its meeting on October 13, 2026.

Fiscal Impact:

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

Annexation into CFD No. 5 would allow special taxes to be levied and collected to pay for services provided to the annexation territory.

Item Number C5.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution and Exhibit A

2. Annexation Map

3. Waiver of Notice Letter
29 Resolution No. 2026- August 25, 2026 Page 1 of 2

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN

OF INTENTION TO ANNEX TERRITORY TO ROCKLIN COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 5 (ANNEXATION NO. 82) AND TO

AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES THEREIN
(Placer Creek Apartments, APN 017-084-012-000)

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

Section 1. The City Council finds that there exists in the City of Rocklin a district known as Rocklin Community Facilities District No. 5 (the "CFD") formed and established pursuant to Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code (Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Government Code section 53311 et seq. (the "Act")).

Section 2. The City Council further finds that the public convenience and necessity require that certain territory be added to the CFD.

Section 3. The territory included in the existing CFD is as shown on the amended maps thereof filed in Book 3 of Maps of Community Facilities Districts to which maps reference is hereby made. The territory proposed to be annexed to the CFD is as shown on the Annexation Map No. 82 to the CFD on file with the City Clerk, the boundaries of which territory are hereby preliminarily approved and to which map reference is hereby made for further particulars. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause to be recorded in the office of the Placer County Recorder the Annexation Map No. 82 to the CFD, showing the territory to be annexed, within fifteen days of the date of adopting of this resolution. Said territory is commonly known as Placer Creek Apartments.

Section 4. The public services authorized for the existing CFD are operation and maintenance of publicly owned parks, parkways, landscaping and street/parkway lighting. The services to be provided in the territory proposed to be annexed to the CFD are operation and maintenance of publicly owned parks, parkways, landscaping and street/parkway lighting as described in section 3 of Resolution No. 96-255 adopted by the Council on October 8, 1996, ("Resolution of Formation") , together with drainage and waterway maintenance, open spaces and park trail maintenance, roadway maintenance, maintenance of signalized intersections and safety lighting, roadway landscaping and associated signage and infrastructure. It is presently in tended that the public services shall be shared without preference or priority by the existing territory in the CFD and the territory proposed to be annexed to the CFD , while the additional services described above shall be provided without preference or priority within the territory proposed to be annexed to the CFD as described herein and to other territory annexed to the CFD in the future, as and to the extent described in any proceedings related thereto.

Section 5. Except where funds are otherwise available, a special tax sufficient to pay for all such services will be annually levied and collected in the same manner as 30 Resolution No. 2026- August 25, 2026 Page 2 of 2

ordinary ad valorem property taxes within the territory proposed to be annexed to the CFD as set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax, incorporated herein by reference. The special tax shall be levied pursuant to the applicable ordinances previously adopted by the Council for the CFD.

Section 6. No alteration in the special tax rate authorized to be levied in the existing CFD shall be made as a result of the proposed annexation.

Section 7. A public hearing on the matter of the proposed annexation to Rocklin Community Facilities District No. 5, and for consideration and final determination of whether the public interest, convenience and necessity require the annexation of territory to the C FD and the levy of special taxes therein, shall be held on October 13, 2026 at 6:00 P.M. in the City of Rocklin Council Chambers, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, California.

Section 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to give notice of the hearing in accordance with sections 53339.4, 53322 and 53322.4 of the Act by publication in the Placer Herald once at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing and by first -class mail to each registered voter and each landowner within the territory proposed to be annexed to the CFD at least 15 days before the hearing. The notice shall be substantially in the form specified in section 53339.4 of the Act.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25
th day of August, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

____________________________________
David Bass, Mayor
ATTEST:

____________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk

Page 1 ends

to Reso. No. 2026-

EXHIBIT A

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 5 - ANNEXATION NO. 82 (Placer Creek Apartments)

A. Purpose for the Special Tax.

The annual special tax shall be levied by the City on each parcel within the Rocklin Community Facilities District No. 5 – Annexation No. 82 (Placer Creek Apartments) (the “CFD”) as shown on the Placer County Assessor's records, based on the apportionment procedure specified herein for the purpose of paying for authorized public services.

B. Determination of Parcels Subject to the Special Tax.

The basis for determining the parcels subject to the special tax will be the equalized property tax roll produced by the County Assessor of Placer County. The following parcels shall be exempt from the special tax:

1. All parcels which are designated to be owned or which are owned by federal, state, the City and local governments or any public agency at the time of the approval of the special tax and all parcels designated in whole as wetlands, and/or open space by the City.

Parcels originally designated for such public uses but which are redesignated or rezoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use in the future, shall become subject to the special tax. Any parcel zoned residential, commercial, or industrial which i s rezoned to an excluded category, shall continue to be taxed at up to the maximum annual tax originally assigned to the parcel.

C. Definitions.

"Administration Expenses" means the cost associated with the administration of the Community Facilities District. Administration costs may include, but are not limited to the cost of tax collection, legal fees, legal notices, direct labor, indirect cost allocations, and contract services.

"Administrator" means the person or firm designated by the City to administer the special tax according to this rate and method of apportionment of special tax.

"Annual Special Tax Requirement" means the amount necessary each year to pay for the activities of the Facilities District No. 5, Annexation No. 82 (Placer Creek Apartments).

"Annual Special Tax" means the amount of tax levied each year on each parcel.

Page 2 ends

to Reso. No. 2026-
"CFD" means Rocklin Community Facilities District No. 5.

"City" means the City of Rocklin.

"Commercial Lot" means any Final Lot which is not a Single- Family Lot or Multi -Family Lot.

"Council" means the City Council of the City of Rocklin.

"Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU)" is defined as follows:

Single Family Unit 1 EDU
Multi-family Unit .63 EDU
Commercial Lot (all non-residential) 3 EDU/acre
Undeveloped Property 3 EDU/acre

"Final Lot" means any lot subdivided down to its ultimate size consistent with its zone as approved by the City pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code §66410, et seq.) and for which a building permit may be issued. For all lots exclusive of single family dwelling lots, the lots of a parcel will not become a "Final Lot" until at least one building permit has been applied for and issued for construction of a structure on that parcel.

"Fiscal Year" means July 1 to June 30 of any year.

"Maximum Annual Special Tax" means the maximum special tax that can be levied against a parcel in any year.

"Maximum Annual Tax for Final Lots" means $ 176.37 per EDU, adjusted annually for inflation by a factor of 4%.

"Maximum Annual Tax for Undeveloped Property" means $ 529.10 per acre, adjusted annually for inflation by a factor of 4%.

"Multi-Family Lot" means a Final Lot used or designated for use as multi -family housing units.

"Single-Family Lot" means any Final Lot used or designated for use as a single-family unit or duplex.

"Special Tax Requirement" means the amount necessary in any fiscal year to pay for the authorized services set forth in the Resolution of Intention, and to cure any delinquencies in the payment of special taxes levied in prior years or (based on delinquencies in the payment of special taxes which have already taken place) are expected to occur in the fiscal year in which the tax will be collected.

Page 3 ends

to Reso. No. 2026-
"Undeveloped Property" means all property which is not a final lot.

D. Calculating the Maximum Annual Special Tax.

The Maximum Annual Special Tax for each Final Lot and Undeveloped Property shall be calculated as follows:

Step 1 Identify all Final Lots in the CFD and determine if the Final Lot is a single family lot, a Multi-Family Lot or a Commercial Lot.

Step 2 a) For each Single Family Lot identified in Step 1, apply the Maximum Annual Tax for Final Lots.

b) For each Multi -Family Lot identified in Step 1, apply the Maximum Annual Tax for Final Lots, multiplied by .63, and multiplied again by the number of dwelling units approved or built on each multi -family lot.

c) For each Commercial Lot identified in Step 1, multiply the acreage within the Commercial Lot by 3 , and multiply the result by the Maximum Annual Tax for Final Lots.

Step 3 Identify all Undeveloped Property by acreage.

Step 4 Apply the Maximum Annual Tax Rate for Undeveloped Property to each acre of undeveloped property identified in Step 3.

E Changes to the Maximum Annual Tax.

Beginning July 1, 202 7 and each July 1, thereafter, the maximum annual tax shall be increased by 4%.

F. Apportionment and Levy of Special Tax.

Commencing with fiscal year 2027/28 and for each following fiscal year, the administrator shall determine the annual special tax requirement for the CFD by applying the following steps. Based on the administrator's determination, the special tax will be levied.

Step 5 Identify the total Special Tax Requirement to be paid in the fiscal year for which the special tax is being calculated.

Step 6 For each Final Lot, determine the number of EDUs for that lot by applying the appropriate land use factor shown in the table above.

Step 7 Add all EDUs determined in Step 6.

Page 4 ends

to Reso. No. 2026-
Step 8 Divide the total Special Tax Requirement by the total number of EDUs to determine the annual tax per EDU and multiply that amount times the number of EDUs in each Final Lot applying the appropriate land use factor.

Step 9 If the amount calculated in Step 8 is less than or equal to the Maximum Annual Tax for Final Lots, then that amount shall be levied on all Final Lots.

If the amount calculated in Step 8 is more than the maximum annual tax, the maximum annual tax should be levied on all final lots.

If the total amount of tax available after taxing all Final Lots at the Maximum Annual Tax for Final Lots is less than the Special Tax Requirement, then that difference shall be collected by an assessment against the Undeveloped Property.

Step 10 Subtract the total amount of tax available after taxing all Final Lots at the Maximum Annual Tax for Final Lots from the Special Tax Requirement.

Step 11 Determine the total number of acres of Undeveloped Property.

Step 12 Divide the remaining Special Tax Requirement from Step 10 by the total number of acres of Undeveloped Property to arrive at the annual tax per acre of Undeveloped Property and the levy that amount against each acre of Undeveloped Property, up to the Maximum Annual Tax for Undeveloped Property.

G. Manner of Collection.

The special taxes for the CFD shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes.

The following parcels, and any subsequent parcels stemming from the following parcels, are included with the Community Facilities District No. 5 – Annexation No. 82 APN 017- 084-012-000.
35 NOTES:

CITY COUNCIL'S STATEMENT
__________ _____________________________ ________________________________________________________________

BOOK OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS, PAGE

RSC ENGINEERING

WHITNEY RANCH PARKWAY
N.T.S.ORTHN
SITE

UNIVERSITY AVENUESAGITTARIA CIRCLE

BENGAL LOOP
PLACER CREEK APARTMENTSANNEXATION MAP NO. 82 OFCOMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 5 APN: 017-084-012-000ANNEXATION AREA10.041± ACRES
36 37
38 City Council
Staff Report

Subject:

Wildcat West Notice of Completion of Public Improvements Date:

August 25, 2026
Submitted By:

Lynn Toth, Associate Civil Engineer
David Mohlenbrok, Community Development Director
Department:

Community Development
Recommendation:

Background:

The tentative subdivision map for Wildcat West Subdivision (SD2022-0001) was approved by the City Council on June 13, 2023 per Resolution No. 2023-88. This action authorized the subdivision of the approximately 8.6-acre site into 88 single-family residential lots, fourteen (14) lettered lots for landscaping and alleys and private streets to be dedicated to the Homeowner’s Association, and two (2) landscape lots to be dedicated to the City, as shown in Exhibit A of the Notice of Completion (Attachment 2).

The project is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Cheetah Way and Ocelot Way, and south of Whitney Ranch Parkway. The owner/applicant (i.e., developer) is KB Home Sacramento Inc., a California Corporation. The City's Engineering Division and Public Works Department have completed final inspections and found the work to be complete and in accordance with the plans and specifications. The project is now ready for acceptance.

Fiscal Impact:

Landscape Lots A and B are offered for dedication in fee to the City as shown on the final map, which will be maintained by the City upon recordation of a Notice of Completion. Maintenance costs for landscape Lots A and B will be funded through Community Facilities District No. 5.

Item Number C6.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Resolution Exhibit 1 - Notice of Completion with Exhibit A

3. Location Map
39 Resolution No. 2026- August 25, 2026 Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN

ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC WORK KNOWN AS WILDCAT WEST (SD-
2022-0001), APPROVING THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION, AND

AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE SENIOR ENGINEER TO

EXECUTE SAID NOTICE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
(KB Home Sacramento Inc., a California corporation)

WHEREAS, the Wildcat West subdivision project installed public improvements that are specified to be dedicated to the City, including City landscape Lot A and Lot B; and

WHEREAS, the City’s Engineering Division deems the work complete in accordance with the plans and specifications, and ready for acceptance.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rocklin does resolve as follows:

Section 1. The attached Notice of Completion (“Notice”) relative to that public work known as Wildcat West Subdivision Improvements (SD2022-0001), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “1” which consists of subdivision improvements and City landscape Lot A and Lot B, as identified in Exhibit “A” of the Notice, is hereby approved and the public work accepted.

Section 2. The Senior Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Notice on behalf of the City of Rocklin.

Section 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to record said Notice in the Office of the Placer County Recorder when fully executed and notarized.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of August, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

_________________________
David Bass, Mayor
ATTEST:

____________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk
40

Page 1 ends

To Reso No.

Exhibit “1”
Notice of Completion
41 Recording Requested by and Return to:

City Clerk
City of Rocklin
3970 Rocklin Road
Rocklin, CA 95677

No Fee Per Gov’t Code § 27383

NOTICE OF COMPLETION

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public work known as Wildcat West Subdivision Improvements (SD2022-0001) pursuant to final subdivision map of Wildcat West recorded in BK GG of Maps, Page 94 of the Records of Placer County is complete. The location of said project is indicated on the map attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference. The owner of said project is KB Home Sacramento Inc., a California corporation . The contractor on said project was Teichert Construction, and the surety on said project was Hartford Fire Insurance Company . The date of completion was July 14, 2026.

I, Larry M. Wing, being first duly sworn, depose and say: I am the Senior Engineer of the City of Rocklin, a general law city in the State of California, owner of the property described in the above Notice of Completion. I am duly authorized to make this verification for and on behalf of the City of Rocklin. I have read the Notice of Completion, and know its contents and the facts stated therein are true.

ATTEST:

__________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk
City of Rocklin

_____________________________________
Senior Engineer, City of Rocklin,
3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, California –
Owner of the Public Work Improvement

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: Signature:________________________________
Larry M. Wing
Senior Engineer, City of Rocklin
42 INSERT NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HERE
43 44
ATTACHMENT 3

LOCATION MAP
45 City Council
Staff Report

Subject:

SACOG Federal Funding Program Application
Date:

August 25, 2026
Submitted By:

David Mohlenbrok, Community Development Director
Department:

Community Development
Recommendation:

Background:

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the greater Sacramento region, which is a six-county region comprised of Sacramento, Yolo, Sutter, Yuba, Placer, and El Dorado counties. SACOG is also the transportation planning agency for the four-county sub-region of Sacramento, Yolo, Sutter, and Yuba counties (El Dorado County and Placer County both have their own transportation planning agencies).

SACOG plays a central role in funding transportation improvements throughout the region by administering federal Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds across three programs. For the first time, the 2026 funding cycle includes all six counties - El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba - marking a more comprehensive, region-wide approach. This competitive process now establishes performance-based funding targets for each county to ensure resources are distributed in line with regional priorities and measurable outcomes. Through its three core programs, Next Generation Solutions & Clean Air, System Performance, and System Preservation, SACOG directs federal funds to projects that improve mobility, enhance safety, support sustainability, and advance equity.

Following a review of City projects that could qualify for these grant funds, staff recommends submitting the following two projects through the System Performance Program:

1 .

Sunset Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project (Estimated Cost: $2.3 million) The proposed project would consist of streetscape improvements including sidewalk gap closure on the west side of Sunset Boulevard between Coronado Way/Topaz Item Number C7.

46 Avenue to the approved Whitney Walk development, new Class II bike lanes, streetlights, and bulb-outs with ADA ramps at the Coronado Way and Topaz Avenue intersection. This project will enhance safety for cyclists and pedestrians by providing sidewalks and bike lanes where they currently do not exist along Sunset Boulevard. 2 .

Farron Street At-Grade Railroad Roadway and Pedestrian Improvements Project (Estimated Cost: $2.8 million)
The proposed project would include pedestrian improvements on Farron Street between Front Street and Pacific Street adjacent to the existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crossing, including new sidewalk, concrete curb and gutter, pavement rehabilitation, fencing, signing, striping, and the installation of new crossing panels at the existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crossing. These improvements are necessary to reduce exposure to train conflicts, support safe multimodal travel, and provide continuous, ADA- compliant pedestrian improvements along with enhanced safety features where they currently do not exist along Farron Street.

As part of the application process, SACOG requires the project sponsor to acknowledge the federal funding obligations associated with the program, including providing the required local matching funds, complying with federal and regional project delivery requirements, attending project delivery meetings if funding is awarded, and accepting responsibility for project costs exceeding the awarded funding.

Adoption of the attached resolution satisfies these application requirements and authorizes the City Manager to submit the applications and execute all required grant documents if funding is awarded.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no direct financial impact associated with this action at this point. Should the City be awarded grant funding for any of these projects, the City would be required to provide local matching funds of approximately 11.47 percent of the amount granted. Once any of the projects are awarded grant funding, staff will return to the City Council to identify the source of the required match and accept the grant if approved.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution
47 Resolution No. 2026- August 25, 2026 Page 1 of 3

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN AUTHORIZING

APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT FUNDING FROM THE SACRAMENTO
AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SACOG) 2026 FEDERAL
FUNDING PROGRAMS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
SUBMIT CITY OF ROCKLIN SACOG 2026 FEDERAL FUNDING
PROGRAM APPLICATION PRIORITIES; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL GRANT DOCUMENTS AND TIMELY

PROJECT DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS

WHEREAS, the Sacramento A rea Council of Governments (SACOG) has announced three 2026 Federal Funding Cycle Programs (Funding Programs), which are open to sponsoring agencies within the six-county SACOG region: System Preservation Program, System Performance Program, and Next Gener ation Solutions & Clean Air Program; and

WHEREAS, the System Performance Program funds projects that improve how the transportation system functions day -to-day, including roadway and safety improvements, transit upgrades, EV charging, new bike and pedest rian connections, mobility hubs, and smart-transportation technologies that help manage traffic and improve reliability; and

WHEREAS, eligible projects for Funding Programs must be listed in the 2025 Blueprint or fit within 2025 Blueprint lump-sum project categories including but not limited to road maintenance and reconstruction, transit vehicle replacements, operational improvements, Intelligent Transportation Systems, and bicycle and pedestrian investments; and

WHEREAS, SACOG limits Funding Programs grant applications to no more than three applications per sponsoring agency for any one of the three different Funding Programs to SACOG, up to a maximum of nine total applications per sponsoring agency; and

WHEREAS, applicants shall affirm their commitment to delivering projects in accordance with the requirements of Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program and Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program, as applicable; and

WHEREAS, grant proposals for construction work shall obligate Funding Program dollars for construction activities no later than the end of federal fiscal year 2028-29.

WHEREAS, SACOG will not provide additional federal or state funding in the event that cost overruns are identified; and

48 Resolution No. 2026- August 25, 2026 Page 2 of 3

WHEREAS, project sponsors shall commit to providing local matching dollars, typically 11.47% of the total project cost; and

WHEREAS, SACOG requires that if awarded federal funds by the SACOG Board, City of Rocklin staff responsible for project delivery must attend quarterly project delivery meetings with SACOG staff to receive assistance until project closeout; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Rocklin as follows:

Section 1. The City Manager is authorized to execute all documents necessary to committing the City of Rocklin to federal, state and regional funding and project delivery requirements, including but not limited to abiding by Funding Program guidelines.

Section 2. Acknowledges that in the event of receiving an award by the SACOG Board of Funding Program dollars, that the City of Rocklin will be required to abide by multiple timely use of funding requirements described in Funding Program guidelines and SACOG’s Regional Delivery Policies, including but not limited to, obligating federal funding no later than the end of federal fiscal year 2028-2029 for construction activities, committing to securing required local match dollars, acknowledge that SACOG does not cover co st overruns, and commits staff to attend delivery meetings until project closeout.

Section 3. The City Manager is directed to submit the following applications for 2026 Six-County Federal Funding Cycle Programs.

1. Sunset Boulevard Sidewalk Gap Closure Project: Streetscape Improvement including sidewalk gap closure on the west side of Sunset Boulevard between Coronado Way/Topaz Avenue to the approved Whitney Walk development, new Class II bike lanes, streetlights, an d bulb-outs with ADA ramps at the Coronado Way/Topaz Avenue intersection.

2. Farron Street At -Grade Railroad Roadway and Pedestrian Improvements:

Pedestrian improvements on Farron Street between Front Street and Pacific Street including new sidewalk, concre te curb and gutter, pavement rehabilitation, fencing, signing, and striping, including installation of new crossing panels at the existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crossing.

49 Resolution No. 2026- August 25, 2026 Page 3 of 3

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of August, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

David Bass, Mayor

ATTEST:

_________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk

50 City Council
Staff Report

Subject:

Sunset Whitney Connector Bridge Mitigation Bank Credits – Delegation of Acquisition Authority to City Manager
Date:

August 25, 2026
Submitted By:

David Mohlenbrok, Community Development Director
Department:

Community Development
Recommendation:

Background:

On June 24, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-137, approving the 2026- 2031 Capital Improvement Program, which included the Monument Springs Drive Roadway and Bridge Improvements Project and the Sunset Whitney Connector Bridge Project. The Monument Springs Drive Roadway and Bridge Improvements Project will create a roadway connection across Secret Ravine that would connect China Garden Road to Greenbrae Road.

The Sunset Whitney Connector Bridge project will create a safe and reliable pedestrian crossing point over Antelope Creek, connecting Johnson Springview Community Park with the greater trail system associated with the Sunset Whitney Recreation Area.

Both projects are currently in the design and environmental permitting stage. Because both projects will impact riparian woodland habitat as a result of their construction, the City is required to obtain a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1602. The SAAs for both the Monument Springs Drive Roadway and Bridge Improvements project and the Sunset Whitney Connector Bridge project has been issued by CDFW.

As a component of the SAAs, there is a section that identifies the City’s obligation to compensate for the projects’ adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources, in this case riparian woodland habitat. For the Monument Springs Drive Roadway and Bridge Improvements and the Sunset Whitney Connector Bridge projects, the City’s compensation requirement is to purchase 0.46 acre and 0.15 acre of credits, respectively, of riparian woodland habitat from a CDFW-approved mitigation bank.

Item Number C8.

51 On June 23, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-099, approving and authorizing the City Manager to purchase the necessary mitigation bank credits as described above. Subsequently, CDFW indicated to staff that the previously contemplated mitigation bank was not an acceptable mitigation bank due to the type of mitigation credits available at that bank, and directed staff to find a more appropriate mitigation bank. Staff has worked with the project consultants to identify a more appropriate mitigation bank, and CDFW has tentatively approved that the new mitigation bank provides the correct type of mitigation credits. Staff is continuing to negotiate with CDFW on the amount of mitigation credits needed for the Monument Springs Drive Roadway and Bridge Improvements project, so at this time staff’s recommendation for the authorization to purchase the mitigation credits is only for the Sunset Whitney Connector Bridge project. The authorization for the purchase of mitigation credits for the Monument Springs Drive Roadway and Bridge Improvements project will be brought to the City Council at a later date.

As a result of having to identify a new mitigation bank that has the necessary type of available credits, the proposed purchase of the mitigation bank credits has resulted in increased costs beyond what was approved, and therefore Resolution No. 2026-099 is recommended to be repealed. For the identified mitigation bank, the cost to purchase an acre of riparian woodland habitat is $450,000/acre, which will require a payment of $67,500 for the 0.15 acre mitigation bank credits needed for the Sunset Whitney Connector Bridge project.

To facilitate the City’s purchase of the necessary mitigation bank credits, staff recommends the City Council delegate authority to the City Manager for the acquisition of mitigation bank credits for the Sunset Whitney Connector Bridge project.

Fiscal Impact:

Sufficient funds are available to support the staff recommendation, as the Project (No. 40035) is included in the adopted 2026-2031 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and funded in the Fiscal Years 2025/26 & 2026/27 Operating Budget.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution
52 Resolution No. 2026- August 25, 2026 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN
REPEALING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2026-099 AND

APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF

MITIGATION BANK CREDITS FOR THE SUNSET WHITNEY

CONNECTOR BRIDGE PROJECT

WHEREAS, the Sunset Whitney Connector Bridge project is part of the adopted City of Rocklin 2026-2031 Capital Improvement Program;

WHEREAS, the project is currently undergoing design and environmental permitting, and because of the project’s impacts to riparian woodland habitat, the need to obtain a California Department of Fish and Wildlife Streambed Alteration Agreement has been identified;

WHEREAS, the Streambed Alteration Agreement and Riparian Mitigation Plan for the project require s the City of Rocklin compensate for the loss of riparian woodland habitat by purchasing mitigation credits from a California Department of Fish and Wildlife approved mitigation bank in the amount of $67,500 for the Sunset Whitney Connector Bridge project;

WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority to delegate various functions to the City Manager; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it would be efficient and advantageous to have the City Manager perform certain administrative functions relating to the purchase of mitigation credits for the Sunset Whitney Connector Bridge project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rocklin as follows:

Section 1. The City Council hereby approves and authorizes the City Manager to approve the Purchase and Sale Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the purchase of mitigation credits for the Sunset Whitney Connector Bridge project in an amount not to exceed $67,500, and to execute all necessary documents to complete the purchase.

53 Resolution No. 2026- August 25, 2026 2 of 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of August, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

_________________________
David Bass, Mayor

ATTEST:

____________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk

54 City Council
Staff Report

Subject:

City of Rocklin Fire Department's State Mandated Annual Fire Inspection Report
Date:

August 25, 2026
Submitted By:

Ryan Brayton, Deputy Fire Chief
Reginald Williams, Fire Chief
Department:

Fire
Recommendation:

Background:

In 2018 California Senate Bill 1205 (SB1205) became effective, and added a new section to the California Health and Safety Code affecting every fire department and fire district in the State. SB1205 requires every fire department or district providing fire protection services to annually inspect all public and private schools, hotels, motels, lodging houses, and apartment buildings. Fire departments and fire districts shall annually report their compliance to Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the Health and Safety Code to their administrating authority.

The Rocklin Fire Department conducted inspections of 42 Group E Occupancies (public and private schools) and 61 Group R Occupancies (hotels, motels, lodging, etc.) during the 2025/26 fiscal year, as identified in Exhibits A and B to the Resolution.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact to the staff recommendation.

Item Number C9.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Resolution Exhibit A - Group E Occupancies

3. Resolution Exhibit B - Group R Occupancies
55 Resolution No. 2026- August 25, 2026 Page 1 of 2

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN
ACKNOWLEDGING THE CITY OF ROCKLIN FIRE DEPARTMENT’S
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 13146.2 AND 13146.3 OF

THECALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE

WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Section 13146.4 requires all fire departments that provide fire protection services to report annually to its administering authority the compliance with performing inspections required by Health and Safety Code sections 13146.2 and 13146.3; and

WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 require all fire departments that provide fire protection services to perform annual inspections in every public or private school, hotel, motel, lodging house, and apartment building for compliance with building standards; and

WHEREAS, the City of Rocklin Fire Department has conducted all 42 Group E (school) and 61 Group R (hotel, motel, lodging, etc.) State mandated occupancy inspections for Fiscal Year 2025-2026; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of Rocklin intends this Resolution to fulfill the requirements of the California Health and Safety Code regarding acknowledgment of receipt of the Rocklin Fire Department’s Annual Fire Inspection Report as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 13146.4.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rocklin as follows:

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

Section 2. The City Council of the City of Rocklin hereby acknowledges receipt of the Rocklin Fire Department’s Annual Fire Inspection Report for fiscal year 202 5-2026, attached hereto collectively as Exhibits “A” and “B,” demonstrating the Fire Department’s compliance with the requirements set forth in Health and Safety Code sections 13146.2 and 13146.3.

56 Resolution No. 2026- August 25, 2026 Page 2 of 2

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of August, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

____________________________________
David Bass, Mayor
ATTEST:

____________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk

57 Exhibit A
Rocklin Fire Department, FY 25/26 Completed State Required Inspections

GROUP E OCCUPANCIES (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS)

Page | 1

School/Site Inspected Inspection Date
1 Antelope Creek Elementary
6185 Springview Drive 95677 10/22/2025
2 Breen Elementary
2751 Breen Drive 95765 10/31/2025
3 California International School
2213 Sunset Boulevard, 95765 11/04/2025
4 Catalyst Kids- Rocklin ES
5025 Meyers St 95677 10/09/2025
5 Catalyst Kids- Cobblestone ES
5740 Cobblestone Dr 95677 10/06/2025
6 Catalyst Kids- Valley View ES
3000 Crest Dr 95677 10/29/2025
7 Catalyst Kids- Parker Whitney ES
5145 Topaz Ave Bldg E3 95677 10/10/2025
8 Catalyst Kids- Breen ES
2751 Breen Dr Bldg 33 95765 10/31/2025
9 Catalyst Kids- Rock Creek ES
2140 Collet Quarry Dr 95765 10/16/2025
10 Catalyst Kids- Quarry Trails ES
810 Lazy Trail Dr 95765 10/23/2025
11 Catalyst Kids- Sunset Ranch ES
2500 Bridlewood Dr 95765 10/29/2025
12 Catalyst Kids- Twin Oaks ES
2835 Club Dr 95765 11/13/2025
13 Catalyst Kids- Ruhkala ES
6530 Turnstone Way 95765 10/20/2025
14 Catalyst Kids- Antelope Creek ES
6185 Springview Dr 95677 10/22/2025
15 Catalyst Kids- Sierra ES
6811 Camborne Way 95677 10/13/2025
16 Cobblestone Elementary
5740 Cobblestone Drive 95765 10/06/2025
17 Kaleidoscope Enrichment
5425 Coronado Way, 95677 10/16/2025
18 Granite Oaks Middle School
2600 Wyckford Drive 95765 10/23/2025
19 Destiny Christian School
6900 Destiny Drive 95677 10/30/2025
School/Site Inspected Inspection Date
20 Maria Montessori
1850 Wildcat Boulevard 95765 10/28/2025
21 Parker Whitney Elementary
5145 Topaz Avenue 95677 10/10/2025
22 Quarry Trails Elementary
810 Lazy Trail Drive, 95765 10/23/2025
23 Rock Creek Elementary
2140 Collet Quarry Drive 95765 10/16/2025
24 Rocklin Academy Gateway
6550 Lonetree Boulevard 95765 10/21/2025
25 Rocklin Elementary
5025 Meyers Street 95677 10/09/2025
26 Rocklin High School
5301 Victory Lane 95765 10/15/2025
27 Ruhkala Elementary
6530 Turnstone Way 95765 10/20/2025
28 Sierra Elementary
6811 Camborne Way 95677 10/13/2025
29 Springview Middle School
5040 Fifth Street 95677 10/30/2025
30 Sunset Ranch Elementary
2500 Bridlewood Drive 95765 10/29/2025
31 TNT Kidz Center
4500 Tuttle Drive, 95677 11/06/2025
32 Twin Oaks Elementary School
2835 Club Drive 95765 11/13/2025
33 Valley View Elementary School
3000 Crest Drive 95765 10/29/2025
34 Victory High School
3250 Victory Drive 95765 10/15/2025
35 Western Sierra Collegiate Academy
660 Menlo Drive 95765 10/22/2025
36 Whitney High School
701 Wildcat Boulevard 95765 11/19/2025
37 Catalyst Kids- Rocklin ES
5025 Meyers St 95677 10/09/2025
38 Rocklin Academy Turnstone
6532 Turnstone Way 95765 10/28/2025
58 Exhibit A
Rocklin Fire Department, FY 25/26 Completed State Required Inspections

GROUP E OCCUPANCIES (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS)

Page | 2

39 Kids Park Daycare
6801 Five Star Blvd 95677 10/07/2025
40 Sierra College State Preschool
4745 Rocklin Rd 95677 10/14/2025
41 Acton Academy
4750 Grove St 95677 11/12/2025
42 Rocklin Montessori
5250 Fifth St 95677

01/07/2026

59 Exhibit B
Rocklin Fire Department, FY 25/26 Completed State Required Inspections

GROUP R OCCUPANCIES
(HOTELS, APARTMENTS, AND CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES)

HOTELS
Residential Group R-1
1 Comfort Inn & Suites
4420 Rocklin Road 95677 03/25/2026
2 Days Inn
4515 Granite Drive 95677 03/31/2026
3 Holiday Inn Express
6830 Five Star Boulevard 95677 04/27/2026
4 Rocklin Park Hotel
5450 China Garden Road 95677 04/09/2026
5 Staybridge Suites
6664 Lonetree Boulevard 95765 03/25/2026
6 Surestay Plus
4480 Rocklin Road 95677 04/01/2026

APARTMENTS
Residential Group R-2
7 Broadstone Apartments
2301 Sunset Boulevard 95765 03/13/2026
8 College Manor Apartments
4207 Racetrack Road 95677 03/30/2026
9 Creekside Village Apartments
5500 Aguilar Road 95677 04/22/2026
10 The Brighton Apartments
6050 Placer West Drive 95677 03/11/2026
11 Edgewood Apartments
5761 Shannon Bay Drive 95677 03/13/2026
12 Emerald Pointe Apartments
101 Gold Circle 95765 03/25/2026
13 Garnet Creek Apartments
5002 Jewel Street 95677 04/22/2026
14 AVA Apartments
1501 Cobble Creek Circle 95677 04/27/2026
15 The Everette Apartments
3300 Parkside Drive 95677 04/03/2026
16 Easton Apartments
5415 South Grove 95677 03/31/2026
17 The James Apartments
6201 West Oaks Boulevard 95765 03/27/2026
18 Lyn Roc Apartments
6105 Sunset Boulevard 95677 04/24/2026
19 Meridian Apartments
2121 Sunset Boulevard 95765 03/31/2026
20 Montessa
1150 Whitney Ranch Parkway
95765
04/30/2026
21 Oaks at Sunset I
201 Sammy Way 95765 03/05/2026
22 Oaks at Sunset II
2301 Sammy Way 95765 03/05/2026
23 Pacific Heights Apartments
4455 Pacific Street 95677 04/07/2026
24 Pacific Sunset Condos
2550 Sunset Boulevard 95677 02/06/2026
25 Placer West Apartments
6055 Placer West Drive 95677 03/11/2026
26 Quarry Oaks Apartments
3950 Evelyn Avenue 95677 04/14/2026
27 Rocklin Gold Apartments
2651 Sunset Boulevard 95677 03/09/2026
28 Rocklin Manor Apartments
5240 Rocklin Road 95677 04/22/2026
29 Rocklin Ranch Apartments
6601 Blue Oaks Boulevard
95765
04/30/2026
30 Rolling Oaks Apartments
5725 Shannon Bay Drive 95677 03/30/2026
31 Shaliko Apartments
5051 El Don Drive 95677 04/21/2026
32 Shannon Bay Apartments
5757 Shannon Bay Drive 95677 04/07/2026
33 Silver Oaks Apartments
5780 Springview Drive 95677 04/14/2026
34 Springview Oaks Apartments
5795 Springview Drive 95677 04/14/2026
35 The VUE at Rocklin Ridge
5902 Springview Drive 95677 03/05/2026
60 Exhibit B
Rocklin Fire Department, FY 25/26 Completed State Required Inspections

GROUP R OCCUPANCIES
(HOTELS, APARTMENTS, AND CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES)

36 Stanford Court Apartments
3220 Santa Fe Way 95765 03/26/2026
37 Stanford Heights Apartments
5801 Little Rock Road 95765 03/31/2026
38 Sunset Apartments
3655 Sunset Boulevard 95677 03/24/2026
39 Sunset Summit Apartments
2151 Sunset Boulevard 95765 03/26/2026
40 Sutter Ridge Apartments
5800 Woodside Drive 95677 03/24/2026
41 Vicara Condos
1240 Whitney Ranch Parkway 95765 03/10/2026
42 Villa Serena Apartments
101 Villa Serena Circle 95765 03/04/2026
43 Whitney Ranch Apartments
711 University Avenue 95765 03/05/2026
44 Winsted Apartments
101 Coppervale Circle 95765 03/04/2026
45 Second St Apartments
5085 Second St 95765 03/24/2026
46 Front St Apartments
5250 Front St 95765 03/24/2026
47 3350 Sunset Apartments
3350 Sunset 95765 03/30/2026
48 Sierra Gateway Apartments
5180 Rocklin Rd 95677 04/22/2026
49 5175 Second St Apartments
5175 Second St 95677 03/24/2026
50 Stanford Terraces
3339 Marlee Way 95765 03/16/2026
51 Terracina at Stanford Ranch
801 University 95765 03/27/2026

DORMITORIES

Residential Group R-2
52 Sierra College
5100 Sierra College Boulevard
95677
08/27/2025
53 Jessup University
2121 University Avenue 95765 04/03/2026

LARGE RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES
Residential Group R-2.1
54 Ansel Park Assisted Living
1200 Orchid Dr 95765 03/23/2026
55 Ansel Park Independent Living
1250 Orchid Dr 95765 03/23/2026
56 Atria Rocklin- Assisted Living
3201 Santa Fe Way 95765 03/24/2026
57 Atria Rocklin- Independent Living
3201 Santa Fe Way 95765 03/24/2026
58 Sunrise Assisted Living
6100 Sierra College Blvd 95677 04/23/2026
59 The Pines
500 W Ranch View Dr 95765 03/31/2026
60 The Villas- Assisted Living
1430 W Stanford Ranch Rd 95765 04/01/2026
61 The Villas- Independent Living
1450 W Stanford Ranch Rd 95765 04/01/2026

61 City Council
Staff Report

Subject:

California State Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant Award and Agreement
Date:

August 25, 2026
Submitted By:

Travis Pistochini, Fire Captain
Reginald Williams, Fire Chief
Department:

Fire
Recommendation:

Background:

The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) is the state’s designated highway safety office, awarding approximately 500 grants annually to state and local sub-recipients for innovative, evidence-based education and enforcement programs designed to improve the safety of everyone on California roads. Through federal funding made available to the states by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the OTS funds over $140 million for programs that address the state’s current and future traffic safety needs.

On January 30, 2026, the Rocklin Fire Department submitted a Grant Application (27-007465) to OTS for the Regional Crash Response and Extrication Improvement Program for the purchase of extrication equipment. The application highlighted the Fire Department’s goal for better patient outcomes from traffic collisions with reduced response time of specialized extrication equipment on scene, enhanced specialized training for firefighters, and the use of modern equipment. In addition, the application documented the phase out of rescue equipment parts and its aging tools.

On June 19, 2026, the authorizing officer of OTS accepted the City’s submittal and tentatively approved an award in the amount of $50,000 for the purchase of two sets of Combi-tools.

Combi-tools are hydraulically actuated, lightweight devises capable of cutting, spreading, pulling, and pinching, for use during extrication operations.

The Grant Agreement provided by
OTS to the City (Attachment 2) is submitted for City Council approval pending the Federal Government’s final funding award to OTS.

Item Number C10.

62 Fiscal Impact:

The grant does not require a City match. The proposed resolution includes the necessary budget authority to implement and administer the $50,000 grant within the Grant/Other Reimbursables Fund (Fund 275).

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Resolution Exhibit A - Grant Agreement
63 Resolution No. 2026- August 25, 2026 Page 1 of 2

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN

ACCEPTING AN AWARD FROM THE OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY (OTS)

FOR THE REGIONAL CRASH RESPONSE AND EXTRICATION

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER

TO EXECUTE THE GRANT AGREEMENT AND

NECESSARY GRANT DOCUMENTATION

WHEREAS, the State of California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), through grant funding made available to California by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), annually funds over $140 million in innovative, evidence- based education and enforcement programs designed to make California's roadways safer; and;

WHEREAS, OTS works with approximately 500 state and local agencies to make the most effective use of federal grant program funds; and

WHEREAS, on January 30, 2026 Rocklin Fire Department submitted a Grant Application to OTS for the Regional Crash Response and Extrication Improvement Program. The application complied with the guidance provided in the California Office of Traffic Safety Grant Program Manual; and

WHEREAS, on June 19, 2026 the authorizing officer of the Office of Traffic Safety accepted the City's submittal and tentatively approved an award to the City in the amount of $50,000 (attached hereto as Exhibit A Grant Agreement to the Resolution); and

WHEREAS, staff recommends the City Council approve the actions as set forth in this Resolution in in order to accept the final award from Office of Traffic Safety expected in September 2026, execute the Grant Agreement, and accept the Grant funding.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rocklin as follows:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Rocklin hereby ratifies the submission of Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant Application for the Regional Crash Response and Extrication Improvement Program Grant Number FY27 - 007465 and accepts the Grant award in the amount of $50,000 with specific terms of the Grant Agreement, in the form as attached hereto as Exhibit A or substantially similar Grant Agreement subject to City Attorney approval as to form, for the period of October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2027.

Section 2. The City Council of the City of Rocklin hereby authorizes the City Manager to sign the Grant Agreement and sign subsequent amendments to 64 Resolution No. 2026- August 25, 2026 Page 2 of 2

the Grant Agreement consistent with the Application's subject matter and scope of work and subject to City Attorney app roval as to form. The City Manager or designee is further authorized to sign any and all necessary documents and forms as may be required in order to receive and implement the Grant Funds.

Section 3. The City Council of the City of Rocklin hereby authori zes the City Manager to execute and submit any and all necessary documentation and take any necessary financial actions, including budgeting and accounting, to implement and administer the Grant in accordance with Grant requirements and City policies.

Section 4. The City of Rocklin agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of the grant agreement as set forth by OTS.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of August, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

David Bass, Mayor

ATTEST:

_________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk
65 7/29/2026 8:49:02 AM Page 1 of 18

State of California – Office of Traffic Safety

GRANT AGREEMENT

GRANT NUMBER
EM27018

1. GRANT TITLE
Regional Crash Response and Extrication Improvement Program

2. NAME OF AGENCY 3. Grant Period
Rocklin From:

To:
10/01/2026
09/30/2027 4. AGENCY UNIT TO ADMINISTER GRANT
Rocklin Fire Department

5. GRANT DESCRIPTION
The city/county/regional fire agency will improve their crash response and extrication times by purchasing extrication equipment. Best practice strategies will be used to reduce the response time for the arrival of appropriate extrication equipment to traffic crash scenes and the time to extricate the victims of traffic crashes, thus increasing survivability. The grant will provide funding for new equipment and training for fire departments without extrication equipment or those that have existing equipment that has reached the end of its usable lifespan and is in need of replacement.

6. Federal Funds Allocated Under This Agreement Shall Not Exceed:

Allocation is contingent upon availability of federal funds. $50,000.00

7. TERMS AND CONDITIONS: The parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following which are by this reference made a part of the Agreement:
• Schedule A – Problem Statement, Goals and Objectives and Method of Procedure • Schedule B – Detailed Budget Estimate and Sub-Budget Estimate (if applicable) • Schedule B-1 – Budget Narrative and Sub-Budget Narrative (if applicable) • Exhibit A – Certifications and Assurances
• Exhibit B* – OTS Grant Program Manual
• Exhibit C – Grant Electronic Management System (GEMS) Access

*The item shown with an asterisk (*), is hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement as if attached hereto. This document can be viewed at the OTS home web page under Grants: www.ots.ca.gov.

Use of OTS Grant Agreement template in lieu of the California Model Agreement (CMA) The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) utilizes its standardized OTS Grant Agreement template for awards. The format, structure, and uniformity of the OTS Grant Agreement template allows for processing through Grant Electronic Management System (GEMS). OTS’s approach to using the OTS Grant Agreement template is consistent with the California Model Agreement (CMA) developed by University of California Office of the President (UCOP) and directed by the Department of General Service (DGS). For more information, please review the OTS Grant Program Manual.

Pre-Agreement Work
No work shall commence and no costs shall be incurred prior to the grant start date or the grant agreement being fully signed and executed. Any such costs are incurred at the grantee’s own risk and may not be reimbursed.

66 7/29/2026 8:49:02 AM Page 2 of 18

8. Approval Signatures
We, the officials named below, hereby swear under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that we are duly authorized to legally bind the Grant recipient to the grant terms and conditions described herein.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto.

A. GRANT DIRECTOR B. AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL
NAME:

TITLE:

EMAIL:

PHONE:

ADDRESS:

Travis Pistochini

Fire Captain

[email protected]

916-625-5332

3970 Rocklin Road
Rocklin, CA 95677
NAME:

TITLE:

EMAIL:

PHONE:

ADDRESS:

Aly Zimmermann

City Manager

[email protected]

916-625-5585

3970 Rocklin Road
Rocklin, CA 95677

(Signature) (Date) (Signature) (Date)

C. FISCAL OFFICIAL

D. AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL OF OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY
NAME:

TITLE:

EMAIL:

PHONE:

ADDRESS:

Daniel Choe

Deputy Director of Administrative Services

[email protected]

(916) 625-5024

3970 Rocklin Road
Rocklin, CA 95677
NAME:

TITLE:

EMAIL:

PHONE:

ADDRESS:

Stephanie Dougherty

Director

[email protected]

(916) 509-3030

2208 Kausen Drive, Suite 300
Elk Grove, CA 95758

(Signature) (Date) (Signature) (Date)

E. ACCOUNTING OFFICER OF OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY 9. SAM INFORMATION NAME: Mary Khang

SAM #:

REGISTERED
ADDRESS:

CITY:

ZIP+4:

F9JTDAHKSBX5

3970 ROCKLIN ROAD

ROCKLIN
95677-2720
ADDRESS: 2208 Kausen Drive Suite 300

Sacramento, CA 95758

67 7/29/2026 8:49:02 AM Page 3 of 18

10. PROJECTED EXPENDITURES
FUND CFDA ITEM/APPROPRIATION F.Y. CHAPTER STATUTE PROJECTED

EXPENDITURES
402EM-27 20.600 0521-0890-101 2026 19/26 BA/26 $50,000.00

AGREEMENT
TOTAL $50,000.00

AMOUNT ENCUMBERED BY THIS DOCUMENT
I CERTIFY upon my own personal knowledge that the budgeted funds for the current budget year are available for the period and purpose of the expenditure stated above, notwithstanding allocations contingent on availability of federal funds.
$50,000.00

PRIOR AMOUNT ENCUMBERED FOR THIS

AGREEMENT
$ 0.00
OTS ACCOUNTING OFFICER’S SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED TOTAL AMOUNT ENCUMBERED TO DATE $50,000.00

68 7/29/2026 8:49:02 AM Page 4 of 18

State of California – Office of Traffic Safety

GRANT AGREEMENT
Schedule A

GRANT NUMBER
EM27018

1. PROBLEM STATEMENT

Describe the city, county, or jurisdiction this grant will impact.

Rocklin, CA is a small but growing city composed primarily of residential communities, education establishments, and retail businesses to support a climbing resident population of approximately 75,000 people. The city is located in Southern Placer County at the interchange of Interstate 80 and State Highway

65. Rocklin is surrounded by the Town of Loomis, Granite Bay and the City of Lincoln to the north and the City of Roseville to the south and west.

Rocklin is home to 21 highly ranked public and charter schools including Sierra Community College and Jessup University, which generate significant weekday vehicular and pedestrian traffic and increase the daily population to approximately 100,000 people. There are several major commercial retail shopping centers producing significant traffic throughout the weekdays and weekends. In the near future, Rocklin will welcome an additional large retail shopping center and two additional master planned communities increasing the population even further. Other prime destinations in the area draws throngs of visitors include Thunder Valley Casino and Hotel, snow recreation in the foothills, water recreation at Lake Folsom, and annual community events.

Describe the problem(s) to be addressed, supported by current and relevant crash data. (most recent calendar year data/stats).

The Rocklin Fire Department (RFD) protects and responds to incidents occurring in or near the city limits of Rocklin, CA including two major roadways: Interstate 80 and State Highway 65, as well as actively participates in mutual aid calls to our sister cities of Lincoln, Roseville, and the Town of Loomis.

As the city of Rocklin continues to develop and the population increase, the City’s 550 miles of road have become busier with people commuting to work, taking kids to school, or just walking or biking to one of the 38 parks in the city. The major roadways are heavily traveled and connect the valley and foothill communities to Interstate 5, Highways 49 and 99, and State Route 70. Commuter, local, and recreational traffic on these major arteries continues to show a steady increase, resulting in more opportunities for traffic crashes on highways and ancillary streets.

Per OTS, in 2021, 2022, and 2023 RFD responded to a combined 529 injury vehicle crashes. Per RFD’s Record Management System, from 2022 through 2025, RFD responded to 1,101 Motor Vehicle Crashes, 12 of which required extrication equipment. RFD provides a “Cooperative Regional Response” for extrication and Emergency Medical Services at vehicle crashes in all cities surrounding Rocklin. Vehicle crash traffic incidents pose unique challenges in our community with multiple highways, limited resources, and extended response times for specialized resources.

RFD in a challenging situation regarding extrication equipment purchased in 2018 that is being phased out prior to the anticipated lifespan of ten years. This is due to the lack of service and support in the region and a market decision to discontinue the battery packs, forcing RFD with a decision to update the equipment or to find replacement parts for an aging set of tools. The current Genesis tools carried on all RFD apparatus have lost support, service, and repair ability throughout the state of California with the recent loss of authorized dealer, MES Life Safety. In addition to the loss of service support, per an MES Life Safety representative and a local Milwaukee Tool representative, the Milwaukee M28 batteries are being phased out of the Milwaukee product line, leaving the department's ability to purchase replacement batteries extremely limited. Many of our M28 batteries are coming close to ten years old and the extended life battery packs (originally supplied by Genesis) have failed, leaving our back up power supplies out of service. These unexpected circumstances leave the RFD disadvantaged and seeking an opportunities to secure funds to purchase new tools to continue offering guaranteed extrication services to the citizens of Rocklin and surrounding areas. RFD Truck 24 is one of four truck companies in Placer County. Losing the ability of one of those truck companies to perform vehicle extrication, not only harms the immediate area, but the county as a whole. Current budgets will not allow for equipment replacement within an acceptable timeframe. 69 7/29/2026 8:49:02 AM Page 5 of 18

This grant will allow accelerated procurement of needed replacement equipment that will increase patient/victim outcomes while keeping pace with industry standards. The new generation of vehicle extrication equipment has reduced weight and size, increased strength capabilities, and increased safety for the victims and the first responders on scene. The tools would decrease the time it takes first responders to extricate patients and initiate hospital transportation, thus leading to a higher success rate of patient survivability.

The tools allow the RFD to continue providing extrication capabilities to the community while aligning more closely with our neighboring agencies. RFD is the only agency in Southern Placer County utilizing Genesis tools, leaving our capabilities even more restricted on large incidents. The tools, align with our neighbors, the rest of Placer County Fire agencies and neighboring counties. The City of Rocklin prides itself on being fiscally responsible and by transitioning to new, regionalized tools, we can meet that goal. The City of Rocklin is currently exploring funding options to address the aging equipment and would be grateful for any award from OTS to assist in the process. The City of Rocklin is currently left with a decision to invest a large amount of money into batteries prior to the full M28 battery phase out to continue the life span of the Genesis tools, or look to move to another brand that will allow us to use the tools for many years with both support and parts available. In addition, a fourth fire station is planned and anticipated to break ground in 2026. This engine company, protecting the Eastern part of the city and bordering the Town of Loomis, does not currently have an extrication tool allocated to it, differing its capabilities from the rest of the companies.

Buying a matching tool that cannot be supported or repaired is not fiscally responsible. It is also neither in alignment with the city’s nor the department’s goals.

Define the target population the grant intends to serve and how they are affected by the problem(s).

The target population this grant intends to serve includes any and all person(s) in and around the City of Rocklin, whether they are traveling through, work here, shop here, educate here, or call Rocklin their home base. The Rocklin Fire Department does not discriminate against person(s) who request services or find themselves in a situation that requires the expert skills and tools of the fire department.

The City of Rocklin’s demographics are diverse in areas including race, housing, living arrangements, education, income and beyond. Rocklin remains focused on maintaining its small-town feel while offering highly-ranked schools, quiet neighborhoods, and the highest level of public safety services.

This grant will directly benefit the person(s) who receive services from Rocklin Fire Department. RFD responds to more than 6,000 calls annually. The grant will also indirectly provide benefits which improve crisis response, enhanced training of employees, reduced liabilities, support of underserved populations, cost savings to the taxpayers, and more.

By providing vehicle extrication services, our highly trained Firefighter/Paramedics are able to access and treat patients involved in high mechanism crashes faster, greatly increasing the chances of staying within “The Golden Hour” for patient care.

Multiple events in the last few years have contributed to an increase in the types and number of crashes to which Rocklin resources have been dispatched. Voters declined to pass a proposed tax measure that would have widened the section of Highway 65 from Interstate 80 to the City of Lincoln, by adding more lanes of travel likely reducing the amount of lane changes required by drivers. The number of crashes to this response area continues to incrementally increase as the population grows in the region and beyond while roadways are static with increased vehicle capacity.

If the RFD were to have any of our current extrication equipment out of service, our abilities would be greatly diminished and we would be forced to solely rely on mutual aid from surrounding agencies, potentially further harming victims of vehicle crashes in the City of Rocklin.

As of now, Station 24 and the Rocklin Fire Department is one of four truck companies in Placer County equipped with vehicle extrication capability. In addition to standard passenger vehicle extrication, RFD Truck 24 is the only resource currently in Placer County with heavy vehicle stabilization equipment. RFD equips the two, soon to be three engine companies with combination tools to ensure rapid access to victims of vehicle crashes. In recent years, South Placer Truck 17 in Granite Bay and Placer County Fire Truck 180 in 70 7/29/2026 8:49:02 AM Page 6 of 18

Auburn were removed from service causing an increase in the number of responses that Rocklin resources are making up the Interstate 80 corridor and into neighboring jurisdictions.

2. PERFORMANCE MEASURES
A. Goals:

1. Reduce the number of persons killed in traffic crashes.

2. Reduce the number of persons injured in traffic crashes.

3. Decrease the average extrication time, from the time of arrival at the crash site to transport.

B. Objectives: Target Number

1. Issue a news release announcing the kick-off of the grant by December 31st. The kick-off news releases and media advisories, alerts, and materials must be emailed to the OTS Public Information Officer at [email protected], and copied to your OTS Coordinator, for approval 7 days prior to the issuance date of the release.
1 2. Purchase and place pieces of specialized rescue equipment in strategic locations within the jurisdiction.
2 3. Train firefighters in the use of the new equipment. 9

4. Conduct traffic safety presentations with an effort to reach persons and communities.
2 5. Display the OTS funded equipment during Public Safety Fairs, community festivals and/or other Department or community events.
2 6. Report on the number of times the grant-funded equipment is used during an extrication, provide a brief overview of the incident and indicate if the equipment was used to save a life.
4 7. Station 23 - Decrease the average extrication time, from the time of arrival at the crash site to transport, from 17 minutes to 15 minutes. 15 8. Station 25 - Decrease the average extrication time, from the time of arrival at the crash site to transport, from 17 minutes to 15 minutes. 15 3. METHOD OF PROCEDURE
A. Phase 1 – Program Preparation (1st Quarter of Grant Year) • Determine specific equipment requirements.
• Request equipment vendor price quotation for the required equipment per host agency requirement.
• Submit purchase orders to equipment vendors for purchase of the equipment. • Prepare and execute Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with recipient agencies. • Items with a unit cost of $5,000 or more (including tax and shipping) must comply with the Buy America Act.

Media Requirements
• Issue a news release approved by the OTS PIO announcing the kick-off of the grant by December 31 and after the grant is signed and executed, but no sooner than October 1, the start of the grant year. The kick-off release must be approved by the OTS PIO. If you are unable to meet the December 31 deadline to issue a kick-off press release, communicate the reasons to your OTS grant coordinator and OTS PIO.

B. Phase 2 – Program Operations (Throughout Grant Year) • Inventory the new equipment following delivery.
• Disperse equipment to identified recipient agencies.
• Plan a media event announcing the grant funded equipment. • Recipient agencies will identify training needs and objectives and coordinate instructional staff to conduct a high quality training program for their respective agency. • Recipient agencies will develop a preventive maintenance schedule for the new equipment following manufacturers’ recommendations.

Media Requirements

The following requirements are for all grant-related activities:
71 7/29/2026 8:49:02 AM Page 7 of 18

• Send all media advisories, alerts, videos, graphics, artwork, posters, radio/PSA/video scripts, storyboards, digital and/or print educational materials for grant-related activities to the OTS PIO at [email protected] for approval and copy your OTS grant coordinator. Optimum lead time would be 7 days before the scheduled release but at least 3 business days prior to the scheduled release date for review and approval is appreciated.
• Send all PowerPoint presentations, online presentations and trainings for grant-related activities to the OTS PIO at [email protected] for approval and copy your OTS grant coordinator. Certified training courses are EXEMPT from the approval process.
• The OTS PIO is responsible for the approval of the design and content of materials. The agency understands OTS PIO approval is not authorizing approval of budget expenditure or cost. Any cost approvals must come from the OTS grant coordinator. • Pre-approval is not required when using any OTS-supplied template for media advisories, news releases, social media graphics, videos or posts, or any other OTS-supplied educational material.

However, copy the OTS PIO at [email protected] and your OTS grant coordinator when any material is distributed to the media and public, such as a news release, educational material, or link to social media post.
• If an OTS-supplied template, educational material, social media graphic, post or video is substantially changed, the changes shall be sent to the OTS PIO at [email protected] for approval and copy your OTS grant coordinator.
• News releases, social media posts and alerts on platforms such as NextDoor and Nixle reporting immediate and time-sensitive grant activities (e.g. enforcement operations, day of event highlights or announcements, event invites) are EXEMPT from the OTS PIO approval process.

The OTS PIO and your OTS grant coordinator should still be notified when the grant-related activity is happening (e.g. car seat checks, bicycle rodeos, community presentations, DUI checkpoints, etc.).
• Enforcement activities such as warrant and probation sweeps, court stings, etc. that are embargoed or could impact operations by publicizing in advance are EXEMPT from the PIO approval process. However, announcements and results of activities should still be copied to the OTS PIO at [email protected] and your OTS grant coordinator with the embargoed date and time or with “INTERNAL ONLY: DO NOT RELEASE” message in subject line of email. • Any earned or paid media campaigns for TV, radio, digital or social media that are part of a specific grant objective, using OTS grant funds, or designed and developed using contractual services by a subgrantee, requires prior approval.
• Social media posts highlighting state or national traffic safety campaigns (Distracted Driving Month, Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month, etc.), enforcement operations (DUI checkpoints, etc.), or any other grant-related activity such as Bicycle rodeos, presentations, or events, are highly encouraged but do not require prior approval.
• Submit a draft or rough-cut of all digital, printed, recorded or video material (brochures, posters, scripts, artwork, trailer graphics, digital graphics, social posts connected to an earned or paid media campaign grant objective) to the OTS PIO at [email protected] and copy your OTS grant coordinator for approval prior to the production or duplication. • Use the following standard language in all press, media, and printed materials, space permitting:

Funding for this program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. • Space permitting, include the OTS logo on all grant-funded print materials, graphics and paid or earned social media campaign grant objective; consult the OTS PIO and copy your OTS grant coordinator for specifics, format-appropriate logos, or if space does not permit the use of the OTS logo.
• Email the OTS PIO at [email protected] and copy your OTS grant coordinator at least 21 days in advance, or when first confirmed, a short description of any significant grant-related traffic safety event or program, particularly events that are highly publicized beforehand with anticipated media coverage so the OTS has sufficient notice to arrange for attendance and/or participation in the event. If unable to attend, email the OTS PIO at [email protected] and your OTS grant coordinator brief highlights and/or results, including any media coverage (broadcast, digital, print) of the event within 7 days following significant grant-related event or program. The OTS PIO and your OTS grant coordinator should still be notified in advance when the grant-related activity is 72 7/29/2026 8:49:02 AM Page 8 of 18

happening (e.g. car seat checks, bicycle rodeos, community presentations, DUI checkpoints, etc.).
• Any news releases, work plans, scripts, storyboards, artwork, graphics, videos or any educational or informational materials that received OTS PIO approval in a prior grant year must be resubmitted for approval in the current grant year.
• For additional guidance, refer to the OTS Grants Materials Approval Process Guidelines and FAQs .
• Email the OTS PIO at [email protected] or your OTS grant coordinator for consultation when changes from any of the above requirements might be warranted.

C. Phase 3 – Data Collection & Reporting (Throughout Grant Year)

1. Prepare and submit grant claim invoices (due January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30)

2. Prepare and submit Quarterly Performance Reports (QPR) (due January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30)
• Collect and report quarterly, appropriate data that supports the progress of goals and objectives. • Provide a brief list of activity conducted, procurement of grant-funded items, and significant media activities. Include status of grant-funded personnel, status of contracts, challenges, or special accomplishments.
• Provide a brief summary of quarterly accomplishments and explanations for objectives not completed or plans for upcoming activities.
• Collect, analyze and report statistical data relating to the grant goals and objectives.

4. METHOD OF EVALUATION
Using the data compiled during the grant, the Grant Director will complete the “Final Evaluation” section in the fourth/final Quarterly Performance Report (QPR). The Final Evaluation should provide a brief summary of the grant’s accomplishments, challenges and significant activities. This narrative should also include whether goals and objectives were met, exceeded, or an explanation of why objectives were not completed.

5. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
This program has full administrative support, and every effort will be made to continue the grant activities after grant conclusion.

73 7/29/2026 8:49:02 AM Page 9 of 18

State of California – Office of Traffic Safety

GRANT AGREEMENT
Schedule B

GRANT NUMBER
EM27018

FUND NUMBER CATALOG

NUMBER (CFDA)

FUND DESCRIPTION TOTAL AMOUNT
402EM-27 20.600 State and Community Highway
Safety
$50,000.00

COST CATEGORY FUND
NUMBER

UNIT COST OR
RATE

UNITS TOTAL COST TO
GRANT
A. PERSONNEL COSTS

Straight Time
$0.00
Overtime
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $0.00
B. TRAVEL EXPENSES
$0.00
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $0.00
C. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $0.00
D. EQUIPMENT
Combi-tool 402EM-27 $25,000.00 2 $50,000.00
Category Sub-Total $50,000.00
E. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $0.00
F. INDIRECT COSTS
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $0.00
GRANT TOTAL $50,000.00

74 7/29/2026 8:49:02 AM Page 10 of 18

State of California – Office of Traffic Safety

GRANT AGREEMENT
Schedule B-1

GRANT NUMBER
EM27018

BUDGET NARRATIVE

PERSONNEL COSTS
-

TRAVEL EXPENSES
-

CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
-

EQUIPMENT
Combi-tool - Combi tools are hydraulically actuated, lightweight devices capable of cutting, spreading, pulling, and pinching, for use during extrication operations. Costs may include the extrication tool along with any required modifications, attachments, accessories, or auxiliary components necessary to ensure the tool is fully functional. All items are intended solely for use during motor-vehicle crash extrication incidents.

OTHER DIRECT COSTS
-

INDIRECT COSTS
-

STATEMENTS/DISCLAIMERS
There will be no program income generated from this grant.

Salaries may include wages, salaries, special compensations, or authorized absences such as annual leave and sick leave provided the cost for the individual employee is (a) reasonable for the services rendered, and (b) follows an appointment made in accordance with state or local laws and rules and meets federal requirements.

Any non-grant funded vacancies created by reassignment to a grant-funded position must be filled at the expense of the grantee agency.

Nothing in this agreement shall be interpreted as a requirement, formal or informal, that a particular law enforcement officer issue a specified or predetermined number of citations in pursuance of the goals and objectives here under.

The OTS grant funded activities must be separate from other grant funded program activities and maintained under separate accounting tracking codes (example: the same DUI checkpoint may not be funded by both the CHP Cannabis Tax Fund and the OTS).

Benefits for personnel costs can only be applied to straight time or overtime hours charged to the grant.

75 7/29/2026 8:49:02 AM Page 11 of 18

Appendix A to Part 1300—Certifications and Assurances for Highway Safety Grants (23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 or Section 1906, Public Law 109-59, as amended by Section 25024, Public Law 117- 58)

The officials named on the grant agreement, certify by way of signature on the grant agreement signature page, that the Grantee Agency complies with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and directives and State rules, guidelines, policies, and laws in effect with respect to the periods for which it receives grant funding.

Applicable provisions include, but are not limited to, the following:

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The State will comply with applicable statutes and regulations, including but not limited to:

• 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4—Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended; • Sec. 1906, Public Law 109-59, as amended by Sec. 25024, Public Law 117-58; • 23 CFR part 1300—Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs; • 2 CFR part 200—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards;
• 2 CFR part 1201—Department of Transportation, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.

NONDISCRIMINATION
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

The State highway safety agency [and its subrecipients] will comply with all Federal statutes and implementing regulations relating to nondiscrimination (“Federal Nondiscrimination Authorities”). These include but are not limited to:

• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin);
• 49 CFR part 21 (entitled Non-discrimination in Federally -Assisted Programs of the Department of Transportation—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964); • 28 CFR 50.3 (U.S. Department of Justice Guidelines for Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964);
• The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. 4601), (prohibits unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been acquired because of Federal or Federal-aid programs and projects);
• Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. 324 et seq.), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681-1683 and 1685-1686) (prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex);
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. 794 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability) and 49 CFR part 27; • The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of age);
• The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (Pub. L. 100-209), (broadens scope, coverage, and applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the definition of the terms “programs or activities” to include all of the programs or activities of the
Federal aid recipients, subrecipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities are Federally- funded or not);
• Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12131-12189) (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing) and 49 CFR parts 37 and 38

State of California – Office of Traffic Safety

GRANT AGREEMENT
Exhibit A

GRANT NUMBER
EM27018
76 7/29/2026 8:49:02 AM Page 12 of 18

The preceding statutory and regulatory cites hereinafter are referred to as the “Acts” and “Regulations,” respectively.

GENERAL ASSURANCES

In accordance with the Acts, the Regulations, and other pertinent directives, circulars, policy, memoranda, and/or guidance, the Recipient hereby gives assurance that it will promptly take any measures necessary to ensure that:

“No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity, for which the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance from DOT, including NHTSA.”

The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 clarified the original intent of Congress, with respect to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other non-discrimination requirements (the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973), by restoring the broad, institutional-wide scope and coverage of these nondiscrimination statutes and requirements to include all programs and activities of the Recipient, so long as any portion of the program is Federally assisted.

SPECIFIC ASSURANCES

More specifically, and without limiting the above general Assurance, the Recipient agrees with and gives the following Assurances with respect to its Federally assisted Highway Safety Grant Program:

1. The Recipient agrees that each “activity,” “facility,” or “program,” as defined in 49 CFR part 21 will be (with regard to an “activity”) facilitated, or will be (with regard to a “facility”) operated, or will be (with regard to a “program”) conducted in compliance with all requirements imposed by, or pursuant to the Acts and the Regulations.

2. The Recipient will insert the following notification in all solicitations for bids, Requests For Proposals for work, or material subject to the Acts and the Regulations made in connection with all Highway Safety Grant Programs and, in adapted form, in all proposals for negotiated agreements regardless of funding source:
“The [name of Recipient], in accordance with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C 2000d to 2000d-4) and the Regulations, hereby notifies all bidders that it will affirmatively ensure that in any contract entered into pursuant to this advertisement, disadvantaged business enterprises will be afforded full and fair opportunity to submit bids in response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in consideration for an award.”

3. The Recipient will insert the clauses of appendix A and E of this Assurance (also referred to as DOT order 1050.2A) [1] in every contract or agreement subject to the Acts and the Regulations.

4. The Recipient will insert the clauses of appendix B of DOT Order 1050.2A, as a covenant running with the land, in any deed from the United States effecting or recording a transfer of real property, structures, use, or improvements thereon or interest therein to a Recipient.

5. That where the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance to construct a facility, or part of a facility, the Assurance will extend to the entire facility and facilities operated in connection therewith.

6. That where the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance in the form of, or for the acquisition of, real property or an interest in real property, the Assurance will extend to rights to space on, over, or under such property.

7. That the Recipient will include the clauses set forth in appendix C and appendix D of this DOT Order 1050.2A, as a covenant running with the land, in any future deeds, leases, licenses, permits, or similar instruments entered into by the Recipient with other parties:
a. for the subsequent transfer of real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program; and
b. for the construction or use of, or access to, space on, over, or under real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program.

8. That this Assurance obligates the Recipient for the period during which Federal financial assistance is extended to the program, except where the Federal financial assistance is to provide, or is in the 77 7/29/2026 8:49:02 AM Page 13 of 18

form of, personal property, or real property, or interest therein, or structures or improvements thereon, in which case the Assurance obligates the Recipient, or any transferee for the longer of the following periods:
a. the period during which the property is used for a purpose for which the Federal financial assistance is extended, or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits; or
b. the period during which the Recipient retains ownership or possession of the property.

9. The Recipient will provide for such methods of administration for the program as are found by the Secretary of Transportation or the official to whom he/she delegates specific authority to give reasonable guarantee that it, other recipients, sub-recipients, sub- grantees, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, transferees, successors in interest, and other participants of Federal financial assistance under such program will comply with all requirements imposed or pursuant to the Acts, the Regulations, and this Assurance.

10. The Recipient agrees that the United States has a right to seek judicial enforcement with regard to any matter arising under the Acts, the Regulations, and this Assurance.

By signing this ASSURANCE, the State highway safety agency also agrees to comply (and require any sub- recipients, sub-grantees, contractors, successors, transferees, and/or assignees to comply) with all applicable provisions governing NHTSA's access to records, accounts, documents, information, facilities, and staff. You also recognize that you must comply with any program or compliance reviews, and/or complaint investigations conducted by NHTSA. You must keep records, reports, and submit the material for review upon request to NHTSA, or its designee in a timely, complete, and accurate way. Additionally, you must comply with all other reporting, data collection, and evaluation requirements, as prescribed by law or detailed in program guidance.

The State highway safety agency gives this ASSURANCE in consideration of and for obtaining any Federal grants, loans, contracts, agreements, property, and/or discounts, or other Federal-aid and Federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof to the recipients by the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Highway Safety Grant Program. This ASSURANCE is binding on the State highway safety agency, other recipients, sub-recipients, sub-grantees, contractors, subcontractors and their subcontractors', transferees, successors in interest, and any other participants in the Highway Safety Grant Program. The person(s) signing below is/are authorized to sign this ASSURANCE on behalf of the Recipient.

THE DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE ACT OF 1988 (41 U.S.C. 8103)

The Subgrantee will provide a drug-free workplace by:
a. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace, and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; b. Establishing a drug-free awareness program to inform employees about:

1. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;

2. The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;

3. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs;

4. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug violations occurring in the workplace;

5. Making it a requirement that each employee engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (a); c. Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will—

1. Abide by the terms of the statement;

2. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five days after such conviction; d. Notifying the agency within ten days after receiving notice under subparagraph (c)(2) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction; e. Taking one of the following actions, within 30 days of receiving notice under subparagraph (c)(2), with respect to any employee who is so convicted—

1. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination;

2. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or 78 7/29/2026 8:49:02 AM Page 14 of 18

rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency;
f. Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of all of the paragraphs above.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY (HATCH ACT)
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

The State will comply with provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 1501-1508), which limits the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds.

CERTIFICATION REGARDING FEDERAL LOBBYING
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

CERTIFICATION FOR CONTRACTS, GRANTS, LOANS, AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:

1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement;

2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions;

3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub-awards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grant, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

RESTRICTION ON STATE LOBBYING
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

None of the funds under this program will be used for any activity specifically designed to urge or influence a State or local legislator to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific legislative proposal pending before any State or local legislative body. Such activities include both direct and indirect (e.g., “grassroots”) lobbying activities, with one exception. This does not preclude a State official whose salary is supported with NHTSA funds from engaging in direct communications with State or local legislative officials, in accordance with customary State practice, even if such communications urge legislative officials to favor or oppose the adoption of a specific pending legislative proposal.

CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PRIMARY TIER PARTICIPANT CERTIFICATION (STATES)

79 7/29/2026 8:49:02 AM Page 15 of 18

1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective primary tier participant is providing the certification set out below and agrees to comply with the requirements of 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.

2. The inability of a person to provide the certification required below will not necessarily result in denial of participation in this covered transaction. The prospective primary tier participant shall submit an explanation of why it cannot provide the certification set out below. The certification or explanation will be considered in connection with the department or agency's determination whether to enter into this transaction. However, failure of the prospective primary tier participant to furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such person from participation in this transaction.

3. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when the department or agency determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined that the prospective primary tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause or default or may pursue suspension or debarment.

4. The prospective primary tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the department or agency to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective primary tier participant learns its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.

5. The terms covered transaction, civil judgment, debarment, suspension, ineligible, participant, person, principal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, are defined in 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200. You may contact the department or agency to which this proposal is being submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.

6. The prospective primary tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency entering into this transaction.

7. The prospective primary tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled “Instructions for Lower Tier Participant Certification” including the “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transaction,” provided by the department or agency entering into this covered transaction, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions and will require lower tier participants to comply with 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.

8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart

9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant is responsible for ensuring that its principals are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise ineligible to participate in covered transactions. To verify the eligibility of its principals, as well as the eligibility of any prospective lower tier participants, each participant may, but is not required to, check the System for Award Management Exclusions website
( https://www.sam.gov/).

9. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.

10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate the transaction for cause or default.

CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS—PRIMARY TIER

COVERED TRANSACTIONS

1. The prospective primary tier participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and 80 7/29/2026 8:49:02 AM Page 16 of 18

its principals:
a. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in covered transactions by any Federal department or agency;
b. Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; c. Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of this certification; and d. Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or local) terminated for cause or default.

2. Where the prospective primary tier participant is unable to certify to any of the Statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR LOWER TIER PARTICIPANT CERTIFICATION

1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below and agrees to comply with the requirements of 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.

2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension or debarment.

3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.

4. The terms covered transaction, civil judgment, debarment, suspension, ineligible, participant, person, principal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, are defined in 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200. You may contact the person to whom this proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.

5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated.

6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled “Instructions for Lower Tier Participant Certification” including the “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transaction,” without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions and will require lower tier participants to comply with 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.

7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart

8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of 81 7/29/2026 8:49:02 AM Page 17 of 18

records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.

9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension or debarment.

CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION—LOWER TIER

COVERED TRANSACTIONS

1. The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in covered transactions by any Federal department or agency.

2. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.

BUY AMERICA
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

The State and each subrecipient will comply with the Buy America requirement (23 U.S.C. 313) when purchasing items using Federal funds. Buy America requires a State, or subrecipient, to purchase with Federal funds only steel, iron and manufactured products produced in the United States, unless the Secretary of Transportation determines that such domestically produced items would be inconsistent with the public interest, that such materials are not reasonably available and of a satisfactory quality, or that inclusion of domestic materials will increase the cost of the overall project contract by more than 25 percent. In order to use Federal funds to purchase foreign produced items, the State must submit a waiver request that provides an adequate basis and justification for approval by the Secretary of Transportation.

CERTIFICATION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
No employee, officer, or agent of a State or its subrecipient who is authorized in an official capacity to negotiate, make, accept, or approve, or to take part in negotiating, making, accepting, or approving any subaward, including contracts or subcontracts, in connection with this grant shall have, directly or indirectly, any financial or personal interest in any such subaward. Such a financial or personal interest would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or personal interest in or a tangible personal benefit from an entity considered for a subaward. Based on this policy:

1. The recipient shall maintain a written code or standards of conduct that provide for disciplinary actions to be applied for violations of such standards by officers, employees, or agents. a. The code or standards shall provide that the recipient's officers, employees, or agents may neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from present or potential subawardees, including contractors or parties to subcontracts. b. The code or standards shall establish penalties, sanctions, or other disciplinary actions for violations, as permitted by State or local law or regulations.

2. The recipient shall maintain responsibility to enforce the requirements of the written code or standards of conduct.

DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

82 7/29/2026 8:49:02 AM Page 18 of 18

No State or its subrecipient, including its officers, employees, or agents, shall perform or continue to perform under a grant or cooperative agreement, whose objectivity may be impaired because of any related past, present, or currently planned interest, financial or otherwise, in organizations regulated by NHTSA or in organizations whose interests may be substantially affected by NHTSA activities. Based on this policy:

1. The recipient shall disclose any conflict of interest identified as soon as reasonably possible, making an immediate and full disclosure in writing to NHTSA. The disclosure shall include a description of the action which the recipient has taken or proposes to take to avoid or mitigate such conflict.

2. NHTSA will review the disclosure and may require additional relevant information from the recipient.

If a conflict of interest is found to exist, NHTSA may (a) terminate the award, or (b) determine that it is otherwise in the best interest of NHTSA to continue the award and include appropriate provisions to mitigate or avoid such conflict.

3. Conflicts of interest that require disclosure include all past, present, or currently planned organizational, financial, contractual, or other interest(s) with an organization regulated by NHTSA or with an organization whose interests may be substantially affected by NHTSA activities, and which are related to this award. The interest(s) that require disclosure include those of any recipient, affiliate, proposed consultant, proposed subcontractor, and key personnel of any of the above. Past interest shall be limited to within one year of the date of award. Key personnel shall include any person owning more than a 20 percent interest in a recipient, and the officers, employees or agents of a recipient who are responsible for making a decision or taking an action under an award where the decision or action can have an economic or other impact on the interests of a regulated or affected organization.

PROHIBITION ON USING GRANT FUNDS TO CHECK FOR HELMET USAGE (applies to subrecipients as well as States)

The State and each subrecipient will not use 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 grant funds for programs to check helmet usage or to create checkpoints that specifically target motorcyclists.

POLICY ON SEAT BELT USE

In accordance with Executive Order 13043, Increasing Seat Belt Use in the United States, dated April 16, 1997, the Grantee is encouraged to adopt and enforce on-the-job seat belt use policies and programs for its employees when operating company-owned, rented, or personally-owned vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for providing leadership and guidance in support of this Presidential initiative. For information and resources on traffic safety programs and policies for employers, please contact the Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS), a public-private partnership dedicated to improving the traffic safety practices of employers and employees. You can download information on seat belt programs, costs of motor vehicle crashes to employers, and other traffic safety initiatives at www.trafficsafety.org. The NHTSA website ( www.nhtsa.gov) also provides information on statistics, campaigns, and program evaluations and references.

POLICY ON BANNING TEXT MESSAGING WHILE DRIVING

In accordance with Executive Order 13513, Federal Leadership On Reducing Text Messaging While Driving, and DOT Order 3902.10, Text Messaging While Driving, States are encouraged to adopt and enforce workplace safety policies to decrease crashes caused by distracted driving, including policies to ban text messaging while driving company-owned or rented vehicles, Government-owned, leased or rented vehicles, or privately-owned vehicles when on official Government business or when performing any work on or behalf of the Government. States are also encouraged to conduct workplace safety initiatives in a manner commensurate with the size of the business, such as establishment of new rules and programs or re- evaluation of existing programs to prohibit text messaging while driving, and education, awareness, and other outreach to employees about the safety risks associated with texting while driving.

83 City Council
Staff Report

Subject:

CAD-to-CAD Solutions Agreement
Date:

August 25, 2026
Submitted By:

Shawn Watkins, Deputy Fire Chief
Reginald Williams, Fire Chief
Department:

Fire
Recommendation:

Background:

Within Placer County, five primary Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), also known as dispatch centers, receive emergency and non-emergency calls and are responsible for dispatching law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical resources.

Due to the shared jurisdictional boundaries among the County and its incorporated cities, emergency incidents frequently require coordination across multiple agencies. However, each PSAP currently operates an independent Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system, creating interoperability challenges that can impact the efficient sharing of incident information and resource coordination.

Because of Rocklin's close geographic proximity to neighboring jurisdictions, the Rocklin Fire Department routinely provides and receives mutual aid assistance. To improve regional coordination, the participating fire agencies are implementing a CAD-to-CAD interoperability solution known as CentralSquare Unify. This platform will establish direct connectivity between each participating agency's CAD system, enabling the seamless exchange of incident information and improving interoperability among the County's PSAPs.

Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems support critical emergency communications functions, including call-taking, incident management, unit recommendation, resource dispatching, and communication with field personnel. The proposed CAD-to-CAD integration will allow participating agencies to share incident and resource information in real time, resulting in more effective resource identification, improved dispatch coordination, and enhanced incident management across jurisdictional boundaries.

Item Number C11.

84 The City of Rocklin Police and Fire Departments operate a consolidated PSAP that dispatches both police and fire services citywide. The City utilizes the Records Information Management System (RIMS), developed by Sun Ridge Systems, Inc., as its public safety software platform for records management and computer-aided dispatch.

The City Council previously approved an agreement with Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. to develop the required application programming interface (API) that enables communication between RIMS and CentralSquare Unify. The proposed Solutions Agreement with CentralSquare Technologies, LLC includes the one-time implementation services and the first-year annual subscription required for the City to utilize the Unify platform, with automatic annual renewal terms, unless either party gives notice of termination.

Approval of this agreement represents the next phase of the regional CAD interoperability project and will allow the City of Rocklin to participate in the Countywide CAD-to-CAD network. Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the Solutions Agreement with CentralSquare Technologies, LLC. The Resolution also authorizes the City Manager to execute any amendments or change orders necessary to successfully implement and complete the CAD-to-CAD integration project.

Fiscal Impact:

Placer County intends to seek approval from the Placer County Board of Supervisors to reimburse participating agencies for eligible implementation costs and the first year of service associated with the regional CAD-to-CAD interoperability project. The City portion of the project cost is $29,250, including $15,750 for the first year of annual subscription fees. The City is required to pay these costs upfront, which will be absorbed within the department's existing operating budget. If and when the County approves the reimbursement, the reimbursements will be used to offset the eligible costs incurred by the City.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Resolution Exhibit A - Agreement with CentralSquare Technologies, LLC 85 Resolution No. 2026- August 25, 2026 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN

APPROVING THE SOLUTIONS AGREEMENT WITH CENTRALSQUARE

TECHNOLOGIES, LLC AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS

WHEREAS, within the C ounty of Placer there are five primary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) to quickly dispatch law enforcement and fire to emergencies and incidents;

WHEREAS, there is a distinct need for interoperability between and among the dedicated PSAPs who dispatc h fire services within the cities and unincorporated areas of Placer County; and

WHEREAS, CentralSquare Technologies, LLC developed Unify a CAD-to-CAD (computer-aided dispatch) interoperability network that connects agencies across jurisdiction, so the closest, most capable unit is sent to the call; and

WHEREAS, the City of Rocklin Police Department purchased a comprehensive public safety software suite (RIMS ) in 1985 from Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. (Sun Ridge) to provide computer-aided dispatch (CAD) and records management for its consolidated PSAP; and

WHEREAS, the Fire Department desires to enhance the functionality of Rocklin’s PSAP utilizing Unify through RIMS to connect with the mutual aid cities of Roseville and Lincoln and the County Departments of Fire and Sheriff; and

WHEREAS, each agency, Rocklin, Roseville, Lincoln, and County, will engage in a data sharing Memorandum of Understanding after each agency has executed agreements with CentralSquare Technologies, LLC; and

WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to sign the Agreement and additionally, authorize the City Manager to approve and sign future minor amendments.

NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rocklin as follows:

Section 1. Each Recital is true and correct and is hereby incorporated by reference.

Section 2. The City Council approves the Solutions Agreement with CentralSquare Technologies, LLC in the form attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit A.
86 Resolution No. 2026- August 25, 2026 Page 2 of 2 Section 3. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the Agreement and subsequent minor amendments provided that all amendments together do not obligate the City to expend funds in excess of $10,000, the amendment is consistent with the Agreement’s subject matter and scope of work and the Rocklin Municipal Code, and that the City Attorney approves the amendment as to form.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of August, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

_______________________________
David Bass, Mayor

ATTEST:

______________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk

87 88
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
City Council
Staff Report

Subject:

Midas Apartments / Design Review, DR2026-0002; and
Environmental, ENV2026-0008
Date:

August 25, 2026
Submitted By:

Bennett Smithhart, Senior Planner
Arwen Wacht, Deputy Director of Community Development
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 a Notice of Exemption (Midas Apartments / ENV2026-0008).

B
.

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Design Review (Midas Apartments / DR2026-0002).

Background:

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

Item Number PH1.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Staff Report

2. SR Attachment 1 - Pacific and Midas 15183 Consistency Analysis and Checklist

3. Resolution A - Notice of Exemption

4. Resolution B - Design Review

5. Resolution B Exhibit A - Design Review

6. Resolution B Exhibit B - Revised Parking Exhibit
165
City Council
Staff Report

_______________________________________________________________________

Subject: Midas Apartments
Design Review, DR2026-0002
Environmental, ENV2026-0008

Date: August 25, 2026

Submitted By: Bennett Smithhart, Senior Planner
Arwen Wacht, Deputy Director
David Mohlenbrok, Community Development Director

Department: Community Development
________________________________________________________________________

Recommendation
The Planning Commission and staff recommend adoption of the following:

A. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Notice of Exemption (Midas Apartments / ENV2026-0008)

B. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rocklin Approving a Design Review (Midas Apartments / DR2026-0002)

Application Request/Project Description
The project is a request for a Design Review to develop an approximately 7.1 -acre undeveloped site with a 100 -percent affordable multi -family/apartment community. The project includes construction of three (3) multi-family buildings, containing a total of 281 units, along with a new parking lot, drive aisles, community facility, playground, and associated infrastructure. The project also includes a lot line adjustment (parcel merger) to consolidate five existing parcels into a single parcel.

Project Location
The project site is located at the northwest corner of Pacific Street and Midas Avenue, City of Rocklin (APNs: 010-010-016, -017, -028, and -029; and 010-040-040) (Figures 1 and 2).

166
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 2 ends

Figure 1. Project Location

167
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 3 ends

Figure 2. Project Site

Project Ownership and Applicant
The property owner is Paxion Rocklin AH LP . The applicants are Waterford Property Company c/o Oren Hillel and Cypress Equity Investments c/o Garrett Borges.

Summary of Planning Commission Hearing and Action:

On August 4, 2026, the Planning Commission (Commission) considered the proposed project. After presentations by staff and the applicant team, the Commission opened the public hearing. Three members of the public provided comments on the Design Review request, expressing concerns about the project’s height, the number of parking spaces, and potential impacts on the surrounding community. One member of the public expressed concerns that despite living in close proximity to the project site, that they and the surrounding community were not adequately notified of the development through the applicant’s extended outreach. The Commission then closed the public hearing and began deliberations.

Project Site
168
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 4 ends

During deliberations, the Commission discussed the following:

1. Parking impacts on adjacent neighborhoods and the City's inability to regulate project parking under State law.

2. The project's density and building height, and the City's limited authority to regulate those aspects under applicable State law and the project site’s land use and zoning designations.

3. Traffic operations at the intersection of Midas Avenue and t he Union Pacific Railroad, specifically whether this additional project traffic could increase vehicle queuing at the railroad crossing , and potentially encourage illegal left turns out of the project’s Midas Avenue driveway.

4. The removal of native oak trees from the project site.

5. State Density Bonus Law Concession s and Waivers, including the one request ed concession for a reduction in parking stall dimensions.

6. The project applicants’ outreach to the neighbors.

The Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the project to the City Council.

Midas Avenue Railroad Crossing

During deliberations, the Planning Commission discussed vehicle queuing and unpermitted U-turn movements associated with active train crossings. The Commission expressed concern that the additional residential units and associated vehicle trips could further increase traffic congestion on Midas Ave nue. With respect to vehicle queuing and the proposed Midas Avenue driveway, staff concluded that during a n active train crossing, the right-in/right-out driveway on Midas Avenue would effectively be blocked by already queued traffic and as a result, any vehicles exiting the site during a train event would be required to queue on site rather than on the public street. It is also noted that there are other locations in Rocklin, specifically at Midas/Second Street, Rocklin Road/Railroad Avenue, Rocklin Road/Front Street and Farron Street/Front Street , where similar conditions exist in that automobiles arrive at a street where cars are queued because of an active train crossing.

With regard to the concern about potential illegal left turns out of the project’s Midas Avenue driveway, o n August 5, 2026 , City staff and the project applicant discussed the site’s operational conditions and determined that modifications to the conditions of approval would be appropriate to require additional improvements. In consultation with the City Engineer, condition of approval 5.c.1 was revised to include an extended median and th e installation of a directional sign stating “No Left Turn” at the Midas Avenue driveway to discourage and prevent unauthorized turning movements.

Additionally, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, which provides credible and consistent trip generation data recognized throughout the transportation industry, identifies that affordable housing developments generate substantially fewer trips than comparable mid-rise (4 –10 stories) multifamily housing 169
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 5 ends

developments. Overall, the Midas Apartments project is anticipated to generate fewer vehicle trips than a market-rate multifamily development of comparable size.

Site Background
The 7.1-acre vacant project site is made up of five (5) undeveloped parcels that front on Pacific Street and Midas Avenue. Union Pacific Railroad tracks abut the property on the westerly side. A light industrial facility is located to the north east of the project site. When that facility was constructed, a six-foot tall masonry wall was required to be constructed along the shared boundary to screen the storage yard from the project site. The site slopes slightly from Pacific Street down toward the Un ion Pacific Railroad tracks. There are twenty-three (23) oak trees located on and/or immediately adjacent to the project site. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk are existing along the Pacific Street and Midas Avenue frontages. Pacific Gas and Electric has easements along the westerly portion of the site to accommodate a major electric transmission line that parallels the railroad tracks. The line runs underground through the downtown area and surfaces on the project site where it converts to overhead line.

The project site was a portion of the original area included within the city boundaries when the City of Rocklin was incorporated in 1893. A lumber yard operated on the site for several years, but closed in the early 1990s. The structures related to the l umber yard were later demolished and the site has been vacant since. Previous entitlements on the parcel include the ZL Rocklin Project, approved on June 24, 2008, which included a 140-unit multi-family development, and the Rocklin Gateway Project, which i ncluded a 204-unit multi-family development, approved on June 13, 2017. Although both of the Design Review entitlements have since expired, the Rocklin Gateway General Development Plan and the associated zoning remain in effect on the project site.

Surrounding Uses
Existing land uses surrounding the project site include United Rentals to the northeast, retail and commercial service uses to the east and south, and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and property to the west. Single -family residential neighborhoods are located further to the west, south, and east. See Table 1 and Figure 3.

170
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 6 ends

Table 1. Surrounding Uses
General Plan Zoning Existing Land Use
Project
Site
High Density
Residential (HDR)
Planned Development Residential –
33 Dwellings Per Acre (PD-33) and
Residential Minimum Density
Overlay Zone – Residential, 24+
Dwellings Per Acre (RMDO-R24+)
Vacant / Undeveloped
Land
North
Light Industrial (LI) /
Retail Commercial
(RC)
Planned Development – Light
Industrial (PD-LI)
United Rentals and
Union Pacific Railroad
(UPRR)
East
Mixed Use (MU) /
Retail Commercial
(RC)
General Service Commercial (C-3)
and C-3 / RMDO – Mixed Use, 24+
Dwellings Per Acre (RMDO -MU24+)
Accessory Structure
Sales, RV Sales, and
Car Wash
South
Mixed Use (MU) /
High Density
Residential (HDR)
Retail Business (C-2) / RMDO-R24+,
C-3 / RMDO-R24+, and General
Retail Service Commercial (C-4) /
RMDO-MU10+
Various Retail and
Commercial Service
Buildings
West Retail Commercial
(RC) Unclassified (UN) Union Pacific Railroad
(UPRR)

171
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 7 ends

Figure 3. Existing General Plan and Zoning

General Plan/Zoning Compliance

General Plan

The project site has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential (HDR), which is intended to provide areas for multi -family homes, conveniently near commercial uses, employment centers, arterial and collector streets and other intensive uses. Residential density must be developed with a minimum density of 15.5 units per acr e. The project is a 281-unit multi-family development on an approximately 7.1-acre site. The proposed density is approximately 39.5 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the requirements of the HDR designation.

The site is identified in the Ci ty’s Housing Element’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) inventory as Site No. 1-16 to help meet State-mandated requirements for affordable housing. Development of the proposed 281-unit multi-family project would contribute toward Project Site
172
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 8 ends

achieving the City’s housing goals while activating a site that has historically remained underutilized. The project would provide 278 affordable housing units for households earning between 30 and 70 percent of the area median income (AMI), with an overall average affordability of approximately 60 percent AMI. The remaining three (3) units would be managers’ units. For reference, the current AMI in the Placer County/Rocklin area is $124,000 for a family of four and $86,800 for a single person, according to 2026 California Department of Housing and Community Development/United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HCD/HUD)-based figures.

Zoning

The project site is zoned Planned Development Residential – 33 Dwellings Per Acre (PD-33) within the Residential Minimum Density Overlay – Mixed Use (RMDO -R24+) zone, and is located within the Rocklin Gateway General Development Plan (GDP). The PD-33 zoning requires that if the site is developed with residential uses, a minimum density of 33 dwelling units per acre must be achieved. As proposed, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Gateway General Development Plan (Ordinance No. 1068) , with the exception of parking requirements (waived by AB 2097, which is discussed further below), and the special requirements for an enhanced façade along Midas Avenue and Pacific Street. Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5), development standards imposed on a housing development project must be based on objective standards that are clearly defined and uniformly applicable. The term "enhanced" is subjective and does not constitute an objective development standard.

The RMDO-R24+ overlay specifies that residential development must comply with the use regulations and development standards set forth in Chapter 17.40 (R-3 Zone) of the Rocklin Municipal Code (RMC). Under this chapter, multi-family residential development is generally permitted by right.

The proposed project consists of a 281-unit multi-family development on approximately 7.1 acres, resulting in a density of approximately 39.5 dwelling units per acre. This density complies with the RMDO-R24+ overlay requirements, and the project is consistent with the applicable RMDO-R24+ overlay development standards.

Design Review
Pursuant to the City of Rocklin Municipal Code (Chapter 17.72) , 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 173
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 9 ends

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 , and occasionally the City Council, have been charged with reviewing development proposals as noted above, for consistency with land use, zoning, and design review guidelines, an d for compatibility with surrounding development. When establishing land use and zoning designations on a broad scale, such as during 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 considered.

Generally speaking, projects that involve only Design Review entitlements are analyzed specific to the items discussed in the above paragraph and do not involve 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.

The Rocklin Municipal Code ( RMC) requires that all new construction of multi -family structures and all related site improvements associated with multi -family residential require design review application and approval [Section 17.72.020(A)(1)]. It also requires that any residential building with a height of greater than thirty feet, or more than two stories, requires the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council, and that the City Council shall be the body to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for design review [Section 17.72.070(B)(2)].

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 sur rounding 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.

The following sections below provide review and analysis for each of these areas of consideration for this proposal. Staff has also evaluated the proposal for consistency with the City’s Citywide Residential Objective Design Standards, and found the proposal to be 174
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 10 ends

consistent with these standards and/or staff has included applicable conditions of approval to ensure compliance with these standards.

General Design and Site Layout

The proposed project consists of three (3) four-story residential buildings totaling 281 units, along with 356 surface parking spaces and associated landscaping ( Figure 4). Amenities would include an amenity space/community center, teen room, tot lot, outdoor area, and pet area.

The units would range from one - to three-bedroom configurations, including one hundred and ten (110) one-bedroom units (approximately 559 square feet each), seventy-three (73) two-bedroom units (approximately 732 to 8 18 square feet each), and seventy-eight (78) three-bedroom units (approximately 1,026 to 1,170 square feet each).

175
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 11 ends

Figure 4. Site Plan

Access and Circulation

Vehicular access to the project would be provided by two new driveways , one on Pacific Street and one on Midas Avenue. Internal drive aisles would connect these entrances to all proposed parking areas and buildings. Because of a center median on Midas Avenue, all 176
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 12 ends

turn movements at this entrance would be restricted to right-in/right-out. On Pacific Street, a full-access driveway is proposed. The existing opposing left -turn pockets will be reconstructed as a continuous two-way left-turn lane within the center median.

Project Phasing

Based on information provided by the applicant, the proposed project is anticipated to be constructed in a single phase over an approximately twenty -four (24) month period , with construction expected to begin in early 2027.

Utilities

The proposed project would include construction of lateral connections to the existing utility (water, sewer, and storm drain) systems. Consistent with South Placer Municipal Utility District (SPMUD) and Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) standards, the proposed sewer line and water line connections are along the existing infrastructure on Pacific Street. Water connections also include connection to public lines in Midas Avenue. All project utilities have been reviewed by applicable agencies and dep artments, and have been determined to be consistent with applicable standards and requirements.

Building Architecture

The project consists of three residential buildings. Buildings 1 and 2 (Type A) are each 64,740± square feet, while Building 3 (Type B) is 133,168± square feet. Buildings 1 and 2 are located along Midas Avenue and Pacific Street ;, Building 3 is centrally located on the interior of the site. Exterior materials include board-and-batten siding and cement plaster.

Three coordinated exterior color schemes are proposed. An off -white and light gray palette utilizes Dunn -Edwards "Whisper" (Plaster 1) and "Gray Pearl" (Plaster 2) on projecting building modules to emphasize architectural articulation. An earthy sage green, Dunn - Edwards "Greenland" (Plaster 3), provides an organic accent color across portions of the building façades. A dark charcoal/slate gray, Dunn-Edwards "Stonish" (Plaster 4), is applied at the ground level and on select recessed vertical elements to establish a strong visual base.

Building elevations are included as Figures 5 through 8. The colors and materials are included as Figure 9.

Building Height

The maximum building height within Rocklin Gateway General Development Plan (GDP) area is 60-feet. The proposed apartment buildings are four stories with an overall maximum height of approximately 48-feet. Parapets are designed to screen mechanical equipment and rooftop photovoltaic panels from ground-level views.

177
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 13 ends

Figure 5. Building 1 and 2 (Type A)

Figure 6. Building 3 (Type B)

178
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 14 ends

Figure 7. Building 3 (Type B - Courtyard)

179
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 15 ends

Figure 8. Pacific Street Perspective

Figure 9. Colors and Materials

180
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 16 ends

Parking

As presented, the project proposes a total of 356 uncovered parking spaces or 1.26 parking spaces per unit. The parking includes 43 accessible parking spaces, representing approximately 15 percent of the total parking supply. Nineteen (19) parking spaces will be equipped with electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, and an addit ional 221 spaces will be EV-ready. The project also includes 10 bicycle parking spaces.

RMC Section 17.66.020 specifies parking requirements for apartments, mandating:

 One and a half (1.5) paved parking spaces per unit for studio and one-bedroom units.  Two (2) paved parking spaces per unit for two- or more bedroom units.  An additional 25% paved visitor parking spaces, with at least one (1) covered parking space per unit.

Based on these requirements, the project would be required to provide the following:

Table 2 – City Parking Requirements
Project
Units
Ratio of Parking Spaces
Required
Total Parking Spaces
Required
1 bedroom 110 1.5 spaces / unit 165 spaces
2+ bedroom 171 2.0 spaces / unit 342 spaces
Guest -- 0.25 spaces / unit 71 spaces
Total 281 -- 578 spaces

Assembly Bill 2097 (AB 2097)

AB 2097, effective January 1, 2023, limits the ability of local agencies to require minimum automobile parking for development projects located within one-half mile of a major transit stop.

The law provides that a city or county shall not impose or enforce a minim um parking requirement on qualifying residential development.

The Rocklin Amtrak Station is currently served by approximately two scheduled passenger train stops per day and is located approximately 0.39 miles from the project site . Although the level of rail service is limited, HCD has issued Technical Advisory guidance stating that an existing rail transit station qualifies as a "major transit stop" for purposes of AB 2097 regardless of service frequency. Accordingly, despite the limited number of daily train stops, the Rocklin Amtrak Station is considered a major transit stop under AB 2097, and qualifying development projects located within one-half mile of the station are generally not subject to local minimum parking requirements unless one of the statutory exceptions applies. Staff has reviewed the exceptions and determined that none of them apply to the project.

181
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 17 ends

Additional parking spaces

During the preparation of this staff report, the project applicant met with City staff to discuss the public outreach efforts completed for the project. As part of this outreach, the applicant received feedback regarding concerns for an inadequate number of parking spaces. In response to these concerns, the applicant revised the site plan by eliminating some previously planned landscape areas to increase the project's parking supply by 25 additional parking spaces to a total of 381 onsite vehicle parking spaces . The addition of 25 parking spaces increased the parking ratio from approximately 1.26 spaces per unit to approximately

1.35 spaces per unit. See Figure 10.

182
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 18 ends

Figure 10. Revised Parking Exhibit

State Housing Law Incentives / Concessions

The project utilizes various California state housing laws, including but not limited to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and the State Density Bonus Law. Under these legislations, local agencies are prohibited from enforcing subjective development standards against qualifying housing developments. Furthermore, because the Midas Apartments is an affordable housing project, the State Density Bonus Law grants the development the right to 183
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 19 ends

receive five (5) incentives or concessions from objective development standards.

Specifically, the proposal is requesting the following Incentives/concessions: 1) proposing standard parking stalls of 9’ x 18’ where 9’ x 19’ is normally required, and 2) requesting an allowance of a 2-foot bumper overhang into adjacent planters, where wheel stops placed 2- feet at the front of the parking stall are normally required. The applicant states that adhering strictly to the City's standard parking dimension requirements would physically preclude the development of the project.

Landscape and Open Space

The proposed landscape plan includes a diverse palette of drought -tolerant trees, shrubs, groundcovers, ornamental grasses, and turf that are generally appropriate for the local climate and consistent with the project's landscape objectives. Plant species include a variety of California native and climate -adapted species such as California fuchsia, California coffeeberry, dwarf toyon, grevillea, bottlebrush, deer grass, giant wild rye, and coast rosemary. Groundcover areas incorporate low -water-use species including coyote brush, Carmel creeper, coprosma, trailing myoporum, catmint, and baby bliss flax lily. Turf is limited to areas utilizing a drought-tolerant fescue blend, while the SPMUD easement along Pacific Street is landscaped with native meadow turf and compatible shrubs. Overall, the proposed plant palette emphasizes water conservation, year -round visual interest, and habitat value while providing a mix of evergreen and flowering species throughout the site.

The project includes a centrally located outdoor amenity area designed to provide recreational and gathering opportunities for residents. The primary courtyard features a community pool with a surrounding patio, picnic tables, bench seating, a shade pergola, and open lawn areas. A children's play area with engineered fiber safety surfacing is also provided within the courtyard, along with bike racks to encourage bicycle use. Additional outdoor amenities include a pet relief area with turf and a concrete wal king path, stabilized decomposed granite pathways, decorative cobble paving, and landscaped open spaces throughout the development. These amenities are integrated with landscaping, shade trees, and pedestrian walkways to create an attractive and functional environment for residents while supporting outdoor recreation and social interaction. See Figure 11.

184
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 20 ends

Figure 11. Preliminary Landscape Plan

Fencing and Walls

The project is not proposed to be gated. Open metal fencing is proposed between Building A and Building B to restrict pedestrian access through the landscape area. Retaining walls are proposed along Pacific Street and along the border of the Union Pacific property, parallel to the railroad track. See Figures 12 and 13.

185
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 21 ends

Figure 12. Tubular Metal Fence

Figure 13. Proposed Retaining Wall

186
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 22 ends

Environmental

PED Solutions, Inc., has prepared a CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Checklist for the project (Attachment 1). This checklist and attached supporting documents, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), have been prepared to determine whether and to what extent the Project is consistent with the certified Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan [General Plan Final EIR (FEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2008072115] and subsequent addenda, prepared for the City of Rocklin and to evaluate whether there are project-specific effects that are peculiar to the proposed project or its site in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC], § 21000, et seq.), including, but not limited to, the City of Rocklin 2021-2029 Housing Element Program 10 – Alternative Sites (ENV2025 -0009, GPA2024 -0001, Z20 25-0001), adopted on August 26, 2025 via Resolution No. 2025-190.

A trip generation analysis was prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc. to determine whether a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis would be required for the proposed project. The analysis used trip rates for Land Use Code 223 (Affordable Housing) from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition. As shown in Table 1, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 1,352 daily trip s, with 101 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 129 trips occurring during the PM peak hour. Because the proposed project satisfies multiple screening thresholds under both applicable guidelines, this screening determination is presumed to result in a less-than-significant impact on VMT, and no further analysis is required.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 mandates that projects consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which a final EIR was certified (in this case, the General Plan FEIR and subsequent addenda) shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project -specific significant effects which are peculiar to th e proposed project or its site.

The Consistency Checklist concluded the proposed project is consistent with the development density established in the General Plan and is within the scope of the Prior FEIR and subsequent addenda and that no further CEQA documentation is required under Section 15183. The report also concludes that the proposed project is located within an area characterized by existing residential development and is consistent with the surrounding land use pattern. Residential development of the site was previously evaluated in the Addendum to the Prior FEIR, which determined that such development would not result in new or more severe environmental impacts related to land use or zoning beyond those already analyzed, and that no additional CEQA review was required.

The proposed project does not introduce land uses, densities, development intensities, or site characteristics that would result in impacts peculiar to the project or its location. The project’s developm ent parameters fall within the range of conditions evaluated at a 187
City Council Staff Report
Midas Apartments
August 25, 2026

Page 23 ends

programmatic level in the Prior FEIR, and no project -specific impacts have been identified that would be more severe or different in nature.

The project would not result in new or substanti ally more severe off -site or cumulative impacts, as it represents development anticipated under the General Plan buildout scenario analyzed in the Prior FEIR. No substantial new information has been identified that would alter the conclusions of the Prior FEIR or require new mitigation measures.

The Section 15183 Consistency Checklist demonstrates that: (1) no peculiar impacts have been identified that were not previously analyzed; (2) no new significant off-site or cumulative impacts would occur; (3) no n ew information indicates more severe impacts; and (4) no additional mitigation measures are required, as all impacts would be less than significant.

Recommendation

Based on the analysis above, the proposed project is overall consistent with the applicable Citywide Design Guidelines and Objective Design Standards. The proposed project is also consistent with the High Density Residential (HDR) General Plan land use designation , the RMDO-R24+ overlay and the Planned Development Residential – 33 Dwellings Per Acre (PD-33) zoning, and is located on a site identified by the City Council as part of the City’s State-mandated RHNA inventory.

Based on these considerations, the Planning Commission and staff find that the project is consistent with the applicable land use policies and zoning requirements, and recommend s the City Council adopt resolutions approving a Notice of Exemption and a Design Review. 188

Pacific and Midas Apartments
Project
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
Consistency Analysis and Checklist

Lead Agency:

City of Rocklin
3970 Rocklin Road,
Rocklin, CA 95677

Project Applicant:

Cypress Equity Investments
12121 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 801
Los Angeles, CA 90025

CEQA Consultant:

3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612

July 2026
189
This page intentionally left blank.

190
Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin i
Contents

1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ..................................................................................................1

1.1. PROJECT SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 1

1.2. PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3. OVERVIEW OF CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 ................................................................... 1

1.4. INTENT OF CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 ......................................................................... 2

1.5. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRAM EIR .................................................................................... 4

1.6. DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 4

1.7. GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................. 4

2. EXISITING CONDITIONS ..............................................................................................................9

2.1. PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................................... 9

2.2. EXISTING LAND USE ................................................................................................................... 9

2.3. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ......................................... 9

2.4. SURROUNDING LAND USES ..................................................................................................... 10

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 21

3.1. PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................ 21

3.2. PROJECT FEATURES ................................................................................................................. 21

3.3. CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 24

3.4. DISCRETIONARY ACTION CHECKLIST ....................................................................................... 24

4. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 33

5. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ......................................................................................... 34

5.1. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 34

5.2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ............................................................ 35

5.3. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS CONCLUDED TO BE NO IMPACT IN THE GENERAL PLAN EIR ..... 35

5.4. DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) ............................................... 36

6. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 37

6.1. AESTHETICS.............................................................................................................................. 37

6.2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ............................................................................ 43

6.3. AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................ 48

6.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 57

6.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 69

6.6. ENERGY .................................................................................................................................... 74

6.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................... 79

6.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................................ 89

6.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................................ 95

6.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...................................................................................... 108

6.11. LAND USE AND PLANNING .................................................................................................... 118

6.12. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 121

6.13. NOISE ..................................................................................................................................... 123

6.14. POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................................. 133

6.15. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................................................................... 137 191
Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin ii

6.16. RECREATION .......................................................................................................................... 144

6.17. TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................................. 148

6.18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 156

6.19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 160

6.20. WILDFIRE ............................................................................................................................... 169

7. DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS ....................................................................... 175

8. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 176

Tables
TABLE 1-1: SURROUNDING EXISTING LAND USE, GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS, AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS .............. 10 TABLE 2-1: RESIDENTIAL UNIT SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 22 TABLE 2-2: CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................... 24 TABLE AQ-1: PCAPCD REGIONAL DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS .......................................................................... 50 TABLE AQ-2: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ................................................................................ 51 TABLE AQ-3: REGIONAL PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS .................................................................................. 53 TABLE GHG-1: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS .................................................................................... 92 TABLE GHG-2: TOTAL PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS ................................................................................................. 92 TABLE POP-1: POPULATION TRENDS (PLACER COUNTY) ...................................................................................... 134 TABLE POP-2: POPULATION TRENDS (CITY OF ROCKLIN) ..................................................................................... 134 TABLE TRA-1: PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ........................................................................................ 149 Figures
FIGURE 2-1: REGIONAL LOCATION ..................................................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 2-2: LOCAL VICINITY ............................................................................................................................. 13 FIGURE 2-3: AERIAL VIEW ................................................................................................................................ 15 FIGURE 2-4: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ............................................................................................................... 17 FIGURE 2-5: ZONING DESIGNATION.................................................................................................................... 19 FIGURE 3-1: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ................................................................................................................. 25 FIGURE 3-2A: BUILDING TYPE A ELEVATIONS ....................................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 3-2B: BUILDING TYPE B ELEVATIONS ....................................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 3-3: CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ....................................................................................................... 31

192
Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin iii
Appendices

APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS

APPENDIX B GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX C GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY UPDATE

APPENDIX D PHASE I ESA

APPENDIX E PHASE II ESA

APPENDIX F NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS

APPENDIX G VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED SCREENING

193
Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin iv
This page intentionally left blank.

194

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 1

1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

1.1. PROJECT SUMMARY
The proposed Project consists of the development of a 100 percent affordable multifamily residential community on an approximately 7.19-acre site located north of Midas Avenue and west of Pacific Street in the City of Rocklin. The Project would construct approximately 281 residential units within three four- story buildings, resulting in a density of approximately 39 dwelling units per acre. Proposed improvements include surface parking, internal circulation and fire access, landscaping, recreational amenities, utility infrastructure, stormwater facilities, and frontage improvements along Pacific Street and Midas Avenue.

1.2. PURPOSE
This Consistency Analysis and Checklist evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the Pacific and Midas Residential project (proposed Project) against the City of Rocklin General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GP EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number [SCH] No. 2008072115), to determine if it is eligible for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) streamlining under Section 15183, Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning, of the CEQA Guidelines. The proposed Project is being processed through the following development applications:
• Design Review. In accordance with Chapter 17.72.020 (Design Review-When Required) of the Rocklin Municipal Code, the proposed Project will require Design Review approval from the City of Rocklin. • Oak Tree Preservation Permit . In accordance with Chapter 17.77.100 (Oak Tree Preservation Guidelines) of the Rocklin Municipal Code, the proposed Project will require an Oak Tree Preservation Permit from the City of Rocklin.

1.3. OVERVIEW OF CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183
As set forth in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.3(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(a), projects that are “consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project- specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c) further states that “[i]f an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards […] then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.”
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Turlock, 138 Cal.App.4th 273 (2006) , the court interpreted the terms “peculiar to” and “project-specific” as used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. The court explained that an environmental effect is peculiar to a project if the physical change “belongs exclusively or especially to” that proj ect or is “characteristic of only” that project. The court then stated, “The foregoing construction of the terms ‘peculiar to’ and ‘project -specific’ promotes efficiency by reducing delay and needless paperwork and, therefore, is consistent with the purpose underlying the streamlined review of Guidelines section 15183.”
195

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 2
Similarly, in Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy, 140 Cal.App.4th 911 (2006), the court upheld the City’s reliance on CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 where the project’s air quality impacts had already been analyzed in the applicable General Plan EIR and there were no project-specific characteristics that made the prior analysis inadequate. The court recognized that, under Section 15183, the project’s air quality effects required no further project-level environmental analysis because those effects had already been evaluated at the program level. This supp orts the use of Section 15183 as an exemption from additional environmental review for impacts that are not peculiar to the project or its site and that were adequately addressed in the prior EIR.

Section 15183 implements Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, which courts have described as a statutory exemption from CEQA. More recently, the court in Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego explained that Guidelines Section 15183 “effectuates the statutory exemption in section 21083.3” and therefore functions as a CEQA statutory exemption. The court also clarified that Section 15183 may operate as a partial exemption, limiting additional environmental review to effects that are peculiar to the project or its site, were not adequately addressed in the prior EIR, or are otherwise subject to further review under Section 15183. Accordingly, the use of the term “exemption” in this Consistency Analysis is appropriate..

1.4. INTENT OF CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 may apply to exempt projects from additional environmental review that are consistent with the development density established by existing General Plan and zoning for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified. Further, the exemption provides that if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 specifies that examination of environmental effects shall be limited to those effects that:

1. Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located;

2. Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent;

3. Are potentially significant off- site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or

4. Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(i)(2) states that, “For the purposes of this section, ‘consistent’ means that the density of the proposed Project is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan, community plan or zoning action for which an EIR has been certified, and that the project complies with the density -related standards contained in that plan or zo ning. Where the zoning ordinance refers to the general plan or community plan for its density standard, the project shall be consistent with the applicable plan.” This Consistency Analysis and Checklist is used to provide substantial evidence that the proposed Project qualifies for the Section 15183 exemption. 196

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 3
Specifically, the Project qualifies for the exemption because the following findings can be made:

1. The Project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified. The proposed Project would develop 281 multi-family units within three 4-story buildings. On August 26, 2025, the City of Rocklin approved GPA2024-0001 and Resolution No. 2025- 191 which changed the land use designation of the Project site from Mixed Use (MU) to High Density Residential (HDR). The Mixed Use designation allows for residential development at a density between 10 - 40 dwelling units per acre . The site is currently zoned Planned Development Residential – 33 dwelling units per acre (PD-33) by the zoning map, which allows flexible, master-planned development of a site using customized standards and a mix of uses to achieve creative design, preserve open space, and ensure coordinated, large -scale development.

The Project site is also within a Residential Minimum Density Overlay (RES-24+) which mandates that residential development on designated parcels be constructed at a minimum density of 24 dwelling units per acre, supporting high-density multifamily housing. The proposed development, including the density bonus units, would result in a density of 39 dwelling units per acre and is consistent with the residential land use and development intensity analyzed in the GP EIR and zoning framework.

2. There are no Project-specific effects which are peculiar to the Project or its site. The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped, and surrounded by mixed use and commercial development to the south, east, and west and railroad tracks followed by industrial uses to the north . The site does not contain any sensitive or unique environmental features that would result in unusual environmental effects. The proposed Project would not result in any site- specific effects that differ from those analyzed in the GP EIR. The proposed Pr oject includes typical residential infrastructure improvements, such as private streets, sidewalks, drainage basins, utility connections, and landscaped open space, consistent with nearby development.

3. There are no significant effects which were not analyzed in the GP EIR. As further detailed in the CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist , the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project were adequately addressed in the GP EIR. The GP EIR identified that the GP would have significant and unavoidable environmental effects related to a esthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, noise , and transportation. The proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than those previously analyzed.

4. There are no potentially significant off -site and/or cumulative impacts that were not evaluated in the GP EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the density and land use characteristics of the development considered by the GP EIR and would represent a small part of the growth that was forecasted for build-out of the GP. The GP EIR considered the incremental impacts of the Project, and, as explained further in the CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist below, no potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts have been identified, which were not previously evaluated.

5. There is no substantial new information which would result in more severe impacts than anticipated in the GP EIR. There is no new information of substantial importance that would change the conclusions of the GP EIR. The physical conditions of the site and surrounding area remain consistent with what was analyzed in 2011. There have been no substantial changes to the regulatory framework that would result in new or more severe impacts. As demonstrated in the CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist , the proposed Project does not introduce new impacts or increase the severity of previously disclosed impacts.
197

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 4

6. The Project will implement applicable Mitigation Measures identified in the GP EIR.

As explained in the Consistency Analysis below, the proposed Project will undertake feasible Mitigation Measures specified in the GP EIR through Project design, compliance with regulations and ordinances, the Project’s Conditions of approval, and City permit processing.

1.5. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRAM EIR AND HOUSING ELEMENT

ADDENDUM
On October 10, 20 12, the City Council certified the City of Rocklin General Plan Draft EIR SCH No. 2008072115 (GP EIR) and adopted the City of Rocklin General Plan Update (General Plan). [https://www.rocklin.ca.us/post/draft-general-plan-update-environmental-impact-report-0].

On August 26, 2025, the City Council approved the Addendum to the General Plan 2021 -2029 Housing Element Program 10 – Alternative Sites for Inclusion in the Approved Inventory of Sites for RHNA by Resolution No. 2025-190.

1.6. DETERMINATIONS
In each of the environmental topics, the proposed Project impacts are compared to the impacts as disclosed in the GP EIR. In all instances, the proposed Project’s impacts must be less than, or equal to, the environmental impacts disclosed in the GP EIR. If the impact is potentially greater than disclosed in the GP EIR, Section 15183(f) of the CEQA Guidelines allows the City to apply previously adopted “uniformly applied development policies or standards” that will “substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects.” If the impact cannot be mitigated to less than significant, this exemption cannot be used to consider the proposed Project.

1.7. GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION MEASURES
The GP EIR contains several mitigation m easures that are designed to address a wide range of project types. Each proposed Project is unique and may not need the full list of mitigation me asures adopted as part of the GP EIR. If a GP EIR mitigation measure is not needed, this fact will be reported in the analysis, with evidence explaining why the measure does not apply to the proposed Project . Likewise, if the technical studies prepared for the proposed Project suggest applicable mitigation mea sures that are generated from, and build upon the mitigation framework established in the GP EIR, they will be discussed in the relevant sections. All mitigation me asures will be included as conditions of approval and in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) if the proposed Project is approved.

1.8. UNIFORMLY APPLIED REGULATIONS
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project is subject to numerous uniformly applied development policies, standards, and regulations adopted by the City of Rocklin and other applicable regulatory agencies that were considered in the environmental analysis of the City of Rocklin General Plan EIR. These requirements are applied consistently to qualifying development projects throughout the City and serve to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential environmental impacts associated with project implementation. Applicable regulations include:
198

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 5
California Building Standards Code Title 24 -Structural and Seismic Standards. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24), including Part 2 (California Building Code), which establishes structural design and seismic safety requirements for buildings. These standards require structures to be designed to withstand seismic forces, incorporate appropriate foundation systems, and address site-specific geotechnical conditions.

California Endangered Species Act (CESA) . The proposed Project would be required to comply with the California Endangered Species Act, which prohibits unauthorized take of State -listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species and requires consultation and/or take authorization from CDFW where impacts to such species could occur.

California Fish and Game Code Section 1602. The proposed Project would be required to comply with CDFW streambed alteration requirements if Project activities would substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of, or deposit material into a stream, lake, or other feature subject to CDFW jurisdiction.

City of Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter, 17.96: Density Increase Incentive Program . City of Rocklin Development Code Chapter 17.96: Density Increase Incentive Program.

Implements the State Density Bonus Law (California Government Code Section 65915 et seq.) and allows eligible residential projects to receive density increases, concessions, and development standard waivers to facilitate affordable housing. The program ens ures that such incentives are applied in a manner consistent with State law while maintaining compatibility with surrounding development through applicable design and development standards.

City of Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter 17.77 . Oak Tree Preservation. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City of Rocklin Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, which regulates the removal of protected native oak trees and encroachment into protected oak tree zones. Compliance may include preservation, replacement planting, payment into the Rocklin Oak Tree Preservation Fund, dedication of land, or other requirements determined through the City’s development review process.

City of Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter 15.04.010: Building Code. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City’s adopted Building Code, as outlined in Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter

15.04. This section adopts the most recent edition of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24), along with any local amendments, to ensure safe and structurally sound development. All building plans would be subject to plan check and permit review by the City’s Building and Safety Division to confirm compliance with applicable structural, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, fire safety, and energy efficiency standards. Adherence to these requirements would ensure that all new construction meets current safety and performance codes.

City of Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter 15.28: Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control. The proposed Project would be required to comply with Chapter 15.28, which requires preparation and approval of grading and erosion control plans and implementation of measures to minimize soil erosion and loss of topsoil during construction activities.

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 6
Fire Hydrant Locations and Distribution, and Fire Apparatus Access Roads, and establishes minimum fire safety requirements applicable to all development. These standards address fire apparatus access, water supply, construction materials, vegetation management, and other fire prevention measures. Compliance is required for all projects and enforced by the Rocklin Fire Department.

City of Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter 8.30: Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance . The Project would be required adhere to the City's Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance to protect water quality by regulating discharges into the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) and local waterways. The ordinance is intended to ensure compliance with the federal Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit, and applicable State water quality requirements.

City of Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter 15.28: Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control. The Project would be required to prepare and implement grading and erosion control plans to minimize soil erosion, sedimentation, and runoff during construction.

City of Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter 15.16: Flood Hazard Ordinance. The Project would be required to comply with the City’s flood hazard regulations, which govern development within flood -prone areas and ensure that development does not increase flood hazards or impede flood flows.

City of Rocklin Municipal Code Section 9.52.030: Noise Standards. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City of Rocklin noise standards regulating construction and operational noise levels. Compliance with these standards would be ensured through the City’s permitting and plan check review process.

City of Rocklin Municipal Code Section 3.16.410: Park Improvement Impact Fee. A development impact fee is established and collected at the time of building permit issuance for all residential development in the City to fund park facility improvements and expansions needed to serve new growth. The adopted fee study identifies the fac ilities to be funded and ensures that new development contributes its fair share toward park infrastructure.

City of Rocklin Municipal Code Section 3.16.4 20: Trails Impact Fee. A development impact fee is established on issuance of all building permits for residential development in the city to pay for trail facility improvements. The fee study dated April 18, 2022, identifies the facilities to be funded by the fee.

City of Rocklin Municipal Code Section 3.16.4 30: Community and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee. A development impact fee is established on issuance of all building permits for residential development in the city to pay for community and recreation facility improvements. The fee study dated April 18, 2022, identifies the facilities to be funded by the fee.

City of Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter 13.08: Solid Waste and Construction Refuse Collection. Requires adequate on -site solid waste and recycling facilities and regular collection services to ensure proper handling and disposal of refuse.

Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404. The proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable federal requirements regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, if such resources are determined to be present or affected by Project activities. 200

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 7
Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). The proposed Project would be required to comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act, which prohibits unauthorized take of federally listed threatened and endangered species and requires consultation and/or take authorization where impacts to federally listed species could occur.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513.

The proposed Project would be required to comply with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code provisions protecting native birds, raptors, migratory birds, active nests, and eggs. Compliance may require avoidance of vegetation removal during the nesting season or pre -construction nesting bird surveys and appropriate avoidance buffers if construction occurs during the nesting season.

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit Requirements. The Project would be required to comply with applicable MS4 permit requirements for post -construction stormwater management, including incorporation of site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff.

PCAPCD Rule 228 – Fugitive Dust. Requires implementation of dust control measures for construction activities capable of generating fugitive dust, including stabilization of disturbed areas, pre -watering, limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces, covering haul trucks, preventing track -out onto public roadways, and suspending grading during high wind conditions. Ensures particulate matter emissions (PM
10 and PM2.5) are minimized and do not result in visible emissions beyond the project boundary.

PCAPCD Rule 205 – Nuisance. Prohibits the discharge of air contaminants, including odors, in quantities that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to a considerable number of persons or the public.

Provides regulatory enforcement to address objectionable odors and protect nearby sensitive receptors.

PCAPCD Rule 218 – Architectural Coatings. Limits volatile organic compound (VOC) content in paints and coatings used during construction and operation to reduce emissions that contribute to ozone formation and regional air quality degradation.

Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (PCFCWCD) Flood Control Manual. The proposed Project would be required to design drainage improvements in accordance with PCFCWCD standards to ensure that post-development runoff does not exceed pre-development conditions and that downstream drainage systems are not adversely impacted.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable State water quality requirements regulating discharges to waters of the State, if such resources are determined to be present or affected by Project activities.

State Water Resources Control Board Construction General Permit (NPDES). The proposed Project would be required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit and prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to minimize pollutants in stormwater runoff during construction through Best Management Practices (BMPs).

Title 24, Energy Efficiency and Green Building Standards. The Project is required to be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. 201

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 8
2022 California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen). Section 5.408.1.1 Construction waste management plan. Newly constructed projects and additions and alterations to existing buildings shall recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris in accordance with Section 5.408.1.1.

202

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 9

2. EXISITING CONDITIONS

2.1. PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is within the southeastern portion of the City of Rocklin, Placer County, California. The Project site is located north of Midas Avenue, west of Pacific Street, and east of the Union Pacific train tracks in the City of Rocklin, Placer County, California. Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 80 and State Route 65, while local access is provided by Pacific Street, Midas Avenue, and surrounding city streets. The site is located within a developed urban area of Rocklin and is s erved by existing transportation infrastructure. The Project site and surrounding area are shown in Figure 2 -1, Regional Location, and Figure 2-2, Local Vicinity.

2.2. EXISTING LAND USE
The Project site encompasses 7.19 gross acres. The Project site consists of five parcels identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 010 -010-017, 010-040-040, 010-010-016, 010-010-029, and 010-010- 028 and has an address of 4770 Pacific Street. The Project site primarily consists of vacant land. The Project site is relatively flat with a slight slope from the southwest to northeast; on average the elevation is approximately 265 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Existing access to the Project site is provi ded by either Midas Avenue or Pacific Street. The Project site’s existing conditions are shown in Figure 2-3, Aerial View.

2.3. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS On August 26, 2025, the City of Rocklin approved GPA2024 -0001 and Resolution No. 2025 -191 which changed the land use designation of the Project site from Mixed Use (MU) to High Density Residential (HDR). The City of Rocklin General Plan Land Use Element states that the HDR land use is meant to provide areas for multifamily homes, conveniently near commercial uses, employment centers, arterial and collector streets, and other intensive uses.

Effective July 13, 2017, the parcels that are part of the Project site are considered part of the Rocklin Gateway General Development Plan and are zoned Planned Development Residential – 33 dwellings per acre (PD-33), per Ordinance No. 1068. Furthermore, on September 9, 2025, the City of Rocklin approved Ordinance No. 1192, which applied the Residential Minimum Density Overlay district to the alternative sites identified for inclusion in the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); the Project site is among the parcels included in the RHNA. Thus, per Ordinance No. 1068 and Ordinance No. 1192, the Project site is zoned Planned Development – 33 dwellings per acre (PD -33) with a Residential Minimum Density Overlay of 24 dwelling units per acre (RES -24+). The PD -33 zoning allows for flexible, master- planned development of a site using customized standards and a mix of uses to achieve creative design, preserve open space, and ensure coordinated, large -scale development. The RES-24+ overlay mandates that residential development on designated parcels be constructed at a minimum density of 24 dwelling units per acre, supporting high-density multifamily housing.

The Project site’s existing land use designation is shown in Figure 2 -4, Existing General Plan Designation, and the existing zoning designation is shown in Figure 2-5, Existing Zoning Designation. 203

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 10

2.4. SURROUNDING LAND USES
The existing land use, General Plan land use designation, and zoning for surrounding parcels are described in Table 1-1, Surrounding Existing Land Use, General Plan Designations, and Zoning Designations.

Table 1-1: Surrounding Existing Land Use, General Plan Designations, and Zoning Designations Existing Land Use General Plan Designation Zoning Designation North
Light industrial and retail
businesses, Union Pacific
Railroad tracks
Light Industrial (LI); Retail
Commercial (RC)
Planned Development Light
Industrial (PD-LI); Unclassified (UN)
South
Retail businesses, auto
repair shop, driving
school
Mixed Use (MU); High Density
Residential (HDR)
Limited General Retail and Service
Commercial Residential 24+(C-
4/RES24+); General Retail Services
Commercial Mixed Use 10+ (C-
4/MU10+); Retail Business
Residential 24+ (C-2/RES24+); Retail
Business (C-2)
East RV dealership, carwash,
mobile home park
Medium Density Residential
(MDR); Mixed Use (MU); Retail
Commercial (RC)
General and Service Commercial
Zone Mixed Use 24+ (C-3/MU24+);
General and Service Commercial
Zone (C-3); Residential Single Family
5,000 SF Minimum Lots (R1-5)
West
Union Pacific Railroad
tracks; single-family
homes
Retail Commercial (RC);
Medium Density Residential
(MDR); High Density
Residential (HDR)
Unclassified (UN); Unclassified
Residential 24+ (UN/RES 24+);
Residential Single Family 5,000 SF
Minimum Lots (R1-5)

204
Figure 2-1: Regional Location
U
niversity
A
ve
R
oseville
Byp

WHITNEY
Sunset Blvd
65 William Jessup
University

KASEBERG- KINGSWOOD

INDUSTRIAL

AREA EAST

HIGHLAND

RESERVE

VINEYARD
LOS

CERRITOS
Antelope
Creek
W
Oaks
Blvd
Ranc h Vi ew Dr
W
ildcatBlvd
Park
D
r
Tw elve Bri dg es
D
r
Twelve Bridges Dr
E
JoinerPkw
y
King Rd
E3
Whitney
Oaks Golf
Club
Catta
Verdera
Country
Club
D
elm
arAve
Cavitt Stallman Rd
GraniteDr
Park
Dr
Cr estDr
Rawhide
Rd
W Oaks Blvd
Long v iew Dr
Taylor Rd
Pacific
St
Sunset Blvd
Rocklin Rd
Blue
O
aks
Blvd
E3
80 Sunset Whitney
Recreation Area
Sierra College

CREEKSIDE

STONERIDGE

DIAM OND
OAKS

STANFORD

CROSSING
SIERRA
VISTA

ROCKLIN
Eur eka Rd
Olive Ranch Rd

HILLCREST

JOHNSON
RANCH

OLYM PUS
POINTE

LEAD HILLR O S E V I L L E
Secret Ravine Creek
Penryn
R
d
SwetzerRd
Colwell Rd
E nglish Colony Way
H
um
phrey
R
d
King Rd
PENRYN
M
organ
Pl
ValVerde
R
d
Laird
RdB
arton
R
d
Cavitt Stallman Rd
Br ace Rd

LOOM IS
HIDDEN
VALLEY
Douglas Blvd
Eur eka Rd
Douglas Blv d
Auburn
Folsom
R
d

GRANITE BAY
Lincoln
Loomis
Rocklin
Roseville
Unincorporated
Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 1 2
Miles
±
Legend
Project Location
Lincoln
Loomis
Rocklin
Roseville
Unincorporated
Pacific and Midas Apartments
205

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 12
This page intentionally left blank.

206
Figure 2-2: Local Vicinity
Sunset Whitney
Recreation
Area
Johnson-Springview
Park
3rdStreet
Antelope
CreekAitkenDairyRoadSkylineDrive
NorthhavenDrive
SilverStreet
Midas Avenue
ArgonautAvenue
Spring View
Middle School
B Street
Tuttle Drive
SweetwaterDrive
Mountain View Drive
HighStreet
SanFranciscoStreet
Am
ericanaW
ay
Oak Street
East Midas Avenue
AntelopeW
ay
Willowglen Way
5thStreet
FrontStreet
Rocklin Road
Cedar Street
Granite Drive
M
idasAvenue
M
eyersStreet
Argonaut Avenue
SierraM
eadowsDrive
PacificStreet
UP
RosevilleSubdivision
UP Roseville Subdivision
UP
RosevilleSubdivision
Antelope
Creek Falla
Wetland
Preserve
Quarry Park
RuhkalaRoad
SouthGroveStreet
CreeksideDrive
Hidden GlenDrive
WindingLane
Farron Street
AlanS.HartFreeway
UP
RosevilleSubdivision
108
Del Rio Court
Rocklin Square
Shopping
Center
UPRosevilleSubdivision
108
SecretRavine
Sources: Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri
0 0.15 0.3
Miles
±
Legend
Project Boundary
Pacific and Midas Apartments
Pacific Street
Midas Avenue
Argonaut Avenue
Rocklin Road
80 207

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 14
This page intentionally left blank.

208
Figure 2-3: Aerial View
0 125 250
US Feet
±
Legend
Project Boundary
Pacific and Midas Apartments
Pacific Street
Midas Avenue
Created with Vertical © 2026 Nearmap US, Inc.

Rail Line
209

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 16
This page intentionally left blank.

210
Figure 2-4: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations Microsoft, Vantor
0 300 600
US Feet
±
Legend
HDR - High Density
Residential
LI - Light Industrial
MDR - Medium Density
Residential
MHDR - Medium-High
Density Residential
MU - Mixed Use
RC - Retail Commercial
Project Boundary
Pacific and Midas Apartments
Pacific Street
Midas Avenue
Railroad Avenue
Grove Street
Created with Vertical © 2026 Nearmap US, Inc.
211

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 18
This page intentionally left blank.

212
Figure 2-5: Existing Zoning
PD-10.5
OA
PD-6
C-1
PD-LI
R1-5
R1-6
R1-7.5
UN
R-2
C-3
C-2
C-2/RES24+
C-3/MU24+
C-4/MU10+
PD-33/RES24+
C-2/MU10+
C-4/RES24+
UN/RES24+
R1-5/RES24+
0 300 600
US Feet
±
Legend
C-1
C-2
C-2/MU10+
C-2/RES24+
C-3
C-3/MU24+
C-4/MU10+
C-4/RES24+
OA
PD-6
PD-10.5
PD-33/RES24+
PD-LI
R-2
R1-5
R1-5/RES24+
R1-6
R1-7.5
UN
UN/RES24+
Project Boundary
Pacific and Midas Apartments
Pacific Street
Midas Avenue
Grove Street
Created with Vertical © 2026 Nearmap US, Inc.
213

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 20
This page intentionally left blank.

214

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 21

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
Waterford Property Company (Applicant) is requesting approval from the City of Rocklin for a Design Review Approval to allow for a 100 percent affordable multifamily community with approximately 281 units in three four-story buildings on 6.2 net acres (7. 2 gross acres). The Project would be developed on currently vacant land. Planned improvements include site grading, surface parking, internal circulation, fire access, a playground, landscaped courtyard, and community facilities such as a clubhouse, lounge, laundry rooms, and fitness room. The Project design concept is illustrated in Figure 3 -1, Conceptual Site Plan.

State Housing Laws
The proposed Project may utilize the provisions of the California Housing Crisis Act of 2019 Senate Bill 330 (SB 330), which establishes procedures intended to facilitate the development of housing. Under SB 330, housing development projects may submit a p reliminary application that establishes the development standards, fees, and ordinances applicable to the project at the time the application is deemed complete.

The provisions of SB 330 provide certainty regarding the development standards applicable to the project after the preliminary application has been submitted. The proposed Project would remain subject to applicable zoning regulations, design review, and environmental review by the City of Rocklin.

3.2. PROJECT FEATURES
Residential Development Summary
The proposed Project would construct approximately 281 multifamily residential units on the approximately 7.19 gross-acre site, which would result in a density of approximately 39 dwelling units per acre. Buildout of the Project site would result in a total building area of 262,648 square feet (SF). The Project is intended to provide affordable housing and is subject to the City’s Residential Minimum Density Overlay (RES-24+), which requires a minimum density of 24 dwelling units per acre.

The residential development is anticipated to consist of three apartment buildings up to four stories in height arranged around internal circulation and open space areas. The buildings would provide family - oriented residential units and associated amenities, including playground areas, landscaped open space, and community facilities. The structures are expected to be wood -frame construction on conventional foundations and supported by surface parking areas and internal drive aisles. The residential units would each have one to three bedrooms and range from 559 to 1,026 net square feet (SF). Table 2-1 provides a summary of the proposed residences. The proposed building elevations shown on Figure 3 -2a, Building Type A Elevations, and Figure 3-2b, Building Type B Elevations. 215

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 22
Table 2-1: Residential Unit Summary
Building Gross Area 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed Number of
Units
A 64,800 SF 36 22 16 74
A 64,800 SF 36 22 16 74
B 132,780 SF 38 49 46 133

Access and Parking
Access to the proposed Project would be provided from Pacific Street and Midas Avenue, which front the site and serve as the primary points of vehicular and emergency access. The site circulation system would be designed to allow vehicles, including fire apparatus, to enter from either frontage and travel through the site via a continuous internal drive aisle.

Internal circulation would consist of private drive aisles and parking areas providing access to residential buildings, parking areas, and service areas. Pedestrian pathways would connect building entrances, parking areas, and common open space amenities throughout the site.

No new public streets are proposed. Improvements along the Project frontage would include curb, gutter, sidewalks, and accessible pedestrian connections consistent with City standards. Parking areas would be located primarily behind the street-facing buildings to maintain an active streetscape along Pacific Street and Midas Avenue.

The proposed Project would include a total of 356 parking spaces. The internal circulation layout is designed to support safe vehicle maneuvering, emergency access, and pedestrian connectivity while accommodating site constraints, including grade changes and utility easements..

Landscape and Recreational Facilities
The proposed Project would include approximately 72,485 SF of landscaping that would cover approximately 23.14 percent of the site, as shown in Figure 3 -3, Conceptual Landscape Plan. Proposed landscaping would include variety of trees, shrubs, and groundcover species consisting of drought - tolerant and water- efficient plant materials consistent with City of Rocklin landscaping requirements throughout the Project site.

The proposed Project would develop 13,020 SF in common open space integrated throughout the site that would provide recreational opportunities to residents. These areas would include landscaped courtyards, a playground, and outdoor gathering spaces. A club house located within the central residential building would provide indoor community space including lounge areas, and additional resident amenities would include a fitness room and community laundry facilities. Outdoor open space areas are designed to encourage resident interaction and provide usable recreational space.

Fencing and Walls
The proposed Project would install walls and fencing throughout the Project site The proposed Project would include an existing 8 -foot concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall on the northern part of the Project 216

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 23
site, install a retaining wall on the west side of the Project site that borders the train tracks, install a second retaining wall on the eastern portion of the Project site bordering Pacific Street, and install a small segment of 6- to 8-foot metal tubular fencing connecting the CMU wall to the west retaining wall.

Infrastructure Improvements
Water and Sewer
The proposed Project would be serviced by Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) for water supply. The proposed Project would install new on -site connections to the PCWA water mains located within Pacific Street and Midas Avenue. Within the Project site, 6 -inch domestic water lines would be installed to distribute potable water throughout the site, with 4-inch branch lines serving individual buildings.

The proposed Project would also install new on -site connections to the 8 -inch South Placer Municipal Utility District ( SPMUD) sanitary sewer infrastructure. Within the Project site, 8 -inch private sanitary sewer lines would be installed, with smaller lateral connections serving individual buildings.

Drainage
The proposed Project would collect drainage via drop inlets and catch basins, which would convey stormwater through a network of on -site storm drain infrastructure to proposed stormwater detention facilities located throughout the Project site. These facilities are designed to temporarily store and regulate runoff prior to discharge to downstream drainage systems. Existing drainage patterns across the site, including on-site conveyance features directing flows toward Midas Avenue, would be modified as part of site development and incorporated into the proposed storm drain system, with stormwater flows managed through detention facilities to avoid an increase in off-site runoff.

Street Improvements
The proposed Project would require utility connections within the public right-of-way along Pacific Street and Midas Avenue where accessible water and sewer mains are located. Electrical service would be extended from an existing underground PG&E facility located approximately 270 feet along Pacific Street through trenching within an existing public utility easement to serve the Project site.

Midas Avenue
The proposed Project would include improvements along Midas including the addition of a right turn lane into the proposed western driveway along Midas Avenue. The Project would include additional bike lane striping consistent with the existing bike lane along Midas Avenue and would also install new curb and gutter with a 6-foot sidewalk which would connect to the existing sidewalk along the roadway.

Pacific Street
The proposed Project would include demolition of approximately 303 feet of the existing median along Pacific Street and would implement center turn lane median striping to allow for two-way left turns. The proposed striping would include two solid yellow l ines on each side of the median to define the center lane and separate it from through lanes. The Project would also demolish approximately 26 -feet of the existing curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Project frontage to reconstruct with a rolled curb and sidewalk to allow for sewer access within the Project site.
217

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 24

3.3. CONSTRUCTION
Construction activities would include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coatings. Demolition activities are not anticipated as the Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Grading work is expected to resul t in approximately 29,625 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 22,570 cubic yards (CY) of fill. Construction is expected to occur over 23 months and would occur within the hours allowable by City of Rocklin Noise Standards Ordinance (Rocklin Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter

9.52), which state that construction activities shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on weekdays and 8:00 AM and 7:00 PM on weekends. Table 2 -2, Construction Schedule, presents the anticipated construction schedule.

Table 2-2: Construction Schedule
Construction Activity Number of Working Days
Site Preparation 10
Grading 20
Building Construction 630
Paving 20
Architectural Coating 20
Total 700

3.4. DISCRETIONARY ACTION CHECKLIST
The following discretionary approvals, permits, and studies from the City of Rocklin are anticipated to be necessary for implementation of the proposed Project:
• Design Review Approval
• Oak Tree Preservation Permit
• Ministerial approvals and permits necessary to execute the proposed Project, including but not limited to grading permit, building permit, etc.

218
Figure 3-1: Conceptual Site Plan
Pacific and Midas Apartments
±
219

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklis t City of Rocklin 26
This page intentionally left blank.

220
Figure 3-2a: Building Type A Elevations
Pacific and Midas Apartments
221

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklis t City of Rocklin 28
This page intentionally left blank.

222
Figure 3-2b: Building Type B Elevations
Pacific and Midas Apartments
223

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklis t City of Rocklin 30
This page intentionally left blank.

224
Figure 3-3: Conceptual Landscape Plan
Pacific and Midas Apartments
±
225

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklis t City of Rocklin 32
This page intentionally left blank.
226

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 33

4. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Through the analysis provided in this Consistency Analysis and Checklist , it is determined that the proposed Project is consistent with the development density related standards established by the General Plan and Development Code for the City of Rocklin. This Consistency Analysis and Checklist evaluates the proposed Project’s specific effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.

227

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 34

5. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

5.1. BACKGROUND
Project Title: Pacific and Midas Residential Project
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rocklin, 3970 Rocklin Rd, Rocklin, CA 95677 Contact Person and Phone Number: David Mohlenbrok, Director; (916) 625-5162 Project Location: The Project site is situated in the southeast portion of the City of Rocklin within Placer County. The Project site is located north of Midas Avenue and west of Pacific Street (APN 010-010-017, 010-040-040, 010-010-016, 010-010-029, and 010-010-028).

Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Waterford Property Company , 100 Bayview Cir Suite 4500 , Newport Beach, CA 92660
GP Land Use Designation: High Density Residential
Zoning: Planned Development – 33 dwellings per acre with a Residential Minimum Density Overlay of 24 dwelling units per acre
Project Description: The proposed Project would allow for a 100 percent affordable multifamily community with approximately 281 units in three four -story buildings on 6.2 net acres. The Project would be developed on currently vacant land. Planned improvements include site grading, structured and surface parking, internal circulation, fire access, a playground, landscaped courtyard, and community facilities such as a clubhouse, lounge, laundry rooms, and a fitness room.

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Commercial, light industrial, and railroad uses are located north of the Project site. Commercial and mixed-use development is located to the south. Commercial uses are located to the east. The Union Pacific Railroad corridor and single -family residential uses are located to the west.

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Placer County Water Agency, South Placer Municipal Utility District, Placer County Air Pollution Control District
Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determi nation of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of the CEQA process and equates significant impacts on “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts (PRC Sec tion 21084.2). AB 52 requires that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review evaluate, just as they do for other historical and archeological resources, a project’s potential impact to a tribal cultural resource. In addition, AB 52 requires that lead agencies, upon request of a California Native American tribe, begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for 228

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 35
a project. AB 52 does not apply to a Notice of Exemption, such as this CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist. As such, AB 52 consultation is not required for this Project.

5.2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below are peculiar to the project site and would be potentially affected by this project involving at least one impact that is “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.” As allowed by CEQA Section 15183(f), “An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the city or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect.”
None
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire

5.3. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS CONCLUDED TO BE NO IMPACT IN THE

GENERAL PLAN EIR
The GP EIR concluded that development that is consistent with the General Plan would have no impact on the following environmental topics. T he numbering below is consistent with the GP EIR impact numbers:

Aesthetics
Impact 4.3.1: Implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. [Threshold AES-1]
Impact 4.3.2: Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially damage any scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway. [Threshold AES-2]
229

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 36

5.4. DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) On the basis of this evaluation:

I find that the proposed Project WOULD NOT result in: (1) a project specific impact which is peculiar to the project or its site; (2) a significant impact that was not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR; (3) a potentially significant off- site impact or cumulative impact not discussed in the prior EIR; or (4) a more severe impact due to substantial new information that was not known at the time the prior EIR. NO FURTHER ACTION is required and a Notice of Exemption (Section 15062) will be filed indicati ng that the Project IS ELIGIBLE for an EXEMPTION under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

I find that the proposed Project WOULD NOT result in: (1) one or more significant environmental effects not previously discussed in the certified EIR for the Specific Plan; (2) a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (3) the feasibility of previously rejected Mitigation Measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but are not adopted by the City; or (4) new or considerably different Mitigation Measures or alternatives t
hat would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but are not adopted by the City. NO FURTHER ACTION is required and a Notice of Exemption (Section 15062) will be filed indicating that the Project IS ELIGIBLE for an EXEMPTION under CEQA Guidelines Section 15182.

I find that the proposed Project would result in: (1) a project specific impact which is peculiar to the project or its site; (2) a significant impact that was not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR; (3) a potentially significant off-site impact or cumulative impact not discussed in the prior EIR; or (4) a more severe impact due to substantial new information that was not known at the time the prior EIR. I find that FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW is necessary to analyze those effects that are subject to CEQA, and therefore, this Project is NOT ELIGIBLE for an EXEMPTION under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

I find that the proposed Project WOULD result in: (1) one or more significant environmental effects not previously discussed in the certified EIR for the Specific Plan; (2) a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (3) the feasibility of previously rejected Mitigation Measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but are not adopted by the City; or (4) new or considerably different Mitigation Measures or alternatives that
would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but are not adopted by the City. I find that FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW is necessary to analyze those effects that are subject to CEQA, and therefore, this Project is NOT ELIGIBLE for an EXEMPTIO N under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Signature Date

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Printed Name Date
230

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 37

6. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist. The environmental checklist follows the format of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and evaluates whether the Project would result in potentially significant environmental impacts that would trigger additional review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. Each subsection briefly summarizes the conclusions of the GP EIR, and then discusses whether or not the p roposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GP EIR or if further analysis is required pursuant to CEQA. Mitigation Measures referenced herein are from the GP EIR.

6.1. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public
Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:

b) Substantially damage
scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a
State scenic highway

c) In non- urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that
are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage
point). If the Project is in an
urbanized area, would the
Project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?

231

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 38
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare
which would adversely
affect day or nighttime
views in the area?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur to the visual character of the Planning Area as a result of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan.

When previously undeveloped land becomes developed, ae sthetic impacts include changes to scenic character and new sources of light and glare (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011, pages

4.3-1 through 4.3-18). Mitigation measures to address these impacts are incorporated into the General Plan in the Land Use and the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Elements, and include policies that encourage the use of design standards for unique areas and the protection of natural resources, including open space areas, natural resource areas, hilltops, waterways and oak trees, from the encroachment of incompatible land use.

The General Plan EIR concluded that, despite the goals and policies addressing visual character, views, and light and glare, significant aesthetic impacts will occur as a result of development under the General Plan and further, that these impacts cannot b e reduced to a less than significant level. Specifically, the General Plan EIR found that buildout of the Rocklin General Plan will change and degrade the existing visual character, will create new sources of light and glare and will contribute to cumulative impacts to existing visual character and creation of light and glare. Findings of fact and a statement of overriding consideration were adopted by the Rocklin City Council in regard to these cumulative impacts, which were found to be significant and unavoidable.

Project-Specific Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the G P EIR as Impact 4.3.1 and was determined to have no impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.3-10).

Scenic vistas are generally defined as expansive or panoramic views of visually important features from publicly accessible vantage points. The City of Rocklin GP EIR did not identify any scenic vistas within the City, and the project site is not located within or adjacent to any designated scenic resources or recognized public view corridors.

The project site is currently vacant and located within an urbanized area characterized by a mix of commercial, residential, and transportation -related uses. While development of the proposed project would alter the visual character of the site, it would be consistent with surrounding land uses and subject to applicable development standards under the City’s Municipal Code and design guidelines, including height, setback, and site design requirements that regulate visual character and compatibility. The proposed project would not obstruct or degrade any scenic vistas, nor would it introduce visual conditions that differ from those anticipated under General Plan buildout. 232

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 39
The proposed project does not introduce any peculiar site-specific conditions that would result in impacts not previously analyzed in the GP EIR, nor would it result in new or more severe impacts related to scenic vistas. Accordingly, impacts associated wi th scenic vistas were adequately addressed in the GP EIR, and implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new or substantially greater impacts.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no additional environmental review is required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.3.2 and was determined to have no impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.3-10).

According to Caltrans, there are no designated State Scenic Highways in the vicinity of the project site.

The nearest designated scenic highway is located approximately 23 miles from the site, and the project site is not visible from any designated or eligible scenic highway segments.

Given the distance from designated scenic highways and lack of visibility, the proposed project would not have the potential to substantially damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. The proposed project does not introduce any peculiar site-specific conditions that would result in impacts not previously analyzed in the GP EIR. Accordingly, impacts related to scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway were adequately addressed in the GP EIR, and implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new or substantially greater impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 , the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no additional environmental review is required. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the P roject is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.4.4 and was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.3-10 through 4.3-13).

The proposed Project is in an urbanized and developing area of the City of Rocklin and is surrounded by existing railways, residential uses, light industrial uses, and commercial uses. The proposed Project would involve development of 281 multifamily residential units on a 7.19-acre site across three four -story buildings, resulting in an overall proposed density of 39.1 dwelling units per acre. As described previously in Section 2.0, Existing Conditions, the Project site is designated as High Density Residential in the General Plan and is zoned PD-33 RES 24+.

As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed Project involves commitment to affordable housing. Specifically, the proposed Project would develop a 100 percent affordable multifamily residential community consisting of 137 units affordable to households earning up to 70 percent of Area Median Income (AMI), 56 units affordable to households earning up to 60 percent AMI, 56 units affordable to households earning up to 50 percent AMI, and 29 units affordable to households earning up to 30 percent AMI, in addition to three manager/maintenanc e units. The proposed Project’s density and affordable housing program are therefore consistent with the City’s adopted housing policies and applicable residential land use designations.
233

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 40
While the proposed Project may include limited modifications to certain development standards, such as parking design standards, these modifications would be subject to City review and approval through the entitlement and permitting process. The proposed P roject would otherwise comply with applicable General Plan land use designations and zoning regulations and would remain consistent with the City’s housing and land use objectives.

Consistent with GP EIR policies intended to address visual character, including Policy LU-13 (review of new residential development for compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods), Policy LU-18 (establishment of residential design standards to reduce vis ual impacts), and Policy LU -54 (ensuring building scale, massing, and design are compatible with existing development), the proposed Project would be subject to the City’s Design Review process and applicable development standards, which ensure that buildi ng form, height, massing, and architectural design are compatible with surrounding uses.

Although the proposed Project would contribute incrementally to the overall change in visual character associated with continued urban development, this contribution is consistent with the level and type of development anticipated under the General Plan an d evaluated in the GP EIR, and would not result in a new or more severe impact than previously identified. Consistent with the GP EIR, impacts related to visual character and scenic quality remain significant and unavoidable at the program level; however, the proposed Project would not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of the previously identified impact. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to this impact would remain within the scope of impacts previously analyzed in the GP EIR. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the GP EIR and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no additional review is required.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the G P EIR as Impact 4.3.4 and was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.3 -14 through 4.3-16). The project site is currently vacant and located within a developing area characterized by a mix of commercial, residential, and transportation-related uses, which contribute to existing ambient lighting conditions.

The proposed project would introduce new sources of lighting typical of multifamily residential development, including wall-mounted and pole-mounted fixtures. However, all lighting would be required to comply with the City of Rocklin Municipal Code and applicable design review standards, which regulate fixture type, shielding, and light direction to minimize spillover and glare. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to applicable General Plan policies intended to reduce light and glare impacts, including Policy LU-4, which promotes minimizing adverse effects of light and glare and incorporation of dark sky concepts, and Policy LU-18, which establishes residential design standards. Lighting would be designed to be shielded and directed downward t o reduce off -site impacts and maintain compatibility with surrounding uses, and the proposed project does not include highly reflective materials that would create substantial glare.

Although the proposed project would incrementally contribute to light and glare in the area, this contribution is consistent with the level and type of development anticipated under the General Plan and 234

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 41
evaluated in the GP EIR. The proposed project does not introduce any peculiar site-specific conditions that would result in new or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified. Accordingly, impacts related to light and glare were adequately addressed in the GP EIR, and implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new or substantially greater impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no additional environmental review is required.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed within the GP EIR on page 4.3-16, cumulative development would result in alteration of visual resources by increasing the amount of residential, commercial, retail, industrial, and business professional land uses in the Planning Area. Thus, the GP EIR found that development under the proposed General Plan Update would result in a cumulatively considerable and significant s visual impacts. However, the proposed Project would be developed consistent with the Mixed Use Designation as evaluated within the GP EIR, and would be constructed in accordance with the City Design Review Guidelines and General Plan policies in order to reduce visual impacts to the maximum extent feasible. As discussed above, the proposed Project’s incremental contribution to this impact would remain within the scope of impacts previously analyzed in the GP EIR. Cumulative impacts would be consistent with those identified in the GP EIR and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR.

Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of aesthetics, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.

4. The GP EIR analysis used field review, topographic evaluation, General Plan review, and anticipated development changes under the proposed Land Use Diagram. Based on the analysis provided in this section, the Project’s consistency with the General Plan and zoning designation, and the Project’s development intensity being within the level analyzed in the GP EIR, no substantial new information has been identified that would result in a n aesthetic impact more severe than anticipated in the GP EIR.

5. No new mitigation measures would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant with adherence to existing regulations.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) City of Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter, 17. 96: Density Increase Incentive Program . City of Rocklin Development Code Chapter 17.96: Density Increase Incentive Program.

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 42
to facilitate affordable housing. The program ensures that such incentives are applied in a manner consistent with State law while maintaining compatibility with surrounding development through applicable design and development standards.

GP Goals and Policies
Policy LU-4 Minimize Light and Glare . Utilize techniques that minimize the adverse effects of light and glare on surrounding properties, and incorporate dark sky concepts to the extent practicable.

Policy LU -13 Compatibility with Surrounding Development. Review proposals for new residential development for compatibility with the character and scale of nearby neighborhoods, while providing a variety of densities and housing types as reflected by the zoning and land use designation of the infill property.

Policy LU -18: Residential Design Standards Establish residential design standards for planned unit developments, especially for hillsides and other unique areas, to reduce the impact of new development on the existing natural terrain and built environment.

Policy OCR -43: Mitigate for removal of oak trees in accordance with the City of Rocklin’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance.

GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to aesthetics are included in the GP EIR. 236

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 43

6.2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the Project:

b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act
contract?

c) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources
Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code
Section 4526), or
timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as
defined by Government
Code Section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?

237

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 44
Would the Project:

Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
This topic was dismissed from consideration in the Notice of Preparation for the GP EIR and not specifically evaluated in the GP EIR, as the City of Rocklin is largely urbanized and planned for urban development under the General Plan. The proposed Project is located on a vacant infill site within an urbanized area and does not involve agricultural, forest, or timberland resources. Additionally, there are no forestlands, timberlands, or Williamson Act contracts in the City.

Project-Specific Impacts
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. This topic was dismissed from consideration in the Notice of Preparation for the GP EIR and not evaluated in the GP EIR. According to the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land and is not identified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (California Department of Conservation, 2025). Surrounding properties are similarly designated as Urban and Built - Up Land or Other Land. The project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract and is not located within a Farmland Security Zone, and the applicable General Plan land use designation and zoning reflect existing and planned urban development.

Because the project site does not contain agricultural land as defined by CEQA, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non -agricultural use. Because this impact was not identified in the GP EIR and the Project would not introduce conditions that would result in a new or more severe impact, the proposed Project would not result in a peculiar impact related to conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. 238

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 45
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. This topic was dismissed from consideration in the Notice of Preparation for the GP EIR and not evaluated in the GP EIR.

As identified above, the project site is not zoned for agricultural use, and no agricultural zoning exists on or adjacent to the site. In addition, the project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. As described above, the site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land and does not contain Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland.

Because the project site is not designated for agricultural use, is not under a Williamson Act contract, and does not contain agricultural land, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a conflict with agricultural zoning or contractual restrictions. Because this impact was not identified in the GP EIR and the Project would not introduce conditions that would result in a new or more severe impact, the proposed Project would not result in a peculiar impact related to a conflict with zoning for agricultural use of a Williamson Act contract pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code S ection 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact. This topic was not evaluated in the GP EIR.

The Project site is not zoned for forest land or timberland uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in no impacts related to conflicts with existing forest land or timberland zoning . Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR .

Accordingly, no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. c) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. This topic was not evaluated in the GP EIR.

The Project site consists of vacant, undeveloped land, surrounded by light industrial uses, retail commercial uses and Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the north; retail and service commercial uses to the south; commercial and institutional uses to the east; and railroad tracks and existing residential uses to the west. No forest land exists on or adjacent to the Project site. The Project site is not zoned for forest land or timberland uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in no impacts related to loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Because this impact was not identified in the GP EIR and the Project would not introduce conditions that would result in a new or more severe impact, the proposed Project would not result in a peculiar impact related to loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest use pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
d) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use?
No Impact. This topic was dismissed from consideration in the Notice of Preparation for the GP EIR and not evaluated in the GP EIR.
239

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 46
As identified above, the Project site is not identified as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland by the California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder Map. Additionally, the proposed Project would not convert farmland to a nonagricultural use or convert forest land to a non-forest use. Thus, the proposed Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to its location or nature, could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in conversion of farmland or forest land to non-forest use, and no impacts would occur.

Because this impact was not identified in the GP EIR and the Project would not introduce conditions that would result in a new or more severe impact, the proposed Project would not result in a peculiar impact related to conversion of farmland to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, while this topic was not evaluated within the GP EIR, the proposed Project would be developed consistent with the Mixed Use designation as evaluated within the GP EIR, and the Project site is not designated for agricultural uses and is not identified as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland by the California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder Map. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Because this impact was not identified in the GP EIR and the Project would not introduce conditions that would result in a new or more severe impact, the proposed Project would not result in a peculiar impact related to wildfire infrastructure pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of agricultural and forestry resources, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.

4. Based on the analysis provided in this section, the Project’s consistency with the General Plan and zoning designation, and the Project’s site -specific conditions, no substantial information has been identified that would result in a significant agricultural resources impact.

5. No new mitigation measures would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None.
240

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 47
GP Goals and Policies
None.

GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to agriculture and forestry are included in the GP EIR. 241

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 48

6.3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the
significance criteria
established by the
applicable air quality
management district or air
pollution control district
may be relied upon to make
the following
determinations. Would the
Project:

b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for
which the Project region is
non-
attainment under an
applicable federal or State
ambient air quality
standard?

c) Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?

d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) affecting a
substantial number of
people?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The 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 of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011, pages 4.2 -1 through 4.2 -43). Mitigation measures to address these impacts are incorporated in to the General Plan in the Land Use, the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation, and the Circulation Elements, and include policies that encourage a mixture of land uses, provisions for non -automotive modes of transportation, consultation with the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), and the incorporation of stationary and mobile source control measures.

The General Plan EIR concluded that, despite these goals and policies, significant air quality impacts will occur as a result of development under the General Plan and further, that these impacts cannot be 242

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 49
reduced to a less than significant level. Specifically, the General Plan EIR found that buildout of the Rocklin General Plan and other development within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB) as a whole will result in the following: violations of air quality standards as a result of short -term emissions from construction projects, increases in criteria air pollutants from operational air pollutants and exposure to toxic air contaminants, the generation of odors and a cumulative contribution to regional air quality impacts.

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

Project-Specific Impacts
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, prepared by EPD Solutions , April 2026.

Included as Appendix A.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.2.1 and was determined to be less than significant . The GP EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan Update would not conflict with the Sacramento Regional 8 -Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan, as growth projections are generally consistent with Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) projections and would not delay attainment of air quality standards (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.2 -20 through 4.2 -25). Therefore, the General Plan provides a framework for land use and transportation planning that is consistent with regional air quality planning efforts.

The Project site is located in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin and is under the jurisdiction of the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD). The PCAPCD and SACOG are responsible for preparing the AQMP, which addresses federal and State Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The Sacramento Regional 8- Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan establishes strategies for reducing emissions and achieving attainment of federal and State ozone standards.

The proposed Project does not propose amendments to the General Plan land use designations and as discussed in Section 6.14, Population and Housing¸ would not result in population or employment growth beyond that previously evaluated in the GP EIR. As such, the Project would be consistent with regional growth assumptions utilized in the attainment plan.

The proposed Project would not exceed PCAPCD regional thresholds for criteria pollutants during construction or operation. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with applicable PCAPCD rules and regulations, including Rule 228 (Fugitive Dust), Rule 205 (Nuisance), and Rule 218 (Architectural Coatings), as well as polic ies OCR-58 and OCR-59, requiring coordination with PCAPCD for protection of air quality.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan, and would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR . Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional review is required. 243

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 50
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard)? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to result in a significant and unavoidable impact. The GP EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan Update would result in increased operational emissions of criteria pollutants, including ROG, NOx, and PM 10, associated with population and employment growth, which could contribute to regional nonattainment conditions.

Although implementation of General Plan policies, District rules, and State and federal regulations would reduce emissions, these measures would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level; therefore, impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.2-28 through 4.2- 34)
The Basin is in non-attainment status for federal ozone standards, and State and federal particulate matter standards. Any development in the Basin, including the proposed Project could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations. Evaluation of the cumulative air quality impacts of the proposed Project has been completed pursuant to the PCAPCD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology. The PCAPCD states that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants that exceed the District’s recommended daily thresholds, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutant(s). The PCAPCD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table AQ-1.

Table AQ-1: PCAPCD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds
Air Pollutant Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
Construction Operation
NOx 82 55
ROG 82 55
PM10 82 82
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: EPD Solutions, 2026 (Appendix A).

Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the following: (1) site preparation, ( 2) grading, ( 3) building construction, ( 4) paving, and ( 5) architectural coating. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring.

It is mandatory for all construction projects to comply with several PCAPCD Rules, including Rule 228 for controlling fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 228 prohibits visible fugitive dust emissions from crossing the property boundary and limits opacity from active operations (i.e., dust shall not exceed 40 percent opacity). The rule also requires implementation of minimum dust control measures, inclu ding but not limited to: stabilization of disturbed areas through watering or chemical suppressants; limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces to 15 miles per hour; covering or stabilizing soil stockpiles; pre-watering areas prior to ground disturbance; cleaning construction vehicles to prevent track -out; covering haul trucks or maintaining sufficient freeboard; and suspending grading 244

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 51
activities during high wind events if dust cannot be controlled. In addition, track -out onto paved public roadways must be minimized and removed through wet sweeping or vacuuming.

Compliance with Rule 228 was incorporated into the CalEEMod modeling assumptions and represents standard regulatory requirements applicable to the Project. As shown in Table AQ-2, Project Construction Emission Estimates, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) results indicate that the proposed Project would result in less -than-significant regional construction impacts. Construction activities would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant. Thus, no new impact related to construction emissions would occur.

Table AQ-2: Project Construction Emission Estimates
Construction Activity and Year
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx PM10
DEMOLITION (2027) 2.34 24.6 4.80
Off-Road Equipment 2.21 19.9 .80
Demolition 0 0 2.86
Worker 0.05 0.03 0.15
Hauling 0.08 4.48 0.99
SITE PREPARATION (2027) 3.10 28 6.46
Off-Road Equipment 3.05 27.97 1.17
Dust from material Movement 0 0 5.11
Worker 0.05 0.03 0.18
GRADING (2027) 1.71 18.4 3.48
Off-Road Equipment 1.59 14.23 0.60
Dust From Material Movement 0 0 1.85
Worker 0.05 0.03 0.15
Hauling 0.07 3.98 0.88
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION (2027) 1.76 11.58 2.63
Off-Road Equipment 1.11 10.17 0.36
Worker 0.63 0.38 2.04
Vendor 0.02 1.03 0.23
PAVING (2027) 1.18 6.10 0.39
Off-Road Equipment 0.61 6.08 0.26
Paving 0.53 0 0
Worker 0.04 0.02 0.13
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION (2028) 1.69 11.01 2.6
Off-Road Equipment 1.07 9.66 0.33
Worker 0.60 0.37 2.04
Vendor 0.02 0.98 0.23
245

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 52
Construction Activity and Year
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx PM10
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION (2029) 1.57 10.73 2.57
Off-Road Equipment 1.04 9.28 0.30
Worker 0.51 0.45 2.04
Vendor 0.02 1 0.23
ARCHITECTURAL COATING (2029) 70.4 1.13 0.43
Off-Road Equipment 0.14 1.06 0.02
Architectural Coatings 68.58 0 0
Worker 0.12 0.07 0.41
Maximum Daily Emissions 2027-2029 68.84 28 6.46
PCAPCD Significance Thresholds 82 82 82
Threshold Exceeded? No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SO 2 = sulfur dioxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: EPD Solutions, 2026 (Appendix A).

Operation
Operational activities associated with the proposed Project would result in emissions of ROGs, NOx, and particulate matter from mobile and area sources. The proposed Project consists of an all- electric residential development and would not include natural gas consumption. Operational emissions were modeled using CalEEMod Version 2022.1 and compared to PCAPCD thresholds. As shown in Table AQ -3, maximum daily operational emissions ROG, N Ox, and PM 10 would not exceed PCAPCD thresholds.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.

As such, while the GP EIR determined that cumulative development under the General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts, the proposed Project would not exceed PCAPCD thresholds and would not contribute considerably to cumulative air qua lity impacts. The proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GP EIR and would result in no new or substantially greater impacts.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional review is required.
246

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 53
Table AQ-3: Regional Project Operational Emissions
Operational Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx PM10
Mobile 13.0 10.8 20.3
Area 7.5 0.1 <0.01
Energy - - -
Total Daily Operational Emissions 20.5 10.9 20.3
PCAPCD Significance Thresholds 55 55 82
Threshold Exceeded? No No No
Source: EPD Solutions, 2026 (Appendix A).

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.2.5 and was found to be significant and unavoidable with the implementation of mitigation me asures. The GP EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan Update could expose sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs) from mobile and stationary sources, including roadway traffic and diesel-powered equipment, and that mitigation measures would not fully reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The GP EIR identified Mitigation Measure MM 4.2.1 and related policies to reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs; however, even with implementation of these measures, impacts were determined to remain significant and unavoidable at the program level (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.2-34 to 4.2-38).

Sensitive receptors can include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities.

There are existing homes near the western boundary of the Project site.

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project may expose nearby residential sensitive receptors to airborne particulates as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel- fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following PCAPCD’s standard construction practices. Rule 228 which is intended to reduce particulate matter emissions from construction activities. Rule 228 requires implementation of dust control measures such as pre-watering disturbed areas, stabilizing exposed soils, limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces, covering haul trucks, preventing track -out onto public roadways, and suspending grading activities during high wind conditions when dust cannot be adequately controlled.

In addition, construction emissions would be temporary and intermittent. As demonstrated in the Project- specific air quality analysis (Appendix A ) construction emissions would not exceed applicable PCAPCD regional thresholds. Therefore, construction-related exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations would be less than significant.
247

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 54
Operation
Operational emissions associated with the proposed Project would primarily consist of vehicle trips, area sources, and electricity use. The proposed Project consists of a residential community and would not include industrial uses, substantial stationary e mission sources, or land uses associated with heavy -duty diesel truck traffic, long-term idling, or queueing.

As demonstrated in the Project-specific air quality analysis (Appendix A), operational emissions would not exceed applicable PCAPCD thresholds. While the GP EIR identified potentially significant and unavoidable impacts related to long -term exposure to TACs from regional sources such as major roadways and rail operations, the proposed Project would not introduce substantial new sources of TAC emissions or result in exposure conditions beyond those previously evaluated in the GP EIR.

Based on the foregoing analysis, implementation of the proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional review is required.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.2.6 and impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. The GP EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan Update could result in objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people due to the potential for future land uses that may generate odorous emissions and the subjective nature of odo r perception, and that compliance with PCAPCD rules and General Plan policies would not fully reduce impacts to a less than significant level (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.2-38 and 4.2-39).

Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s operational uses.

The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of construction and would not result in odor impacts beyond those previously evaluated in the GP EIR.

Operational odor sources associated with the proposed Project would be limited to typical residential uses, including solid waste handling and minor sources such as landscaping or household activities. It is expected that refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with applicable solid waste regulations.

In addition, the proposed Project would be required to comply with PCAPCD Rule 205 (Nuisance), which prohibits the discharge of air contaminants in quantities that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to a considerable number of persons or the p ublic. Compliance with Rule 205 would ensure that any potential odor sources are properly managed and would be subject to enforcement if determined to constitute a public nuisance.
248

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 55
While the GP EIR identified potentially significant and unavoidable impacts related to odors at the program level due to the range of potential future land uses, the proposed Project would not introduce substantial odor-generating sources or result in odor conditions beyond those previously evaluated in the GP EIR.

Based on the foregoing analysis, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and di sclosed in the GP EIR. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional review is required.

Cumulative Impacts
As described in the GP EIR on page 4.2 -40, cumulative contributions to regional air quality impacts are considered cumulatively considerable. However, as discussed above and in Appendix A, the proposed Project would not exceed PCAPCD thresholds and would not contribute considerably to cumulative air quality impacts. The PCAPCD concluded that if a project’s ozone precursor and PM10 emissions would be greater than the PCAPCD’s operational- level thresholds, the project would conflict with relevant attainment plans and could result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. Conversely, if a project’s ozone precursor and PM10 emissions are less than operational- level thresholds, the project would not conflict with the relevant attainment plan. As shown in Table AQ -3 above, operation of the proposed project would generate regional emissions that would be below the operational-level thresholds; therefore, the project’s contribution to the cumulative emissions of criteria pollutants for which the PCAPCD area is in non-attainment would not be considerable.

Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of air quality, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.

4. The GP EIR air quality analysis used the proposed General Plan land use designations, projected traffic, and anticipated residential, commercial, office, and industrial development under the proposed Land Use Diagram. Based on the analysis provided in this section, the Project’s consistency with the General Plan and zoning designation, the Project’s development intensity being within the level analyzed in the GP EIR, and the findings of the project -specific Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, no substantial new information has been identified that would result in an air quality impact more severe than anticipated in the GP EIR.

5. No new mitigation measures would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant with compliance with existing SCOAs and regulations listed below. 249

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 56
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) PCAPCD Rule 228 – Fugitive Dust. Requires implementation of dust control measures for construction activities capable of generating fugitive dust, including stabilization of disturbed areas, pre -watering, limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces, covering haul trucks, preventing track -out onto public roadways, and suspending grading during high wind conditions. Ensures particulate matter emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) are minimized and do not result in visible emissions beyond the project boundary.

Provides regulatory enforcement to address objectionable odors and protect nearby sensitive receptors.

GP Goals and Policies
Policy LU-13 Review proposals for new residential development for compatibility with the character and scale of nearby neighborhoods, while providing a variety of densities and housing types as reflected by the zoning and land use designation of the infill property.

Policy C-2 Coordinate land use and transportation planning to support transit services, NEV facilities and non-motorized transportation.

Policy C-52 Require landscaping and tree planting along railroad right-of-way and along existing streets as appropriate.

Policy OCR -58 Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures. Require development projects to incorporate stationary and mobile source control measures recommended by the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and approved by the City for protection of air quality during construction and subsequent operations.

Policy OCR -59 Coordination with PCAPCD. Continue to consult with the Placer County Air Pollution Control District in the development and implementation of stationary and mobile source control measures affecting the City of Rocklin.

GP EIR Mitigation Measures
MM 4.2.1 Reduce Exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). Residential development projects and projects categorized as sensitive receptors shall be located an adequate distance from existing and potential sources of toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions such as freeways, major arterials, industrial sites, and hazardous material locations. “Adequate distance” will be based on site-specific conditions, the type and location of sensitive receptors, the types and amounts of potential TAC emissions, mitigation measures which reduce potential health risks from TAC emissions, and other factors. 250

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 57

6.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:

b) Have a substantial
adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations
or by the California
Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial
adverse effect on State or
federally protected
wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or
other means?

251

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 58
Would the Project:

e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?

f) Conflict with the
provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or
State habitat conservation
plan?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur to the biological resources of the Planning Area as a result of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan.

These impacts included special -status species, species of concern, non -listed species, biological communities and migratory wildlife corridors (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011, pages

4.10-1 through 4.10-47). Mitigation measures to address these impacts are incorporated into the General Plan in the Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, and include policies that encourage the protection and conservation of biological resources and require compliance with rules and regulations protecting biological resources, including the City of Rocklin Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance.

The General Plan EIR concluded that, despite these goals, policies and rules and regulations protecting biological resources, significant biological resources impacts will occur as a result of development under the General Plan and further, that these impa cts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level.

Specifically, the General Plan EIR found that buildout of the Rocklin General Plan will impact riparian 252

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 59
habitat or other sensitive biological communities, will result in the loss of native oak and heritage trees, will result in the loss of oak woodland habitat and will contribute to cumulative impacts to biological resources. Findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations were adopted by the Rocklin City Council in regard to these impacts, which were found to be significant and unavoidable.

Project-Specific Impacts
This section was prepared using the following reports:
• General Biological Assessment, prepared by Psomas, May 2026. Included as Appendix B. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impacts 4.10.1 and 4.10.2 and was determined to result in less than significant impacts with implementation of GP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10.1 (Rocklin 2011, pp. 4.10-29 through 4.10-36).

The GP EIR identified that, pursuant to General Plan Policy OCR-40, individual development projects are required to be in compliance with the State and Federal Endangered Species Act. As discussed in General Plan Mitigation Measure 4.10.1, if sensitive species or suitable habitat are identified, mitigation would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. The GP EIR also identifies General Plan Policies OCR-5, OCR-39, OCR-40, and OCR-41 as policies that would assist in avoiding or minimizing impacts to special-status species by requiring CEQA review, protection of wetlands, vernal pools, and rare, threatened, and endangered species, compliance with applicable State and federal regulations, and use of on-site or off-site mitigation where appropriate. Consistent with these policies and GP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10.1, a General Biological Assessment (GBA) was prepared for the proposed Project by EPD Solutions, Inc. in May 2026 (Appendix B ). The GBA included a literature review and a field survey conducted on April 3, 2026, to document existing habitat conditions, identify plant and wildlife species present, evaluate potential State and federal waters, assess wildlife movement potential, an d evaluate the presence of habitat for special-status species.

The GBA describes that the Project site is vacant, undeveloped, and consists of approximately 5.84 acres of annual grassland habitat, 0.01 acre s of seasonal depression, and 1.25 acres of developed/disturbed areas. Implementation of the proposed Project would impact approximately 5.82 acres of annual grassland habitat and 1.25 acres of developed/disturbed areas. The portion of the seasonal depression that extends onto the Project site would be avoided, and the proposed retaining wall along the western border would be constructed around the onsite portion of the seasonal depression to provide a buffer between the seasonal depression and proposed development.

According to the GBA, no listed special-status plant species were determined to be present on the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat and/or suitable soils. The GBA identified potential habitat for Cooper’s hawk, Crotch’s bumble bee, vernal pool fairy shrimp, Swainson’s hawk, and California linderiella. Cooper’s hawk and Swainson’s hawk have potential to occur because the Project site contains suitable nesting or foraging habitat. Crotch’s bumble bee also has potential to occur due to the presence of suitable grassland habitat. Vernal pool fairy shrimp and California linderiella have potential to occur within the seasonal depression; however, the Project has been designed to avoid the onsite portion of the seasonal 253

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 60
depression, and therefore implementation of the Project is not expected to result in impacts to these species.

For Crotch’s bumble bee, the GBA recommends pre -construction surveys if ground -disturbing activities are scheduled to begin between February 1 and October 31. Surveys would be conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with CDFW guidance for CESA candidate bumble bee species. If suitable habitat is confirmed, focused surveys would be conducted during the colony active period. If Crotch’s bumble bee is detected and impacts cannot be avoided, the Project applicant would be required to consult with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2080 et seq. These survey, avoidance, consultation, and take authorization requirements are consistent with GP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10.1, which requires feasible mitigation where special- status species are found or are likely to occur and allows mitigation to be determined by the City after USFWS and CDFW are provided an opportunity to comment. The Project site contains disturbed annual grassland habitat that is generally consistent with habitat types anticipated for future urban development within the General Plan planning area. The requirement for pre- construction surveys, consultation with CDFW , and implementation of avoidance or mitigation measure included as Mitigation Measure ( MM) BIO-1 is consistent with the regulatory compliance framework and mitigation approach already established in the GP EIR for special- status species. As such, the presence or potential presence of Crotch’s bumble bee would not result in environmental effects that are more severe than those analyzed in the GP EIR, nor would it create a significant effect peculiar to the Project or site pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

In addition, migratory birds and raptors have the potential to nest in trees and shrubs within the Project site. Thus, to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code, MM BIO-2 has been included to require ground-disturbing activities to either be scheduled outside of the avian breeding season or pre -construction nesting bird surveys and appropriate avoidance measures would be implemented if work occurs during the breeding season. The GBA identifies the nesting bird season as February 1 th rough September 15 and recommends avoiding vegetation removal and construction activities adjacent to nesting habitat during the breeding season, or conducting pre - construction surveys prior to construction. If active nests are detected, appropriate no -work buffers would be established and monitored by a qualified biologist, as needed. These nesting bird avoidance and survey requirements are also consistent with GP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10.1 because they provide feasible measures to avoid or reduce impac ts to special-status and protected species that may occur on the Project site.

No listed special- status plant species were determined to be present on the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat and/or suitable soils. No other listed special-status species were determined to be present on the Project site, except for those species identified above as having potential to occur.

Therefore, with the implementation of GP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10.1, as applied through the Project- specific recommendations identified in the GBA, impacts related to candidate, sensitive, or special-status species would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts related to candidate, sensitive, or special-status species would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional review is required.

254

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 61
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.10.3 and was determined to result in a significant and unavoidable impact (Rocklin 2011, pp. 4.10-36 through 4.10-38).

Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies, known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species , or known to be important wildlife corridors. As discussed above, the Project site is vacant and undeveloped and consists primarily of annual grassland habitat, with a small seasonal depression and developed/disturbed areas. No riparian habitat occurs on the Project site.

The GBA identified a small seasonal depression adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad tracks that extends approximately 10 feet onto the southwestern portion of the Project site. The seasonal depression is an isolated feature that collects and holds water for short periods following storm events and does not have connectivity to upstream or downstream waterbodies or aquatic resources. Therefore, the GBA determined that the seasonal depression would not be considered waters of the United States regulated by USACE or RWQCB under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act; however, CDFW may exert jurisdiction over the feature under Fish and Game Code Section 1602, and RWQCB may exert jurisdiction under Porter-Cologne.

The Project has been designed to avoid the onsite portion of the seasonal depression. The proposed retaining wall along the western border would be constructed around the onsite portion of the seasonal depression to provide a buffer between the seasonal depression and proposed development. Therefore, the proposed Project would not directly impact riparian habitat, wetlands, or other sensitive natural communities. Consistent with GP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10.1, the GBA recommends avoidance measures for the onsite seasonal depression, including demarcation of Project impact areas, installation of erosion control measures, worker environmental awareness training, and measures to avoid the introduction and spread of invasive plant species included as MM BIO -3. These recommendations implement the mitigation framework already established in the GP EIR and do not constitute new mitigation.

Therefore, with implementation of GP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10.1, as applied through the Project - specific avoidance measures identified in the GBA, impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional review is required. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.10.3 and was determined to result in a significant and unavoidable impact (Rocklin 2011, pp. 4.10-36 through 4.10-38). 255

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 62
Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies, known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species , or known to be important wildlife corridors. The GP EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan could result in disturbance, degradation, or removal of riparian and wetland habitats. The GP EIR identified General Plan Policies OCR-5, OCR-39, OCR-40, and OCR-41, along with GP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10.1, as measures that would assist in avoiding or minimizing impacts to sensitive biological communities and federally protected wetlands; however, because complete offset of habitat loss could not be ensured in every circumstance, this impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable at the program level.

As discussed above, the GBA determined that the Project site does not contain streams, rivers, lakes, or federally protected wetlands regulated by USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Although a small seasonal depression extends onto the southwestern portion of the Project site, the GBA determined that this feature is isolated, lacks connectivity to upstream or downstream waterbodies, and would not be considered waters of the United States. The feature may be subject to CDFW jurisdiction under Fi sh and Game Code Section 1602 and/or RWQCB jurisdiction under Porter-Cologne; however, the Project has been designed to avoid the onsite portion of the seasonal depression.

Consistent with GP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10.1, the GBA recommends avoidance measures for the onsite seasonal depression, including demarcation of Project impact areas, installation of erosion control measures, worker environmental awareness training, and measures to avoid the introduction and spread of invasive plant species included as M M BIO-3. These avoidance measures would provide site -specific measures to avoid or minimize potential indirect impacts to biological resources identified during Project- level review. Therefore, because the Project has been designed to avoid the onsite seasonal depression, no direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption of a wetland or potentially jurisdictional aquatic feature would occur with development of the Project site . Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no subsequent review is required. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.10.4 and was determined to result in less than significant impacts with implementation of GP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10.1 (Rocklin 2011, pp.

4.10-38 through 4.10-39).

The GP EIR identified that remaining natural lands within the Planning Area, including ridgelines, annual grasslands, oak woodlands, and riparian/riverine habitat, may provide cover and vegetation that could be used as migratory corridors for common and special-status fish and wildlife species. However, the GP EIR determined that the City is largely built out, and remaining development potential would not substantially convert major remaining undisturbed designated open space areas or riparian areas that co uld serve as migratory corridors. The GP EIR also noted that the General Plan Land Use Diagram provides several movement corridors designated as open space along waterways in the City that connect with land areas outside of Rocklin. Therefore, impacts to migratory corridors were determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation was required.
256

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 63
The GBA evaluated the Project site for its function as a wildlife corridor. The Project site consists of relatively flat vacant land within a heavily urbanized area and is surrounded by light industrial and commercial development to the north, commercial development to the east and south, and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks followed by residential development to the west. The Project site is not located within a designated wildlife corridor or linkage. Although the onsite annual grassland may provide limited habitat for wildlife species, the site is cut off by urban development in all directions and is not substantial enough to support or facilitate species movement. Therefore, the GBA determined that the Project site does not provide movement corridors for resident or migratory wildlife species.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, conflict with an established wildlife corridor, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Based on the f oregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no subsequent review is required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.10.5 and was determined to result in a significant and unavoidable impact (Rocklin 2011, pp. 4.10-39 through 4.10-43).

The GP EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan could conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources as a result of the removal of native oak trees, including heritage trees and other mature, healthy oak trees, and the removal of oak woodland habitat. The GP EIR identified that these impacts would be addressed through General Plan Policies OCR-5, OCR-41, and OCR-43, as well as the City of Rocklin Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, codified in Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter 17.77.

However, because removed mature oak trees and oak woodland habitat would not be immediately replaced with equivalent mature habitat, the GP EIR determined this impact would remain significant and unavoidable at the program level.

The GBA identified blue oak and interior live oak trees on the Project site. The City of Rocklin Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance regulates the removal of protected oak trees and encroachment into protected zones of such trees. The ordinance applies to nati ve oak trees within the City with a diameter at breast height of 6 inches or greater, and provides special protection for heritage oak trees, defined as native oak trees with a diameter at breast height of 24 inches or greater, and compliance with the ordinance is included as MM BIO-4.

The GBA recommends that an oak tree survey be conducted by a certified arborist to document the type, size, and condition of all oak trees measuring 6 inches or greater in diameter at breast height on the Project site for the purpose of determining whether an oak tree removal permit would be required. If impacts to onsite oak trees would occur, the Project would be required to comply with the City of Rocklin Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, including any applicable requirements for off -site tree replacement , contributions to the Rocklin Oak Tree Preservation Fund, and/or dedication of land, as determined through the City’s development review process.

Therefore, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the City of Rocklin Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance and would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or su bstantially greater impacts would occur with 257

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 64
implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no subsequent review is required. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.1.4 and was determined to result in a less-than-significant impact (Rocklin 2011, pp. 4.1-35 through 4.1-36).

The GP EIR identified that the Placer County Conservation Plan was prepared as a Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan as part of the Placer Legacy Program. However, the GP EIR states that the City of Rocklin chose not to partic ipate in the Placer County Conservation Plan, and that the Placer Legacy Program, Placer County Conservation Plan, and Natural Community Conservation Plan are outside the City of Rocklin and its Sphere of Influence. The GP EIR further states that none of these plans have targeted areas for conservation within the City, and because the City is not a participant, the City is not subject to the provisions of these programs. Therefore, the GP EIR determined that conflicts with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan are not anticipated.

The General Biological Assessment prepared for the proposed Project did not identify the Project site as being located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat con servation plan area. The GBA evaluated potential conflicts with local or regional plans, policies, or regulations and identified the City of Rocklin Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance as the applicable local biological resource protection requirement (Appendix B) Therefore, because no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan applies to the Project site, the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of any such plan. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Secti on 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no subsequent review is required.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in the GP EIR on page 4.10 -44, implementation of the General Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable impact to biological resources. Although direct impacts to special- status wildlife species could occur as a result of Project implementation, these impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the applicable General Plan EIR mitigation measures and Project-specific mitigation measures. As discussed in this section, the Project has been designed to avoid sensitive biological resources to the maximum extent practicable, including avoidance of the onsite seasonal depression. In addition, pre -construction surveys, biological monitoring, and other avoidance and minimization measures would reduce impacts to special-status species and sensitive habitats to a less than significant level. The Project would also comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations protecting biological resources. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant biological impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Furthermore, the Project would not contribute to the General Plan's identified cum ulative biological 258

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 65
impacts in a cumulatively considerable manner because Project -specific impacts would be avoided, minimized, and mitigated in accordance with the mitigation framework established in the General Plan EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no additional environmental review is required.

Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of biological resources, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.

4. The GP EIR biological resources analysis used the project description, existing setting, significance standards, database search results, literature review, aerial photo review, habitat mapping, and special-status species assessment under the proposed General Plan Land Use Diagram. Based on the analysis provided in this section, the Project’s consistency with the General Plan and zoning designation, the Project’s development intensity being within the level analyzed in the GP EIR, and the findings of the project-specific General Biological Assessment, no substantial new information has been identified that would result in a biological resources impact more severe than anticipated in the GP EIR.

5. No new mitigation measures would be required. Project specific impacts would be less than significant with adherence to GP EIR mitigation measures listed below.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). The proposed Project would be required to comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act, which prohibits unauthorized take of federally listed threatened and endangered species and requires consultation and/or take authorization where impacts to federally listed species could occur.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513.

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 66
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable State water quality requirements regulating discharges to waters of the State, if such resources are determined to be present or affected by Project activities.

GP Goals and Policies
Policy OCR-5: Utilize the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as the primary regulatory tool for identifying and mitigating, where feasible, impacts to open space and natural resources when reviewing proposed development projects.

Policy OCR-39: Require the protection of wetlands, vernal pools, and rare, threatened and endangered species of both plants and animals through either avoidance of these resources, or implementation of appropriate mitigation measures where avoidance is not feasible, as determined by the City of Rocklin.

Policy OCR-40: Require compliance with the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts and the Clean Water Act as conditions of development project approval.

Policy OCR-41: Recognize that onsite protection of natural resources may not always be feasible and that offsite methods, such as use of mitigation banks, may be used.

Policy OCR-43: Mitigate for removal of oak trees and impacts to oak woodlands in accordance with the City of Rocklin’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, or for projects located in zones not directly addressed by the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance mitigation measures, on a project-by-project basis through the planning review and entitlement process.

GP EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.10.1: MM 4.10.1 The following shall be added as action steps to the General Plan Update Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element:
• To offset possible losses of sensitive native wildlife and plant habitat (e.g., wetland habitat, riparian habitat, and oak woodlands) due to development projects, developers shall be responsible for mitigation. Such mitigation measures may include providing and permanently maintaining similar quality and quantity of replacement habitat, enhancing existing habitat areas, or paying fees towards an approved habitat mitigation bank. Replacement habitat may occur either on-site or at approved off-site locations.
• For those areas in which special- status species are found or are likely to occur, the City shall require feasible mitigation of impacts to those species that ensure that the activity does not 260

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 67
contribute to the decline of the affected species such that their decline would impact the viability of the species. Mitigation shall be determined by the City after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) are provided an opportunity to comment.

The GBA identified potential biological resources on the Project site, including potential habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee, nesting birds, the onsite seasonal depression, and oak trees. Consistent with GP EIR MM 4.10.1, the following project -specific mitigation measures are applied to the proposed Project to avoid or reduce impacts to biological resources identified during Project -level review. These measures implement the mitigation framework established by GP EIR MM 4.10.1 by requiring feasible mitigation where sensitive habitat or special-status species are found or are likely to occur.

Project Specific Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Crotch’s Bumble Bee Surveys and Avoidance. If ground-disturbing activities are scheduled to begin between February 1 and October 31, Crotch’s bumble bee pre -construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist based on CDFW’s survey guidance for CESA candidate bumble bee species. Surve ys shall consist of a habitat assessment evaluating the likelihood of bumble bees occurring within and adjacent to the Project site. If the habitat assessment finds that the site does not contain suitable habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee, no further surveys shall be required. If suitable habitat is present, focused surveys shall be conducted, consisting of three onsite surveys spaced two to four weeks apart during the colony active period from April through August. If Crotch’s bumble bee is detected on the P roject site, the Project shall develop a plan to fully avoid impacts to the species. If impacts cannot be feasibly avoided, the Project applicant shall consult with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2080 et seq. The Project shall comply with the mitigation measures detailed in the take authorization issued by CDFW.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. To avoid direct and indirect impacts to raptors and/or migratory birds, grubbing and clearing of vegetation that may support active nests and construction activities adjacent to nesting habitat shall occur outside of the breeding season, generally January 15 through August 31. If removal of habitat and/or construction activities adjacent to nesting habitat are necessary during the breeding season, the Project shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of non-listed nesting migratory birds on or within 300 feet of the construction area, and federally or State-listed birds and raptors on or within 500 feet of the construction area. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted within three calendar days prior to the start of construction. If nesting birds are detected, no -work buffers shall be established, including 300 feet for non -listed nesting migratory birds and 500 feet for listed birds or raptors, unless reduced by a qualified biologist based on site -specific conditions. If construction must occur within the recommended buffer, a qualified biologist shall be present to monitor nesting behavior and determine the appropriate nest buffer.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Seasonal Depression Avoidance. The Project has been designed to avoid direct impacts to the onsite portion of the seasonal depression. To ensure no indirect impacts to the seasonal depression, Project impact areas shall be clearly demarcated prior to construction, and all workers shall be made aware of the impact limits and avoided areas. No ground- or vegetation-disturbing activities shall occur outside of the Project impact limits, and all vehicles and equipment shall be restricted to the Project impact limits or existing designated a ccess roads and staging areas. Erosion control 261

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 68
measures shall be placed between the avoided seasonal depression and the outer edge of the impact limits prior to commencement of construction activities and shall be maintained until construction is completed and soils have stabilized. A qualified biologist shall conduct worker environmental awareness training for all contractors, work crews, and onsite personnel to aid workers in recognizing sensitive biological resources known to occur on the Project site. The Project shall retain a qualified biologist on an as-needed basis to assist with potential biological issues that may arise during construction. To avoid introduction and spread of non -native invasive plant species, clothing, vehicles, and equipment shall be cleaned prior to entering the Project site , and materials used for the Project, such as fill dirt or erosion control materials, shall be from weed-free locations or certified weed-free.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Oak Tree Survey and Compliance. In accordance with the City of Rocklin Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 17.77 of the Rocklin Municipal Code, an oak tree survey shall be conducted by a certified arborist to document the type, size, and condition of all oak trees measuring 6 inches or greater in diameter at breast height on the Project site for the purpose of determining whether an oak tree removal permit is required. If impacts to onsite oak trees would occur, mitigation shall be provided in accordance with the City of Rocklin Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, which may include off- site tree replacement, contributions to the Rocklin Oak Tree Preservation Fund, and/or dedication of land, as determined by the City.

262

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 69

6.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:

b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?

c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur to historical, cultural and paleontological resources within the Planning area as a result of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts inclu ded potential destruction or damage to any historical, cultural, and paleontological resources (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011, pages 4.8 -1 through 4.8 -21). Mitigation measures to address these impacts are incorporated into the General Plan in the Land Use and Open Space, Recreation and Conservation Elements, and include goals and policies that encourage the preservation and protection of historical, cultural and paleontological resources and the proper treatment and handling of such resources when they are discovered.

The General Plan EIR concluded that despite these goals and policies, significant cultural resources impacts will occur as a result of development under the General Plan and further, that these impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Specifically, the General Plan EIR found that buildout of the Rocklin General Plan will contribute to cumulative impacts to historic character. Findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations were adopted by the Rocklin City Council in regard to these impacts, which were found to be significant and unavoidable. 263

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 70
Project-Specific Impacts
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.8.1 and was determined to have a less than significant impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.8-14 to 4.8-16).

CEQA defines a historical resource as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); (2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (3) determined to be a historical resource by a project’s Lead Agency (PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a]).

The California Register defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns or local or regional history of the cultural heritage of California; (2) associated with the lives of persons important to local, California; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, California region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or (4) has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. No known historical resources have been identified on the project site.

As identified in the GP EIR, future development within the City has the potential to result in direct or indirect impacts to historical resources; however, implementation of General Plan policies OCR -62, historic resource preservation, and OCR-66, reuse of historic structures, would avoid or minimize impacts through preservation, documentation, or appropriate treatment of resources.

While there is the potential for undiscovered resources to be encountered during construction, compliance with applicable General Plan policies and standard regulatory requirements would ensure that any such resources are appropriately identified and managed. Furthermore, the Project would be subject to an inadvertent discovery requirement whereby, if historical resources are encountered during construction, work would be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the find and a qualified professional would be retained to evaluate the resource and recommend appropriate treatment measures consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional review is required.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the G P EIR as Impact 4.8.1 and was determined to be less than significant (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.8-14 to 4.8-16). 264

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 71
As identified in the GP EIR, development within the City has the potential to impact archaeological resources; however, implementation of General Plan policies OCR-62, historic resource preservation, and OCR-65, archaeological/paleontological protection, w ould avoid or minimize impacts through preservation, documentation, or appropriate treatment of resources.

To address this potential, the proposed Project would implement MM CUL -1, requiring that if archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist be retained to evaluate the resource and recommend appropriate treatment measures, such as avoidance, preservation in place, or data recovery, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, in compliance with General Plan Policy OCR-65.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource and would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional review is required.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the G P EIR as Impact 4.8.2 and was determined to be less than significant (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.8-16 to 4.8-17).

The Project site does not contain a cemetery, and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate vicinity of the Project site. However, as identified in the GP EIR, there remains the potential for previously undiscovered human remains to be en countered during ground -disturbing activities.

Nevertheless, should human remains be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with Project development, the construction contractor would be required by California law to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. According to Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, work in the immediate vicinity would be temporarily halted and a coroner must be contacted and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of Native American descent, the coroner is required to contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. Consistent with General Plan Policy OCR -65 (archaeological and human remains protection), appropriate treatment and disposition would be carried out in consultation with the Most Likely Descendant, where applicable.

Through mandatory compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, in conjunction with implementation of General Plan Policy OCR-65, the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to human remains . Therefore, the proposed Project would result in no new impact related to disturbance of human remains and would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR.. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no additional review is required.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in the GP EIR on page 4.8-18, implementation of the General Plan could result in cumulatively considerable impacts to historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources due to the potential 265

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 72
disturbance of previously unidentified resources during future development . The Project would implement all applicable General Plan policies , as well as Project -specific mitigation measures requiring procedures for the identification, evaluation, treatment, and preservation of any previously undiscovered cultural resources encountered during ground -disturbing activities. Because the Project would comply with applicable General Plan policies, implement the mitigation framework established in the General Plan EIR, and incorporate Project -specific measures to avoid and minimize impacts to previously undiscovered resources, th e Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no additional environmental review is required.

Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of cultural resources, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.

4. The GP EIR cultural resources analysis used a records search, NAHC Sacred Lands File search, tribal correspondence, review of the Rocklin Historical Society website, and other published cultural and historic sources for the Planning Area. Based on the analysis provided in this section, the Project’s consistency with the General Plan and zoning designation, and the Project’s development intensity being within the level analyzed in the GP EIR and the Project’s development area being the same as was analyzed in the GP EIR, no substantial new information has been identified that would result in a cultural resources impact more severe than anticipated in the GP EIR.

5. No new mitigation measures would be required. Project specific impacts would be less than significant with adherence to the City’s mitigation measures, as listed below.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None.

GP Goals and Policies
Policy OCR -62. Preserve historically significant resources in place if feasible, or provide mitigation (avoidance, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures) prior to further disturbance.

Policy OCR -65. Preserve significant archaeological resources (including Native American remains) and paleontological resources in place if feasible, or provide mitigation (avoidance, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures) prior to further disturbance. 266

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 73
GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to cultural resources are included in the GP EIR.

Project Specific Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Unanticipated Resources. The developer/permit holder or any successor in interest shall comply with the following for the life of this permit. If during ground disturbance activities, unanticipated cultural resources are discovered, the following procedures shall be followed:

All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resource shall be halted and the Project archaeologist shall call the City Environmental Services Manager immediately upon discovery of the cultural resource. A meeting shall be convened between the developer, the Project archaeologist, the Native American tribal representative, and the City Environmental Services Manager to discuss the significance of the find. At the meeting with the aforementioned parties, a decision is to be made, with the concurrence of the City Environmental Services Manager, as to the appropriate treatment (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resource. Resource evaluations shall be limited to nondestructive analysis.

Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until the appropriate treatment has been accomplished.

267

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 74

6.6. ENERGY
Would the Project:

b) Conflict with or obstruct a
State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR determined that short- term construction activities would result in temporary increases in electricity demand and transportation-related energy use, with energy consumption fluctuating based on the construction phase. Construction activities would be typical of development under the General Plan and would not result in substantial or inefficient energy use (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011, pages 4.13-30 through 4.13-32).

Operational energy demand would increase with implementation of the General Plan due to population and development growth. However, compliance with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), as well as implementation of General Plan policies OCR -56 and OCR -57, would promote energy conservation, improve building efficiency, and support sustainable land use patterns.

As discussed in the GP EIR, implementation of the General Plan would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and would not conflict with applicable State or local plans for energy efficiency or renewable energy. Therefore, impacts related to energy would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study, prepared by EPD Solutions Inc. , April 2026.

Included as Appendix A.
268

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 75
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.13.3.2 and was determined result in a less-than-significant impact. The GP EIR determined that development under the General Plan would be required to comply with California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24), which would minimize inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy and reduce impacts on peak energy demand and overall State energy use. In addition, implementation of General Plan policies OCR -56 and OCR -57 would promote energy conservation and efficient land use patterns. As such, the GP EIR concluded that impacts related to energy consumption would be less than significant . (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.13-30 to 4.13-31).

Construction
During construction of the proposed Project, energy would be consumed in three general forms:

1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off -road construction vehicles and equipment, construction worker travel to and from the site, as well as delivery truck trips;

2. Electricity associated with providing temporary power for lighting and electric equipment; and

3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, paint, fencing, lighting, and gate materials.

Construction activities would require the use of diesel -fueled equipment and gasoline-powered worker, vendor, and haul vehicles. Total construction fuel consumption is estimated at approximately 107,542 gallons of diesel fuel and 114,505.7 gallons of gasoline over the duration of construction. This represents approximately a 1.70 percent increase in countywide diesel consumption and a 0.12 percent increase in countywide gasoline consumption, which are nominal increases relative to regional energy demand (Appendix A).

Electricity consumption during construction would be limited to temporary uses such as lighting and construction trailers and would represent a negligible portion of total Project energy demand. Natural gas consumption during construction would also be negligible. In addition, construction activities would be typical of residential development and would not require specialized equipment or processes that would result in excessive or inefficient energy use.

Operation
Once operational, the proposed Project would generate demand for electricity and gasoline for vehicle trips. Operational use of energy would include the heating, cooling, and lighting of residential units, water heating, operation of electrical systems and plug-in appliances, and the transport of electricity and water to the areas where they would be consumed. The proposed Project is designed as an all -electric development and would not utilize natural gas. This use of energy is typical for residential deve lopment, and no operational activities or land uses are proposed that would result in extraordinary energy consumption.

Transportation
The largest source of operational energy use would be vehicle trips generated by residents. The proposed Project would result in an estimated annual fuel consumption of approximately 203,047.6 gallons of 269

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 76
gasoline (Appendix A ). Trip generation associated with the proposed Project would be consistent with similar residential developments of comparable scale and configuration. The Project does not include uses or operational characteristics that would generate excessive or unnec essary vehicle trips or result in inefficient transportation energy consumption. As such, transportation-related energy use would not be considered wasteful or inefficient.

Electricity
The estimated electricity demand for the proposed Project would be approximately 1,393,829.1 kilowatt- hours (kWh) per year (Appendix A ). This represents a less than 0.01 percent increase in countywide electricity consumption, which is nominal in comparison to regional energy demand. The Project’s electricity consumption would be consistent with that of similar residential developments and would not represent an inefficient or excessive use of energy resources.

Renewable Energy
The proposed Project would be required to comply with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, including current requirements for the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems for new residential development. Compliance with these standards would improve energy efficiency and reduce reliance on non-renewable energy sources. The Project would not inhibit the use of renewable energy and would support the continued transition toward cleaner energy sources.

Based on the foregoing analysis, operational energy consumption associated with the proposed Project would be typical of residential development and would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources. In addition, the Project would not conflict with applicable plans for energy efficiency or renewable energy. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur beyond those previously evaluated in the GP EIR, and no additional environmental review is required. b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact. This topic was not evaluated in the GP EIR.

The State of California has adopted various plans and programs to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency, including the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6), the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; Title 24, Part 11), and the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, which requires utilities to procure increasing amounts of electricity from renewable sources.

The proposed Project would be required to comply with Title 24 and CALGreen, as adopted by the City of Rocklin and enforced through the building permit and plan check process. These standards are designed to reduce energy consumption and ensure consistency with statewide energy conservation goals. The RPS applies to electricity providers rather than individual development projects; therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the RPS.

Because the Project would comply with applicable energy efficiency standards and would not interfere with implementation of State or local renewable energy programs, it would not conflict with or obstruct an applicable plan. Because this impact was not identified in the GP EIR and the Project would not introduce conditions that would result in a new or more severe impact, the proposed project would not result in a peculiar impact related to creating a conflict with, or obstruc t a plan for renewable energy or 270

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 77
energy efficiency pursuant to Section 15183. Therefore, n o impacts would occur . Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur, and no additional environmental review is required.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in the GP EIR on page 4.13-32, the proposed Rocklin General Plan Update’s mitigating policies and their associated action steps, and the requirement that subsequent development under the General Plan comply with energy efficiency standards in Title 24 of the California Code, ensure that the impact will be less than cumulatively considerable. As discussed above, the Project would be designed and constructed in compliance with the current California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24), the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), and all applicable City of Rocklin requirements related to energy efficiency. Compliance with these regulations would ensure the incorporation of energy- efficient building materials, lighting, mechanical systems, appliances, and water conservation features that reduce overall energy consumption. Because the Project would comply with applicable General Plan policies, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no additional environmental review is required.

Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of energy, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.

4. The GP EIR utilities analysis used California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities Commission information, service provider consultation, and Title 24 requirements to evaluate electricity, natural gas, telecommunication, and energy efficiency impacts. Based on the analysis provided in this section, the Project’s consistency with the General Plan and zoning designation, the Project’s development intensity being within the level analyzed in the GP EIR, and the findings of the project-specific Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study, no substantial new information has been identified that would result in a new or substantially greater energy impact.

5. No mitigation measures related to energy are contained within the GP EIR. Additionally, no mitigation measures would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Title 24, Energy Efficiency and Green Building Standards. The Project is required to be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11 ). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods.

City of Rocklin Municipal Code Section 15.04.010: Building Code. The City of Rocklin adopts by reference the California Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24), including Part 6 (Energy Code) and Part 11 271

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 78
(CALGreen), which establishes mandatory energy efficiency and green building requirements for all new development within the City.

GP Goals and Policies
Policy OCR-56 Encourage energy conservation in new developments.

Policy OCR-57 Encourage urban design and form that conserves land and other resources.

GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to energy are included in the GP EIR. 272

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 79

6.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

a) Directly or indirectly
cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:

i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist -Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or
based on other
substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and
Geology Special
Publication 42?

ii) Strong seismic
ground shaking?

iii) Seismic -related
ground failure,
including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become
unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially
result in on - or off -site
landslide, lateral spreading,

273

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 80
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts of local soils and geology on development that would occur as a result of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan.

These impacts included seismic hazards such as ground shaking and liquefaction, erosion, soil stability, and wastewater conflicts (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011 pages 4.6 -1 through 4.6- 27). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in geologica l 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 Gene ral 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.

Project-Specific Impacts
This section is based on the following reports:

Would the project:

subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
d) Be located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater
disposal systems where
sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?

f) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic
feature?

274

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 81
• Geotechnical Engineering Study Update , prepared by Youngd ahl Consulting Group , Inc., November 2025. Included as Appendix C.
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.6.1 and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.6-18 to 4.6-20).

As described in the Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix C), the Project site is within a region of relatively low seismic activity in northern California, which means occasional seismic ground shaking is possible over the lifetime of the proposed Project. The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no known active faults traverse the Project site or the City of Rocklin.

However, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the seismic safety requirements as well as S tate and local seismic and structural regulations (i.e. California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, California Building Standards Code, and the City of Rocklin Municipal Code ).

Structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the CBC (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2) which provides provisions for earthquake safety. The CBC standards also require all new developments to be designed consistent with a site specific, design -level geotechnical report, which would be fully compliant with the seismic recommendations of a California-registered professional geotechnical engin eer. Consistent with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Evaluation, proposed buildings would be setback from the fault zone, and no active faults are present within the delineated buildable area of the proposed Project.

Adherence to the applicable CBC requirements, Alquist -Priolo Fault Zoning Act, Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, and General Plan policies, such as Policy S-1 and Policy S-20 related to seismic safety, would ensure that development of the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving ground rupture of a fault. Thus, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no subsequent review is required. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.6.1 and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.6-18 to 4.6-20).

The amount of motion expected at a building site can vary from no motion to forceful depending upon the distance to the fault, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the local geology. As described in the GP EIR, the City of Rocklin is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults traverse the City of Rocklin, but the City may experience ground 275

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 82
shaking from regional fault systems located outside the Planning Area. The Project site is not located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone. The Project site, similar to all sites across California, is subject to minor ground shaking and potentially secondary hazards as a result of earthquakes. However, structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the CBC (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2) that provides provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including building occupancy type, the types of soils on -site, and the probable strength of ground motion. Compliance with the CBC would require the incorporation of: ( 1) seismic safety features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; (2) proper building footings and foundations; and (3) construction of the building structure so that it would withstand the effects of strong ground shaking.

The proposed Project would also be developed in compliance with the Rocklin Municipal Code, the recommendations of the Geotechnical Evaluation (included as Appendix C ), and all other ordinances adopted by the City related to construction and safety. The Rocklin Building Services Division would review the building plans through building plan checks, issuance of a building permit, and inspection of the building during construction, which would ensure that all required CBC seismic safety measures are incorporated into the building. Compliance with these requirements would reduce impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking to a less -than- significant level. Thus, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no subsequent review is required. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.6.1 and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.6-18 to 4.6-20).

Liquefaction occurs when soils are transformed from a solid state into a liquefied state due to increased pressure. Liquefaction is most likely to occur when soils of higher porosity (i.e., clay) become saturated and subjected to seismic activity. Areas wh ere the groundwater table is approximately 50 feet below ground surface are also more susceptible to liquefaction.

As described in the GP EIR, the potential for soil liquefaction within the Rocklin Planning Area is considered minimal due to the presence of stable granitic bedrock, relatively deep groundwater levels (approximately 13 to 161 feet below ground surface), and the general geologic conditions of the area. While localized areas of clay soils may exhibit instability when saturated and subjected to ground shaking, such conditions are not considered a significant hazard within the Planning Area.

The Project site is not located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for earthquake - induced liquefaction or landsliding. In addition, the Geotechnical Evaluation evaluated the liquefaction potential at the site and determined based on the relatively low seismicity of the area, the relatively shallow depth to rock, the dense and competent nature of the subsurface soils and relatively deep groundwater conditions, the liquefaction potential at the Project site is considered to be very low (Appendix C). Regional ground waters are not expected to be a major 276

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 83
factor in the development of the site, further supporting the conclusion that the site is not susceptible to liquefaction hazards.

Additionally, as described previously, the proposed Project would be required to be constructed in compliance with the CBC, the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Evaluation, and the City’s Municipal Code, which would be verified through the City’s plan check and permitting process. Thus, potential impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts on people or structures due to ground failure or liquefaction.

Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the c riteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no subsequent review is required. iv. Landslides?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.6.3 and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.6-21 to 4.6-22).

Landslides are the downhill movement of masses of earth and rock and are often associated with earthquakes. However, other factors, such as the slope, moisture content of the soil, composition of the subsurface geology, heavy rains, and improper grading can influence the occurrence of landslides. The Project site is not located near any slopes or hillsides and is situated on relatively flat terrain within an urbanized portion of the City. As described in the GP EIR, while localized soil conditions may require special design considerations, the Plan ning Area is not characterized by widespread landslide hazards. The Project site does not contain topographic features that would be susceptible to slope instability or landslide conditions. In addition, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the California Building Standards Code (CBC; CCR Title 24), City of Rocklin Municipal Code Section 15.04.010, and applicable grading requirements under Chapter

15.28, and implementation of applicable General Plan policies. A site -specific Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix C) has been prepared for the Project and would provide recommendations for site preparation and foundation design to ensure stability of the proposed improvements.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to slope instability or seismically induced landslides. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project b eyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no subsequent review is required.
b) Result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the G P EIR as Impact 4.6.2 and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact through compliance with NPDES requirements, preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), City grading and erosion control standards, and applicable General Plan policies (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.6-20 to 4.6-21). 277

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 84
Construction of the proposed Project has the potential to contribute to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil.

Grading activities that would be required for the proposed Project would expose and loosen topsoil, which could be eroded by wind or water. However, construction activities would be required to comply with the City of Rocklin Municipal Code, including applicable grading and erosion control requirements under Chapter 15.28, Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control, requiring preparation and approval of an erosion control plan and implementation of appropriate measures during soil- disturbing activities to reduce erosion.

Furthermore, the proposed Project would be subject to NPDES permitting regulations, including implementation of a SWPPP and associated Best Management Practices ( BMPs). BMPs may include a combination of construction methods to reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from Project -related grading and construction activities, such as silt fencing, fiber rolls, stabilized construction entrances, hydroseeding, and sediment control measures. Additionally, the Construction General Permit , State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, regulates construction activities to minimize water pollution, including sediment.

As identified in the GP EIR, soils within the Planning Area generally have moderate erosion potential; however, compliance with City regulations, SWPPP requirements, and implementation of BMPs would reduce erosion impacts to less than significant levels. Additionally, the proposed Project includes installation of landscaping throughout the site. With this landscaping, areas of loose topsoil that could be eroded by wind or water would be stabilized upon operation of the proposed Project. Stormwater features associated with the Project, including landscaped areas and on -site drainage design, would further reduce runoff velocities and erosion potential.

Therefore, with implementation of existing regulatory requirements, impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no subsequent review is required. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.6.3 and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.6-21 to 4.6-22).

As described above, the Project site does not contain nor is it adjacent to any significant slope or hillside area. The proposed Project would also not create slopes. Thus, on or off-site landslides would not occur from the implementation of the proposed Project.

Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction-induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial forces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may cause large horizontal displacements, and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. As described previously, the Geotechnical Evaluation found that the site 278

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 85
possesses a low liquefaction potential. Additionally, because the site is relatively flat and the relatively low liquefaction hazard potential, the potential for earthquake -induced lateral spreading is considered negligible at the site (Appendix C). Therefore, impacts related to liquefaction and lateral spreading are not anticipated at the Project site, and impacts would be less than significant.

Subsidence is a general lowering of the ground surface over a large area that is generally attributed to lowering of groundwater levels within a basin. The Project site is not located within a known subsidence hazard area, and groundwater conditions encoun tered during subsurface exploration indicate relatively deep groundwater levels that would not be expected to contribute to subsidence- related impacts at the site (Appendix C ). Any potential settlement would be localized and addressed through standard engineering design and foundation recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Evaluation.

Compliance with the CBC would be required by the City of Rocklin through the building p lan check and permitting process, which would ensure that impacts related to subsidence would be less than significant.

Overall, compliance with the requirements of the CBC, as ensured by the City through the permitting process, and implementation of site -specific geotechnical recommendations would ensure impacts related to lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and c ollapse would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no subsequent review is required.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.6.3 and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.6-21 to 4.6-22).

Expansive soils contain clay particles that swell when wet and shrink when dry. Foundations constructed on expansive soils are subjected to forces caused by the swelling and shrinkage of the soils and could result in heaving and cracking of buildings and f oundations. As part of the Geotechnical Evaluation, laboratory testing was performed on selected soil samples obtained during the field exploration to confirm the field classification of the soils. The test results indicated that near- surface soils exhibit a low expansion index, indicating a low potential for shrink -swell behavior (Appendix C) . Additionally, compliance with the CBC would be incorporated into grading plans and building specifications as a condition of construction permit approval to ensure that the proposed Project structures would withstand effects related to ground movement, including expansive soils . Thus, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no subsequent review is required. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.6.4 and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.6-22 to 4.6-24). 279

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 86
As described in the GP EIR, impacts related to septic systems are generally associated with development in areas where public sewer service is not available. However, such conditions are limited within the City of Rocklin, where most urban development is served by public wastewater infrastructure.

The proposed Project would not utilize septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

Wastewater generated by the Project would be conveyed via on-site sewer infrastructure, including eight- inch sewer lines, which would connect to an existing 8-inch public sewer line located within Pacific Street.

Because the Project would connect to an existing public sewer system, soils underlying the site would not be relied upon for wastewater disposal. Therefore, the suitability of soils for septic systems is not a relevant factor for the proposed Project.

Accordingly, impacts related to soils incapable of supporting septic systems would not occur. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no subsequent review is required.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the G P EIR as Impact 4.8.3 and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.8-17 to 4.8-18).

The proposed Project includes site preparation, excavation, grading, and other ground disturbance activities that have the potential to damage or destroy paleontological resources that may be present on the Project site. No paleontological resources study has been conducted for the Project site; however, as identified in the GP EIR, fossil resources have been identified within the Planning Area, and there remains the potential for undiscovered resources to occur at depth.

The Project site is underlain by alluvial deposits of Pleistocene age, which are generally considered to have moderate to high paleontological sensitivity. As such, there is a potential for unknown paleontological resources to be encountered during ground-disturbing activities.

In the event that paleontological resources are inadvertently discovered during construction, work would be halted in the vicinity of the find and a qualified paleontologist would be retained to evaluate the significance of the resource and recommend appro priate treatment measures in accordance with standard professional practices.

Compliance with applicable General Plan policies, including Policy OCR-65, which requires preservation or mitigation of impacts to paleontological resources, and implementation of standard inadvertent discovery procedures would ensure that impacts remain l ess than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GP EIR and would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts that would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no subsequent review is required.

280

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 87
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in the GP EIR on page s 4.6-24 through 4.6 -25, compliance with adopted erosion control standards and NPDES and SWPPP requirements, as well as implementation of the General Plan Update policies, would ensure that substantial soil erosion and loss of topsoil impacts related to implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant and that, consequently, cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable . As discussed above, t he Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation, the California Building Code, applicable City of Rocklin grading and construction standards, and all other applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Implementation of these requirements would ensure that the Project is appropriately designed to address site -specific geologic conditions, including seismic hazards, soil stability, erosion control, and expansive soils. The Project would implement all applicable General Plan policies and regulations governing grading, erosion control, and structural design, and would incorporate the recommendations of the project- specific geotechnical investigation into final engineering and construction plans. Accordingly, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative geology and soils impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no additional environmental review is required.

Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of geology and soils, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.

4. The GP EIR geology and soils analysis used published information, surveys, reports, agency resources, the proposed General Plan Update, the Placer County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan, and applicable City regulations. Based on the analysis provided in this section, the Project’s consistency with the General Plan and zoning designation, the Project’s development intensity being within the level analyzed in the GP EIR and the Project’s development area being the same as was analyzed in the GP EIR, and the findings of the project -specific Geotechnical Engineering Study Update, no substantial new information has been identified that would result in a geology and soils impact more severe than anticipated in the GP EIR.

5. No new mitigation me asures would be required. Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) California Building Standards Code Title 24 -Structural and Seismic Standards. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24), including Part 2 (California Building Code), which establishes structural design and seismic safety requirements for buildings. These standards require structures to be designed to withstand seismic forces, incorporate appropriate foundation systems, and address site-specific geotechnical conditions. 281

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 88
City of Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter 15.04 .010: Building Code. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City’s adopted Building Code, as outlined in Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter

Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter 15.28: Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control. The proposed Project would be required to comply with Chapter 15.28, which requires preparation and approval of grading and erosion control plans and implementation of measures to minimize soil erosion and loss of topsoil during construction activities.

GP Goals and Policies
Policy S -1: Require engineering analysis of new development proposals in areas with possible soil instability, flooding, earthquake faults, or other hazards, and to prohibit development that cannot mitigate the applicable hazard.

Policy S-20: Provide for seismic safety and structural integrity in residential, commercial, industrial and public facilities through Building Code enforcement.

Policy S- 21: Require site -specific geotechnical studies of development proposals in areas subject to landslide potential, erosion, and/or slope instability.

Policy OCR-49: Minimize the degradation of water quality through use of erosion control plans and Best Management Practices.

Policy OCR -65: Preserve significant archaeological resources (including Native American remains) and paleontological resources in place if feasible, or provide mitigation (avoidance, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures) prior to further disturbance.

GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to geology and soils are included in the GP EIR.

282

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 89

6.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
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 gre enhouse gas reduction measure, climate change environmental effects on the City and generation of greenhouse gas emissions (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011, pages 4.15-1 through 4.15-25). Mitigation measures to address these impacts are incorporated into the General Plan in the Land Use and Circulation Elements, and include goals and policies that encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation and promote mixed use and infill development.

The General Plan EIR concluded that despite these goals and policies, significant greenhouse gas emission impacts will occur as a result of development under the General Plan and further, that these impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Specifically, the General Plan EIR found that buildout of the Rocklin General Plan will result in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions which are cumulatively considerable. Findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations were adopted by the Rocklin City Council in regard to this impact, which was found to be significant and unavoidable.

Project-Specific Impacts
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, prepared by EPD Solutions , April 2026.

Included as Appendix A.

Would the Project:

b) Conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse
gases?

283

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 90
GHG Thresholds
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 provides discretion to the lead agency whether to: (1) use a model of methodology to quantify GHG emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use; or (2) rely on a qualitative analysis or performanc e-based standards. In addition, CEQA does not provide guidance to determine whether the project’s estimated GHG emissions are significant, but recommends that lead agencies consider several factors that may be used in the determination of significance of project related GHG emissions, including:
• The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.
• Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
• The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(f) describes that the effects of GHG emissions are by their very nature cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impact analysis.

Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)3 st ates that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides requirements to avoid or lessen the cumulative problem.

CEQA allows the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on climate change.

California State Executive Order S -3-05, issued by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in June 2005, established comprehensive GHG reduction targets for the state (Executive Department State of California, 2005). It mandated reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This Executive Order laid the foundation for subsequent climate change mitigation efforts in California, including the development of various policies and programs aimed at reducing emissions across sectors such as transportation, energy, and industry. The objective of the Executive Order is to contribute to capping worldwide CO 2 concentrations at 450 parts per million (ppm),
stabilizing global climate change.

The Placer County Air Pollution Control District ( PCAPCD) has adopted thresholds for GHG emissions within their jurisdiction. The thresholds were determined based on the goals set by Executive Order S-3- 0517, which set a goal to reduce GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and Senate Bill (SB) 32, which established into law a GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

The PCAPCD has established project -level greenhouse gas (GHG) significance thresholds based on consideration of multiple factors, including: (1) thresholds adopted by other air districts, (2) CEQA projects reviewed by the District, (3) applicable statewide regulatory requirements for 2030, and (4) local geographic considerations specific to Placer County.

The PCAPCD applies a bright-line significance threshold of 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO₂e) per year to evaluate both construction-related and operational GHG emissions associated with 284

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 91
land use projects. Projects with emissions exceeding this threshold are considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change.

In addition to the bright -line threshold, the PCAPCD has developed a tiered approach for evaluating operational GHG emissions, which includes the following:
• Bright-Line Threshold: 10,000 MTCO₂e per year.
• Efficiency Metrics:
o Residential Development
 Urban: 4.5 MTCO₂e per capita per year
 Rural: 5.5 MTCO₂e per capita per year
o Non-Residential Development
 Urban: 26.5 MTCO₂e per capita per year
 Rural: 27.3 MTCO₂e per capita per year
• De Minimis Threshold: 1,100 MTCO₂e per year for operational emissions.

For the purposes of Appendix A, the 10,000 MTCO₂e per year bright -line threshold is used to evaluate the Project’s construction and operational emissions. Projects with emissions below this threshold are not considered to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to climate change. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.15.3 and was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact. The GP EIR determined that while the General Plan includes policies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from future development, implementation would still result in an overall increase in emissions compared to existing conditions and would not achieve the long-term reduction goals established by State regulations. As such, impacts related to GHG emissions were determined to be significant and unavoidable (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.15-24).

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to occur over approximately 24 months, beginning in the second quarter of 2027 and ending in the second quarter of 2029. GHG emissions associated with Project construction would occur over the short term and would consist primarily of emissions from construction equipment, as well as worker and vendor vehicle trips. The calculations presented below include construction emissions in terms of annual CO
2e GHG emissions from increased energy
consumption, water usage, and solid waste disposal, as well as estimated GHG emissions from vehicular traffic that would result from implementation of the proposed Project. During construction of the proposed Project, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment, as well as emissions from worker and vendor vehicles, each of which typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil -based fuels creates GHGs such as CO 2, CH4, and N 2O. Furthermore, CH 4 is emitted
during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.
285

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 92
As shown in Table GHG-1, Project Construction GHG Emissions, total construction emissions are estimated at approximately 751 MTCO ₂e over the duration of construction. These emissions would be temporary and short -term in nature and would cease upon completion of construction. Therefore, construction - related GHG emissions would not represent a long-term contribution to global climate change.

Table GHG-1: Project Construction GHG Emissions
Construction Year Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Year 1 (2027) 267
Year 2 (2028) 395
Year 3 (2029) 89
Total Emissions 751
Significance Threshold 10,000
Threshold Exceeded? No
Source: Appendix A.

Operation
During operation, the proposed Project would generate long- term GHG emissions from mobile sources (vehicle trips), area sources, electricity consumption, water usage, and solid waste generation. As shown in Table GHG-2, Total Project GHG Emissions, the proposed Project would generate approximately 2,213 MTCO₂e per year, which is well below the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) bright - line significance threshold of 10,000 MTCO₂e per year.

While the GP EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to GHG emissions at the program level due to long-term growth and uncertainty in achieving reduction targets, the proposed Project would not generate emissions exceeding applicable thr esholds or result in emissions beyond those previously evaluated in the GP EIR.

Based on the foregoing analysis, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe GHG impacts beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Therefore, no new or substantially great er impacts would occur. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional review is required.

Table GHG-2: Total Project GHG Emissions
Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)1
Mobile 1,998
Area 3
Energy 130
Water 15
Waste 65
286

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 93
Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)1
Refrigeration 0
Total Project Operation Emissions 2,213
Significance Threshold 10,000
Threshold Exceeded? No
Source: Appendix A
1 Values may vary slightly due to rounding;
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.15.1 and was determined to result in a less than significant impact . The GP EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan Update would be consistent with applicable State and regional plans adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scop ing Plan and Executive Order S-3-05, and would not conflict with applicable GHG reduction strategies (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.15-15 to 4.15-23).

The proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The Project would be required to comply with applicable State regulations that reduce GHG emissions, including the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which requires reduction of statewide emissions to 1990 levels; Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), which establishes a target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030; and the Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493 ), which regulate vehicle emissions.

In addition, the proposed Project would be required to comply with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which require reductions in energy consumption, water use, and construction waste. The Project would also be subject to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and vehicle efficiency standards implemented by CARB, which reduce emissions associated with mobile sources.

As demonstrated in the Project-specific air quality and GHG analysis (Appendix A), the proposed Project would generate approximately 2,213 MTCO₂e per year, which is well below the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) bright-line threshold of 10,000 MTCO₂e per year.

Based on the foregoing, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur beyond those previo usly evaluated in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional review is required.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in the GP EIR on page 4.15 -24, implementation of the General Plan would result in cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impacts associated with GHG emissions due to increased residential, commercial, and industrial development. A project’s GHG emissions are at a micro- scale relative to global emissions, but could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution 287

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 94
to a significant cumulative macro -scale impact. As such, impacts related to emissions of GHG are inherently considered cumulative impacts. As shown in Table GHG -2, Total Project GHG Emissions, the proposed Project would generate approximately 2,213 MTCO₂e per year, which is well below the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) bright -line significance threshold of 10,000 MTCO ₂e per year. Therefore, the proposed Projects GHG emissions are considered less than cumulatively considerable.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no additional environmental review is required.

Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of GHG emissions, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.

4. The GP EIR climate change and greenhouse gases analysis used transportation, electricity, natural gas, and waste emissions modeling to evaluate GHG emissions associated with General Plan implementation. Based on the analysis provided in this section, the P roject’s consistency with the General Plan and zoning designation, the Project’s development intensity being within the level analyzed in the GP EIR, and the findings of the project -specific Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, no subst antial new information has been identified that would result in a greenhouse gas emissions impact more severe than anticipated in the GP EIR.

5. No new mitigation measures related to GHG would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Title 24, Energy Efficiency and Green Building Standards. As listed in Section 6.6, Energy.

City of Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter 15.04.010: Building Code. As listed previously in Section 6.7, Geology and Soils.

GP Goals and Policies
Policy LU-11: Encourage infill residential development that is in keeping with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood, while providing a variety of densities and housing types as reflected by the zoning and land use designation of the infill property.

Policy LU-13: Review proposals for new residential development for compatibility with the character and scale of nearby neighborhoods, while providing a variety of densities and housing types as reflected by the zoning and land use designation of the infill property.

GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to GHG are required to reduce Project impacts. 288

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 95

6.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

b) Create a significant hazard
to the public or the
environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions
or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within
one-
quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which
is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?

e) For a project located
within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for

289

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 96
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated human health and hazards impacts that would occur as a result of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included wildland fire hazards, transportation, use and dis posal of hazardous materials, and emergency response and evacuation plans (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011 pages 4.7 -1 through

4.7- 30). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the Rocklin General Plan can introduce a variety of human health and hazards impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of development standards in the Rocklin Municipal Code, the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assis t in minimizing or avoiding hazardous conditions, and compliance with local, state and federal standards related to hazards and hazardous materials.

These goals, policies and standards include, but are not limited to, Chapter 2.32 of the Rocklin Municipal Code which requires the preparation and maintenance of an emergency operations plan, preventative measures in the City's Improvement Standards and St andard Specifications, compliance with local, state and federal standards related to hazards and hazardous materials and goals and policies in the General Plan Community Safety and Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Elements requiring coordination with emergency management agencies, annexation into fee districts for fire prevention/suppression and medical response, incorporation of fuel modification/fire hazard reduction planning, and requirements for site-specific hazard investigations and risk analysis.

Project-Specific Impacts
This section is based on the following reports:
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment , prepared by Stantec Consulting Services , Inc. , November 2025. Appendix D.
• Phase II Environmental Site Assessment , prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., December 2025. Appendix E.
people residing or working in
the project area?
f) Impair implementation of
or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?

g) Expose people or
structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?

290

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 97
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the G P EIR as Impact 4.7.3 and was determined to be less than significant (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.7-22 to 4.7-25).

A hazardous material is defined as any material that, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that a business or the local implementing agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safe ty of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. Hazardous waste requires special handling and disposal because of their potential to damage public health and the environment.

Development and long- term operation of the proposed Project would require standard transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. If the use of these materials does not adhere to established federal, S tate, and local laws and regulations, workers, residents, the public, and/or the environment could be exposed to hazardous materials.

Construction
Heavy construction equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, tractors) would be operated for construction of the proposed Project. The equipment would be fueled and maintained by petroleum ‐based substances such as diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which are considered hazardous if improperly stored, handled, or transported. Other materials used , such as paints, adhesives, and solvents , could also result in accidental releases or spills that could pose risks to people and the environment. These risks are standard on all construction sites, and the proposed Project would not cause greater risks than would occur on other similar construction sites.

In addition, as identified in the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments prepared for the Project site, recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated with historical uses, including former railroad operations and industrial activities, have been identified. These assessments concluded that residual petroleum hydrocarbons and metals may be present in shallow and localized soils; however, these materials do not pose a significant risk to human health and are below applicable regulatory screening levels. In an abundance of caution, it is recommended that soils be removed onsite where historic arsenic impacts are documented onsite, in compliance with General Plan Policies S-14 and S-15 and has been included as Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Potential vapor encroachment from nearby off-site sources were also evaluated and are not expected to pose a significant risk to the Project site. In addition, off-site hazardous materials sites in the surrounding area are regulated by appropriate agencies and are not expected to result in significant impacts to the Project site. During construction, any soil or groundwater encountered that exhibits signs of contamination would be managed, handled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that potential exposure to hazardous materials during construction is minimized and would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. As a standard precaution, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) would be implemented during construction to outline procedures for handling 291

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 98
previously unidentified materials encountered during grading activities , and is included as Mitigation measure HAZ-2.

Construction contractors would be required to comply with federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as implemented by the United States Depar tment of Transportation (USDOT), California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), requires proper classification, handling, and transport of hazardous materials. Additionally, construction activities would require preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in compliance with the NPDES General Construction Permit, which would include best management practices (BMPs) to minimize the potential for accidental releases, spills, and runoff of hazardous materials.

Mandatory compliance with applicable laws and regulations related to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities at the Project site would limit potentially significant hazards to construction workers, the public, and the environment. Impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR.

Operation
The proposed Project would develop the site with 281 multi family residential units. While hazardous materials are not typically associated with this type of residential use, limited quantities of common household products, such as cleaning agents, pesticides, and herbicides, may be used for routine maintenance and landscaping. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous and would only be used and stored in limited quantities. The normal routine use of these hazardous materials pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to people or the environment in the vicinity of the proposed Project. With c ompliance with existing laws and regulations, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no additional review is required.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.7.3 and was determined to be less than significant (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.7-22 to 4.7-25).

In November 2025, Stantec completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) then conducted a subsequent Phase II ESA in December, 2025 for the Project site (Appendices D and E). The purpose of the ESA’s were to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs), including historical recognized environmental conditions (HRECs), and controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs) that may exist at a property. The term “recognized environmental condition” means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. 292

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 99
Information gathered from interviews, reviews of existing data, and a site inspection were evaluated to determine if RECs are present in connection to the Project site. The Phase I ESA identified recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated with historical uses of the site, including former railroad operations and industrial activities. A subsequent Phase II ESA further evaluated these conditions and determined that residual petroleum hydrocarbons and metals may be present in shallow, localized soils; however, these materials do not pose a significant risk to human health and are below applicable regulatory screening levels. Potential vapor encroachment from nearb y off- site sources was also evaluated and is not expected to pose a significant risk to the Project site. Based on these findings and prior regulatory review, no further remediation was determined to be necessary.

Construction
While the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable regulations during construction activities would not pose health risks or result in significant impacts, improper use, storage, transportation , and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes could result in accidental spills or releases, posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. To avoid an impact related to an accidental release, the use of BMPs during construction are imp lemented as part of a SWPPP as required by the NPDES General Construction Permit . Implementation of a SWPPP would protect quality of the water supply. Construction contract specifications would include strict on - site handling rules and BMPs that include, but are not limited to:
• Establishing a dedicated area for fuel storage and refueling and construction dewatering activities that includes secondary containment protection measures and spill control supplies; • Following manufacturers’ recommendations on the use, storage, and disposal of chemical products used in construction;
• Avoiding overtopping construction equipment fuel tanks; • Properly containing and removing grease and oils during routine maintenance of equipment; and • Properly disposing of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals.

In addition, given the presence of shallow and localized soil impacts identified in the Phase II ESA, any soil or groundwater encountered during construction that exhibits signs of contamination would be managed, handled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. The Phase II ESA identified limited, shallow concentrations of lead and arsenic in localized areas of the Project site, which are considered de minimis in extent and are recommended for removal during site development to eliminate potential exposure to future residents, and is included as Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.

The Phase II ESA also determined that no vapor intrusion risk is present at the Project site and that no vapor mitigation is warranted. In addition, no widespread soil or groundwater contamination was identified across the majority of the site. As a standard precaution, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) would be implemented during construction to outline procedures for handling previously unidentified materials encountered during grading activities, and is included as Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.

Compliance with these requirements would ensure that potential accidental releases or exposure to hazardous materials during construction are minimized.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition involving the release of hazardous materials into the 293

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 100
environment, and the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR . Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR.

Operation
As discussed previously, hazardous materials are not typically associated with multifamily residential uses.

Operations could require the use of various types and quantities of hazardous materials, including cleaning products and the use of pesticides and herbicides for landscape maintenance. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous and would only be used and stored in limited quantities. In addition, adherence to existing regulations related to hazards and hazardous materials safety would be required.

Therefore, development of the proposed Project would be required to minimize risk of accidental spills and protect human health and the environment should any accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials occur during operation of the proposed Project, including on-site collection and treatment of potentially polluted runoff, as well as nonstructural maintenance implemented to prevent potentially hazardous spills or leaks of stored materials. As such, the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to the accidental upset or release of hazardous materials and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no additional review is required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.7-22 to 4.7-25).

Holy Cross Lutheran Academy is located approximately 0.14 miles east of the Project site, within one - quarter mile. As such, the proposed Project has the potential to occur within proximity to a sensitive receptor.

As described in the previous responses, residential land uses are not typically associated with the routine use, storage, or release of hazardous materials. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would involve the use and disposal of limited qu antities of hazardous materials, which would be used in compliance with federal, State, and local regulations, thereby reducing the potential for accidental spills or releases.

Construction activities may involve the temporary use of hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, and solvents; however, these materials would be handled in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements and standard construction practices, and w ould not result in substantial hazardous emissions. These activities would be short -term and would not result in prolonged exposure to nearby receptors, including the nearby school.

As identified in the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, limited shallow soil impacts are present in localized areas of the Project site; however, these conditions do not pose a significant risk to human health and would be managed in acco rdance with applicable regulatory requirements during construction. No vapor intrusion risk was identified at the site. 294

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 101
Furthermore, the emissions that would be generated from construction and operation of the proposed Project were evaluated in the air quality analysis discussed in Section 6.3, Air Quality, and were determined to be less than significant.

Consistent with General Plan Policies S -13 (hazardous materials disclosure), S -14 (construction contamination response), and S -15 (site investigation requirements), the proposed Project would be required to disclose hazardous materials use, cease construct ion in the event contamination is encountered, and implement appropriate evaluation and remediation measures, as necessary, under oversight of applicable regulatory agencies.

As described in the GP EIR, compliance with federal, State, and local regulations and implementation of General Plan policies would ensure that impacts associated with hazardous materials use and potential upset conditions, including those occurring within one-quarter mile of a school, would be less than significant.

Therefore, impacts related to hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR .

Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional review is required. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.7.3 and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.7-22 to 4.7-25).

The GP EIR identified multiple hazardous materials sites within the Planning Area and evaluated the potential for development to occur on or near such sites. The GP EIR concluded that impacts associated with hazardous materials, including development on si tes listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, would be less than significant with compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations and implementation of General Plan policies.

In November 2025, Stantec completed a Phase I ESA, followed by a Phase II ESA in December 2025 for the Project site in compliance with General Plan Policy S-15 (Appendices D and E). The Phase I ESA included a review of federal, State, and local regulatory databases to identify whether the Project site or surrounding properties are included on lists of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. T he Phase I ESA determined that the Project site is not included on any such list; however, recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated with historical site uses were identified and warranted further evaluation.

The subsequent Phase II ESA evaluated these conditions and determined that limited, shallow concentrations of lead and arsenic are present in localized areas of near-surface soils. These impacts are considered de minimis in extent and do not represent a si gnificant hazard to human health or the environment. The Phase II ESA recommended removal of these shallow soils in the affected areas prior to development to eliminate potential exposure to future receptors which has been included as Mitigation 295

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 102
Measure HAZ-1. No soil vapor intrusion risk, groundwater impacts, or widespread contamination were identified, and no further remedial action was determined to be necessary.

In addition, a Soil Management Plan would be prepared as required by Mitigation Measure HAZ- 2 in compliance with General plan Policy S-14 and applicable federal, State, and local regulations, including oversight by agencies such as the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as well as adherence to standard construction best management practices, would ensure that any contaminated materials are properly managed, handled, and disposed of. Consistent with General Plan Policy S -14 (cease work and remediate contamination), construction activities would be halted in the vicinity of any discovery until the e xtent of contamination is evaluated and appropriate measures are implemented.

Based on the foregoing, the Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and with implementation of recommended soil removal measures and compliance with applicable regulatory req uirements, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous materials sites would be less than significant.

Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional review is required. e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.7.2 and was determined to have no impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.7-22).

As described in the GP EIR, there are no airports located within the City of Rocklin; however, the nearest airports include Lincoln Regional Airport/Karl Harder Field, located approximately 7 miles from the Project site, and Auburn Municipal Airport, locat ed approximately 14 miles from the Project site. The Rocklin Planning Area is not located within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) area or safety zones of any public or private airport.

Consistent with the GP EIR, the Project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or public - use airport and is not within any airport influence area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to safety hazards associated with airport operations, including aircraft overflight, accident risk, or airspace conflicts.

The Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA), acting as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), establishes Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCPs) to ensure land use compatibility and minimize safety risks in the vicinity of public -use airports; however, the Project site is located outside of any ALUCP influence area and is not subject to ALUC review requirements.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area, and impacts would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the 296

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 103
GP EIR. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional review is required. f) Impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.7.4 and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.7-25 to 4.7-27).

Emergency response within the City of Rocklin is guided by the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), as codified in Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter 2.32. The EOP provides a framework for emergency preparedness, response, and recovery, including coordinati on of City resources and identification of evacuation procedures. As identified in the GP EIR, implementation of General Plan Policies S-2 (maintain EOP), S-3 (multi-agency coordination), S-4 (evacuation routes), S -5 (roadway design standards), and S -6 (interagency coordination) would ensure that development within the Planning Area does not impair emergency response or evacuation efforts.

Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The installation of new driveways, con nections to existing infrastructure systems , and related improvements that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project may require the temporary closure of portions of Pacific Street and Midas Avenue. However, temporary closures would be subject to City permitting and traffic control requirements to ensure that adequate emergency vehicle access is maintained at all times . Thus, implementation of the proposed Project through the City’s permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and potential construction -related emergency access or evacuation impacts would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR.

Operation
The proposed Project would include internal circulation improvements and site access designed in accordance with City standards. Access to the Project site would be provided via Pacific Street and Midas Avenue, and internal roadways would be designed to meet applicable City requirements for emergency vehicle access, including minimum roadway widths and turning radii. Compliance with the City of Rocklin Municipal Code and applicable provisions of the California Fire Code would ensure adequate emergency access. The Project would also include required fire protection features, such as fire hydrants and building sprinkler systems, subject to review and approval by the appropriate fire authority during the permitting process.

Consistent with General Plan Policy S -5 (roadway standards for emergency access), the Project would maintain adequate roadway widths and access points to accommodate emergency vehicles. In addition, compliance with the City’s EOP and applicable regulatory requirements would ensure that the Project does not interfere with established evacuation routes or emergency response procedures. 297

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 104
Therefore, the proposed Project would not impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR . Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional review is required. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.7.1 and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.7-20 to 4.7-22).

As identified in the GP EIR, wildland fire risk within the Planning Area is generally associated with areas located within or adjacent to the wildland -urban interface, including locations with dense vegetation, open space, and undeveloped land. However, the Project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) or State Responsibility Area (SRA), and is situated within an urbanized portion of the City.

According to the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps, the Project site is not located within or near an area identified as a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE, 2026). Therefore, the Project site is not subject to elevated wildfire risk conditions typically associated with wildland interface areas.

Development of the proposed Project would be required to comply with the City of Rocklin Municipal Code, including Chapter 15.04 (Fire Code), which adopts the California Fire Code and establishes requirements related to fire -resistant construction, emergency access, water supply for fire protection, and fuel management.

Consistent with General Plan Policies S -2 (emergency preparedness), S -5 (roadway standards for emergency access), and S -18 (fuel modification and fire hazard reduction), the proposed Project would incorporate fire prevention and response measures, includin g adequate roadway access for emergency vehicles, installation of fire suppression systems, and compliance with fire-safe design standards.

In addition, as surrounding areas continue to urbanize consistent with the General Plan, the reduction of undeveloped open space and vegetation would further reduce the potential for wildland fire exposure at the Project site.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, and impacts would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater imp acts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional review is required.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in the GP EIR on page 4.7-27, potential exposure to or generation of hazardous conditions in the city is site-specific rather than associated with the combination of other hazards in the region to result in a significant effect. Implementation of proposed General Plan Update policies, along with federal, state, 298

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 105
and local regulations regarding hazardous materials as identified under Impacts 4.7.1, 4.7.3, and 4.7.4, would address site -specific hazards and emergency access and operation. As discussed above, the proposed Project would include Project specific mitigat ion measures HAZ- 1 and HAZ -2 , in compliance with General Plan Policies S -14 and S -15 and existing federal, state, and local regulations in order to minimize impacts related to hazardous materials onsite to a less than significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no additional environmental review is required.

Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of hazards and hazardous materials, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.

4. The GP EIR hazards analysis used existing documentation, hazardous materials database review, field review of the Planning Area, and consultation with applicable local, State, and federal agencies. Based on the analysis provided in this section, the Projec t’s consistency with the General Plan and zoning designation, the Project’s development intensity being within the level analyzed in the GP EIR and the Project’s development area being the same as was analyzed in the GP EIR , and the findings of the project-specific Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, no substantial new information has been identified that would result in a hazards or human health impact more severe than anticipated in the GP EIR.

5. No mitigation m easures contained within the GP EIR would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant with compliance to existing regulations.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) City of Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter 15. 04.010: Building Code. As listed previously in Section 6.7, Geology and Soils.

City of Rocklin Municipal Code Section 15.04.050: Fire Code. Adopts the 2025 edition of the California Fire Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9), including Fire-Flow Requirements for Buildings, Fire Hydrant Locations and Distribution, and Fire Apparatus Access Roads, and establishes minimum fire safety requirements applicable to all development. These standards address fire apparatus access, water supply, construction materials, vegetation management, and other fire prevention measures. Compliance is required for all projects and enforced by the Rocklin Fire Department. 299

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 106
GP Goals and Policies
Policy S- 2: Emergency Operations Plan. Maintain a City Emergency Operations Plan, to include the National Incident Management System (N.I.M.S.).

Policy S- 5: Roadway Standards . Maintain appropriate standards for minimum road widths and turnarounds.

Policy S -14: Require that construction activities cease if contamination is discovered on construction projects until the contamination is reported, and its extent is assessed, delineated, and isolated, as appropriate. Remediation shall occur to the satisfaction of the appropriate responsible agency (such as the Placer County Environmental Health Services, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, or the City of Rocklin, depending on the type of contamination).

Policy S-15: Require site-specific hazard investigations to be conducted, if determined to be necessary by the City, to confirm potentially contaminated soils prior to approval of new discretionary development projects.

Policy S-18: Fuel Modification. Incorporate fuel modification/fire hazard reduction planning (e.g., weed abatement, open space management plans, firebreaks, planting restrictions) on lands (both public and private) that contain terrain and vegetative features such as grass, woodlands and severe slopes.

GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to hazards and hazardous materials are included in the GP EIR.

Project Specific Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HAZ -1: Prior to issuance of grading permits and commencement of earthwork activities, the P roject Applicant shall implement the recommendations identified in the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the p roject site. Specifically, shallow soils (approximately one foot below ground surface) containing arsenic and lead impacts identified near historical boring location G-1 and assessment borings SB-9 and SB-10 shall be removed from the project site. Additionally, shallow soils in the vicinity of historical boring locations G- 10 and G -13 shall be removed as a precautionary measure due to historically documented arsenic impacts.

Soil removal activities shall be conducted under the oversight of a qualified environmental professional and in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations governing the handling, transportation, and disposal of contaminated soils, inc luding applicable requirements of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or other appropriate regulatory agencies. Excavated soils shall be properly characterized prior to disposal and transported to an appropriately permitted disposal facility or managed in accordance with regulatory agency requirements.

Following completion of soil removal activities, the project applicant shall submit documentation to the City demonstrating completion of the removal activities, including the areas and depths of soil removed, quantities of soil removed, disposal documentation, and any confirmation sampling or other verification documentation, as applicable.
300

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 107
Mitigation Measure HAZ -2: Soil Management Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by a qualified hazardous materials consultant in coordination with the Community Development Department, Building Division, for review and approval, and shall detail procedures and protocols for excavation and disposal of on-site hazardous materials, including:
• Any subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear potentially contaminated, based on either visual observation or suspect odors, shall be segregated, stockpiled, and tested for potential contamination. If contamination is found to be present per the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for the applicable use, and cannot be reused on the Project site, it shall be transported by a certified hazardous waste hauler to a landfill permitted by the state to accept hazardous materials and disposed of per California Hazardous Waste Regulations. The appropriate regulatory agency (e.g., DTSC, RWQCB, or County Department of Public Health) shall be notified as required by law, and all agency directives shall be implemented. • A Health and Safety Plan (HASP) shall be prepared in accordance with Cal/OSHA requirements for each contractor that addresses potential safety and health hazards and includes the requirements and procedures for employee protection. The HASP shall also outl ine proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.
• All SMP measures shall be printed on the construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of grading permits. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the SMP, including laboratory results and waste disposal manifests (if applicable), shall be provided to the Community Development Department, Building Division prior to final grading approval.

301

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 108

6.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?

c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including
through the alteration of
the course of a stream or
river or through the addition
of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:

i) result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;

ii) substantially increase
the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a
manner which would
result in flooding on - or
off-site;

302

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 109
Would the project:

iv) impede or redirect
flood flows?

d) In flood hazard, tsunami,
or seiche zones, risk release
of pollutants due to project
inundation?

e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated hydrology and water quality impacts that would occur as a result of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included water quality, ground water quality and supply, drainage, flooding, risks of seiche, tsunami and mudflow (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011, pages 4.9 -1 through 4.9-37). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in hydrology and water quality impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of development standards contained in the City's Improvement S tandards and Standard Specifications and in the Rocklin Municipal Code, the application of General Plan goals and policies related to hydrology, flooding and water quality, and compliance with local, state, and federal water quality standards and floodplain development requirements.

These goals, policies and standards include, but are not limited to, flood prevention and drainage requirements in the City's Improvement Standards and Standard Specifications, the City's Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, the Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance, the State 303

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 110
Water Resources Control Board General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit requirements, and goals and policies in the General Plan Open Space, Conservation and Recreation and Safety Elements requiring the protection of new and existing development from flood and drainage hazards, the prevention of storm drainage run -off in excess of pre- development levels, the development and application of erosion control plans and best management practices, the annexation of new development into existing drainage maintenance districts where warranted, and consultation with the Placer Coun ty Flood Control and Water Conservation District and other appropriate entities..

Project-Specific Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.9.1 and was determined to be less than significant (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.9 -21 to 4.9- 26). Development under the General Plan was identified as having the potential to affect water quality through construction -related disturbance and operational stormwater runoff.

The proposed Project would involve similar construction and operational activities as those evaluated in the GP EIR and would therefore result in similar types of potential impacts. However, consistent with the GP EIR analysis, the Project would be require d to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations that govern water quality. Construction activities disturbing one acre or more would be subject to the State Water Resources Control Board’s General Construction Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) identifying best management practices (BMPs) to minimize pollutant discharge. The Project would also be required to comply with the City of Rocklin Municipal Code, including Chapte r 15.28 (Grading and Erosion and Sedimentation Control) and Chapter 8.30 (Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control), which regulate grading activities, erosion control, and discharge of pollutants to the storm drain system.

During operation, the Project would implement post -construction stormwater controls consistent with the City’s Storm Water Management Program and applicable Low Impact Development standards to reduce pollutant loading and manage runoff. In addition, implem entation of General Plan policies, including Policy OCR -49 (erosion control and BMPs), Policy OCR -50 (grading ordinance), Policy OCR -51 (stream channel protection), Policy OCR -52 (public education), and Policy OCR -54 (operations and maintenance procedures) , would further ensure that surface and groundwater quality is protected.

Accordingly, the proposed Project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional environmental review is required. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.9.3 and was determined to be less than significant (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.9-26 to 4.9-28).

As described in the GP EIR, groundwater resources underlying the Planning Area are not a primary source of water supply for the City. The City of Rocklin receives water from the Placer County Water Agency 304

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 111
(PCWA), which primarily provides surface water within Zone 1, where the Project site is located. As such, development within the Planning Area does not rely on groundwater extraction and would not result in depletion of groundwater supplies.

The GP EIR acknowledges that development associated with the General Plan would increase impervious surfaces, which could reduce opportunities for groundwater recharge. However, the GP EIR further explains that local geologic conditions, including underlyi ng granite bedrock and volcanic formations, inherently limit the potential for groundwater recharge within the City. Infiltrated water typically does not percolate to deep aquifers but instead becomes perched or flows laterally toward surface water features.

Therefore, reductions in infiltration associated with development would not substantially affect groundwater recharge or basin conditions.

The GP EIR also notes that regional groundwater conditions are stable, and the California Department of Water Resources has not identified groundwater overdraft as a concern in this portion of the state.

Groundwater depths within the North American Subbasin vary but are generally deep, and development within the Planning Area is not expected to substantially influence groundwater levels.

The proposed Project would be consistent with the type and intensity of development evaluated in the GP EIR and would similarly not involve groundwater extraction. The Project would receive water service from PCWA and would not include the use of groundwat er wells. Although the Project would introduce additional impervious surfaces, it would be required to comply with City standards requiring management of stormwater runoff, including maintaining post -development runoff rates consistent with pre - development conditions and incorporating Low Impact Development (LID) features where applicable.

In addition, implementation of Policy OCR -11 (protection of groundwater recharge areas) would ensure that riparian and wetland areas that contribute to recharge are preserved to the extent feasible.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new or substantially greater impacts beyond those previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional review is required. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.9.4 and was determined to be less than significant (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.9-28 to 4.9-29).

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would require grading and excavation of soils, which would loosen sediment and could result in erosion or siltation. However, construction of the proposed Project would be required to comply with the State Water Resourc es Control Board Construction General Permit, including preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. The SWPPP is required for plan check and approval by the City’s Engineering Division, prior to issuance of permits, and would include construction BMPs to reduce erosion and siltation. Typical BMPs include silt fencing, fiber rolls, gravel bags, stabilized construction entrances, 305

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 112
and stockpile management. These measures are consistent with regulatory requirements identified in the GP EIR to control erosion and sedimentation during construction activities. Adherence to these requirements would ensure that erosion and siltation assoc iated with construction activities would be minimized, and impacts would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR.

Operation
During operation of the proposed Project, disturbed areas would be stabilized through landscaping, paving, and installation of drainage infrastructure, which would reduce the potential for exposed soils to erode. Additionally, the proposed drainage infrastructure would control and convey runoff in accordance with City standards and applicable drainage design criteria, which would limit the potential for erosion or siltation. The proposed Project is required to implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that provides operational BMPs to minimize runoff- related impacts. Consistent with the GP EIR, compliance with City standards requiring management of post -development runoff to maintain pre -development conditions would further reduce the potential for erosion and sediment transport.

As a result, stormwater runoff and the potential for erosion and siltation would not substantially increase with implementation of the proposed Project, and impacts would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR . Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional review is required. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
No New Impact. These topics were evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.9.5 and were determined to be less than significant (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.9-29 to 4.9-32).

Implementation of the proposed Project would result in site grading and the introduction of impervious surfaces, which could alter existing drainage patterns and increase the rate and volume of surface runoff.

If not properly managed, these changes could result in on- or off-site flooding, exceedance of storm drain system capacity, or alteration of flood flows. However, as described in the GP EIR, compliance with City standards and regional drainage requirements would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.

The proposed Project would be required to design and implement drainage improvements consistent with City of Rocklin standards and the PCFCWCD Flood Control Manual. Consistent with General Plan Policies S-10 and S -11, the Project would be required to manag e post-development runoff such that peak flow rates do not exceed pre-development conditions and to ensure that development does not result in on - site or off-site flooding.
306

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 113
In addition, Policy S-9 requires that development not adversely affect the 100-year floodplain, and Policy S-8 requires compliance with the City’s Flood Hazard Ordinance (Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter 15.16), which regulates development within flood-prone areas.

The Project would also be required to comply with applicable stormwater regulations, including preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control runoff and prevent adverse drainage conditions during construction . As discussed above , t he proposed Project is required to implement a WQMP that provides operational BMPs to minimize runoff- related impacts. These requirements would ensure that runoff is properly conveyed and treated and would prevent the Project from exceeding the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or creating substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the Project site is located entirely within Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard. Therefore, the proposed Project would not impede or redirect flood flows or expose structures to flood risk.

Based on the foregoing, the proposed Project would not substantially increase runoff in a manner that would result in flooding, would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, and would not impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR and would be consistent with the findings of the GP EIR.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new or substantially greater impacts beyond those previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional review is required. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.9.6 and was determined to be less than significant (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.9-32 to 4.9-33).

As discussed above, the proposed Project site is located entirely within FEMA Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard, and is not located within a 100 -year floodplain or other mapped flood hazard area.

Therefore, the Project site would not be subject to fl ood inundation that could result in the release of pollutants. Additionally, the City of Rocklin is not located in a coastal area; therefore, the Project site is not subject to tsunami hazards.

A seiche is the oscillation of water within enclosed or partially enclosed waterbodies due to seismic activity or atmospheric conditions. As described in the GP EIR, the potential for seiche-related impacts within the Planning Area is very low and generally limited to small, contained waterbodies such as tanks or reservoirs, which would not result in widespread inundation.

Because the Project site is not located within a flood hazard area, tsunami hazard area, or seiche -prone location, the Project would not be subject to inundation that could result in the release of pollutants.

Furthermore, compliance with applicable stormw ater regulations, including preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), would ensure that pollutants are properly managed and contained during construction and operation.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the risk of release of pollutants due to inundation from flood hazards, tsunami, or seiche, and impacts would be less than significant. 307

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 114
Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no additional review is required. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact. This topic was not specifically evaluated in the GP EIR.

The proposed Project is located within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which establishes water quality standards and regulatory requirements through the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of surface and groundwater resources and establishes water quality objectives and implementation measures to protect those uses.

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations governing water quality. Construction activities disturbing one acre or more would be subject to the State Water Resources Control Board Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to minimize pollutant discharges through the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the City of Rocklin Municipal Code, including provisions regulating stormwater runoff and erosion control, as well as the applicable Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requirements for post-construction stormwater management.

Post-construction, the Project would incorporate stormwater treatment and control measures consistent with the City’s Storm Water Management Program and Low Impact Development (LID) requirements to ensure that runoff is treated and managed prior to discharge. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that the Project does not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Basin Plan.

With respect to groundwater, the Project is located within the North American Subbasin, which is subject to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The basin is managed by designated Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), which are responsible for implementation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). However, as described in the GP EIR, the City of Rocklin does not rely on groundwater as a primary water supply source and receives water from the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA). The proposed Project would not include groundwater extraction, would not require installation of groundwater wells, and would not interfere with groundwater recharge in a manner that would affect basin conditions.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. No impacts would occur. Because this impact was not identified in the GP EIR and the Project would not introduce conditions that would result in a new or more severe impact, the proposed Project would not result in a peculiar impact related to obstructing the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

308

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 115

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in the GP EIR on page 5.0-35, existing development standards in the Rocklin Municipal Code and the proposed Rocklin General Plan Update’s mitigating policies and their associated action steps ensure the impact will be less than cumulatively considerable. As discussed in this section, the Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable stormwater and water quality requirements, including preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during construction and compliance with the City of Rocklin's stormwater design standards and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. Permanent stormwater treatment and low impact development (LID) features would be incorporated in to the Project design to control runoff quantity and improve runoff quality prior to discharge. During construction, best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented to minimize erosion, sedimentation, and the discharge of pollutants to receiving waters. The Project would also comply with all applicable regulations related to drainage, flood protection, and water quality . T he Project is consistent with the type and intensity of development anticipated under the General Plan and would implement all applicable General Plan policies and regulatory requirements to protect water quality and manage stormwater runoff.

Accordingly, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no additional environmental review is required.

Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of hydrology and water quality, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.

4. The GP EIR hydrology and water quality analysis used published information, reports, plans, and technical studies regarding regional hydrology, climate, geology, water quality, flood potential, and applicable regulations. Based on the analysis provided in this section, the Project’s consistency with the General Plan and zoning designation, and the Project’s development intensity being within the level analyzed in the GP EIR and the Project’s development area being the same as was analyzed in the GP EIR , no substantial new information has been identified that would result in a hydrology or water quality impact more severe than anticipated in the GP EIR.

5. No new mitigation measures would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant with compliance to existing regulations.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) State Water Resources Control Board Construction General Permit (NPDES). The proposed Project would be required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit and prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to minimize pollutants in stormwater runoff during 309

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 116
construction through Best Management Practices (BMPs). In addition, the Project would prepare and implement a WQMP that provides operational BMPs to minimize runoff-related impacts.

City of Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter 8.30: Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance . The Project would be required adhere to the City's Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance to protect water quality by regulating discharges into the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) and local waterways. The ordinance is intended to ensure compliance with the federal Clean W ater Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit, and applicable State water quality requirements.

GP Goals and Policies
Policy S- 8: Maintain and implement the City’s Ordinance regarding “Flood Hazard Areas” (Rocklin Municipal Code, Chapter 15.16).

Policy S-9: Ensure that the 100-year floodplain, based upon the most current information, both upstream and downstream, is not adversely affected by new development.

Policy S-10: Require that new development detain on -site drainage such that the rate of runoff flow is maintained at pre-development levels, except where detention is not recommended in plans and policies adopted by the Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (PCFCWCD), and to require coordination with other projects’ master plans to ensure no adverse cumulative effects. In lieu of detention, the City may require retention and/or off-site drainage improvements that are more beneficial to the community’s overall drainage system.

Policy S-11: Ensure that new development does not result in on-site flooding or increase flooding of off- site properties.

Policy S-12: Require new development to annex into an existing drainage maintenance district where warranted.
310

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 117
Policy OCR-11: Protect the groundwater recharge value of riparian and wetland areas while recognizing that minor modifications to such areas may be a necessary outcome of the development process.

Policy OCR-49: Minimize the degradation of water quality through use of erosion control plans and Best Management Practices.

GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to hydrology and water quality are included in the GP EIR. 311

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 118

6.11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts on land use as a result of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included dividing an established community and potential conflicts with established land uses within and adjacent to the City (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011, pages 4.1 -1 through 4.1-38). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in land use 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 land use impacts.

These goals and policies include, but are not limited to goals and policies in the General Plan Land Use Element requiring buffering of land uses, reviewing development proposals for compatibility issues, establishing and maintaining development standards and encouraging communication between adjacent jurisdictions.

Project-Specific Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.1.1 and was determined to be less than significant (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.1-24 to 4.1-25) The physical division of an established community could occur if a major road (expressway or freeway, for example) were built through an existing community or neighborhood, or if a major development were built which was inconsistent with the land uses in the community such that it divided the community. The environmental effects caused by such a facility or land use could include lack of, or disruption of, access 312

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 119
to services, schools, or shopping areas. It might also include the creation of blighted buildings or areas due to the division of the community.

The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped and surrounding land uses include light industrial and retail commercial uses and Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the north; mixed use, retail and service commercial uses to the south; commercial uses to the east; and railroad tracks and existing residential uses to the west. The proposed Project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community, and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no subsequent review is required.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.1.3 and was determined to be less than significant (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.1-31 through 4.1-35).

The Project site is designated HDR by the City of Rocklin General Plan land use map and is currently zoned PD 33 RES 24+ by the zoning map . The proposed Project would develop the site with 281 multifamily detached residential units and related site improvements that would be consistent with the existing land use and zoning designation s. The proposed Project does not involve conflict with any land use related policy, as detailed throughout this Consistency Analysis and Checklist. The proposed Project would also be subject to applicable development standards, including design review and implementation of General Plan policies related to compatibility, urban form, and environmental protection, which ensure consistency with adopted land use regulations intended to avoid or mitigate environmental effects.

Therefore, impacts related to conflict with a policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would not occur and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no subsequent review is required.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in the GP EIR on page 5.0-4, following the application of the General Plan Update’s policies, the General Plan would not contribute to any significant impacts related to the specific potential land use impacts, and the proposed project would not significantly contribute to cumulative land use impacts in the region. As discussed above, the proposed Project would be consistent with the previous Mixed Use Land Use designation as analyzed in the General Plan EIR as well as this site ’s exis ting High Density Residential land use designation. In addition, the proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan Update policies that would reduce the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative land use impacts associated with conflicts between adjacent land uses and conflicts with applicable plans, policies, and regulations. The Project would represent the type and intensity of development anticipated under the General Plan and would be developed in accordance with the applicable goals, policies, and implementation measures adopted by the City. Because the Project is consisten t with the General Plan and zoning designations and does not involve a land use or intensity beyond that contemplated by the 313

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 120
General Plan EIR, it would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative land use impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no additional environmental review is required.

Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of land use and planning, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.

4. The GP EIR land use analysis used planning document review, field review, surrounding jurisdiction plan review, agency consultation, and buildout conditions under the proposed Land Use Diagram.

Based on the analysis provided in this section, the Project’s consistency with the General Plan and zoning designation, and the Project’s development intensity being within the level analyzed in the GP EIR and the Project’s development area being the same as was analyzed in the GP EIR, no substantial new information has been identified that would result in a land use impact more severe than anticipated in the GP EIR.

5. No mitigation measures related to land use and planning are contained within the GP EIR. Additionally, no mitigation would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None.

GP Goals and Policies
None.

GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to land use and planning are included in the GP EIR.

314

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 121

6.12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locally
important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on
a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The GP EIR indicates that the City of Rocklin Planning Area has no known or regionally significant mineral resources as classified by the State Geologist. As such, loss of availability of a known mineral resource was not identified as a significant impact, and no impacts to mineral resources would occur. Accordingly, detailed discussions of mining operations or mineral extraction activities are not applicable to the proposed Project.

Project-Specific Impacts
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No New Impact . This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR and was determined to have no impacts with implementation of GP EIR mitigation measures (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.6-17).

As the GP EIR indicates that the City of Rocklin Planning Area does not contain known mineral resources of regional or statewide importance as classified by the State Geologist . The proposed Project site is not located on or near any identified mineral resource extraction or recovery sites, and no locally important mineral resource recovery sites are designated within the Project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed Project would no t result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources or locally important mineral resource recovery sites.
315

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 122
Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no subsequent review is required.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in the GP EIR on page 4.6-17, the City of Rocklin Planning Area has no mineral resources as classified by the State Geologist. The Planning Area has no known or suspected mineral resources that would be of value to the region and to residents of the state. Therefore, no impact would occur to mineral resources. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no additional environmental review is required.

Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of mineral resources, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.

4. The GP EIR did not include a standalone mineral resources section; however, the geology and soils analysis used published information, surveys, reports, agency resources, the proposed General Plan Update, the Placer County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, and applicable City regulations. Based on the analysis provided in this section, the Project’s consistency with the General Plan and zoning designation, and the Project’s site-specific conditions, no substantial information has been identified that would result in a significant mineral resources impact.

5. No mitigation measures contained within the GP EIR would be required because no Project specific impacts would occur.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None.

GP Goals and Policies
None.

GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to mineral resources are included in the GP EIR. 316

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 123

6.13. NOISE
Would the project result
in:

b) Generation of excessive
ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?

c) For a project located
within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would
the project expose people
residing or working in the
project area to excessive
noise levels?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
the General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts of noise associated with the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included construction noise, traffic noise, operational noise, groundborne vibration, and o verall increased in noise resulting from implementation of the General Plan Update (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011, pages

4.5-1 through 4.5-48).

Mitigation measures to address these impacts are incorporated into the General Plan in the Noise Element, which includes policies that require acoustical analyses to determine noise compatibility 317

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 124
between land uses, application of stationary and mobile noise source sound limits/design standards, restriction of development of noise-sensitive land uses unless effective noise mitigations are incorporated into projects, and mitigation of noise levels to ensure that the noise level design standards of the Noise Element are not exceeded.

The General Plan EIR concluded that, despite these goals and policies, significant noise impacts will occur as a result of development under the General Plan and further, that these impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Specifically, the General Plan EIR found that buildout of the Rocklin General Plan will result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of applicable noise standards, will result in exposure to surface transportation noise sources and stationary noise sources in excess of applicable noise standards and will contribute to cumulative transportation noise impacts within the Planning Area. 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.

Project-Specific Impacts
This section is based on the following report:
• Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis , prepared by EPD Solut ion, Inc. , May 6, 202 6. Included as Appendix F.
a) Generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.5.1 and was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact with implementation of applicable General Plan policies because future development under the General Plan could expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of applicable standards, particularly from traffic -related noise sources (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.5 -29 through 4.5-40).

Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would occur in one phase and would include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities. These activities would require the use of heavy equipment and would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity. However, construction noise would fluctuate depending on the type, quantity, and duration of equipment usage and would cease upon completion of construction activities.

The nearest sensitive receptors consist of existing residential uses located approximately 125 feet southeast of the Project site. As shown in Table NOI -1, Construction Equipment Noise Levels , the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis determined that maximum construction noise levels at the nearest residential receptors would range from approximately 54.0 dBA to 69.6 dBA Leq depending on the construction phase, which would not exceed the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction threshold of 80 dBA for residential uses.

318

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 125
Table NOI-1: Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Activity
Composite Noise Level @ 125
Feet1,2
Composite Noise Level
@ 480 Feet1,2,3
dBA Leq dBA Leq
Demolition 79.5 67.8
Site Preparation 79.7 68.0
Grading 79.3 67.6
Paving 78.4 66.7
Paving and Building Construction 81.3 69.6
Building Construction 78.1 66.4
Building Construction and Architectural Coating 78.4 66.7 Architectural Coating 65.7 54.0
Source: Appendix F

1. Federal Highway Administration. (2006). Construction Noise Handbook.

2. The noise levels are based on Table 9.1 of the Construction Noise Handbook. If the exact equipment listed is not available, a default noise level of 85 dBA, representative of typical construction equipment, is used. Specifically, the Forklift is modeled using this default value. Additionally, for the category of Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes, the noise level of a Tractor (84.0 dBA) is used, as it represents the loudest among the three.

3. There would be a short period of overlap between the building construction and paving phases, as well as between the building construction and architectural coating phases.

Additionally, construction activities would be required to comply with the City of Rocklin Noise Standards Ordinance (RMC Chapter 9.52) . Consistent with the Noise Standards Ordinance and GP EIR Action Step NA-3, construction activities occurring in proximity to residential or other noise-sensitive land uses would be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekdays and 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekends unless otherwise approved by the City.

Because construction noise would be temporary, intermittent, and conducted in accordance with the City’s construction noise requirements, construction noise impacts would be consistent with those analyzed in the GP EIR and would be less than significant.

Operation
Long-term, off-site stationary noise associated with operation of the proposed Project would primarily result from on -site mechanical equipment, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems serving the residential units. HVAC equipme nt may operate intermittently throughout the day and night; however, such equipment is typically designed and installed to meet applicable building code and manufacturer noise standards for residential uses.

The Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed Project evaluated operational noise associated with HVAC systems, parking activity, and on-site vehicular circulation. The analysis determined that HVAC noise levels at the nearest residential receptors would be approximately 34.1 dBA during both daytime and nighttime hours, which would not exceed the City’s exterior stationary noise standards of 55 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime. As shown in Table NOI -2, Increase in Ambient Noise from Project Operation, cumulative operational noise associated with HVAC equipment, parking activity, and on -site 319

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 126
mobile sources would result in an incremental increase of approximately 0.1 dBA during both daytime and nighttime conditions, which would remain below the applicable 1.5 dBA significance threshold.

Table NOI-2: Increase in Ambient Noise from Project Operation Land Use Time of
the Day
Project
Noise
Level
(dBA)1
Ambient
Noise
Level
(dBA)2
Cumulative
Noise Level
(dBA)3
Increase over
Ambient(dBA)4
Incremental
increase
(dBA)5
Exceed
threshold?
Residential to
the East
Daytime 58.6 74.2 74.3 0.1 1.5 No
Nighttime 55.7 72.6 72.7 0.1 1.5 No
Source: Appendix F

1. Ambient Noise Level is based on the noise measurement in Table 4-1 of Appendix F. The ambient noise for industrial land use was based on data collected at NML-1, and Wellness Center’s was based on NML-2.

2. Calculation is based on Logarithmic Addition of Sound Level, SPLtotal=10*Log(10SP1/10+10SPL2/10).

3. Diﬀerence between Cumulative Noise Level and Ambient Noise Level.

4. Thresholds are based on the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) estimated from the noise measurement in Table 4-1 of Appendix F.

The proposed Project is located adjacent to an existing Union Pacific Railroad corridor. As discussed in the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, outdoor common open space areas would comply with the City’s 60 dBA CNEL transportation noise standard due to shielding provided by the proposed building configuration (Appendix F). Interior residential noise levels would also comply with the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior standard through incorporation of building assemblies with a minimum STC 30 rating and compliance with the California Building Code.

Consistent with GP EIR Policy N-1, which requires acoustical analyses for noise-sensitive land uses located in areas exposed to elevated noise levels, the proposed Project incorporated a project-specific Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis to evaluate tran sportation and stationary noise sources. In accordance with Policy N-2, which promotes site planning and project design techniques to reduce noise exposure, the proposed Project incorporates building placement and shielding features to minimize transportat ion- related noise exposure. The proposed Project is also consistent with Policy N -7, which restricts development of noise- sensitive land uses in high -noise environments unless effective noise reduction measures are implemented, through incorporation of building construction features designed to achieve applicable interior and exterior noise standards. Additionally, consistent with Policy N -9, which applies the City’s Noise Element transportation noise criteria to new development projects, the Project was evaluated against applicable City CNEL standards for residential interiors and outdoor common areas.

Therefore, operational noise impacts associated with the proposed Project would be consistent with those analyzed in the GP EIR and would be less than significant.

Off-Site Traffic Noise
Traffic generated by the operation of the proposed Project has the potential to influence the traffic noise levels in surrounding off- site areas and at the Project site. Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust , and tires. The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors:
(1) the volume of traffic; (2) the speed of traffic; and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. The proposed Project does not propose any uses that would require a substantia l number of truck trips and the proposed Project would not alter the speed limit on any existing roadway; so, the proposed Project’s 320

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 127
potential off-site noise impacts have been focused on the noise impacts associated with the change of volume of traffic that would occur with development of the proposed Project.

Traffic generated by operation of the proposed Project has the potential to contribute to traffic noise levels along surrounding roadways. However, traffic-related noise increases are dependent on substantial increases in traffic volumes. The proposed Project would generate approximately 1,253 daily vehicle trips (Appendix F). As shown in Table NOI-3, Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels, Project-generated traffic would increase roadway noise levels by approximately 0.3 dBA along Pacific Street and 0.6 dBA along East Midas Avenue under existing conditions. These increases would remain below the applicable 1.5 dBA significance threshold (Appendix F).

Table NOI-3: Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels Roadwa
y
Segment
Existing Existing Plus Project
Increase
over
Existing
Scenari
o (dBA)
Threshold
s based on
Ambient
Noise
Level
Exceed
Threshold
? Existin
g ADT1
dBA @ 50
feet from
Roadway
Centerlin
e
Existin
g Plus
Project
ADT2
dBA @ 50
feet from
Roadway
Centerlin
e
Centerlin
e to 65
dBA CNEL
(feet)
Centerlin
e to 60
dBA CNEL
(feet)
Pacific
Street 15,000 67.6 16,253 67.9 78 168 0.3 1.5 No
East
Midas
Avenue
9,300 64.5 10,553 65.1 51 109 0.6 1.5 No
Source: Appendix F
Notes: ADT= average daily traﬃc; CNEL=Community Noise Equivalent Level; dBA=A-weighted decibels.

1. Existing ADT from Table 7, Existing Traﬃc Noise Levels in 2012.

2. ADT of the Existing (2012) with Project is the total of the existing ADT and Project’s daily trips, which is 1,253 trips per day, based on the VMT Screening Analysis provided by EPD Solutions, Inc. (EPD Solutions, Inc., 2026a).

In addition, as shown in Table NOI -4, General Plan Buildout Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels, Project- generated traffic would increase roadway noise levels by approximately 0.3 dBA along Pacific Street and

0.4 dBA along East Midas Avenue under General Plan buildout conditions. These increases would also remain below the applicable 1.5 dBA signific ance threshold. Therefore, the Project would not result in a perceptible or substantial increase in off- site traffic noise under either existing or General Plan buildout conditions.

Table NOI-4: General Plan Buildout Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels Roadway
Segment
General Plan Buildout General Plan Buildout Plus Project Increase
Threshold
s based
on
Ambient
Noise
Level
Exceed
Threshold
? Existing
ADT1
dBA @ 50
feet from
Roadway
Centerline
Existing
Plus
Project
ADT2
dBA @ 50
feet from
Roadway
Centerlin
e
Centerlin
e to 65
dBA CNEL
(feet)
Centerli
ne to 60
dBA
CNEL
(feet)
Pacific
Street 16,700 68.0 17,953 68.3 83 180 0.3 1.5 No
321

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 128
Roadway
Segment
General Plan Buildout General Plan Buildout Plus Project Increase
Threshold
s based
on
Ambient
Noise
Level
Exceed
Threshold
? Existing
ADT1
dBA @ 50
feet from
Roadway
Centerline
Existing
Plus
Project
ADT2
dBA @ 50
feet from
Roadway
Centerlin
e
Centerlin
e to 65
dBA CNEL
(feet)
Centerli
ne to 60
dBA
CNEL
(feet)
East
Midas
Avenue
12,200 63.4 13,453 63.8 42 90 0.4 1.5 No
Source: Appendix F
Notes: ADT= average daily traﬃc; CNEL=Community Noise Equivalent Level; dBA=A-weighted decibels.

1. City of Rocklin, 2012, General Plan Environmental Impact Report Noise Section.

2. ADT of the General Plan Buildout with Project is the total of the General Plan Buildout ADT and Project’s daily trips, which are 1,253 trips per day, based on the VMT Screening Analysis provided by EPD Solutions, Inc. (EPD Solutions, Inc., 2026a).

The proposed Project would not generate traffic noise impacts beyond the scope of development previously evaluated in the GP EIR. The Project site is located within an urbanized area planned for residential development under the City’s General Plan and zon ing designations, and the Project’s contribution to roadway noise levels would remain below applicable significance thresholds. As such, Project-generated traffic noise would remain within the scope of impacts previously analyzed in the GP EIR.

Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no subsequent review is required. b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 9.5.5 and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact with implementation of applicable General Plan policies and Action Step NA- 3 (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.5-42 to 4.5-46).

Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would involve grading, excavation, paving, and building construction activities that would temporarily generate groundborne vibration. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site consist of existing residential uses located approximately 125 feet east of the Project site, while the nearest non-sensitive structure consists of a commercial building (United Rentals) located approximately 100 feet northeast of the Project site. Construction vi bration impacts would primarily result from heavy equipment such as vibratory rollers, bulldozers, graders, excavators, and haul trucks.

The GP EIR identifies vibration levels in excess of 0.2 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) as a level at which architectural damage to conventional structures or increased annoyance to persons could potentially occur. The GP EIR further states that vibration generated by typical construction equipment is generally well below applicable damage thresholds.
322

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 129
The Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed Project evaluated vibration generated by construction equipment, including vibratory rollers, bulldozers, graders, excavators, and haul trucks.

As shown in Table NOI -5, Continuous Construction Equipment Vibration Levels , construction vibration levels would range from less than 0.001 to 0.026 in/sec PPV at the nearest commercial structure and from less than 0.001 to 0.019 in/sec PPV at the nearest residential sensitive receptors. These vibration levels would remain substantially below the 0.2 in/sec PPV reference level identified in the GP EIR, as well as below the applicable Caltrans thresholds of 0.5 in/sec PPV for structural damage at commercial buildings and 0.3 in/sec PPV for annoyance at residential receptors Table NOI-5: Continuous Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment
Reference Vibration Level at
25 Feet (PPV
[inches/second])1
Vibration Level at 100
feet (PPV
[inches/second])2
Vibration Level at 125 Feet
(PPV [inches/second])2
Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.026 0.019
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.011 0.008
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.010 0.007
Small Bulldozer 0.003 <0.001 <0.001
Thresholds 0.5 0.3
Exceed the threshold? No No
Source: Appendix F

1. FTA. (2018). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

2. 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 × �25
𝐷𝐷 �

1.5 , D=distance between the equipment to the sensitive receptors.

Blasting is not proposed or anticipated based on the current Project design and information provided by the applicant and civil engineering team. Because vibration levels associated with blasting are highly variable and depend on site -specific factors, inc luding the amount of explosive used, soil and rock conditions, depth of blasting, and distance to nearby receptors, blasting- related vibration was not quantified in Table NOI-5. However, consistent with the qualitative approach used in the GP EIR, potential blasting-related vibration is addressed herein. The GP EIR recognized that blasting -related vibration is highly variable and site -specific and concluded that construction vibration impacts would be less than significant due to the temporary and short-term nature of construction activities and compliance with the City’s allowable construction hours. If localized rock removal requiring blasting were determined to be necessary during construction, such activities would be temporary, intermittent, limited to the construction phase, limited to approved construction hours, and subject to applicable City review and construction safety requirements. Therefore, potential vibration impacts associated with blasting would not result in a new or substantially greater impact than evaluated in the GP EIR.

Accordingly, construction-related vibration impacts, including potential equipment- and blasting-related vibration, would remain temporary, intermittent, and less than significant..

Consistent with the City’s Noise Standards Ordinance and GP EIR Action Step NA-3, construction activities occurring near residential land uses would be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekdays and 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekends unless otherwise approved by the City. Similar to construction noise, construction vibration would be temporary, intermittent, and localized in nature and would cease upon completion of construction activities.
323

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 130
Therefore, construction-related groundborne vibration impacts would be consistent with those analyzed in the GP EIR and would be less than significant.

Operation
Once operational, the proposed Project would not be a substantial source of groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Operational activities associated with the proposed residential development would primarily consist of passenger vehicle trips, resident ial occupancy, and routine maintenance activities, none of which are typically associated with substantial vibration generation.

The Project site is located adjacent to an existing Union Pacific Railroad corridor. The GP EIR concluded that vibration levels associated with railroad operations would not exceed the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold beyond approximately 7.5 feet from the track centerline and that future development under the General Plan would not expose persons to excessive vibration levels. The proposed residential buildings and outdoor activity areas would be located substantially farther than 7.5 feet from the railroad corridor and were evaluated in the project -specific Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. The analysis concluded that operational vibration associated with nearby rail activity would not exceed applicable significance thresholds (Appendix F).

Residential land uses are not typically associated with heavy truck traffic, industrial operations, or other vibration-intensive activities that could generate substantial groundborne vibration or noise. As such, operational vibration effects would be inte rmittent, low in magnitude, and consistent with existing background conditions in the Project vicinity.

Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met; therefore, no subsequent review is required. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or , where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No New Impact. This topic was not evaluated in the GP EIR.

As described in the GP EIR, there are no airports located within the City of Rocklin. The Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis determined that the closest airport to the Project site is Lincoln Regional Airport/Karl Harder Field, located approximately 9.2 miles northwest of the Project site. The Rocklin Planning Area is not located within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) area or safety zones of any public or private airport.

The Project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or public-use airport and is not located within any airport influence area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive aircraft -related noise levels, aircraft overflight noise, or other airport-related operational noise impacts.

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 131
minimize safety and noise risks in the vicinity of public -use airports. However, the Project site is located outside of any ALUCP influence area and is not subject to ALUC review requirements.

Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur. Because this impact was not identified in the GP EIR and the Project would not introduce conditions that would result in a new or more severe impact, the proposed Project would not result in a peculiar impact related to wildfire infrastructure pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in the GP EIR on page 5.0-27 and 5.0-28, while General Plan Update noise policies and noise reduction measures would reduce noise levels whenever feasible, there may be some cases when transportation noise impacts cannot be fully mitigated. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in transportation noise impacts which are cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable . The Project would generate temporary construction noise and operational noise associated with residential activities and vehicular traffic. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and would comply with the City's construction hour restrictions and applicable noise control requirements. Operational noise generated by the Project would be consistent with the residential land use designation anticipated under the General Plan and would not expose sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of app licable City standards. In addition, the Project would not generate substantial stationary noise sources or vibration beyond those previously evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The Project is consistent with the land use assumptions and development intensity evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would comply with all applicable General Plan policies, City noise standards, and construction regulations. Accordingly, the Project wou ld not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative noise impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no additional environmental review is required.

Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of noise, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.

4. The GP EIR noise analysis used existing literature, accepted noise thresholds, qualitative assessment of transportation and non -transportation noise sources, and FHWA traffic noise modeling based on roadway and traffic data. Based on the analysis provided in this section, the Project’s consistency with the General Plan and zoning designation, the Project’s development intensity being within the level analyzed in the GP EIR, and the findings of the project -specific Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, no substantial new information has been identified that would result in a noise impact more severe than anticipated in the GP EIR.
325

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 132

5. No new mitigation measures would be required. Project -specific impacts would be less than significant with adherence to applicable City standards, GP EIR policies, and Action Step NA-3, as listed below.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) Rocklin Municipal Code Section 9.52.030: Noise Standards. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City of Rocklin noise standards regulating construction and operational noise levels.

Compliance with these standards would be ensured through the City’s permitting and plan check review process.

GP Goals and Policies
Policy N-1: Determine noise compatibility between land uses, and to provide a basis for developing noise mitigation, an acoustical analysis shall be required as part of the environmental review process for all noise-sensitive land uses which are proposed in areas exposed to existing or projected exterior noise levels exceeding the level standards contained within this Noise Element.

Policy N-2: Emphasize site planning and project design to achieve the standards of this Noise Element.

The use of noise barriers shall be considered a means of achieving the noise standards; however, the construction of aesthetically intrusive wall heights shall be discouraged.

Policy N-3: Ensure that stationary noise sources do not interfere with sleep by applying an interior hourly maximum noise level design standard of 45 dBA in the enclosed sleeping areas of residences affected by stationary noise sources. This standard assumes doors and windows are closed.

Policy N-7: Restrict development of noise-sensitive land uses in areas exposed to existing or projected levels of noise from transportation noise sources that exceed the noise level standards contained within the Noise Element, unless the project design includes effective mitigation that results in noise exposure which meets standards.

Policy N-9: Apply the noise level design criteria contained within Table 2 -2 of the Noise Element in the General Plan EIR to Policies N-7 and N-8 of the Noise Element.

Action Step NA-3: Limit construction activity to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekends when construction is conducted in proximity to residential or other noise sensitive land uses, unless such restriction would result in increased risk to the health and/or safety of the general public or construction workers, or a determination is made by the City based on substantial evidence that it is in the best interests of the City to approve alternative hours of work.

GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to noise are included in the GP EIR.

326

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 133

6.14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating
the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?

Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated population and housing impacts that would occur as a result of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included population growth and availability of housing opportunities (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011, pages 4.11- 1 through 4.11 -13). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in population and housing impacts, 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 project will 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.

Project-Specific Impacts
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the G P EIR as Impact 4.11.1 and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.11-8 to 4.11-10).

The proposed P roject would construct 281 multifamily residential units. The proposed Project is not anticipated to induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. 327

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 134
The US Census Bureau estimates that the City of Rocklin had an average household size of 2.65 persons and a vacancy rate of 3. 1 percent in January 2025 (California Department of Finance, 2025) . Thus, the average number of persons per housing unit in the City of Rocklin in 2025 is estimated as the average household size (2.65 persons) times the occupancy rate (96.9 percent), or 2.57 persons. Using this person per household estimate, buildout of the proposed Project would result in approximately 722 residents.

Furthermore, as a residential housing development, the proposed P roject would generate minimal new permanent jobs. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in indirect population growth from potential employees relocating to the city. Potential population growth associated with the proposed Project would represent less than one percent increase over the City’s January 1, 2025, estimated population of 73,172 persons (California Department of Finance, 2025). As such, although nominal, the proposed Project would induce population growth in a local context.

Potential population growth impacts are also assessed based on a project’s consistency with adopted plans that have addressed growth management from a local and regional standpoint. Table POP-1 below shows the population growth forecast estimates for Placer County between 20 25 and 20 50 (Placer County, 2024).

Table POP-1: Population Trends (Placer County)
20251 2035 2050 2025 – 2050 Increase
Placer County 414,895 465,335 487,874 83,953 (20 percent) Sources:
1 (Placer County, 2024)

As shown above, t he Placer County General Plan Demographic Trends growth forecasts estimate the County’s population to reach 487,874 persons by 2050, representing a total increase of 83,953 persons between 2025 and 2050. The proposed Project’s anticipated resident population ( 722 persons) would represent less than one percent of the 2050 population anticipated for the County and would not exceed the amount of growth anticipated by th e Placer County General Plan Demographic Trends from 20 25 to 2050.

This analysis is further supported by the Rocklin -specific population trends analyzed in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, of the GP EIR. As shown in Table POP -2, the GP EIR evaluated historical and projected population growth in Rocklin between 1990 and 2030, including a projected 2030 population of 76,136 persons.

Table POP-2: Population Trends (City of Rocklin)
Year Population Change % Change Annual % Change
1990 19,033
2000 36,330 17,297 91% 9.0%
2008 53,843 17,513 48% 6.0%
2015 Projected 65,614 11,771 22% 3.1%
2020 Projected 73,414 7,800 12% 2.4%
2030 Projected 76,136 2,722 4% 0.5%
Sources: (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.11-1)
328

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 135

As shown above, the GP EIR growth forecasts estimate the City’s population to reach 76,136 persons by 2030, representing a total increase of 57,103 persons between 1990 and 2030. The proposed Project’s anticipated resident population (722 persons) would represent less than one percent of the 20 30 population anticipated for the City and would not exceed the amount of growth anticipated by the GP EIR Population Trends from 1990 to 2030.

Additionally, since the proposed Project is consistent with the existing land use designation, buildout of the Project site was already contemplated in the GP and regional growth forecasts. Furthermore, the proposed Project is compliant with the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 3,543 units for the 2021-2029 planning period, as identified in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update.

California’s RHNA is a methodology used to determine future housing needs by income category, based on growth in population, households, and employment. The proposed P roject would result in 281 new multifamily units, that would contribute toward fulfilling this obligation by increasing the residential development capacity within the City, consistent with the City’s long-range housing and land use planning strategies. As a result, the proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth either directly or indirectly, and would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no subsequent review is required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.11.2 and was determined to have a less than significant impact (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.11-10 and 4.11-11).

The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped . The Project site is designated H DR in the General Plan and is zoned PD-33 RES-24. The HDR land use designation is intended for higher -density residential development, including multifamily housing and related uses and the PD -33 RES-24 zoning designation allows for flexible, master- planned residential development at higher densities with customized development standards with a residential minimum density of 24 dwelling units per acre . The proposed Project would develop 281 multifamily residential units, consistent with the existing residential General Plan land use and zoning designation s. Therefore, the proposed Project would not displace any housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no subsequent review is required.

Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in the GP EIR on page 5.0-39 to 5.0-40, implementation of the General Plan would not result in an increase in population or housing growth that would substantially exceed any established growth projections. As discussed above, since the proposed Project is consistent with the existing land use designation, buildout of the Project site was already contemplated in the GP and regional growth 329

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 136
forecasts. The proposed Project would result in 281 new multi family units, that would increase the residential development capacity within the City, consistent with the City’s long -range housing and land use planning strategies. As a result, the proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth either directly or indirectly, and would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no additional environmental review is required.

Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of population and housing, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.

4. The GP EIR population and housing analysis used demographic and housing data, agency projections, City housing policy documents, and General Plan buildout growth assumptions. Based on the analysis provided in this section, the Project’s consistency with the General Plan and zoning designation, and the Project’s development intensity being within the level analyzed in the GP EIR, no substantial new information has been identified that would result in a population or housing impact more severe than anticipated in the GP EIR.

5. No mitigation m easures related to population and housing are contained within the GP EIR.

Additionally, no mitigation measures would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None.

GP Goals and Policies
None.

GP EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to population and housing are included in the GP EIR. 330

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 137

6.15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or
physically altered
governmental facilities,
need for new or physically
altered governmental
facilities, the construction of
which could cause
significant environmental
impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or
other performance
objectives for any of the
public services:

Project
Impact
that is
Peculiar to
the
Project or
the
Project
Site
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the
Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Off-site or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
Not
Previously
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GP EIR
The 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. These impacts included increased demand for fire, police and school services, provision of adequate fire flow, and increased demand for parks and recreation (City of Rocklin General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2011, pages 4.12-1 through 4.12-45). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the. General Plan can 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.

These goals, policies and standards include, but are not limited to the California Fire Code, the California Health and Safety Code, Chapters 8.12 and 8.20 of the Rocklin Municipal Code, and goals and policies in the General Plan Community Safety and Public Services and Facilities Elements requiring studies of infrastructure and public facility 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, maintaining inter-jurisdictional cooperation and coordination and requiring 331

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 138
certain types of development that may generate higher demand or special needs to mitigate the demands/needs.

Project-Specific Impacts
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental i mpacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection and emergency services?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.12.1.1 and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact through compliance with General Plan policies, payment of development impact fees, and applicable regulations (California Fire Code, residential codes, etc.) (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.12-8 to 4.12-11).

As described in the GP EIR, the City of Rocklin is served by the Rocklin Fire Department (RFD), which provides fire prevention, suppression, and emergency medical services and operates three fire stations within the City, supported by mutual aid agreements with surrounding jurisdictions. The primary responding station for the proposed Project is Fire Station No. 23, located approximately 0.5 roadway miles from the Project site, with an estimated 1-minute drive time under normal conditions. Additionally, Fire Station No. 24 is situated about 1.8 roadway miles from the Project site.

The Project site encompasses approximately 7.19 gross acres , and is currently vacant and undeveloped.

Development of the proposed Project would consist of the construction of approximately 281 multifamily residential units within three four-story buildings, with related site improvements.

Construction
Construction and operation of the proposed Project would increase the number of structures and workers in the Project area, which may increase demand for fire protection and emergency medical services.

However, construction of the proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable State and local regulations. These requirements include measures such as installation of temporary construction fencing to prevent unauthorized access and mainten ance of a clean and orderly construction site to reduce potential fire hazards. As a result, construction of the proposed Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, and would not adversely impact service ratios, response times, or other performance standards. Impacts would be less than significant, and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR.

Operation
As disclosed in the GP EIR, the proposed Project and other anticipated residential development would create an increased demand for fire protection services with the addition of new residents to the area. As described in Section 6.14, Population and Housing, the proposed Project would not exceed the amount of growth anticipated by Placer County or the GP EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not induce 332

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 139
significant population growth and would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Furthermore, the City of Rocklin requires that new development projects provide adequate improvements and resources to support future infrastructure and public facility needs, as included in GP Policy PF-25. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with all applicable City standards related to emergency access, fire flow, fire lanes, turn radii, and other fire protection and site design requirements, as reviewed and enforced by Rocklin Fire Department. Additionally, the proposed Project would be subject to compliance with the most recent versions of the CBC and California Fire Code . The California Fire Code is adopted by reference in the Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter 15.04 .050 and establishes minimum standards for fire safety including site access requirements and fire safety precautions.

Pursuant to the City of Rocklin ’s Municipal Code Chapter 3.16 (Construction Taxes and Development Impact Fees), and GP Policy PF-3 and PF-11, the proposed Project would be required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIFs). The City of Rocklin collects DIF from development projects and is mandated to use the DIF funds to construct new fire and emergency service facilities. DIFs collected offset any Project-related demand on existing fire services. The fees would ensure that adequate fire protec tion and emergency/medical services would be provided and maintained and can be applied to the purchase of equipment, maintenance of existing facilities, and the construction of facilities as needed. Compliance with applicable local and State regulations, such as payment and implementation of the DIF program and compliance with applicable design requirements, would ensure that implementation of the Project maintain sufficient levels of fire protection services and facilities. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no subsequent review is required. b) Police protection services?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.12.2.1 and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact through compliance with General Plan policies and payment of Development Impact Fees (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp 4.12-15 through 4.12-17).

As described in the GP EIR, the Rocklin Police Department would provide police protection services to the Project site. The Rocklin Police Station is located at 4080 Rocklin Rd, Rocklin, CA 95677 , which is approximately 0.7 roadway miles southeast of the Project site.

Crime and safety issues during Project construction may include theft of building materials and construction equipment, malicious mischief, graffiti, and vandalism that would create a temporar y increased demand for Rocklin Police Department protection services . Operation of the 281 multifamily residential units may also generate a typical range of police service calls such as burglaries and thefts.

However, pursuant to the City’s existing permitting process, the Police Department would review and approve the final site plan to ensure the appropriate crime prevention and site design features are incorporated consistent with General Plan Policies PF -11 and PF -16 are incorporated appropriately to provide a safe environment. In addition, the proposed Project would comply with the most recent versions of the CBC and California Fire Code. Specifically, Municipal Code Chapter 15. 04.010 adopts by reference the CBC, which includes emergency access requirements which would minimize site safety hazards and potential operational impacts to police services.
333

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 140
As described above, growth resulting from the proposed Project has been accounted for within the GP EIR, as the proposed Project is consistent with the GP land use designation. While the proposed Project would introduce new residents through development of approximately 281 multifamily residential units, this increase in population is within the growth projections evaluated in the City of Rocklin General Plan EIR. Since the proposed Project would not contribute to population growth beyond that anticipated in the GP EIR, the proposed Project would not result in the need for new or expanded police services or facilities to support the proposed Project. Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to pay applicable development impact fees consistent with General Plan Policies PF -3 and PF -11. The collection of development impact fees (DIFs) would ensure the level of police protection services is maintained and can be applied to the purchase of equipment, maintenance of existing facilities, and the constru ction of facilities as needed. Therefore, Project impacts to police services would be less than significant and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the City of Rocklin General Plan EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, and therefore no subsequent review is required.
c) School services?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the G P EIR as Impacts 4.12.3.1 and 4.12.3.2 and was determined to have a less -than-significant impact through mandatory developer fees (CA Gov. Code §65995), and implementation of the General Plan policies (City of Rocklin, 2011, pp. 4.12-25 through 4.12- 30).

According to the GP EIR, Rocklin residents are served by Rocklin Unified School District. As described in Section 6.14, Population and Housing, the proposed Project would increase the area’s population by introducing 281 new multifamily detached residential units , thus increasing the demand for school services. However, pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq., the need for additional school facilities is addressed through compliance with school impact fee assessment. SB 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) sets forth a S tate school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction’s ability to condition a project on mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in the Government Code. Therefore, the proposed Project would be required to contribute fees to the Rocklin Unified School District , in accordance with the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (i.e., SB 50). Pursuant to SB 50, payment of school impact fees constitutes complete mitigation under CEQA for Project‐related impacts to school services. Therefore, the Project would result in no impacts related to school services and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no subsequent review is required. d) Parks?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GP EIR as Impact 4.12.4.1 and was determined to have a less-than-significant impact through compliance of developer fees (Quimby Act) , payment of development impact fees and/or dedication of parkland or in-lieu fees, as well as implementation of the General Plan policies (Rocklin 2011, pp. 4.12-40 to 4.12-42). 334

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 141
The proposed Project would develop 281 multifamily residential units on a site that is currently vacant and undeveloped. As described in Section 6 .14, Population and Housing, the proposed Project is consistent with the site’s GP land use designation and the level of residential growth anticipated in the GP EIR. As such, the proposed Project is within the scope of planned development and associated public service demands, including parks.

The City of Rocklin maintains an extensive system of approximately 37 developed parks and over 200 acres of open space that provide recreational opportunities throughout the community. Park planning and future expansion are guided by the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan, which ensures that park facilities are develop ed in coordination with anticipated population growth. The City of Rocklin implements parkland dedication requirements through Municipal Code Chapter 3 .16.410, Park Improvement Impact Fee, which is consistent with the Quimby Act (California Government Code § 66477).

This ordinance requires new residential subdivisions to dedicate parkland, pay in -lieu fees, or provide a combination of both, based on a parkland standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. The proposed Project’s compliance with these requirements is ensured through the City’s development review and approval process and would be required as a condition of approval. Additionally, the proposed Project includes private open space and on-site recreational amenities such as landscaped courtyards, a playground, and community gathering areas that would serve future residents and reduce demand on existing public park facilities. These on-site amenities would help offset use of off- site recreational resources but would not replace the need for compliance with applicable parkland dedication or in -lieu fee requirements.

Accordingly, with the proposed Project’s consistency with t he GP, required compliance with the City’s parkland dedication requirements, and provision of on-site recreational amenities, the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision or need for new or physically altered park facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the GP EIR . Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no subsequent review is required.
e) Other public facilities?
No New Impact. This topic was not evaluated in the GP EIR.

Other public facilities are provided throughout the City of Rocklin and are planned to accommodate growth consistent with the General Plan. As described above, the proposed Project would introduce new residents; however, this increase in population is with in the growth projections evaluated in the City of Rocklin General Plan EIR. As such, the proposed Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered public facilities beyond those already anticipated. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project beyond what was previously evaluated, identified, and disclosed in the City of Rocklin General Plan EIR. Because this impact was not identified in the GP EIR and the Project would not introduce conditions that would result in a new or more severe impact, the proposed Project would not result in a peculiar impact related to other public facilities pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

335

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 142
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in the GP EIR on pages 5.0 -40 through 5.0 -44, impacts related to substantial physical deterioration of public facilities would occur and/or require the construction or expansion of public facilities would be less than cumulatively considerable. AS described above, the proposed Project is consistent with the existing land use designation, buildout of the Project site was already contemplated in the GP and regional growth forecasts. As a result, , the proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth that would result in the deterioration or expansion of existing public facilities and would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the GP EIR.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met, therefore no additional environmental review is required.

Conclusion
Regarding the issue area of public services, the following findings can be made:
15183 Findings

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no significant effects that were not analyzed as part of the GP EIR.

3. There are no potentially significant off- site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GP EIR.

4. The GP EIR public services analysis used Rocklin Police and Fire Department information, RUSD facilities and enrollment data, the existing General Plan, Municipal Code, and other relevant literature to evaluate law enforcement and public school service impacts. Based on the analysis provided in this section, the Project ’s consistency with the General Plan and zoning designation, and the Project’s development intensity being within the level analyzed in the GP EIR, no substantial new information has been identified that would result in a public services impact more severe than anticipated in the GP EIR.

5. No mitigation measures related to public services are contained within the GP EIR. Additionally, no mitigation me asures would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) City of Rocklin Municipal Code Section 3.16.410: Park Improvement Impact Fee. A development impact fee is established and collected at the time of building permit issuance for all residential development in the City to fund park facility improvements and expansions needed to serve new growth. The adopted fee study identifies the fac ilities to be funded and ensures that new development contributes its fair share toward park infrastructure.

City of Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter 15. 04.010: Building Code. As listed previously in Section 6.7, Geology and Soils.

City of Rocklin Municipal Code Chapter 15.04.050: Fire Code. As listed previously in Section 6.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
336

Pacific and Midas Apartments Project CEQA Consistency Analysis and Checklist City of Rocklin 143
GP Goals and Policies
Policy PF-1: Provide for adequate lead time in the planning of needed expansions of public services and facilities.

Policy PF -3: Require that any development that generates the need for public services and facilities, including equipment, pay its proportional fair share of providing those services and facilities. Participation may include, but is not limited to, the formation of ass essment districts, special taxes, payment of fees, payment of the City’s Construction Tax, purchase of equipment, and/or construction and dedication of facilities.

Policy PF-11: Ensure that new development will not create a significant negative impact on the existing level of police and fire protection services.

Policy PF-25: Require new development to meet fire flow requirements based on standards codified in the International Fire Code.

Policy PF-26: Evaluate all residential development project applications for their impact on school services and facilities. Where an impact is found, the project may be conditioned to the extent and in the manner allowed by law to mitigate the impact, such as requiring payment of school district fees and/or participation in a community facilities district to fund school facilities.

Rocklin City CouncilAugust 25, 2026

Rocklin City Council
August 25, 2026