Roseville City Council
January 19, 2022

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Digital Billboard Project
DUE: February 12, 2021
3:00 PM
Regular Mail to:

City of Roseville
Attn: City Clerk Department
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
OR
Email to:

[email protected]

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

NOTICE FOR PROPOSALS
Digital Billboard Project
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that proposals for the Digital Billboard Project will be received by the City of Roseville. Due to closure of City of Roseville facilities and offices as result of COVID-19, proposals shall ONLY be regularly mailed to the office of the City Clerk, Civic Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678 or submitted via electronic mail to [email protected], until 3:00 p.m., February 12, 2021. Said proposals will be evaluated and results will be made public after completion of the negotiation process with the selected consultant. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and to waive any informalities or irregularities in any proposal or in the proposal process.

Date Laura Matteoli
Economic Development Director

IMPORTANT!!!
The City is not responsible for misdelivered proposals, and the proposer is strictly liable for its chosen method of delivery. It is the proposer’s sole responsibility to make sure that proposals arrive at the proper location. Any proposal which does not actually arrive in the City Clerk’s Office or City Clerk’s email address by the RFP due date and time will be rejected as non-responsive, even if properly addressed or delivered to another City Department.

Your proposal MUST be addressed and mailed (regular mail only) to the following address:

City of Roseville
Attn: City Clerk Department
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
The proposer is also directed to include the attached “Sealed Proposal” label on the outside of the package or envelope so that it is visible when delivered to the City.

OR
Your proposal MUST be emailed to:

[email protected]

Digital Billboard Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 5

2.0 TENTATIVE PROJECT SCHEDULE 7

3.0 PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE 8

4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 8

5.0 ASSURANCE OF DESIGNATED PROJECT TEAM 10

6.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 10

7.0 SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS 13

8.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA 14

9.0 SELECTION PROCESS 14

10.0 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 16

11.0 ATTACHMENTS 21
(A) PROPOSER’S CERTIFICATION 21
(B) INTERSTATE 80 LANDSCAPE FREEWAY SEGMENTS 22
(C) DIGITAL BILLBOARD REVENUE SUMMARY TEMPLATE 23
SEALED PROPOSAL PAGE 24

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Roseville (hereinafter “City”), is soliciting proposals for a Digital Billboard Project. This will be a competitive negotiation process. Qualified individuals, firms, contractors, consultants or entities (hereinafter “Consultant(s)” or “Firm(s)”), that meet the requirements set forth in this Request for Proposals (hereinafter “RFP”), and are capable of providing the services requested are encouraged to participate.

1.1 BACKGROUND
The City of Roseville is soliciting proposals from qualified entities to develop and operate two sided digital billboard(s). Proposals may include up to four digital billboards with a maximum of two located along Interstate 80 and two along Highway 65. Digital billboards must be located on city-owned sites/land which is defined to mean a fee interest in land, as well as easement or leasehold interests. In addition, the digital billboards must be constructed within two years of commencement of services. The digital billboards must conform to the specifications described in this RFP. The selected proposer will be solely responsible for all costs arising from the planning, permitting, installing, operating, and maintaining the digital billboards.

1.2 CITY OVERVIEW
The City of Roseville is an incorporated city with a population of more than 145,000 residents, located in Placer County, approximately 15 miles northeast of Sacramento, California. The City of Roseville is a Charter city operating under the City Council/City Manager form of government.

The City is bisected by Interstate 80 (160,000+ daily trips) and State Route 65 (117,000+ daily trips). With a population of approximately 140,000 and a day time population of approximately 155,000, Roseville has established itself as a regional employment center and retail destination. Roseville ranks 13th in the state for total retail sales reaching over $4 billion. The strongest growth has been in the apparel, home furnishings/appliances, and restaurant sectors. Roseville has more than twice the amount of retail sales per household than the statewide average, (with average retail sales of $78,273 versus $32,297 per home).

Roseville’s medium household income is $84,900 and 10.7% of families earn over $200,000.

Business ventures in Roseville range from healthcare, technology, and financial services. The top private sector business employers include Hewlett-Packard, Adventist Health, Kaiser Permanente, Sutter Roseville, and McKesson Corporation.

1.3 INSTRUCTIONS
This RFP includes a description of the scope of services, proposal requirements, and instructions for submitting your proposal. Failure to follow these instructions will result in rejection of your proposal.

No oral representations or interpretations will be made to any proposer as to the meaning of this RFP.

Direct all inquiries regarding this RFP in writing to:

City of Roseville
Economic Development
Attn: Robert Cline
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
Fax: (916) 774-5485
Email: [email protected]
Do not contact other individuals or City departments in this regard. Information provided by anyone other than the above contact may be invalid and proposals which are submitted in accordance with such information may be declared non-responsive.

In the event that it becomes necessary to revise any part of this RFP, written addenda will be issued. Any amendment to this RFP is valid only if it is in writing and issued by the City department issuing the RFP.

No oral interpretations or answers shall bind the City unless confirmed by the City in writing.

All addenda for this RFP will be distributed through PublicPurchase.com to proposers who have registered with PublicPurchase.com and who have downloaded the RFP. Additionally, the Notice of Intent to Award will be posted on PublicPurchase.com. It is the proposer’s sole responsibility to monitor PublicPurchase.com for possible addenda to this RFP and for the Notice of Intent to Award. Failure of proposer to retrieve addenda or the Notice of Intent to Award from PublicPurchase.com shall not relieve him/her of the requirements contained therein or the timelines associated therewith. Additionally, failure of proposer to return a signed addendum, when required, may be cause for rejection of his/her proposal.

2.0 TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
The following represents the tentative schedule for this RFP. Any change in the scheduled dates for the Pre-Proposal Conference, Deadline for Final Questions, or Proposal Submission Deadline will be advertised in the form of an addendum to this RFP. The schedule for the evaluation process and other future dates may be adjusted without notice.

RFP Released by the City……………………………… December 1, 2020
Pre-Proposal Conference..……………………………… December 10, 2020 Deadline for Final Questions…………………………... December 17, 2020 City Responses to Written Questions………………….. December 22, 2020 Proposal Submission Deadline………………………… February 12, 2021 Consultant Interviews as needed………………………. February 22 - March 9, 2021 Contract Negotiations………………………………… March 18 - April 15 , 2021 Planning Commission Public Hearing………………… June 10, 2021 Contract Approval by City Council……………………. June 17, 2021 Commencement of Services.…………………………… July 21, 2021

3.0 OPTIONAL PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE
An optional pre-proposal conference has been scheduled for December 10, 2020.

Virtual Meeting: Meeting details will be sent upon request. Please send requests to [email protected].

Interested firms will have an opportunity to submit questions regarding the requirements outlined in this RFP. While attendance is not mandatory, interested proposers are highly encouraged to attend. In order to make the meeting more effective for all participants, attendees should read this document thoroughly prior to the meeting.

Substantial clarifications or changes required as a result of the meeting will be issued in the form of a written addendum to the RFP. A list of attendees will be distributed upon request.

4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
To be considered, a proposal must meet the following minimum requirements:
• The proposed digital billboard(s) must conform to the specifications described below, under “Specifications for Proposed Digital Billboard(s).”
• The proposal must call for a digital billboard on at least one city-owned site. • Proposed remuneration to the City must include: 1) an initial payment consistent with the standard in the outdoor-advertising industry (i.e., “signing bonus”), and 2) yearly lease payments for individual sites. The yearly lease payments must have scheduled automatic adjustments for cost increases. In addition, the proposal must provide for periodic review and renegotiation of the yearly lease payments so that the City’s remuneration remains consistent with the prevailing market conditions throughout the term of the lease. Proposals must include a detailed description with specific revenue figures representing the minimum annual guarantee and an estimate of potential revenue share to the City over the 20 year term.
• The term of the master lease must be 20 years. The City and selected proposer may elect to renew future terms. If the City and selected proposer do not wish to renew the Agreement the proposer must remove the digital billboards at the sole expense of the selected proposer. • The master lease to be negotiated between the City and the selected proposer will require the proposer to do the following:

1. Promptly take all action necessary to investigate and remedy the release of any “hazardous substances” (to be further defined within the lease) caused by the proposer’s activities on the City’s property.

2. Indemnify, defend (with attorneys reasonably acceptable to the City), protect, and hold the City harmless from and against all liabilities, claims, demands, damages, fines, penalties, judgments, settlements, and costs (including reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs through final resolution on appeal) that arise directly or indirectly from the proposer’s possession and use of the City’s sites, except to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the City or the City’s elected officials, officers, employees, contractors, or agents.

3. Maintain, at no cost to the City, and in amounts acceptable to the City, both public liability insurance and fire-and-casualty insurance covering improvements placed onsite.

Specifications for Proposed Digital Billboard(s):

Current best-available digital-billboard technologies, including the following:
• Remote diagnostic and maintenance capability
• “Amber Alert” capability
• Automatic brightness adjustment to ambient lighting conditions • 14’ x 48’ maximum size
• UL and IEC approved
• Color calibration to ensure consistent image quality
• Remote shutdown capability
• Energy efficiency
Construction and operation requirements:
• Regularly scheduled onsite maintenance
• Internal service access for safety and improved appearance (not visible catwalks) • Constructed and operated to comply with all applicable city codes The master lease will require the selected proposer to maintain, repair, and upgrade the digital billboards as needed to provide the best available digital billboard technologies during the term of the master lease.

Municipal Code and Other Permitting Considerations:

Amendments to the Sign Ordinance
In September 2011, the City’s Sign Ordinance was amended to explicitly allow the construction and operation of digital billboards on City-owned land. City-owned land is defined to mean a fee interest in land, as well as easement or leasehold interests. No further municipal code amendments are required to execute the project.

City Zoning Designations
In most cases, City-owned properties adjacent to Interstate 80 and State Route 65 are zoned for open space purposes and are not suitable for digital billboard development. The City may explore acquisition of property from willing sellers or leasehold or easement interests at suitable locations adjacent to Interstate 80 and State Route 65 as a component of this project.
“Landscape Freeway” Classification
Several segments of Interstate 80 are classified as a “landscape freeway” pursuant to the Outdoors Advertising Act. The segments of classified landscaped freeway are indicated in Attachment B. No segment of State Route 65 within the Roseville city limits is currently designated as landscape freeway.

City-owned Sites:

Proposers may suggest City-owned sites, particularly along the State Route 65 corridor, as possible locations for a digital billboard. The City will be the sole judge of whether a suggested site is suitable,

taking into account such factors as location, availability, resource preservation, and compatibility with nearby land uses.

Environmental Review Standards:

The City Council’s approval of the master lease and all relocation agreements will be a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and compliance with CEQA will be required. City staff will prepare an Initial Study and will determine the level of environmental review required. The selected proposer will be responsible for all costs associated with such review and compliance, including noticing costs, filing fees, staff costs and consultant fees (if any). To this end, the selected proposer will be required to deposit in advance sufficient funds to cover such costs.

5.0 ASSURANCE OF DESIGNATED PROJECT TEAM
Proposer shall assure that the designated project team, including sub-consultants or sub-contractors (if any), is used for this project. Departure or reassignment of, or substitution for, any member of the designated project team, sub-consultant(s) or sub-contractor(s) shall not be made without the prior written approval of the City.

6.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT REQUIREMENTS
Each response to this RFP shall include the information described in this section. Provide the information in the specified order. Failure to include all of the information specified may be cause for rejection. Additional information may be provided, but should be succinct and relevant to the goals of this RFP. Any additional information that a proposing Consultant wishes to include that is not specifically requested should be included in an appendix to the proposal.

Consultants are encouraged to keep the proposals brief and to the point, but sufficiently detailed to allow evaluation of the project approach. Excessive information will not be considered favorably.

Unauthorized conditions, omissions, limitations or provisions attached to a proposal will render the proposal non-responsive and may cause its rejection.

Proposers are warned against making erasures or alterations of any kind, without initialing each and every such change. Proposals that contain erasures or irregularities of any kind, without such initialing, or omissions, may be rejected.

If mailed, the proposal should be bound or contained in a loose leaf binder. Document pages shall be 8- 1/2 inches by 11 inches in size or folded to such a size. Use section dividers, tabbed in accordance with this section as specified below.

6.1 Cover Letter with the following information:
• Title of this RFP
• Name and Mailing Address of Firm (include physical location if mailing address is a PO Box)
• Contact Person, Telephone Number, Fax Number, and Email Address • A statement that the submitting Consultant will perform the services and adhere to the requirements described in this RFP, including any addenda (reference the addenda by date and/or number).

6.2 Signature Requirements - The attached Proposer’s Certification (Attachment A) shall be executed by an official(s) legally authorized to bind the Consultant which states that the proposal is valid for ninety (90) days. Include the executed copy of the Proposer’s Certification under Tab G. Note: This is ninety (90) days following the closing date for the receipt of all proposals.

Proposals submitted on behalf of a Partnership shall be signed in the firm name by a partner or the Attorney-in-Fact. If signed by the Attorney-in-Fact, there shall be attached to the proposal a Power-of-Attorney evidencing authority to sign proposals, dated the same date as the proposal and executed by all partners of the firm.
• Proposals which are submitted on behalf of a Corporation shall have the correct corporate name thereon and the actual signature of the authorized officer of the corporation written (not typed) below the corporate name. The title of the office held by the person signing for the corporation shall appear below the signature of the officer. • Proposals which are submitted on behalf of a Limited Liability Company (“LLC”) shall be signed by the person or persons authorized to bind the LLC under the LLC’s articles of organization.
• Proposals which are submitted by an Individual Doing Business under a firm name (“dba”) shall be signed in the name of the individual doing business under the proper firm name and style.

6.3 TAB A: Firm’s Qualifications – Describe your firm and provide a statement of your firm's qualifications for performing the requested services. Identify the services which would be completed by your firm's staff and those that would be provided by sub-consultants or subcontractors, if any. Identify any sub-consultants or sub-contractors you propose to utilize to supplement your firm’s staff. Include the firm’s organizational chart, including its constituent parts, and size variation of staffing levels in the past five (5) years.

6.4 TAB B: Experience and References – Provide a summary of your firm’s experience in providing these or similar services. Provide a minimum of three (3) references for projects or services similar in nature and scope that your firm’s team members have completed in the last five (5) years.

Include brief descriptions of the projects, dates, client names and contact persons’ names, addresses and telephone numbers. Public sector references are preferred.

6.5 TAB C: Qualifications of Team – Provide a brief summary of the role, qualifications and experience of each team member and designated project manager/lead assigned to this project, including length of service with the firm and the qualifications/experience of any sub-consultant or sub-contractor staff on your project team. A project team organizational diagram and brief resume of each team member and the designated project manager/lead for each applicable category shall be included. The geographic location of the firm and key personnel shall also be identified. Any proposed sub-consultants or sub-contractors shall be listed. Include sub-consultant’s and subcontractor’s assigned task(s) and experience. Full resumes may be included in the appendix.

6.6 TAB D: Project Understanding – Based on the available information, supplemental research, field observations, and experience with similar projects, provide a narrative describing your understanding of the services requested in this RFP, your general approach and any major challenges to achieving the City’s stated goals. Provide through discussion of your market research outlining your findings of the market demand that supports the number of digital billboards proposed. Include any issues that you believe will require special consideration for

this project. Also identify any unique approaches or strengths that your firm may have related to this project. City staff will assess your understanding of all aspects of the project based on the overview.

6.7 TAB E: Project Plan – Provide a detailed discussion of your firm’s approach to the successful implementation of this project including:
• Thorough discussions of methodologies you believe are essential to accomplishing this project. Identify the staff who would be assigned to each task, including sub-consultants and sub- contractors.
• List any necessary equipment, training or installation servicesrequired. • A description of the proposed digital billboard project, including identification of sites and anticipated installation schedule.
• The individual digital billboard designs, with sufficient detail to illustrate the scale, size, and mix of design elements. Include, at a minimum, a site plan and elevations. • Information pertaining to each digital billboard in a sufficient detail to verify conformance with the specifications outlined in the RFP.
• A preliminary schedule for development of the proposed digital billboard(s) that addresses, at a minimum, preparation of design plans, projected approval dates, commencement and completion of construction, operation of the digital billboard(s), and compliance with CEQA. Construction of proposed digital billboards must be completed within two years following commencement of services.

6.8 TAB F: Business Proposal and Financing Plan – The terms of an offer to lease the City-owned land sites in accordance with the requirements specified herein, including but not limited to a detailed description of the proposed remuneration to the City, i.e., proposed yearly lease payments, scheduled automatic adjustment, periodic review and renegotiation, “signing bonus,” and payments due upon completion of each digital billboard. Proposers must complete Attachment C, Digital Billboard Revenue Summary Template, outlining a detailed description of revenue figures representing the minimum annual guarantee and an estimate of potential revenue share to the City over the 20 year term.

6.9 TAB G: Required Statements/Documents – Include statements of assurance regarding the following requirements in the proposal:
• Non-substitution for the designated members of the team without approval by City staff (Section 5.0)
• The absence of a conflict of interest (Section 10.4)
• Indicate your understanding that your firm will be required to fulfill the City’s indemnification and insurance requirements, which will be outlined in the contract (Section

10.7). (Please note that actual certificates of insurance are not required as part of your submittal.)
• A statement that nothing contained in the submitted proposal will be proprietary. (Section

10.21)
Submit the following documents with proposal:
• Executed copy of Proposer’s Certification (Attachment A)

6.10 TAB H: Exceptions – Describe any and all proposed exceptions, alterations or amendments to the

Scope of Services or other requirements of this RFP. The nature and scope of your proposed exceptions may negatively affect the evaluation of your submittal and the City’s determination of whether it is possible to successfully negotiate a contract with your firm.

6.11 TAB I: Competency of Proposers – The City wants to ensure that the successful Consultants has the necessary facilities, ability, experience, and financial resources to provide the services specified herein in a satisfactory and timely manner. Please list and explain any pending bankruptcies, liens, stop payment notices, judgments, lawsuits, arbitrations, mediations, foreclosures, and any similar actions filed or resolved in the past seven (7) years. Please indicate whether a client has ever terminated a contract with your firm for breach, and if so, please explain. Also, furnish a statement of financial resources demonstrating that the Consultant has the ability to maintain a staff of regular employees, sub-consultants or sub-contractors adequate to insure continuous performance of work, and demonstrating that the equipment for the work contemplated is sufficient, adequate and suitable.

7.0 SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

7.1 Your submittal package shall include the following ifmailed:
• One (1) original and five (5) printed copies of your proposal;and • One (1) electronic copy of your proposal in PDF format on CD, flash drive or other electronic media
Note: This requirement does not apply to proposals that are emailed.

7.2 Proposals shall be submitted not later than the time and date indicated on the cover page of this RFP. All submittals shall either be emailed to [email protected] with the title of the RFP and “Sealed Proposal” in the subject line and the body of the email or be submitted via regular mail in a sealed envelope or container and clearly marked with the RFP title on the outside of the parcel. Complete and attach the “Sealed Proposal” label to the outside of the envelope containing your proposal.

7.3 Proposals shall be submitted via regular mail to:

City of Roseville
Attn: City Clerk Department
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
Or emailed to:

[email protected]

7.4 Faxed or hand delivered proposals will not be accepted as the Civic Center is closed. Email will be accepted by the deadline date and time with a hard copy of the sealed proposal to follow.

7.5 The City shall not be responsible for proposals delivered to a person or location other than that specified herein.

7.6 Postmarks will not be accepted and proposals received after the deadline date and time will not be accepted or considered. No exceptions.

7.7 The City reserves the right to waive minor defects and/or irregularities in proposals, and shall be the sole judge of the materiality of any such defect or irregularity.

7.8 All costs associated with proposal preparation shall be borne by theproposer.

8.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following evaluation criteria and rating schedule will be used to determine the most highly qualified Consultants.

Evaluation Criteria
Maximum
Points Possible
A. Experience and qualifications of firm and proposed
staff/sub-consultants/sub-contractors
(per Sections 6.3 - 6.5) 20
B. Understanding of the Project – Proposed Project Plan (per Section 6.6) 20
C. Proposed Project Plan
(per Section 6.7) 30
D. Business Proposal and Financing Plan
(per Section 6.8) 30
Total Possible Points: 100

9.0 SELECTION PROCESS

9.1 Award of the RFP shall be made to the responsible proposer whose proposal is determined, through a formal evaluation panel process, to be the most advantageous to the City after the evaluation panel has taken into consideration the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP. A master averaged score sheet shall be created based on the evaluation panel’s initial evaluation.

Proposals shall be scored according to the criteria stated in the RFP.

9.2 Proposals submitted will be reviewed by a selection committee. Consultants that have submitted the best and most complete proposals may be invited to an interview. The number of Consultants invited to an interview may vary depending upon the number of proposals submitted.

9.3 Should the City elect to conduct interviews with any proposers, the following criteria shall be considered and each proposer ranked by the evaluation panel during the interview process: a) Quality of presentation, b) Ability to meet the City’s business goals, c) Communicationstyle.

9.4 The City reserves the right to make a selection after review of the proposals without oral interviews; therefore, the proposal should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms that the Consultant might propose.

9.5 A contract will be negotiated with the Consultant considered best meeting the City’s need for this project. In the event a mutually satisfactory contract cannot be negotiated with the City’s first choice, negotiations may be terminated and commenced with the Consultant considered next best in meeting the City’s needs for this particular project.

The selected Consultant will be required to execute a City prepared contract or a contract approved by the City. The contract may further refine the scope of services and will provide for the terms and conditions of the project.

9.6 The award of any contract is expressly contingent upon City Council approval and the availability of funds. City staff may not legally bind the City to a contract.

9.7 The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, or to waive minor irregularities in said proposals, or to negotiate minor deviations with the successful Consultant(s). In the case of differences between written words and figures in a proposal, the amount stated in written words shall govern. In the case of a difference in unit price versus the extended figure, the unit price shall govern.

9.8 The City reserves the right to seek clarification on any or all proposal submittals to ensure the RFP specifications are met. Proposals may be rejected from any proposer who does not comply with the City’s request for clarification.

9.9 Once a decision has been made to award the contract, then a formal notice of the intent to award to the recommended proposer(s) shall be made by the Department.

9.10 A City of Roseville business license as well as all applicable permits, licenses and certifications required by local, state or federal law are required before the award of contract.

10.0 GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS

10.1 Contract. Upon completion of the evaluation and recommendation for award, the selected Consultant will be required to execute an agreement prepared or approved by the City.

10.2 Independent Contractor. At all times the Consultant shall represent himself/herself to be an independent contractor offering such services to the general public and shall not represent himself/herself, or his/her employees, to be an employee of the City. Therefore, the Consultant shall assume all legal and financial responsibility for taxes, FICA, employee fringe benefits, workers’ compensation, employee insurance, minimum wage requirements, overtime, etc., and agrees to indemnify, save, and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees, harmless from and against, any and all loss, cost (including attorneys’ fees), and damage of any kind related to such matters.

10.3 Non-Appropriation. The City may terminate any resulting contract at the end of any fiscal year, June 30th, without further liability other than payment of debt incurred during such fiscal year, should funds not be appropriated by its governing body to continue services for which the contract was intended.

10.4 Conflict of Interest. The Consultant shall warrant that no official or employee of the City has an interest, has been employed or retained to solicit or aid in the procuring of the resulting contract, nor that any such person will be employed in the performance of such contract without immediate divulgence of such fact to the City. Consultants submitting a proposal in response to this RFP must disclose any actual, apparent, direct, indirect, or potential conflicts of interest that may exist with respect to the Consultant or the Consultant’s management or employees relative to the services to be provided to the City. Conflict of interest issues may require consultation with legal counsel. If a Consultant has no conflicts of interest, a statement to that effect must be

included in the proposal. Violation of this section shall be a material breach of the contract entitling the City to any and all remedies by law or in equity.

10.5 Undue Influence. The Consultant shall warrant via an executed Proposer’s Certification (Attachment A) that no undue influence or pressure is used against or in concert with any officer or employee of the City in connection with the award or terms of the contract that will be executed as a result of this RFP, including any method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement or financial inducement. No officer or employee of the City shall receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from the Consultant, or from any officer, employee or agent of the Consultant, in connection with the award of the contract or any work to be conducted as a result of this RFP. Violation of this section shall be a material breach of the contract entitling the City to any and all remedies by law or in equity.

10.6 Non-Collusion. Consultant submitting proposals shall warrant via an executed Proposer’s Certification (Attachment A) that their offer is made without any previous understanding, agreement or connection with any person, firm or corporation submitting a separate proposal for the same project and is in all respects fair, without outside control, collusion, fraud or otherwise illegal action. This condition shall not apply to proposals which are submitted by firms who have partnered with others to submit a cooperative proposal that clearly identifies a primary consultant and the associated sub-consultants or sub-contractors.

10.7 Indemnification & Insurance Requirements. The City’s standard indemnification and insurance requirements will be outlined in the contract. All costs of complying with the insurance requirements shall be as included in your pricing. The selected Consultant shall provide complete and valid insurance certificates within ten (10) days of the City’s written request. Failure to provide the documents within the time stated may result in rejection of the Consultant’s proposal. Alterations to the terms and conditions shall not be allowed.

10.8 Cost of Preparing Proposal. The City will not pay any costs incurred by any Consultant in preparing or submitting a proposal in response to this RFP.

10.9 Proposals Property of the City. All documents or materials submitted with or in conjunction with any proposal, including but not limited to electronic files, shall become the property of the City after the proposal submission deadline. No submission documents will be returned. During negotiations, the scope of services may be amended by the City and negotiated based upon ideas provided by other proposers or any other source.

10.10 Proposals are Public Records. All proposals submitted are subject to the public disclosure requirements under the laws of the State of California, unless the City identifies and exercises a right or obligation to exempt any record from public disclosure. However, proposals will not be disclosed until negotiations are complete and a recommendation for selection and award is made.

10.11 Protests.
(a) Protest Requirements
(1) Any proposer who is aggrieved in connection with the solicitation or award of a contract may file a protest with the City Clerk’s office. The protest must be received in writing by the City Clerk’s office within seven (7) calendar days after such aggrieved proposer 1) knows or should have known of the facts giving rise thereto or 2) the date of the notice of intent to award,

whichever is sooner. In no event shall a protest be allowed after an award has been made by City Council. If the seventh calendar day falls on a weekend or City holiday, the protesting party may submit the protest prior to close of business on the first business day following such weekend or holiday. Failure to submit a timely protest shall bar consideration of a protest. (b) Grounds for Protest
(1) The alleged grounds for protest shall be limited to the following: (a) computation errors, (b) violations of local, state, or federal law, or (c) the City failed to follow the procedures specified in this Policy.
(2) The protest shall state all grounds claimed for the protest and include supporting documentation. Failure to clearly state the grounds for the protest and provide supporting documentation shall be deemed a waiver of all protest rights. (c) Administrative Review
Upon receipt of the protest and after determining the protest was properly filed, the Department Director shall provide a copy of the protest to other proposers who might become aggrieved as a result of the protest and issue a written decision within fourteen (14) calendar days after receipt of the protest. The protest will be evaluated by the Department Director, the City Attorney’s Office, and the Purchasing Manager. The protesting proposer shall promptly provide any information requested by City staff as part of such investigation. The decision shall either deny or uphold the protest and include reasons for the decision. The written decision shall be final. (d) Stay of Action During a Protest
In the event a protest is filed under Section 10.11, the City shall not proceed further with the award of the contract until the protest is resolved, unless:
(1) The Director of Central Services makes a determination that the award of the contract without delay is necessary to protect a substantial interest of the City, or (2) The City decides to reject all proposals and issue a new RFP.

10.12 Rejection of RFP. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, to waive defects or irregularities in any proposal or in the RFP process, and to offer to negotiate or contract with any Consultant in response to any RFP. This RFP does not constitute any form of offer to contract.

10.13 Multiple Award. The City reserves the right to award the contract to multiple consultants when applicable.

10.14 Increasing/Decreasing Portions of RFP. The City reserves the right to increase or decrease the amount of any portions of the work represented in the RFP and/or to omit portions of said work, as may be deemed necessary by the City.

10.15 Rejection as Non-Responsive. Proposals may be rejected as non-responsive at the City’s sole discretion if there are alterations of form, the proposal is conditional or the proposal is incomplete.

10.16 Modifying RFP. The City reserves the right to modify any portion of, or to postpone or cancel this RFP at any time, and/or reject any and all submissions without indicating any reason.

10.17 If no proposal is accepted, the City may elect to have the services performed in some other manner.

10.18 Rejecting Team Members, Firms or Sub-consultants. The City reserves the right to reject individual team members, firms, sub-consultants or sub-contractors and request substitution prior to contract award.

10.19 Local Business, Small Business, Minority and Women Owned Business. Although no preferences will be given, the City highly encourages submission of proposals by local businesses, by small business owners, and by minority and women-owned businesses.

10.20 Withdrawal of Proposals. Proposals may be withdrawn prior to the date and time specified for proposal submission with a formal written notice by an authorized representative of the proposer delivered to the City Clerk’s Office. Proposals submitted will become property of the City after the proposal submission deadline.

Proposals may not be withdrawn for ninety (90) days after the due date unless the City enters into a contract with another Consultant prior to the expiration of that ninety (90) day period.

10.21 Prohibited Submittals. No hand delivered, telephone or facsimile proposals will be accepted.

If a photocopy is submitted, the proposal must be signed in ink.

10.22 Proposal Postponement and Amendment. The City reserves the right to revise or amend the RFP or specifications up to the time set for opening of the proposals. Such revisions and amendments, if any, shall be announced by amendments to this RFP through the City’s web site.

Copies of such amendments shall be furnished to all prospective proposers. Prospective proposers are defined as those proposers who have registered and are on the City’s RFP list for this RFP. If revisions and amendments require changes in quantities, prices or scope of services, the date set for opening of the proposals may be postponed by such number of days as in the opinion of the City shall enable proposers to revise their proposals. Proposals which fail to acknowledge a substantive addendum to the RFP, as determined by the City Attorney’s Office, on the City supplied addendum form will be rejected as non-responsive. Any revisions or amendments to the RFP will become incorporated into any contract awarded pursuant to the RFP.

10.23 Proprietary Information. Proposers submitting a proposal in response to this RFP must provide a statement that nothing contained in the submitted proposal will be proprietary.

However, if a proposer desires to claim a privilege against public disclosure for a trade secret or other proprietary information, such information must be submitted with the proposal in a separate envelope marked “confidential.” The City Attorney’s Office will determine if the information is in fact proprietary, based on state and federal law. Note that under California law, a price proposal to a public agency is not a trade secret. The Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City regarding any claim by any third party for the public disclosure of the “confidential” portion of the proposal.

10.24 Right to Request Additional Information. During the evaluation process, the City reserves the right, where it may serve the best interests of the City, to request additional information and clarifications from proposers. Such information will be requested in writing to the specific proposer. This information will become a part of the original proposal submitted by the specific proposer and will be used by the City in evaluating the proposal and will not be shared with other proposers during the evaluation and negotiation process.

10.25 Modification of Proposals. Modification of a proposal already received will be considered only if the modification is received prior to the deadline date for receiving proposals. All modifications shall be made in writing, executed, and submitted in the same form and manner as the original proposal.

10.26 Examination of Contract Documents. Each proposer shall thoroughly examine and be familiar with the terms of this RFP, legal and procedural documents, general conditions, specifications, and addenda (if any), which will constitute the contract documents. Submission of a proposal shall constitute acknowledgement, upon which the City may rely, that the proposer has thoroughly examined and is familiar with the contract documents. Failure or neglect of a proposer to receive or examine any of the contract documents shall in no way relieve the proposer of any obligation with respect to their proposal or to the contract. No claim for additional compensation will be allowed which is based upon lack of knowledge of any contract document.

10.27 Non-Discrimination. The City maintains various policies related to contractual service providers. Among these is an anti-discrimination policy, which requires that the City’s contractors not discriminate in hiring on the basis of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, medical condition, and all other categories protected by law. Upon acceptance of a proposal, the City may request that the selected Consultant sign a statement affirming its compliance with this policy.

10.28 No Assignment or Modifications. This awarded contract is to be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties hereto. The services called for herein are deemed unique and except as provided herein Consultant shall not assign, transfer, subcontract, or otherwise substitute its interest in the agreement or any of its obligations herein without the written consent of the City.

The Agreement may be modified only by a written amendment signed by the parties.

10.29 Bankruptcy. Upon filing for any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding whether voluntary or involuntary, or upon the appointment of a receiver, trustee, or assignee for the benefit of creditors, the Consultant must notify the City immediately. Upon learning the actions herein identified, the City reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to cancel the contract.

Attachment A
PROPOSER’S CERTIFICATION
I hereby propose to furnish the goods or services specified in the Request for Proposals (“RFP”). I agree that my proposal will remain firm for a period of up to ninety (90) days in order to allow the City of Roseville (“City”) adequate time to evaluate the qualifications submitted.

I have carefully examined the Request for Proposals and any other documents accompanying or made a part of this RFP. The information contained in this proposal is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and is signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California. I further certify that I am duly authorized to submit this proposal on behalf of the firm as its authorized agent and that the firm is ready, willing and able to perform if awarded the contract.

I further certify that this proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, connection, discussion, or conspiracy with any other person, firm or corporation submitting a proposal for the same product or service; that this proposal is fair and made without outside control, collusion, fraud or illegal action; that no officer, employee or agent of the City or any other proposer is financially interested in said proposal; that no undue influence or pressure was used against or in concert with any officer, employee or agent of the City in connection with the award or terms of the contract that will be executed as a result of this RFP; and that the undersigned executed this Proposer’s Certification with full knowledge and understanding of the matters therein contained and was duly authorized to do so.

NAME OF BUSINESS

SIGNATURE

NAME & TITLE, TYPED OR PRINTED

MAILING ADDRESS

TELEPHONE NUMBER
EMAIL
Type of Organization:

Sole Proprietorship Corporation State of Incorporation
Partnership Limited Liability Company

Attachment B
Interstate 80 Landscaped Freeway Segments (indicated by mile marker) District 3: Sacramento & Marysville Area
3 SAC 5 10.66 / 11.05
3 SAC 5 11.90 / 12.33
3 SAC 5 14.68 / 14.98 6/7/2018
3 SAC 5 16.00 / 16.52
3 SAC 5 16.62 / 17.79
3 SAC 5 17.84 / 23.78
3 SAC 5 24.18 / 24.82
3 SAC 5 25.32 / 26.69
3 SAC 5 29.71 / 30.13
3 SAC 5 30.18 / 30.44
3 SAC 5 32.54 / 32.94
3 SAC 5 33.72 / 33.98
3 YOL 5 R 7.02 / R 7.74
3 YOL 5 R 7.83 / R 9.01
3 COL 5 R 6.39 / R 7.36
3 COL 5 R 17.82 / R 18.07
3 COL 5 R 18.57 / R 18.86
3 GLE 5 R 8.86 / R 9.08
3 GLE 5 R 9.55 / R 9.96
3 GLE 5 R 25.41 / R 25.70
3 NEV 20 R 12.30 / R 13.68
3 NEV 20 R 16.19 / 17.30
3 NEV 49 R 13.26 / R 13.45
3 NEV 49 R 13.54 / R 14.47
3 YOL 50 0.00 / 2.69
3 SAC 50 L 0.28 / L 2.48
3 SAC 50 R 0.00 / R 2.89
3 SAC 50 R 3.00 / R 4.59
3 SAC 50 R 5.75 / R 6.24
3 SAC 50 R 7.55 / R 8.85 12/5/2013
3 SAC 50 R 8.94 / R 9.15 12/5/2013
3 SAC 50 R 9.20 / R 9.53 12/5/2013
3 SAC 50 R 9.53 / R 10.00
3 SAC 50 R 10.25 / R 10.73
3 SAC 50 R 10.77 / R 11.06 12/5/2013
3 SAC 50 R 11.90 / R 12.08 12/5/2013
3 SAC 50 12.08 / 12.84
3 ED 50 18.04 / 18.64
3 ED 50 18.97 / 19.32
3 ED 50 20.16 / 20.48
3 SAC 51 0.00 / 1.71
3 SAC 51 4.05 / 4.41
3 SAC 51 5.20 / 5.84
3 SAC 51 5.95 / 6.18
3 SAC 51 6.28 / 6.63 6/4/2009

3 SAC 51 6.63 / 7.74
3 SAC 51 7.74 / 7.85 6/4/2009
3 SAC 51 7.85 / 8.06
3 SAC 51 8.30 / 8.86
3 YOL 80 0.00 / 0.45
3 YOL 80 2.52 / 2.81
3 YOL 80 8.97 / R 10.19
3 SAC 80 M 2.29 / M 2.88
3 SAC 80 M 4.76 / M 5.22
3 SAC 80 M 5.35 / M 5.61
3 SAC 80 M 5.69 / M 6.32
3 SAC 80 M 6.39 / M 6.84
3 SAC 80 M 7.06 / M 8.93
3 SAC 80 M 9.90 / 18.00
3 PLA 80 0.00 / 1.70
3 PLA 80 1.82 / 2.19
3 PLA 80 2.88 / 3.16
3 PLA 80 3.57 / 3.77
3 PLA 80 17.09 / 17.30
3 PLA 80 17.32 / 18.99
3 PLA 80 R 19.11 / R 20.36
3 SAC 99 0.59 / 0.99
3 SAC 99 1.32 / 1.86
3 SAC 99 13.70 / 14.00
3 SAC 99 17.02 / 17.32
3 SAC 99 17.46 / 24.35
3 SAC 99 R 32.12 / R 32.37
3 SUT 99 R 30.67 / R 32.14
3 SUT 99 R 32.47 / R 32.77
3 SUT 99 R 33.79 / R 34.12
3 BUT 99 R 31.15 / R 31.72
3 BUT 99 R 32.21 / R 35.31
3 YOL 113 R 0.25 / R 0.57
3 YOL 113 R 0.95 / R 1.26
3 YOL 113 R 1.94 / R 2.20
3 YOL 113 R 10.29 / R 10.67
3 SAC 160 44.94 / 45.30
3 SAC 160 46.06 / 46.34
3 SAC 244 0.00 / 0.68
3 YOL 275 11.70 / 13.01
Source: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-communitylivability/lap-liv-b-classified- landscaped-freeways

ATTACHMENT C
Digital Billboard Revenue Summary Template
Complete the appropriate tables based on the number of digital billboard(s) proposed. If four signs are proposed complete all four tables. If three signs are proposed complete tables one, two and three. If two signs are proposed complete tables one and two. If one sign is proposed complete table one.

Revenue summary for one digital billboard:

Revenue summary for two digital billboards:

Revenue summary for three digital billboards:

Revenue summary for four digital billboards:

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Years 11-20 TOTAL Projected Gross Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Potential Revenue Share Due
to City of Roseville $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Minimum Annual Garuntee
to City of Roseville $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Years 11-20 TOTAL Projected Gross Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Potential Revenue Share Due
to City of Roseville $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Minimum Annual Garuntee
to City of Roseville $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Years 11-20 TOTAL Projected Gross Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Potential Revenue Share Due
to City of Roseville $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Minimum Annual Garuntee
to City of Roseville $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Years 11-20 TOTAL Projected Gross Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Potential Revenue Share Due
to City of Roseville $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Minimum Annual Garuntee
to City of Roseville $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Errata Sheet January 3, 2022 Roseville Digital Billboard Project Page 1
Roseville Digital Billboard Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Errata Sheet
January 3, 2022
This errata sheet presents, in strike-through and double-underline format, the revisions to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Roseville Digital Billboard Project (proposed project). The revisions to the IS/MND reflected in this errata sheet do not affect the adequacy of the previous environmental analysis contained in the IS/MND. Because the changes presented below would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact identified in the IS/MND, recirculation of the IS/MND is not required.

In response to a comment received during the public review period for the IS/MND, page 3-49 of the IS/MND is hereby revised as follows:
[…] Should buried or otherwise unknown tribal cultural resources be encountered and/or damaged during construction, a potentially significant impact would occur. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2 would reduce the potential impact to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

3.2.18.2 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Implement Post Ground Disturbance Site Visit A minimum of seven days prior to beginning earthwork, clearing and grubbing, or other soil disturbing activities, the applicant shall notify lead agency of the proposed earthwork start-date. The lead agency shall contact the United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) with the proposed earthwork start-date and a UAIC Tribal Representative or Tribal Monitor shall be invited to inspect the project site, including any soil piles, trenches, or other disturbed areas, within the first five days of groundbreaking activity, or as appropriate for the type and size of project. During this inspection, a UAIC Tribal Representative or Tribal Monitor may provide an on-site meeting for construction personnel information on TCRs and workers awareness brochure.

If any TCRs are encountered during this initial inspection, or during any subsequent construction activities, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find and the measures included in the Inadvertent/Unanticipated Discoveries Mitigation Measure shall be implemented. Preservation in place is the preferred alternative under CEQA and UAIC protocols, and every effort must be made to preserve the resources in place, including through project redesign.
• The contractor shall implement any measures deemed by CEQA lead agency to be necessary and feasible to preserve in place, avoid, or minimize significant effects to the resources, including the use of a paid Native American Monitor during ground disturbing activities.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Errata Sheet January 3, 2022 Roseville Digital Billboard Project Page 2
Mitigation Measure TCR-1 TCR-2: Implement Measures to Protect Unanticipated Discoveries.

If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin, or tribal cultural resources, are discovered during construction, all work shall halt within a 100-foot radius of the discovery, and the Construction Manager shall immediately notify the City of Roseville Development Services Director by phone […]
The aforementioned revisions do not identify a new impact nor increase the severity of an existing impact. Thus, the conclusions and analysis presented within the IS/MND remain accurate.

In addition, as a result of the revision above, page 3-56 of the IS/MND is hereby revised as follows:

Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and TCR-1, and TCR-2 would ensure that the proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

The aforementioned revision is for clarification purposes only, and does not affect the conclusions of the IS/MND.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 1867
File #: 0704
Title: Park Name Recommendation Approval
Contact: Tara Gee 916-774-5253 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 1/19/2022
Item #: 9.2.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Per recommendation of the Parks & Recreation Commission, staff recommends approval by motion of park names for several parks targeted to start construction in the Spring/Summer 2022, as follows:
• WB-50 School/Park - Westbrook: Solaire Park (The park is located on Solaire Drive and some elements in the park design are about the solar system.) • CO-62 Linear Park - Campus Oaks: Crimson Ridge Park (Crimson Ridge Way is the road on which the park is located.)
• CO-64/HP – Campus Oaks: Campus Oaks Park or Super Happy Funtime Park (Campus Oaks is the development where the park is located and is also the largest park in this development.) • W-50D – West Roseville Neighborhood Park: Audrey Huisking Park • F-51 School/Park – Fiddyment Farm: Riego Creek Park (This park is located next to Riego Creek Elementary School.)
• F-94 Pocket Park - Fiddyment Farm: Kay Sakamoto Park or Phil Ozenick Park • JM-50 School Park – Sierra Vista (next to future Rex Fortune Elementary): John Byouk Park

BACKGROUND
Parks & Recreation Commission
The following names were recommended by the Park Naming Subcommittee and presented at the November 1, 2021 Parks & Recreation Commission meeting. • WB-50 School/Park - Westbrook: Solaire Park or Galaxy Park (The park is located on Solaire Drive and some elements in the park design are about the solar system.) • CO-62 Linear Park – Campus Oaks: Phil Ozenick Park, Audrey Huisking Park or Crimson Ridge Park (Crimson Ridge Way is the road on which the park is located.) • CO-64/HP – Campus Oaks: Campus Oaks Park (Campus Oaks is the development where the park is located and is also the largest park in this development.) • W-50D West Roseville Neighborhood Park – West Roseville: Audrey Huisking Park, Phil Osenick Park or Mt. Evans Park
• F-51 School/Park – Fiddyment Farm: Riego Creek Park (This park is located next to Riego Creek Elementary School.)
• F-94 Pocket Park – Fiddyment Farm: Kay Sakamoto Park
• JM-50 School Park – Sierra Vista (next to the future Rex Fortune Elementary): John Byouk Park or Upland Park (The park is located on Upland Drive.)
Updated Park Naming Process
The Park Naming policy was updated and approved in June 2021. Changes included a new make-up of participants as the Park Naming Subcommittee. This included:
• Parks, Recreation & Libraries Director
• Park Planning and Development Superintendent
• Park Development Project Manager (one representative serving a two-year term, to be rotated among Park Development Project Managers)
• PRL Superintendent from the Parks Division (one representative serving a two-year term, to be rotated among PRL Superintendents from the Parks Division) • PRL staff member chosen “at-large”, who shall serve a two-year term • Staff member from the Development Services Department (one representative serving a twoyear term, to be rotated among Development Services staff) With the exception of the Director and Park Planning & Development Superintendent, committee members will serve a two-year term.

The Name Selection Process is as follows:

1. The Subcommittee shall review all names and recommend up to three names for each new park or facility to the Parks & Recreation Commission.

2. The recommended names, along with the full list of submissions (including the “active” names from the previous year), shall be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission for consideration at a formal meeting. The Parks and Recreation Commission shall recommend up to three names for each new park or facility to the City Council.

3. The recommended names, along with the full list of submissions (including the “active” names from the previous year), shall be reviewed by the City Council for approval at a formal meeting.

4. Family members of any potential namesakes shall be contacted by PRL staff prior to final approval by City Council, to ensure their support of the recommendation.

5. The Annual Park Naming Process shall conclude upon City Council’s final approval of the park or facility name.

Advertisement for names for the above parks occurred in July through August 2021. The advertisement period was four (4) weeks. The Park Naming Subcommittee, consisting of Jill Geller - Parks Recreation & Libraries Director, Mike Isom - Development Services Director, Tara Gee - Park Planning & Development Superintendent, Eric Dexter - Parks, Recreation & Libraries Superintendent, Joel De Jong - Park Planning Project Manager and Patrick Daly - Parks Supervisor, met virtually on October 4, 2021 to review the name submissions along with names on the “active” list from last year. “Active” are those names received the year prior and not selected.

Consistent with the policy, a short list of names was forwarded as recommendations to the Parks & Recreation Commission. Upon review and approval by the Parks & Recreation Commission, their recommendations are now forwarded to the City Council for final review and approval.

Names from the 2021 submission period that are not selected for recommendation will remain on the “active” list for one year. Please see the attachments for a summary of names and the submissions received during this latest advertisement, as well as those remaining active from 2020.

FISCAL IMPACT
Park identification signs for new parks will be included in the construction budgets of each park.

There will be no General Fund impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The park naming recommendations meet the above criteria and are not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal B - Support community engagement and advocacy
Respectfully Submitted,
Tara Gee, Park Planning & Development Superintendent
Jill Geller, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Park Naming Policy
Map of parks to be named
Park Name Submittals - 2021
Park Name Submittals - Active from 2020
Name Suggestion Summary
Park Naming Process
On June 16 2021, the City Council approved revisions to the Park Naming Process. This process applies to parks and Parks, Recreation & Libraries (PRL) facilities only. “PRL facilities” are defined as recreation facilities, rooms within PRL buildings, and amenities within parks including, but not limited to, sports fields, groves of trees, walkways and trails. There is a separate naming process for City buildings and other City facilities.

Process
In July of each year, notification is made to the public and interested individuals that name suggestions are being sought for new parks and facilities that will be under construction during that fiscal year period (July 1 to June 30).

This suggestion period is open for the month of July. Names should be submitted to the City Clerk and forwarded to the Park Planning and Development Superintendent.

At the conclusion of the suggestion period, the names received will be considered as follows:

1. The Park Naming Subcommittee shall review the list and make recommendations for park and/or facility names, using the criteria outlined below, to the Parks & Recreation Commission. The Park Naming Subcommittee shall consist of the following staff:
a. Parks, Recreation & Libraries Director
b. Park Planning and Development Superintendent
c. Park Development Project Manager (one representative serving a two-year term, to be rotated among Park Development Project Managers)
d. PRL Superintendent from the Parks Division (one representative serving a two-year term, to be rotated among PRL Superintendents from the Parks Division) e. PRL staff member chosen “at-large”, who shall serve a two-year term f. Staff member from the Development Services Department (one representative serving a two-year term, to be rotated among Development Services staff)
Two-year terms shall be staggered to provide continuity in the rotational representation.

2. Names received shall be considered “active” for both the current and following fiscal years, and will be considered for those parks and facilities scheduled for construction during those same fiscal years.

3. A name suggestion cannot be submitted more than three consecutive years.

4. The Park Naming Subcommittee maintains the right to select a name not included on the “active” list, due to special circumstances such as historical significance, the passing of an active contributor(s) to the community, or other considerations.

Criteria for Naming a Park Facility
The act of naming is significant and meaningful. A name can invoke powerful emotions, create images and help to recall history. The naming of a park or facility is intended to be a permanent act, and therefore should be approached in a thoughtful manner. The name of a park or facility may take into consideration the past, present and future history of the land, its use, and our relationship to it. The following criteria and factors shall be considered when naming or renaming a park or facility:
 Recognition of nearby prominent geographical locations (e.g., street names, subdivision names, or adjacent school names)
 Recognition of significant natural and geological features of the area  Recognition of outstanding features of the park or facility  Recognition of historical or cultural significance in the area  Recognition of significant individuals within the community, as follows:
o The person contributed a significant amount of land or funding for the park or facility (typically amounting to 50% or more of development costs).
o The person has made significant volunteer contributions to the Roseville community and its residents’ quality of life.
o The person is deceased and is being recognized for substantial volunteer contributions to the quality of life in Roseville.
o The person died in the line of duty as part of City service.

Parks, Recreation & Libraries
Naming of new parks or facilities should also consider:
 Including “Roseville” for regional or city-wide parks and facilities  Avoiding duplication of names in order to ease confusion of sites and locations for the general public The Subcommittee reserves the right to consider exceptions due to extraordinary circumstances, which inspire vision and civic engagement. Exceptions can be made when the actions or contributions of an individual not normally meeting the established criteria are so significant and profound that this person deserves consideration.

It is noted that the City of Roseville is grateful for the sacrifices of our fallen soldiers and veterans who served our country. With limited parks and facilities available, it is difficult to place a higher value or honor of one life over another. Therefore, honoring our fallen soldiers and veterans shall be directed to existing veteran-related programs within the City.

Re-naming of an existing park or facility, due to costs, potential loss of neighborhood identity and other considerations, shall be discouraged. The City Council reserves the right to add to the name of an existing park not named after a person or family, due to special circumstances. In such cases, the original park name shall not be replaced. Under these special circumstances, community contributions towards the offset of costs incurred to change signage shall be considered in the approval process.

Name Selection Process

1. The Subcommittee shall review all names and recommend up to three names for each new park or facility to the Parks & Recreation Commission.

2. The recommended names, along with the full list of submissions (including the “active” names from the previous year), shall be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission for consideration at a formal meeting. The Parks and Recreation Commission shall recommend up to three names for each new park or facility to the City Council.

3. The recommended names, along with the full list of submissions (including the “active” names from the previous year), shall be reviewed by the City Council for approval at a formal meeting.

4. Family members of any potential namesakes shall be contacted by PRL staff prior to final approval by City Council, to ensure their support of the recommendation.

5. The Annual Park Naming Process shall conclude upon City Council’s final approval of the park or facility name.

Suggested Name For a Park or Facility Within a Park
Suggested Name ____________________________________________________________ (Print or type the suggested name exactly how you would like it to read) Park Preference: Any park site ______________________________ (Specify park) If a name of an individual or family, number of years residing in Roseville _______ Reason for Suggestion (Must be completed for consideration. If suggesting the name of a person, please include their number of years as a Roseville resident, their year of death, and explain the individual’s substantial contributions to the quality of life in Roseville through volunteer service.):
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Attach a second sheet if necessary. Attachment included Name _____________________________________________________________________ (of individual submitting request)
Address ___________________________________________________________________ Phone Number/Email Address___________________________________________________ Please submit this form to the City Clerk’s office for name consideration. All names must be in accordance with the established City criteria. Submit one name per form.

FOR CITY USE ONLY:

For FY ____________ Has this name been submitted before? Yes No If yes, when? ____________________
Subcommittee Review Comments:
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

Summary of Park Naming Submittals for 2021
Active from 2020 2021 Submissions
Daniel P. Mulligan Sr. John Byouk Park
Doug Allen Community Park Kay Sakamoto Memorial Park
Wendy Gerig Park Wendy A. Gerig Park
Audrey Huisking Park Michael Ziegler Park
Griders Park Dave Martinez Park
Pallina Park Bob (Coach) Seawell Park
Scott Alvord Dr. Kelvin Lee
George Floyd Inspiration Park Dr. Tim Herman Park
Garland Pocket Park Harry Potter Park
Edna Esparza Mount Evans Playfield
Jason K. Gallelli Memorial Park Zumi Park
Boulder Creek Park Sebastian Creek Park
Ramona Square
Sierra Viewpoint Park
Cokeva Fields Park
Kat Maudru Park
Super Happy Funtime Neighborhood Park
Jasmine Park
Phil Ozenick Memorial Park
Lois Donovan
F.C. "Rocky" Rockholm Park
Harold T. "Bizz" Johnson Park
Fire Truck Park
Edward P. Gibson
Lakshminarasimhan
Historic Sierra Vista Park

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 1877
File #: 0215
Title: Development Impact Fee Reports for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021 Contact: Jeannine Thrash 916-774-5473 [email protected] Dennis Kauffman 916-774-5313 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 1/19/2022
Item #: 9.3.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends City Council accept the Development Impact Fee Reports prepared for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021.

BACKGROUND
In California, state legislation sets certain legal and procedural parameters for the charging of development impact fees ("DIF's"). This legislation was passed as Assembly Bill (AB) 1600 by the State Legislature and is now codified as California Government Code Sections (GC §) 66000 through 66008 ("Mitigation Fee Act"). GC § 66006(b) states the following requirements as pertains to the DIFs:

For each separate account or fund established, the local agency shall, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, make available to the public the following information for the fiscal year:

1. A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund.

2. The amount of the fee.

3. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund.

4. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned.

5. An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended.

6. An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and the public improvement remains incomplete.

7. A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan.

8. The amount of refunds made (as pursuant to GC § 66001(e)) due to sufficient funds being collected to complete financing on incomplete public improvements, and the amount of reallocation of funds made (as pursuant to GC § 66001(f)) due to administrative costs of refunding unexpended revenues exceeding the amount to be refunded.

The attached Development Impact Fee Reports are for informational purposes. They are also posted on the City's website.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the City's General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The Development Impact Fee Reports meet the above criteria and are not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world Respectfully Submitted,
Jeannine Thrash, Management Analyst
Dennis Kauffman, Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer _____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
City Development Impact Fee Report
JPA Development Impact Fee Report
Annual Development Impact Fee Report
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
Rancho Cordova
1 | P a g e
Table of Contents
Reporting Requirements for Development Impact Fees ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2 Description of Development Impact Fees……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3 Fund Balance and Project Descriptions
Drainage Fees…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7 Public Facilities……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8 Local Sewer Connections Fees………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10 Water Connection Fees…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11 Traffic Mitigation Fees………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….14 Downtown Specific Plan In-Lieu Parking Fee…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………15 Parks Fees…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16 Electric Backbone Impact Fee……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….21 Solid Waste Impact Fee………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..22 Development Agreements Imposed Since 2004……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………23 Attachment 1……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….30 Rancho Cordova
2 | P a g e
Reporting Requirements for Development Impact Fees
In California, State legislation sets certain legal and procedural parameters for the charging of development impact fees (“DIFs”). This legislation was passed as AB1600 by the California Legislature and is now codified as California Government Code Sections (GC §) 66000 through 66008 (“Mitigation Fee Act”). This State law went into effect on January 1, 1989.

GC § 66006(b) states the following requirements as pertains to DIFs:

For each separate account or fund established, the local agency shall, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, make available to the public the following information for the fiscal year:
(A) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund. (B) The amount of the fee.
(C) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund. (D) The amount of the fees collected and interest earned. (E) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of expenditures on each improvement including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees. (F) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and the public improvement remains incomplete.
(G) A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan.
(H) The amount of refunds made (as pursuant to GC § 66001(e)) due to sufficient funds being collected to complete financing on incomplete public improvements, and the amount of reallocation of funds made (as pursuant to GC § 66001(f)) due to administrative costs of refunding unexpended revenues exceeding the amount to be refunded.

GC § 65865(e) also requires that in any development agreement entered into on or after January 1, 2004, the City shall comply with GC § 66006 with respect to any fee it receives or cost it recovers.

Rancho Cordova
3 | P a g e
Description of Development Impact Fees
Drainage Fees
The Drainage Fee is established pursuant to Roseville Municipal Code Chapters 4.48 and 4.49. Drainage fees are required for all new construction that occurs within the Dry Creek Watershed mitigation zone or the Pleasant Grove/Curry Creek Watershed mitigation zones. These mitigation zones are further broken down into sub-zones or sub-areas for which fees vary.

New development, and the expansion of existing development, within the City imposes a burden on the creeks and drainage infrastructure within the Dry Creek watershed and the Pleasant Grove and Curry Creek watershed by adding additional impervious surface, thereby adding more runoff, and by changing discharge rates. Some of the worst burdens imposed by development are on properties located within the Dry Creek watershed and Pleasant Grove and Curry Creek watershed downstream from the City, where additional run-off poses a threat of severe flooding and is a danger to life and property.

The drainage fees have been calculated so as to pay for those facilities listed in the capital improvement program. The fee is to be collected for public improvements and facilities for which an account has been established and funds appropriated, and for which a proposed construction schedule has been adopted.

Public Facilities Fee
The Public Facilities Fee is established pursuant to Roseville Municipal Code Chapter 4.52. New development and the expansion of existing development within the City imposes burdens on existing public facilities and creates a need for additional public facilities. Such burdens may vary by the type of land use. The Public Facilities Fee is applied to new development and expansion of existing development to ensure adequate levels of public services and facilities are maintained. This fee spreads the costs of public facilities to development which creates the need for such public facilities, without generating any surplus to the general fund.

Sewer Connection Fees
Sewer connection fees are established pursuant to Roseville Municipal Code Chapter 14.16. Additional fees may be applicable to properties within sewer special benefit assessment areas.
• Local Sewer Connection Fee - The local sewer connection fee is charged for each sewer unit required within the Roseville City limits connected to the City-owned public sewer.

Water Connection Fee
Water connection fees are established pursuant to Roseville Municipal Code Chapter 14.08 and are applicable to all new water service connections within the City limits. This fee ensures the sharing of the costs associated with maintenance and expansion of the City’s raw water supply, water treatment, storage, and distribution facilities by those who receive the benefits thereof.

Rancho Cordova
4 | P a g e
Traffic Mitigation Fees
In 1988 the City of Roseville adopted a city-wide Traffic Mitigation Fee Program, requiring new development within the City to pay traffic impact fees. The fees collected through this program, in addition to other funding sources, allows the City to construct transportation improvements identified in its Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The fee program assesses fair-share costs to each jurisdiction based on their impact on the individual roadways from new development.

City / County Traffic Mitigation Fee - The City of Roseville and Placer County entered into a joint fee program for the purpose of funding improvements on Baseline Road and Walerga Road. The fee program assesses fair-share costs to other jurisdictions based on their impact on the individual improvements from new development. The fees associated with this fee program were originally collected by Roseville and Placer County. Fees collected by Roseville were remitted to Placer County quarterly to be held in one account. Effective July 2013, Fiddyment Road was removed from the program and individual agencies became responsible for holding the fees they collect in two separate accounts, one with Roseville and one with Placer County.

Downtown Specific Plan In-Lieu Parking Fee
This fee is established pursuant to Roseville Municipal Code Chapter 19.31. Within the designated Commercial Mixed Use, Old Town and Central Business districts, a parking requirement serving nonresidential uses and residential uses, where a minimum of one space per unit is provided onsite for the residential units, may be met by a cash in-lieu payment to the City prior to issuance of a building permit, or a certificate of occupancy if no building permit is required. The fee is dedicated for use to offset the cost of public off-street parking within the Downtown Specific Plan area in the form of garages or public parking lots.

Park Fees- (Although Park fees were adopted pre- AB1600, they are still being included in this report.) Park fees are authorized pursuant to Roseville Municipal Code Chapters 4.37 and 4.38. There are two different types of park fees applicable to all residential projects. The City-wide Park Fee funds park and recreation facilities intended to serve the entire community, and the Neighborhood and Community Park Fees fund park and recreation facilities intended to serve neighborhood areas. Park fees may vary based on fees and credits that a parcel may be subject to. City-wide Park Credits are granted to all parcels within specific plan areas that have entered into a Development Agreement with the City. Certain parcels may be subject to additional City-wide credits. These additional credits are typically granted for park property dedication above City standards, or other park obligations that were paid for by the original land developers.

Electric Backbone Impact Fee
The Electric Backbone Impact Fee applies to all new customers served by the City's Electric Department and any customer requesting a special service or capacity increase. Fees are based upon a per lot/unit charge and collected upon issuance of the building permit fees. Fees are authorized pursuant to Roseville Municipal Code Chapter 4.54.

Rancho Cordova
5 | P a g e
Solid Waste Impact Fee
The Solid Waste Impact Fee applies to all new single-family and duplex units. This fee is paid to the Solid Waste Division of the Environmental Utilities Department to set-up solid waste service. Typically, this fee is paid by the developer during the time of construction so that service will be available upon move-in by the homeowner. Fees are authorized pursuant to Roseville Municipal Code Chapter 9.12.

Development Agreement Fees Imposed Since 2004 (GC §65865(e)) • Sierra Vista Specific Plan Mitigation Fee Program –
o City Park Land Fee – This fee provides funding for the SVSP land that is intended to be dedicated for a City park. This fee component does not cover neighborhood parks.
o Improvements Fee- This fee is to provide funding for Sierra Vista landowners to be reimbursed for the design and completion of the SVSP improvements and to provide funding for open space and right-of-way dedications (e.g., school, fire station). o Administration - Establishment of the fee is for the purpose of equitably sharing the costs and burdens of administration of the SVSP Fee program throughout the specific plan with each landowner. • Watt Avenue and Vista Grande Boulevard Extension Traffic Mitigation Fee – This fee provides fair share funding for extensions of Watt Avenue between the Regional University Specific Plan and future Placer Parkway and “Road B” west of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan boundary to Baseline Road. This fee remains in effect until a city-wide funding mechanism is adopted in cooperation with Placer County. • Water Meter Retrofit / Conservation Program – This fee is established pursuant to Roseville Municipal Code Chapter 14.08 for the maintenance and testing of water meters and installation of Encoder Receiver Transmitter (ERT) devices. • Traffic Signal Coordination Fee – This fee provides funding for the West Roseville Traffic Signal Interconnect project. • Bike Trail Fee – This fee funds construction of Class 1 bike trails through new development areas. • City-Wide Park In-Lieu Fee – This fee is paid as an alternative to dedication of City-wide park land, as specified in individual development agreements.
• Fire Tax Equivalent Fee – This fee applies to new growth areas and replaces the Fire Service Facilities Tax that expired in 2009. This fee provides funding for capital fire facilities and related equipment required to serve new growth areas. • Public Benefit Fee (AKA Community Benefit Fee) – This fee applies to new residential growth areas and properties rezoned from non-residential to residential land uses. This fee ensures that new residential growth areas will benefit current and future residents of Roseville through investment in various public infrastructure projects and activities. • Air Quality Mitigation Fee (applies to West Roseville Specific Plan) – This fee provides funding to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District to mitigate impacts to air quality resulting from new residential development.

Rancho Cordova
6 | P a g e
• Transit Shuttle Service Fee (applies to West Roseville Specific Plan) – This fee provides funding for a shuttle service between the West Roseville Specific Plan area and the I80/Watt Avenue light rail station. • Downtown Benefit Fee – Offsets the fiscal impacts associated with the unit increase within the applicable the Specific Plan. • Westpark Drive off-site road fee – Developer’s fee will fund the construction cost of Westpark Drive north of the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant.
• Blue Oaks Boulevard Off-Site Road Fee – Developer’s pro-rata share of the cost obligation dedicated to segments 3 and 4 of the Blue Oaks Boulevard off-site improvements.

Rancho Cordova
7 | P a g e
Fund Balance Summary
Drainage Fee
Pleasant Grove/Curry Creek Watershed Drainage Mitigation Fee Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)*
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
Roseville
Municipal
Code
Chapter 4.48
Ordinance
No. 5933
$10,418,656 1,173,750 144,830 - (19,296)
Pleasant
Grove
Retention
Basin (4,801)
No 100
$11,713,139
Drainage Project Descriptions
Pleasant Grove Retention Basin (Project # 400006) - Costs associated with annexing the Reason Farms and Warnick properties.

Rancho Cordova
8 | P a g e
Public Facilities Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)*
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of
CIP
Funded
by Fee
Roseville
Municipal
Code
Chapter

4.52 Ordinance No.
6290
$7,763,978 6,508,462 130,677 (608,452) (86,296)
WRSP
Community
Center &
Pistachio
Regional Park
(F-56) (6,101)
YesStarted Ph
3 Nov.
2019

2.2 Oak Street
Extension of
the Miners
Ravine Trail (235)
Complete 5
Oak Street
Parking
Garage (1,868)
Complete 30
East Radio
Site
Relocation (1,977)
Unknown
at this
time

14.5 Central Park
Phase III
(670,976)
YesStarted Ph
3 Nov.
2019
30 $13,027,212
*Transfers out: Transfer $166,065 from Fund 3355 (Public Facilities) to Fund 2901 (RFA Debt Service) for 2015 316 Vernon Debt Service.

Loan payment of $33,345 for principal reduction of the loan to pay back the Fleet Replacement Fund (Fund 4005)-Loan purpose: Funding of design & construction for Oak Street Parking Garage. (Interest rate of 2.55% in FY21; matures 6/30/35); Loan payment of $409,041 for principal reduction of the loan to pay back the Strategic Improvement Fund (Fund 1030)-Loan purpose: Funding of the 316 Vernon Building Project # 400055 (Interest rate of 2.05% in FY21; matures 6/30/27).

Rancho Cordova
9 | P a g e
Public Facilities Fee Project Descriptions
WRSP Community Center-Pistachio Regional park (Project#400019) - This project is located in the WRSP Park Site F-56, adjacent to the historic Fiddyment House and joint use high school site. It includes design and construction of the master plan (FY2016-17), construction/document preparation (FY2017-18), and Phase 1 construction (FY2018)
Oak Street Extension of the Miners Ravine Trail (Project# 400028) - Supplemental review, design, and construction of a Class -1 off-street trail parallel to Oak Street from Lincoln Street to Royer Park at the Icehouse Bridge.

Oak Street Parking Garage (Project #400054) - Design and Construction of multi-story, 400-500 space parking garage between Oak Street and Vernon Street’s 200 block. Will initially provide free public parking for the downtown community. Improvements should include pedestrian connections between facility and Oak, Lincoln, and Vernon Streets.

East Radio Site Relocation (Project# 400126) – The project requires acquisition and a 180 foot tower along with a shelter, generator and fuel tank to meet the City’s short and long-term needs.

Central Park Phase III (Project# 500076) – Plans for a citywide park site located on Fairway Drive and Central Park Drive in the Highland Reserve North Specific Plan area. Plans for this park include installation of two softball fields, sports field lighting, basketball courts, a swing area, two tennis courts, tennis court lighting, basketball court and soccer field lighting, a picnic area, landscaping and irrigation, a shade structure, on-street parking, a parking lot, and security lighting. Phases I and II have been completed.

Rancho Cordova
10 | P a g e
Local Sewer Connection Fees
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned/
Other (1)
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of
CIP
Funded
by Fee
Roseville
Municipal
Code
Chapter

14.16 Ordinance No.
6100
$6,587,421 796,229 300,852 - -

$7,684,502 n/a n/a
(1) FY20 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) costs of $296,422 presented in the FY20 report have been moved to the Local Rehabilitation Fund. The ‘add back’ for these costs is included in the amount in “Interest Earned/Other”.

Rancho Cordova
11 | P a g e
Water Connection Fees
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)*
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
Roseville
Municipal
Code
Chapter

14.08 Ordinance No.
6100
$57,896,580 $16,651,654 964,500 711,120 (4,165,556)
Groundwater
management
plan (30,000)
YesStarted
2005
28 West side
tank/pump
Stn Proj (13,985,198)
YesStarted
2006
100
Enterprise
Asset Mngmt. (19)
YesStarted
2008
18 Regional
Water
Reliability
Study (22,500)
YesStarted
2015
5 Advanced
Metering
Infrastr. Proj (373,476)
YesStarted
2016
26 Integrated
resources
plan (142,338)
YesStarted
2018
26 Cooperative
Potable
Water Trans.

Infrastr. (851)
YesStarted in
2021
Unknown
at this
time
Rancho Cordova
12 | P a g e
Water Connection Fees, Continued
Aquifer
Storage and
Recovery
Well-Design (179,340)
YesStarted in
2019
100
Aquifer
Storage
RecoveryMonitoring
Wells (923,026)
YesStarted in
2019
100
Aquifer
Storage and
Recovery
Wells 9
Westbrook
and 18
Solaire (304,333)
YesStarted in
2019
100
$56,097,217
*Transfers in: $58,350 from the Water Fund for Folsom Pump Station; $267,770 for loan payment from Water Rehab Fund-Loan purpose: Water Tank Rehabilitation (Fixed rate of 2.42%; Loan matures 6/30/2023); $385,000 for loan payment from Water Operations Fund-Loan purpose: Advanced Metering Project (Interest rate 5.00% (FY18-FY29); Loan matures 6/30/30).

Rancho Cordova
13 | P a g e
Water Connection Fees Project Descriptions
Groundwater management plan (Project# 400012) - Implement and maintain an SB 1938 compliant Groundwater Management Plan required to maintain future California state grant funding eligibility and implement elements of the Groundwater Management Plan with other agencies.

West side tank/pump Stn Proj (Project# 400014) - Design and construct a six million gallon water storage tank, pump station, and chemical addition facility at the City's 5.1 acre site located in the West Roseville Specific Plan. The work will include site master planning to accommodate two six million gallon tanks and satellite facility for Water Distribution operations.

Enterprise Asset Management (Project# 400016) – The EAM Program will provide implementation of an information system to manage the organization’s asset inventory and related maintenance activities, consolidation of the multiple existing asset management systems and standardization and optimization of assetrelated business process across the City.

Regional Water Reliability Study (Project# 400063) - The project funds the study conducted by the Regional Water Authority for regional water supply reliability, and it is inclusive of the development of a federally-recognized regional water bank.

Advanced Metering Infrastructure Project (Project# 400099) - An Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) system is required to offer better meter data to customers. AMI would introduce two-way communication for meters allowing remote reads and greater interaction between the utility and its customers. An AMI system also provides customers a detailed view of their water usage, enabling them to make changes to increase their water efficiency. Finally, an AMI system provides better system reliability by bringing enhanced demand management and capital efficiencies. This project progresses from a business case through a third-party implementation and finishes with the installed and operating AMI system.

Integrated Resources Plan (Project#500018) - The goal of this planning is to develop a cohesive and implementable Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for providing reliable and low-cost utility services to City’s residents and businesses. The project also includes the development of a recommended water supply and resources portfolio to 2050.

Cooperative Potable Water Transmission Infrastructure (Project# 500147) - This project provides funding for planning, design, and construction of additional potable water conveyance infrastructure to support reliable water supply delivery to the City of Roseville customers. The project is anticipated to be a joint partnership effort between the City and the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA).

Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well –Design (Project# 500155) -This project designs and constructs a potable water well with aquifer storage and recovery facilities based on recommendations from the Groundwater Strategic Plan.

Aquifer Storage Recovery- Monitoring Wells (Project# 500156) - This project provides funding to construct groundwater monitoring wells based on recommendations from the Groundwater Strategic Plan.

Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells 9 Westbrook and 18 Solaire (Project# 500157) -This project provides funding for the construction of potable water wells with aquifer storage and recovery facilities based on recommendations from the Groundwater Strategic Plan.

Rancho Cordova
14 | P a g e
City/ County Traffic Mitigation Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
Roseville
Municipal
Code
Chapter 4.45
Misc.

Road
Improv.

Ordinance
No. 5203
$5,614,538

2,200,339

89,618

(27,194) - $7,877,301 No
Unknown
at this
time
Rancho Cordova
15 | P a g e
Downtown Specific Plan In-Lieu Parking Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
Roseville
Municipal Code
Chapter 19.31
Misc.

Downtown
Parking
Improv.

Resolution No.
09-124;
Ordinance No.
5428 $77,050 - 1,067 -

- $78,117 No
Unknown
at this
time
Rancho Cordova
16 | P a g e
Park Fees – (Although Park fees were adopted pre- AB1600, they are still being included in this report.) Neighborhood and Community Park Fees
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee Formula Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)(1)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)*
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of
CIP
Funded
by Fee
Roseville
Municipal
Code Chapter

4.37 Ordinance
Nos.
2178, 2969,
and 3033

$21,841,001 6,792,857 300,576 - (3,623)
Harry Crabb Park
(6,120)
Yes-Started
Phase 2
July 2019

1.28 Saugstad Park
Renovations (7,621)
No 66.67
West Roseville
Specific Plan
Parcel W-81 Bike
Trail Phase 1 (104,356)
Complete 100
Richard &
Pauline Roccucci
Park (W-51) (242)
YesStarted
May 2019
100
RG Phillips Park
(F-52) (2,466)
Yes-Started
June 2019 100
John L. Sullivan
Park (WB-51) (736,995) No 100
Fiddyment Ranch
Open Space
Parcel F84 Trail (224,460)
No 100
F-51 School Park (25,275) No 100
W-50C
Neighborhood
Park (103,306)
YesStarted
Aug. 2021
100
Rancho Cordova
17 | P a g e
Neighborhood and Community Park Fees, Continued
JM-50 School
Park (18,678) No 100
W-50D
Neighborhood
Park (408)
No 100
WB-50 School
Park (23,085) No 100
Westpark Phase
4 Village W-18D
Bike Trail (242,994)
Complete 100
$27,432,805
1) Includes Neighborhood Park Fees, Bike Trail Fees and Paseo Fees.

Neighborhood and Community Park Fees Project Descriptions Harry Crabb Park (Project# 400007) - Current phase is for the planning and construction of park amenities, which includes two baseball fields, a soccer field, a splash pad water feature, a group picnic area, a basketball court, two tennis courts, two pickle ball courts, two bocce ball courts, a restroom and expansion of an off-street parking lot.

Saugstad Park Renovations (Project# 400122) - The project funds the design and new improvements of the park.

West Roseville Specific Plan Parcel W-81 Bike Trail Phase 1- Construct approximately 1-mile long Class I trail per Specific Plan and Development Agreement.

Richard & Pauline Roccucci Park (Project#400155) - Design and construct 12 acre neighborhood park in West Roseville.

RG Phillips Park (F-52) (Project# 400156) - Design and construct 8.9 acre neighborhood park in West Roseville.

John L. Sullivan Park (WB-51) (Project# 500008) - Design and construction of the neighborhood park.

Fiddyment Ranch Open Space Parcel F84 Trail (Project# 500025) - Through a reimbursement agreement with the developer, design and construct a 1/3-mile long extension of the Pleasant Grove Creek Trail within WRSP Parcel F-84 and between Fiddyment Road and Blue Oaks Boulevard to a connection with Regional Park Parcel F-54. This project is funded solely through the WRSP Bike Trail Fee Program and will not require General Funds.

F-51 School Park (Project# 500040) - This project provides funding for the construction of an 11.8 acre school site park. The project is currently in the public outreach phase, and amenities have not been determined. However, those being considered include baseball and softball fields, restrooms, a covered children’s play area, and a large group picnic area.

W-50C Neighborhood Park (Project# 500042) - This project funds the design and construction of a 1.5-acre neighborhood park at Garland at Rancho Cordova
18 | P a g e
Telluride. Amenities include a shaded picnic area, a children's play area, a half-court for basketball, bocce ball courts, a tricycle track, and walkways.

JM-50 School Park (Project# 500100) - This project provides funding for the construction of a 7.73-acre school park site. The project is currently in the public outreach phase, and amenities have not been determined. However, those being considered include baseball and soccer fields, restrooms, a children's play area, and a large group picnic area.

W-50D Neighborhood Park (Project# 500101) - This project provides funding for the construction of a 1.2-acre neighborhood park site located in West Roseville, phase 4 of Garland at Campanella. The project is currently in the public outreach phase, and amenities have not been determined. However, those being considered include a children's play area and a picnic area.

WB-50 School Park (Project# 500102) - This project provides funding for the design and construction of a 9.6-acre school park in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan area. The park amenities are being determined in FY2020-21, during the design phase of the project. The construction is anticipated to begin in FY2021-22 at an estimated total cost of$1.7 million.

Westpark Phase 4 Village W-18D Bike Trail (Project# 500170) - Construct approximately 1/2-mile long Class I trail per Specific Plan and Development Agreement.

Rancho Cordova
19 | P a g e
City-wide Park Fee - (Although Park fees were adopted pre-AB1600, they are still being included in this report.) Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees Collected
(Refunded)(1)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)*
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
Roseville
Municipal
Code
Chapter

4.38 Ordinance No.
2424
$12,791,149 3,000,544 179,579 213,598 (156,827)
Park Site 56
Gibson Park (32,406) No 100
Harry Crab
Park
(461,531)
YesStarted Ph
2 July 2019
31%
WRSP
Community
Center &
Pistachio
Regional Park (273,042)
YesStarted Ph
1 July 2019

97.81 Sports Park
Complex (16,620)
No 12
Denio Family
Park (Parcel
F-54) (49,235)
No 100
Central Park
Phase III
(2,355,382)
YesStarted Ph
3 Nov.
2019
70 $12,884,061
(1)Includes Park Construction Fees and In-Lieu Fees.
*Transfer in for capital: $619,335
Transfer out: $361,503 for loan principal payment to Fleet Replacement Fund 4005-Loan Purpose: The purpose of this loan is to provide funding for the Harry Crabb Park project. The Citywide Park Fund will repay the loan from moneys it receives from the Roseville Finance Authority (RFA) 2017A savings (Interest rate FY21: 2.05%); Loan matures 6/30/26.

Rancho Cordova
20 | P a g e
City-wide Park Fee Project Descriptions
Park Site 56 Gibson Park (Project# 400004) - Develop Phase I construction documents.

Harry Crabb Park (Project# 400007) - Current phase is for the planning and construction of park amenities, which includes two baseball fields, a soccer field, a splash pad water feature, a group picnic area, a basketball court, two tennis courts, two pickle ball courts, two bocce ball courts, a restroom and expansion of an off-street parking lot.

WRSP Community Center & Pistachio Regional Park (F-56) (Project# 400019) - Design and construct phase I of this Citywide park. Phase I consists of 2 softball fields, 1 baseball field, parking lot and potentially a restroom.

Sports Park Complex (Project# 400068) - Sports complex at Blue Oaks Blvd/Phillip Road/Hayden Parkway. Current phase is for the planning of amenities, which may include multiple lighted synthetic long fields, restrooms, storage facilities, children's playground area(s), shaded picnic area(s), and pedestrian pathway through landscaped area. Scope is dependent on funding availability.

Denio Family Park (Parcel F-54) (Project# 400118) – Design and construction of park.

Central Park-Phase III (Project# 500076) - Improvements to Central Park.

Rancho Cordova
21 | P a g e
Electric Backbone Impact Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures1
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
Roseville
Municipal
Code
Chapter

4.54 Sierra Vista
Substation
Ordinance No.
6097 $3,366,683 2,065,753 45,969 - 1,840,145 $7,318,551 YesStarted
Nov. 2016
75%
(1)
Project costs of $1,840,145 is net of FY2021 project costs of $(28,053) and an adjustment of $1,860,198 for overstated reporting in FY2019 and FY2020.

Sierra Vista Substation (Project# 400114) - Construct a new substation with an initial capacity of 46 MVA to supply power to new development in the Sierra Vista and Westbrook specific plans.

Rancho Cordova
22 | P a g e
Solid Waste Impact Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded by
Fee
Roseville
Municipal
Code Chapter

9.12 Solid
Waste
Services
Set Up
Ordinance No.
4380
$4,686,400 892,272 67,795 - (525,034)

$ 5,121,433
No
Unknown
at this time
Rancho Cordova
23 | P a g e
DA Fees Imposed Since 2004
Sierra Vista Specific Plan Fee Program-Admin
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting Balance Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
Sierra Vista
Specific Plan
Ord. No.
4932 $136,535 232,728 2,707 - (90,861) $281,109 - -
Sierra Vista Specific Plan Fee Program-Improvements
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting Balance Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
Sierra Vista
Specific Plan
Ord. No.
4932 $- 6,470,227 - - (6,470,227) $0 - -
Sierra Vista Specific Plan Fee Program- Park Land
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting Balance Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
Sierra Vista
Specific Plan
Ord. No.
4932 $3,085 1,009,966 1,524 - (1,009,966) $4,609 - -
Watt Avenue and Vista Grande Boulevard Extension Traffic Mitigation Fee Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting Balance Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded by
Fee
Creekview
and Sierra
Vista DA
Per DA - - - - - - - -
Note: The fee will be based on a fair share allocation. No fee will be established until there is a need to extend the road past city limits.

Rancho Cordova
24 | P a g e
DA Fees Imposed Since 2004, Continued
Water Meter Retrofit/ Conservation Program
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting Balance Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded by
Fee
Roseville
Municipal
Code
Chapter

14.07 Maint.
and
Testing of
Water
Meters
and ERT
Installs
Ord. No.
4001
$ 1,288,713 113,885 18,376 - (256)

$1,420,718 No
Unknown
at this time
Please refer to the Development Agreements on the City of Roseville’s website: Development Agreements Traffic Signal Coordination Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
West
Roseville
Specific Plan
West
Roseville
Traffic
Signal
Interconn.

Per
individual
DA
$2,635,297 65,333 36,658

- (20,816) $2,716,472
No
Unknown
at this
time
Bike Trail Fee- Creekview
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees Collected
(Refunded)(1)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)*
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
Creekview
Specific Plan
Bike Trails Per
individual
DA $ - 195,519 599 - (100,373) $196,118
No
Unknown
at this
time
New fee established for Creekview Specific Plan bike trail maintenance.

Rancho Cordova
25 | P a g e
DA Fees Imposed Since 2004, Continued
Bike Trail Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees Collected
(Refunded)(1)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)*
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
West
Roseville
Specific Plan
Misc.

Class 1
Bike Trails
Per
individual
DA $372,499 - 4,837 128,005 (100,373) $404,968
No
Unknown
at this
time
(1)$1,011,716 in bike trail fees were collected through various Park Development Funds which are included with the Neighborhood and Community Park Fees.

This is reporting the Bike Trail Maintenance Fund 3380. *Transfers in: $128,005 from various Community Facilities Districts for bike trail maintenance.

City-Wide Park In-Lieu Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
Sierra Vista
Specific Plan
Misc. Park
Projects
per DA
Per
individual
DA $23,132 - 320 - - $23,452
No
Unknown
at this
time
Please refer to the Development Agreements on the City of Roseville’s website: Development Agreements Fire Tax Equivalent Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee (1)
Project
Fee Formula Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
Municipal
Code
Chapter

4.46 Per individual
DA’s after Dec.
2009
$4,047,828 2,494,620 65,278 - (15,776)
Fire
Station 8 (4,561)
No 48.5%
$6,587,389
(1)Roseville Municipal code 4.46 had a sunset date of December 31, 2009. Individual DA's reference a fee 'equivalent to' this original fire service construction tax fee. *Please refer to the Development Agreements on the City of Roseville’s website: Development Agreements Rancho Cordova
26 | P a g e
Fire Tax Equivalent Fee Project Description
Fire Station 8 (Project# 500067) - This project includes the design and construction of a Fire Station to service citizens and businesses in the Woodcreek/Blue Oaks general area. The project budget for FY2019-20 only provides funding for the initial facility assessment and design. The evaluation of funding options for the construction of the facility will occur once these initial project phases are complete.

Rancho Cordova
27 | P a g e
DA Fees Imposed Since 2004, continued
Public/Community Benefit Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project
Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)*
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded
by Fee
All DA’s
since 2004
Per
individual
DA

$10,515,077 2,972,537 222,956 (1,239,083) (578,572)
East Radio Site
Relocation (5,533)
No
Unknown
at this
time
Westpark
Drive
Extension 693,819
Complete 23%
$12,581,201
*Transfers in; $405,634 ($205,868 was a catch up payment for FY19 and FY20) for loan payments received from the General Fund-Loan purpose: To cover costs related to the preparation of the Citywide Qualified Climate Action Plan, General Plan Update. The loan will be paid back by General Plan Update Fees collected and fees received in excess of the principal payment due will be made as a prepayment. (Interest rate: 2.05% in FY21; matures 6/30/29). $409,041 for loan payment received from Public Facilities Fund- Loan purpose: Funding of the 316 Vernon Building Project # 400055 (Interest rate of 2.05% in FY21; matures 6/30/27).

Transfers out; $2,053,758 for operating expenses.

Please refer to the Development Agreements on the City of Roseville’s website: Development Agreements Public/Community Benefit Fee Project Description
East Radio Site Relocation (Project# 400126) - The City's current east radio site has many limitations including emergency power, coverage, capacity and a risky building lease status. These limitations increase the level of risk to provide clear and reliable communications in East Roseville. This CIP is designed to relocate the site to a location that will provide for sustainable high levels of communication services.

Westpark Drive Extension (Project# 500071) - This project provides funding for the construction of Westpark Drive extension up to Blue Oaks Boulevard via reimbursement agreements with developers.

Rancho Cordova
28 | P a g e
DA Fees Imposed Since 2004, continued
Air Quality Mitigation Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded by
Fee
West
Roseville
Specific
Plan
Mitigating
Impacts
to Air
Quality
Per DA $149,358 185,804 2,830 - (77,438) $260,554 No Unknown at this time
Transit Shuttle Service Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded by
Fee
West
Roseville
Specific
Plan
Shuttle
Service
between
WRSP and
I80/Watt
Ave Light
Rail Station
Per DA $312,780 52,988 573 - - $366,341 No Unknown
at this time
Please refer to the Development Agreements on the City of Roseville’s website: Development Agreements Downtown Benefit Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded by
Fee
5th Amend.

DA relative
to West
Roseville
Specific
Plan
Per DA $221,356 1,470,000 9,424 - - $1,700,780 No Unknown at this time
Rancho Cordova
29 | P a g e
DA Fees Imposed Since 2004, continued
Blue Oaks Boulevard Off-Site Road Fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded by
Fee
West
Roseville
Specific
Plan
Blue Oaks
Blvd.

Project
Per DA $371,309 422,474 7,120 - - $ 800,903 No Unknown
at this time
Westpark Drive off-site road fee
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of CIP
Funded by
Fee
West
Roseville
Specific
Plan
Per DA $420,530 116,850 4,612 -
Westpark
Drive
Extension
(516,623) Complete 26%
$25,369
Please refer to the Development Agreements on the City of Roseville’s website: Development Agreements Westpark Drive Extension (Project# 500071) - This project provides funding for the construction of Westpark Drive extension up to Blue Oaks Boulevard via reimbursement agreements with developers.
30| P a g e
Attachment 1:

Fee Ordinances, Resolutions and
Development Agreements
Drainage Fees:

Pleasant Grove/Curry Creek Watershed Drainage Mitigation Fee Ordinance No. 5933
Dry Creek Watershed Drainage Mitigation Fee
Ordinance No. 2617
- . ..)
ORDINANCE NO. 5933

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AMENDING SECTIONS

4.48.020, 4.48.050, 4.48.070 AND 4.48.140 OF CHAPTER 4.48 OF TITLE 4 OF THE

ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PLEASANT GROVE/CURRY CREEK

WATERSHED DRAINAGE MITIGATION FEE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. Section 4.48.020 of Chapter 4.48 of Title 4 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.48.020 Def"mitions.

The following words are defined for purposes of this chapter as follows:

A. "Building permit" means the permit issued or required by the city for construction of any structure pursuant to and as defined by the building code.

B. "Capital improvement program" means that list of proposed drainage facilities, improvements, or infrastructure totaling $23,576,744.69 (in 2017 dollars) included in the study.

C. "Department" means the department of development services.

D. "Director'' means the director of the department.

E. "Facilities" means those public drainage facilities or infrastructure shown and included on the capital improvement program.

F. "Fee" or "drainage mitigation fee" means the fee established by this chapter. The fee shall be collected prior to the approval of any building permit. The fee shall be used solely to finance the facilities.

G. "Improvement plan" means a site plan of property proposed for development showing all required improvements that must be approved by the city prior to the issuance of a building permit for the property.

H. "Study'' means the reports entitled "Pleasant Grove/Curry Creek Watershed Mitigation Fee Report Amended Hydrology Project Report for Fee Revisions" dated May 2017 by Civil Engineering Solutions, Inc. The study is on file in the offices of the director and the city clerk.

I. "Drainage mitigation fund" means that special interest-bearing fund established pursuant to Section 4.49.030.

SECTION 2. Section 4.48.050 of Chapter 4.48 of Title 4 of the Roseville Municipal Code is here amended to read as follows:
1 Public Facilities Fee
Ordinance No. 6290
ORDINANCE NO. 6290

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AMENDING SECTIONS

4.52.050, 4.52.060, 4.52.070, 4.52.080 and 4.52.090, OF CHAPTER 4.52 OF TITLE 4 OF THE

ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PUBLIC FACILITIES FEES THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. Section 4.52.050 of Chapter 4.52 of Title 4 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.52.050 Public facilities fee—Residential.

Effective January 4, 2021, the fee for residential development shall be:

Low density residential (LDR) shall be $3,528.00 per dwelling unit; Medium density residential (MDR) shall be $3,266.00 per dwelling unit; Single-family age-restricted shall be $2,352.00 per dwelling unit.

SECTION 2. Section 4.52.060 of Chapter 4.52 of Title 4 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.52.060 Public facilities fee—Commercial and unspecified development.

Effective January 4, 2021, the fee for commercial or unspecified development shall be $0.66 per square foot of structure.

SECTION 3. Section 4.52.070 of Chapter 4.52 of Title 4 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.52.070 Public facilities fee—Industrial.

Effective January 4, 2021, the fee for light industrial development shall be $0.44 per square foot of structure and for general industrial the fee shall be $0.27 per square foot of structure.

SECTION 4. Section 4.52.080 of Chapter 4.52 of Title 4 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.52.080 Public facilities fee—Business/professional.

Effective January 4, 2021, the fee for business/professional and central business district development shall be $0.89 per square foot of structure.

SECTION 5. Section 4.52.090 of Chapter 4.52 of Title 4 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

4.52.090 Public facilities fee—Multifamily-HDR and HDR-age restricted.

Effective January 4, 2021, the fee for multifamily development shall be $2,352.00 per dwelling unit. Effective January 4, 2021, the fee for multifamily age restricted development shall be $1,959.00 per dwelling unit.

SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of adoption.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause this ordinance to be published in full at least once within fourteen (14) days after it is adopted in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, or shall within fourteen (14) days after its adoption cause this ordinance to be posted in full in at least three (3) public places in the City and enter in the Ordinance Book a certificate stating the time and place of said publication by posting.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this 4th day of November, 2020, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS: Bernasconi, Alvord, Roccucci, Houdesheldt, Allard NOES COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS: None
MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
2 Local Sewer Connection Fees
Water Connection Fees
Ordinance No. 6100
ORDINANCE NO. 6100

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AMENDING SECTION

9.12.100 OF CHAPTER 9.12 OF TITLE 9, AMENDING SECTIONS 14.08.025, 14.08.090,

14.08.091, AND 14.08.100 OF CHAPTER 14.08 OF TITLE 14, DELETING SECTION

14.08.091 OF CHAPTER 14.08 OF TITLE 14, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 14.16.060,

14.16.080, 14.16.200 AND 14.16.201 OF CHAPTER 4.16 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ROSEVILLE

MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING GARBAGE, WATER AND WASTEWATER RA TES

AND SERVICES
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. Section 9 .12.100 of Chapter 9 .12 of Title 9 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

9.12.100 Charges for collection.

A. Residential.

1. Each and every householder or tenant occupying any dwelling, house, or residence, shall pay to the city, or its authorized agent, a fixed minimum charge as set forth in this section as a refuse fee. Such fixed minimum is based upon service of one call per week, irrespective of whether there is any refuse to remove from any premises.

2. Ninety-Gallon Automated Container Service. For each premises assigned cityowned 90-gallon containers (one for household garbage and one for yard clippings and green waste) and serviced by automated collection, all garbage, and green waste for collection must be contained within the 90-gallon container(s) with the lid closed and must fall freely from container when dumped. Each such premises shall be provided weekly collection for trash; green waste will be collected every other week.

3. Refuse service may be discontinued upon request for a period of no less than two months when a dwelling, house, or residence will be unoccupied. The minimum time of discontinuing service will be two months. A service charge equal to two months' refuse charge will be charged to the utility user for the removal and redelivery of the assigned automated container when service has been temporarily discontinued. This service charge will be paid at the time service is discontinued. Upon occupancy of a dwelling, house or residence, the utility user must contact the city to restart service and will be charged an associated restart fee. If the occupant of a dwelling, house, or residence does not contact the city to restart service, the city may bill back to the discontinuance of service all monthly charges.

4. For collection of additional containers beyond those covered by the fixed minimum charges established in this chapter, the collection charge shall be that identified in this section.

5. An additional or special pickup may be requested beyond the minimum service required by this chapter. Each such additional or special pickup shall be subject to a fixed fee. 1 City/County Traffic Mitigation Fee
Ordinance No. 5203

Downtown Specific Plan In-Lieu Parking Fee
Resolution No. 09-124
Ordinance No. 5428
Downtown Code 3.0-Regulatory Incentives

Park Fees:

Neighborhood and Community Park Fees
Ordinances No. 2178, 2969 and 3033
Citywide Park Fee
Ordinance No. 2424

Electric Backbone Impact
Fee Ordinance No. 6097

Solid Waste Impact Fee
Ordinance No. 4380

Development Agreement Fees
Imposed Since 2004
Water Meter Retrofit/Conservation Program
Ordinance No. 4001

Sierra Vista Specific Plan Infrastructure Fee
Ordinance No. 4932

Development Agreements
Please refer to the Development Agreements on the
City of Roseville’s website:
http://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=8774576 Annual Development Impact Fee Report
(JPA and SPWA Funds)
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
City of Rancho Cordova
Table of Contents
Reporting Requirements for Development Impact Fees .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Description of Development Impact Fees...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Fund Balance and Project Descriptions
Sewer Connection Fees.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Traffic Mitigation Fees.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Attachment 1 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 City of Rancho Cordova
1 | P a g e
Reporting Requirements for Development Impact Fees
In California, State legislation sets certain legal and procedural parameters for the charging of development impact fees (“DIFs”).

This legislation was passed as AB1600 by the California Legislature and is now codified as California Government Code Sections (GC §) 66000 through 66008 (“Mitigation Fee Act”). This State law went into effect on January 1, 1989.

GC § 66006(b) states the following requirements as pertains to DIFs:

For each separate account or fund established, the local agency shall, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, make available to the public the following information for the fiscal year:
(A) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund. (B) The amount of the fee.
(C) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund. (D) The amount of the fees collected and interest earned. (E) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of expenditures on each improvement including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees. (F) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and the public improvement remains incomplete.
(G) A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan. (H) The amount of refunds made (as pursuant to GC § 66001(e)) due to sufficient funds being collected to complete financing on incomplete public improvements, and the amount of reallocation of funds made (as pursuant to GC § 66001(f)) due to administrative costs of refunding unexpended revenues exceeding the amount to be refunded.

GC § 65865(e) also requires that any development agreement entered into on or after January 1, 2004, the City shall comply with GC § 66006 with respect to any fee it receives or cost it recovers.

City of Rancho Cordova
2 | P a g e
Description of Development Impact Fees
Sewer Connection Fees
Sewer connection fees are established pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 14.16. Two sewer connection fees are collected when development occurs – a regional sewer connection fee and a local sewer connection fee. The local sewer connection fee is reported in the City of Roseville’s Annual Development Impact Fee Report. Additional fees may be applicable to properties within sewer special benefit assessment areas.
• Regional Sewer Connection Fees - The regional sewer connection fee is charged for each sewer unit required within the Regional Treatment Plan Service Area connected to the city-owned public sewer. The service area includes the City of Roseville and portions of Placer County and South Placer Municipal Utility District.

Traffic Mitigation Fees
In 1988 the City of Roseville adopted a citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee Program, requiring new development within the City to pay traffic impact fees. The fees collected through this program, in addition to other funding sources, allows the City to construct transportation improvements identified in its Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The fee program assesses fair-share costs to other jurisdictions based on their impact on the individual roadways from new development.

This fee applies to all new development in the City. The developers in Specific Plan Areas have built, or will construct, more than the minimum amount of improvements from their funds and will receive a credit for those improvements. Additional fees collected by the City on behalf of regional fee programs:
• Highway 65 Joint Powers Authority Fee Program – The cities of Roseville and Rocklin, along with Placer County, formed a joint powers authority for the purpose of funding four interchanges on Highway 65. The interchanges include Stanford Ranch Road/Galleria Boulevard, Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Blue Oaks Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard. The fee program assesses fair-share costs to each jurisdiction based on their impact on the individual improvements from new development. City of Roseville serves as staff to the JPA and administers the fee program.

City of Rancho Cordova
3 | P a g e
Fund Balance Summary
Sewer Connection Fees
Regional Sewer Connection Fees
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee
Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30,
2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of
CIP
Funded
by Fee
Roseville
Municipal
Code
Chapters

14.16 Ordinance
4739 § 11,
2009 $124,279,637 29,013,220 1,354,715 (180,453) (11,265,691) Dry Creek
Bank
Stabilization (38,339)
YesStarted
2012
100
Pleasant
Grove Wwtp
Exp (9,761)
YesStarted
2014
97 WW System
Expansion (94,881)
YesStarted
2019
100
Pleasant
Grove UV (85,985)
YesStarted
2021
100
PGWWTPEnergy Rec. (18,480,821)
YesStarted
2019
90 PGWWTPExpansion
2020 (34,104,506)
YesStarted
2019
100
Dry Creek &
Pleasant
Grove WWTP
Capacity
Evaluation (24,006)
YesStarted
2021
100
$90,163,129
City of Rancho Cordova
4 | P a g e
Regional Sewer Connection Project Fee Project Descriptions Dry Creek Stabilization (Project# 400040) - This project repaired creek bank erosion threatening to expose a 33-inch trunk line near the Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Pleasant Grove Wwtp Exp (Project# 400065) - This project included both the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion and Energy Recovery projects. In FY21 the project was separated into two projects: PGWWTP - Energy Recovery (Project# 500166) and PGWWTP - Expansion 2020 (Project# 500167).

WW System Evaluation Update (Project# 500028) - Update wastewater system evaluation. This project identified potential capacity increases needed at both treatment plants based on computer simulation models of the existing process and treatment plant data collected.

Pleasant Grove UV (Project# 500165) - Due to changes in water quality and regulations, the current Pleasant Grove UV disinfection system is undersized for the projected rated capacity needed after the completion of the Pleasant Grove Expansion Project. This project expands the UV system capacity.

PGWWTP-Energy Recovery (Project# 500166) - Upon completion of the Pleasant Grove Expansion Project, the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant will produce bio-methane from the newly constructed digesters. Absent the Energy Recovery Project, the bio-methane would be burned in a flare which is not environmentally sound. Once complete, bio-methane produced from the wastewater treatment plant will be conditioned for use in clean air refuse vehicles.

PGWWTP - Expansion 2020 (Project# 500167) - Expand wastewater treatment plant capacity. This project will add primary clarifiers, anaerobic digesters, and solids thickening equipment to the existing PGWWTP treatment process. This will increase the plant's treatment capacity from 9.5 to 12 million gallons per day and is expected to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate growth within the South Placer Wastewater Authority service area through 2035.

Dry Creek and Pleasant Grove WWTP Capacity Evaluation (Project# 500199) - This project is a field study to confirm the computer model capacity predictions contained in the WW System Evaluation project.

City of Rancho Cordova
5 | P a g e
Traffic Mitigation Fees
Highway 65 Joint Powers Authority Fee Program
Document
Establishing
Fee
Project Fee Formula
Starting
Balance
Fees
Collected
(Refunded)
Interest
Earned
Interfund
Transfer
In/(Out)
Expenditures
Ending
Balance as of
June 30, 2021
Sufficient
Funds to
Complete
Project?
% of
CIP
Funded
by Fee
Resolution
No. 90-312
Joint Powers
Agreement
Oct, 15, 1990;
Amended
Aug. 18, 1992 ($9,259,257) 1,378,847 7,795

59,396
Highway
65-
Galleria/
Stanford

(1,836)
No 100%
($7,813,667)*
*The deficit balance is due to reimbursements owed to the Cities of Roseville and Rocklin and the County of Placer.

The Highway 65 Joint Powers Authority Board approved a plan for funding the construction of various Highway 65 Interchange Projects that included the commitment of funds from the Authority along with funds from the Cities of Roseville and Rocklin and the County of Placer. The participants remitted funds to the Authority in advance of the construction. In addition, the City of Roseville constructed projects using City of Roseville funds. The projects were dedicated to the Authority through a reimbursement agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the cities and the County will be reimbursed through future traffic mitigation fees collected by the Authority.

City of Rancho Cordova
6 | P a g e
Traffic Mitigation Fee Project Descriptions
Highway 65-Galleria/Stanford (Project# 400060) –The proposed project would modify the SR 65 NB ramps at the Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road interchange as well as reconfigure the lanes along Galleria Boulevard/Stanford Ranch Road. The project would construct the following:
• Dual left turn lanes onto the NB SR 65 slip on-ramp.
• Protected median left turn pockets at the NB and SB ramp intersections, eliminating the inside trap lanes. • Right turn pocket for the SB approach along Stanford Ranch Road to the NB slip on-ramp. • Widened NB SR 65 to NB Stanford Ranch Road slip off-ramp from one to two lanes at the ramp terminus. Off-ramp will include a signalized intersection at Stanford Ranch Road.
• Widened NB slip on-ramp to two metered general purpose lanes plus an HOV preferential lane. • Modified terminus of the NB loop off-ramp to reduce speeds and enhance safety for all modes utilizing the facility. 7| P a g e
Attachment 1:

Fee Ordinances, Resolutions and
Agreements
Sewer Connection Fees:

Regional Sewer Connection Fees
Ordinance No. 6100

Traffic Mitigation Fees
Highway 65 Joint Powers Authority Fee Program
Joint Powers Agreement
October 15, 1990
As Amended August 18, 1992

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 1879
File #: 0103-04-03
Title: Library Board - Unscheduled Vacancy Appointment
Contact: Katrina Six 916-774-5267 [email protected] Meeting Date: 1/19/2022
Item #: 10.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Recommend Council appoint one (1) individual to the Library Board to a term expiring December 31, 2022 from the applications received from: Sehrish Abdulqayyum, Brian Backhaus, Jenna Li, Jeanne Chilton Lindberg, Casey Mills, Holly Piscopo, Mitchell Ruby, Bette Simpson, Kulvinder Singh, Jennifer Hilbert Speak, Eileen Speaker, and Jamie Speiden.

BACKGROUND
The resignation of Patricia Wick has created an unscheduled vacancy on the Library Board with a term ending December 31, 2022. Twelve applications were received to fill the vacancy.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The appointment of members to boards or commissions does not include the potential for a significant environmental effect, and therefore is not subject to CEQA.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Respectfully Submitted,
Katrina Six, City Clerk Technician
Helen Dreyer, Assistant City Clerk
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 1895
File #: 0400-04-10-2 & 0400-04-12-2 & 0400-03 & 0400-04 Title:

Sierra View Subdivision Project on Infill Parcels 3 & 100 and the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Parcels WB-41 & WB-31 Project - General Plan Amendments, Rezone, and Development Agreement
Contact: Kinarik Shallow 916-746-1309 [email protected] Meeting Date: 1/19/2022
Item #: 11.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
At the December 16, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council take the following actions on the two projects:

A. Consider the Sierra View Country Club and Sierra Vista Specific Plan Redesignation and Rezone Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program and Consider the 6
th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

For the Sierra View Subdivision Map Project (File # PL21-0162):

A. Adopt a resolution approving land use amendments to the General Plan; and B. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the Rezone.

For the SVSP PCL WB-41 Rezone Project (File # PL21-0161):

A. Adopt a resolution approving land use amendments to the General Plan; B. Adopt a resolution approving text and land use map amendments to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan;
C. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the Rezone; and
D. Adopt the five (5) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the Second Amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Westpark S.V. 400, LLC relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan and authorizing the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City.

BACKGROUND
Projects #PL21-0162 (Sierra View Subdivision) and #PL21-0161 (SVSP Parcels WB-41 and WB-31) are linked to each other due to requirements in California State Housing Law. Each project and its corresponding entitlements were evaluated independently in a separate staff report for Planning Commission, however, the Planning Commission took one action when considering the entitlements for both projects. Similarly, City Council will also be asked to take one action for both projects. The Planning Commission staff reports are included as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 to the Council Communication. The following is an explanation of why these projects are linked.

Recent changes in state law preclude the City from reducing anticipated housing density in one portion of its jurisdiction without making up for the resulting reduction by increasing anticipated housing density in another area. As enacted in the 2019 legislative session, Senate Bill 330 (the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 or S.B. 330) created Government Code Section 65300. Subdivision (b)(1)(A) of that statute generally prevents a city from changing the residential general plan, specific plan, and zoning designation to “a less intensive use” or to reduce the intensity of the designation below what was allowed on January 1, 2018. An exception to this prohibition exists, however, where the city “concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity” (Government Code § 65300 (h)(2)(i)(1), italics added).

The applicant is proposing a reduction in residential capacity on one site (Infill Parcel 100 – Sierra View Subdivision, file #PL21-0162) but proposing a modification in the designations on two other sites (Sierra Vista Specific Plan Parcel WB-41 and Parcel WB-31, file #PL21-0161), in order to make up for the lost residential capacity at Infill Parcel 100. Infill Parcel 100 has a current General Plan unit allocation of 168 units, however with the Sierra View Subdivision project (file #PL21- 0162), the applicant is proposing to build only 75 of the units. As required by S.B. 330, the remaining 93 units must be transferred elsewhere in the City to avoid any net reduction in anticipated housing units. The remaining 93 units will be transferred to SVSP Parcels WB-41 and WB-31. The SVSP Parcel WB-41 Rezone project (file #PL21-0161) proposes amending the land use and zoning designation of Parcel WB-41 from its current Community Commercial (CC) designation to Medium Density Residential (MDR) with a zoning of Small Lot Residential/Development Standards (RS/DS), in order to accommodate 63 of the units being transferred from Infill Parcel 100. The remaining 30 units from Infill Parcel 100 are being transferred to High Density Residential Parcel WB-31. Since the Legislature, through S.B. 330, has required these consecutive actions, the Planning Commission acted on the two projects under one motion.

This Council Communication provides a summary description and summary evaluation of each project, and a summary of the Planning Commission hearing. A detailed project background and evaluation for each project is provided in the Planning Commission staff reports, included as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2.

Project Description – Infill Parcels 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map (File #PL21-0162) The project site is located on Infill Planning Parcels 3 and 100, located at 360 Diamond Oaks Road. The approximate 23-acre parcel is currently vacant and is located adjacent to and east of the Sierra View Country Club and just north of Shasta Street and south of Diamond Oaks Road.

Infill Parcel 100 has a current zoning designation of Multi-Family Housing (R3) and a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential (MDR) at 6.8 units per acre. Infill Parcel 3 has a current zoning designation of Single-Family Residential (R1) and a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR). The current General Plan unit allocation for Infill Parcel 100 is 168 units, however the project is proposing to build only 75 of these units. As mentioned, the remaining 93 units will be transferred to SVSP Parcels WB-41 and WB-31 in order to comply with S.B. 330. The developer is proposing a reduced density on Infill Parcel 100 in response to community requests that future development on this site more closely align with the existing community immediately to the east, which is a single-family Low Density Residential subdivision, to promote community cohesion and continuity.

Therefore, the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to amend the land use designation of Parcel 100 from MDR to LDR at a density of approximately 4.9 units per acre.

The LDR designation will facilitate the development of larger lots, which will better accommodate a variety of single-story and two-story home plans consistent with the adjacent subdivision. A Rezone is also requested to amend the zoning designation of Parcel 100 from Multi-Family Housing (R3) to Small Lot Residential (RS) to be consistent with the proposed land use designation. A small portion of Infill Parcel 3 will be amended from Single-Family Residential (R1) to RS. Exhibit A includes the General Plan Amendment exhibit, Exhibit B includes the General Plan land use map reflecting the land use change, and Exhibit C includes the Rezone exhibit.

Associated with this request was a Tentative Subdivision Map to create a total of 75 single-family residential lots and a Tree Permit to allow the removal of 158 native oak trees and the encroachment into the protected zone of 30 additional native oak trees. The Planning Commission approved these entitlements at their December 16, 2021 meeting. Further discussion and exhibits for these entitlements are included in the Planning Commission staff report included as Attachment 1.

Summary Evaluation – Infill Parcels 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map (File #PL21-0162) As detailed in pages 4-6 of the Planning Commission staff report (see Attachment 1), the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone of the Sierra View Subdivision site is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The policies for land use amendments relate to promoting land use patterns that enhance quality of life and minimize conflicts between land uses.

The proposed LDR land use is considered to be compatible with the surrounding uses. In addition, the proposed RS zone is listed as an implementing zone for the LDR land use; therefore, the proposed zoning designation is compatible with the proposed General Plan land use.

Consistent with General Plan policies, the land use modification was evaluated for impacts to traffic and utilities. A discussion on each of these impacts is included below.

Traffic: A transportation impact study was prepared by Fehr & Peers, an engineering consultant, to analyze the potential traffic impacts from the project. The study is included as Attachment 12 to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project (see Exhibit N).

Consistent with General Plan policies, the traffic study included an estimated trip generation and analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Each item is discussed below.

Trip Generation: The traffic study included an estimated trip generation, which was calculated based on trip rates and methodologies published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). Using the trip generation rate for “Single-Family Detached Housing”, the project would generate approximately 710 daily trips, with 56 occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 75 occurring during the p.m. peak hour. The project is reducing the density on the site and building less than the number of units anticipated and analyzed in the General Plan. Therefore, with the fewer number of units, the project’s trip generation is less than what was anticipated for the site. The City’s Engineering Division reviewed the traffic study and determined there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the trips generated by the project.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): VMT is a measurement of travel demand, representing the number of miles traveled by vehicles in some amount of time (e.g., VMT per day or annual VMT). Consistent with state law, the General Plan has adopted VMT standards and requires land use amendments to be evaluated for consistency with these standards. Given the project proposes a reduced density with a lesser amount of units when compared to the current General Plan allocation, the traffic study determined the project would generate less VMT than what was assumed in the General Plan. As such, the project would have a less than significant impact to the transportation system on the basis of project-generated VMT.

Utilities: As part of the environmental review of the project, a technical memo was prepared by MacKay & Somps that evaluated the water and sewer demands based on the proposed land use designations and unit allocations proposed with the WB-41 Rezone project (file #PL21-0161) and the Sierra View Subdivision Map project (file #PL21-0162). The memo is included as Attachment 7 of Exhibit O. The memo evaluated the two projects together given that the units proposed on SVSP Parcel WB-41 and WB-31 are being transferred from Infill Parcel 100. The memo concluded the proposed changes to the land use designations and unit allocations will result in less water demand and less sanitary sewer flows. The City’s Environmental Utilities staff reviewed the project and concluded the project as a whole will have a lower demand on City utilities than the previously anticipated land uses.

In conclusion, the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Sierra View Subdivision project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, and the proposed land use and zoning designation are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding area.

Project Description – SVSP Parcel WB-41 – Rezone (File #PL21-0161) The project site consists of Parcels WB-31 and WB-41, which are both located within the SVSP, to the north and south of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and east of Santucci Boulevard. Both parcels are currently undeveloped. Parcel WB-31 is approximately 11 acres and has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential (HDR) at a density of 23.7 units per acre and a zoning designation of Multi-Family Housing (R3). Parcel WB-41 is approximately 10 acres and has a General Plan land use designation and zoning designation of Community Commercial (CC).

The requested entitlements will allow for the development of a 63-unit single-family residential subdivision on Parcel WB-41. No development is being proposed on Parcel WB-31 at this time.

The applicant requests a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to amend the land use designation of Parcel WB-41 from CC to Medium Density Residential (MDR) at a density of approximately 7.4 units per acre, in order to facilitate development of a 63-unit subdivision on this parcel. The SVSP document will be amended to reflect the proposed land use change for Parcel WB-41 as well as the unit transfers occurring with the Sierra View Subdivision project (file #PL21-0162). As mentioned, the Sierra View Subdivision project will transfer a total of 93 units from Infill Parcel 100 to Parcel WB-41 (+63 units) and to High Density Residential Parcel WB-31 (+30 units). The project would increase the density of Parcel WB-31 from 23.7 units per acre to 26.4 units per acre, as allowable under the General Plan. Section 6.5 and Figure 6-25 of the SVSP will be amended to remove the designation of a park and ride lot on Parcel WB-41, and Section B.12 and Figure B-30, which identify a conceptual commercial center plan for Parcel WB-41, will be removed. Exhibit D includes the General Plan Amendment exhibit, Exhibit E includes the General Plan land use map reflecting the land use change, Exhibit F includes the Specific Plan Amendment exhibit, and Exhibit G includes the SVSP change pages. A Rezone is requested to amend the zoning designation of Parcel WB-41 from Community Commercial (CC) to Small Lot Residential/Development Standards (RS/DS) to be consistent with the proposed land use designation. Exhibit H includes the Rezone exhibit.

Lastly, the project includes a Second Amendment of the Westbrook Development Agreement.

The Development Agreement (DA) will be amended to reflect the proposed land use changes, unit transfers, elimination of the bus transfer station/park and ride lot on WB-41, and dedication of a portion of West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) Parcel W-60B to the City. Sections of the DA pertaining to City-wide park fees will be amended to specify that these fees paid by the landowner upon issuance of building permits for the 63 units on Parcel WB-31 and for the 30 units on Parcel WB-31 may be applied by the City to the construction of improvements to any City-wide park in the City. Furthermore, sections of the DA pertaining to City-wide park and open space in-lieu fees will be amended to specify these in-lieu fees will not be collected from the 63 units on Parcel WB41 or from the 30 units on Parcel WB-31. Exhibit I includes the proposed DA Amendment.

Associated with this request was a Tentative Subdivision Map to create a total of 63 single-family residential lots on Parcel WB-41. The Planning Commission approved the Tentative Subdivision Map at their December 16, 2021 meeting. Further discussion and exhibits for this entitlement is included in the Planning Commission staff report included as Attachment 2.

Summary Evaluation – SVSP Parcel WB-41 – Rezone (File #PL21-0161) As detailed in pages 4-9 of the Planning Commission staff report (see Attachment 2), the proposed land use amendment of SVSP Parcel WB-41 from Community Commercial (CC) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan and the SVSP, and with the City’s adopted Guidelines for Conversion of Non-Residential Land Uses (included as Attachment 1 of the Planning Commission staff report). In addition, the General Plan identifies the proposed RS/DS zone as an implementing zone for the MDR land use, which is intended for small-lot single-family detached dwelling units with a density of 7.0 to 12.9 dwelling units per gross developable acre. The proposed project is a 63-unit detached single-family subdivision with a density of 7.4 units per gross developable acre, which is consistent with the MDR land use designation and is compatible with the surrounding uses.

The City Council adopted guidelines for the conversion of non-residential land uses include evaluating fiscal impacts, traffic, utilities, public benefit, and affordable housing when contemplating residential land use allocations. Each of these topics is discussed below as it relates to the proposed project.

Fiscal Impact: A fiscal impact analysis was prepared by Economics & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) that demonstrated the land use change would not result in a negative fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund on an annual basis (see Attachment 3). Additional studies were completed to determine the feasibility of developing Parcel WB-41 as a commercial site. These studies are discussed below and are included as Attachments 3-5 of the Planning Commission Staff Report.

Supermarket Retail Potential SVSP Parcel WB-42 and WB-41 – Intalytics, May 2021 A study completed by Intalytics, a market analyst, determined that Parcel WB-41 is an inferior commercial site due to: 1.) a limited 180-degree trade area, with uncertain development of area to the west; 2.) lack of circulation and no defined route or time for extension of Santucci Boulevard; and 3.) future development of Community Commercial Parcel WB-42 (located less than a mile east of Parcel WB-41, and which Intalytics determined to be a superior site) will make WB-41 infeasible to support a neighborhood serving commercial center.

Retail Market Analysis and Highest & Best Use Study – MXD Development Strategists, July 2021
MXD Development Strategists prepared a retail market analysis and “highest and best use” study, which concluded that residential would be the parcel’s highest and best use when compared to commercial, office, or hotel uses. Similar to the findings of Intalytics, this is due to the site’s limitation of a 180-degree trade area, much of which is in permanent open space, which acts as a major impediment to the site’s development potential. The study also indicated that much of the site’s trade area relies on development of Placer County projects (e.g., Regional University and Curry Creek) and that the timing of these projects is uncertain. MXD determined that even if the County projects are to develop in the next couple of decades, development of sites within the western portion of Roseville will likely push the trade area for WB-41 further west, resulting in better located sites within the County projects. The site’s location on the western edge of the City is an inferior location when compared to the other Community Commercial sites in the area west of Fiddyment Road. The analysis also evaluated the site for a grocer or drug store anchor and found that neither reached the threshold sales level that would be considered viable by either user.

Retail Feasibility Traffic Analysis – Fehr & Peers, July 2021 A retail feasibility traffic analysis was prepared by Fehr & Peers (F&P), an engineering consultant, to inform whether Parcel WB-41 can realistically be expected to develop with retail land uses in the next 15 to 20 years. F&P used a set of land use and roadway network assumptions based on market and development trends typical for North and West Roseville. A traffic forecast model was developed with these assumptions that determined the cumulative traffic volume passing through the Santucci Boulevard/Pleasant Grove Boulevard intersection at the northwest corner of Parcel WB-41. With the traffic forecast model, F&P concluded there are not nearly enough pass-by trips for a retail development to be feasible on Parcel WB-41 and that the site would have nearly 75% less traffic than similar sites. Lastly, F&P determined the feasibility of retail on Parcel WB-41 is further diminished by its location relative to future residential development and competing retail sites.

Traffic: As part of the environmental review of the project, a traffic study was prepared by Fehr & Peers to analyze the potential traffic impacts from the project. The environmental document is included as Exhibit J and the traffic study is included as Attachment 5 of Exhibit O (Addendum Attachments). Consistent with General Plan policies, the traffic study included an estimated trip generation and analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Each item is discussed below.

Trip Generation: The traffic study compared the trip generation of Parcel WB-41 based on its existing and proposed zoning using trip generation rates from the City of Roseville 2035 travel demand model. The trip generation rate for the existing zoning was based on a retail land use, which has a higher trip rate when compared to single-family residential. As a result, the proposed rezoning from CC to RS/DS would result in substantially fewer trips generated by the property. This suggest that traffic volumes in the vicinity of the project would be reduced during peak hours and on a daily basis as a result of the land use change. The study also analyzed whether the reduction in retail land use in the SVSP would cause a greater amount of the Specific Plan trips to occur outside of the SVSP area. The study concluded the proposed rezone would result in fewer external a.m. and p.m. peak hour and daily trips generated by the Specific Plan when compared to the existing zoning.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): VMT is a measurement of travel demand, representing the number of miles traveled by vehicles in some amount of time (e.g., VMT per day or annual VMT). Consistent with state law, the General Plan has adopted VMT standards and requires land use amendments to be evaluated for consistency with these standards. Per the traffic study findings, the proposed rezone would generate fewer site trips, fewer trips entering/exiting the SVSP area, and less VMT for both the SVSP area and for the City as a whole. Thus, the project would have a less than significant impact to the transportation system on the basis of project-generated VMT.

Utilities: As mentioned, a technical memo was prepared by MacKay & Somps that evaluated the water and sewer demands based on the proposed land use designations and unit allocations proposed with the WB-41 Rezone project (file #PL21-0161) and the Sierra View Subdivision Map project (file #PL21-0162). The memo concluded the proposed changes to the land use designations and unit allocations will result in less water demand and less sanitary sewer flows.

The City’s Environmental Utilities staff reviewed the project and concluded the project as a whole will have a lower demand on City utilities than the previously anticipated land uses.

Public Benefit: On December 1, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-470 approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA), by and between the City of Roseville and West Roseville, LLC for 20 acres of West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) Parcel W-60B and authorizing the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City. Parcel W-60B is a vacant, approximate 30-acre parcel that has a current zoning designation of Light Industrial/Special Area (M1/SA) and a land use designation of Light Industrial (LI) (see Figure 3). The City currently owns the adjacent parcel to the north, Parcel W-60A, which is anticipated for a future long-field sports complex. The additional 20 acres from Parcel W-60B will allow the future sports complex to have additional fields and be a regional draw for sporting events. This will result in added revenue to the City’s General Fund in the form of sales tax and transient occupancy tax revenue.

As part of the proposed project, the developer will be dedicating five (5) of the 20 acres that are part of the PSA to the City. If this project is ultimately approved and if the approval occurs prior to close of escrow, then the total purchase price will be reduced to reflect only 15 acres being purchased and five (5) acres being dedicated. The acreage dedication will be reflected in the proposed DA Amendment.

Affordable Housing: The General Plan Housing Element requires that new residential developments shall develop or cause to be developed 10% affordable housing, including 4% affordable to very low, 4% affordable to low, and 2% affordable to moderate income. The Housing Element does allow in-lieu fees to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and states that “Development Agreements shall be the mechanism utilized to secure implementation of the affordable housing program.” The applicant is not proposing to include affordable housing units with this proposal and staff supports this approach. The primary reason is that the units proposed for the WB-41 and WB-31 parcels are not new residential units, rather these units are currently allocated to Infill Parcel 100 and are being transferred to Parcels WB-41 and WB-31. There is currently no affordable obligation for these units on Infill Parcel 100 and there is no precedent to include an affordable housing obligation with a residential unit transfer. As Development Agreements are an appropriate mechanism to implement the City’s affordable housing program, and the terms of the proposed Development Agreement have been reviewed and mutually agreed upon by both the developer and the City of Roseville, approval of the Development Agreement will constitute compliance with the General Plan Housing Element.

In conclusion, the proposed General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Rezone for the Parcel WB-41 project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, and the proposed land use and zoning designation are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding area.

Development Agreement (DA) Amendment: City staff has found the proposed DA Amendment to be consistent with the General Plan, SVSP, and the Zoning Ordinance. The DA Amendment is in conformance with the public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values.

Public Outreach
Early notification of each project was posted on the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA)’s website. City staff included the projects on the Planning Division’s Projects of Interest website, which included a project description, a link to the project plans, and was routinely updated with project updates. The developer also installed a sign on each project site for the purpose of notifying the public of the intended land use changes. A notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Sacramento Bee on December 3, 2021 and a notice of the hearing was also distributed to all property owners within 300 feet of the site, interested persons, and posted on the RCONA website. Subsequent to publication of the hearing notices, staff received one phone call and one email regarding the Sierra View Subdivision project. The call was from a resident within the Diamond Oaks neighborhood who was concerned with the project’s removal of oak trees. The email was from Kat Fiorentino, a resident of the Diamond Oaks neighborhood, who asked for information on which oak trees are proposed for removal and stated she was concerned with the adverse impact of removing wildlife habitat (see Attachment ). Staff responded with a copy of the project plans, including the tree removal exhibit, as well as a link to the CEQA document for information on the project’s impacts to biological resources. Staff’s response is included with Attachment 4. Staff also received three comment letters regarding the CEQA document prepared for the proposed project, which are discussed in the Environmental Determination section of this Council Communication. After publication of the staff reports for both projects, staff received three letters in support of the Sierra View Subdivision project, which are included as Attachment 5.

Prior to submitting a formal project application to the City, the property owner, Sierra View Land Company (“SVLC”), and the developer, Westpark Communities, held informational meetings on the Sierra View Subdivision project with residents in the surrounding area in November 2020 and in March 2021. The purpose of those meetings was to provide information on the project and for residents to provide input on the initial plans. The initial plan for the site proposed smaller lot sizes with a greater number of units. However, residents expressed concerns with the density and lot sizes. As a result of this community feedback, the plans were revised to the current proposal of 75 units, with a lesser number of units and larger lots. The larger lots allow future builders the opportunity to bring forward a variety of single-story and two-story home plans, with lots adjacent to existing homes to the east of the project having additional depth to more closely conform to the lots of those existing homes.

Once a formal submittal was made to the City and staff had an opportunity to review the project, Westpark Communities presented the project at the Sierra View Neighborhood Association meeting on October 6, 2021. Residents of the Diamond Oaks neighborhood were also present.

Approximately 50 people total were in attendance. City staff attended to answer questions related to the entitlement process. Residents asked questions on impacts to traffic, whether environmental review would be conducted, and what types of home plans would be offered.

Summary of Planning Commission Meeting
The project was heard by the City's Planning Commission on December 16, 2021. The applicant’s representative addressed the Commission, spoke in favor of the project, and requested approval by the Commission.

Public testimony was received from three members of the public: 1.) Jane Maccione, a resident of Diamond Oaks neighborhood; 2.) Gray Allen, a former resident of Diamond Oaks neighborhood; and 3.) Zach Siviglia, a resident of Diamond Oaks neighborhood. In summary, Jane Maccione’s comments were consistent with the comments provided in her letter dated December 5, 2021. Ms. Maccione also provided the Commissioners with photos of the truck and backhoe on the Sierra View Subdivision project site that she references in her letter. The photos are included as Attachment 6. Staff previously provided a response to the comments in a memorandum to the Planning Commission, which is included as Attachment 7. Gray Allen stated he was in support of the Sierra View Subdivision project. Lastly, Zach Siviglia asked about the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis of the project and stated that it should not have been looked at as a comparison against the original zoning of the project. Staff responded by stating that the General Plan EIR adopted as part of the General Plan update in 2019 included a robust VMT analysis for the City, which included the project sites. This VMT analysis was used as a baseline comparison for the projects.

A Commissioner questioned whether or not this project (rezoning commercial land in order to avoid no net loss in units, per S.B. 330) would set a precedent for future projects. A Commissioner was concerned with the loss of commercial property in western Roseville, but understood the reasons for doing so and the S.B. 330 requirements. A Commissioner thought that the project that would make the remaining commercial parcels in western Roseville more competitive. The Commission agreed with the approach to environmental review and the proposed mitigation measures. A Commissioner indicated that the public’s participation in the meetings for the Sierra View Subdivision project resulted in a better project that solved a majority of the residents’ concerns.

The Planning Commission adopted the Sierra View Country Club and Sierra Vista Specific Plan Redesignation and Rezone Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program; considered the 6th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR); approved the Sierra View Subdivision Tentative Subdivision Map and Tree Permit, approved the Parcel WB-41 Tentative Subdivision Map; and for the Sierra View Subdivision project, recommended the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment and Rezone; and for the Parcel WB-41 Rezone project, recommended the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Development Agreement Amendment, with a vote of 6 aye, 0 nay, 1 absent.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project will not negatively affect the City’s General Fund, and no policy conflicts have been identified. The WB-41 Rezone project is consistent with the City’s Non-Residential Conversion policy (as described in Attachment 2, the Planning Commission Staff Report). This policy states that conversion of a non-residential land use (e.g., Community Commercial) to a residential land use (e.g., Medium Density Residential) shall not result in a negative fiscal impact to the City and requires that such projects be modeled individually for City-wide impacts. Economics & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) prepared a fiscal impact analysis that demonstrated the land use change would not result in a negative fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund on an annual basis (see Attachment 3).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Because the Sierra View Subdivision project (file #PL21-0162) is related to the SVSP Parcels WB-41 and WB-31 project (file #PL21-0161), the two projects are evaluated in a combined CEQA document (see Exhibit J). However, each action requires a different type of CEQA analysis based on its site location and the previous planning conducted for that site, and each requires different City approvals and entitlements. The Sierra View Subdivision project site is analyzed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060 et seq. and 15070 et. seq., as an Initial Study with accompanying environmental checklist leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration. As a result, the Sierra View Subdivision project will require site-specific mitigation measures not previously contemplated in any other planning or environmental documents. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, regarding a previously certified and adopted Environmental Impact Report (EIR), an Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010) was prepared for Parcels WB-31 and WB-41 to cover the minor technical changes and additions necessary to describe the impacts of the proposed project. The Addendum did not identify any new environmental impacts from the project. The CEQA document includes a Cumulative Considerations analysis, which looks at the combined effects of the two projects in order to set forth the total combined level of environmental impact from both the Sierra View Subdivision project and the SVSP Parcels WB-41 & WB-31 project. This analysis provides additional consideration of the projects’ combined cumulative impacts by looking at the two actions together in the context of the approved full buildout of the General Plan area as contemplated in the certified 2020 General Plan EIR for the 2035 General Plan Update. The Planning Commission adopted the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and considered the Addendum at the December 16, 2021 meeting. The documents were circulated for a 30-day public review that ended on December 6, 2021.

Staff received three comment letters during the public review period of the CEQA document (see Attachment 4). The first comment letter was from Kat Fiorentino, a resident of the Diamond Oaks neighborhood, seeking clarification on the project description contained in the public notice since it referenced both the Sierra View Subdivision project and the SVSP Parcel WB-41 & WB-31 project. Staff provided an explanation of the projects and how they were linked. Staff’s response is included with Attachment 4.

The second comment letter was from Derek Pell, a Roseville resident. To summarize, Mr. Pell has concerns with the reduced density on Infill Parcels 3 and 100 because it is taking potential housing from a centralized, infill location and moving it to the edge of the City (i.e., SVSP Parcels WB-41 & WB-31). In terms of VMT, Mr. Pell claims that the combined effect of the rezoning will be that there will be fewer people close to amenities where it is possible to not drive, leading to more people in cars traveling longer distances. As documented in the traffic study prepared for the WB-41 Rezone project, the proposed rezone would generate 3,283 fewer daily site trips, 1,666 fewer daily trips entering/exiting the SVSP area, and a reduction of 11,599 VMT for the SVSP area and a reduction of 17,581 VMT for the City as a whole. In addition, the Sierra View Subdivision project was found to generate less VMT than what was assumed in the General Plan, because it is reducing the density and number of units on the site. As a result, the combined impacts on the basis of project-generated VMT for both projects would not exceed any transportation and traffic impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

The third comment letter was submitted by Robert and Jane Maccione, owners of 1004 Shasta Street, stating that they object to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The letter claims that a more detailed and independent study of the environmental impacts of the proposed development of Parcels 3 and 100 is necessary and additional mitigation measures beyond those proposed in the MND are required. Staff has included a response to these comments in Attachment 7.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal D - Enhance economic vitality
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner
Mike Isom, Development Services Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Attachment 1 Item 6.1a December 16, 2021 Planning Commission Staff Report and Exhibits Attachment 2 Item 6.1b December 16, 2021 Planning Commission Staff Report and Exhibits Attachment 3 Fiscal Impact Analysis (Parcel WB-41)
Attachment 4 Public Comments
Attachment 5 Item 6.1a Public Comments 12.14 to 12.16
Attachment 6 Photos from Jane Maccione
Attachment 7 Response to Maccione Comments
Resolution 22-023
Exhibit A General PlanAmendment (Infill Parcel 100)
Exhibit B General Plan Land Use Map (Infill Parcel 100) Rezone Ordinance Sierra View Subdivision
Exhibit C Rezone (Infill Parcels 3 & 100)
Resolution 22-024
Exhibit DGeneral PlanAmendment SVSP Parcel WB-41
Exhibit E General Plan Land Use Map SVSP Parcel WB-41
Resolution 22-025
Exhibit F Specific PlanAmendment
Exhibit G SVSP Change Pages
Rezone Ordinance SVSP Parcel WB-41
Exhibit H Rezone SVSP Parcel WB-41
Ordinance for SecondAmendment to Westbrook DA
Exhibit I SecondAmendment of the Westbrook DA
Exhibit J Combined CEQA Document
Exhibit K MNDAttachments 1-5
Exhibit L MNDAttachments 6-7
Exhibit M MNDAttachments 8-11
Exhibit N MNDAttachments 12-15
Exhibit OAddendum Attachments

PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 16, 2021
Prepared by: Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner
ITEM 6.1a: General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Tentative Subdivision Map, Tree Permit – 360 Diamond Oaks Road – INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map – File #PL21- 0162 & #PL21-0161

REQUEST
The project will allow the construction of 75 single-family homes on Infill Planning Parcels 3 and 100, located to the east of the Sierra View Country Club. The entitlements include a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of Parcel 100 from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR) and a Rezone from Multi-Family Housing (R3) to Small Lot Residential (RS). Infill Planning Parcel 3 will be rezoned from Single-Family Residential (R1) to RS. A Tentative Subdivision Map is requested to subdivide the parcels into 75 single-family lots. Lastly, a Tree Permit is requested to remove native oak trees on the site in order to facilitate development of the lots. The remaining 93 units allocated to Infill Parcel 100 will be transferred to Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) Parcels WB-41 (+63 units) and WB-31 (+30 units).

Applicant – John Tallman, WP Sierra View LLC
Property Owner – SVLC 23 LLC

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:

Adopt the Sierra View Country Club and Sierra Vista Specific Plan Redesignation and Rezone Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program and Consider the 6th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

For the Sierra View Subdivision Map Project (File # PL21-0162):

A. Recommend the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment (Land Use Map); B. Recommend the City Council approve the Rezone;
C. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the Tentative Subdivision Map subject to sixty-five (65) conditions of approval; and
D. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the Tree Permit subject to twenty (20) conditions of approval.

SENATE BILL 330
Projects #PL21-0162 (Sierra View Subdivision) and #PL21-0161 (SVSP Parcels WB-41 and WB-31) are linked to each other due to requirements in California State Housing Law. As described below, each project is evaluated independently in a separate staff report, however, The Planning Commission will be asked to take one action when considering the entitlements for both projects. The following is an explanation of why these projects are linked and how staff is recommending the proposed entitlements be acted upon.

Recent changes in state law preclude the City from reducing anticipated housing density in one portion of its jurisdiction without making up for the resulting reduction by increasing anticipated housing density in another area. As enacted in the 2019 legislative session, Senate Bill 330 (the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 or S.B. 330) created Government Code Section 65300. Subdivision (b)(1)(A) of that statute CC ATTACHMENT 1
INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map, 360 Diamond Oaks Rd.; File #PL21-0162 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 2 of 20
generally prevents a city from changing the residential general plan, specific plan, and zoning designation to “a less intensive use” or to reduce the intensity of the designation below what was allowed on January 1, 2018. An exception to this prohibition exists, however, where the city “concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity” (Government Code § 65300 (h)(2)(i)(1), italics added).

The applicant is proposing a reduction in residential capacity on one site (Infill Parcel 100 – Sierra View Subdivision, file #PL21-0162) but proposing a modification in the designations on two other sites (Sierra Vista Specific Plan Parcel WB-41 and Parcel WB-31, file #PL21-0161), in order to make up for the lost residential capacity at Infill Parcel 100. Figure 1 below identifies the location of these parcels and the proposed unit transfers. Infill Parcel 100 has a current General Plan unit allocation of 168 units, however with the Sierra View Subdivision project (file #PL21-0162), the applicant is proposing to build only 75 of the units. As required by S.B. 330, the remaining 93 units must be transferred elsewhere in the City to avoid any net reduction in anticipated housing units. The remaining 93 units will be transferred to SVSP Parcels WB-41 and WB-31. The SVSP Parcel WB-41 Rezone project (file #PL21-0161) proposes amending the land use and zoning designation of Parcel WB-41 from its current Community Commercial (CC) designation to Medium Density Residential (MDR) with a zoning of Small Lot Residential/Development Standards (RS/DS), in order to accommodate 63 of the units being transferred from Infill Parcel 100. The remaining 30 units from Infill Parcel 100 are being transferred to High Density Residential Parcel WB-31. Since the Legislature, through S.B. 330, has required these consecutive actions, the Planning Commission will act on the two projects under one motion. However, staff has chosen to evaluate each project and the corresponding entitlements with separate staff reports for ease of readability.

Figure 1: Dwelling Unit Transfer Exhibit
INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map, 360 Diamond Oaks Rd.; File #PL21-0162 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 3 of 20

SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES
As described in the Environmental Determination Section, below, there have been three public comment letters submitted in reference to the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). One of these letters indicated opposition to the proposed approval of the IS/MND. Staff has provided comprehensive responses to these comments. The applicant has reviewed and is in agreement with all recommended conditions of approval.

PROJECT BACKGROUND
The approximately 23-acre project site is located at 360 Diamond Oaks Road and consists of the majority of Infill Parcel 100 and a small, southern portion of Infill Parcel 3 (see Figure 1). Both parcels are located adjacent to and east of the Sierra View Country Club and just north of Shasta Street and south of Diamond Oaks Road. Infill Parcel 100 has a current zoning designation of Multi-Family Housing (R3) and a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential (MDR) at 6.8 units per acre.

Infill Parcel 3 has a current zoning designation of Single-Family Residential (R1) and a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR). The southwest portion of Infill Parcel 100 is developed with multi-family townhomes and the remainder is undeveloped and consists of some dirt roadways used for fire control and maintenance access. The majority of Infill Parcel 3 is developed with single-family homes save for the small portion included as part of this project. Overhead power lines cross the northern portion of the site and the central portion of the site in an east/west direction. Surrounding uses include single-family residences to the east and north across Diamond Oaks Road, Sierra View Country Club to the west, and Spanger Elementary School to the south across Shasta Street.

Figure 1: Project Location
The General Plan allocated a total of 223 units to Infill Parcel 100. In 1982, a Tentative Subdivision Map (file #UP 81-77) creating 55 lots was approved for the Sierra View Townhomes, located on the southwest portion of Infill Parcel 100. The Townhomes were expected to be built out to include the 23 acres which comprise the property in this application. However, subsequent phases of the Townhomes did not proceed forward and the remaining 168 units allocated to Infill Parcel 100 are unbuilt. The project is Shasta Street INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map, 360 Diamond Oaks Rd.; File #PL21-0162 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 4 of 20
proposing to build 75 of the 168 units on the remaining undeveloped portion of Infill Parcel 100.

Consistent with S.B. 330, the remaining 93 units will be transferred elsewhere in the City, to Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) Parcels WB-41 and WB-31, to avoid any net reduction in anticipated housing units.

Of the 93 units being transferred from Infill Parcel 100, 63 units will be transferred to SVSP Parcel WB41 and 30 units will be transferred to SVSP Parcel WB-31. The developer is proposing a reduced density on Infill Parcel 100 in response to community requests that future development on this site more closely align with the existing community immediately to the east, which is a single-family Low Density Residential subdivision, to promote community cohesion and continuity. The proposed LDR designation will facilitate the development of larger lots which will better accommodate a variety of single-story and two-story home plans consistent with the adjacent subdivision.

Project Entitlements
General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Rezone – The project includes a GPA to amend the land use designation of Parcel 100 from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR) at a density of approximately 4.9 units per acre. A Rezone is included to amend the existing zoning designation of Parcel 100 from Multi-Family Housing (R3) to Small Lot Residential (RS) to be consistent with the proposed land use designation. A small portion of Infill Parcel 3 will also be amended from Single-Family Residential (R1) to RS. Exhibit A includes the General Plan Amendment exhibit, Exhibit B includes the General Plan land use map reflecting the land use change, and Exhibit C includes the Rezone exhibit.

Tentative Subdivision Map – The approximately 23-acre project site will be subdivided into a new gated subdivision consisting of 75 LDR lots, four (4) landscape/detention lots, five (5) landscape lots, one (1) open space lot, and one (1) private park lot, for a total of 86 lots. Exhibit D includes the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map.

Tree Permit – A Tree Permit is requested to allow the removal of several native oak trees on the site in order to facilitate development of the subdivision. Exhibit E includes the project arborist report and Exhibit F includes the tree removal exhibit.

EVALUATION: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE
Proposed amendments to the General Plan are analyzed for consistency with the goals and policies of the respective plan. Zoning Ordinance Section 19.86.050 specifies that recommendations for approval or denial of a rezone shall include consideration of the proposed amendment’s consistency with:

1. The public interest, health, safety, or welfare of the City, and

2. The General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.

Table 1 identifies the proposed unit transfers occurring with this project. As mentioned, the applicant is proposing to build 75 of the 168 allocated units on Parcel 100. The remaining 93 units will be transferred to SVSP Parcels WB-41 (+63 units) and WB-31 (+30 units). The unit transfers result in a change in land use for Parcel 100, from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR), with a density of approximately 4.9 units per acre. Approval of the land use amendment would require updates to the City’s General Plan land use map, included as Exhibit B. As mentioned, the land use amendment proposed for SVSP Parcel WB-41 is being processed under a separate project (file #PL21-0161).

INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map, 360 Diamond Oaks Rd.; File #PL21-0162 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 5 of 20
Table 1: Unit Transfers
Parcel Existing Land
Use
Proposed
Land Use
Existing
Unit
Allocation
Proposed Units Difference % Change
Infill Parcel
100
Medium
Density
Residential
(MDR)
Low
Density
Residential
(LDR)
168 75 -93 -55.4%
SVSP Parcel
WB-41
Community
Commercial
(CC)
MDR 0 63 +63 -
SVSP Parcel
WB-31
High Density
Residential
(HDR)
Unchanged 263 293 +30 +11.4%
TOTAL 431 431
Land Use Compatibility: Table II-9 of the General Plan contains a table addressing the compatibility of adjacent land uses. For purposes of the table, “adjacent” includes land uses separated by collectors and local streets (e.g., Diamond Oaks Road and Shasta Street). The proposed LDR land use is considered to be compatible with the adjacent LDR land use to the east of the site and to the north across Shasta Street, compatible with the adjacent Park and Recreation (PR) parcel to the east, and compatible with the adjacent MDR and the Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP – Spanger Elementary) site to the south across Shasta Street. The City of Roseville General Plan provides a list of compatible “Implementing Zones” for each land use designation (General Plan Table II-10), which establishes what zoning designations are considered compatible with the applicable General Plan land use designation. The proposed RS zone is listed as an implementing zone for the LDR land use; therefore, the proposed zoning designation is compatible with the proposed General Plan land use.

Traffic: A transportation impact study was prepared by Fehr & Peers, an engineering consultant, to analyze the potential traffic impacts from the project. The study is included as Attachment 12 to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project (see Exhibits G and H). Consistent with General Plan policies, the traffic study included an estimated trip generation and analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Each item is discussed below.
- Trip Generation: The traffic study included an estimated trip generation, which was calculated based on trip rates and methodologies published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). Using the trip generation rate for “Single-Family Detached Housing”, the project would generate approximately 710 daily trips, with 56 occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 75 occurring during the p.m. peak hour. The project is reducing the density on the site and building less than the number of units anticipated and analyzed in the General Plan. Therefore, with the fewer number of units, the project’s trip generation is less than what was anticipated for the site. The City’s Engineering Division reviewed the traffic study and determined there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the trips generated by the project. - Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): VMT is a measurement of travel demand, representing the number of miles traveled by vehicles in some amount of time (e.g., VMT per day or annual VMT).

Consistent with state law, the General Plan has adopted VMT standards and requires land use amendments to be evaluated for consistency with these standards. Given the project proposes a reduced density with a lesser amount of units when compared to the current General Plan INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map, 360 Diamond Oaks Rd.; File #PL21-0162 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 6 of 20
allocation, the traffic study determined the project would generate less VMT than what was assumed in the General Plan. As such, the project would have a less than significant impact to the transportation system on the basis of project-generated VMT.

Utilities: As part of the environmental review of the project, a technical memo was prepared by MacKay & Somps (see Attachment 1) that evaluated the water and sewer demands based on the proposed land use designations and unit allocations proposed with the WB-41 Rezone project (file #PL21-0161) and the Sierra View Subdivision Map project (file #PL21-0162). The memo evaluated the two projects together given that the units proposed on SVSP Parcel WB-41 and WB-31 are being transferred from Infill Parcel 100. The memo concluded the proposed changes to the land use designations and unit allocations will result in less water demand and less sanitary sewer flows. The City’s Environmental Utilities staff reviewed the project and concluded the project as a whole will have a lower demand on City utilities than the previously anticipated land uses.

General Plan Amendment and Rezone Conclusion
In conclusion, as discussed above, the proposed GPA and Rezone of the property is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, and the proposed land use and zoning designation are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding area.

EVALUATION: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
Section 18.06.180 of the City of Roseville Subdivision
Ordinance requires that three findings be made in order to approve or conditionally approve a Tentative Subdivision Map. The three findings are listed below in bold, italics and are followed by an evaluation of the map in relation to each finding.

1. The size, design, character, grading, location,
orientation, and configuration of lots, roads and all
improvements for the tentative subdivision map are
consistent with the density, uses, circulation and
open space systems, applicable policies and
standards of the General Plan and the Community
Design Guidelines, and the design standards of Title
18 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the Roseville
Municipal Code.

The applicant is proposing a new gated subdivision on
Parcel 3 and 100 that will consist of 75 low density
residential lots, four (4) landscape/detention lots, five (5) landscape lots, one (1) open space lot, and one (1) private park lot (see Figure 3). Adequate access and circulation is provided to each parcel to facilitate development of the small lots and all single-family lots are oriented with frontage on the private streets. Gated access to the
subdivision will be provided via Diamond Oaks Road, on
the northern boundary of the site. A 24-foot wide
emergency vehicle access road will be provided via
Shasta Street, on the southern boundary of the site.

The proposed access and circulation design was
evaluated in the Transportation Impact Study prepared by Fehr & Peers (Attachment 12 of Exhibit I). The study
Figure 3: Tentative Subdivision Map
INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map, 360 Diamond Oaks Rd.; File #PL21-0162 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 7 of 20
evaluated four access scenarios. Two of the four scenarios consisted of full access onto Shasta Street with varying levels of access on Diamond Oaks Road. These two options were removed from further consideration because they would have substantially increased vehicular conflicts with Spanger Elementary School and would have introduced a sight distance constraint (i.e., horizontal curvature of Shasta Street) that may have proven difficult to solve. A third option consisting of full access on Diamond Oaks Road and partial access on Shasta Street, allowing for exiting movements only (along with an EVA) was also considered. This was also rejected because of the potential for wrong-way travel as well as continued conflicts with school traffic. The fourth option, which is the proposed project, provides full access on Diamond Oaks Road and EVA access only on Shasta Street. This was determined to be the most optimal design based on sight distance, traffic volumes, and safety. The project was reviewed by the City Engineering and City Fire Department staff and was found to comply with refuse service standards and with emergency circulation requirements.

Environmental Utilities will require residents within Sawgrass Court to bring their trash bins to a designated trash pickup area on the main street (Bandon Dunes), as refuse trucks are unable to make turning movements in this dead end street. This requirement will only affect four lots and is consistent with other subdivisions in the City that have short dead end streets. Designated pickup areas will be established to the satisfaction of Environmental Utilities and will be memorialized in the CC&Rs (Condition #48c of the Tentative Subdivision Map).

The Map Act and Subdivision Ordinance do not
contain any maximum or minimum lot sizes.

Instead these standards are contained within the
Zoning Ordinance. The project parcel will have a
zoning designation of Small Lot Residential (RS),
which has a minimum lot area of 4,275 square
feet for separated sidewalks and 4,500 square
feet for attached sidewalks. A majority of the lots
within the subdivision will exceed these minimum
lot area standards and will have an average lot
area of 6,800 square feet. The RS development
standard for lot width is a minimum of 45 feet,
which is measured at the front setback line (15
feet for attached sidewalks and 10 feet for
detached sidewalks). However, Lots 2 and 3 of
the proposed subdivision map do not meet this
minimum lot width; Lot 2 has a lot width of 35 feet
and Lot 3 has a lot width of 26 feet. As shown in
Figure 4, Lots 2 and 3 are located on the inside
of the street curve, which results in a condition
where the lot is narrow on the frontage, but then widens so that each lot is at least 45 feet wide, which is sufficient to accommodate development and meet the applicable RS development standards. As such, staff supports the widths as proposed.

2. The subdivision will result in lots which can be used or built upon. The subdivision will not create lots which are impractical for improvement or use due to: the steepness of terrain or location of watercourses in the area; the size or shape of the lots or inadequate building area; inadequate frontage or access; or, some other physical condition of the area.

The proposed parcels are of sufficient size and shape to accommodate development that is consistent with the applicable zoning and design requirements. As mentioned above, the lots are consistent with the applicable development standards, with the exception of Lots 2 and 3 identified above. However, these lots are still of sufficient size and shape to accommodate development. The proposed parcel configurations preserve the location of watercourses and do not create a physical condition that would be impractical for the proposed improvements.

Figure 4: Lots 2 and 3
INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map, 360 Diamond Oaks Rd.; File #PL21-0162 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 8 of 20

3. The design and density of the subdivision will not violate the existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the discharge of waste into the sewage system, Pursuant to Division 7 of the Water Code.

As part of the adoption of the General Plan, an assessment of wastewater demands was completed for the entire plan area. The proposed subdivision map will build fewer units than what the General Plan anticipated for this site, and therefore will not increase planned demands on sewage services; there will be no impacts to the existing requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

EVALUATION: TREE PERMIT
Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 19.66.030, a Tree Permit is required for any removal of native oak trees or for more than 20% encroachment into the dripline of a native oak tree. The proposed project will result in the removal and encroachment of several native oak trees. The required findings to approve a Tree Permit are listed below.

1. Approval of the Tree Permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, and approval of the Tree Permit is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 19.66.

2. Measures have been incorporated into the project or permit to mitigate impacts to remaining trees or to provide replacement for trees removed.

An arborist report including a tree inventory summary was provided by California Tree and Landscape Consulting, Inc., dated June 18, 2020 (see Exhibit E). A total of 323 protected oak trees were identified on the property. Staff worked with the applicant to preserve as many of the trees to the extent feasible; however, approximately 49% of the trees will require removal because they conflict with the proposed improvements. Of the 323 trees, 158 trees with a total aggregate diameter of 2,423 inches are proposed for removal to facilitate development of the site (see Exhibit F). Nine (9) of the trees proposed for removal were identified as having health problems and one was identified as a dead tree. The remaining 165 trees on the site are proposed to be retained, accounting for more than half of the total trees, and are primarily located within the power line corridors that will remain as open space. The project will encroach into the protected zone of 30 of the trees to remain due to proposed development activities, such as grading and construction of retaining walls.

The applicant has proposed to comply with the compensation requirements of the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. Mitigation may be completed with a combination of on-site planting and payment into the City’s in-lieu fee program. The in-lieu fee program funds are used for the replanting and preservation of trees throughout the City. The total number of mitigation inches for this project is 721. Mitigation fees are calculated at $118 per inch of tree removed when measured at the tree’s diameter at breast height (DBH). The tree mitigation fees for the project equate to $285,914 and are required to be paid prior to the removal of the trees.

The Tree Permit contains all of the standard conditions of approval, which includes a requirement to follow all of the recommendations of the Arborist Report. The removal of these trees will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, and measures have been incorporated to mitigate impacts.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
The proposed project was distributed to all internal and external agencies and departments who have requested such notice, and all comments or recommended conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project, as appropriate. Early notification of the project was posted on the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA)’s website. City staff included the project on the Planning Division’s Projects of Interest website, which included a project description, a link to the project plans, and was routinely updated with project updates. The developer also installed a sign on the project INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map, 360 Diamond Oaks Rd.; File #PL21-0162 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 9 of 20
site for the purpose of notifying the public of the intended land use change. A notice of the public hearing was published in the Sacramento Bee on December 3, 2021 and a notice of the hearing was also distributed to all property owners within 300 feet of the site, interested persons, and posted on the RCONA website. As of publication of this staff report, staff has received one phone call and one email in response to the public hearing notice. The call was from a resident within the Diamond Oaks neighborhood who was concerned with the project’s removal of oak trees. The email was from Kat Fiorentino, a resident of the Diamond Oaks neighborhood, who asked for information on which oak trees are proposed for removal and stated she was concerned with the adverse impact of removing wildlife habitat (see Attachment 2). Staff responded with a copy of the project plans, including the tree removal exhibit, as well as a link to the CEQA document for information on the project’s impacts to biological resources. Staff’s response is included with Attachment 2. Staff also received three comment letters regarding the CEQA document prepared for the proposed project, which are discussed in the Environmental Determination section below.

Prior to submitting a formal project application to the City, the property owner, Sierra View Land Company (“SVLC”), and the developer, Westpark Communities, held a total of three informational meetings with residents in the surrounding area in November 2020 and in March 2021. The purpose of those meetings was to provide information on the project and for residents to provide input on the initial plans. The initial plan for the site proposed smaller lot sizes with a greater number of units. However, residents expressed concerns with the density and lot sizes. As a result of this community feedback, the plans were revised to the current proposal of 75 units, with a lesser number of units and larger lots. The larger lots allow future builders the opportunity to bring forward a variety of single-story and two-story home plans, with lots adjacent to existing homes to the east of the project having additional depth to more closely conform to the lots of those existing homes.

Once a formal submittal was made to the City and staff had an opportunity to review the project, Westpark Communities presented the project at the Sierra View Neighborhood Association meeting on October 6, 2021. Residents of the Diamond Oaks neighborhood were also present. Approximately 50 people total were in attendance. City staff attended to answer questions related to the entitlement process. Residents asked questions on impacts to traffic, whether environmental review would be conducted, and what types of home plans would be offered.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Because the Sierra View Subdivision project (file #PL21-0162) is related to the SVSP Parcels WB-41 and WB-31 project (file #PL21-0161), the two projects are presented in a combined CEQA document (see Exhibit G). However, each action requires a different type of CEQA analysis based on its site location and the previous planning conducted for that site, and each requires different City approvals and entitlements. The Sierra View Subdivision project site is analyzed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060 et seq. and 15070 et. seq., as an Initial Study with accompanying environmental checklist leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration. As a result, the Sierra View Subdivision project will require site-specific mitigation measures not previously contemplated in any other planning or environmental documents. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, regarding a previously certified and adopted Environmental Impact Report (EIR), an Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010) was prepared for Parcels WB-31 and WB-41 to cover the minor technical changes and additions necessary to describe the impacts of the proposed project. The Addendum did not identify any new environmental impacts from the project. The CEQA document includes a Cumulative Considerations analysis, which looks at the combined effects of the two projects in order to set forth the total combined level of environmental impact from both the Sierra View Subdivision project and the SVSP Parcels WB41 & WB-31 project. This analysis provides additional consideration of the projects’ combined cumulative impacts by looking at the two actions together in the context of the approved full buildout of the General Plan area as contemplated in the certified 2020 General Plan EIR for the 2035 General Plan Update.

Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to taking action on this project. The documents were circulated for a 30-day public review that ended on December 6, 2021.

INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map, 360 Diamond Oaks Rd.; File #PL21-0162 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 10 of 20 Staff received three comment letters during the public review period of the CEQA document (see Attachment 2). The first comment letter was from Kat Fiorentino, a resident of the Diamond Oaks neighborhood, seeking clarification on the project description contained in the public notice since it referenced both the Sierra View Subdivision project and the SVSP Parcel WB-41 & WB-31 project. Staff provided an explanation of the projects and how they were linked. Staff’s response is included with Attachment 2.

The second comment letter was from Derek Pell, a Roseville resident. To summarize, Mr. Pell has concerns with the reduced density on Infill Parcels 3 and 100 because it is taking potential housing from a centralized, infill location and moving it to the edge of the City (i.e., SVSP Parcels WB-41 & WB-31). In terms of VMT, Mr. Pell claims that the combined effect of the rezoning will be that there will be fewer people close to amenities where it is possible to not drive, leading to more people in cars traveling longer distances. As documented in the traffic study prepared for the WB-41 Rezone project, the proposed rezone would generate 3,283 fewer daily site trips, 1,666 fewer daily trips entering/exiting the SVSP area, and a reduction of 11,599 VMT for the SVSP area and a reduction of 17,581 VMT for the City as a whole.

In addition, the Sierra View Subdivision project was found to generate less VMT than what was assumed in the General Plan, because it is reducing the density and number of units on the site. As a result, the combined impacts on the basis of project-generated VMT for both projects would not exceed any transportation and traffic impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

The third comment letter was submitted by Robert and Jane Maccione, owners of 1004 Shasta Street, stating that they object to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The letter claims that a more detailed and independent study of the environmental impacts of the proposed development of Parcels 3 and 100 is necessary and additional mitigation measures beyond those proposed in the MND are required. Staff has included a response to these comments in Attachment 3.

RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:

Adopt the Sierra View Country Club and Sierra Vista Specific Plan Redesignation and Rezone Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program and Consider the 6th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

For the Sierra View Subdivision Map Project (File # PL21-0162):

A. Recommend the City Council approve the GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (LAND USE MAP) – 360 DIAMOND OAKS ROAD – INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – SIERRA VIEW SUBDIVISION MAP – FILE #PL21-0162;
B. Recommend the City Council approve the REZONE – 360 DIAMOND OAKS ROAD – INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – SIERRA VIEW SUBDIVISION MAP – FILE #PL21-0162; C. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP – 360 DIAMOND OAKS ROAD – INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – SIERRA VIEW SUBDIVISION MAP – FILE #PL21-0162 subject to sixty-five (65) conditions of approval; and D. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the TREE PERMIT – 360 DIAMOND OAKS ROAD – INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – SIERRA VIEW SUBDIVISION MAP – FILE #PL21-0162 subject to twenty (20) conditions of approval.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP – FILE #PL21-0162

1. The approval of a Tentative Map and/or tentative site plan does not constitute approval of proposed improvements as to size, design, materials, or location, unless specifically addressed in these conditions INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map, 360 Diamond Oaks Rd.; File #PL21-0162 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 11 of 20 of approval. The Developer shall submit civil drawings to the Department of Development Services – Engineering Division for review and approval. (Engineering)

2. The design and construction of all improvements shall conform to the Design and Construction Standards of the City of Roseville, or as modified by these conditions of approval, or as directed by the City Engineer. (Engineering)

3. The applicant shall not commence with any on-site improvements or improvements within the rightof-way until such time as grading and/or improvement plans have been submitted for review and are approved with grading and/or encroachment permits issued by the Department of Development Services – Engineering Division. (Engineering)

4. The applicant shall pay City’s actual costs for providing plan check, mapping, GIS, and inspection services. This may be a combination of staff costs and direct billing for contract professional services.

Project billing may occur up to two (2) months after the end of warranty or the Notice of Termination date for the SWPPP, whichever occurs later. (Engineering, Environmental Utilities, Finance)

5. The project shall comply with all required environmental mitigation identified in the Sierra View Country Club and Sierra Vista Specific Plan Redesignation and Rezone Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2021110118), and shall include all applicable mitigation measures as notes on the grading plans. (All Departments)

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT AND/OR IMPROVEMENT PLANS

6. Landscape Plans for all landscape corridors and all landscaped common areas shall be approved with the improvement plans. Landscaping shall be installed for Substantial Completion of the subdivision improvements. Landscape corridors shall also successfully complete the required establishment period.

The landscape plan shall comply with the Community Design Guidelines and the City of Roseville Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. (Planning, Engineering, Parks, Fire, Environmental Utilities)

7. Grading around the native oak trees or other natural features shall be as shown on the tentative map or as approved in these conditions. (Planning)

8. The applicant shall submit to the Engineering Division the appropriate Army Corps of Engineers permit or clearance, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Stream Bed Alteration Agreement, and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality Certificate. (Planning)

9. The grading and improvement plans shall be designed in accordance with the City's Improvement Standards and Construction Standards and shall reflect the following:
a. Street improvements including, but not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, drainage systems, traffic striping, signing, medians and markings, etc. along all existing and proposed City streets, as required by Engineering.
b. Grading shall comply with the City grading ordinance. Erosion control devices (sediment traps, ditches, straw bales, etc.) shall be shown on the grading plans. All erosion control shall be installed prior to the onset of wet weather. Erosion control is installed to minimize silt discharge from the project site. It is incumbent upon the applicant to ensure that necessary measures are taken to minimize silt discharge from the site. Therefore modification of the erosion control plan may be warranted during wet weather conditions.
c. A rough grading permit may be approved by the Engineering Department prior to approval of the improvement plans.
d. Access to the floodplain as required by Engineering and the Streets Department.

INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map, 360 Diamond Oaks Rd.; File #PL21-0162 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 12 of 20 e. Standard Accessible ramps shall be installed at all curb returns per City Standards. (Engineering)

10. The Improvement Plans shall include a complete set of Landscape Plans. The Landscape Plans shall be approved with the Improvement Plans. (Planning, Engineering, Fire, Environmental Utilities, Electric)

11. For all work to be performed off-site, permission to enter and construct shall be obtained from the property owner, in the form of a notarized right-of-entry. Said notarized right-of-entry shall be provided to the Engineering Division prior to approval of any plans. (Engineering)

12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Department prior to any work conducted within the City right-of-way. (Engineering)

13. The applicant shall remove and reconstruct any existing damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the property frontage. During site inspection Engineering will designate the exact areas to be reconstructed. (Engineering)

14. All Lots/Parcels shall conform to Class 1 drainage, pursuant to the adopted City of Roseville Improvement Standards, except as shown on the tentative map or as approved in these conditions. (Engineering)

15. The following note shall be added to the Grading and/or Improvement Plans:

To minimize dust/grading impacts during construction the applicant shall:
a. Spray water on all exposed earth surfaces during clearing, grading, earth moving and other site preparation activities throughout the day.
b. Use tarpaulins or other affective covers on all stockpiled earth material and on all haul trucks. c. Sweep the adjacent streets frontages at least once a day or as needed to remove silt and other dirt which is evident from construction activities.
d. Ensure that construction vehicles are cleaned prior to leaving the construction site to prevent dust and dirt from being tracked off site.
e. The City shall have the authority to stop all grading operations, if in the opinion of city staff, inadequate dust control measures are being practiced or excessive wind conditions contribute to fugitive dust emissions. (Engineering)

16. Prior to the approval of the improvement plans, it will be the project proponent’s responsibility to pay the standard City Trench Cut Recovery Fee for any cuts within the City streets that are required for the installation of underground utilities. (Engineering)

17. A note shall be added to the grading plans that states:
“Prior to the commencement of grading operations, the contractor shall identify the site where the excess/borrow earthen material shall be imported/deposited. If the borrow/deposit site is within the City of Roseville, the contractor shall produce a report issued by a geotechnical engineer to verify that the exported materials are suitable for the intended fill, and shall show proof of all approved grading plans. Haul routes to be used shall be specified.” (Engineering)

18. The applicant shall dedicate a separate drainage easement to the City of Roseville for the storm drain facility required to transfer public storm waters through the site. The easement document shall be drafted for approval and acceptance by the City of Roseville, and recorded at the County Recorder’s Office. (Engineering)
INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map, 360 Diamond Oaks Rd.; File #PL21-0162 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 13 of 20

19. The grading plans for the site shall be accompanied with a shed map that defines that area tributary to this site. All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate the tributary flow. All on-site storm drainage shall be collected on site and shall be routed to the nearest existing storm drain stub of natural drainage coarse. (Engineering)

20. Prior to approval of improvement plans, drainage calculations must be submitted that are consistent with the City of Roseville storm drain standards. (Engineering)

21. All private subdivision entrances shall be design and constructed per City Standards. The entrances shall be owned and maintained by the HOA. (Engineering)

22. All storm drainage, including roof drains, shall be collected on site and shall be routed to the nearest storm drain system or natural drainage facility. Prior to discharge from the site, the storm water shall be treated with appropriate storm water pollution treatment device(s). Any drainage outfalls shall extend down to the receiving water and shall be constructed with adequate velocity attenuation devices. All drainage facilities on site shall be privately owned and maintained (by the Home Owners Association). The City has no responsibility in the maintenance of the drainage facilities and will not assume any responsibilities for maintenance in the future. (Engineering)

23. The grading plans shall be accompanied with engineered structural calculations for all retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height. All retaining walls shall be of either split faced masonry units, rockery, keystone type construction, or cast in place concrete with fascia treatment. (Engineering)

24. The developer shall be responsible for any necessary relocation of signal interconnect cables that may require re-location as a result of the construction of turn lanes and/or driveways. (Engineering)

25. To ensure that the design for any necessary widening, construction, or modifications of Public Streets does not conflict with existing dry utilities generally located behind the curb and gutter, and prior to the submittal of design drawings for those frontage improvements, the project proponent shall have the existing dry utilities pot holed for verification of location and depth. (Engineering)

26. Sight distances for all driveways shall be clearly shown on the improvement plans to verify that minimum standards are achieved. It will be the responsibility of the project proponent to provide appropriate landscaping and improvement plans, and to relocate and/or modify existing facilities as needed to meet these design objectives. (Engineering)

27. Improvement plans shall show the Preserve boundary and label it as a protected area. The PreConstruction meeting shall address the presence of the Preserve, the sensitive habitats present and minimization of disturbance to the Preserve. During grading and construction the preserve area shall be avoided and shall not be used for parking, storage, or project staging. The contractor shall remove all trash blown into the preserve from adjacent construction on a daily basis. After construction is complete, the temporary fencing shall be removed from the preserve, along with all temporary erosion control measures (e.g., straw bales, straw waddles and stakes, silt fencing). (Engineering, Development Services, Planning)

28. Prior to construction within any phase of the project, high visibility temporary construction fencing shall be installed along the parcel adjacent to the Preserve. Fencing shall be maintained daily until permanent fencing is installed, at which time the temporary fencing shall be removed from the project site. (Engineering, Development Services, Planning)

29. With the exception of access required for maintenance and/or emergency vehicles, the project shall be designed to prevent vehicle access into the Preserve. Post and cable fencing or other improvements shall be utilized to meet this requirement. (Engineering, Development Services, Planning)
INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map, 360 Diamond Oaks Rd.; File #PL21-0162 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 14 of 20

30. Landscaping adjacent to the Preserve shall be California native, drought-tolerant groundcover, shrubs, plants, and trees. (Development Services, Planning)

31. Prior to the approval of the Improvement Plans, the project proponent shall provide proof of preparation and submittal of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Proof shall be in the form of the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID#), provided to the applicant from RWQCB, placed on the coversheet of the improvement plans. Upon approval of the improvement plans, a copy of the SWPPP shall be required

32. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or approval of Improvement Plans, the grading plans shall clearly identify all existing water, sewer and recycled water utilities within the boundaries of the project (including adjoining public right of way). Existing utilities shall be identified in plan-view and in profileview where grading activities will modify existing site elevations over top of or within 15 feet of the utility.

Any utilities that could potentially be impacted by the project shall be clearly identified along with the proposed protection measures. The developer shall be responsible for taking measures and incurring costs associated with protecting the existing water, sewer and recycled water utilities to the satisfaction of the Environmental Utilities Director. (Environmental Utilities)

33. Water and sewer infrastructure shall be designed and constructed pursuant to the adopted City of Roseville Improvement Standards and Construction Standards and shall reflect the following:
a. Sewer and water service laterals shall not be allowed off of water and sewer mains larger than 12 inches in diameter.
b. Utilities or permanent structures shall not be located within the area which would be disturbed by an open trench needed to expose sewer trunk mains deeper than 12 feet unless approved by Environmental Utilities in these conditions. The area needed to construct the trench is a sloped cone above the sewer main. The cone shall have 1:1 side slopes. c. Water and sewer mains shall not exceed a depth of 12 feet below finished grade, unless authorized in these conditions.
d. All sewer manholes shall have all-weather 10-ton vehicular access unless authorized by these conditions. (Environmental Utilities)

34. Any backflow preventers visible from the street shall be painted green to blend in with the surrounding landscaping. The backflow preventers shall be screened with landscaping and shall comply with the following criteria:
a. There shall be a minimum clearance of four feet (4'), on all sides, from the backflow preventer to the landscaping.
b. For maintenance purposes, the landscaping shall be installed on a maximum of three sides and the plant material shall not have thorns.
c. The control valves and the water meter shall be physically unobstructed. d. The backflow preventer shall be covered with a green cover that will provide insulation. (Environmental Utilities)

35. A note shall be added to the Improvement Plans stating that all water backflow devices shall be tested and approved by the Environmental Utilities Department prior to the Notice of Completion for the improvements. (Environmental Utilities)
INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map, 360 Diamond Oaks Rd.; File #PL21-0162 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 15 of 20

36. Residents in dead end alleys (Sawgrass Court) are required to bring their trash bins to a designated pick up area on the main street (Bandon Dunes). Wording to this effect shall be included in the CC&Rs. (Environmental Utilities)

37. Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the Fire Department. The maximum distance between fire hydrants shall not exceed 500' on center. (Fire)

38. Minimum fire flow is 1,500 gallons per minute with 20 pounds of residual pressure. The fire flow and residual pressure may be increased, as determined by the Fire Marshall, where the project utility lines will serve non-residential uses. (Fire)

39. Any facilities proposed for placement within public/electric utility easements shall be subject to review and approval by the Electric Department before any work commences in these areas. This includes, but is not limited to, landscaping, lighting, paving, signs, trees, walls, and structures of any type. (Electric)

40. All Electrical Department facilities, including street lights where applicable, shall be designed and built to the “City of Roseville Specifications for Residential Trenching”. (Electric)

41. The design for electrical service for this project will begin when the Electric Department has received a full set of improvement plans for the project. (Electric)

42. All landscaping in areas containing electrical service equipment shall conform to the “Electric Department Landscape Design Requirements” as outlined in Section 7.00 of the Electric Department’s “Specifications for Residential Trenching.” (Electric)

43. The location and design of the gas service shall be determined by PG&E. The design of gas service for this project shall not begin until PG&E has received a full set of City approved improvement plans for the project. (PG&E)

44. It is the developer's responsibility to notify PG&E of any work required on PG&E facilities. (PG&E)

PRIOR TO OR UPON RECORDATION OF FINAL/PARCEL MAP

45. The following easements shall be provided and shown on the Final Map or by separate instrument, unless otherwise provided for in these conditions:
a. A 10’ (12.5’ for Diamond Oaks) foot wide public utilities easement along all road frontages; b. Storm Drain easements;
Easement widths shall comply with the City’s Improvement Standards and Construction Standards. The easement documents shall be drafted for approval and acceptance by the City of Roseville and recorded at the Placer County Recorder’s Office. (Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering)

46. All existing easements shall be maintained, or shown to be abandoned on tentative subdivision map, unless otherwise provided for in these conditions. (Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering)

47. Separate document easements required by the City shall be prepared in accordance with the City’s “Policy for Dedication of Easements to the City of Roseville”. All legal descriptions shall be prepared by a licensed land Surveyor. (Alternative Transportation, Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering)

48. A declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs), in a form approved by the City Attorney, shall be recorded on the entire property concurrently with the Final/Parcel Map. The CC&Rs shall include the following items: (Attorney, Planning) INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map, 360 Diamond Oaks Rd.; File #PL21-0162 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 16 of 20 a. A clause prohibiting the amendment, revision or deletion of any sections in the CC&Rs required by these conditions of approval without the prior written consent of the City Attorney. b. A clause excluding any property owned by the City from the terms of the CC&Rs. c. Residents in courts or other dead-end areas (Sawgrass Court) shall be required to bring their trash bins to a designated trash pickup area on the main street (Brandon Dunes), because refuse trucks are not able to turn around in dead end streets. Designated pick-up areas shall be established to Environmental Utilities satisfaction, and shall be memorialized in the CC&Rs. (Environmental Utilities).
d. There shall be clear language regarding maintenance and common easements agreement for servicing all fire protection systems and gates used by the first responders. A service company shall be obtained to maintain all on-site fire protection systems including all common interior adjoining fire sprinkler-piping penetrations and private fire hydrants. An agreement between owners and tenants shall be made to allow permission to enter the premises to inspect all apparatuses associated with fire protection. Draft documents shall be provided to the Fire Department for review. (Fire)

49. The City shall not approve the Final Map for recordation until either:
a. A subdivision agreement is entered into along with the necessary bonds and insurance as required by the City. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. i. OR
b. The improvement plans are approved, and the improvements are constructed and accepted as complete. In this case, the subdivider shall enter into a one-year maintenance agreement concurrent with the recordation of the Final Map. (Engineering)

50. Street names shall be approved by the City of Roseville. (Engineering)

51. The subject property shall be annexed into Infill, CFD No. 4 prior to approval of the Final/Parcel Map.

This property is being added into this district in order to fund the ongoing City maintenance brought on by the subdivision. It is the applicant's responsibility to prepare the appropriate documentation for the annexation of this property into the CFD. In order to allow the CFD to be in place at the beginning of the fiscal year, the documentation shall be provided to the Finance Department not later than March 15 of the year preceding the fiscal year in which this annexation will become effective. (Finance, Engineering)

52. The Final/Parcel Map shall include an irrevocable offer to dedicate public rights-of-way and public and/or private easements as required by the City. (Engineering)

53. The words "traffic control appurtenances" shall be included in the list of utilities allowed in public utilities easements (PUE's) located along public roadways. (Engineering)

54. The Final/Lot/Parcel/Parcel Map shall be submitted per, “The Digital Submittal of Cadastral Surveys”.

Submittal shall occur after Engineering approval but prior to Council approval. (Engineering)

55. The cost of any facilities which are identified in the CIP and are beyond those needed for this project may be reimbursed to the developer. In accordance with §66485 and §66486 of the Subdivision Map Act, any improvements constructed by the subdivider which contain supplemental size, capacity, number, or length for the benefit of property not within the subdivision and which improvements are to be dedicated to the public, the subdivider shall be entitled to reimbursement for that portion of the cost of the improvements which is in excess of the construction required for the subdivision. (Engineering)

56. Electric construction costs incurred by the City of Roseville Electric Department for this project shall be paid for by the developer per the applicable policy. (Electric) INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map, 360 Diamond Oaks Rd.; File #PL21-0162 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 17 of 20

57. A 10’ electrical easement shall be required for lots 37 and lot 38.

58. The applicant shall pay all applicable water and sewer fees. (Environmental Utilities)

OTHER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

59. The applicant shall pay City's actual costs for providing plan check, installation and inspection services.

This may be a combination of staff costs and direct billing for contract professional services. (Environmental Utilities, Engineering)

60. Any relocation, rearrangement, or change to existing electric facilities due to this development shall be at the developer’s expense. (Electric)

61. It is the responsibility of the developer to insure that all existing electric facilities remain free and clear of any obstructions during construction and when the project is complete. (Electric)

62. Existing public facilities damaged during the course of construction shall be repaired by the applicant, at the applicant's expense, to the satisfaction of the City. (Engineering)

63. The project is subject to the noise standards established in the City's Noise Ordinance. In accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance project construction is exempt between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m. Saturday and Sunday. Provided, however, that all construction equipment shall be fitted with factory installed muffling devices and that all construction equipment shall be maintained in good working order. (Engineering)

64. If site survey or earth moving work results in the discovery of hazardous materials in containers or what appears to be hazardous wastes released into the ground, the contractor shall notify the Roseville Fire Department immediately. A representative from the Fire Department will make a determination as to whether the incident is reportable or not and if site remediation is required. Non-emergency releases or notifications about the presence of containers found shall be reported to the Fire Department. (Fire)

65. The Tentative Subdivision Map shall not be deemed approved until the actions on the Rezoning and General Plan Amendment are approved and become effective. (Planning) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE TREE PERMIT – FILE #PL21-0162

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMITS OR ANY CONSTRUCTION ON-SITE

1. All recommendations contained in the Arborist Report (Exhibit E) are incorporated by reference into these conditions, except as modified herein. (Planning)

2. Trees #424, 6501, 6503, 6504, 6508 to 6549, 6555 to 6568, 6573 to 6575, 6578 to 6581, 6584, 6591 to 6598, 6603 to 6617, 6619 to 6620, 6624 to 6639, 6659, 6665, 6670, 6702 to 6710, 6736 to 6742, 6749, 6750, 6753 to 6757, 6760 to 6762, 6764, 6765, 6771, 6773, 6775 to 6777, 6779, 6787 to 6805, 6807, 6808, 6810, 6811, and 6824 (or as listed in Exhibits E and F) are approved for removal with this tree permit. All other native oak trees shall remain in place. Trees to be removed shall be clearly marked in the field and inspected by Planning Staff prior to removal. Removal of the trees shall be performed by or under the supervision of a certified arborist. (Planning)

3. The developer shall be responsible for the replacement of the total number of inches proposed for removal prior to any tree removal. The total number of inches for this project is 2,423. Mitigation must be provided prior to tree removal unless otherwise approved in the tree replacement plan or in these INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map, 360 Diamond Oaks Rd.; File #PL21-0162 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 18 of 20 conditions. Mitigation may be provided in the form of payment in the amount of $285,914 ($118 per inch), or in combination with plantings of non-native and native trees on site. (Planning)

4. No activity shall be permitted within the protected zone of any native oak tree beyond those identified by this report. Encroachment into the protected zone of Trees #6506, 6507, 6550, 6554, 6572, 6583, 6585, 6588, 6589, 6599, 6600, 6602, 6618, 6621, 6623, 6652, 6701, 6711 to 6715, 6743, 6748, 6772, 6774, 6778, 6781 to 6784, 6786, 6806, and 6809 (or as listed in Exhibit E) as shown in Exhibit F and described in the staff report is permitted. (Planning)

5. A $10,000 cash deposit or bond (or other means of security provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Division) shall be posted to ensure the preservation of all remaining trees during construction. The cash deposit or bond shall be posted in a form approved by the City Attorney. Each occurrence of a violation on any condition regarding tree preservation shall result in forfeiture of all or a portion of the cash deposit or bond. (Planning)

6. A violation of any of the conditions of this Tree Permit is a violation of the Roseville Municipal Code, the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 19.74) and the Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 19.66). Penalties for violation of any of the conditions of approval may include forfeiture of the bond, suspension or revocation of the permit, payment of restitution, and criminal penalties. (Planning)

7. A fencing plan shall be shown on the approved site plan and/or improvement plans demonstrating the Protected Zone for the affected trees. A maximum of three feet beyond the edge of the walls, driveways, or walkways will be allowed for construction activity and shall be shown on the fencing plan. The fencing plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the placement of the protective fencing. (Planning)

8. The applicant shall install a minimum of a five-foot high chain link fence (or acceptable alternative) at the outermost edge of the Protected Zone of the oak tree. Where encroachment is permitted pursuant to Condition 4, above, the fencing for encroachments shall be installed at the limit of construction activity.

The applicant shall install signs at two equidistant locations on the temporary fence that are clearly visible from the front of the lot and where construction activity will occur. The size of each sign shall be a minimum of two feet (2’) by two feet (2’) and must contain the following language: “WARNING THIS

FENCE SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR RELOCATED WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE PLANNING DIVISION”. (Planning)

9. Once the fencing is installed, the applicant shall schedule an appointment with the Planning Division to inspect and approve the temporary fencing before beginning any construction. (Planning)

10. The applicant shall arrange with the arborist to perform, and certify in writing, the completion of deadwooding, fertilization, and all other work recommended for completion prior to the approval of improvement plans. Pruning shall be done by an Arborist or under the direct supervision of a Certified Arborist, in conformance with International Society of Arboriculture (I.S.A.) standards. Any watering and deep root fertilization which the arborist deems necessary to protect the health of the trees as noted in the arborist report or as otherwise required by the arborist shall be completed by the applicant. (Planning)

11. A utility trenching pathway plan shall be submitted depicting all of the following systems: storm drains, sewers, water mains, and underground utilities. The trenching pathway plan shall show the proposed locations of all lateral lines. (Planning)
INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map, 360 Diamond Oaks Rd.; File #PL21-0162 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 19 of 20 12. A Site Planning Meeting shall be held with the applicant, the applicant's primary contractor, the Planning Division and the Engineering Division to review this permit, the approved grading or improvement plans, and the tree fencing prior to any grading on-site. The Developer shall call the Planning Division and Engineering Division two weeks prior to the start of grading work to schedule the meeting and fencing inspection. (Planning)

13. The following information must be located on-site during construction activities: Arborist Report, approved site plan/improvement plans including fencing plan, and conditions of approval for the Tree Permit. All construction must follow the approved plans for this tree permit without exception. (Planning)

14. All preservation devices (aeration systems, oak tree wells, drains, special paving, etc.) shall be designed and installed as required by these conditions and the arborist’s recommendations, and shall be shown on the improvement plans or grading plans. (Planning)

15. If any native ground surface fabric within the Protected Zone must be removed for any reason, it shall be replaced within forty-eight (48) hours. (Planning)

16. Storage or parking of materials, equipment, or vehicles is not permitted within the Protected Zone of any oak tree. Vehicles and other heavy equipment shall not be operated within the Protected Zone of any oak tree. (Planning)

17. Where recommended by the arborist, portions of the foundation shall be hand dug under the direct supervision of the project arborist. The certified arborist shall immediately treat any severed or damaged roots. Minor roots less than one (1) inch in diameter may be cut, but damaged roots shall be traced back and cleanly cut behind any split, cracked or damaged area. Major roots over one (1) inch in diameter may not be cut without approval of an arborist and any arborist recommendations shall be implemented. (Planning)

18. The temporary fencing shall remain in place throughout the entire construction period and shall not be removed without obtaining written authorization from the Planning Division. In no event shall the fencing be removed before the written authorization is received from the Planning Division. (Planning)

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF FINAL

19. Within 5 days of the completion of construction, a Certification Letter from a certified arborist shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division. The certification letter shall attest to all of the work (regulated activity) that was conducted in the protected zone of the tree, either being in conformance with this permit or of the required mitigation still needing to be performed. (Planning)

20. The approval of this Tree Permit shall expire on the same expiration date as the Tentative Subdivision Map. (Planning)

ATTACHMENTS

1. Water and Sewer Demands Memo, MacKay & Somps, October 2021

2. Public Comments

3. Staff’s Response to Robert and Jane Maccione’s Comments

EXHIBITS
A. GPA Exhibit
B. General Plan Land Use Map
C. Rezone Exhibit
D. Plans
INFILL PCL 3 & 100 – Sierra View Subdivision Map, 360 Diamond Oaks Rd.; File #PL21-0162 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 20 of 20 E. Arborist Report F. Tree Removal Exhibit
G. Combined CEQA Document
H. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachments 1-5 I. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachments 6-7 J. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachments 8-11 K. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachments 12-15 Note to Applicant and/or Developer: Please contact Planning Division staff at (916) 774-5276 prior to the Commission meeting if you have any questions on any of the recommended conditions for your project. If you challenge the decision of the Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you or someone else raised at the public hearing held for this project, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Manager at, or prior to, the public hearing.

NOTE: Attachments 2-3 , Exhibits A-C, and Exhibits G-K
are not included as part of CC Attachment 1 (Planning
Commission Staff Report Item 6.1a), because they are
already included as attachments/exhibits to the City
Council Communication.

MEMORANDUM
— SINCE 1953 —
1025 CREEKSIDE RIDGE DRIVE, SUITE 150, ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95678 PHONE (916) 773-1189 FAX (916) 773-2595 OFFICES: ROSEVILLE PLEASANTON
www.msce.com
Date: October 15, 2021 Project Number: 18512 and 18437
To: Ryan O’Keefe
From: Allison Wathen
Subject: Sierra View, WB-31, and WB-41 Water and Sewer Demands Message:

MacKay and Somps is processing a specific plan amendment and general plan amendment for Sierra View, Parcel WB-41 and Parcel WB-31 within the City of Roseville. Sierra View is located south of Diamond Oaks Road and north of Shasta Street. Parcel WB-41 is located south of Pleasant Grove Boulevard, west of Daylight Drive, and east of Santucci Boulevard. Parcel WB-31 is located north of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and east of Santucci Boulevard.

Sierra View is currently designated as a residential land use in the medium density residential (MDR) category and allocates 168 units. Parcel WB-41 is approximately 10.11 acres and is currently designated as commercial (CC) land use. Parcel WB-31 is approximately 11.1 acres and is currently designated as high density residential (HDR) land use with a current allocation of 263 units. This condition is referred to in the tables below as the “Approved Project” The applicant is proposing to change the land uses for these projects as follows:
• Sierra View: 75 low density residential (LDR) units
• Parcel WB-41: 63 (MDR) units
• Parcel WB-31: 293 HDR units
This proposed condition is referred to in the tables below as the “Proposed Project”.

MacKay and Somps has analyzed the changes in sanitary sewer flow and potable water demand based on the proposed land use designations and unit allocations. Table 1 below calculates and compares the sewer flow for the Approved Project and Proposed Project conditions. It has been determined that the proposed changes to the land use designations and unit allocations results in approximately 0.07 MDG less flow.

Table 2 below calculates and compares the total surface water required for the Approved Project and Proposed Project conditions. It has been determined that the proposed changes to the land use designations and unit allocations results in a reduced need for surface water, approximately 2.0 AFY less. These calculations have been confirmed with the City of Roseville in an email exchange dated June 23, 2021.

PC ATTACHMENT 1

MEMORANDUM
— SINCE 1953 —
1025 CREEKSIDE RIDGE DRIVE, SUITE 150, ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95678 PHONE (916) 773-1189 FAX (916) 773-2595 OFFICES: ROSEVILLE PLEASANTON
www.msce.com
Best Regards,
MacKay & Somps Civil Engineers, Inc.

BY: Allison Wathen
cc: Eric Crow

APPROVED PROJECT ZONING ACRES
TOTAL
UNITS
FLOW

FACTOR Q(ADWF)

FACTORED
FLOW
PEAK

FACTOR Q(PWWF)

EDU GPD/EDU MG/D MG/D MG/D MG/D
PARCEL WB-41 CC 10.11 850 0.009 0.017 3.5 0.06
PARCEL WB-31 HDR 11.1 263 130 0.034 0.068 3.5 0.24
SIERRA VIEW MDR 23.1 168 190 0.032 0.064 3.5 0.22

0.52 PROPOSED PROJECT ZONING ACRES
TOTAL
UNITS
FLOW

FACTOR Q(ADWF)

FACTORED
FLOW
PEAK

FACTOR Q(PWWF)

EDU GPD/EDU MG/D MG/D MG/D MG/D
PARCEL WB-41 MDR 10.11 63 190 0.012 0.024 3.5 0.0838
PARCEL WB-31 HDR 11.1 293 130 0.038 0.076 3.5 0.2666
SIERRA VIEW LDR 23.1 75 190 0.014 0.029 3.5 0.10

0.45 0.07
Table 1 - Sewer

LESS FLOW

APPROVED PROJECT ZONING ACRES UNITS DENSITY
DEMAND
FACTOR

PROJECTED

DEMAND (MGD)
TOTAL
AFY
ANNUAL

IRRIGATION
DEMAND
% SITE

IRRIGATED RW AFY
TOTAL

SURFACE
WATER
PARCEL WB-41 CC 10.11 2598 0.03 29.42 3.60 0.30 10.92 18.50 PARCEL WB-31 HDR 11.1 263 23.7 177 0.05 52.14 3.60 0.40 15.98 36.15 SIERRA VIEW MDR 23.1 168 7.3 430 0.07 80.91 0.00 80.91
135.56

PROPOSED PROJECT ZONING ACRES UNITS DENSITY
DEMAND
FACTOR

PROJECTED

DEMAND (MGD)
TOTAL
AFY
ANNUAL

IRRIGATION
DEMAND
% SITE

IRRIGATED RW AFY
TOTAL

SURFACE
WATER
PARCEL WB-41 MDR 10.11 63 6.2 430 0.0271 30.3 0.00 30.34 PARCEL WB-31 HDR 11.1 293 26.4 177 0.052 58.1 3.60 0.4 15.98 42.10 SIERRA VIEW LDR 23.1 75 3.2 728 0.055 61.2 0.00 61.15
133.59
-2.0
Table 2 - Water

ADDITIONAL WATER REQUIRED
1 2 3 4 5 7 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 41 40 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Torrey Pines Drive
Southern
Bethpage Court
Bay Hill
Sawgrass Place LOT A LOT B LOT H LOT F LOT G LOT I
LOT J LOT C LOT D N MAPS 68 DIAMOND OAKS UNIT 7 N MAPS 69 SIERRA TOWNHOMES UNIT NO. 1 N MAPS 69 SIERRA TOWNHOMES UNIT NO. 1 M MAPS 87

WALTON ESTATES
M MAPS 87
WALTON ESTATES Q MAPS 79
SIERRA OAKS LOT E Shasta Street
Diamond Oaks Road 35 P.M. 46 DESIGNATED REMAINDER
Court
Whistling Straits Drive
Bandon Dunes Drive
Bandon Dunes Court
Torrey Pines Court 24' E.V.A. LOT K
Hills Court R=45' TO R/W 38' R/W 4' WALK 3' C&G R=43' TO R/W OFFSET CUL-DE-SACS ARE PERMITTED STANDARD CUL-DE-SAC n.t.s. (CITY OF ROSEVILLE STD. DWG ST-14 & 15) R=39' TO R/W R=49' TO R/W 34' R/W 4' WALK 3' C&G MODIFIED CUL-DE-SAC n.t.s. R=55' TO R/WR=41' TO R/W 18' TREE WELL R=30' R=51' TO R/W R=45' TO R/W 27' 3' cg 18' travel lane 18' travel lane 3' cg 4' walk ROW DIAMOND OAKS ROAD 54' ROW n.t.s.

A
CL 27' 54' ROW 4' walk RESIDENTIAL SIERRA VIEW type 1 c&g 12.5' PUE 12.5' PUE 2' 2' RESIDENTIAL ENTRY B 10' median 3' cg 24' travel lane 4'* walk 24' travel lane 3' cg ROW ROW 36' CL 32' 68' 10' PUE 10' PUE type 1 c&g type 2 barrier curb n.t.s. (MODIFIED CITY OF ROSEVILLE STD. DWG ST-25) * Sidewalk may be detached to accomodate gated entry. 17' 3' cg 14' travel lane 14' travel lane 3' cg ROW MINOR RESIDENTIAL STREET n.t.s.

C
CL 21' 38' ROW 4' walk type 1 c&g 10' PUE 10' PUE 17' 3' cg 14' travel lane 14' travel lane 3' cg ROWSAWGRASS PLACE 34' ROW n.t.s.

D
CL 17' 34' ROW RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL type 1 c&g 10' PUE 10' PUE (MODIFIED CITY OF ROSEVILLE STD. DWG ST-2) 17' 3' cg 24' Emergency Vehicle Access 4' walk type 2 barrier curb 2%type 2 c&g EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS F n.t.s. ROW ROW 13' 3' cg 14' travel lane 10' travel lane 3' cg ROW MINOR RESIDENTIAL STREET n.t.s.

E
CL 21' 34' ROW 4' walk type 1 c&g 10' PUE 10' PUE (NO PARKING WEST SIDE) Sheet 1 of 3 Roseville, CA November 18, 2021 COVER SHEET TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP SIERRA VIEW N TENTATIVE MAP INFORMATION APPLICANT: WP Sierra View, LLC 1420 Rocky Ridge Drive, Suite 265 Roseville, CA 95661 OWNER: SVLC 23, LLC ENGINEER: MacKay & Somps Civil Engineers, Inc. 1025 Creekside Ridge Drive, Suite 150 Roseville, CA 95678 916-773-1189 SITE ADDRESS: 360 Diamond Oaks Road Roseville, CA 95678 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 015-011-029 SITE AREA: 23.10 ± AC. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: Existing: LDR & MDR Proposed: LDR ZONING: Existing: R1 & R3 Proposed: RS NUMBER OF LOTS/PARCELS: 86 TOTAL LOTS 75 LDR Lots 4 Landscape / Detention Lots 5 Landscape Lots 1 Open Space Lot 1 Private Park Lot SERVICE PROVIDERS: Parks & Recreation: City of Roseville Police & Fire Protection: City of Roseville Sanitary Sewer: City of Roseville Domestic & Recycled Water: City of Roseville Electricity: City of Roseville Telephone: AT&T & Consolidated Communications Gas: PG&E Cable: Comcast/Consolidated Communications PARCEL SUMMARY TABLE ROSEVILLE CITY OF ROCKLIN CITY OF 65 80 city limits, typ.
city limits, typ. SITE

ROSEVILLE PKWY

GALLERIA BLVD

FOOTHILLS BLVD

WOODCREEK
OAKS

BLVD JUNCTION BLVD BASELINE ROAD MAIN ST

ATKINSON AVE VINEYARD RD

SHASTA ST

DIAMOND OAKS RD WASHINGTON BLVD DOUGLAS BLVD

ATLANTIC ST

INDUSTRIAL AVE

SIERRA BLVD

LEAD HILLBLVD

FOLSOM RD

OAK ST COUNTY PLACER

SUNRISE AVE NORTH

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
EUREKA
RD

ROCKY RIDGE DR
FAIRWAY DR 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The land described herein is situated in the state of California, County of Placer, City of Roseville, described as follows: Parcel 1 of Sierra View Parcel Map #2, Subdivision No. 000142, filed for record May 3, 2013, in Book 35 of Parcel Maps, at Page 46.Together with that portion of 'Resultant Parcel 2' of Lot Line Adjustment filed for record March 5, 2013, in Document No. 2013-0021343, Official Records, Placer County; more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point being the Southeast corner of said 'Resultant Parcel 2' of Lot Line Adjustment filed for record March 5, 2013, in Document No. 2013-0021343, Official Records, Placer County and also being the Northeast corner of Parcel 1 of Sierra View Parcel Map #2, Subdivision No. 000142, filed for record May 3, 2013, in Book 35 of Parcel Maps, at Page 46; thence North 00°09'20" East 125.00 feet to the Southerly right of way of Diamond Oaks Road;thence along said right of way, the following four (4) courses:
1) North 89"50'40" West 2.13 feet to a point of cusp with a non-tangent curve, concave South, having a radius of 373.00 feet, the initial radial of which bears North 09°32'51" East; 2) Along said curve an arc distance of 61.14 feet through a central angle of 09°23'31", said curve being subtended by a chord bearing North 85°08' 54" West 61.07 feet, a radial to said point which bears North 00°09'20" East;
3) North 89°50'40" West 307.36 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave North, having a radius of 527.00 feet;
4) Along said curve an arc distance of 213.35 feet, through a central angle of 23°11'42", said curve being subtended by a chord bearing North 78°14' 48" West 211.89 feet, a radial to said point which bears South 23°21'03" West,being the northeast corner of 'Resultant Parcel1' of Lot Line Adjustment filed for record March 5, 2013, in Document No. 2013-0021343, Official Records,Placer County; thence along Easterly lot line of said 'Resultant Parcel 1' of Lot Line Adjustment filed for record March 5, 2013, in Document No. 2013-0021343, Official Records,Placer County South 00°09'20"West 47.60 feet to the Southeast corner of said 'Resultant Parcel 1'; thence South00°09'20" West 125.07 feet to a point on the Northerly boundary line of Parcel 1 of Sierra View Parcel Map #2, Subdivision No. 000142, filed for record May 3, 2013, in Book 35 of Parcel Maps, at Page 46; thence along said Northerly boundary line South 89°51'05"East 577.92 feet back to the Point of Beginning.

The above legal description is made pursuant to that certain 'Lot Line Adjustment and Certificate of Compliance' recorded March 6, 2014, Instrument No. 2014-0014272, Official Records, and being "Resultant Parcel 1" as described therein.Reserving therefrom, a 50' Private Access Easement for the benefit of the 'Remainder Parcel', as shown on said Parcel Map entitled 'Sierra View Parcel Map #2, Subdivision No. 000142', filed for record May 3, 2013, in Book 35 of Parcel Maps, at Page 46.

2. Lot dimensions and acreages are approximate and are subject to change.3. Lot lines and lot areas may be adjusted at the time of Final Map(s) preparation provided no additional lots are created, subject to approval by the City of Roseville.

4. The Final Mapping and subsequent development of parcels and streets may be phased.

Project improvements are deferred to individual Small Lot Final Maps or project development plans.

5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66463.1, the subdivider may file multiple Final Maps based upon this Tentative Subdivision Map. The filing of a Final Map on a portion of this Tentative Subdivision Map shall not invalidate any part of this Tentative Subdivision Map.

6. The Final Mapping and subsequent development of parcels and streets may be phased.

Phasing is to be consistent with the applicable infrastructure phasing matrix.

7. Additional easements to accommodate new public utility improvements, access required for parcel development, rights to construct, or other similar mapping requirements needed to accomplish the final design may be added prior to each Small Lot Final Map based on this Tentative Subdivision Map.

8. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66499.20.2, the land shown hereon may be merged and resubdivided without reversion to acreage and may constitute abandonment ofportions of the existing easements, subject to the approval of the City of Roseville, including the following:
a. A 10' wide P.U.E. per 35 P.M. 46.
b. A 50' private access easement per 35 P.M. 46.
c. An access and utility easement per 937 O.R. 692.
d. A 10' wide drainage easement per 2583 O.R. 163.

9. A minimum 10' Public Utility Public Easement (PUE) will be located adjacent to all rights-of-way unless otherwise noted. 10. The following lots are to be dedicated to the Sierra Townhomes HOA with the corresponding phase at the time of each Final Map: Lots I, J and K.

11. Landscape lots and open space lots are not to be counted as "lots" towards any future boundary line adjustment.

10. Sierra View will be a gated community, an HOA will be formed for the maintenance of the following lots Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H and private roads within this project.

11. This project will contain private streets and drainage systems. Water and Sewer will be public service. TENTATIVE MAP NOTES VICINITY MAP PC EXHIBIT D P=166.6 P=166.7 P=171.2P=170.3P=169.5 P=168.0 P=167.1 P=166.1 P=165.6 P=165.1 P=164.8 P=164.5 P=164.5 P=164.8 P=165.2 P=164.9 P=165.1 P=160.8 P=161.3 P=161.8 P=162.0 P=162.2 P=162.4 P=164.8 P=160.8 P=163.7 P=160.9 P=160.9 P=163.7 P=158.5 P=158.8 P=159.1 P=159.6 P=161.0 P=161.3 2:1 2:1
2:1
2:1
2:1
2:1
2:1 2:1 2:1
2:1
2:1
3:1
3:1
2:1
2:1
2:1
2:1
2:1 2:1
2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1
2:1 2:1 3:1
2:1 3:1 3:1
2:1
2:1
2:1
2:1
2:1 1 2 3 4 5 7 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
89' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 65'
61'
103' 20' 40'
98' 112' 113' 110' 106' 100'
98'
100'
74'
13'
75'
72'
72'
97'
15'
98'
19'
48'
86' 60' 74'
102'
91'
112'
95'
90'
95'
536'
283'
330'
261'
252'
251'
120' 67'
57'
57'
57'
56'
42'
21' 54'
67'
90'
106'
73' 65' 86' 40' 76'
17' 17'
60' 60' 60'
60'
60'
60'
R=35 '
R=1805'
R=270'
R=26'
R=43'
R
=
39'
R=49'
R=26' R=26'
164'
172'
Dunes
Bandon
Court
Sawgrass Place LOT A 0.66± ac. LOT B 1.46± ac. LOT H 2.77± ac. LOT F 1.19± ac. LOT G 0.77± ac. N MAPS 68 DIAMOND OAKS UNIT 7 N17°50'29"E 530.26'
N31°20'52"W 995.30'
N31°20'52"W 995.30'
N89°08'21"E 221.53'
N00°51'54"W 172.55'
R=527.00' Δ=
23°11'4
3" L
=
213.3
5' N89°08'06"E 307.36'
N01°50'04"W 2222.53'
10' PUE, typ.
10' PUE, typ.
10' PUE, typ.
10' PUE, typ.
10' PUE, typ.
10' PUE, typ.
250' TRANSMISSON LINE
EASEMENT PER 612 O.R. 534
50' PRIVATE A.E. PER 35 PM 46
50' PRIVATE A.E.

PER 35 PM 46

TO BE ABANDONED
Q MAPS 79

SIERRA OAKS
Diamond Oaks Road
10' P.U.E. PER
35 P.M. 46
125' SMUD ROW
PER 917 O.R. 409
15' SANITARY SEWER AND

STORM DRAIN EASEMENT
PER 1096 O.R. 333 ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER 937 O.R. 692 (TO BE ABANDONED) 30' WATER LINE EASEMENT PER DN 2001-0094055 P.U.E. PER 1105 O.R. 76 P.U.E. PER N B.M. 68 ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER 937 O.R. 692 (TO BE ABANDONED) 59' 68' 69' 138'
99'
134'
103'
72' 32' 102'
67'
66' 84'
51'
Bay Hill
Whistling
Straits Drive
Drive Dunes
Bethpage
Court
Bandon
Drive PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT 2'
2'
FL=158.9 FL=159.7 5'± RETAINING WALL
20' 21 22 23 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 7172 73 74 75
95'
85'
85'
109'
162'
60'
60'
60'
5'
102'
98'
95'
60'
60'
60'
80'
74'
56'
R=240' R=22'
R
=22' R=26'
R=2 ' R
=
26' REALIGN INTERMITENT DRAINAGE APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF INTERMITENT DRAINAGE 165' PROPOSED 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT 10' PUE PER 35 PM 46 TO BE ABANDONED CULVERT CROSSING 123'
62' 77'
111'
60' 111' 107' 106'
60'
61' 118'
34' 110'
53'
57'
178'
95'
99'
32'
131'
91'
85' 81'
99'
58'
62'
86'
29'
21'
77' 108' 4'
47'
35'
26'
60' 70'
48'
4'
191'
55'
41'
45'
47'
18'
13' 30' 26'
20'
33' 1' 24' 13' 17' 4'
74' 241' 29' 65'
183' 57' 61'
163' R=373.00' Δ=9°24'39" L=61.27'
R=43'
R=
3 9' R=49' R=
250'
R=50'
R=26'
R=45'
R=17' R=35'
R=30'
R=30' R=35' R=17'
R=10 '
14' PROPOSED RIGHT OF ENTRY EASEMENT PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT R=250' Sheet 2 of 3 Roseville, CA November 18, 2021 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP SIERRA VIEW N DESCRIPTION SANITARY SEWER PIPE PROPOSED EXISTING LEGEND SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE WATER LINE GATE VALVE FIRE HYDRANT BLOW-OFF VALVE STORM DRAIN MANHOLE DROP INLET PAD GRADE STORM DRAIN PIPE OVERLAND RELEASE FOR DRAINAGE P=XXX.X RECYCLED WATER LINE STORMWATER FACILITY P=XXX.X 1. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. 2. UTILITIES MAY BE PHASED DEPENDING UPON THE DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE OF THE PROJECT, SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE. 3. THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF PROPOSED WATER, RECYCLED WATER, SEWER, AND STORM DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE DURING FINAL DESIGN, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE WITH IMPROVEMENT PLANS. 4. ANY OFFSITE GRADING SHALL REQUIRE RIGHT OF ENTRY FROM ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. IF A RIGHT OF ENTRY CANNOT BE OBTAINED, RETAINING WALLS ALONG PROPERTY LINES ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN HEREON. 5. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL LOTS ARE TO HAVE CLASS 1 LOT DRAINAGE AS SUCH, 2% SWALES, YARD DRAINS,AND UNDERGROUND PIPE SYSTEMS WITH BUBBLE UPS SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN LIEU OF 1% MINIMUM SWALES. AN OVERLAND RELEASE TO THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE FINISHED LOT GRADING DESIGN TO PRECLUDE ANY PONDING AGAINST FUTURE BUILDING FOUNDATION. POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE BUILDING AT A SLOPE OF 5% MINIMUM SHALL BE PROVIDED, CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 2304.11 OF THE CALIFORNIA BLDG CODE. UTILITY NOTES MASONRY RETAINING WALL CONCEPTUAL GRADING, DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND PROPERTY LINE SECTION A-A N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 2' SWQ OUTFALL SWALE SECTION B-B N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 3' 2' (2:1 MAX) (2% MIN; 2:1 MAX) 7.5' 5' 7.5' (3:1 MAX) (3:1 MAX) CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND (2% MIN; 2:1 MAX) 2' PROPERTY LINE SECTION C-C N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 2' (2:1 MAX) EXISTING PAD PROPERTY LINE SECTION D-D N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L EXISTING PAD PROPOSED WOOD RETAINING WALL PROPERTY LINE SECTION E-E N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 2' (2:1 MAX) CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND WOOD RETAINING WALL 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 ESTIMATED CUT: 23,000 c.y. FILL: 65,000 c.y. NET: 42,000 c.y. EARTHWORK SUMMARY PROPERTY LINE SECTION J-J N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 1' PROPOSED WOOD RETAINING WALL PROPOSED PAD VARIES 1'-2' VARIES 1'-1.5' ROCKERY RETANING WALL 1 CLASS III (REAR DRAINING LOTS) OPEN VIEW FENCE WOOD FENCE WOOD FENCE WOOD FENCE* WOOD FENCE *OPEN VIEW FENCE WHEN ADJACENT TO GOLF COURSE 1 CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND SWQ OUTFALL SWALE SECTION N-N N.T.S. 7.5' 5' 7.5' (3:1 MAX) (3:1 MAX) CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND (2% MIN; 2:1 MAX) 2' CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND (2% MIN; 2:1 MAX) 2' SWQ SWALE SECTION O-O N.T.S. 3' (3:1 MAX) (2:1 MAX) CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND 2' PROPOSED PAD P/L NOTE: SIDEYARD SLOPES ARE PERMITTED IN LIEU OF RETAINING WALL 2' P=172.8 P=173.2 P=173.4 P=172.9 P=172.6 P=172.4 P=171.7 P=171.5 P=172.3 P=172.0 P=167.4 P=168.0 P=168.8 P=170.0 P=171.1 P=171.5 P=171.2 P=171.3 P=171.0 P=170.6 P=170.4 P=170.1 P=169.9 P=169.8 P=169.8 P=169.6 P=166.6 P=169.4 P=166.7 P=170.6 P=170.1 P=169.9 P=169.7 P=169.3 P=174.5 P=174.1 P=174.6P=174.1 P=173.8 P=173.0 P=173.3 P=172.1P=171.2P=170.3P=169.5 3:1 3:1 2:1
2:1
2:1 2:1
2:1 3:1
3:1
3:1
3:1
2:1
2:1
2:1
130' N MAPS 69 SIERRA TOWNHOMES UNIT NO. 1 N MAPS 69 SIERRA TOWNHOMES UNIT NO. 1 N29°44'38"W 80.88'
R=215.0 ' Δ=24°29'24" L=91.90'
N60°48'47"W 159.67'
N08°14'44"W 82.76' R=427.00' Δ=7°29'25" L=55.82' N89°16'52"E 251.89' N35°45'58"E 52.56' R=187.00' Δ=25°52'24" L=84.44'
R=187.00' Δ=68°34'43" L=223.82' N07°33'48"W 22.00' N82°25'52"E 80.24' N78°49'33"W 22.97' N11°10'27"E 7.80' N82°25'52"E 9.51' N73°51'08"W 17.69' R=112.00' Δ=30°04'13" L=58.78' N76°04'39"E 31.60' N67°11'08"W 130.00'
N17°50'29"E 530.26'
N01°50'04"W 2222.53'
M MAPS 87

WALTON ESTATES
M MAPS 87

WALTON ESTATES
10' PUE, typ.
10' PUE, typ.
10' PUE, typ.
10' PUE, typ.
10' PUE, typ.
10' PUE, typ.
50' PRIVATE A.E. PER 35 PM 46
50' PRIVATE A.E.

PER 35 PM 46
TO BE ABANDONED TEMPORARY ROAD PER 2583 O.R. 163 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER 2583 O.R. 163 TO BE ABANDONED Shasta Street 10' PUE PER 35 PM 46 TO BE ABANDONED PROPOSED 15'

DRAINAGE
EASEMENT FL=159.7
PROPOSED 15'

ELECTRICAL &

DRAINAGE

EASEMENT
EXISTING 10'

DRAINAGE
EASEMENT 24' E.V.A. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 3738 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 4950 5152 5354 55 5657 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Bandon Dunes Court
Torrey Pines Drive
Southern
Court
Pines
Torrey LOT I 0.17± ac. LOT C 0.41± ac. LOT D 0.21± ac.
95'
85'
85'
85'
85'
85'
94'
88'
54'
54'
85'
83'
136' 25' 51'
85'
11'
109'
162'
119'
95' 90' 93' 94' 94' 92' 90' 103' 130' 101' 88' 91' 91'
47' 68'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
58'
130'
41'
5'
102'
98'
65' 70' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 66' 75' 65' 65' 65' 65' 73' 83' 95' 60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
48'
27' 10'
42'
10'
52'
126'
110'
87'
72'
51'
15'
64'
80'
74'
113'
78'
81'
15'
59'
178'
105'
56'
56'
56'
56' 65' 65' 65' 65' 75' 67'
65' 66'
61' 60'
60'
81'
60'
57'
58'
67'
78'
149'
111' 65' 60' 77'
88'
71'
78'
83'
5 6'
4'
106'
95' 85' 85' 85'
50'
60' 65' 62'
70' 66' 50'
R=49' R=39'
R=43'
R=45'
R=215'
R=200' R=22'
R=3000'
R=235'
R=240' R=22'
R=230' R=49' R=45' R=43'
R=39'
R=30' R=55'
R=51'
79'
R=2
2' R=26'
113' 55'
123' 28' 55'
116'
119'
101'
111' 40' 14'
46'
60'
98'
57'
9'
24'
55' 93' 134' 24'
5'
R=2 5'
R=22' R
=
26'
LOT J

0.12± ac. LOT E 497± sq. ft.

R=45' EASEMENT N61°38'21"E 30.18' N28°59'05"W 26.00'
Court 12.5' P.U.E. PER 2583 O.R. 158 3' MAXIMUM HEIGHT RETAINING WALL 54'
58'
70'
74'
60'
47'
90'
85'
87'
83'
92'
29'
5'
75' LOT K 1,301± sq.ft. 5' MAXIMUM HEIGHT RETAINING WALL Hills PROPOSED RIGHT OF ENTRY EASEMENT Sheet 3 of 3 Roseville, CA November 18, 2021 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP SIERRA VIEW N CONCEPTUAL GRADING, DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES PROPERTY LINE SECTION F-F N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 2' (2:1 MAX) CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND PROPERTY LINE SECTION G-G N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L PROPOSED MASONRY RETAINING WALL VARIES 1'-9' EXISTING PAD PROPERTY LINE SECTION H-H N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L PROPOSED MASONRY RETAINING WALL VARIES 1'-9' EXISTING GROUND PROPERTY LINE SECTION I-I N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L PROPOSED ROCKERY RETAINING WALL 9' MAX(2:1 MAX) PROPOSED BASIN PROPERTY LINE SECTION C-C N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 2' (2:1 MAX) EXISTING PAD1. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. 2. UTILITIES MAY BE PHASED DEPENDING UPON THE DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE OF THE PROJECT, SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE. 3. THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF PROPOSED WATER, RECYCLED WATER, SEWER, AND STORM DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE DURING FINAL DESIGN, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE WITH IMPROVEMENT PLANS. 4. ANY OFFSITE GRADING SHALL REQUIRE RIGHT OF ENTRY FROM ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. IF A RIGHT OF ENTRY CANNOT BE OBTAINED, RETAINING WALLS ALONG PROPERTY LINES ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN HEREON. 5. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL LOTS ARE TO HAVE CLASS 1 LOT DRAINAGE AS SUCH, 2% SWALES, YARD DRAINS,AND UNDERGROUND PIPE SYSTEMS WITH BUBBLE UPS SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN LIEU OF 1% MINIMUM SWALES. AN OVERLAND RELEASE TO THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE FINISHED LOT GRADING DESIGN TO PRECLUDE ANY PONDING AGAINST FUTURE BUILDING FOUNDATION. POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE BUILDING AT A SLOPE OF 5% MINIMUM SHALL BE PROVIDED, CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 2304.11 OF THE CALIFORNIA BLDG CODE. UTILITY NOTES PROPERTY LINE SECTION J-J N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 1' PROPOSED WOOD RETAINING WALL PROPOSED PAD VARIES 1'-1.5' PROPERTY LINE SECTION E-E N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 2' (2:1 MAX) CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND PROPERTY LINE SECTION K-K N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 1' PROPOSED WOOD RETAINING WALL EXISTING PAD VARIES 1'-2.5' DESCRIPTION SANITARY SEWER PIPE PROPOSED EXISTING LEGEND SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE WATER LINE GATE VALVE FIRE HYDRANT BLOW-OFF VALVE STORM DRAIN MANHOLE DROP INLET PAD GRADE STORM DRAIN PIPE OVERLAND RELEASE FOR DRAINAGE P=XXX.X RECYCLED WATER LINE STORMWATER FACILITY P=XXX.X MASONRY RETAINING WALL WOOD RETAINING WALL ROCKERY RETANING WALL 1 CLASS III (REAR DRAINING LOTS) PROPERTY LINE SECTION L-L N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L PROPOSED MASONRY RETAINING WALL VARIES 1'-4.5' PROPOSED PAD 2' 9' MAX ESTIMATED CUT: 23,000 c.y. FILL: 65,000 c.y. NET: 42,000 c.y. EARTHWORK SUMMARY PROPERTY LINE SECTION M-M N.T.S. EXISTING GROUND P/L PROPOSED MASONRY RETAINING WALL PROPOSED PAD VARIES 3' MAX WOOD FENCE WOOD FENCE* *OPEN VIEW FENCE WHEN ADJACENT TO GOLF COURSE OPEN VIEW FENCE WOOD FENCE WOOD FENCE OPEN VIEW FENCE WOOD FENCE WOOD FENCE OPEN VIEW FENCE WOOD FENCE NOTE: SIDEYARD SLOPES ARE PERMITTED IN LIEU OF RETAINING WALL California Tree and Landscape Consulting, Inc.
1243 High Street, Auburn, CA 95603 Office: 530.745.4680 Direct: 916.801.8059 June 18, 2020
Ryan O'Keefe
WP Sierra View, LLC
1420 Rocky Ridge Drive, Suite 265
Roseville, California 95661
Phone: (916) 774-3400
Via Email: [email protected]

PROPERTY TRANSITION ARBORIST REPORT
RE: Arborist Report and Tree Inventory for Sierra View Country Club 360 Diamond Oaks Road, [APN 015-011-029], City of Roseville, California Executive Summary:

WP Sierra View, LLC contacted California Tree and Landscape Consulting, Inc. to document the trees on the property for a better understanding of the existing resource and any potential improvement obstacles that may arise. WP Sierra View, LLC requested an arborist report and tree inventory suitable for submittal to the City of Roseville. This is a Preliminary Arborist Report and Tree Inventory for the initial filing of plans to develop the property.

Richard Cory Kinley, ISA Certified Arborist WE-9717A, collected field data at various times from June 8-12, 2020, to provide species identification, measurements of DBH and canopy, field condition notes, recommended actions, ratings, and approximate locations for the trees. A total of 324 trees were evaluated on this property, of which all are protected trees according to the City of Roseville’s Municipal Code.

The City of Roseville’s Municipal Code, Chapter 19.66, Tree Preservation, defines a “Protected Tree” as any native oak tree equal to or greater than 6 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) measured as a total of a single trunk or multiple trunks. The purpose of this field reconnaissance effort was to identify, inventory, and comment upon the current structure and vigor of the “protected trees” located within and/or overhanging the project site.

The vegetation on site includes those protected trees included in the inventory, an assortment of volunteer ornamental trees found in the drainage swale and wet areas of the site, blackberries, poison oak, and annual grasses.

TABLE 1
Tree Species Trees on
this Site
Protected Trees
on the Site
Proposed for
Removal
Total Proposed
for Retention
Blue Oak 300 300 9 291
Coast Live Oak 10 10 1 9
Interior Live Oak 13 13 0 13

PC EXHIBIT E
WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 2 of 39
Tree Species Trees on
this Site
Protected Trees
on the Site
Proposed for
Removal
Total Proposed
for Retention
Valley Oak 1 1 0 1
TOTAL 324 324 10 314

ASSIGNMENT
Perform an examination of the site to document the presence and condition of trees protected by the City of Roseville. The study area for this effort includes the property as outlined on the exhibit provided for the purpose of preparing this inventory (the Tree Information Collected--Appendix 2--was prepared using the exhibit provided). Essentially, the project area includes the undeveloped property between existing residential homes and the Sierra View Country Club. (All trees protected by the City are included in the inventory.) Prepare a report of findings.

METHODS
Appendix 2 and Tables 1 and 2 in this report are the detailed inventory and recommendations for the trees.

The following terms and Table A – Ratings Descriptions will further explain our findings.

Species of trees is listed by our local common name and botanical name by genus and species.

DBH (diameter breast high) is normally measured at 4’6” (54” above the average ground, height but if that varies then the location where it is measured is noted here. A steel diameter tape was used to measure the trees.

Canopy radius is measured in feet. It is the farthest extent of the crown composed of leaves and small twigs measured by a Stanley digital distance meter. This measurement often defines the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) or Protection Zone (PZ), which is a circular area around a tree with a radius equal to this measurement.

Actions listed are recommendations to improve health or structure of the tree. Trees in public spaces require maintenance. If a tree is to remain and be preserved, then the tree may need some form of work to reduce the likelihood of failure and increase the longevity of the tree. Preservation requirements and actions based on a proposed development plan are not included here.

Arborist Rating is subjective to condition and is based on both the health and structure of the tree. All of the trees were rated for condition, per the recognized national standard as set up by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers and the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) on a numeric scale of 5 (being the highest) to 0 (the worst condition, dead). The rating was done in the field at the time of the measuring and inspection.

Table A – Ratings Descriptions
No problem(s) 5 excellent
No apparent problem(s) 4 good
Minor problem(s) 3 fair
Major problem(s) 2 poor
Extreme problem(s) 1 hazardous, non-correctable
Dead 0 dead
WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 3 of 39
Rating #0: This indicates a tree that has no significant sign of life.

Rating #1: The problems are extreme. This rating is assigned to a tree that has structural and/or health problems that no amount of work or effort can change. The issues may or may not be considered a dangerous situation.

Rating #2: The tree has major problems. If the option is taken to preserve the tree, its condition could be improved with correct arboricultural work including, but not limited to: pruning, cabling, bracing, bolting, guying, spraying, mistletoe removal, vertical mulching, fertilization, etc. If the recommended actions are completed correctly, hazard can be reduced and the rating can be elevated to a 3. If no action is taken the tree is considered a liability and should be removed.

Rating #3: The tree is in fair condition. There are some minor structural or health problems that pose no immediate danger. When the recommended actions in an arborist report are completed correctly the defect(s) can be minimized or eliminated.

Rating #4: The tree is in good condition and there are no apparent problems that a Certified Arborist can see from a visual ground inspection. If potential structural or health problems are tended to at this stage future hazard can be reduced and more serious health problems can be averted.

Rating #5: No problems found from a visual ground inspection. Structurally, these trees have properly spaced branches and near perfect characteristics for the species. Highly rated trees are not common in natural or developed landscapes. No tree is ever perfect especially with the unpredictability of nature, but with this highest rating, the condition should be considered excellent.

Notes indicate the health, structure and environment of the tree and explain why the tree should be removed or preserved. Additional notes may indicate if problems are minor, extreme or correctible.

Remove is the recommendation that the tree be removed. The recommendation will normally be based either on poor structure or poor health and is indicated as follows:

Yes H – Tree is unhealthy
Yes S – Tree is structurally unsound

OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The site is an undeveloped parcel surrounded by Sierra View Country Club and residential homes. The surrounding properties have been developed for many years.

RECOMMENDED REMOVALS
At this time, 10 trees have been recommended for removal from the proposed project area due to the nature and extent of defects, compromised health, and/or structural instability noted at the time of field inventory efforts. If these trees were retained within the proposed project area, it is our opinion that they may be hazardous depending upon their proximity to planned development activities. For reference, the trees which have been recommended for removal due to the severity of noted defects, compromised health, and/or structural instability are highlighted in green within the accompanying Tree Inventory Summary and are briefly summarized as follows:

TABLE 2
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating
6531 231 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 16 48 24
1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems
6537 237 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 36 54 30
1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems
WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 4 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating
6545 245 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 34 54 29 0 Dead
6605 442 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 29 54 18
1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems
6608 440 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 21 54 40
1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems
6620 393 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 54 10
1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems
6665 284 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8,10,12,12 42 54 24
1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems
6670 296 Yes Coast
Live Oak
Quercus
agrifolia 13 54 10
1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems
6757 368 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 48 21
1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems
6811 495 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 44 54 30
1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems

DISCUSSION
Trees need to be protected from normal construction practices if they are to remain healthy and viable on the site. Our recommendations are based on experience, and County ordinance requirements, so as to enhance tree longevity. This requires their root zones remain intact and viable, despite heavy equipment being on site, and the need to install foundations, driveways, underground utilities, and landscape irrigation systems. Simply walking and driving on soil has serious consequences for tree health.

Following is a summary of Impacts to trees during construction and Tree Protection measures that should be incorporated into the site plans in order to protect the trees. Once the plans are approved, they become the document that all contractors will follow. The plans become the contract between the owner and the contractor, so that only items spelled out in the plans can be expected to be followed. Hence, all protection measures, such as fence locations, mulch requirements and root pruning specifications must be shown on the plans.

RECOMMENDATIONS: SUMMARY OF TREE PROTECTION MEASURES
Hire a Project Arborist to help ensure protection measures are incorporated into the site plans and followed. The Project Arborist should, in cooperation with the Engineers and/or Architects:
• Identify the Root Protection Zones on the final construction drawings, prior to bidding the project. • Show the placement of tree protection fences, as well as areas to be irrigated, fertilized and mulched on the final construction drawings.
• Clearly show trees for removal on the plans and mark them clearly on site. A Contractor who is a Certified Arborist should perform tree and stump removal. All stumps within the root zone of trees to be preserved shall WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 5 of 39
be ground out using a stump router or left in place. No trunk within the root zone of other trees shall be removed using a backhoe or other piece of grading equipment. • Prior to any grading, or other work on the site that will come within 50’ of any tree to be preserved:

1. Irrigate (if needed) and place a 3” layer of chip mulch over the protected root zone of all trees that will be impacted.

2. Erect Tree Protection Fences. Place boards against trees located within 3’ of construction zones, even if fenced off.

3. Remove lower foliage that may interfere with equipment PRIOR to having grading or other equipment on site. The Project Arborist should approve the extent of foliage elevation, and oversee the pruning, performed by a contractor who is an ISA Certified Arborist. • For grade cuts, expose roots by hand digging, potholing or using an air spade and then cut roots cleanly prior to further grading outside the tree protection zones.
• For fills, if a cut is required first, follow as for cuts. • Where possible, specify geotextile fabric and/or thickened paving, re-enforced paving and structural soil in lieu of compacting, and avoid root cutting as much as possible, prior to placing fills on the soil surface. Any proposed retaining wall or fill soil shall be discussed with the engineer and arborist in order to reduce impacts to trees to be preserved.
• Clearly designate an area on the site outside the drip line of all trees where construction materials may be stored, and parking can take place. No materials or parking shall take place within the root zones of protected trees.
• Design utility and irrigation trenches to minimize disturbance to tree roots. Where possible, dig trenches with hydro-vac equipment or air spade, placing pipes underneath the roots, or bore the deeper trenches underneath the roots.
• Include on the plans an Arborist inspection schedule to monitor the site during (and after) construction to ensure protection measures are followed and make recommendations for care of the trees on site, as needed.

General Tree protection measures are included as Appendix 3. These measures need to be included on the Site, Grading, Utility and Landscape Plans. A final report of recommendations specific to the plan can be completed as part of, and in conjunction with, the actual plans. This will require the arborist working directly with the engineer and architect for the project. If the above recommendations are followed, the amount of time required by the arborist for the final report should be minimal.

Report Prepared by:

Edwin E. Stirtz, Consulting Arborist
International Society of Arboriculture
Certified Arborist WE-0510A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists
Enc.: Appendix 1 – Map of The Property Showing Tree Locations Appendix 2 – Tree Information Collected
Appendix 3 – General Practices for Tree Protection
WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 6 of 39
APPENDIX 1 – MAP OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING TREE LOCATIONS WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 7 of 39
APPENDIX 2 – TREE INFORMATION COLLECTED
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
1 Yes Coast
Live Oak
Quercus
agrifolia 17 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Growing in middle of drainage ditch. No tag.

Blackberries surrounding trunk. Codominant at
8 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
424 424 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Could not tag/blackberries. Codominant at 10
feet. Growing into canopy south and north.

Above average dead branches in lower canopy.

Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6501 201 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 38 12 33 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Flare normal. Codominant at 36 inches. Canopy
growing to ground 360°. Normal dead branches.

Crown fair. Vigor fair.

None at this time.
6502 202 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 41 24 30 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Bark rot west side from base to 36 inches.

Codominant at 5 feet with some inclusion.

Canopy to ground east, south and west. Crown
good. Vigor good.

None at this time.
6503 203 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 35 54 24 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Flare normal. Codominant at 7 feet. Canopy to
ground 360° average dead branches. Vigor fair.

Crown fair.

None at this time.
6504 204 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 3,4 7 54 4
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Buried flare. Codominant at base with some
inclusion. Vigor fair. Crown fair. None at this time.
6505 205 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 26 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Flare normal. 10-inch lateral at 4 feet. Canopy
suppressed west. Vigor fair. Crown fair. None at this time. 6506 206 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 36 54 30 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Flare normal. Codominant at base with some
inclusion. 9-inch lateral at 5 feet south. Growing
into canopies east and west. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

None at this time.
6507 207 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 31 24 27 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Poor flare. Codominant at 36 inches with some
inclusion. 4 stems with twisting growth and
inclusion from 3-7 feet growing into canopy
east. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6508 208 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 35 24 30 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Flare normal. Codominant at 6 feet. Canopy
growing to the ground east. Growing into
canopy north. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 8 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6509 209 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 35 12 24 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Flare normal. Codominant at base. Growing into
canopy south. Suppressed by tree to the north.

Average dead branches. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6510 210 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 28 54 27 3 Fair - Minor Problems
15-inch lateral east 7 feet. Canopy to ground
east. Growing into canopy north. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

None at this time.
6511 211 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 34 54 24 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 8 feet. Canopy to ground east
and north. Growing into canopy south. Vigor
fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6512 212 Yes Coast
Live Oak
Quercus
agrifolia 8 48 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Growing on west Bank of drainage ditch.

Riparian vegetation in dripline. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

None at this time.
6513 213 Yes Coast
Live Oak
Quercus
agrifolia 15 36 7
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Growing on west bank of drainage ditch.

Riparian vegetation in dripline. Low laterals and
sprouts from base south and west. Decay and
compartmentalization on center stem at 4 feet.

Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6514 214 Yes Coast
Live Oak
Quercus
agrifolia 15 24 8
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Growing on west bank of drainage ditch.

Blackberry and riparian vegetation in dripline.

Codominant at 4 feet some inclusion. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

None at this time.
6515 215 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 36 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Growing on west bank of drainage ditch.

Codominant at 36 inches. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6516 216 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 4
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Growing on west bank of drainage ditch.

Codominant at 5 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6517 217 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 50 54 36 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Decay wound down to cambium south side
from 36 inches to 10 feet. 2 branch break
wounds at 20 feet with decay. Codominant at
20 feet. Above average dead branches in
canopy. Vigor fair to poor. Density fair.

None at this time.
6518 218 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 24 54 36 3 Fair - Minor Problems
2 feet of adjacent to trunk to south. Suppression
from south. One-sided leaning canopy
northeast. Above average dead branches. Vigor
fair. Density fair.

None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 9 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6519 319 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 9 12 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 24 inches. Adjacent to asphalt 10
feet north. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6520 220 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 6 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Growing adjacent to asphalt 5 feet west.

Codominant at base. Growing into canopies
south and north. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6521 221 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 2,3,3,3 11 54 4
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at base. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6522 222 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 44 24 21 2 Major Structure or Health Problems No tag/lost tag. Large decay wound south side
from 36 inches to 8 feet. Bark fungus damage
north side from 3-8 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6523 223 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 3,4 7 54 4
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Poor location. Growing under canopy of 2 trees.

Codominant at base. Vigor poor. Density poor. None at this time. 6524 224 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
No tag/lost tag. Codominant at 7 feet. Growing
into canopy south. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6525 225 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Low laterals at 12 inches. Codominant at 4 feet.

Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6526 226 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 36 inches. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6527 227 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 36 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 4 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6528 228 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 6 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6529 229 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
No tag/lost tag. Suppressed north. One-sided
leaning canopy south. Codominant at 4 feet.

Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6530 230 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 49 54 36 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Covered in ivy up to 15 feet. Canopy suppressed
north. Average dead branches. Decay branch
wounds at 7 feet south and 10 feet south. Vigor
fair.

None at this time.
6531 231 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 16 48 24 1 Extreme Structure or Health Problems Suppressed. South leaning trunk broke off at 5
feet. Canopy resting on ground southeast.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of noted defects.
6532 232 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 31 54 27 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Growing 5 feet adjacent to tree to northwest.

One-sided leaning canopy southeast.

Codominant at 18 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 10 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6533 243 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 39 54 30 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Growing 5 feet adjacent to tree southeast.

Codominant at 22 feet. Average deadwood in
canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6534 234 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Buried flare. Codominant at 6 feet. Vigor fair.

Density fair. None at this time.
6535 235 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 34 54 24 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Canopy growing to ground 360°. Codominant at
16 feet. Average dead branches. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

None at this time.
6536 236 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 24 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 36 inches some inclusion. Vigor
fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6537 237 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 36 54 30 1 Extreme Structure or Health Problems Trunk is 85-90% hollow. 1-inch decay seam east
side running from base to 8 feet. Inside seam
practically no wood. Trunk and canopy lean
west. Average deadwood.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of noted defects.
6538 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 30 54 18 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Decay wound south side from base to 24 inches.

Decay effects 70% of cambium and hardwood.

Codominant at 15 feet. Several branch failures.

Decay wounds at trunk. Vigor fair.

None at this time.
6539 239 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 5,5 10 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
2 stems at base. Growing into canopy west.

Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6540 240 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 6 feet. Birdhouse strapped to
lateral at 6 feet east side. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6541 241 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 30 54 30 2 Major Structure or Health Problems 10° trunk lean west. One-sided leaning canopy
west. Sunscald to cambium east side of trunk.
20-inch central leader breakoff at 18 feet. Vigor
poor. Density poor.

None at this time.
6542 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 36 48 18 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Trunk decay wound south side from base to 20
feet. 90% decay. Vigor poor. Density fair. None at this time. 6543 243 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 6 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6544 244 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 29 54 27 2 Major Structure or Health Problems One-sided canopy south by southwest. 18-inch
stem broke in north side at 12 feet. Decay and
wound. Codominant at 12 feet. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 11 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6545 245 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 34 54 29 0 Dead Dead tree top breakout. Laying east 5 feet adjacent to trunk.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of noted defects.
6546 246 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 54 15 2 Major Structure or Health Problems
One-sided leaning canopy south. Shrunk bows
severely at 6 feet. Suppressed by formerly
standing tree west. Vigor fair to poor. Density
fair to poor.

None at this time.
6547 247 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7,8 15 24 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 12 inches some inclusion. Vigor
fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6548 248 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 24 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 4 feet. Growing into canopy
north. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6549 249 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10,11,11 32 48 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at base with significant inclusion
Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6550 250 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 8 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6551 251 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 34 54 21 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 12 feet with significant inclusion.
3 limb failure with decay west at 16 feet.

Located under transmission power line. Vigor
fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6552 252 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 27 54 33 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 12 feet. Growing into canopy
west. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6553 253 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 40 60 21 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Canker east side from 1-6 feet. Large limb
breakout scar with decay north side from 8-20
feet. Multiple limb breakout. Decay wound
lower trunk. Growing into canopy east. Vigor
fair to poor. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6554 264 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 8 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6555 255 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 36 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 36 inches some inclusion. Vigor
fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6556 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 12 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 24 inches. Growing into canopy
south and north. Above average dead branches
in lower canopy. Vigor poor. Density poor.

None at this time.
6557 257 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 8
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Growing into canopy east. Vigor fair. Density
fair. None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 12 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6558 258 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Growing into canopy west. Codominant at 10
feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6559 259 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 17 12 21 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 24 inches. Above average
branches in lower canopy. Volunteers growing
into canopy west. Vigor fair to poor. Density
fair.

None at this time.
6560 260 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 15 24 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 24 inches. 2 of the main stems
south side are sharing included bark at 4
connections from 4-8 feet. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

None at this time.
6561 261 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 14 36 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 4 feet. Growing into canopy.

Above average deadwood in lower canopy.

Vigor fair to poor. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6562 262 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 5,6 11 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 12 inches. Suppressed south.

One-sided leaning canopy northwest. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

None at this time.
6563 263 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 4,7,8,11 30 54 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 12 inches with some inclusion.

Growing into canopies south and north. Vigor
fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6564 264 Yes Valley
Oak
Quercus
lobata 18 54 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Good structure. Codominant at 25 feet. Above
average dead branches lower 1/3 canopy. Vigor
fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6565 265 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 7 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6566 266 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Growing into canopy north. Codominant at 5
feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6567 267 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Growing into canopies north and south.

Codominant at 7 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6568 268 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 20 36 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Suppressed east. 5° trunk lean west.

Codominant at 36 inches with some inclusion.

Growing into canopy east. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

None at this time.
6569 269 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7,12 19 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at base and growing into canopy
west. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 13 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6570 270 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 54 16 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Growing into canopy east and north. Above
average dead branches lower 1/3 canopy. Vigor
fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6571 271 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 9 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Lower 2/3 canopy suppressed all sides.

Codominant at 4 feet. Above average dead
branches lower 1/3 canopy. Vigor fair. Density
fair to poor.

None at this time.
6572 272 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 9 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Suppressed west. Vines growing lower 2/3
canopy. Above average dead branches lower
1/3 canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6573 273 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Growing into canopies east, west and north.

Codominant at 6 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6574 274 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Suppressed east. One-sided leaning canopy
west. Growing into canopy south. Codominant
at 15 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6575 275 Yes Coast
Live Oak
Quercus
agrifolia 11 36 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Good structure. 82-inch sprouts from base west
side. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6576 276 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 8
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Covered in vines 2/3 trunk. Codominant at 4
feet. Growing into canopy north. Vigor fair.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6577 277 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
2/3 trunk covered in vines. Growing into canopy
south. Vigor fair to poor. Density fair to poor. None at this time. 6578 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 30 54 30 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 6 feet. Branch breakout
southeast. Decay in wound at 6 feet. Growing
into canopy east. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6579 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 21 54 21 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 7 feet. Growing into canopy
southeast and northwest. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

None at this time.
6580 377 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 41 54 33 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Canker at base east side. Average dead
branches in lower canopy. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

None at this time.
6581 376 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 36 54 24 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 36 inches. Minor dead branches
in lower canopy. Growing into canopy
northwest. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6582 Tag # Not Used
WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 14 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6583 460 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 5,7 12 54 8
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 24 inches. Growing into canopy
southwest. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6584 462 Yes Coast
Live Oak
Quercus
agrifolia 7,7,8 22 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at base with inclusion. Growing
into canopy west. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6585 461 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Growing into canopy east. Good structure. Onesided leaning canopy west. None at this time. 6586 459 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 7 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6587 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 6 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6588 458 Yes Coast
Live Oak
Quercus
agrifolia 10 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 6 feet. Low laterals sprout at
base west side. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6589 457 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 21 54 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems Codominant at 4 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6590 453 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 22 12 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems Codominant at 24 inches. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6591 452 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 14 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 7 feet. Growing into canopy
north. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6592 451 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Trunk wound seam west side from 12-54 inches.

Suppressed north. One-sided canopy south.

Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6593 450 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Suppressed east. One-sided canopy west. Good
structure, vigor, and density. None at this time.
6594 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 8
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Suppression west. One-sided canopy east.

Codominant at 4 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6595 449 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 24 9
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Bark wound east side from base to 36 inches.

Exposed cambium. None at this time.
6596 448 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 41 54 21 2 Major Structure or Health Problems 2 large branch breakout scars on trunk south
side at 10 feet. Decay in wound. Vigor fair to
poor. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6597 447 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 4 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6598 455 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 4,4,6 14 54 8
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Growing into canopy. None at this time.
6599 454 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7,8 15 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at base. Growing into canopy
north. None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 15 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6600 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 4,4,5 13 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
3 stems growing into canopy south and north.

Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6601 453 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 9 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 4 feet. Growing into canopy
west. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6602 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 5,5 10 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at base with minor inclusion.

Growing into canopy east. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

None at this time.
6603 444 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10,11 21 54 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems None at this time.
6604 443 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Good structure. Suppressed west. One-sided
canopy east. Above average dead branches in
lower canopy. Vigor fair to poor. Density fair to
poor.

None at this time.
6605 442 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 29 54 18 1 Extreme Structure or Health Problems Codominant at 9 feet. One of two main leaders
dead and broken off north side. One-sided
canopy southeast. Vigor fair. Density fair to
poor. Top of broken leader resting on trunk and
ground.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of noted defects.
6606 445 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 24 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 24 inches. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6607 441 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 45 54 36 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Over-mature. Above average dead branches in
canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor. None at this time. 6608 440 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 21 54 40 1 Extreme Structure or Health Problems Tree failed at base and laying on ground west.

Canopy to ground 360°. Vigor fair. Density fair
to poor.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of noted defects.
6609 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 4,4 8 54 3
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at base. Suppressed east, west and
south. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6610 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 54 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Lower canopy suppressed. Minor dead branches
lower 1/2 canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6611 429 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Good structure. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6612 429 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 8 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 16 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6613 431 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 5 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6614 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 12 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Bark decay at base west side. Codominant at 12
inches east. Leader trunk wound at 36 inches.

Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6615 432 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Minor trunk lean southwest. Codominant at 6
feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6616 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 4,5 9 54 4
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at base growing into canopies
north and east. One-sided canopy west. Vigor
fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6617 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 3,4,4,4 15 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 12 inches. Growing into canopies
north and south. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6618 391 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 12 8
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 24 inches. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6619 392 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 21 24 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 36 inches. Above average dead
branches lower canopy. Vigor fair to poor.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6620 393 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 54 10 1 Extreme Structure or Health Problems Bark decay southside from base to 7 feet
exposed with cambium in Heartwood. Poor
branching structure. Vigor poor. Density poor.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of noted defects.
6621 390 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 7 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6622 389 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6,8 14 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 12 inches. Above average
deadwood in the lower canopy. Vigor fair.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6623 395 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 7 feet. Growing into canopy
west Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6624 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 8 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6625 396 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 9 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Trunk lean 10° south. Above average dead
branches lower canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair
to poor.

None at this time.
6626 397 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 9 54 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Good structure. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 17 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6627 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Trunk wound west side from base to 12 inches.

Growing into canopy. Vigor fair to poor. Density
fair to poor.

None at this time.
6628 419 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 17 12 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 24 inches. Average dead
branches lower canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6629 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 36 8
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 15 feet. Suppressed/one-sided
canopy east. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6630 420 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 48 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 4 feet. Growing into canopy
north and west. Above average dead branches
in lower canopy. Nest top of crown. Vigor fair.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6631 400 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 8 feet. Growing into canopies
east and north. Above average dead branches
lower canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6632 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Bark decay seam south side from 36 inches to 6
feet. Codominant at 6 feet. Growing in the
canopies south and north. Average dead
branches lower canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6633 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 4
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Dead vertical stem at 24 inches north. Good
structure. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor. None at this time. 6634 399 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Suppressed west. One-sided canopy east. Good
structure. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6635 398 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 16 48 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Bark canker at base west side. Codominant at
48 inches. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6636 422 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 9 54 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems None at this time.
6637 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 6 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Suppressed north, south and east. Above
average dead branches in lower canopy.

Codominant at 7 feet. Vigor fair to poor. Density
fair to poor.

None at this time.
6638 425 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Suppressed north. One-sided leaning canopy
south. Codominant at 7 feet. Above average
dead branches. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6639 426 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 6 feet. Vines to 22 feet. Vigor
fair. Density fair to poor. None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 18 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6640 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 24 4
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
10° trunk lean north to 24 inches with
correction. Average dead branches lower
canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6641 427 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 5,7 12 54 8
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Above Average deadwood in lower canopy.

Vigor fair to poor. Density fair to poor. None at this time. 6642 388 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 21 24 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 24 inches. Above average dead
branches in canopy. Vigor fair to poor. Density
fair to poor.

None at this time.
6643 391 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 15 24 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 36 inches. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6644 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 9 24 8
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 36 inches. Growing into canopy
west. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6645 380 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems Codominant at 8 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6646 381 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 9 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Bark wound west at base to 12 inches with
exposed cambium. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6647 382 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8,10 18 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6648 383 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems None at this time. 6649 385 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Suppression east and west. Above average dead
branches in canopy. Epicormic growth on trunk
up to 20 feet. Vigor poor. Density poor.

None at this time.
6650 384 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Growing into canopies east and west. Above
average dead branches and canopy. Vigor fair to
poor. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6651 387 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 7 feet. Suppression northeast.

One-sided canopy west. Above average dead
branches. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6652 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 4
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 7 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6653 379 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 15 36 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems Codominant at 36 inches. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6654 378 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 9
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Bark fungus west side from base to 6 feet.

Codominant at 8 feet. Vigor poor. Density poor. None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 19 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6655 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 4
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 6 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6656 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 24 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 24 inches. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6657 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 4,5 9 54 4
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at base. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6658 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 4,4 8 54 4
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at base. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6659 Yes Coast
Live Oak
Quercus
agrifolia 3,6,7 16 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at base with inclusion canopy to
the ground 360°. Growing into canopy south. None at this time. 6660 278 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 14 54 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Growing in the canopies north, south and west.

Codominant at 12 feet. Above average dead
branches in lower canopy. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

None at this time.
6661 279 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 5 feet. Suppressed east. Onesided canopy west. Growing into canopy north.

Above average dead branches in canopy. Vigor
fair to poor. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6662 280 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Blackberries to 36 inches. Suppression east.

Above average dead branches in lower canopy.

Codominant at 4 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair to
poor.

None at this time.
6663 281 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 24 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 24 inches. Growing into canopies
east and west. Suppressed south. Above
average deadwood in lower canopy. Coast Live
Oak growing up through 2 stems. Vigor fair.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6664 282 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 25 12 21 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 12 inches. Above average dead
branches. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor. None at this time. 6665 284 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8,10,12,12 42 54 24 1 Extreme Structure or Health Problems Codominant at 12 inches. Peeling bark and
epicormic growth. Severe dead branches in
canopy. Vigor very poor. Density very poor.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of noted defects.
6666 283 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8,11 19 54 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at base. Suppressed east. Onesided canopy west. Above average dead branches in canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair to
poor.

None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 20 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6667 293 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 9 36 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 36 inches. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6668 294 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 24 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Growing on west bank of drainage ditch.

Codominant at 36 inches. Above average dead
branches. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6669 295 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 17 12 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Growing at the top of the west bank of drainage
ditch. Codominant at 12 inches with 9 inches of
inclusion. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6670 296 Yes Coast
Live Oak
Quercus
agrifolia 13 54 10 1 Extreme Structure or Health Problems Bark dead west from base to 5 feet.

Codominant at 6 feet. Tip dieback central
leader. Vigor poor. Density poor.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of noted defects.
6671 297 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 36 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems Codominant at 4 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6672 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 15 12 12 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Bark fungus from base to 36 inches. Peeling
bark in canopy. Vigor fair to poor. Density fair to
poor.

None at this time.
6673 215 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 33 54 21 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 12 feet. Broken out central
leader. Vigor fair to poor. Density fair to poor. None at this time. 6674 314 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 4,5 9 54 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at base. Suppression east. Onesided leaning canopy west. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6675 311 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 20,30 50 54 30 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 18 feet. There is a suppressed
stem at the base of the main trunk that is
arching to the south to the ground. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

None at this time.
6676 310 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 14 54 18 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Suppressed east. Twisting canopy to the north.

One-sided. Vigor poor. Density poor. None at this time. 6677 309 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 20 36 21 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 4 feet. One-sided canopy south.

Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6678 308 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 28 54 36 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Growing on bank of drainage ditch full of
riparian vegetation and blackberries.

Codominant at 8 feet. Average deadwood in
canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 21 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6679 313 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 9,11 20 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at base. Above average dead
branches in lower canopy. Vigor fair to poor.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6680 307 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 9,10 19 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 12 inches. Above average dead
branches in lower canopy. Epicormic growth at
top of canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6681 306 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 4,4,4,5 17 54 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at base. Suppressed south. Above
average dead branches in lower canopy. Vigor
fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6682 305 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 6 feet. Above average dead
branches in lower canopy. Vigor fair to poor.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6683 304 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Good structure. Lower canopy suppressed
north. Epicormic growth on branches and
trunks. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6684 303 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 15 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 5 feet. 16 inches of inclusion.

Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6685 197 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 12 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Suppression north. One-sided canopy south.

Codominant at 24 inches. Vigor fair to poor.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6686 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Suppressed east. One-sided canopy west. Above
average dead branches. Vigor fair. Density fair
to poor.

None at this time.
6687 291 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7,9 16 54 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 12 inches. Growing into canopy
west. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6688 292 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 9 54 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems None at this time.
6689 290 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 14 24 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Growing in the canopies east and west. Above
average dead branches at the corner of growth
on trunk and branches. Codominant at 24
inches. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6690 289 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
None at this time.
6691 288 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 54 16 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Suppressed north. Leaning west. One-sided
canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 22 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6692 287 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 54 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems None at this time.
6693 286 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 14 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 4 feet. Above average dead
branches in lower canopy. Vigor fair to poor.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6694 286 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 19 12 21 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 12 inches for stems. Vigor fair.

Density fair. None at this time.
6695 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Suppressed north. One-sided canopy south.

Above average dead branches. Epicormic
growth. Density fair. Vigor fair.

None at this time.
6696 321 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 8
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Codominant at 4 feet. Dead 4-inch leader west.

Above average dead branches upcoming
growth. Vigor poor. Density poor.

None at this time.
6697 318 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 17 12 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 12 inches. Two stems. Growing
into canopy north. Above average dead
branches in lower canopy. Vigor fair. Density
fair to poor.

None at this time.
6698 316 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 54 9
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Tree was topped. Epicormic sprouts make up
top canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor. None at this time. 6699 317 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 14 54 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Tree canopy was directionally pruned south for
powerlines. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6700 419 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Suppressed north. Growing into canopy south.

Codominant at 10 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6701 320 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 15 48 21 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Growing in the canopy west. One-sided canopy
east. Codominant at 4 feet. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

None at this time.
6702 322 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Growing into canopy north and south. Good
structure. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6703 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 3,4 7 54 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at base to stems. Suppressed
south. One-sided canopy north. None at this time.
6704 323 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 16,17 33 54 21 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 12 inches with 6 inches of
inclusion. Live Oak volunteers in the dripline.

Above average dead branches in lower canopy.

Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6705 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 3,4 7 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 12 inches. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 23 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6706 427 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 4,4 8 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 12 inches. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6707 325 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 12 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 12 inches for stems. Vigor fair.

Density fair. None at this time.
6708 326 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 12 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems Codominant at 12 inches. Three stems. None at this time. 6709 328 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 14 54 16 3 Fair - Minor Problems Codominant at 7 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6710 330 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Good structure. Lower canopy suppressed north
and south. Above average dead branches. Vigor
fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6711 329 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6,9 15 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Suppressed southeast. One-sided leaning
canopy northwest. None at this time.
6712 331 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Growing into canopies east and west. Average
dead branches in canopy. Codominant at 4 feet.

Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6713 342 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 15 54 15 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Codominant at 12 feet. Above average dead
branches. Tip dieback out of crown with
epicormic growth in upper crown. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

None at this time.
6714 338 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 17 12 21 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 24 inches. Two stems. Tip
dieback out of crown. Epicormic growth on
leaders. Vigor poor. Density poor.

None at this time.
6715 339 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 17 54 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 14 feet. Above average
deadwood. Growing into canopy west.

Epicormic growth.

None at this time.
6716 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 12 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 24 inches. Three stems. Above
average dead branches. Epicormic growth all
stems. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6717 349 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems Good structure. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6718 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Suppressed east. One-sided leaning canopy
west. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 24 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6719 347 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 10 feet. Suppression south. Onesided leaning canopy northeast. Above average dead branches lower canopy/ Vigor fair. Density
fair to poor.

None at this time.
6720 346 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 20 3 Fair - Minor Problems
One-sided leaning canopy south. Vigor fair.

Density fair to poor. None at this time.
6721 346 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 54 18 2 Major Structure or Health Problems One-sided leaning canopy southeast. Above
average dead branches. Epicormic growth on
branches. Vigor poor. Density poor.

None at this time.
6722 150 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 12 2 Major Structure or Health Problems
One-sided leaning canopy west. Above average
dead branches. Epicormic growth on stems.

Vigor poor. Density poor.

None at this time.
6723 344 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 12 feet. Lower canopy
suppressed all sides. Vigor fair. Density fair to
poor.

None at this time.
6724 343 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 12,14 26 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at base with inclusion to stems
with weak attachment. Lower canopy
suppressed all sides. Above average dead
branches lower canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6725 342 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 10 2 Major Structure or Health Problems
Suppressed south. One-sided leaning canopy
northwest. Above average dead branches. Vigor
poor. Density poor.

None at this time.
6726 341 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 12 9
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Codominant at 12 inches to stems. Lower
canopy suppressed south and west. One-sided
leaning canopy north. Above average dead
branches.

None at this time.
6727 340 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 5,5 10 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at base to stems. Density fair. Vigor
fair. None at this time.
6728 156 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 9 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 5 feet. One-sided canopy south.

Vigor fair to poor. Density fair to poor. None at this time. 6729 353 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 6
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems None at this time.
6730 352 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 5,10 15 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at base 6 inches of inclusion. Vigor
fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6731 354 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 36 inches. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 25 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6732 373 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems Codominant at 6 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6733 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 2,3,5 10 54 7
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Codominant at base with weak attachments.

Suppressed north. Leaning canopy south. Vigor
fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6734 356 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 14 54 21 3 Fair - Minor Problems None at this time. 6735 357 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems Codominant at 12 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6736 358 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 15 12 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 12 inches to stems. Vigor fair.

Density fair. None at this time.
6737 359 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 6
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Suppressed south. One side leaning canopy
north. Codominant at 10 feet. None at this time.
6738 335 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 18 12 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 24 inches. Two stems. Vigor fair.

Density fair. None at this time.
6739 350 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 20 12 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 36 inches. Three stems. Vigor
fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6740 324 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 12 24 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 36 inches. Three stems. Canopy
to ground all sides. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6741 333 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Growing into canopy south. Codominant at 6
feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6742 334 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Growing into canopy north. Codominant at 4
feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6743 135 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 12 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 24 inches. Two stems. Above
average dead branches in lower canopy. Vigor
fair to poor. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6744 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 5 feet. Growing into canopies
east and west. Above average dead branches in
lower canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6745 337 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 10 feet. Above average dead
branches in lower canopy. Vigor fair to poor.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6746 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 4
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Suppressed east, north and west. Good
structure. Epicormic growth on trunk. Above
average dead branches. Vigor poor. Density
poor.

None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 26 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6747 355 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7,10 17 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at base to stems growing into
canopy west. Above average dead branches in
lower canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6748 351 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 17 12 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 24 inches. Two stems. Above
average dead branches in canopy. Vigor fair.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6749 360 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 36 36 21 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Codominant at 12 feet. Topped north side for
powerlines. 18-inch limb failure at 12 feet east
side with decay and wound. Vigor fair to poor.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6750 361 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 12 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 12 inches. Five stems. None at this time. 6751 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 3
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Good structure. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6752 362 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 16 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Vines throughout canopy up to 30 feet. Low
vertical lateral at 12 inches west. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

None at this time.
6753 364 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 7 feet. Growing into canopy
south and east. Above average dead branches
lower canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6754 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 12 16 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 24 inches to stems. Growing in
the canopy south and east average dead
branches. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6755 365 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 18 12 20 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 24 inches. Growing into canopy
east and west. Average dead branches in lower
canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6756 366 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 18 24 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems Codominant at 6 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6757 368 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 48 21 1 Extreme Structure or Health Problems Suppressed above. Trunk growing 6 inches
adjacent to trunk south. Bow in trunk at 4 feet
90° to the north. One-sided severe reaching
canopy north. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of noted defects.
6758 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 7 54 18 2 Major Structure or Health Problems
Suppressed above. Trunk growing 18 inches
adjacent to trunk north. Severe leaning onesided canopy south. Vigor fair to poor. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 27 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6759 367 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 12 16 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Suppressed northwest. One-sided reaching
canopy southeast. Riparian vegetation under
canopy. Codominant at 24 inches. Two stems.

Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6760 369 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Blackberries up to 4 feet. Codominant at 9 feet.

Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6761 370 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 24 17 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Suppressed above. Growing 12 inches adjacent
to trunk. One-sided reaching canopy north.

Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6762 371 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 17 54 21 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Tag tied to low branch west side due to
blackberries. Codominant at 12 feet. None at this time. 6763 372 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 12 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at base with some inclusion. Two
stems. Riparian vegetation and blackberries
under canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6764 423 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 4 feet. Suppression northeast.

Leaning canopy southwest. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

None at this time.
6765 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 48 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 4 feet. Above average dead
branches lower canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair
to poor.

None at this time.
6766 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems Codominant at 12 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6767 Tag # Not Used
6768 416 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 7
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Tag tied to fence south. Codominant at 7 feet.

Topped for powerlines. Vigor fair. Density fair to
poor.

None at this time.
6769 414 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 6
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Codominant at 6 feet. Topped for powerlines.

Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6770 413 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 9
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Codominant at 10 feet. Topped for powerlines.

Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6771 433 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 27 54 24 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 7 feet. Growing into canopy east
and south. Canopy to ground west. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

None at this time.
6772 434 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 26 54 24 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 15 feet. Growing into canopies
south and northwest. East side can be pruned
for powerlines. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 28 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6773 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 5 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6774 435 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 27 54 24 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 15 feet. Growing into canopy
northeast. One-sided leaning canopy southwest.

Canopy to ground west. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6775 436 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 27 54 21 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 10 feet. Growing into canopy
west. Canopy to ground south and northwest.

Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6776 337 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 36 54 33 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Codominant at 12 feet. 18-inch limb failure
south at 8 feet with decay and wound. Average
deadwood in canopy. Vigor fair to poor. Density
fair to poor.

None at this time.
6777 439 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 36 54 33 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Codominant at 15 feet. Broken branch at 7 feet
southwest with decay and wound. 15-inch
lateral at 5 feet south broken and growing on
ground.

None at this time.
6778 438 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 28 54 21 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Codominant at 5 feet. 16-inch central leader
broken off with decay and wound. Powerlines
east side. Vigor poor. Density poor.

None at this time.
6779 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Growing adjacent to chain-link fence on east
side. In contact with barbed-wire at 6 feet.

Codominant at 6 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6780 Yes Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 25 54 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Off-site tree. Tag on post of chain-link fence 36
inches above the ground. Topped for
powerlines. Codominant at 9 feet. Canopy 12
feet into site. Vigor fair to poor. Density fair to
poor.

None at this time.
6781 464 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 24 54 21 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Tree pruned for powerlines. One-sided leaning
canopy east. Epicormic growth east side. None at this time. 6782 465 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 15 54 22 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Suppressed above east. Severe leaning onesided canopy west. Average dead branches.

Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6783 466 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 15 54 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Tree pruned east for powerlines. Epicormic
growth along trunk east side to 25 feet. Onesided leaning canopy west.None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 29 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6784 467 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 23 54 22 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Suppressed north. One-sided leaning canopy
south. Codominant at 8 feet. None at this time.
6785 469 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 34 54 21 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 6 feet. Growing into canopy
north and west. Vigor fair. Density fair. Canopy
growing to ground south and west.

None at this time.
6786 470 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 32 48 40 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 6 feet. Low 10-inch lateral at 6
feet growing to ground south. Average dead
branches. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6787 471 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 15 2 Major Structure or Health Problems
Codominant at 14 feet. Suppressed east. Onesided leaning canopy northwest. None at this time. 6788 472 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 32 54 24 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 18 feet. Canopy to ground
southwest and northeast. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

None at this time.
6789 473 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 23 54 21 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Suppressed east. One-sided leaning canopy
west. Codominant at 12 feet. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

None at this time.
6790 474 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Suppressed south. One-sided leaning canopy
north. None at this time.
6791 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 18 2 Major Structure or Health Problems
Suppressed east. One-sided leaning canopy
west.

None at this time.
6792 476 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems Codominant at 7 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6793 477 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 54 16 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Suppressed east. One-sided leaning canopy
west. Above average dead branches. Large
Mulberry growing in understory. Vigor fair to
poor. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6794 478 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 10 feet. Large sprawling
Mulberry growing in understory. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

None at this time.
6795 479 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 4,6 10 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at base to stems. Vigor fair. Density
fair. None at this time.
6796 480 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6,7 13 54 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Good structure Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6797 481 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Good structure. Suppressed south. One-sided
leaning canopy north. None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 30 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6798 482 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 36 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems Codominant at 36 inches. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6799 483 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 15 feet. Above average dead
branches in lower canopy. Vigor fair to poor.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6800 494 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 12 9
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Codominant at 12 inches. Suppression north.

One-sided leaning canopy south. Vigor fair.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6801 486 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 6 feet. Growing into canopy
east. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6802 485 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 14 12 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 36 inches. Canopy to ground all
sides. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6803 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 24 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 24 inches. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6804 487 Yes Coast
Live Oak
Quercus
agrifolia 13 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Growing in drainage ditch and surrounded by
blackberries. Tag on branch at east bank of
ditch. Codominant at 8 feet. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

None at this time.
6805 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 9
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Suppressed east. Growing on east bank of
drainage ditch. Codominant at 4 feet. One-sided
leaning canopy west.

None at this time.
6806 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 7 54 15 2 Major Structure or Health Problems
Suppressed east. Growing at base of chain-link
fence. One-sided leaning canopy west.

Codominant at 7 feet.

None at this time.
6807 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 2,4 6 54 4
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at base. Growing on east bank of
drainage ditch and surrounded by blackberries.

Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6808 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 2,2,3 7 54 4
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at base. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6809 493 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 34 54 36 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 8 feet. Average dead branches in
lower canopy. Canopy overhangs Shasta Street
20 feet south. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6810 494 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 37 54 36 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Large wound cavity north side from base to 4
feet. Decay and wound. 40% of hardwood
decayed. Driving path in dripline all sides. Vigor
fair to poor. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 31 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6811 495 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 44 54 30 1 Extreme Structure or Health Problems Codominant at 36 inches. Old main leader
failure breakoff south side decay in wound.

Remaining two stems with included bark and
severe separation. Vigor fair. Density fair to
poor. Driving path under canopy south side.

Tree should be removed.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of noted defects.
6812 407 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 14,15 29 54 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 6 feet. Topped for powerlines.

Canopy on Diamond Oaks Road 5 feet. Growing
into canopy west.

None at this time.
6813 401 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Suppressed east. One-sided leaning canopy
west.

None at this time.
6814 403 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Growing into canopy west. Codominant at 5
feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6815 402 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 9,11 20 24 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Suppressed south. One-sided leaning canopy
north. Codominant at base to stems. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

None at this time.
6816 404 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 16 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Suppressed south. Growing into canopy south
and east. Good structure. One-sided leaning
canopy north. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6817 405 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 5,10 15 54 15 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Codominant at base. Suppressed above. Onesided leaning canopy northwest. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

None at this time.
6818 411 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 17 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 8 feet. Canopy to ground all
sides. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6819 412 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 10 54 15 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Suppressed east. Codominant at 7 feet. Onesided leaning canopy west. Above average dead branches lower canopy. Vigor fair to poor.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6820 418 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 10 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Topped for powerlines. Codominant at 8 feet.

Vigor fair. Density fair to poor. None at this time.
6821 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Suppressed west. One-sided leaning canopy
east. Codominant at 20 feet. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

None at this time.
6822 408 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 11 54 18 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Codominant at 6 feet. Severe one-sided leaning
canopy east. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 32 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6823 409 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 10 54 15 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Severe leaning canopy east. Vigor fair. Density
fair. None at this time.
6824 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 48 4
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Adjacent to fence growing on north side in
contact with barbed-wire. Codominant at 6 feet.

Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.

TOTAL INVENTORIED TREES = 324 trees (4,955 aggregate diameter inches) TOTAL RECOMMENDED REMOVALS = 10 trees (256 aggregate diameter inches) TOTAL PROTECTED TREES = 324 Trees (4,955 aggregate diameter inches) WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 33 of 39
APPENDIX 3 – GENERAL PRACTICES FOR TREE PROTECTION
Definitions:

Root zone: The roots of trees grow fairly close to the surface of the soil, and spread out in a radial direction from the trunk of tree. A general rule of thumb is that they spread 2 to 3 times the radius of the canopy, or 1 to 1 ½ times the height of the tree. It is generally accepted that disturbance to root zones should be kept as far as possible from the trunk of a tree.

Inner Bark: The bark on large valley oaks and coast live oaks is quite thick, usually 1” to 2”. If the bark is knocked off a tree, the inner bark, or cambial region, is exposed or removed. The cambial zone is the area of tissue responsible for adding new layers to the tree each year, so by removing it, the tree can only grow new tissue from the edges of the wound. In addition, the wood of the tree is exposed to decay fungi, so the trunk present at the time of the injury becomes susceptible to decay. Tree protection measures require that no activities occur which can knock the bark off the trees.

Methods Used in Tree Protection:

No matter how detailed Tree Protection Measures are in the initial Arborist Report, they will not accomplish their stated purpose unless they are applied to individual trees and a Project Arborist is hired to oversee the construction. The Project Arborist should have the ability to enforce the Protection Measures. The Project Arborist should be hired as soon as possible to assist in design and to become familiar with the project. He must be able to read and understand the project drawings and interpret the specifications. He should also have the ability to cooperate with the contractor, incorporating the contractor’s ideas on how to accomplish the protection measures, wherever possible. It is advisable for the Project Arborist to be present at the Pre-Bid tour of the site, to answer questions the contractors may have about Tree Protection Measures. This also lets the contractors know how important tree preservation is to the developer.

Root Protection Zone (RPZ): Since in most construction projects it is not possible to protect the entire root zone of a tree, a Root Protection Zone is established for each tree to be preserved. The minimum Root Protection Zone is the area underneath the tree’s canopy (out to the dripline, or edge of the canopy), plus 10’.

The Project Arborist must approve work within the RPZ.

Irrigate, Fertilize, Mulch: Prior to grading on the site near any tree, the area within the Tree Protection fence should be fertilized with 4 pounds of nitrogen per 1000 square feet, and the fertilizer irrigated in. The irrigation should percolate at least 24 inches into the soil. This should be done no less than 2 weeks prior to grading or other root disturbing activities. After irrigating, cover the RPZ with at least 12” of leaf and twig mulch. Such mulch can be obtained from chipping or grinding the limbs of any trees removed on the site.

Acceptable mulches can be obtained from nurseries or other commercial sources. Fibrous or shredded redwood or cedar bark mulch shall not be used anywhere on site.

Fence: Fence around the Root Protection Zone and restrict activity therein to prevent soil compaction by vehicles, foot traffic or material storage. The fenced area shall be off limits to all construction equipment, unless there is express written notification provided by the Project Arborist, and impacts are discussed and mitigated prior to work commencing.

No storage or cleaning of equipment or materials, or parking of any equipment can take place within the fenced off area, known as the RPZ.

WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 34 of 39
The fence should be highly visible, and stout enough to keep vehicles and other equipment out. I recommend the fence be made of orange plastic protective fencing, kept in place by t-posts set no farther apart than 6’.

In areas of intense impact, a 6’ chain link fence is preferred.

In areas with many trees, the RPZ can be fenced as one unit, rather than separately for each tree.

Where tree trunks are within 3’ of the construction area, place 2” by 4” boards vertically against the tree trunks, even if fenced off. Hold the boards in place with wire. Do not nail them directly to the tree.

The purpose of the boards is to protect the trunk, should any equipment stray into the RPZ.

Elevate Foliage: Where indicated, remove lower foliage from a tree to prevent limb breakage by equipment.

Low foliage can usually be removed without harming the tree, unless more than 25% of the foliage is removed. Branches need to be removed at the anatomically correct location in order to prevent decay organisms from entering the trunk. For this reason, a contractor who is an ISA Certified Arborist should perform all pruning on protected trees.1
Expose and Cut Roots: Breaking roots with a backhoe, or crushing them with a grader, causes significant injury, which may subject the roots to decay. Ripping roots may cause them to splinter toward the base of the tree, creating much more injury than a clean cut would make. At any location where the root zone of a tree will be impacted by a trench or a cut (including a cut required for a fill and compaction), the roots shall be exposed with either a backhoe digging radially to the trunk, by hand digging, or by a hydraulic air spade, and then cut cleanly with a sharp instrument, such as chainsaw with a carbide chain. Once the roots are severed, the area behind the cut should be moistened and mulched. A root protection fence should also be erected to protect the remaining roots, if it is not already in place. Further grading or backhoe work required outside the established RPZ can then continue without further protection measures.

Protect Roots in Deeper Trenches: The location of utilities on the site can be very detrimental to trees. Design the project to use as few trenches as possible, and to keep them away from the major trees to be protected.

Wherever possible, in areas where trenches will be very deep, consider boring under the roots of the trees, rather than digging the trench through the roots. This technique can be quite useful for utility trenches and pipelines.

Protect Roots in Small Trenches: After all construction is complete on a site, it is not unusual for the landscape contractor to come in and sever a large number of “preserved” roots during the installation of irrigation systems. The Project Arborist must therefore approve the landscape and irrigation plans. The irrigation system needs to be designed so the main lines are located outside the root zone of major trees, and the secondary lines are either laid on the surface (drip systems), or carefully dug with a hydraulic or air spade, and the flexible pipe fed underneath the major roots.

Design the irrigation system so it can slowly apply water (no more than ¼” to ½” of water per hour) over a longer period of time. This allows deep soaking of root zones. The system also needs to accommodate infrequent irrigation settings of once or twice a month, rather than several times a week.

Monitoring Tree Health During and After Construction: The Project Arborist should visit the site at least twice a month during construction to be certain the tree protection measures are being followed, to monitor the health of impacted trees, and make recommendations as to irrigation or other needs. After construction is 1 International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), maintains a program of Certifying individuals. Each Certified Arborist has a number and must maintain continuing education credits to remain Certified.

WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 35 of 39
complete, the arborist should monitor the site monthly for one year and make recommendations for care where needed. If longer term monitoring is required, the arborist should report this to the developer and the planning agency overseeing the project.

Root Structure
The majority of a tree’s roots are contained in a radius from the main trunk outward approximately two to three times the canopy of the tree. These roots are located in the top 6” to 3’ of soil. It is a common misconception that a tree underground resembles the canopy (see Drawing A below). The correct root structure of a tree is in Drawing B. All plants’ roots need both water and air for survival. Surface roots are a common phenomenon with trees grown in compacted soil. Poor canopy development or canopy decline in mature trees is often the result of inadequate root space and/or soil compaction.

Drawing A
Common misconception of where tree roots are assumed to be located Drawing B
The reality of where roots are generally located
WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 36 of 39
Structural Issues
Limited space for canopy development produces poor structure in trees. The largest tree in a given area, which is ‘shading’ the other trees is considered Dominant. The ‘shaded’ trees are considered Suppressed. The following picture illustrates this point. Suppressed trees are more likely to become a potential hazard due to their poor structure.

Co-dominant leaders are another common structural problem in trees.

Photo from Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas by Nelda P. Matheny and James R. Clark, 1994 International Society of Arboriculture Dominant Tree
Growth is
upright
Canopy is
balanced by
limbs and
foliage equally
Suppressed Tree
Canopy weight all to
one side
Limbs and foliage
grow away from
dominant tree
The tree in this picture has a codominant leader at about 3’ and included bark up to 7 or 8’. Included
bark occurs when two or more limbs
have a narrow angle of attachment
resulting in bark between the stems –
instead of cell to cell structure. This is
considered a critical defect in trees
and is the cause of many failures.

Narrow Angle
Included Bark between the
arrows
WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 37 of 39
Pruning Mature Trees for Risk Reduction
There are few good reasons to prune mature trees. Removal of deadwood, directional pruning, removal of decayed or damaged wood, and end-weight reduction as a method of mitigation for structural faults are the only reasons a mature tree should be pruned. Live wood over 3” should not be pruned unless absolutely necessary. Pruning cuts should be clean and correctly placed. Pruning should be done in accordance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 standards. It is far better to use more small cuts than a few large cuts as small pruning wounds reduce risk while large wounds increase risk.

Pruning causes an open wound in the tree. Trees do not “heal” they compartmentalize. Any wound made today will always remain, but a healthy tree, in the absence of decay in the wound, will ‘cover it’ with callus tissue. Large, old pruning wounds with advanced decay are a likely failure point. Mature trees with large wounds are a high failure risk.

Overweight limbs are a common structural fault in suppressed trees. There are two remedial actions for overweight limbs (1) prune the limb to reduce the extension of the canopy, or (2) cable the limb to reduce movement. Cables do not hold weight they only stabilize the limb and require annual inspection.

Photo of another tree – not at this site.

Normal limb structure
Over weight, reaching
limb with main stem
diameter small
compared with amount
of foliage present
Photo of another tree – not at this site
WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 38 of 39
Lion’s – Tailing is the pruning practice of removal of “an excessive number of inner and/or lower lateral branches from parent branches. Lion’s tailing is not an acceptable pruning practice” ANSI A300 (part 1) 4.23. It increases the risk of failure.

Pruning – Cutting back trees changes their
natural structure, while leaving trees in their
natural form enhances longevity.

Arborist Classifications
There are different types of Arborists:

Tree Removal and/or Pruning Companies. These companies may be licensed by the State of California to do business, but they do not necessarily know anything about trees; Arborists. Arborist is a broad term. It is intended to mean someone with specialized knowledge of trees but is often used to imply knowledge that is not there.

ISA Certified Arborist: An International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist is someone who has been trained and tested to have specialized knowledge of trees. You can look up certified arborists at the International Society of Arboriculture website: isa-arbor.org.

Consulting Arborist: An American Society of Consulting Arborists Registered Consulting Arborist is someone who has been trained and tested to have specialized knowledge of trees and trained and tested to provide high quality reports and documentation. You can look up registered consulting arborists at the American Society of Consulting Arborists website: https://www.asca-consultants.org/ WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 39 of 39
Decay in Trees
Decay (in General): Fungi cause all decay of living trees. Decay is considered a disease because cell walls are altered, wood strength is affected, and living sapwood cells may be killed. Fungi decay wood by secreting enzymes. Different types of fungi cause different types of decay through the secretion of different chemical enzymes. Some decays, such as white rot, cause less wood strength loss than others because they first attack the lignin (causes cell walls to thicken and reduces susceptibility to decay and pest damage) secondarily the cellulose (another structural component in a cell walls). Others, such as soft rot, attack the cellulose chain and cause substantial losses in wood strength even in the initial stages of decay. Brown rot causes wood to become brittle and fractures easily with tension. Identification of internal decay in a tree is difficult because visible evidence may not be present.

According to Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas (Matheny, 1994) decay is a critical factor in the stability of the tree. As decay progresses in the trunk, the stem becomes a hollow tube or cylinder rather than a solid rod. This change is not readily apparent to the casual observer. Trees require only a small amount of bark and wood to transport water, minerals and sugars.

Interior heartwood can be eliminated (or degraded) to a great degree without compromising the transport process. Therefore, trees can contain significant amounts of decay without showing decline symptoms in the crown.

Compartmentalization of decay in
trees is a biological process in which
the cellular tissue around wounds is
changed to inhibit fungal growth
and provide a barrier against the
spread of decay agents into
additional cells. The weakest of the barrier zones is the formation of the vertical wall. Accordingly, while a tree may be able to limit decay progression inward at large pruning cuts, in the event that there are more than one pruning cut located vertically along the main trunk of the tree, the likelihood of decay progression and the associated structural loss of integrity of the internal wood is high.

Oak Tree Impacts
Our native oak trees are easily damaged or killed by having the soil within the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) disturbed or compacted. All of the work initially performed around protected trees that will be saved should be done by people rather than by wheeled or track type tractors. Oaks are fragile giants that can take little change in soil grade, compaction, or warm season watering. Don’t be fooled into believing that warm season watering has no adverse effects on native oaks. Decline and eventual death can take as long as 5-20 years with poor care and inappropriate watering.

Oaks can live hundreds of years if treated properly during construction, as well as later with proper pruning, and the appropriate landscape/irrigation design.

California Tree and Landscape Consulting, Inc.
1243 High Street, Auburn, CA 95603 Office: 530.745.4086 Direct: 916.801.8059 April 27, 2021
Ryan O’Keefe
WP Sierra View, LLC
1420 Rocky Ridge Drive, Suite 265
Roseville, CA 95661
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Sierra View Golf Club Verification of Tree Failure #6517 Ryan,
I am writing to provide confirmation of a recent tree failure at the Sierra View Golf Club surplus property. The tree is located within the proposed development area of the property located at 360 Diamond Oaks Road, Roseville, California.

Unfortunately, the tree suffered a catastrophic failure of the lower trunk approximately 10’ above grade and is a total loss. The remaining debris should be cleaned up and the lower trunk and stump removed.

The attached pictures depict the failure. The tree should be removed from any mitigation calculations associated with the development of the property.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Edwin E. Stirtz, Consulting Arborist
International Society of Arboriculture
Certified Arborist WE-0510A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists
Enc: Photographs
Westpark Communities: Sierra View Golf Club Verification of Tree Failure #6517 April 27, 2021 Consulting Arborists Page 2 of 2
Photographs
2:1 2:1
2:1
2:1 2:1 2:1
2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1
3:1 3:1 2:1 3:1 3:12:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 3:1
3:1
3:1
3:1 2:1
2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:12:1 3:1
2:1 3:1 3:1 2:1 2:1
2:1
2:1
2:12:1 6673 6519 6521 6524 6525 6527 6526 6750 6751 6803 6805 6514 6513 6516 67966795 6786 6773 6779 6551 6552 6550 6554 6589 65886585 6584 6583 65876586 6523 6541 6537 6565 6578 6581 6580 6607 6606 6604 6603 6572 6576 6577 6811 6810 6809 6501 6503 6506 6507 6808 6807 6512 6515 6518 6553 6776 6777 6608 6505 6797 6800 6801 6542 654365456546 6536 6540 6528 65336532 65316534 6529 6530 6547 6549 6785 6782 6785 6560 6559 6562 6561 6563 6557 6558 6556 6555 6597 6598 659966006601 6602 6590 65926591 6569 6571 6570 6568 6566 6574 6573 6772 6812 6813 68156814 6816 6817 68216822 6823 6818 6819 6768 6769 6770 6820 6763 6628 6749 6824 6752 6642 661866226617 6757 6756 6755 6759 6754 6641 6641 6765 67606761 6762 6632 6634 6630 6623 6624 6626 6627 66106609 6611 6612 6625 6616 6615 6614 6613 6619 6620 6672 6671 6670 6669 6668 6674 6679 6675 6676 6677 6678 6680 6681 6684 6685 6691 6686 6682 6683 6688 6687 6689 6690 6692 6693 6694 6695 6696 67036702 6701 6666 6665 6664 6663 6662 6661 6660 6659 6740 67076708 6706 6705 6709 6711 6710 6712 6713 6738 6715 6714 6745 67166746 6726 6727 6725 6724 6723 6722 6728 6721 67296730 6731 6747 6658 6720 6719 6718 6717 6739 6737 6736 6646 6645 6735 6734 6732 6733 6657 66566654 6655 6647 6648 66506653 6651 6652 6605 6511 6510 6509 6508 6504 6502 6804 6806 6520 6522 6535 6539 6538 6544 6548 6787 6789 6788 6790 6791 6792 6793 6794 6798 6799 6802 6595 6594 65966593 6567 6579 6778 6775 6771 6774 6742 6741 6704 6758 6635 6637 424 6697 6698 6699 6700 6743 6744 6748 6753 66396638 6621 6644 6649 6575 6564 6783 6629 6633 6631 6636 6764 6766 6781 6784 Sheet 1 of 1 Roseville, CA October 29, 2021 SIERRA VIEW N ATTACHMENT A TREE PERMIT TREE # EXISTING OAK TREE - TO REMAIN TREE REMOVAL INFORMATION TREE # PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL TREE # ARBORIST RECOMMENDED REMOVAL TREE # EXISTING OAK TREE TO REMAIN (IMPACTED)

PC EXHIBIT F

PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 16, 2021
Prepared by: Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner
ITEM 6.1b: General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, Development Agreement Amendment, and Tentative Subdivision Map – 3301 Pleasant Grove Boulevard – SVSP PCL WB-41 – Rezone – File # PL21-0161

REQUEST
The proposed project will allow the construction of 63 single-family homes on SVSP Parcel WB-41 and the addition of 30 units on SVSP Parcel WB-31. The project entitlements include a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of Parcel WB-41 from Community Commercial (CC) to MDR and a Rezone from CC to Small Lot Residential/Development Standards (RS/DS). The SVSP will be amended to reflect the 30 additional units transferred to High Density Residential Parcel WB-31 from Infill Parcel 100. A Second Amendment of the Westbrook Development Agreement will be made to reflect the proposed land use changes, unit transfers, and to include dedication of a portion of West Roseville Specific Plan Parcel W-60B to the City. Lastly, a Tentative Subdivision Map is included to subdivide Parcel WB-41 into 63 medium density residential lots.

Applicant – John Tallman, Westpark S V 400 LLC
Property Owner – Westpark S V 400 LLC

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:

Adopt the Sierra View Country Club and Sierra Vista Specific Plan Redesignation and Rezone Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program and Consider the 6th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

For the SVSP PCL WB-41 Rezone Project (File # PL21-0161):

A. Recommend the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment (Land Use Map); B. Recommend the City Council approve the Specific Plan Amendment (Text & Land Use Map); C. Recommend the City Council approve the Rezone;
D. Recommend the City Council approve the Second Amendment of the Westbrook Development Agreement; and
E. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the Tentative Subdivision Map subject to fifty-seven (57) conditions of approval.

SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES
There are no outstanding issues associated with this request. The applicant has reviewed and is in agreement with all recommended conditions of approval.

SENATE BILL 330
Projects #PL21-0162 (Sierra View Subdivision) and #PL21-0161 (SVSP Parcels WB-41 and WB-31) are linked to each other due to requirements in California State Housing Law. As described below, each project is evaluated independently in a separate staff report, however, The Planning Commission will be asked to take one action when considering the entitlements for both projects. The following is an CC ATTACHMENT 2
SVSP PCL WB-41 – Rezone, 3301 Pleasant Grove Bl.; File #PL21-0161 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 2 of 19
explanation of why these projects are linked and how staff is recommending the proposed entitlements be acted upon.

Recent changes in state law preclude the City from reducing anticipated housing density in one portion of its jurisdiction without making up for the resulting reduction by increasing anticipated housing density in another area. As enacted in the 2019 legislative session, Senate Bill 330 (the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 or S.B. 330) created Government Code Section 65300. Subdivision (b)(1)(A) of that statute generally prevents a city from changing the residential general plan, specific plan, and zoning designation to “a less intensive use” or to reduce the intensity of the designation below what was allowed on January 1, 2018. An exception to this prohibition exists, however, where the city “concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity” (Government Code § 65300 (h)(2)(i)(1), italics added).

The applicant is proposing a reduction in residential capacity on one site (Infill Parcel 100 – Sierra View Subdivision, file #PL21-0162) but proposing a modification in the designations on two other sites (Sierra Vista Specific Plan Parcel WB-41 and Parcel WB-31, file #PL21-0161), in order to make up for the lost residential capacity at Infill Parcel 100. Figure 1 below identifies the location of these parcels and the proposed unit transfers. Infill Parcel 100 has a current General Plan unit allocation of 168 units, however with the Sierra View Subdivision project (file #PL21-0162), the applicant is proposing to build only 75 of the units. As required by S.B. 330, the remaining 93 units must be transferred elsewhere in the City to avoid any net reduction in anticipated housing units. The remaining 93 units will be transferred to SVSP Parcels WB-41 and WB-31. The SVSP Parcel WB-41 Rezone project (file #PL21-0161) proposes amending the land use and zoning designation of Parcel WB-41 from its current Community Commercial (CC) designation to Medium Density Residential (MDR) with a zoning of Small Lot Residential/Development Standards (RS/DS), in order to accommodate 63 of the units being transferred from Infill Parcel 100. The remaining 30 units from Infill Parcel 100 are being transferred to High Density Residential Parcel WB-31. Since the Legislature, through S.B. 330 has required these consecutive actions, the Planning Commission will act on the two projects under one motion. However, staff has chosen to evaluate each project and the corresponding entitlements with separate staff reports for ease of readability.

Figure 1: Dwelling Unit Transfer Exhibit
SVSP PCL WB-41 – Rezone, 3301 Pleasant Grove Bl.; File #PL21-0161 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 3 of 19

PROJECT BACKGROUND
The project site consists of Parcels WB-31 and WB-41, which are both located within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP), to the north and south of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and east of Santucci Boulevard (see Figure 2). Both parcels are currently undeveloped. Parcel WB-31 is approximately 11 acres and has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential (HDR) at a density of 23.7 units per acre and a zoning designation of Multi-Family Housing (R3). Parcel WB-41 is approximately 10 acres and has a General Plan land use designation and zoning designation of Community Commercial (CC).

The SVSP identifies Parcel WB-41 as a neighborhood-serving retail center that could support approximately 175,000 square feet of commercial and/or office space.

Parcel WB-31 is adjacent to vacant HDR Parcel WB-30 to the east, vacant HDR Parcel W-16 to the west, open space to the north, and Parcel WB-41 and an age-restricted Low Density Residential (LDR) subdivision to the south across Pleasant Grove Boulevard. Parcel WB-41 is adjacent to a Medium Density Residential (MDR) subdivision and a well site to the south, an age-restricted LDR subdivision to the east across Daylight Drive, Parcels WB-30 and WB-31 to the north across Pleasant Grove Boulevard, and unincorporated Placer County agricultural uses across Santucci Boulevard to the west.

Figure 2: Project Location
Project Entitlements
The requested entitlements will allow for the development of a 63-unit single-family residential subdivision on Parcel WB-41. No development is being proposed on Parcel WB-31 at this time. The project entitlements include:

General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) – The GPA will amend the land use designation of Parcel WB-41 from Community Commerical (CC) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) at a density of approximately 7.4 units per acre, in order to facilitate development of a 63-unit subdivision on this parcel. The SVSP document will be amended to reflect the proposed land use change for Parcel WB-41 as well as the unit transfers occuring with the Sierra View Subdivision project (file #PL21-0162). The Sierra View Subdivision project will transfer a total of 93 units from Infill Parcel 100 to Santucci Bl Pleasant Grove Bl
Parcel WB-41
Parcel WB-31
SVSP PCL WB-41 – Rezone, 3301 Pleasant Grove Bl.; File #PL21-0161 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 4 of 19
Parcel WB-41 (+63 units) and to High Density Residential Parcel WB-31 (+30 units). The project would increase the density of Parcel WB-31 from 23.7 units per acre to 26.4 units per acre, as allowable under the General Plan. Section 6.5 and Figure 6-25 of the SVSP will be amended to remove the designation of a park and ride lot on Parcel WB-41, and Section B.12 and Figure B-30, which identify a conceptual commercial center plan for Parcel WB-41, will be removed. Exhibit A includes the General Plan Amendment exhibit, Exhibit B includes the General Plan land use map reflecting the land use change, and Exhibit C includes the SVSP change pages.

Rezone – A Rezone is requested to amend the current zoning designation of Parcel WB-41 from Community Commercial (CC) to Small Lot Residential/Development Standards (RS/DS) to be consistent with the proposed land use designation. Exhibit D includes the Rezone exhibit.

Development Agreement (DA) Amendment – The project includes a second amendment of the Westbrook DA. The DA will be amended to reflect the proposed land use changes, unit transfers, and dedication of a portion of West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) Parcel W-60B to the City. Exhibit E includes the proposed DA Amendment.

Tentative Subdivision Map – The approximately 10-acre Parcel WB-41 will be subdivided into a new subdivision consisting of 63 MDR lots, three (3) landscape lots, and one (1) right-of-way/landscape corridor lot, for a total of 67 lots. Exhibit F includes the proposed tentative subdivision map.

EVALUATION: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT The General Plan does not have any residential units allocated to Parcel WB-41, given that it is a commercially zoned site, while Parcel WB-31 has a current unit allocation of 263 units. As discussed previously in this staff report, the Sierra View Subdivision project (file #PL21-0162) will result in a 93-unit reduction on Infill Parcel 100. These 93 units will be transferred to SVSP Parcels WB-31 and WB-41 to comply with the statutory requirements of S.B. 330. Of the 93 units being transferred from Infill Parcel 100, 63 units will be transferred to Parcel WB-41 and 30 units will be transferred to Parcel WB-31 (see Table 1 below). The density of Parcel WB-31 will increase from 23.7 units per acre to 26.4 units per acre, which is consistent with the HDR land use. Parcel WB-41 will have a resulting density of approximately

7.4 units per acre, excluding the right-of-way/landscape corridors, which is consistent with the proposed MDR land use designation. The SPA includes changes to the text, tables, and figures of the SVSP to reflect the land use change, new unit allocations and densities.

Table 1: Unit Transfers
Parcel Existing
Land Use
Proposed
Land Use
Existing
Unit
Allocation
Proposed Units Difference % Change
Infill
Parcel
100
Medium
Density
Residential
(MDR)
Low Density
Residential
(LDR)
168 75 -93 -55.4%
SVSP
Parcel
WB-41
Community
Commercial
(CC)
MDR 0 63 +63 -
SVSP
Parcel
WB-31
High Density
Residential
(HDR)
Unchanged 263 293 +30 +11.4%
TOTAL 431 431
SVSP PCL WB-41 – Rezone, 3301 Pleasant Grove Bl.; File #PL21-0161 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 5 of 19
Proposed amendments to the General Plan and the SVSP are analyzed for consistency with the goals and policies of the respective plans. In 2004, in response to increased requests to convert commercial and industrial properties to residential uses, the City Council adopted guidelines for the conversion of non-residential land uses. A copy of the guidelines is provided as Attachment 1. As stated in the guidelines, the purpose is to make clear the City’s expectations related to the loss of job-generating land uses. The overarching goal to be applied to land use changes outside of the Infill portion of the City is to maintain the City’s fiscal balance and prevent the loss of jobs and existing job centers while maintaining a balanced community. The guidelines include evaluating fiscal impacts, noise, park dedication, public services, affordable housing, schools, utilities, and traffic when contemplating residential land use allocations.

The guidelines were used in staff’s evaluation of the proposed land use amendment to Parcel WB-41, given that it will be converting a non-residential land use (e.g., Community Commercial) to a residential land use (e.g., Medium Density Residential). The guidelines for areas within a Specific Plan state:

1. A region wide employment and land inventory study shall be required of each project that is equal to or greater than 50 acres.

2. Land use changes will not have a negative fiscal impact to the City. Each project shall be modeled individually for citywide impacts utilizing the City's fiscal model.

3. Projects that are 50 acres or greater in size shall maintain employment options and a favorable jobs housing balance.

4. New housing development shall meet the City's 10% goal consistent with the Housing Element (4% affordable to very low, 4% affordable to low, and 2% affordable to middle income).

5. Projects shall provide a specific public benefit that may be in the form of a community benefit fee.

6. Increases in general fund service demands shall be mitigated by establishment of or annexation into a Community Facilities Mello Roos Assessment District to offset the costs of the project. The assessment may be utilized to offset the cost of the following: public safety; parks and open space maintenance; storm water management; and other costs identified by the City.

7. Parks obligation to include payment of citywide and neighborhood park fees. Active park needs shall be provided by the project. An in-lieu parkland dedication fee may be negotiated in lieu of land based on the project. For each acre of parkland dedication mitigated by an in-lieu fee a corresponding inlieu fee shall be paid for park improvements. The in-lieu fees shall provide improvements of local benefit.

8. Place emphasis on the dedication of parklands within specific plan areas rather than acceptance of and in-lieu fee for land dedication.

9. Utilities (e.g. water, sewer, electric) shall not be impacted as to conveyance or capacity.

10. School impacts shall be mitigated through new impact agreements executed with the school districts to ensure that the projects student generation is accommodated.

11. Residential units not utilized within a specific plan area shall be reallocated within that plan area and school district. Otherwise, requests for units shall be considered as additive to the City's existing unit allocation.

12. Encourage higher density residential mixed-use projects with consideration to the relaxing of any one guideline or multiple guidelines to promote and provide incentives for innovative higher density residential mixed-use projects.

SVSP PCL WB-41 – Rezone, 3301 Pleasant Grove Bl.; File #PL21-0161 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 6 of 19
Parcel WB-41 is less than 50 acres, therefore guidelines #1 and #3 are not applicable to the project. The City’s building permit process includes the assessment of all applicable and appropriate fees, which will ensure the project conforms to the guidelines addressing impact fees.

Fiscal Impact Analysis: Guideline #2 states land use changes will not have a negative fiscal impact to the City and requires that each project be modeled individually for City-wide impacts. Consistent with this guideline, Economics & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) prepared a fiscal impact analysis that demonstrated the land use change would not result in a negative fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund on an annual basis (see Attachment 2). Additional studies were completed to determine the feasibility of developing Parcel WB-41 as a commercial site. These studies are discussed below.

Supermarket Retail Potential SVSP Parcel WB-42 and WB-41 – Intalytics, May 2021 (Attachment 3) A study completed by Intalytics, a market analyst, determined that Parcel WB-41 is an inferior commercial site due to: 1.) a limited 180-degree trade area, with uncertain development of area to the west; 2.) lack of circulation and no defined route or time for extension of Santucci Boulevard; and 3.) future development of Community Commercial Parcel WB-42 (located less than a mile east of Parcel WB-41, and which Intalytics determined to be a superior site) will make WB-41 infeasible to support a neighborhood serving commercial center.

Retail Market Analysis and Highest & Best Use Study – MXD Development Strategists, July 2021 (Attachment 4)
MXD Development Strategists prepared a retail market analysis and “highest and best use” study, which concluded that residential would be the parcel’s highest and best use when compared to commercial, office, or hotel uses. Similar to the findings of Intalytics, this is due to the site’s limitation of a 180-degree trade area, much of which is in permanent open space, which acts as a major impediment to the site’s development potential. The study also indicated that much of the site’s trade area relies on development of Placer County projects (e.g., Regional University and Curry Creek) and that the timing of these projects is uncertain. MXD determined that even if the County projects are to develop in the next couple of decades, development of sites within the western portion of Roseville will likely push the trade area for WB-41 further west, resulting in better located sites within the County projects. The site’s location on the western edge of the City is an inferior location when compared to the other Community Commercial sites in the area west of Fiddyment Road. The analysis also evaluated the site for a grocer or drug store anchor and found that neither reached the threshold sales level that would be considered viable by either user.

Retail Feasibility Traffic Analysis – Fehr & Peers, July 2021 (Attachment 5) A retail feasibility traffic analysis was prepared by Fehr & Peers (F&P), an engineering consultant, to inform whether Parcel WB-41 can realistically be expected to develop with retail land uses in the next 15 to 20 years. F&P used a set of land use and roadway network assumptions based on market and development trends typical for North and West Roseville. A traffic forecast model was developed with these assumptions that determined the cumulative traffic volume passing through the Santucci Boulevard/Pleasant Grove Boulevard intersection at the northwest corner of Parcel WB-41. With the traffic forecast model, F&P concluded there are not nearly enough pass-by trips for a retail development to be feasible on Parcel WB-41 and that the site would have nearly 75% less traffic than similar sites.

Lastly, F&P determined the feasibility of retail on Parcel WB-41 is further diminished by its location relative to future residential development and competing retail sites.

Traffic: As part of the environmental review of the project, a traffic study was prepared by Fehr & Peers to analyze the potential traffic impacts from the project. The environmental document is included as Exhibit G and the traffic study is included as Attachment 5 of Exhibit H (Addendum Attachments).

Consistent with General Plan policies, the traffic study included an estimated trip generation and analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Each item is discussed below.

SVSP PCL WB-41 – Rezone, 3301 Pleasant Grove Bl.; File #PL21-0161 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 7 of 19
- Trip Generation: The traffic study compared the trip generation of Parcel WB-41 based on its existing and proposed zoning using trip generation rates from the City of Roseville 2035 travel demand model. The trip generation rate for the existing zoning was based on a retail land use, which has a higher trip rate when compared to single-family residential. As a result, the proposed rezoning from CC to RS/DS would result in substantially fewer trips generated by the property.

This suggest that traffic volumes in the vicinity of the project would be reduced during peak hours and on a daily basis as a result of the land use change. The study also analyzed whether the reduction in retail land use in the SVSP would cause a greater amount of the Specific Plan trips to occur outside of the SVSP area. The study concluded the proposed rezone would result in fewer external a.m. and p.m. peak hour and daily trips generated by the Specific Plan when compared to the existing zoning.
- Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): VMT is a measurement of travel demand, representing the number of miles traveled by vehicles in some amount of time (e.g., VMT per day or annual VMT).

Consistent with state law, the General Plan has adopted VMT standards and requires land use amendments to be evaluated for consistency with these standards. Per the traffic study findings, the proposed rezone would generate fewer site trips, fewer trips entering/exiting the SVSP area, and less VMT for both the SVSP area and for the City as a whole. Thus, the project would have a less than significant impact to the transportation system on the basis of project-generated VMT.

Utilities: As part of the environmental review of the project, a technical memo was prepared by MacKay & Somps (see Attachment 7 of Exhibit H – Addendum Attachments) that evaluated the water and sewer demands based on the proposed land use designations and unit allocations proposed with the WB-41 Rezone project (file #PL21-0161) and the Sierra View Subdivision Map project (file #PL21-0162). The memo evaluated the two projects together given that the units proposed on SVSP Parcel WB-41 and WB-31 are being transferred from Infill Parcel 100. The memo concluded the proposed changes to the land use designations and unit allocations will result in less water demand and less sanitary sewer flows.

The City’s Environmental Utilities staff reviewed the project and concluded the project as a whole will have a lower demand on City utilities than the previously anticipated land uses.

Public Benefit: On December 1, 2021, the City Council
adopted Resolution No. 21-470 approving a Purchase and
Sale Agreement (PSA), by and between the City of Roseville and West Roseville, LLC for 20 acres of West Roseville
Specific Plan (WRSP) Parcel W-60B and authorizing the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City. Parcel W-60B is a vacant, approximate 30-acre parcel that has a current zoning designation of Light Industrial/Special Area (M1/SA) and a land use designation of Light Industrial (LI) (see Figure 3). The City currently owns the adjacent parcel to the north, Parcel W-60A, which is anticipated for a future long-field sports complex. The additional 20 acres from Parcel W-60B will allow the future sports complex to have additional fields and be a regional draw for sporting events. This will result in added revenue to the City’s General Fund in the form of sales tax and transient occupancy tax revenue. As part of the proposed project, the developer will be dedicating five (5) of the 20 acres that are part of the PSA to the City. If this project is ultimately approved and if the approval occurs prior to close of escrow, then the total purchase price will be reduced to reflect only 15 acres being purchased and five (5) acres being dedicated. The acreage dedication will be
reflected in the proposed DA Amendment, as discussed in the DA Amendment evaluation section of this report.

Pleasant Grove
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Roseville Electric
Energy Plant
Portion of Land
Purchase
Parcel
W-60A
Parcel
W-60B
Figure 3: Parcel W-60B Vicinity Map
SVSP PCL WB-41 – Rezone, 3301 Pleasant Grove Bl.; File #PL21-0161 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 8 of 19
Affordable Housing: The General Plan Housing Element requires that new residential developments shall develop or cause to be developed 10% affordable housing, including 4% affordable to very low, 4% affordable to low, and 2% affordable to moderate income. The Housing Element does allow in-lieu fees to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and states that “Development Agreements shall be the mechanism utilized to secure implementation of the affordable housing program.” The applicant is not proposing to include affordable housing units with this proposal and staff supports the elimination of any affordable obligation for two reasons. The first reason is that the units proposed for the WB-41 and WB31 parcels are not new residential units, rather these units are currently allocated to Infill Parcel 100 and are being transferred to Parcels WB-41 and WB-31. There is currently no affordable obligation for these units on Infill Parcel 100 and there is no precedent to include an affordable housing obligation with a residential unit transfer. The second reason staff can support the elimination of any affordable obligation is that the applicant is proposing to dedicate five (5) acres of Parcel W-60B to the City for the future sports complex. West Roseville LLC has constructed significant improvements and removed procedural and construction barriers for the W-60B property, by constructing frontage improvements and utilities, mass grading on the site, and obtaining and effectuating wetland permits. The City and its residents are receiving substantial and extraordinary benefit from this property dedication, and the project circumstances are unique. For these two reasons, staff supports the elimination of any affordable obligation for the WB-41 and WB-31 parcels. As Development Agreements are an appropriate mechanism to implement the City’s affordable housing program, and the terms of the proposed Development Agreement have been reviewed and mutually agreed upon by both the developer and the City of Roseville, approval of the Development Agreement will constitute compliance with the General Plan Housing Element.

Minor SVSP Amendments: The land use amendment will necessitate other minor amendments to the SVSP document. These include a revision to Section 6.5 and Figure 6-25 (Park & Ride Facilities) to remove the designation of a 35-space park and ride lot on Parcel WB-41. Park and ride lots provide parking for commuters to leave their vehicles to meet carpools, vanpools or access transit, and are typically located on commercial parcels. Since the parcel is proposed to be developed with a singlefamily residential subdivision, a park and ride lot would no longer be warranted. The SVSP has two other park and ride lots within the Plan area to meet commuter needs. In addition, Section B.12 and Figure B30, which identify a conceptual commercial center plan for Parcel WB-41, will be removed. These changes are reflected in the SVSP change pages included as Exhibit C.

General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment Conclusion Based on the evaluation above, staff finds the project is consistent with the Non-Residential Conversion Guidelines and is also consistent with the goals and polices of the General Plan and SVSP.

EVALUATION: REZONE
Zoning Ordinance Section 19.86.050 specifies that recommendations for approval or denial of a rezone shall include consideration of the proposed amendment’s consistency with:

1. The public interest, health, safety, or welfare of the City, and

2. The General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.

The project would rezone Parcel WB-41 from Community Commercial (CC) to Small Lot Residential with a Development Standards overlay (RS/DS). The General Plan provides a list of compatible “Implementing Zones” for each land use designation (General Plan Table II-10), which establishes what zoning designations are considered compatible with the applicable General Plan land use designation.

The proposed General Plan land use designation for the project site is Medium Density Residential (MDR). The proposed Small Lot Residential (RS) zone is listed as an implementing zone. According to both the General Plan and SVSP, the MDR land use designation applies to land characterized by small- SVSP PCL WB-41 – Rezone, 3301 Pleasant Grove Bl.; File #PL21-0161 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 9 of 19
lot single-family detached dwelling units and attached patio homes, halfplexes, duplexes, townhouses, condominiums, and mobile home parks. Detached single-family is listed as one of the primary uses and the applicable development guidelines include a density of 7.0 to 12.9 dwelling units per gross developable acre. The proposed project is a 63-unit detached single-family subdivision with a density of

7.4 units per gross developable acre (excluding the right-of-way/landscape corridors), which is consistent with the MDR land use designation.

Table II-9 of the General Plan contains a table addressing the compatibility of adjacent land uses. For purposes of the table, “adjacent” includes land uses separated by collectors and local streets (e.g., Daylight Dr.) but does not include land uses separated by major arterials (e.g., Pleasant Grove Blvd. and Santucci Blvd.). The proposed MDR land use is considered to be compatible with the adjacent MDR parcel to the south and with the LDR parcel to the east across Daylight Dr., and conditionally compatible with the adjacent Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP) land use to the south. In conclusion, staff finds the proposed rezone is consistent with the requirements of the General Plan and SVSP for the MDR land use, and the project will not adversely affect the public interest, safety, or welfare of the City.

EVALUATION: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
Section 19.84.040 of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance specifies that recommendations for approval or denial of a Development Agreement (DA), including Amendments, shall include consideration of the following:

1. Consistency with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and the Sierra Vista Specific Plan;

2. Consistency with the provisions of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance;

3. Conformity with the public health, safety and general welfare;

4. The effect on the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values; and

5. Whether the provisions of the Agreement shall provide sufficient benefit to the City to justify entering into the Agreement.

Development Agreements (DAs) are binding contracts that set the terms, rules, conditions, regulations, entitlements, responsibilities, and other provisions relating to the development of the covered properties.

The project includes a second amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Westpark S.V. 400, LLC, relative to the SVSP (or the “Westbrook DA”). The Westbrook DA will be amended to reflect the proposed land use change, unit transfers, and the elimination of the bus transfer station/park and ride lot on Parcel WB-41. Sections of the DA pertaining to City-wide park fees will be amended to specify that these fees paid by the landowner upon issuance of building permits for the 63 units on Parcel WB-41 and for the 30 units on Parcel WB-31 may be applied by the City to the construction of improvements to any City-wide park in the City. Furthermore, sections of the DA pertaining to City-wide park and open space in-lieu fees will be amended to specify these in-lieu fees will not be collected from the 63 units on Parcel WB-41 or from the 30 units on Parcel WB-31.

The DA Amendment includes language regarding the developer dedication of a five (5) acre portion of West Roseville Specific Plan Parcel W-60B to the City. The DA Amendment specifies that this land dedication will occur before June 30, 2022. As previously discussed in this report, this acreage dedication provides a public benefit consistent with the requirement set forth in the City’s Guidelines for Conversion of Non-Residential Land Uses policy document.

Items that are not addressed in this amendment are subject to the terms of the original DA and prior Amendment. In summary, City staff has found the proposed DA Amendment to be consistent with the SVSP PCL WB-41 – Rezone, 3301 Pleasant Grove Bl.; File #PL21-0161 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 10 of 19 General Plan, SVSP, and the Zoning Ordinance. The DA Amendment is in conformance with the public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values. Therefore, the proposed DA Amendment is consistent with items 1-5 above.

EVALUATION: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
Section 18.06.180 of the City of Roseville Subdivision Ordinance requires that three findings be made in order to approve or conditionally approve a Tentative Subdivision Map. The three findings are listed below in bold, italics and are followed by an evaluation of the map in relation to each finding.

1. The size, design, character, grading, location, orientation, and configuration of lots, roads and all improvements for the tentative subdivision map are consistent with the density, uses, circulation and open space systems, applicable policies and standards of the General Plan and the Community Design Guidelines, and the design standards of Title 18 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the Roseville Municipal Code.

The applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcel into 63 residential lots, three (3) landscape lots, and one (1) right-of-way/landscape corridor lot, for a total of 67 lots (see Figure 4). The proposed unit density is 7.4 units per acre, which is consistent with the MDR land use designation. Adequate access and circulation is provided to each parcel to facilitate development of the small lots. Access to the subdivision will be provided via Daylight Drive, on the eastern side of the parcel. The subdivision will also have connectivity with the adjacent MDR subdivision to the south. All single-family lots are oriented with frontage on public streets. The subdivision layout and street design was reviewed by the City’s Engineering Division and Fire Department and was found to provide adequate street widths for circulation and emergency response.

Figure 4: Tentative Subdivision Map for Parcel WB-41
SVSP PCL WB-41 – Rezone, 3301 Pleasant Grove Bl.; File #PL21-0161 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 11 of 19 The Map Act and Subdivision Ordinance do not contain any maximum or minimum lot sizes. Instead these standards are contained within the Zoning Ordinance and SVSP. The project parcels are proposed to have a zoning designation of Small Lot Residential with Development Standards (RS/DS). A developer may either use the RS/DS development standards established in the SVSP, applicable Development Agreement, or may adopt adjusted standards through the Design Review Permit for Residential Subdivisions (DRRS) entitlement. Here, the applicant proposes to use the RS/DS development standards contained in the applicable Westbrook DA. These standards are included as Attachment 6.

Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 19.10.045, a DRRS application is required for all single-family housing units on property with the MDR land use designation. Since the home builder for the proposed subdivision is unknown at this time, Condition #7 has been added to the Tentative Subdivision Map that requires the future home builder to submit for a DRRS, which will allow staff to review the proposed architecture and home designs. Detailed information (e.g., floor plans, architectural styles, colors and materials, etc.) shall be provided at that time.

The SVSP includes design standards applicable to subdivision design, including guidelines for the locations of paseos, and requirements for connectivity along paseos. SVSP Figure B-5, Paseo Plan, shows a paseo sidewalk with a width of 10 feet in the landscape corridor along Santucci Boulevard to the west. Consistent with the SVSP, the proposed subdivision map provides a 40-foot landscape corridor along Santucci Boulevard with an 8-foot landscape strip, 10-foot walk, and then a 22-foot landscape between the walk and the masonry wall adjacent to the proposed lots. The SVSP also requires a pedestrian or other connection on an average of 600 feet for developments adjacent to a paseo. The proposed subdivision design is consistent with this standard. In addition, the subdivision map will provide a 6-foot-wide bike lane on Santucci Boulevard to the west. The existing 5-foot-wide bike lanes on Pleasant Grove Boulevard to the north of the site will remain unchanged.

2. The subdivision will result in lots which can be used or built upon. The subdivision will not create lots which are impractical for improvement or use due to: the steepness of terrain or location of watercourses in the area; the size or shape of the lots or inadequate building area; inadequate frontage or access; or, some other physical condition of the area.

The proposed parcels are of sufficient size and shape to accommodate development that is consistent with the applicable zoning and design requirements, and the lots are consistent with the applicable development standards. The proposed parcel configurations preserve the location of watercourses and do not create a physical condition that would be impractical for the proposed improvements.

3. The design and density of the subdivision will not violate the existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the discharge of waste into the sewage system, Pursuant to Division 7 of the Water Code.

As part of the environmental review of the project, a technical memo was prepared by MacKay & Somps (see Attachment 7 of Exhibit H – Addendum Attachments) that evaluated the water and sewer demands based on the proposed land use designations and unit allocations proposed with the WB-41 Rezone project (file #PL21-0161) and the Sierra View Subdivision Map project (file #PL21-0162). The memo evaluated the two projects together given that the units proposed on SVSP Parcel WB-41 and WB-31 are being transferred from Infill Parcel 100. The memo concluded the proposed changes to the land use designations and unit allocations will not increase planned demands on sewage services; therefore, there will be no impacts to the existing requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
The proposed project was distributed to all internal and external agencies and departments who have requested such notice, and all comments or recommended conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project, as appropriate. Early notification of the project was posted on the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA)’s website. City staff included the project on the Planning Division’s Projects of Interest website, which included a project description, a link to the project SVSP PCL WB-41 – Rezone, 3301 Pleasant Grove Bl.; File #PL21-0161 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 12 of 19 plans, and was routinely updated with project updates. The developer also installed a sign on the project site for the purpose of notifying the public of the intended land use change. A notice of the public hearing was published in the Sacramento Bee on December 3, 2021 and a notice of the hearing was also distributed to all property owners within 300 feet of the site and posted on the RCONA website. As of publication of this staff report, staff has received three comment letters regarding the proposed project, which are discussed in the following Environmental Determination section below.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Because the Sierra View Subdivision project (file #PL21-0162) is related to the SVSP Parcels WB-41 and WB-31 project (file #PL21-0161), the two projects are presented in a combined CEQA document (see Exhibit G). However, each action requires a different type of CEQA analysis based on its site location and the previous planning conducted for that site. The Sierra View Subdivision project site is analyzed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060 et seq. and 15070 et. seq., as an Initial Study with accompanying environmental checklist leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration. As a result, the Sierra View Subdivision project will require site-specific mitigation measures not previously contemplated in any other planning or environmental documents. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, regarding a previously certified and adopted Environmental Impact Report (EIR), an Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010) was prepared for Parcels WB-41 and WB31 to cover the minor technical changes and additions necessary to describe the impacts of the proposed project. The Addendum did not identify any new environmental impacts from the project. The CEQA document includes a Cumulative Considerations analysis, which looks at the combined effects of the two projects in order to set forth the total combined level of environmental impact from both the Sierra View Subdivision project and the SVSP Parcels WB-41 & WB-31 project. This analysis provides additional consideration of the projects’ combined cumulative impacts by looking at the two actions together in the context of the approved full buildout of the General Plan area as contemplated in the certified 2020 General Plan EIR for the 2035 General Plan Update. Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the Addendum prior to taking action on this project. The documents were circulated for a 30- day public review that ended on December 6, 2021.

Staff received three comment letters during the public review period of the CEQA document. Of the three letters, two pertain to both the WB-41 and WB-31 project and the Sierra View Subdivision project and are included as Attachment 7. The third letter was in response to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Sierra View Subdivision project and is therefore not included with this staff report.

The first comment letter was from Kat Fiorentino, a resident of the Diamond Oaks neighborhood, seeking clarification on the project description contained in the public notice since it referenced both the Sierra View Subdivision project and the SVSP Parcel WB-41 & WB-31 project. Staff provided an explanation of the projects and how they were linked.

The second comment letter was from Derek Pell, a Roseville resident. To summarize, Mr. Pell has concerns with the reduced density on Infill Parcels 3 and 100 because it is taking potential housing from a centralized, infill location and moving it to the edge of the City (i.e., SVSP Parcels WB-41 & WB-31). In terms of VMT, Mr. Pell claims that the combined effect of the rezoning will be that there will be fewer people close to amenities where it is possible to not drive, leading to more people in cars traveling longer distances. As documented in the traffic study prepared for the WB-41 Rezone project, the proposed rezone would generate 3,283 fewer daily site trips, 1,666 fewer daily trips entering/exiting the SVSP area, and a reduction of 11,599 VMT for the SVSP area and a reduction of 17,581 VMT for the City as a whole.

In addition, the Sierra View Subdivision project was found to generate less VMT than what was assumed in the General Plan, because it is reducing the density and number of units on the site. As a result, the combined impacts on the basis of project-generated VMT for both projects would not exceed any transportation and traffic impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

SVSP PCL WB-41 – Rezone, 3301 Pleasant Grove Bl.; File #PL21-0161 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 13 of 19

RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:

Adopt the Sierra View Country Club and Sierra Vista Specific Plan Redesignation and Rezone Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program and Consider the 6th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

For the SVSP PCL WB-41 Rezone Project (File # PL21-0161):

A. Recommend the City Council approve the GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (LAND USE MAP) – 3301 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD – SVSP PCL WB-41 – REZONE – FILE #PL21-0161; B. Recommend the City Council approve the SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – 3301 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD – SVSP PCL WB-41 – REZONE – FILE #PL21-0161; C. Recommend the City Council approve the REZONE – 3301 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD – SVSP PCL WB-41 – REZONE – FILE #PL21-0161;
D. Recommend the City Council approve the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT – 3301 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD – SVSP PCL WB-41 – REZONE – FILE #PL21-0161; and E. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP – 3301 PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD – SVSP PCL WB-41 – REZONE – FILE #PL21-0161 subject to fifty-seven (57) conditions of approval.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP – FILE #PL21-0161

1. The Tentative Subdivision Map shall not be deemed approved until the actions on the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone and Development Agreement Amendment are approved and become effective. (Planning)

2. The approval of a Tentative Map and/or tentative site plan does not constitute approval of proposed improvements as to size, design, materials, or location, unless specifically addressed in these conditions of approval. The Developer shall submit civil drawings to the Department of Development Services – Engineering Division for review and approval. (Engineering)

3. The design and construction of all improvements shall conform to the Design and Construction Standards of the City of Roseville, or as modified by these conditions of approval, or as directed by the City Engineer. (Engineering)

4. The applicant shall not commence with any on-site improvements or improvements within the rightof-way until such time as grading and/or improvement plans have been submitted for review and are approved with grading and/or encroachment permits issued by the Department of Development Services – Engineering Division. (Engineering)

5. The applicant shall pay City’s actual costs for providing plan check, mapping, GIS, and inspection services. This may be a combination of staff costs and direct billing for contract professional services.

Project billing may occur up to two (2) months after the end of warranty or the Notice of Termination date for the SWPPP, whichever occurs later. (Engineering, Environmental Utilities, Finance)

6. The project shall comply with all required environmental mitigation identified in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010), and subsequent 6th Addendum to the SVSP EIR prepared for the project (SCH #2021110118), and shall include all applicable mitigation measures as notes on the grading plans. (All Departments)

7. Prior to issuance of building permits for construction of homes within the subdivision, the home builder shall be required to submit for a Design Review for Residential Subdivision (DRRS) to review the SVSP PCL WB-41 – Rezone, 3301 Pleasant Grove Bl.; File #PL21-0161 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 14 of 19 proposed architecture and home designs. Detailed information (e.g., floor plans, architectural styles, colors and materials, etc.) shall be provided at that time. (Planning)

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT AND/OR IMPROVEMENT PLANS

8. 8. The developer is responsible for installing a City Gateway feature within the landscape corridor on the southeast corner of the intersection of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and Santucci Boulevard. The City Gateway feature shall be shown on the Improvement Plans and shall be designed consistent with Section B.3 of the SVSP Design Guidelines. (Planning)

9. Landscape Plans for all landscape corridors and all landscaped common areas shall be approved with the improvement plans. Landscaping shall be installed for Substantial Completion of the subdivision improvements. Landscape corridors shall also successfully complete the required establishment period.

The landscape plan shall comply with the Sierra Vista Specific Plan and the City of Roseville Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. (Planning, Engineering, Parks, Fire, Environmental Utilities)

10. The grading and improvement plans shall be designed in accordance with the City's Improvement Standards and Construction Standards and shall reflect the following:
a. Street improvements including, but not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, drainage systems, traffic striping, signing, medians and markings, etc. along all existing and proposed City streets, as required by Engineering.
b. Grading shall comply with the City grading ordinance. Erosion control devices (sediment traps, ditches, straw bales, etc.) shall be shown on the grading plans. All erosion control shall be installed prior to the onset of wet weather. Erosion control is installed to minimize silt discharge from the project site. It is incumbent upon the applicant to ensure that necessary measures are taken to minimize silt discharge from the site. Therefore modification of the erosion control plan may be warranted during wet weather conditions.
c. A rough grading permit may be approved by the Engineering Department prior to approval of the improvement plans.
d. Standard Accessible ramps shall be installed at all curb returns per City Standards. (Engineering)

11. The applicant shall apply for and obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Department prior to any work conducted within the City right-of-way. (Engineering)

12. The applicant shall remove and reconstruct any existing damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the property frontage. During site inspection Engineering will designate the exact areas to be reconstructed. (Engineering)

13. All Lots/Parcels shall conform to Class 1 drainage, pursuant to the adopted City of Roseville Improvement Standards, except as shown on the tentative map or as approved in these conditions. (Engineering)

14. The following note shall be added to the Grading and/or Improvement Plans:

To minimize dust/grading impacts during construction the applicant shall:
a. Spray water on all exposed earth surfaces during clearing, grading, earth moving and other site preparation activities throughout the day.
b. Use tarpaulins or other affective covers on all stockpiled earth material and on all haul trucks.

SVSP PCL WB-41 – Rezone, 3301 Pleasant Grove Bl.; File #PL21-0161 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 15 of 19 c. Sweep the adjacent streets frontages at least once a day or as needed to remove silt and other dirt which is evident from construction activities.
d. Ensure that construction vehicles are cleaned prior to leaving the construction site to prevent dust and dirt from being tracked off site.
e. The City shall have the authority to stop all grading operations, if in the opinion of city staff, inadequate dust control measures are being practiced or excessive wind conditions contribute to fugitive dust emissions. (Engineering)

15. Prior to the approval of the improvement plans, it will be the project proponent’s responsibility to pay the standard City Trench Cut Recovery Fee for any cuts within the City streets that are required for the installation of underground utilities. (Engineering)

16. A note shall be added to the grading plans that states:
“Prior to the commencement of grading operations, the contractor shall identify the site where the excess/borrow earthen material shall be imported/deposited. If the borrow/deposit site is within the City of Roseville, the contractor shall produce a report issued by a geotechnical engineer to verify that the exported materials are suitable for the intended fill, and shall show proof of all approved grading plans. Haul routes to be used shall be specified.” (Engineering)

17. Any backbone improvements, not constructed adjacent to (or needed to serve) the proposed subdivision shall be completed by the applicant. (Engineering)

18. The grading plans for the site shall be accompanied with a shed map that defines that area tributary to this site. All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate the tributary flow. All on-site storm drainage shall be collected on site and shall be routed to the nearest existing storm drain stub of natural drainage coarse. (Engineering)

19. All storm drainage, including roof drains, shall be collected on site and shall be routed to the nearest storm drain system or natural drainage facility. Prior to discharge from the site, the storm water shall be treated with appropriate storm water pollution treatment device(s). Any drainage outfalls shall extend down to the receiving water and shall be constructed with adequate velocity attenuation devices. (Engineering)

20. The grading plans shall be accompanied with engineered structural calculations for all retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height. All retaining walls shall be of either split faced masonry units, keystone type construction, or cast in place concrete with fascia treatment. (Engineering)

21. The developer shall be responsible for any necessary relocation of signal interconnect cables that may require re-location as a result of the construction of turn lanes and/or driveways. (Engineering)

22. To ensure that the design for any necessary widening, construction, or modifications of Public Streets does not conflict with existing dry utilities generally located behind the curb and gutter, and prior to the submittal of design drawings for those frontage improvements, the project proponent shall have the existing dry utilities pot holed for verification of location and depth. (Engineering)

23. Sight distances for all driveways shall be clearly shown on the improvement plans to verify that minimum standards are achieved. It will be the responsibility of the project proponent to provide appropriate landscaping and improvement plans, and to relocate and/or modify existing facilities as needed to meet these design objectives. (Engineering)

24. Prior to the approval of the Improvement Plans, the project proponent shall provide proof of preparation and submittal of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the Regional Water SVSP PCL WB-41 – Rezone, 3301 Pleasant Grove Bl.; File #PL21-0161 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 16 of 19 Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Proof shall be in the form of the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID#), provided to the applicant from RWQCB, placed on the coversheet of the improvement plans. Upon approval of the improvement plans, a copy of the SWPPP shall be required onsite and available for viewing by City inspection staff upon request. (Engineering)

25. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or approval of Improvement Plans, the grading plans shall clearly identify all existing water, sewer and recycled water utilities within the boundaries of the project (including adjoining public right of way). Existing utilities shall be identified in plan-view and in profileview where grading activities will modify existing site elevations over top of or within 15 feet of the utility.

Any utilities that could potentially be impacted by the project shall be clearly identified along with the proposed protection measures. The developer shall be responsible for taking measures and incurring costs associated with protecting the existing water, sewer and recycled water utilities to the satisfaction of the Environmental Utilities Director. (Environmental Utilities)

26. Water and sewer infrastructure shall be designed and constructed pursuant to the adopted City of Roseville Improvement Standards and Construction Standards and shall reflect the following:
a. Sewer and water service laterals shall not be allowed off of water and sewer mains larger than 12 inches in diameter.
b. Utilities or permanent structures shall not be located within the area which would be disturbed by an open trench needed to expose sewer trunk mains deeper than 12 feet unless approved by Environmental Utilities in these conditions. The area needed to construct the trench is a sloped cone above the sewer main. The cone shall have 1:1 side slopes. c. Water and sewer mains shall not exceed a depth of 12 feet below finished grade, unless authorized in these conditions.
d. All sewer manholes shall have all-weather 10-ton vehicular access unless authorized by these conditions. (Environmental Utilities)

27. Recycled water infrastructure shall be designed pursuant to the adopted City of Roseville Improvement Standards and the City of Roseville Construction Standards. The applicant shall pay all applicable recycled water fees. Easements shall be provided as necessary for recycled water infrastructure. (Environmental Utilities)

28. Any backflow preventers visible from the street shall be painted green to blend in with the surrounding landscaping. The backflow preventers shall be screened with landscaping and shall comply with the following criteria:
a. There shall be a minimum clearance of four feet (4'), on all sides, from the backflow preventer to the landscaping.
b. For maintenance purposes, the landscaping shall be installed on a maximum of three sides and the plant material shall not have thorns.
c. The control valves and the water meter shall be physically unobstructed. d. The backflow preventer shall be covered with a green cover that will provide insulation. (Environmental Utilities)

29. A note shall be added to the Improvement Plans stating that all water backflow devices shall be tested and approved by the Environmental Utilities Department prior to the Notice of Completion for the improvements. (Environmental Utilities)
SVSP PCL WB-41 – Rezone, 3301 Pleasant Grove Bl.; File #PL21-0161 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 17 of 19

30. Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the Fire Department. The maximum distance between fire hydrants shall not exceed 500' on center. (Fire)

31. Minimum fire flow is 1,500 gallons per minute with 20 pounds of residual pressure. The fire flow and residual pressure may be increased, as determined by the Fire Marshall, where the project utility lines will serve non-residential uses. (Fire)

32. Any facilities proposed for placement within public/electric utility easements shall be subject to review and approval by the Electric Department before any work commences in these areas. This includes, but is not limited to, landscaping, lighting, paving, signs, trees, walls, and structures of any type. (Electric)

33. All Electrical Department facilities, including street lights where applicable, shall be designed and built to the “City of Roseville Specifications for Residential Trenching”. (Electric)

34. The design for electrical service for this project will begin when the Electric Department has received a full set of improvement plans for the project. (Electric)

35. All landscaping in areas containing electrical service equipment shall conform to the “Electric Department Landscape Design Requirements” as outlined in Section 7.00 of the Electric Department’s “Specifications for Residential Trenching.” (Electric)

36. The location and design of the gas service shall be determined by PG&E. The design of gas service for this project shall not begin until PG&E has received a full set of City approved improvement plans for the project. (PG&E)

37. It is the developer's responsibility to notify PG&E of any work required on PG&E facilities. (PG&E)

PRIOR TO OR UPON RECORDATION OF FINAL/PARCEL MAP

38. The following easements shall be provided and shown on the Final Map or by separate instrument, unless otherwise provided for in these conditions:
a. A 12.5-foot wide public utilities easement along all subdivision road frontages; Easement widths shall comply with the City’s Improvement Standards and Construction Standards. The easement documents shall be drafted for approval and acceptance by the City of Roseville and recorded at the Placer County Recorder’s Office. (Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering)

39. All existing easements shall be maintained, unless otherwise provided for in these conditions. (Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering)

40. Separate document easements required by the City shall be prepared in accordance with the City’s “Policy for Dedication of Easements to the City of Roseville”. All legal descriptions shall be prepared by a licensed land Surveyor. (Alternative Transportation, Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering)

41. The City shall not approve the Final Map for recordation until either:
a. A subdivision agreement is entered into along with the necessary bonds and insurance as required by the City. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. i. OR
b. The improvement plans are approved, and the improvements are constructed and accepted as complete. In this case, the subdivider shall enter into a one-year maintenance agreement concurrent with the recordation of the Final Map. (Engineering)
SVSP PCL WB-41 – Rezone, 3301 Pleasant Grove Bl.; File #PL21-0161 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 18 of 19

42. Lettered Lots shall be dedicated as an easement (or in fee) to the City for the purposes of (Right of Way and Landscape). (Engineering)

43. Street names shall be approved by the City of Roseville. (Engineering)

44. The Final/Parcel Map shall include an irrevocable offer to dedicate public rights-of-way and public and/or private easements as required by the City. Lettered Lot//Parcel along major roads shall be dedicated as landscape/pedestrian/public utility easements and in fee to the City as open space. (Engineering)

45. The words "traffic control appurtenances" shall be included in the list of utilities allowed in public utilities easements (PUE's) located along public roadways. (Engineering)

46. The Final/Lot/Parcel/Parcel Map shall be submitted per, “The Digital Submittal of Cadastral Surveys”.

Submittal shall occur after Engineering approval but prior to Council approval. (Engineering)

47. The cost of any facilities which are identified in the CIP and are beyond those needed for this project may be reimbursed to the developer. In accordance with §66485 and §66486 of the Subdivision Map Act, any improvements constructed by the subdivider which contain supplemental size, capacity, number, or length for the benefit of property not within the subdivision and which improvements are to be dedicated to the public, the subdivider shall be entitled to reimbursement for that portion of the cost of the improvements which is in excess of the construction required for the subdivision. (Engineering)

48. Electric construction costs incurred by the City of Roseville Electric Department for this project shall be paid for by the developer per the applicable policy. (Electric)

49. The applicant shall pay all applicable water and sewer fees. (Environmental Utilities)

OTHER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

50. The applicant shall pay City's actual costs for providing plan check, installation and inspection services.

This may be a combination of staff costs and direct billing for contract professional services. (Environmental Utilities, Engineering)

51. Any relocation, rearrangement, or change to existing electric facilities due to this development shall be at the developer’s expense. (Electric)

52. It is the responsibility of the developer to insure that all existing electric facilities remain free and clear of any obstructions during construction and when the project is complete. (Electric)

53. Existing public facilities damaged during the course of construction shall be repaired by the applicant, at the applicant's expense, to the satisfaction of the City. (Engineering)

54. The project is subject to the noise standards established in the City's Noise Ordinance. In accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance project construction is exempt between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m. Saturday and Sunday. Provided, however, that all construction equipment shall be fitted with factory installed muffling devices and that all construction equipment shall be maintained in good working order. (Engineering)

55. If site survey or earth moving work results in the discovery of hazardous materials in containers or what appears to be hazardous wastes released into the ground, the contractor shall notify the Roseville Fire Department immediately. A representative from the Fire Department will make a determination as to whether the incident is reportable or not and if site remediation is required. Non-emergency releases or notifications about the presence of containers found shall be reported to the Fire Department. (Fire) SVSP PCL WB-41 – Rezone, 3301 Pleasant Grove Bl.; File #PL21-0161 Planning Commission – December 16, 2021 – Page 19 of 19 56. All plant material shall be maintained under a 30 calendar day establishment period after initial planting.

Upon completion of the establishment period, all plant material shall remain under warrantee for an additional 9 months minimum. Any plant material which does not survive during the establishment period shall be immediately replaced. Any trees or shrubs which do not survive during the warrantee period shall be replaced one month prior to the end of the warrantee period. Tree or shrub replacement made necessary due to acts of God, neglect or vandalism shall be exempt from the warrantee. (Parks, Recreation, and Libraries)

57. Park fees shall be assessed and applied as follows: City-wide park fees shall be allocated towards the General city-wide park development fund and neighborhood and bike trail fees shall be allocated towards Westbrook. (Parks, Recreation, and Libraries)

ATTACHMENTS

1. Guidelines for Conversion of Non-Residential Land Uses

2. Fiscal Impact Analysis, Economics & Planning Systems, July 2021

3. Supermarket Retail Potential SVSP Parcel WB-42 & WB-41, Intalytics, May 2021

4. Retail Market Analysis and Highest & Best Use Study, MXD Development Strategists, July 2021

5. Retail Feasibility Traffic Analysis, Fehr & Peers, July 2021

6. RS/DS Development Standards

7. Public Comment Letters

EXHIBITS
A. GPA and SPA Exhibit
B. General Plan Land Use Map
C. SVSP Redlines
D. Rezone Exhibit
E. Second Amendment of the Westbrook DA
F. Tentative Subdivision Map
G. Combined CEQA Document
H. Addendum Attachments
Note to Applicant and/or Developer: Please contact Planning Division staff at (916) 774-5276 prior to the Commission meeting if you have any questions on any of the recommended conditions for your project. If you challenge the decision of the Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you or someone else raised at the public hearing held for this project, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Manager at, or prior to, the public hearing.

NOTE: Attachment 7, Exhibits A-E, and Exhibits G-H
are not included as part of CC Attachment 2 (Planning
Commission Staff Report Item 6.1b), because they are
already included as attachments/exhibits to the City
Council Communication.

Guidelines for Conversion of Non-Residential Land Uses
August 4, 2004
Intent:

In response to pressures to convert portions of the City's non-residential land use inventory the City has developed the following guidelines for the consideration of land use changes. The intent of the guidelines is to articulate the City's expectations relating to land use change proposals. These guidelines are to be applied as performance measures in the preparation and review of any such proposals. The guidelines are not intended to be inclusive of all City development requirements, but rather supplement those requirements by identifying or emphasizing concepts particularly important or unique to potential land use changes. It is expected that the City’s emphasis on certain concepts or requirements will change overtime. Therefore, the guidelines are to be a fluid document to be revisited every two years and updated to reflect the City’s present need. In consideration of the unique attributes and constraints of various areas of the City, the guidelines have been divided in two areas those guidelines that are applicable to the infill area and those that are applicable to the balance of the City. A map depicting these areas is attached. Infill The overarching goal to be applied to land use changes within the infill portion of the City is to encourage and emphasize reinvestment and revitalization without creating undue burdens and barriers to development while preserving neighborhood compatibility. 1. Infill properties are identified as those properties located within the City’s infill planning area as designated on the City’s Zoning Map.

2. Parks obligation to include payment of citywide and neighborhood park fees. Neighborhood Park fees are to be applied to infill neighborhood park improvements as identified on an infill park CIP projects list. Where the Parks Department demonstrates a park need a Parkland dedication or inlieu park fee for land dedication may be negotiated and evaluated on a project by project basis, based on the nature of the project and the benefit to the City.

3. Encourage the use of private passive open space in-lieu of land dedication for infill projects.

4. Off site utilities (e.g. water, sewer, electric) that serve more than the specific project are not the sole responsibility of the project. Over-sizing of improvements or upgrading to City standards may be available for City reimbursement. The City may develop a CIP for off site improvements for which a project may pay an impact fee in lieu of constructing the improvement. Each project shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and shall be conditioned accordingly.

5. School impacts shall be mitigated through new impact agreements executed to reflect the payment of the City's existing infill school impact fees. 6. New housing development shall meet the City's 10% goal (4% affordable to very low, 4% affordable to low, and 2% affordable to middle income) except redevelopment areas shall provide 15%. (Of those 40% affordable to very low income and the balance affordable to low/middle income).

7. A land use change on the Placer County Fair Grounds shall require a master plan.

PC ATTACHMENT 1

8. Encourage higher density residential mixed-use projects with consideration to the relaxing of any one guideline or multiple guidelines to promote and provide incentives for innovative higher density residential mixed-use projects. Balance of the City The overarching goal to be applied to land use changes for the balance of the City is to maintain the City's fiscal balance and prevent the loss of jobs and existing job centers while maintaining a balanced community.

1. Balance of the City includes properties within all specific plans and the North Industrial Plan area.

2. A region wide employment and land inventory study shall be required of each project that is equal to or greater than 50 acres.

3. Land use changes will not have a negative fiscal impact to the City. Each project shall be modeled individually for citywide impacts utilizing the City's fiscal model.

4. Projects that are 50 acres or greater in size shall maintain employment options and a favorable jobs housing balance.

5. New housing development shall meet the City's 10% goal consistent with the Housing Element (4% affordable to very low, 4% affordable to low, and 2% affordable to middle income).

6. Projects shall provide a specific public benefit that may be in the form of a community benefit fee. 7. Increases in general fund service demands shall be mitigated by establishment of or annexation into a Community Facilities Mello Roos Assessment District to offset the costs of the project. The assessment may be utilized to offset the cost of the following: public safety; parks and open space maintenance; storm water management; and other costs identified by the City. 8. Parks obligation to include payment of citywide and neighborhood park fees. Active park needs shall be provided by the project. An in-lieu parkland dedication fee may be negotiated in lieu of land based on the project. For each acre of parkland dedication mitigated by an in-lieu fee a corresponding in-lieu fee shall be paid for park improvements. The in-lieu fees shall provide improvements of local benefit. 9. Place emphasis on the dedication of parklands within specific plan areas rather than acceptance of and in-lieu fee for land dedication.

10. Utilities (e.g. water, sewer, electric) shall not be impacted as to conveyance or capacity.

11. School impacts shall be mitigated through new impact agreements executed with the school districts to ensure that the projects student generation is accommodated.

12. Residential units not utilized within a specific plan area shall be reallocated within that plan area and school district. Otherwise, requests for units shall be considered as additive to the City's existing unit allocation.

13. Encourage higher density residential mixed-use projects with consideration to the relaxing of any one guideline or multiple guidelines to promote and provide incentives for innovative higher density residential mixed-use projects.

Discussion Tables
Roseville Westbrook Rezone
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Prepared for:

Westpark Communities
Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
July 20, 2021
EPS #212068
PC ATTACHMENT 2
List of Tables
Table 1 Estimated Revenue and Expenditure Summary Comparison .............................. 1 Table 2 Estimated Revenue and Expenditure Summary Comparison .............................. 2 Table 1
Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact AnalysisEstimated Revenue and Expenditure Summary Comparison Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Item Amount Percentage
Formula a b c = b - a c / a

GENERAL FUND
Total Annual General Fund Revenues $338,700 $116,600 ($222,100) (65.6%) Total Annual General Fund Expenditures $47,700 $90,300 $42,600 89.3% Annual General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) $291,000 $26,300 ($264,700) (91.0%) CFD No. 3 Taxes $13,500 $18,000 $4,500 33.3%Subtotal Net Annual Surplus/(Deficit) Including CFD No. 3 $304,500 $44,300 ($260,200) (85.5%) t1
Source: City of Roseville FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget; EPS.Note: Values are rounded to the nearest $100.

Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Rezone
Difference
Prepared by EPS 7/15/2021
1 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212068 Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\212068 m1 fiscal Table 2
Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Revenue and Expenditure Summary Comparison
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Item Amount Percentage
Formula a b c = b - a c / a

GENERAL FUND
Annual Revenues [1]
Taxes:

Property Taxes $45,500 $59,300 $13,800 30.3%
Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF $13,200 $17,200 $4,000 30.3% Real Property Transfer Tax $1,100 $3,100 $2,000 181.8%
Sales Tax $167,300 $17,700 ($149,600) (89.4%)
Sales Tax - Measure B $100,300 $8,900 ($91,400) (91.1%) Prop. 172 Sales Tax $4,100 $400 ($3,700) (90.2%)
Hotel/Motel Tax $1,500 $2,100 $600 40.0%
Business License Tax $500 $700 $200 40.0%
Franchise Fees $1,400 $2,000 $600 42.9%
Electric Franchise Fees $3,800 $5,200 $1,400 36.8%
Total Annual General Fund Revenues $338,700 $116,600 ($222,100) (65.6%) Annual Expenditures [2]
City Council $0 $100 $100 0.0%
City Manager $700 $900 $200 28.6%
Public Affairs & Communications $300 $400 $100 33.3%
City Attorney $900 $1,200 $300 33.3%
Finance $1,200 $1,600 $400 33.3%
Human Resources $800 $1,100 $300 37.5%
City Clerk $400 $500 $100 25.0%
Police $20,300 $28,200 $7,900 38.9%
Fire $15,500 $21,500 $6,000 38.7%
Economic Development $400 $500 $100 25.0%
Parks, Recreation & Libraries $0 $24,500 $24,500 0.0%
Public Works $3,500 $4,800 $1,300 37.1%
Development Services $2,500 $3,400 $900 36.0%
General Fund Contingency - Materials, Services & Supplies $1,200 $1,600 $400 33.3% Total Annual General Fund Expenditures $47,700 $90,300 $42,600 89.3% Annual General Fund Surplus/(Deficit) $291,000 $26,300 ($264,700) (91.0%) CFD No. 3 [3] $13,500 $18,000 $4,500 33.3%
Subtotal Net Annual Surplus/(Deficit) Including CFD No. 3 $304,500 $44,300 ($260,200) (85.5%) summary
Source: City of Roseville FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget; EPS.

Note: Values are rounded to the nearest $100.
[1] See Table B-1 for details on revenue estimating procedures. [2] See Table C-1 for details on expenditure estimating procedures. [3] See Table B-6.

Existing Difference
Zoning
Proposed
Rezone
Prepared by EPS 7/15/2021
2 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212068 Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\212068 m1 fiscal APPENDICES:

Appendix A: Land Use and Demographics
Appendix B: Revenue-Estimating Tables
Appendix C: Expenditure-Estimating Tables
Appendix D: Supporting Tables for Revenue
Estimates
APPENDIX A:

Land Use and Demographics
Table A-1 General Assumptions ........................................................ 3 Table A-2 Land Use Development Plan at Buildout ............................... 4 Table A-3 Project Assumptions at Buildout ......................................... 5 Table A-1
Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact AnalysisGeneral AssumptionsItem AssumptionGeneral Assumptions Base Fiscal Year [1] FY 2021-22Dollars (2021$)
General Demographic Characteristics
City of Roseville
Population [2] Per Capita 146,875Employees [3] 101,509City of Roseville Persons Served [4] Persons Served 197,630 gen assumps
Source: California Department of Finance (DOF); California Employment Development Department (EDD); US Census Bureau; EPS.
[1] Reflects the City of Roseville Fiscal Year 2021-22 Adopted Budget.

Revenues and expenditures are in 2021 dollars.This analysis does not reflect changes in value resulting frominflation or appreciation. [4] Defined as total population plus half of total employees.[2] DOF Table E-1 City of Roseville population estimate as of 01/01/2021.[3] Roseville FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget states EMSI estimates Roseville to have 92,281 jobs. EPS adjusted by an additional10% to account for self-employed workers.

Prepared by EPS 7/15/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212068 Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\212068 m1 fiscal 3 Table A-2
Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact AnalysisLand Use Development Plan at BuildoutLand Use Gross
Acreage
Average
Density Units
Sq. Ft.
(Rounded)
Gross
Acreage
Average
Density Units
Sq. Ft.
(Rounded)
Residential DU/Ac. DU/Ac.

Medium Density (MDR) 0.00 0.00 0 --- 10.11 6.2 63 ---
Service & Employment FAR FAR
Community Commercial (CC) 10.11 0.25 --- 110,000 0.00 0.25 --- 0 lu plan
Source: Westpark Communities; EPS.

Existing Land Uses Proposed Land Uses
Scenario 1 - Existing Zoning Scenario 2 - Proposed Rezone Prepared by EPS 7/15/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212068 Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\212068 m1 fiscal 4 Table A-3
Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact AnalysisProject Assumptions at BuildoutLand Use Est. Average
Assessed
Value
Vacancy
Rate [1]
Persons per
HH/Sq. Ft. per
Employee [2]
Persons
Served
Factor
Units/Bldg.

Sq. Ft.

Occupied
Units/Bldg.

Sq. Ft.

Population/
Employees
Persons
Served
Units/Bldg.

Sq. Ft.

Occupied
Units/Bldg.

Sq. Ft.

Population/
Employees
Persons
Served
Formula A B C D E = D * (1 - A) F G = C * F H I = H * (1 - A) J K = C * J Residential
Medium Density (MDR) $625,000 4.0% 2.69 1.0 0 0 0 0 63 60 161 161 Service & Employment per sq. ft.

Community Commercial (CC) $275 5.2% 450 0.5 110,000 104,300 232 116 0 0 0 0 Total 232 116 161 161
dev assumps
Source: Westpark Communities; CoStar; City of Roseville FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget; EPS.[1] LDR and MDR vacancy rate based on California Department of Finance historical estimates for Roseville, CA.

Employmment vacancies based on City of Roseville FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget. [2] Persons per household from the City of Roseville FY 2021-22 Adoped Budget.

Square feet per employee based on the Illustrated Book of Development Definitions.

Scenario 1 - Existing Zoning Scenario 2 - Proposed Rezone Assumptions Existing Land Uses Proposed Land Uses
Prepared by EPS 7/20/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212068 Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\212068 m1 fiscal 5 APPENDIX B:

Revenue-Estimating Tables
Table B-1 Revenue-Estimating Procedures Based on City of Roseville FY 2021-22 Budget .............................................. 6 Table B-2 Estimated Project Revenues at Buildout ............................... 7 Table B-3 Estimated Property Tax Revenues ....................................... 8 Table B-4 Real Property Transfer Tax at Buildout ................................ 9 Table B-5 Estimated Taxable Sales and Use Tax Revenue ................... 10 Table B-5A Estimated Annual Taxable Sales, Hybrid Market Support Method ............................................................. 11 Table B-5B Estimated Annual Taxable Sales Generated from On-Site Nonresidential .................................................... 12 Table B-6 Summary of Estimated Special Tax/Assessment
District Revenues ........................................................... 13 Table B-1
Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact AnalysisRevenue-Estimating Procedures Based on City of Roseville FY 2021-22 Budget (2021$) FY 2021-22
Estimating Case Study Budgeted Service Revenue
General Fund Revenues Procedure Reference Revenues Population MultiplierTaxes:

Property Taxes Case Study Table B-3 $45,363,250 N/A -
Secured Property Tax $42,700,000Supplemental Property Tax $850,000In Lieu of Property Tax $301,650Unsecured Property Tax $931,600Public Utility $580,000 Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF Case Study Table B-3 $11,768,000 N/A - Real Property Transfer Tax Case Study Table B-4 $800,000 N/A -Sales Tax Case Study Table B-5 $58,486,500 N/A -Sales Tax - Measure B Case Study Table B-5 $21,127,000 N/A -Prop. 172 Sales Tax Case Study Table B-5 $1,327,300 N/A - Motor Vehicle In-Lieu [1] $75,000 N/A -
Secured Tax ABX1 26-AB1484 [1] $736,590 N/A -Hotel/Motel Tax Persons Served $2,600,000 197,630 $13.16Business License Tax Persons Served $850,000 197,630 $4.30Miscellaneous Taxes [2] $0 N/A - Franchise Fees Persons Served $2,450,000 197,630 $12.40 Licenses [2] $125,000 N/A -Permits [2] $3,280,193 N/A - Building Permits $2,700,000Encroachments $25,000Fire $270,405Other $284,788 Use of Money and Property [1,2] $1,402,995 N/A -
Fees for Current Services [2] $10,523,481 N/A -
Total $12,973,481Franchise Fees ($2,450,000)
Other Revenues [2] $1,623,171 N/A -
Revenues & Grants from Other Agencies [1,2] $318,535 N/A - Electric Franchise Fees Persons Served $6,439,009 197,630 $32.58 Transfers In [1] $13,783,846 N/A -
Indirect Cost [1] $0 N/A -
Subtotal General Fund Revenues $183,079,870
Less Indirect Costs [3] $0 N/A -Less Offsetting Revenues [3] $21,654,399 N/A - Net General Fund Operating Revenues $161,425,471
rev pro
Source: City of Roseville FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget; EPS.[1] Not expected to be affected by the Project and therefore no revenue multipliers are estimated in this analysis.[2] This analysis assumes that all or part of these revenues are fully dedicated to specific General Fund departmental costs (Offsetting Revenues).

Because these revenues are budget-neutral and are not discretionary, they are not included in estimating discretionary Project revenues. [3] Represents internal revenues for services to special enterprise funds; as such they are not estimated in this analysis.

Associated expenditures also are netted out of appropriate general fund depts. in Table C-1. [3] Sum of offsetting revenues (footnote 1) dedicated to specific General Fund department functions. These revenues are budget neutral and are netted out of both total revenues and total costs. See Table C-1. Amounts exclude one-time grant revenues.

Prepared by EPS 7/15/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212068 Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\212068 m1 fiscal 6 Table B-2
Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact AnalysisEstimated Project Revenues at Buildout (2021$) Scenario 1 Scenario 2
General Fund Revenues Source Amount Percentage
Formula a b c = b - a c / aTaxes:

Property Taxes Table B-3 $45,500 $59,300 $13,800 30%Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF Table B-3 $13,200 $17,200 $4,000 30%Real Property Transfer Tax Table B-4 $1,100 $3,100 $2,000 182% Sales Tax Table B-5 $167,300 $17,700 ($149,600) (89%)Sales Tax - Measure B Table B-5 $100,300 $8,900 ($91,400) (91%)Prop. 172 Sales Tax Table B-5 $4,100 $400 ($3,700) (90%)Hotel/Motel Tax Persons Served $1,500 $2,100 $600 40%Business License Tax Persons Served $500 $700 $200 40%Franchise Fees Persons Served $1,400 $2,000 $600 43%Electric Franchise Fees Persons Served $3,800 $5,200 $1,400 37% Subtotal General Fund Revenues $338,700 $116,600 ($222,100) (66%) revenues
Source: City of Roseville FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget; EPS.Note: Values are rounded to the nearest $100.

Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Rezone
Difference
Prepared by EPS 7/15/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212068 Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\212068 m1 fiscal 7 Table B-3
Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact AnalysisEstimated Property Tax Revenues (2021$) Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Item Assumptions Formula1 Percent Property Tax
Total Assessed Value of Project [1] a $30,250,000 $39,375,000Property Tax Revenue (1% of Assessed Value) 1.00% b = a * 1.00% $302,500 $393,750 Estimated Property Tax Allocation [2]
City of Roseville 15.05% c = b * 15.05% $45,541 $59,278Other Agencies 84.95% d = b * 84.95% $256,959 $334,472 Property Tax In Lieu of Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fee Revenue (VLF) Total Citywide Assessed Value [3] e $26,868,967,880 $26,868,967,880 Total Assessed Value of Project f = a $30,250,000 $39,375,000 Total Assessed Value g = e + f $26,899,217,880 $26,908,342,880 Percent Change in AV h = f / e 0.11% 0.15%
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF [4] $11,768,000 i = h * $11,768,000 $13,249 $17,245 prop tax
Source: City of Roseville FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget; Placer County Auditor-Controller; EPS.[1] For assumptions and calculation of assessed value, refer to Table D-2.[2] For assumptions and calculation of the estimated property tax allocation, refer to Table D-1.[3] 2021-22 Placer County Assessment Roll Values for City of Roseville. Includes Citywide secured, unsecured, and homeowner exemption.[4] Property tax in-lieu of VLF amount derived from the City of Roseville FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget. See Table B-1.

Existing Zoning Proposed Rezone
Prepared by EPS 7/15/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212068 Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\212068 m1 fiscal 8 Table B-4
Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact AnalysisReal Property Transfer Tax at Buildout (2021$) Scenario 1 Scenario 2
DescriptionAssumptions
Rate per $1,000 of AV [1] $0.55Turnover Rate
Owner-Occupied Homes 14.3%Renter-Occupied Homes 6.7%Nonresidential Sq. Ft. 6.7% Assessed Value [2]
Residential
Medium Density (MDR) $0 $39,375,000
Service & Employment
Community Commercial (CC) $30,250,000 $0
Total $30,250,000 $39,375,000
Annual Transfer Tax Revenue
Residential
Medium Density (MDR) 14% $0 $3,094
Service & Employment
Community Commercial (CC) 7% $1,109 $0
Total Annual Transfer Tax Revenue $1,109 $3,094
transfer tax
Source: City of Roseville; EPS.[1] Based on California Revenue and Taxation Code, §§ 11911-11929, which authorizes cities and counties to levy a real estate transfer tax at a rate of $0.55 per $1,000 value.

Source/
Assumption Existing Zoning Proposed Rezone
[2] Assessed Values (AV) derived in Table D-2 Note that assessed values are expressed in (2021$) and include no real AV growth.

Prepared by EPS 7/15/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212068 Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\212068 m1 fiscal 9 Table B-5
Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact AnalysisEstimated Taxable Sales and Use Tax Revenue (2021$) Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Item Assumptions FormulaEstimated Annual Taxable Sales (Rounded) Annual Taxable Sales from New Market Support Table B-5A $278,000 $1,770,000 Net Annual Taxable Sales from Onsite Commercial Use Table B-5B $19,789,000 $0 Total Annual Taxable Sales a $20,067,000 $1,770,000
Annual Sales Tax Revenue
Bradley Burns Local Sales Tax Rate 1.0000% b = 1.0000% * a $200,670 $17,700 Sales Tax Sharing with Placer County [1] 16.0000% See Table B-5B $33,376 $0 Subtotal d = b - c $167,294 $17,700
Measure B Sales Tax 0.50000% f = 0.5000% * a $100,335 $8,850City of Roseville Prop. 172 Public Sales Tax Revenue [2] 0.02056% e = 0.0206% * a $4,126 $364 sales tax
Source: California State Board of Equalization; City of Roseville EPS.[1] Amount equal to 1 percent of the estimated on-site sales tax anticipated in the Specific Plan. Please see Table B-5B.[2] State Board of Equalization collects one-half cent sales tax revenue under Proposition 172. Based on estimated citywide taxable sales, the City receives approximately 0.02056% of the annual taxable sales (City FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget).

Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Rezone
Prepared by EPS 7/15/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212068 Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\212068 m1 fiscal 10 Table B-5A
Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimated Annual Taxable Sales, Hybrid Market Support Method (2021$) Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Item Description
Annual Taxable Sales from New Occupied Households
Residential Development Occupied Dwelling Units
Medium Density (MDR) 0 60
Taxable Retail Expenditures [1]
Medium Density (MDR) $34,700 $0 $2,082,000
Subtotal $0 $2,082,000
Taxable Sales from New Households
Estimated City Capture from New Residents [2]
Taxable Sales Captured by the City 85% $0 $1,769,700
Estimated Taxable Sales inside Project Area [3] 10% $0 $0 Estimated Taxable Sales outside Project Area [3] 100% $0 $1,769,700 Annual Taxable Sales from New Employees
New Employees Table A-3 232 0
Average Daily Taxable Sales per New Employee $10.00
Work Days per Year 240
Total City Taxable Sales from New Employees $556,800 $0 Adjusted City Taxable Sales from New Employees [4] 50% $278,400 $0 Estimated Taxable Sales inside Project Area [3] 10% $27,840 $0 Estimated Taxable Sales outside Project Area [3] 90% $250,560 $0 Total Annual City Taxable Sales from Market Support $278,400 $1,769,700 Taxable City Sales inside Project Area $27,840 $0
Taxable City Sales outside Project Area $250,560 $1,769,700 sales tax a
Source: BLS; Consumer Expenditure Survey; and EPS.
[1] See Table D-3. Rounded to the nearest $500.
[2] Total retail sales in the City exceeds resident's retail spending potential, indicating no sales leakage for Roseville, so this analysis marginal leakage for the Project households' retail spending. [3] EPS estimate of resident/employee spending split between retail stores in the Project and stores outside the Project [4] Discounted by 50% to avoid double-counting employees who are also residents and to account for taxable sales from new employees that occur outside the City.

Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Assumption Rezone
Prepared by EPS 7/15/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212068 Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\212068 m1 fiscal 11 Table B-5B
Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact AnalysisEstimated Annual Taxable Sales Generated from On-Site Nonresidential (2021$) Scenario 1 Scenario 2
On-Site Commercial Development Assumption Formula
Community Commercial (CC)
Taxable Sales per Sq. Ft. [1] $200 a
Occupied Building Sq. Ft. b 104,300 0Subtotal, Annual Taxable Sales c = a * b $20,860,000 $0 Annual Taxable Sales from On-Site Commercial Dev. [2] g = c + f $20,860,000 $0 Less On-Site Market Support [3] h $27,840 $0
Subtotal Annual Sales less Market Support i = g - h $20,832,160 $0 Less Shift of Sales from Existing Retail Stores to the Project [4] 5% j = g * 0.05 $1,043,000 $0 Net Annual On-Site Taxable Sales k = i - j $19,789,160 $0 Amount Subject to Property Tax Sharing with County [5] 16% l = g 0.16 $3,337,600 $0 sales tax b
Source: Urban Land Institute & ICSC, Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers/The SCORE 2008; BOE; and EPS. [1] For assumptions and calculation of estimated taxable sales please refer to Table D-4. *Rounded to the nearest $5.
[2] Refers to new sales in the Project from customers other than new Project residents and employees. This total gross amount is subject to sales tax sharing with Placer County per the approved tax sharing agreement. [3] Derived in Table B-5A.[4] Represents a discount factor to account for taxable sales transactions that may shift from existing City retail centers to those inside the Project based on a preliminary review of existing retail demand and supply. This assumption was developed in accordance with DPFG for the AmorusoRanch Specific Plan Fiscal Analysis. [5] Reflects the maximum potential sales tax sharing by the City to the County per the sales tax sharing agreement.

Existing Land
Uses
Proposed
Land Uses
Prepared by EPS 7/15/2021
12 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212068 Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\212068 m1 fiscal Table B-6
Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact AnalysisSummary of Estimated Special Tax/Assessment District Revenues CFD 3
Municipal Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Services
Land Use FY 22/23 RatePROGRAMResidential Land Uses
Medium Density (MDR) 0 63
Nonresidential Land Uses
Community Commercial (CC) 10.1 0.0
Residential Land Uses per unit
Medium Density (MDR) $285.66 $0 $17,997
Nonresidential Land Uses per acre
Community Commercial (CC) $1,331 $13,458 $0
Total Developable Land Uses $13,458 $17,997
cfd
Source: City of Roseville; and EPS.

Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Rezone
Prepared by EPS 7/15/2021
13 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212068 Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\212068 m1 fiscal APPENDIX C:

Expenditure-Estimating Tables
Table C-1 Expenditure-Estimating Procedures Based on City of Roseville FY 2021-22 Budget ............................................ 14 Table C-2 Estimated Annual Project Expenditures .............................. 15 Table C-1
Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact AnalysisExpenditure-Estimating Procedures Based on City of Roseville FY 2021-22 Budget Less
Estimating FY 2021-22 Offsetting FY 2021-22 Population FY 2021-22 Population Procedure Budgeted Revenue Net City or Persons Average Adjustment Net Average Item [4] Expenditures [1] Expenditures Served Cost Factor [2] CostGeneral Fund Expenditures [3] City Council Persons Served $95,220 $1,398 $93,822 197,630 $0.47 75% $0.36City Manager Persons Served $1,554,146 $22,812 $1,531,334 197,630 $7.75 75% $5.81Public Affairs & Communications Persons Served $718,273 $10,542 $707,731 197,630 $3.58 75% $2.69City Attorney Persons Served $1,989,415 $35,501 $1,953,914 197,630 $9.89 75% $7.42Finance Persons Served $3,654,854 $1,023,047 $2,631,807 197,630 $13.32 75% $9.99Human Resources Persons Served $1,781,305 $26,146 $1,755,159 197,630 $8.88 75% $6.66City Clerk Persons Served $1,446,793 $574,036 $872,757 197,630 $4.42 75% $3.31Police Persons Served $48,983,125 $2,809,657 $46,173,468 197,630 $233.64 75% $175.23Fire Persons Served $37,628,398 $2,426,832 $35,201,566 197,630 $178.12 75% $133.59 Economic Development Persons Served $812,983 $13,183 $799,800 197,630 $4.05 75% $3.04Parks, Recreation & Libraries Per Capita $27,428,050 $5,050,948 $22,377,102 146,875 $152.35 100% $152.35Public Works Persons Served $8,438,406 $2,524,574 $5,913,832 197,630 $29.92 100% $29.92Development Services Persons Served $10,293,117 $6,080,334 $4,212,783 197,630 $21.32 100% $21.32Pay Down of Retirement Obligations Not Evaluated $6,145,136 $90,200 $6,054,936 N/A N/A N/A N/A General Fund Contingency - Materials, Services & Supplies Persons Served $2,050,000 $30,090 $2,019,910 197,630 $10.22 100% $10.22Annexation Payments Not Evaluated $8,850,000 $129,902 $8,720,098 N/A N/A N/A N/A Transfer to Post-Retirement Insurance/Accrual Fund Not Evaluated $5,393,271 $79,164 $5,314,107 N/A N/A N/A N/A Transfer to Golf Operations Funds Not Evaluated $786,918 $607,575 $179,343 N/A N/A N/A N/A Retiree Benefit Payments Not Evaluated $750,000 $11,009 $738,991 N/A N/A N/A N/A PERS Replacement Benefit Not Evaluated $368,800 $5,402 $363,398 N/A N/A N/A N/A County Property Tax Admin Fee Not Evaluated $723,000 $10,612 $712,388 N/A N/A N/A N/A Transfer to Parks, Recreation & Libraries Capital Fund Not Evaluated $1,108,000 $16,276 $1,091,724 N/A N/A N/A N/A Stormwater Not Evaluated $410,403 $6,023 $404,380 N/A N/A N/A N/A Transfer to Transit Fund Not Evaluated $94,785 $0 $94,785 N/A N/A N/A N/A Interfund Loan Interest Payment Not Evaluated $4,924 $72 $4,852 N/A N/A N/A N/A Passport Center Repayment to SIF Not Evaluated $270,000 $3,964 $266,036 N/A N/A N/A N/A Transfer for Debt Service Not Evaluated $802,584 $11,781 $790,803 N/A N/A N/A N/A Transfer to Emergency Stabilization Funds $3,632,502 $53,319 $3,579,183Other non-departmental $0 $0 $0Total Annual General Fund Expenditures [5] $176,214,408 $21,654,399 $154,560,009 $677.92 $561.90 exp pro
Source: City of Roseville FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget; EPS.[1] Represents departmental revenues identified for specific General Fund department functions in the City's fiscal budget.[2] Adjustment factor recognizes some department costs are fixed.[3] Any department with a negative net cost is estimated to have a zero net cost for fiscal impact analysis purposes.[4] "Not Evaluated" items not expected to be affected by the Project and is not evaluated in this analysis.[5] May not tie out with the budget because of rounding.

Prepared by EPS 7/15/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212068 Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\212068 m1 fiscal 14 Table C-2
Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact AnalysisEstimated Annual Project Expenditures (2021$)Expenditures Source Amount Percentage Formula a b c = b - a c / a
General Fund
City Council Table C-1 $0 0.0% $100 0.1% $100 0.0%City Manager Table C-1 $700 1.5% $900 1.0% $200 28.6%Public Affairs & Communications Table C-1 $300 0.6% $400 0.4% $100 33.3%City Attorney Table C-1 $900 1.9% $1,200 1.3% $300 33.3%Finance Table C-1 $1,200 2.5% $1,600 1.8% $400 33.3%Human Resources Table C-1 $800 1.7% $1,100 1.2% $300 37.5%City Clerk Table C-1 $400 0.8% $500 0.6% $100 25.0%Police Table C-1 $20,300 42.6% $28,200 31.2% $7,900 38.9%Fire Table C-1 $15,500 32.5% $21,500 23.8% $6,000 38.7%Economic Development Table C-1 $400 0.8% $500 0.6% $100 25.0%Parks, Recreation & Libraries Table C-1 $0 0.0% $24,500 27.1% $24,500 0.0%Public Works Table C-1 $3,500 7.3% $4,800 5.3% $1,300 37.1%Development Services Table C-1 $2,500 5.2% $3,400 3.8% $900 36.0%General Fund Contingency - Materials, Table C-1 $1,200 2.5% $1,600 1.8% $400 33.3%Total General Fund Expenditures $47,700 100.0% $90,300 100.0% $42,600 89.3% expenditures
Source: City of Roseville FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget; EPS.Note: Values are rounded to the nearest $100.

Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Difference
Existing Zoning Proposed Rezone
Amount
(Rounded)
Percentage
of Total
Amount
(Rounded)
Percentage
of Total
Prepared by EPS 7/15/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212068 Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\212068 m1 fiscal 15 APPENDIX D:

Supporting Tables for Revenue Estimates
Table D-1 Preliminary Property Tax Allocations ................................. 16 Table D-2 Estimated Assessed Valuation at Buildout .......................... 17 Table D-3 Estimated Project Household Incomes ............................... 18 Table D-4 Total and Taxable Retail Sales per Square Feet ................... 19 Table D-1
Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact AnalysisPreliminary Property Tax Allocations % of Post ERAF
Pre-ERAF Factor Shift Distribution City County
Fund/ Agency 005-071 005-066 Average to ERAF Factors 45.2% 54.8% Taxing Entities Subject to Tax Sharing
City of Roseville 41.5534% 41.5534% 41.5534% 19.8505% 33.3048% 15.0548% 18.2500%County General Fund 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000% 32.8998% 0.0000% - - Subtotal 41.5534% 41.5534% 41.5534% 33.3048% 15.0548% 18.2500%Other Taxing Entities Roseville Cemetery 0.9715% 0.9715% 0.9715% 10.8383% 0.8662%Placer County Resource Conserv 0.0720% 0.0720% 0.0720% 10.5921% 0.0644%Roseville City Elem M&O 23.4198% 23.4198% 23.4198% 23.4198% Roseville High M&O 21.9476% 21.9476% 21.9476% 21.9476%Sierra College M&O 7.8985% 7.8985% 7.8985% 7.8985% Superintendent of Schools 3.9018% 3.9018% 3.9018% 3.9018%Placer Co Water Agency M&O 0.2354% 0.2354% 0.2354% 38.5097% 0.1447%Subtotal 58.4466% 58.4466% 58.4466% 58.2430% Subtotal 100.0000% 100.0000% 100.0000% 91.5479%
Educational Revenue Relief Fund (ERAF) 8.4521%Total Gross Property Tax 100.0000% 100.0000% 100.0000% 100.0000% tra alloc
Source: Placer County and EPS.[1] Represents the percentage allocation of the 1% ad valorem property tax by Tax Rate Area (TRA).

Pre-ERAF Distribution of Tax Increment [1] Property Tax Allocation [2] Tax Rate Areas
[2] Tax increment split based on the revenue sharing agreement in place between the City and County ensuring the County the equivalent of 18.25% of the 1% ad valorem property tax across all Sierra Vista, Creekview, and Reason Farms developments (net of ERAF) as detailed in the Roseville - West Placer Annexations document submittedby the County Executive Officer to the County Board of Supervisors, dated September 12, 2011.

Prepared by EPS 7/15/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212068 Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\212068 m1 fiscal 16 Table D-2
Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact AnalysisEstimated Assessed Valuation at Buildout (2021$) [1] Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Item Amount Percentage
PROGRAMResidential
Medium Density (MDR) 0 63
Service & Employment
Community Commercial (CC) 110,000 0
Formula A B C = B - A C/A
Residential
Medium Density (MDR) $625,000 $0 $39,375,000 $39,375,000 0.0% Service & Employment per bldg. sq. ft.

Community Commercial (CC) $275 $30,250,000 $0 ($30,250,000) (100.0%) Total Assessed Value $30,250,000 $39,375,000 $9,125,000 30.2% av base
Source: Westbrook; EPS.[1] Note that assessed values (AV)s are expressed in 2021$ and include no real AV growth.

Assessed
Value
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Rezone
Difference
Prepared by EPS 7/15/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212068 Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\212068 m1 fiscal 17 Table D-3
Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact AnalysisEstimated Project Household Incomes (2021$) Estimated
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Estimated Estimated Household Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Existing Proposed Unit Annual Housing Income Existing Proposed Residential Land Use Type Land Uses Land Uses Value [2] Costs [3] (Rounded) [4] Land Uses Land Uses Owner Occupied Annual Mortgage
Medium Density (MDR) 0 63 $625,000 $44,709 $149,000 23.3% $34,700 $34,700 hh income
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Consumer Expenditure Survey; EPS.[1] See Table A-3 for calculation of the number of occupied households.[2] Residential unit value assumptions informed by new homes sales in Roseville, as reported by The Gregory Group Q1 2021. Data retrieved July 2021.[3] Housing costs of owner-occupied units are based on a 5%, 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a 20% down payment and 2% annual taxes and insurance.[4] Assumes 30% of income is dedicated to housing costs (mortgage, taxes and insurance) or rent payments. Incomes rounded to the nearest $1,000.[5] Taxable expenditures as a percentage of income derived from the BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey.[6] Average retail expenditures per household used to estimate annual sales tax revenues, as shown in Table B-5A.

Taxable
Expenditures
as a %
of Income [5]
Occupied Number of
Households [1]
Average Annual Household Taxable Retail
Exp. (Rounded) [6]
Prepared by EPS 7/15/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212068 Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\212068 m1 fiscal 18 Table D-4
Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact AnalysisTotal and Taxable Retail Sales per Square Feet (2021$)Item % [2] No. % [2] No. % [2] No.Total Retail Sales per Square Foot Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers [3] $250 $291 3% $9 2% $6 1% $3Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores $525 $611 0% $0 7% $43 10% $61Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies $356 $414 0% $0 15% $62 1% $4Food and Beverage Stores [4] - $602 55% $331 24% $145 3% $18Gasoline Stations [5] $1,321 $1,734 1% $17 2% $35 1% $17Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores $370 $431 2% $9 5% $22 20% $86General Merchandise Stores $360 $419 5% $21 20% $84 20% $84Food Services and Drinking Places $492 $573 8% $46 10% $57 20% $115Other Retail $209 $243 12% $29 7% $17 18% $44Nonretail [6] NA $0 14% $0 8% $0 6% $0Total 100% $460 100% $470 100% $430 Taxable Retail Sales per Square Foot by Retail Center Type Percent Taxable by Shopping Center Type [7] 44% 54% 98%Taxable Sales per Square Foot (Rounded) $200 $250 $420 retail sales
Note: Original data is based on an average of multiple sources and is presented in 2016$ unless noted otherwise in footnotes.[1] Sales adjusted to year-end 2020 based on the Consumer Price Index, All items in West urban, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted:

Year CPI Adjustment to 2020$
2008 219.65 31.2%2016 247.71 16.4%2018 263.26 9.5%2019 270.35 6.6%2020 276.59 4.2%2021 288.26 0.0% [2] Reflects percentage of total square footage by retail category by retail center type, estimated based on ULI's Dollars & Cents 2008.[3] Reflects motor vehicle parts only; excludes taxable sales per square foot for dealerships.[4][5] Estimated using ULI's Dollars & Cents, 2008, escalated to 2021$.[6] Included to account for non-taxable retail space occupants, such as services.[7] Based on BOE Publication 61, March 2018.

Total Retail Sales per Square Foot
Original
Data
[see Note]
Escalated
Data
(2021$) [1]
Total Retail Sales by Shopping Center Type
Neighborhood Community Regional
Source: BizMiner 2016; ULI Dollars & Cents 2008; State of California Board of Equalization (BOE) Publication 61; Bureau of Labor Statistics, "CPI-All Urban Consumers (Current Series) - West Urban"; RetailSails http://retailsails.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/rs_spsf.pdf; eMarketer pulled February 2019; respective annual 10-K reports; EPS.

Sales per square foot for Food and Beverage stores estimated based on the averages from BizMiner, RetailSales, eMarketer, and annual 10-K reports, escalated to 2021$.

Prepared by EPS 7/15/2021 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\212000\212068 Roseville Westbrook Rezone Fiscal Impact Analysis\Model\212068 m1 fiscal 19 5 Research Drive
Suite A
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Main: 734.623.7710
www.intalytics.com

SUPERMARKET RETAIL POTENTIAL
SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN (SVSP) PARCEL WB-42 & WB-41
SWC WESTBROOK BLVD/PLEASANT GROVE BLVD (WB-42)
VERSUS
SEC SANTUCCI BLVD/PLEASANT GROVE BLVD (WB-41)

ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA
PC ATTACHMENT 3

SUPERMARKET RETAIL POTENTIAL
SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN (SVSP) PARCEL WB-42 & WB-41
SWC WESTBROOK BLVD/PLEASANT GROVE BLVD (WB-42)
VERSUS
SEC SANTUCCI BLVD/PLEASANT GROVE BLVD (WB-41)

ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR: WESTPARK COMMUNITIES

C/O JOHN TALLMAN
1420 ROCKY RIDGE DRIVE, SUITE 265
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
[email protected]
PREPARED BY: INTALYTICS
5 RESEARCH DRIVE, SUITE A
ANN ARBOR, MI 48103
(925) 785-0739

INTALYTICS
MAY 2021
BACKGROUND:

Westpark Communities engaged Intalytics to prepare an analysis of the market viability two commercial properties located within the Westbrook portion of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP). The subject properties are WB-41, an approximately 10-acre site located at the southeast corner of Pleasant Grove Blvd. and Santucci Blvd., and WB-42 an approximately 14.5- acre site located at the southwest corner of Pleasant Grove Blvd. and Westbrook Blvd. The scope of this analysis is to evaluate both properties as grocery anchored retail centers, considering the impact of development of competitive sites, namely the approximately 8-acre site located at the northeast corner of Pleasant Grove Blvd. and Fiddyment Road, and the relative timing of development given certain market conditions and entry of new stores. Our supermarket deployment experience for major California chains including Ralphs, Safeway, Raley’s, Save Mart, PaqInc (Stockton), Stater Bros, and others, justifies Intalytics ability to quantify the major strategic and geographical differences at both locations.

SITES
WB-41 is an approximately 10-acre parcel zoned for Community Commercial, which allows a variety of uses including grocery stores. The site is on the western boundary of the city limits and is bounded on the north by Pleasant Grove Blvd and future multi-family zoned properties, on the east by the Heritage at Solaire community for residents 55 years and older, on the south by single family homes and on the west by Santucci Blvd and agricultural lands. Santucci Blvd is expected to be a major north-south arterial, however, we were not able to determine a timeline for its completion from the south and could not identify any plans for an extension of the roadway to the north. A portion of the area to the west has been approved by Placer County for urban development and a future private university. This area is known as the Regional University Specific Plan. The other portion to the west is identified in the County’s General Plan as a special planning area known as Curry Creek. In our visit to the site we noticed that much of the Curry Creek area has recently been planted as orchards of nut trees. We understand the remaining portions of Curry Creek are being planned for a utility scale solar energy project. Given these observations we conclude that development within Curry Creek is many years, and likely decades from occurring.

WB-42 is an approximately 14.5-acre parcel zoned as Community Commercial and like WB-41 allows for various retail uses including a grocery store. The site is bounded on the north by Pleasant Grove Blvd and the residential master planned community of Westpark, on the east by Westbrook Boulevard and single family homes, and on the south and west by the Heritage at Solaire community for people 55 years and older. The larger area to the south of this site is the majority of the SVSP including the communities of Solaire, Sierra Vista and Sierra West.

Westbrook Blvd, a major north-south arterial from Baseline Rd (a major commuting corridor) to Blue Oaks Blvd, a major arterial in the City of Roseville providing access to CA Highway 65.

Westbrook Blvd is expected to be extended south to Baseline Road by 2023.

GENERAL GROCER SITE CRITERIA
Decades of experience working internally, and consulting for with major grocery chains has taught Intalytics there are numerous factors including, but not limited, to site characteristics, competition and total food-at-home grocery potential, that all weigh in when modeling supermarket forecasts. Analysts can easily generate sales forecast without having to know and understand the mechanics of a real estate deal or construction costs, which is left to those respective experts. The final sales forecasts only serve as one tool to help orchestrate the deployment of a store. A site might have excellent site characteristics to go along with their central ‘ground zero’ location but rents and construction costs remain the other variables that combine establish the viability of a new grocery store at a specific site. Out-year sales projections count, but more importantly, they also act to discern and help point out which site is more positive in revenue than others tested. In this case, WB-42 is superior to that of WB41 as illustrated by our sales projections.

COMPETITION
Seven grocery operators, including two superstores, WinCo and Walmart, currently serve portions of the defined trade area and collectively capture an estimated 80.8% share of market from within the defined trade area. The respective superstores at Map Keys 5 and 6, are proximate to Highway 65 and unlike the other five conventional grocery stores, have a much wider reach and more regional influence. Of the conventional operators, Safeway (features a fuel center), Nugget and Raley’s predominately serve trade area residents, while Save Mart and Bel Air at Map Keys 3 and 4 are more distant and garner minimal market share from within the defined trading area.

The supermarket gravity model calculated ‘leakage’ sales at 19.1% from within the trade area.

Leakage sales are those trade area grocery expenditures that are not otherwise captured by the competition cited in this report, but rather at club membership operators like Costco and Sam’s Club as well as from more distant specialty stores including Trader Joe’s at Roseville Square and are not likely to relinquish their shopper base originating from within the trade area.

Accordingly, this leakage portion of supermarket potential is deemed a constant throughout our analysis. Note that leakage sales can range from as low as 10% to as high as 30% in dense urban areas.

ANALYSIS:

To estimate and compare the market opportunities for the two properties, sales forecasts were prepared for a number of like scenarios at Sites WB-42 and WB-41 assuming comparable store opening dates in 2023. Supermarket gravity models, a universal tool employed by supermarkets nationwide to evaluate the feasibility of selected formats in all US marketing areas, was utilized for this comparison.

Per the recently completed Westpark Communities Study #520-003, a variety of supermarket operators were evaluated under a combination of competitor scenarios for both WB-42 and WB-41. Refer to the attached Trade Area and Competition Map for operator locations.

Specifically, Intalytics evaluated the long range (thru 2028) sales potential for three different California supermarket operators; Sprouts, Nugget and Walmart Neighborhood , deployed at both WB-42 and WB-41 to better understand the difference in their viability as supermarket locations from which to serve the Westpark and SVSP neighborhoods. We evaluated each site with and without a store on the other site. We also ran the same models assuming that Safeway elects to build a store on the site at Fiddyment Road and Pleasant Grove Blvd (Site 60 on the Trade Area and Competition Map). Each scenario was run looking at gross sales per week after 1 year of operation, 3 years of operation and then at 5 years.

Intalytics also compared each location against one another (summarized on the following table) assuming comparable 40,000 square foot grocers opening simultaneously at either site to determine if there is a difference in sales potential between WB-41 and WB-42. For the purposes of this survey, we assumed store opening dates in 2023, and thus first (2024), third (2026) and fifth (2028) full year sales estimates were prepared to compare their viability against one another. In this scenario, WB-42 (central location) is 20% more effective than WB-41 (perimeter location).

The primary trading area delineated for these two locations is illustrated on the attached Trade Area and Competition map and includes all the urbanized and future growth areas situated west of Fiddyment Road, the trade area’s eastern boundary limit. Existing and future (Raley’s ON-E at Map Key 50) supermarket locations were considered in each of these sales forecast scenarios. Moreover, Intalytics assumed that both Westbrook and Santucci Boulevard are completed from Baseline Road to Pleasant Grove Boulevard will have been completed by 2023.

In our evaluation of the each of the sites without a competing store on the other location, WB42 outperformed WB-41 with nearly 15% greater sales per week in each year evaluated. By 2028 (Year 5), WB-42 reaches the gross sales per week target of over $500,000 per week, a level that WB-41 never reaches. Therefore, WB-41 would not be considered a viable site by any of the local and regional grocery stores.

A comparison of each site with a competing store on the other was preformed, however it is a theoretical exercise, and it is most unlikely that two stores would not be developed in such close proximity to one another. If a grocer deployed a store on WB-42 first, the likely next store along Pleasant Grove Blvd would be further west and close to the 2-mile ring from WB-42.

Considering this, WB-42 again outperforms WB-41 by a margin of about 18% greater sales. In this evaluation, neither store reaches the target gross sales per week and a decision to locate a store on one of these sites would have to be based on other business strategies beyond gross sales. We found that WB-42 had at least 15% greater weekly sales than would the same operator at WB-41. These findings reflect the limited trade area for WB-41 (180 degrees), its location on the edge of the trade area, and poor access with no known plans for roadway extension to major commuter roads. Long term for WB-41, grocers will see better located sites within the trade area, any of which will make development of WB-41 as an anchored neighborhood center unlikely. The attributes of WB-41 are not conducive to its viability as a major grocery retail location.

SAFEWAY MARKET AT PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD AND FIDDYMENT ROAD With the understanding that Safeway controls its future site at Map Key 60, (the northeast corner of the above noted intersection) Intalytics modeled a variety of scenarios which include the following:
¾ Specialty market at WB-42 with possible Safeway, and no market at WB-41 ¾ Specialty market at WB-41 with possible Safeway, and no market at WB-42, and ¾ Specialty markets at both WB-42 and WB-41, with possible Safeway at Map Key 60 The second Summary Table attached clearly demonstrates that in either “with Safeway” scenario, WB-42 still remains 24% greater in sales over another market deployed at WB-41.

Accordingly, it will be obvious to any major supermarket chain assessing both respective locations, that WB-42 has far more greater potential than the more westerly WB-41. The WB41 location is not feasible for a supermarket deployment in this decade.

CONCLUSION:

Intalytics has evaluated Westpark Communities’ neighborhood serving retail parcels WB-41 and WB-42 in the Westbrook portion of the SVSP and their ability to meet the metrics used by the major grocery retailers in this part of California. Our projected sales volume greatly favored WB-42 over the more perimeter WB-41 for the following reasons:
• WB-42 is more centrally located within the SVSP and thus strategically situated to service the entire Westpark community through 2028. This is compared to WB41 at Santucci Boulevard, which is relegated to a half, or a 180-degree trade area draw as it is well removed from the major intersection of Pleasant Grove and Westbrook Boulevards now serving this entire defined region.
• WB-42 is located on two major commute corridors, Pleasant Grove Blvd and Westbrook Blvd. Pleasant Grove Blvd provides access to the east to CA Highway 65 with access to Interstate 80. Westbrook Blvd, by 2023, will be connected to the south to Baseline Road a major east-west commute corridor to CA Highway 99, Interstate 5 and to the downtown Sacramento area. To the north, Westbrook Blvd currently connects to Blue Oaks Blvd, another option to those seeking access to CA Highway 65.
• WB-41 has no major direct north/south delivery arterial that traverses the entire trade area, unlike Westbrook Boulevard. It is unknown when Santucci Blvd will be connected to the south. There are no available plans by Placer County or the City of Roseville showing a planned extension of the roadway to the north. • Once a supermarket chain elects to deploy a store at WB-42, the chances for any neighborhood center at WB-41 is, in our opinion, is not feasible as shown in the forecast model.
• Under any scenario studied, WB-41 does not reach the metric of $500,000 in gross sales per week.

Accordingly, it is our opinion that any future viability of WB-41 to support any retail operations would require the development of both the Regional University Specific Plan, Curry Creek and the extension of Santucci Blvd to intersect with a major arterial to the north.

MARKET PLACE AS IS

PROPOSED SALES SURVEY

ROSEVILLE, CA (WESTPARK COMMUNITY)
APRIL 20, 2021

STORE STORE
NAME NO.

SALES
VOLUME
STORE
SIZE
SALES/
S.F. PEXP
T.A.

VOLUME CURVE IMAGE
RALEY'S 1 580000 52200 11.11 40 232000 70 87
SAFEWAY 2 730000 55300 13.20 40 292000 70 104
SAVEMART 3 390000 53000 7.36 5 19500 75 75
BEL AIR 4 500000 50000 10.00 5 25000 75 94
WINCO ROSEVL 5 1500000 95000 15.79 15 225000 60 115
WALMART SUPR 6 1050000 60000 17.50 15 157500 60 119
NUGGET 7 570000 40000 14.25 30 171000 70 105
AVERAGE 760000 57929 13.12 100
TOTAL POPULATION 25391
TOTAL POTENTIAL $1386349
AVERAGE PCW $54.60
AVERAGE LEAKAGE 19.07%

SECTOR REPORT
SECTOR
NUMBER
- --POPULAT ION LEVELS---
CURRENT 1ST YR 5TH YR

CURRENT
PCW

CURRENT

POTENTIAL
--CURRENT

PERCENT

LEAKAGE- -

DOLLARS
1 3080 3980 4130 54.60 168168 19. 14 32195
2 450 3360 7280 54.60 24570 19.16 4708
3 985 2975 4020 54.60 53781 19.04 10239
4 4621 4821 5021 54.60 252307 19. 20 48446
5 2580 2715 2800 54.60 140868 19.04 26821
6 2710 2820 2910 54.60 147966 18.98 28080
7 3574 3580 3590 54.60 195140 19.01 37100
8 850 875 920 54.60 46410 18.99 8815
9 1100 1120 1130 54.60 60060 19.02 11424
10 5290 6752 7370 54.60 288834 19.02 54939
11 150 1575 3495 54.60 8190 19.19 1572
12 1 - - - - -300 - - - - -1200
- - - - -

54.60 55 - - - - - - -

19.15 10
TOTALS

AVERAGES
25391 34873 43866
$54.60
$1386349

19.07%
$264349

TOTAL MARKET SHARE

PROPOSED SALES SURVEY

ROSEVILLE, CA (WESTPARK COMMUNITY)
APRIL 20 I 2021

STORE STORE
NAME NO.

ACTUAL
VOLUME
ACTUAL
M.S.

EST.

VOLUME
EST.

M. S .

RALEY'S 1 580000 16.7 580000 16.7
SAFEWAY 2 730000 21.1 730000 21.1
SAVEMART 3 390000 1.4 390000 1.4
BEL AIR 4 50000 0 1.8 500000 1.8
WINCO ROSEVL 5 1500000 16.2 1500000 16.2
WALMART SUPR 6 1050000 11.4 1050000 11.4
NUGGET 7 570000 12.3 570000 12.3
LEAKAGE ACTUAL - 19.1 ESTIMATED - 19.1

SUPERMARKET RETAIL POTENTIAL
SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN (SVSP) PARCEL WB-42 & WB-41
SWC WESTBROOK BLVD/PLEASANT GROVE BLVD (WB-42)
VERSUS
SEC SANTUCCI BLVD/PLEASANT GROVE BLVD (WB-41)

ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA

PROPOSAL EXISTING
PROPOSED SIZE: 40,000 GSF AT EACH SITE STORES AFFECTING TRADE AREA:
7 GROCERY STORES
OPPORTUNITY: IN-FILL/HIGH GROWTH AVERAGE SALES
SQUARE FOOT: $13.12
TIMING: 2023
AVERAGE PCW: $54.60
TOTAL POTENTIAL: $1,386,349 WEEKLY

PROPOSED
OPERATOR: CONVENTIONAL/SPECIALTY
AVERAGE LEAKAGE: 19.1%
FORMAT: CONVENTIONAL/

SPECIALTY
TOTAL POPULATION: 25,391 (2021)
POPULATION TREND: 11% ANNUAL

COMPOUNDED RATE

PER ABSORPTION DATA

PRICING
STRUCTURE:

CONVENTIONAL/
SPECIALTY DEMOGRAPHICS: STRONG AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD

INCOME AND EDUCATION
FUTURE

COMPETITION
CONSIDERED :

RALEY’S O-N-E AT MK 50

SITE CHARACTERISTIC SUMMARY
WB-42 SWC WESTBROOK BLVD/PLEASANT GROVE BLVD

ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA
Exlnt Above
Avg
Avg Below
Avg
Poor

STREET NETWORK X

INGRESS/EGRESS X

SITE LOCATION RELATIVE TO OTHER SHOPPING NODES NA
TRAFFIC FLOW (FUTURE)* X

LOCATION RELATIVE TO POPULATION X

PARKING (AVAILABILITY/ARRANGEMENT) X
VISIBILITY OF SITE: NORTH X

SOUTH X
EAST X
WEST X

SITE CHARACTERISTIC SUMMARY
WB-41 SEC SANTUCCI BOULEVARD/PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD

ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA
Exlnt Above
Avg
Avg Below
Avg
Poor

STREET NETWORK X

INGRESS/EGRESS X

SITE LOCATION RELATIVE TO OTHER SHOPPING NODES NA
TRAFFIC FLOW (FUTURE)* X

LOCATION RELATIVE TO POPULATION X

PARKING (AVAILABILITY/ARRANGEMENT) X
VISIBILITY OF SITE: NORTH X

SOUTH X
EAST X
WEST X
>SALES SUMMARY<
SPECIALTY MARKET AT WB-42 (SITE 100) WITHOUT ANY GROCER AT WB-41 AT 40,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET
2024
(GROSS
$PSF) 2026
(GROSS
$PSF) 2028
(GROSS
$PSF)
WEEKLY SALES: $370,300 ($9.26) $468,500 ($11.71) $533,900 ($13.35) ANNUAL SALES: $19,255,600 $24,362,000 $27,762,800
SPECIALTY MARKET AT WB-41 (SITE 200) WITHOUT ANY GROCER AT WB-42 AT 40,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET
2024
(GROSS
$PSF) 2026
(GROSS
$PSF) 2028
(GROSS
$PSF)
WEEKLY SALES: $321,300 ($8.03) $408,200 ($10.21) $466,200 ($11.66) ANNUAL SALES: $16,707,600 $21,226,400 $24,242,400
SPECIALTY STORE AT WB-42 (SITE 100) WITH SPECIALTY STORE AT WB-41 AT 40,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET
2024
(GROSS
$PSF) 2026
(GROSS
$PSF) 2028
(GROSS
$PSF)
WEEKLY SALES: $303,800 ($7.60) $382,800 ($9.57) $435,400 ($10.89) ANNUAL SALES: $15,797,600 $19,905,600 $22,640,800
SPECIALTY STORE AT WB-41 (SITE 200) WITH SPECIALTY STORE AT WB-42 AT 40,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET
2024
(GROSS
$PSF) 2026
(GROSS
$PSF) 2028
(GROSS
$PSF)
WEEKLY SALES: $250,300 ($6.26) $317,000 ($7.93) $361,400 ($9.04) ANNUAL SALES: $13,015,600 $16,484,000 $18,792,800
ALL SALES IN 2021 DOLLARS

PROJECTED MARKET PLACE
SPECIALTY MARKET AT WB-4 2 WITHOUT GROCER AT WB-41 AT 40,000 GROSS SQUARE FT

SWC WESTBROOK BOULEVARD/PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD

ROSEVILLE, CA (WESTPARK COMMUNITY)
APRIL 20, 2021
STORE
NAME
STORE
NO.

SALES
VOLUME
STORE
SIZE
SALES/
S.F. PEXP
T.A.

VOLUME
T.A .

CHANGE CURVE IMAGE
RALEY'S 1 52200 40 129802 -102198 75 87
SAFEWAY 2 55300 40 173735 -118265 70 104
SAVEMART 3 53000 5 11898 -7602 75 75
BEL AIR 4 50000 5 15168 -9832 75 94
WINCO ROSEVL 5 95000 15 167663 -57 337 60 115
WALMART SUPR 6 60000 15 110477 -47023 60 119
NUGGET 7 40000 30 90105 -80895 80 105
RALEYS O-N - E 50 40000 60 176210 176210 78 100
>SPECIALTY 100 40000 85 246943 246943 74 120
AVERAGE 448776 53944 8.32 0 102
TOTAL POPULATION 25391
TOTAL POTENTIAL $1386349
AVERAGE PCW $54.60
AVERAGE LEAKAGE 19.07%

SALES FORECAST
SPECIALTY MARKET AT WB-42 WITHOUT GROCER AT WB-4 1 AT 4 0, 000 GROSS SQUARE FT swc WESTBROOK BOULEVARD/PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD

ROSEVILLE, CA (WESTPARK COMMUNITY )

DISTANCE

SECTOR (MILES)
MATURE
M.S.

EST.

PCW
FIRST
EST.

POP.

YEAR END
EST.

SALES
FIFTH
EST.

POP.

YEAR END
EST.

SALES
1 0.04 25 .1 54.60 3980 49136 4130 56653
2 0.32 26.3 54.60 3360 43454 7280 104613
3 0.60 17.4 54.60 2975 25441 4020 38197
4 0.32 24 .6 54 .60 4821 58222 5021 67374
5 0.37 18.6 54.60 2715 24848 2800 28473
6 0.53 15.2 54.60 2820 21042 2910 24127
7 0.42 16.7 54.60 3580 29387 3590 32744
8 0.55 14.6 54.60 875 6263 920 7316
9 0.60 14.3 54.60 1120 7882 1130 8836
10 1.11 10.0 54.60 6752 33109 7370 40155
11 0.90 16.6 54.60 1575 12883 3495 31763
12 0.76 20.7 54.60 300 3057 1200 13586
--- -
TOTAL TRADE AREA 17. 8 % $54.60 34873 $314724 43866 $453837 BEYOND TRADE AREA (15 PERCENT) 55540 80089
GRAND TOTAL $370264 $533926

PROJECTED MARKET PLACE
SPECIALTY MARKET AT WB-41 (SITE 200) WITHOUT GROCER AT WB-42 AT 40,000 GSF

SEC SANTUCCI BOULEVARD AND PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD

ROSEVILL, CA
APRIL 20/ 2021
STORE
NAME
STORE
NO.

SALES
VOLUME
STORE
SIZE
SALES/
S.F. PEXP
T.A.

VOLUME
T.A.

CHANGE CURVE IMAGE
RALEY'S 1 52200 40 133796 -98204 75 87
SAFEWAY 2 55300 40 178821 -11 3179 70 104
SAVEMART 3 53000 5 12329 -7171 75 75
BEL AIR 4 50000 5 15712 -92 88 75 94
WINCO ROSEVL 5 95000 15 172598 -5 2402 60 115
WALMART SUPR 6 60000 15 113748 -43752 60 119
NUGGET 7 40000 30 88460 -82540 80 105
RALEYS O-N-E 50 40000 60 181193 181193 78 100
>SPECIALTY 200 40000 90 225343 225343 74 120
AVERAGE 455397 53944 8.44 0 102
TOTAL POPULATION 25391
TOTAL POTENTIAL $1386349
AVERAGE PCW $54.60
AVERAGE LEAKAGE 19.07%

SALES FORECAST
SPECIALTY MARKET AT WB-41 (SITE 200) WITHOUT GROCER AT WB-42 AT 40,000 GSF

SEC SANTUCCI BOULEVARD AND PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD

ROSEVILL, CA

DISTANCE

SECTOR (MILES)
MATURE
M.S.

EST .

PCW
FIRST
EST.

POP.

YEAR END
EST.

SALES
FIFTH
EST.

POP .

YEAR END
EST .

SALES
1 0.29 24.6 54.60 3980 48088 4130 55445
2 0.43 25.6 54.60 3360 42329 7280 101902
3 0.81 15.0 54.60 2975 21914 4020 32902
4 0 .31 24.6 54.60 4821 58239 5021 67395
5 0 .62 16.1 54.60 2715 21469 2800 24602
6 0 .79 12.7 54.60 2820 17584 2910 20162
7 0.67 14.2 54.60 3580 25047 3590 27908
8 0.78 12.3 54.60 875 5304 920 6196
9 0.80 12.3 54.60 1120 6783 1130 7604
10 1.27 8.3 54.60 6752 27529 7370 33388
11 0.94 15.6 54.60 1575 12071 3495 29763
12 0.88 18 .8 54.60 300 2776 1200 12336
TOTAL TRADE AREA 16 .3% $54.60 34873 $289133 43866 $419603 BEYOND TRADE AREA (10 PERCENT) 32126 46623
GRAND TOTAL $321259 $466226

PROJECTED MARKET PLACE
SPECIALTY STORE AT WB-42 (SITE 100) WITH SPECIALTY UNIT AT WB-4 1 (SITE 200) AT 40,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET

ROSEVILLE, CA
APRIL 20, 2021
STORE STORE SALES STORE SALES/ T.A. T.A.

NAME wo. VOLUME SIZE S.F. PEXP VOLUME CHANGE CURVE IMAGE RALEY'S 1 52200 40 109389 - 122611 75 87
SAFEWAY 2 55300 40 147496 -144504 70 104
SAVEMART 3 53000 5 10144 -9 356 75 75
BEL AIR 4 50000 5 12877 - 12123 75 94
WINCO ROSEVL 5 95000 15 141762 -8 3238 60 115
WALMART SUPR 6 60000 15 93588 -63912 60 119
NUGGET 7 40000 30 77130 -93870 80 105
RALEYS O- N -E 50 40000 60 149194 149194 78 100
>SPECIALTY 100 40000 85 203886 203886 74 120
>SPECIALTY 200 40000 90 176535 176535 74 120
AVERAGE 361340 52550 6.88 0 104
TOTAL POPULATION 25391
TOTAL POTENTIAL $1386349
AVERAGE PCW $54.60
AVERAGE LEAKAGE 19.07%

SALES FORECAST
SPECIALTY STORE AT WB-42 (SITE 100) WITH SPECIALTY UNIT AT WB-41 (SITE 200) AT 40 ,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET

ROSEVILLE, CA

DISTANCE

SECTOR (MILES)
MATURE
M.S.

EST.

PCW
FIRST
EST .

POP.

YEAR END
EST .

SALES
FIFTH
EST .

POP.

YEAR END
EST.

SALES
1 0.04 19 .4 54 .60 3980 37848 4130 43638
2 0.32 20.1 54.60 3360 33206 7280 79941
3 0.60 14 .9 54 .60 297 5 21711 4020 32598
4 0.32 18 .9 54 .60 4821 44803 5021 51846
5 0.37 15.7 54.60 2715 20957 2800 24015
6 0.53 13.3 54.60 2820 18369 2910 21061
7 0.42 14 .3 54.60 3580 25242 3590 28125
8 0.55 12.8 54.60 875 5483 920 6406
9 0.60 12 .5 54.60 1120 6899 1130 7734
10 1.11 9.1 54.60 6752 30265 7370 36705
11 0.90 14.1 54.60 1575 10905 3495 26888
12 0.76 17 .0 54.60 300 2513 1200 11169
TOTAL TRADE AREA 14.7% $54 .60 34873 $258201 43866 $370126 BEYOND TRADE AREA (15 PERCENT) 45565 65316
GRAND TOTAL $303766 $435442
40,000
(GROSS (GROSS (GROSS
2024 $PSF) 2026 $PSF) 2028 $PSF)
WEEKLY SALES: $317,700 ($7.94) $401,700 ($10.04) $456,700 ($11.42) ANNUAL SALES: $16,520,400 $20,888,400 $23,748,400
40,000
(GROSS (GROSS (GROSS
2024 $PSF) 2026 $PSF) 2028 $PSF)
WEEKLY SALES: $254,000 ($6.35) $322,000 ($8.05) $367,600 ($9.19) ANNUAL SALES: $13,208,000 $16,744,000 $19,115,200
40,000
(GROSS (GROSS (GROSS
2024 $PSF) 2026 $PSF) 2028 $PSF)
WEEKLY SALES: $244,700 ($6.12) $308,200 ($7.71) $350,400 ($8.76) ANNUAL SALES: $12,724,400 $16,026,400 $18,220,800
40,000
(GROSS (GROSS (GROSS
2024 $PSF) 2026 $PSF) 2028 $PSF)
WEEKLY SALES: $195,900 ($4.90) $248,000 ($6.20) $282,700 ($7.07) ANNUAL SALES: $10,186,800 $12,896,000 $14,700,400
SALES IN 2021 DOLLARS
SPECIALTY MARKET AT WB-41 (SITE 200) AT 40,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET SPECIALTY MARKET AT WB-41 (SITE 200) AT 40,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET >SALES SUMMARY<
SPECIALTY MARKET AT WB-42 (SITE 100) AT 40,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET WITH SAFEWAY AT MAP KEY 60 AND NO MARKET AT WB-41 (SITE 200) WITH WB-42 (SITE 100) & SAFEWAY AT MAP KEY 60
WITHSAFEWAY AT MAP KEY 60 AND NO MARKET AT WB-42 (SITE 100) SPECIALTY MARKET AT WB-42 (SITE 100) AT 40,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET WITH WB-41 (SITE 200) & SAFEWAY AT MAP KEY 60

PROJECTED MARKET PLACE
SPECIALTY MARKET AT WB-42 (SITE 100) WITH SAFEWAY AT MAP KEY 60 AND NO MARKET AT WB-41 (SITE 200) AT 40 , 000 GROSS SQUARE FEET

ROSEVILLE, CA
APRIL 20, 2021
STORE
NAME
STORE
NO.

SALES
VOLUME
STORE
SIZE
SALES/
S.F. PEXP
T.A .

VOLUME
T.A.

CHANGE CURVE IMAGE
RALEY'S 1 52200 40 103504 -128496 75 87
SAFEWAY 2 55300 40 140280 - 151720 70 104
SAVEMART 3 53000 5 9377 - 10123 75 75
BEL AIR 4 50000 5 11925 -13075 75 94
WINCO ROSEVL 5 95000 15 134770 -90230 60 115
WALMART SUPR 6 60000 15 88898 -68602 60 119
NUGGET 7 40000 30 73022 -97978 80 105
RALEYS O-N-E 50 40000 60 142490 142490 78 100
>SAFEWAY 60 55000 90 217526 217526 70 115
>SPECIALTY 100 40000 80 200208 200208 74 120
AVERAGE 349946 54050 6.47 0 103
TOTAL POPULATION 25391
TOTAL POTENTIAL $1386349
AVERAGE PCW $54.60
AVERAGE LEAKAGE 19. 07 %

SALES FORECAST
SPECIALTY MARKET AT WB-42 ( SITE 100 ) WITH SAFEWAY AT MAP KEY 60 AND NO MARKET AT WB-41 (SITE 200) AT 40,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET

ROSEVILLE, CA

DISTANCE

SECTOR (MILES)
MATURE
M.S.

EST.

PCW
FIRST
EST.

POP.

YEAR END
EST.

SALES
FIFTH
EST.

POP.

YEAR END
EST.

SALES
1 0. 04 19.7 54.60 3980 38601 4130 44506
2 0.32 20.4 54.60 3360 33617 7280 80929
3 0.60 13.4 54.60 2975 19579 4020 29396
4 0.32 20.0 54.60 4821 47291 5021 54725
5 0.37 14.4 54.60 2715 19271 2800 22082
6 0.53 11.9 54.60 2820 16525 2910 18947
7 0.42 13.3 54.60 3580 23409 3590 26083
8 0.5 5 12.0 54.60 875 5175 920 6045
9 0.60 12.1 54.60 1120 6654 1130 7459
10 1.11 9. 2 54.60 6752 30368 7370 36830
11 0.90 14.6 54.60 1575 11309 3495 27884
12 0.76 16.0 54.60 300 2361 1200 10491
TOTAL TRADE AREA 14.4 % $54 .60 34873 $254160 43866 $365377 BEYOND TRADE AREA (20 PERCENT) 63540 91344
GRAND TOTAL $317700 $456721

PROJECTED MARKET PLACE
SPECIALTY MARKET AT WB-41 (SITE 200) AT 40, 000 SQUARE FEET WITH SAFEWAY AT MAP KEY 60 AND NO MARKET AT WB-42

ROSEVILLE, CA
APRIL 20, 2021
STORE
NAME
STORE
NO.

SALES
VOLUME
STORE
SIZE
SALES/
S.F. PEXP
T.A.

VOLUME
T.A.

CHANGE CURVE IMAGE
RALEY' S 1 52200 40 106331 - 125669 75 87
SAFEWAY 2 55300 40 144054 -147946 70 104
SAVEMART 3 53000 5 9670 -98 30 75 75
BEL AIR 4 50000 5 12292 -12708 75 94
WINCO ROSEVL 5 95000 15 138373 -86627 60 115
WALMART SUPR 6 60000 15 91295 -66205 60 119
NUGGET 7 40000 30 71569 -994 31 80 105
RALEYS O-N - E 50 40000 60 146219 146219 78 100
>SAFEWAY 60 55000 50 223265 223265 70 115
>SPECIALTY 200 40000 90 178933 178933 74 120
AVERAGE 372393 54050 6.89 0 103
TOTAL POPULATION 25391
TOTAL POTENTIAL $1386349
AVERAGE PCW $54.60
AVERAGE LEAKAGE 19.07%

SALES FORECAST
SPECIALTY MARKET AT WB-41 (SITE 200) AT 40,000 SQUARE FEET WITH SAFEWAY AT MAP KEY 60 AND NO MARKET AT WB-42

ROSEVILLE, CA

DISTANCE

SECTOR (MILES)
MATURE
M.S.

EST.

PCW
FIRST
EST .

POP.

YEAR END
EST .

SALES
FIFTH
EST.

POP.

YEAR END
EST.

SALES
1 0.29 19.3 54.60 3980 37650 4130 43410
2 0.43 19.7 54.60 3360 32487 7280 78210
3 0 .81 11 .2 54 .60 2975 16345 4020 24541
4 0.31 19.8 54 .60 4821 46849 5021 54214
5 0.62 12.2 54.60 2715 16296 2800 18674
6 0.79 9.7 54 .60 2820 13433 2910 15401
7 0.67 11 .1 54 .60 3580 19514 3590 21743
8 0.78 9.9 54.60 875 4269 920 4988
9 0.80 10 .1 54 .60 1120 5573 1130 6248
10 1.27 7.2 54.60 6752 23945 7370 29040
11 0.94 13 .2 54 .60 1575 10199 3495 25147
12 0.88 14.0 54.60 300 2066 1200 9182
TOTAL TRADE AREA 12.9% $54.60 34873 $228626 43866 $330798 BEYOND TRADE AREA (10 PERCENT) 25403 36755

GRAND TOTAL
- - - - - -
$254029
--- -- -
$367553

PROJECTED MARKET PLACE
SPECIALTY STORES BOTH AT WB-42 AND WB-41 AT 40,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET WITH SAFEWAY AT MAP KEY 60

ROSEVILLE, CA (WESTPARK COMMUNITY)
APRIL 20, 2021
STORE
NAME
STORE
NO.

SALES
VOLUME
STORE
SIZE
SALES/
S.F. PEXP
T.A.

VOLUME
T.A.

CHANGE CURVE IMAGE
RALEY 1 S 1 52200 40 91741 -140259 75 87
SAFEWAY 2 55300 40 125197 -166803 70 104
SAVEMART 3 53000 5 8402 -11098 75 75
BEL AIR 4 50000 5 10644 -14356 75 94
WINCO ROSEVL 5 95000 15 119837 -10516 3 60 115
WALMART SUPR 6 60000 15 79185 -78315 60 119
NUGGET 7 40000 30 65660 -105340 80 105
RALEYS O-N-E 50 40000 60 126853 126853 78 100
>SAFEWAY 60 55000 50 191434 191434 70 115
>SPECIALTY 100 40000 85 164623 164623 74 120
>SPECIALTY 200 40000 90 138424 138424 74 120
AVERAGE 310065 52773 5.88 0 105
TOTAL POPULATION 25391
TOTAL POTENTIAL $1386349
AVERAGE PCW $54.60
AVERAGE LEAKAGE 19.07%

SALES FORECAST
SPECIALTY STORES BOTH AT WB-42 AND WB-41 AT 40,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET WITH SAFEWAY AT MAP KEY 60

ROSEVILLE, CA (WESTPARK COMMUNITY)

DISTANCE

SECTOR (MILES)
MATURE
M.S.

EST.

PCW
FIRST
EST.

POP.

YEAR END
EST.

SALES
FIFTH
EST.

POP.

YEAR END
EST.

SALES
1 0.04 16.0 54.60 3980 31346 4130 36142
2 0.32 16.3 54.60 3360 26974 7280 64937
3 0.60 11.2 54.60 2975 16434 4020 24674
4 0.32 15.7 54.60 4821 37293 5021 43155
5 0.37 12.3 54.60 2715 16449 2800 18849
6 0.53 10.2 54.60 2820 14185 2910 16264
7 0.42 11.4 54.60 3580 20089 3590 22383
8 0.55 10.3 54.60 875 4417 920 5161
9 0.60 10.2 54.60 1120 5632 1130 6313
10 1.11 7.4 54.60 6752 24388 7370 29578
11 0.90 11.5 54.60 1575 8928 3495 22013
12 0.76 12.8 54.60 300 1891 1200 8404
- - - - - - ------ - - - - - -
TOTAL TRADE AREA 11.9% $54.60 34873 $208026 43866 $297873 BEYOND TRADE AREA (15 PERCENT) 36710 52566
GRAND TOTAL $244736 $350439
^_WESTB ROOK BLVD

WESTPARK DR

HAYDEN PKY
P

LEASANT GROVE BLVD BLUE OAKS B
LVD

WOODCREEK OAKS BLVD

FOOTH LI LS BLVD

PETT GI REW RD
JUN
CTION
BLVD

PALLADAY RD
V
I
N
E
YA
R
D
R
D

WATT AVE

COOK R OI LO RD

WALERGA RD
P
H
I
L
L
I
P
R
D

S BREWER RD

F DI DYMENT RD
B
A
S
E
L
I
N
E
R
D
052,000 4,000
Feet
SWCWESTBROOKBLVD.ATPLEASANTGROVEBLVD.

ROSEVILLE,CA.
(1AND2MILERING)
^_^_
#
*
#
* !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
WESTB

ROOK BLVD

B LUE OAKS BLVD

WESTPARK DR

HAYDE N PK Y
W
OODCRE
E
K
O
AKS
BLVD

JUNCTION BLVD

WHITNEY
BLV
D
3RD ST

PACIFIC ST

PARK DR

MIDAS AVE

LONETREE BLVD
W OAKS
BLVD

ROSEVILLE PKY
WALER
G
A
RD
FO

OTHILLS BLVD

ATKINSON ST

SUNSET BLVD
5TH
ST

ROSEVILLE
RD

WASHINGTON
BLVD
PFE RD

WATT AVE

WILDCAT
BLVD

W SUNSET BLVD

ARNO RD

STANFORD RANCH
RD
CO
O
K
R
OI LO
RD

FAIRWAY DR

PHILLIP RD

VINEYARD RD

NI DUSTRIAL AVE

SUNSET WEST BLVD
STATE HWY 65

F DI DY

MENT RD

BASELINE RD

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
WB-41 WB-42
50 60
1 2 7
3 4
6 5
12 3 2
1 5
6 7
10 9
8 4
11 0
5 2,500 5,000
Feet

WESTPARK COMMUNITIES
Legend
Proposed
Competition
Site
Raley's U.C.

P. Safeway
Raley's
Safeway
Save Mart
Bel Air
Nugget
WinCo
Walmart
Trade Area
and Map Sectors
Competition
Trade Area and Competition Map
^_
#
*
#
*
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 ^_^_
#
*
#
* !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
WESTB

ROOK BLVD

B LUE OAKS BLVD

WESTPARK DR

HAYDE N PK Y
W
OODCRE
E
K
O
AKS
BLVD

JUNCTION BLVD

WHITNEY
BLV
D
3RD ST

PACIFIC ST

PARK DR

MIDAS AVE

LONETREE BLVD
W OAKS
BLVD

ROSEVILLE PKY
WALER
G
A
RD
FO

OTHILLS BLVD

ATKINSON ST

SUNSET BLVD
5TH
ST

ROSEVILLE
RD

WASHINGTON
BLVD
PFE RD

WATT AVE

WILDCAT
BLVD

W SUNSET BLVD

ARNO RD

STANFORD RANCH
RD
CO
O
K
R
OI LO
RD

FAIRWAY DR

PHILLIP RD

VINEYARD RD

NI DUSTRIAL AVE

SUNSET WEST BLVD
STATE HWY 65

F DI DY

MENT RD

BASELINE RD

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
200 100
50 60
1 2 7
3 4
6 5
12 3 2
1 5
6 7
10 9
8 4
11 0
5 2,500 5,000
Feet

WESTPARK COMMUNITIES
Legend
Proposed
Competition
Site
Raley's U.C.

P. Safeway
Raley's
Safeway
Save Mart
Bel Air
Nugget
WinCo
Walmart
Trade Area
and Map Sectors
Competition
Trade Area and Competition Map
^_
#
*
#
*
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 SUBJECT SITE MAP KEY 100
PERIMITER SITE 200
MAP KEY 1
MAP KEY 2
MAP KEY 3
MAP KEY 4
MAP KEY 5
MAP KEY 6
MAP KEY 7
MAP KEY 50 (2021)
MAP SECTOR 11 UNDERWAY
MAP SECTOR 1 DEVELOPMENT

MARKET-DRIVEN

DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIESTM

RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND

HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY
JULY 2021
WESTPARK SV 400 LLC
Prepared for
PC ATTACHMENT 4
2 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES This report was commissioned by Westpark SV 400 LLC in June 2021.

The Retail Market Analysis and Highest & Best Use Study was performed between June and July 2021.

The purpose of this assignment was to perform a retail assessment of site WB-41, a 10-acre site located in the City of Roseville at the corner of Pleasant Grove Blvd and Santucci Blvd. The emphasis of analysis was to assess the Retail Demand and Market Opportunity for this site and to understand viability, including if and when, how much, and what type of retail uses would be warranted.

The second key objective following the retail market analysis was a highest & best use study of the site based on an objective assessment of site and market factors. The assessment considered a range of potential land uses including residential, office, and hotel. A recommendation of the most optimal land use was provided to conclude the report.

The figures presented in the report are based on an evaluation of the current general level of the economy in the local market, and neither take into account, nor make provisions for the effect of any sharp rise or decline in local or general economic conditions.

MXD Development Strategists, Ltd. do not warrant that any estimates contained within the study will be achieved, but that they have been prepared conscientiously on the basis of information obtained during the course of this market analysis. Also, any tenant references made in this report are for illustrative purposes only.

Reference material used for this report was derived from the project team, as well as from the public and private sectors and government publications. This information was supplemented by our experience in the planning and development of real estate projects throughout North America.

As is customary in an assignment of this type, neither our name nor the material submitted may be included in a prospectus, or part of any printed material, or used in offerings or representations in connection with the sale of securities or participation interest to the public, without the expressed permission of MXD Development Strategists, Ltd.

Preface
3 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Table of
Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS & POLICY ANALYSIS 7

3.0 RETAIL MARKET OVERVIEW 23

4.0 RETAIL ANCHOR TENANT OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT 40

5.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE POTENTIAL USES 51
4 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Executive Summary
1 5 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Executive Summary
Executive Summary
A Market Analysis was performed to assess the feasibility of WB-41 as a potential “Community Commercial” retail site, as it is currently zoned.

WB-41 is located at the southwest corner of Pleasant Grove Blvd and Santucci Blvd, in proximity to new and planned residential development. Approved future growth includes the Regional University Specific Plan. However, the Regional University is unlikely to begin development over the next decade and could take upwards of twenty years according to City Planners and local Developer insight. These lands will be used for agriculture over the foreseeable future.

The long-term nature of these future markets undermines the viability of WB-41 as a retail node, reducing it to a peripheral location with only a 180-degree trade area which is generally avoided by retailers. Viability would only marginally increase as the Regional University Specific Plan area is built out.

Roseville is an attractive location for retailers. The affluent, family-oriented demographic profile combined with rapid population and employment growth provides a compelling case for retail development in the city.

Roseville’s current overall retail inventory is performing well, with low vacancy and healthy rental rates. However, there are notable headwinds specifically for “Community Commercial” type shopping center formats, with vacancy rates over 9% and flat rental growth.

The 10-acre WB-41 site would typically accommodate over 100,000 SF of retail uses. Retail development of this scale requires a Supermarket anchor store in order to successfully lease space to inline tenants willing to pay high rents to feed off of traffic generated by the grocery anchor store.

Since a Supermarket would typically anchor such a 100,000 SF Community Commercial center, retail feasibility was regarded through the lens of a typical due diligence site selection exercise used by Supermarket chains.

A Retail Gravity Model, commonly used by Grocery Stores to test new potential sites, was created to forecast sales at WB-41 for a potential 40,000 SF Grocery Store anchor. This forecast indicated that WB-41 would not likely ever exceed the minimum threshold sales volume that a Grocery Store requires.

Even as new residential development is completed to the east of WB-41, the critical mass of new emerging competition in the area would act to truncate WB-41’s potential trade area.

Additional analysis of the WB-41 site characteristics revealed other challenges for any form of retail development on WB-41. These potential concepts include a potential pharmacy-anchored or food & beverage-anchored project. Most notably the WB-41 site:
• fronts onto low traffic volumes (both current and projected); • is relatively inaccessible compared to competing sites; and • lacks complementary development in the vicinity such as employment or a major destination.

The potential development of WB-41 Community Retail is challenged by the rapid rise of online commerce which is now significantly impacting bricks and mortar store sales. Overall the full build-out of Sierra Vista, West Roseville and Creekview residential will likely support only three to four more Grocery Store anchors, and these stores have a wide selection of more strategic locations to consider.

The Market Analysis and Retail Gravity Model also indicated that there are a variety of competing sites that have much stronger site strengths to capture retail spending including:
• Baseline Road
• Fiddyment Rd & Pleasant Grove Blvd
• WB-42 at Pleasant Grove Blvd & Westbrook Blvd.
6 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Executive Summary
Executive Summary contd.

Although outside of the current City of Roseville boundary, the Regional University Specific Plan has a large retail site directly adjacent to WB-41 that is more strategic for retail development as it will be built in conjunction with future housing and educational facilities in that plan area. It will also only be constructed once Santucci Blvd and Pleasant Grove Blvd are extended.

Alternative uses at the site were evaluated from a site and market perspective.

Office and Hotel uses did not appear suitable for WB-41 based on site factors.

Residential appears to be the highest and best use of the site, supported by both site and market factors.
7 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Existing Conditions & Policy Analysis
2 8 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Existing Conditions & Policy Analysis
Demographics and Population Projections
The City of Roseville has a current population of 146,875 residents.

The city has experienced significant population growth over the past decade, with an approximate 22% increase between 2010 and 2020.

According to the Roseville General Plan (adopted August 2020), it is anticipated that the city will reach a population of 198,000 residents by 2035. This would be an additional 50,000 new residents over the next fifteen years and would fall in line with historic growth rates.

The number of dwelling units is expected to reach 75,000 by 2035, an increase of 20,000, with an average of 2.63 residents per dwelling unit.

The number of future dwellings is based off 2.1 persons per multifamily unit and 2.9 persons per single-family units. Roseville has a median age of 37.5 which is slightly older than that of the Sacramento region.

Median household income in Roseville is $91,306, significantly higher than the Sacramento region ($76,706). Higher household incomes generally produce higher retail spending profiles.

The top economic sectors for employment in the city are public administration, health care, construction, education services, finance & insurance, computer/electronic products, and professional, scientific & technical services. The top three employers in the city are all within the health sector, being Sutter Health, Kaiser Permanente, and Adventist Health. Major employment areas are focused along the I-80 and Highway 65.
198,000
146,875
118,233
2035
Population
Forecast
2020
Population
2010
Population
Figure 2.1: Roseville Population Projections
9 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Existing Conditions & Policy Analysis
Site Context
The site under study is considered site WB-41 by the City of Roseville. It is located along the western boundary of Roseville, at the southeast corner of Pleasant Grove Blvd and Santucci Blvd. The site is a 10.1-acre parcel that is currently zoned “Community Commercial”.

Surrounding uses include the following:
• South – Single-family residential
• East – Heritage Solaire, a gated active adult (55+) community built by Lennar.
• North – Future multi-family residential
• West – Agricultural lands (Placer County)
The site is located within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is the guiding planning document for the site and will be further discussed in this section. Sierra Vista is a major growth area for the City of Roseville and has experienced significant construction in recent years.

Areas to the west of the site in Placer County have been planned for long-term development under the approved Regional University Specific Plan and the future Curry Creek plan area (under the County’s General Plan). The general pattern of land development in this area is considered suburban greenfield. It is characterized by new residential developments in low to medium density configurations with typical suburban street patterns of collector and arterial streets. Residential is supported by small commercial nodes, parks, schools, etc.

Figure 2.2: Site Location in Roseville
10 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Existing Conditions & Policy Analysis
Current Zoning
Site WB-41 is currently zoned “Community Commercial” by the City of Roseville. There are several community commercial designations in the city zoning by-law, however WB-41 is considered “commercial” rather than “commercial mixed use” or “commercial/business professional”.

This designation allows for the following as per the Sierra Vista Specific Plan:

Community Commercial (CC)
Typical FAR – up to 0.4
The Community Commercial (CC) land use designation provides for a broad range of retail goods and services, which can accommodate developments including conventional neighborhood shopping centers (typically anchored by a grocer) and larger-scale commercial centers (sometimes referred to as ‘Power Centers’).

For Sierra Vista, CC sites are generally sited along the Baseline Road corridor or at major intersections where sites have superior visibility and access to vehicular traffic. At full buildout, these parcels will collectively support approximately 3.1 million sq. ft. (assuming a typical FAR outlined above) of commercial development with a mixture of retail, office, restaurant, entertainment, and/or hotel uses.

Figure 2.3: Site Zoning
Site WB-41
Source: City of Roseville
11 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Existing Conditions & Policy Analysis
Transportation and Connectivity
Site WB-41 is located at the current termination point of Pleasant Grove Blvd. Pleasant Grove Blvd is expected to be extended into Placer County; however, the timing is considered long-term. Santucci Blvd does not extend north of the site, and only extends several blocks to the south, currently terminating at Solaire Drive. Santucci Blvd is to be constructed as six lanes from Baseline Road to Blue Oaks Blvd according to the Roadway Network Assumptions of the 2035 travel demand model within Placer County’s transportation documents. At completion, Santucci Blvd will connect with the future Placer Parkway, however there is no set alignment, funding, or timeline and could be more than 20 years out.

Limited transportation connectivity in both east/west and north/south directions at site WB-41 is a major challenge for community commercial development. Retail developments require significant vehicular traffic from residential and employment areas for viability.

Based on current plans, this current roadway network surrounding the site is expected to remain over the next decade.

Transportation experts Fehr & Peers conducted a transportation analysis of future traffic counts using assumptions of future development patterns and potential timing of new transportation projects. Figure 2.4 displays projected traffic counts at the WB-41 site in 2035. In this model, Santucci Blvd only extends several blocks north of Pleasant Grove Blvd. East/west traffic along Pleasant Grove Blvd is projected at 6,095 vehicles per day. North/south traffic along Santucci Blvd is projected at 5,334 vehicles per day. Traffic counts are still considered the primary site selection factor for end-user retail tenants when selecting a leased retail space. 10,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day is the typical minimum for retail site selection for community-scaled retail.

An unadjusted traffic model for 2035 was also run by Fehr & Peers.

This model considers that Santucci Blvd connects to Placer Parkway and Baseline Road. Traffic counts increase significantly in this model – 14,097 vehicles per day along Pleasant Grove Blvd and 28,158 vehicles per day along Santucci Blvd. This scenario is unlikely to occur by 2035 due to realistic development patterns and funding for transportation infrastructure improvements.
12 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Existing Conditions & Policy Analysis
Figure 2.4: Adjusted 2035 Traffic Model for City of Roseville Source: Fehr & Peers
13 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Existing Conditions & Policy Analysis
Figure 2.5: Unadjusted 2035 Traffic Model for City of Roseville Source: Fehr & Peers
14 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Existing Conditions & Policy Analysis
Figure 2.6: City of Roseville Specific Plan Areas
Source: City of Roseville
Site WB-41
Specific Plans
There are three City specific plans
that have direct influence on Site
WB-41 and will be discussed on the
following pages. They are:
- Sierra Vista Specific Plan
- West Roseville Specific Plan
- Creekview Specific Plan
There is also two planning areas
west of Site WB-41 in Placer County:
- Curry Creek Planning Area
- Regional University Specific Plan
15 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Existing Conditions & Policy Analysis
Sierra Vista Specific Plan
Site WB-41 is located in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP). The SVSP is bounded by Baseline Road to the south, Fiddyment Road to the east, the West Roseville Specific Plan area to the north, and the Curry Creek Planning area to the west. The Specific Plan was adopted in 2010. At build-out it is planned to have 8,658 residential units and approximately 232 acres of commercial. This translates to accommodate over 22,000 residents and approximately 4.1 million square feet of retail and office uses that provide over 9,000 jobs.

Commercial is primarily located along Baseline Road in what is planned as the Baseline Road Commercial and Employment Corridor.

This will be the primary corridor for big box and destination retail shopping for residents living on the west side of Roseville. Site WB-41 is in the Western Edge corridor as designated by the SVSP. There are several other community commercial designated land parcels in the SVSP that are spread amongst residential neighborhoods, including three Community Commercial sites along the approximate 2.5 mile run of Pleasant Grove Blvd from Fiddyment Rd and Santucci Blvd..

The SVSP is currently the primary area of Roseville for new residential construction with significant development occurring along Pleasant Grove Blvd, Westbrook Blvd, Vista Grande Blvd and Baseline Road.

Once Westbrook Blvd is completed and connects to Baseline Road, it will become a major north/south thoroughfare for vehicle traffic in the SVSP and reduce traffic pressure on Fiddyment Road.

Figure 2.7: Sierra Vista Specific Plan (2021)
Site WB-41
Source: City of Roseville
232 Acres
Planned Commercial & Employment
16 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Existing Conditions & Policy Analysis
West Roseville Specific Plan
The West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) is located directly north and northeast of site WB-41. The plan was adopted in 2004. All lands located north of Pleasant Grove Blvd between Santucci Blvd and Fiddyment Road, as well as a portion south of Pleasant Grove Blvd are located in the WRSP.

The WRSP is planned for a mix of low, medium, and high-density residential uses, along with commercial, office and light industrial employment uses. The plan area build-out is anticipate to have 10,596 dwelling units accommodating 26,222 residents. 55.48 acres are planned for Community Commercial. This is significantly less than the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, however, is expected to meet the community's day to day shopping needs.

The WRSP is further along in build-out than the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, with many residential neighborhoods at or near completion.

Figure 2.8: West Roseville Specific Plan (2021)

55.5 Acres Source: City of Roseville
Planned Commercial & Employment
17 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Existing Conditions & Policy Analysis
Creekview Specific Plan
The Creekview Specific Plan (CSP) is a smaller Specific Plan that is located directly north of the West Roseville Specific Plan. The CSP is centered along Westbrook Blvd and will be a mix of low, medium, and high-density residential uses, along with commercial and office uses.

The plan area has an expected buildout of 2,011 dwelling units that will accommodate 5,108 residents.

There is plans for 9.22 total acres of Community Commercial that may have up to 100,000 square feet of retail and office uses.

Construction has begun along Blue Oaks Blvd with the Winding Creek residential development, built by Anthem United.

Figure 2.9: Creekview Specific Plan (2021)

9.2 Acres Source: City of Roseville
Planned Commercial & Employment
18 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Existing Conditions & Policy Analysis
Regional University Specific Plan (Placer County)
The Regional University Specific Plan was adopted in 2008 and last amended in 2019. This specific plan is part of the Curry Creek Special Planning Area in Placer County. It is a 1,159-acre plan anchored by a university campus and mixed-use community. The specific plan area is directly west of Site WB-41 and the eastern edge of the specific plan fronts along Santucci Blvd.

The university is planned to accommodate up to 6,000 students and 800 staff, as well as an adjacent private high school of up to 1,200 students. The mixed-use community is expected to contain a diverse range of uses including residential, commercial, employment, open space, and recreational. The university is expected to take up 600 acres of land, leaving 562 acres for community development.

24.5 acres are planned for commercial and commercial mixed-use development. This translates to upwards of 250,000 square feet of potential retail uses. The primary commercial node is at the southeast corner of the planning area, at University Blvd and Santucci Blvd. This would make the site “kitty corner” to site WB-41.

There are currently no plans for development in this specific plan area and a university has yet to be secured as the anchor tenant.

Figure 2.10: Regional University Specific Plan

24.5 Acres
Planned Commercial & Employment
Source: Placer County
19 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Existing Conditions & Policy Analysis
Curry Creek Community Plan (Placer County)
The Curry Creek Community Plan is approximately 4,189 acres in size, located in unincorporated Placer County. It is directly west of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan as displayed in Figure 2.11. The plan is also adjacent to Site WB-41.

The Placer County General Plan has designated the Curry Creek area as agricultural and there is no specific plan for Curry Creek at this time.

Recnetly, orchards of nut trees have recently been planted in areas close to Santucci Blvd. Based on this information and lack of specific plan in place, development in Curry Creek is likely decades away.

Figure 2.11: Curry Creek Community Plan Location
N/A
Planned Commercial & Employment
Source: City of Roseville
20 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Ref # Parcel Name Location Size in Acres Designation Development Status Potential Commercial Square Footage 1 WB-41 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 10.11 Commercial Vacant 88,078 2 WB-42 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 14.55 Commercial Vacant 126,760 3 JM-41 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 13.5 Commercial/Business Professional Vacant 117,612 4 FD-40 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 7.55 Commercial Vacant 65,776 5 FD-41 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 5.71 Commercial Mixed Use Vacant 24,873 6 DF-40 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 12.64 Commercial Vacant 110,120 7 DF-41 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 29.14 Commercial Vacant 253,868 8 DF-42 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 39.90 Commercial Vacant 347,609 9 KT-42 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 8.45 Commercial Proposed 73,616 10 KT-43 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 11.91 Commercial/Business Professional Vacant 103,760 11 KT-40-A Sierra Vista Specific Plan 5.39 Commercial Mixed Use Vacant 23,479 12 KT-40-B Sierra Vista Specific Plan 18.10 Commercial Mixed Use Vacant 78,844 13 KT-41-A Sierra Vista Specific Plan 29.52 Commercial Vacant 257,178 14 KT-41-B Sierra Vista Specific Plan 29.52 Commercial Vacant 257,178 15 W-32 West Roseville Specific Plan 3.29 VC-Commercial Built (non-retail) - 16 W-33 West Roseville Specific Plan 3.09 VC-Commercial Built 26,920 17 W-30 West Roseville Specific Plan 2.99 Commercial Vacant 26,049 18 F-30 West Roseville Specific Plan 8.46 Commercial Partially Built 73,704 19 F-31 West Roseville Specific Plan 13.35 Commercial Under Construction 116,305 20 F-32 West Roseville Specific Plan 4.67 Commercial Vacant 40,685 21 F-33 West Roseville Specific Plan 4.68 Commercial Vacant 40,772 22 F-34 West Roseville Specific Plan 5.29 Commercial Vacant 46,086 23 F-6D West Roseville Specific Plan 5.05 Commercial Vacant 43,996 24 F-81 West Roseville Specific Plan 1.97 Commercial Vacant 17,163 25 C-70 Creekview Specific Plan 9.22 Commercial Vacant 80,325 26 21 Del Webb Specific Plan 12.72 Commercial Vacant 110,817 Existing Conditions & Policy Analysis
Planned Community Commercial
There is a significant amount of planned Community Commercial in the three specific plan areas that are relevant to site WB-41 (not including Placer County). The commercial site in the Del Webb Specific Plan is included due to it being an undeveloped site owned by Safeway adjacent to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan area. Development Status is based on a desktop review of current development permits with the City of Roseville, and CoStar data. Potential commercial square footage is calculated using a standard retail 0.2 floor area ratio. This is consistent with recent retail developments in the area. Zoning allows up to 0.4 FAR. There would be 2.5 million square feet of retail if all sites were built-out (at 0.2 FAR), with significantly more development, if constructed at a higher density. With a projected 53,000 residents at build-out, this would be 47 SF per capita, significantly more than the 20 SF per capita that has become the new industry standard in a shifting retail landscape according to industry experts such as ULI and ICSC. With the shifts to online sales and reductions in retail tenant sizes MXD estimates a maximum required new retail floorspace of 1.32 million SF.

Table 2.1: Zoned Community Commercial

2.5 Million
(47 SF per
capita)
Approximate
retail square
footage at full
build-out
(at 0.2 FAR)

5.2 Million
(98 SF per
capita)
Approximate
retail square
footage at full
build-out
(at 0.4 FAR)
Source: City of Roseville
21 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Existing Conditions & Policy Analysis
Figure 2.12: Planned Community Commercial
Source: City of Roseville
22 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES SWOT Analysis
• Located in fast growing Sierra Vista Specific Plan area. • Limited retail offerings in proximity.
• Strong demographics and retail spending profile in local trade area.
• Flat rectangular site is ideal for development.
• Easy vehicle and pedestrian access to the site off of Pleasant Grove Blvd, Daylight Dr, and Santucci Blvd.

Strengths
• Located on very edge of Roseville boundary.
• No urban development to the west expected in near to
medium term.
• 180 degree site.
• Santucci Blvd may not be fully built for 15+ years.
• Very low traffic counts.
• Significant amount of optimally located Community
Commercial sites that are currently vacant and ripe for development.
• Site is located between two trade areas, not conducive for community-scale retail.

Weaknesses
• Potential opportunities for a limited amount of personal services such as daycare, health care, medical, etc. that are less reliant on traffic counts.

Opportunities
• New neighborhood retail centers are built in Sierra Vista and West Roseville Specific Plan areas that have better locations than site WB-41.
• Baseline Marketplace and Placer Vineyards developments create destination retail appeal for shoppers.
• Demand for new retail stays relatively flat due to changing consumer patterns and rise of e-commerce.
• Completion of Santucci Blvd and Regional University Specific Plan take longer than expected.

Threats
23 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Retail Market Overview
3 24 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES E-commerce has accelerated the supply chain of online storefronts, as demonstrated by the convenience of Amazon’s one-day Prime delivery service. In response, an increasing number of stores are adopting innovative strategies to remain competitive such as omnichannel shopping in which then integration of online, telephone, and in-person channels backed by a complete logistics channel is used to create a streamlined consumer experience. E-commerce enables businesses to skip many facets of the traditional supply chain model by integrating them all into online software, reducing costs and time (Figure 3.2).

Macro Market Study – Growth of E-commerce
Introduction
E-commerce continues to evolve since its emergence nearly 30 years ago, completely transforming the retail sector and reduced marketshare for many brick-and-mortar retailers. Impacts of e-commerce have been significant, with many retailers scaling back the number of physical locations and/or decreasing their typical store size.

However, recent studies show that many people still prefer to shop inperson for a hands-on, social experience. For today’s retailers to be successful, they must adopt new methods that adapt to the growing ecommerce sector while also creating a unique and attractive in-person shopping experience.

CV-19 and Increased Growth
E-commerce’s share of U.S. retail trade revenue grew steadily from 5% in 2010 to 14% in 2019. The CV-19 pandemic accelerated this trend with e-commerce market share growing to 17% of total retail trade revenue, essentially fast-tracking e-commerce growth by five years as shown in Figure 3.1.

This market share has since receded to 15.5% as restrictions eased up in 2021, but it is generally accepted in the industry that the profound transformation will only continue to impact brick-and-mortar retailing.

A recent study by CBRE projects that e-commerce will comprise 35% of retail revenues by 2030 and 40% by 2040. As a consequence, brickand-mortar retailing is likely to decline in aggregate sales volume on inflation-adjusted terms.

Figure 3.1: E-commerce share of US retail revenues by Quarter (2010-2021) Source: Statistica
25 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Macro Market Study – Growth of Ecommerce
E-commerce and Commercial Real Estate & Development
The acceleration of e-commerce has eroded brick-and-mortar retail sales in exchange for growing industrial sector demand. 2020 became an strong year for industrial absorption, especially for newer logistics product, while retail suffered sweeping vacancies across the country.

As physical retailers begin to adopt e-commerce, the space and locational needs of these retailers will shift as well. Larger anchor tenants are converting to smaller stores and reducing the number of stores in operation while increasing their focus on online fulfillment.

Smaller independent retailers selling discretionary goods (nonessential items) are particularly challenged by the growing allure of online marketplaces. Leasing activity for such specialty retailers is significantly lower than it was a decade ago.

The transition to online retail has been documented extensively prior to the pandemic by the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC). Service establishments comprise 53% of all retailers in the U.S. and is growing faster as shopping becomes less of a social activity.

Services like food and beverage, laundry, entertainment, repair and maintenance, are growing in market share as these types of businesses are more resilient to e-commerce penetration. Restaurant sales volume has expanded rapidly driven by shifts in demographics and consumer preferences. Similarly, the number of gyms and fitness centers has increased by 39% over the past 10 years.

Looking to the future, experts view that a balance between in-store locations online fulfillment to create a true omnichannel experience for the consumer will provide most tenants with success. There will continue to be a role for brick-and-mortar stores moving forward, but the role of these physical storefronts will change. Retailers will continue to keep a presence in the bricks and mortar world to give their customers the ability to feel products, to support brand creation and representation, to include human engagement in the shopping experience, and to allow for efficient return and delivery service.

It remains profitable to retain a physical store network. For example, primarily online retail brands such as Bonobo report higher online sales in markets where they have a physical presence. But this function requires fewer stores and less space than previously required, particularly from a back-of-house inventory perspective. Ultimately, in the future tenants will be more cautious on physical store expansion plans moving forward, and will gravitate to smaller footprints and fewer but strategically-located geographic locations.

Figure 3.2: Traditional Vs. Ecommerce Supply Chain Logistics Source: Supply Chain 247
Traditional
Model
E-commerce
Model
• Shorter
• Cheaper
• Scalable
26 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Macro Market Study – E-commerce & Grocery
E-Commerce and Grocery
Significant growth in e-commerce is also posing implications for grocery stores and food delivery systems, primarily for the sake of convenience to the shopper. More grocers are offering onlineshopping and fulfillment options to customers, which allow for groceries to be picked, paid and prepared for pick-up or delivery. This process is currently inefficient and costly for grocers as it requires stocking and packaging to be completed twice for a purchase. To become more efficient, micro-fulfillment centers (MFCs) are in the concept stages to automate the packing and sorting process.

Historically, grocery stores have been resilient to e-commerce adoption due to many unique barriers such as multi-temperature products, oddly-sized and shaped products, thin margins, and the vast number of Stock Keeping Units (SKUs). This has kept e-commerce penetration to approximately 3-4%. The pandemic has accelerated the growth of e-commerce in grocery to 10% of food purchases and is expected to rise to 15% by 2024, essentially the current overall share of e-commerce in the entire retail sector.

There are also new e-commerce companies that are revolutionizing the grocery and food delivery service themselves such as Uber Eats, Instacart, and Shipt. Uber Eats recently expanded their delivery services to offer direct grocery and convenience store items to their customers by acting as a third-party service to grocers and stores. In addition several new enterprises offer solutions for grocers to begin their own delivery service. In addition, companies like HelloFresh and Chefs Plate offer semi-custom meal-kit delivery services that aim to save customers even more time in cooking at a premium.

Although the trends point toward further grocery adoption of ecommerce, the experience of in-store grocery shopping cannot be fully replaced by current technology. This is a major factor of the recent success found in boutique and quality-driven grocers such as Whole Foods Markets and Trader Joes. The recent acquisition of Whole Foods by Amazon points to a significant emerging force in the sector.

Increasing e-commerce penetration will inevitably alter the way grocers plan and choose sites for new locations. As the grocery fulfillment process becomes more automated and efficient, grocery stores may require new hybrid store formats. These locations can act as omnichannel locations where customers shop both online and inperson, and also where groceries are distributed from. The real estate needs of grocers will transform accordingly.

Figure 3.3: US Grocery Delivery Market Share by Company (2018-2020) Source: Second Measure
27 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Leasing
Leasing activity recorded below 2 million SF for the first time since 2008 due to the pandemic, although slowing demand is a trend the market has demonstrated since 2017. Large deals include the 51,000 SF move-in from Rancho San Miguel Markets, and an 86,400 SF lease from Target. Discount retailers have been the trend for move-ins, with the likes of Falling Prices, That’s Cheap, and Dollar Tree all leasing properties across the metro.

Retail Market Summary – Metro Sacramento
Metro Market Overview
Metro Sacramento’s retail market responded well to the CV-19 pandemic with purchasing power remaining strong and sales volumes increasing since December 2020. Major deliveries to the market in 2021 have slightly inflated vacancy rates although absorption remains healthy. There is an overall positive outlook for the market as consumer patterns return across the region.

Vacancy and Absorption
Metro Sacramento’s average vacancy rate is currently 6.4%, only 0.3% higher than the market’s 3-year average of 6.1%. This is partly due to California’s stimulus programs that assisted businesses during the pandemic. Historically, vacancy rates have dropped from over 10% in 2011, displaying increases in demand for retail space up until 2018.

Malls, Strip Centers, and Neighborhood Centers have had the highest vacancy rates over the years, with Malls still increasing in vacancy.

General Retail and Power Center retail have the highest demand.

Annual net absorption has been positive over the past decade, particularly in 2017 when over two million SF of retail was absorbed into the market. Absorption has decreased annually since the 2017 high, with 2019 only garnering 400,000 SF of absorption. While 2020 featured negative absorption, 2021 has shown an improvement over the first six months. 116,000 SF has been absorbed over the last 12 months, led by South Sacramento and the Roseville submarkets.

Figure 3.4: Sacramento Net Absorption, Deliveries & Vacancy (2011-2021 YTD)

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%
-500,000
0 500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
YTD
Net Absorption Net Deliveries Vacancy United States Vacancy Source: CoStar
28 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Retail Market Summary – Metro Sacramento
Rent
Rental rates in Metro Sacramento are in line with the U.S. average. The average asking rent is currently $21.46 PSF, approximately 15% higher than Stockton and 30% lower than East Bay. Malls command the highest rents among other retail classes at $28.50 PSF, even considering growing vacancies. Strip Center and General Retail have the lowest asking rents at roughly $19.50 PSF.

All retail classes have experienced declines in rent growth since 2018, although Strip Centers and General Retail are expected to experience positive growth through 2021. The highest asking rents can be found in the Davis and Folsom submarkets, which are approximately 25% higher than the metro average. Rent growth over the past 12 months is at 0.7%, a number forecasted to increase as restrictions are lifted.

Construction / Deliveries
Metro Sacramento’s retail development pipeline is currently at one of its lowest levels historically, following a trend of short supply since 2010. Deliveries were the highest in 2017 to 2018, adding approximately 1.8 million SF to the market.

A notable project is the Campus Oaks Town Center located at Blue Oaks and Woodcreek Oaks in Roseville, a 118,000 SF neighborhood center that is receiving strong tenant interest. Tenants include Nuggets Markets, Panda Express, Supercuts and 24-Hour Fitness. Sienna Ridge, another large neighbourhood center project located in El Dorado Hills, added 71,000 SF in 2020.

Figure 3.5: Sacramento Retail Lease Rates by Asset Type (2011-2020 YTD) Roseville/Rocklin is currently the submarket that has the largest under construction inventory. The submarket has approximately 69,000 SF of space in the pipeline and 60% of it is pre-leased. Overall, the metro market has 229,000 SF under construction spread across 34 buildings, 62% of which is pre-leased.

Sales
Sales activity has increased since 2020 due to vaccine rollout and the opening of California. Sales volume is expected to reach $559 million, which is shy of the 2015-19 average annual volume of $799 million.

Cap rates have stabilized in the mid 6% area since 2015.

Source: CoStar
$15.00
$17.50
$20.00
$22.50
$25.00
$27.50
$30.00
2021
YTD
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Mall Power Center Neighborhood Center
Strip Center General Retail Other Retail
29 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Retail Assessment – Metro & Submarket Conditions
Metro Retail Market Typology Conditions
Metro Sacramento is a relatively healthy retail market, with vacancy at 6.4% and rental rates moderately higher than the national average. Over the past decade the metro has absorbed an average of 912,000 SF of retail space per year. This amount represents 0.83% growth in inventory per year.

Conversely, population growth has averaged 1.13%/year over the past decade. As a result, vacancy rates have dropped from 10.8% in 2010 to 6.4% today despite the impact of the pandemic.

Vacancy rates vary considerably by shopping center type throughout the metro. Most notably, Neighborhood Centers and Strip Centers (the two formats most suited to the WB-41 site) have vacancy rates at 8% or higher. Typically, retail vacancy rates should decline to below 7% to attract significant speculative retail development.

Overall, the Metro Sacramento appears poised to support new retail development over the next decade as population growth continues. However, retail is forecast to continue to grow at a moderate pace and below that of overall population increase.

Retail
Market Analysis Assumptions
Year 1 of Projection 2021
Balanced Vacancy Rate (1) 7.0%
Metro Average Annual Absorption %(2) 1.03%
Floor-Area Ratio (FAR) 0.30
Asking Rent for New Retail in Submarket $28.00
Project Annual Rental Rate Increase 2.50%
(1) Vacancy rate at which supply is sufficiently constrained to cause market rent increases. (2) Source: CoStar
Roseville-Rocklin Submarket
Inventory
SF
Vacancy
SF
Vacancy
%
Occupied
SF
% of Metro
Occupied
Inventory
Average Net
Absorption
(SF/Yr)
Average
Annual Rent
Change
YTD
Inventory
Growth SF
Asking
Base
Rents
Cap
Rate
Inventory
SF
Vacancy
SF
Vacancy
%
Occupied
SF
% of Metro
Occupied
Inventory
Asking
Rents
Cap
Rate
Malls 1,712,319 57,766 3.4% 1,654,553 27.3% (646) 1.64% 0 $34.22 6.1% 1,702,619 40,964 2.4% 1,661,655 29.4% $29.07 7.1% Power Center 3,552,373 130,293 3.7% 3,422,080 32.9% 58,110 0.59% 6,000 $26.37 6.4% 3,216,259 433,391 13.5% 2,782,868 33.3% $24.87 7.4% Neighborhood Center 5,064,820 459,834 9.1% 4,604,986 12.7% 52,379 0.34% 47,500 $23.56 6.2% 4,963,218 934,404 18.8% 4,028,814 12.4% $22.77 7.4% Strip Center 1,096,861 105,085 9.6% 991,776 11.4% 19,228 0.32% 0 $20.98 6.2% 1,059,964 279,696 26.4% 780,268 9.9% $20.32 7.6% General Retail 3,812,847 60,856 1.6% 3,751,991 9.5% 54,827 0.51% 46,400 $21.74 6.4% 3,384,570 235,681 7.0% 3,148,889 8.6% $20.66 7.7% Other Retail 137,337 15,141 11.0% 122,196 11,109 5,100 $22.24 5.8% - - Local Submarkets 15,376,557 828,975 5.4% 14,547,582 14.2% 195,008 0.58% 105,000 $24.78 6.3% 14,326,630 1,924,136 13.4% 12,402,494 13.4% $23.40 7.4% Metro Sacramento
Inventory
SF
Vacancy
SF
Vacancy
%
Occupied
SF
% of Metro
Occupied
Inventory
Average Net
Absorption
(SF/Yr)
Average
Annual Rent
Change
YTD
Inventory
Growth SF
Asking
Base
Rents
Cap
Rate
Inventory
SF
Vacancy
SF
Vacancy
%
Occupied
SF
% of Metro
Occupied
Inventory
Asking
Rents
Cap
Rate
Malls 6,960,404 894,375 12.8% 6,066,029 100.0% 36,831 2.29% 3,300 $28.34 6.3% 6,064,736 403,846 6.7% 5,660,890 100.0% $22.60 7.4% Power Center 11,186,740 794,750 7.1% 10,391,990 100.0% 185,791 1.23% 166,583 $25.55 6.6% 9,406,076 1,057,784 11.2% 8,348,292 100.0% $22.60 7.6% Neighborhood Center 39,493,459 3,177,218 8.0% 36,316,241 100.0% 344,278 1.11% 49,700 $21.67 6.6% 37,729,325 5,200,146 13.8% 32,529,179 100.0% $19.41 7.7% Strip Center 9,446,097 771,515 8.2% 8,674,582 100.0% 73,624 1.23% 35,727 $18.92 6.4% 9,275,430 1,410,711 15.2% 7,864,719 100.0% $16.74 7.7% General Retail 40,891,283 1,203,294 2.9% 39,687,989 100.0% 263,174 1.38% 182,349 $19.39 6.4% 39,832,611 3,039,535 7.6% 36,793,076 100.0% $16.90 7.7% Other Retail 1,532,900 177,372 11.6% 1,355,528 100.0% 7,814 2.20% 5,100 $25.91 6.3% 1,383,491 113,919 8.2% 1,269,572 100.0% $20.85 7.3% Metro Total 109,510,883 7,018,524 6.4% 102,492,359 100.0% 911,512 1.36% 442,759 $21.40 6.5% 103,691,669 11,225,941 10.8% 92,465,728 100.0% $18.69 7.7% Current Market Conditions Historic Market Conditions (2010) Retail
Market Analysis Assumptions
Year 1 of Projection 2021
Balanced Vacancy Rate (1) 7.0%
Metro Average Annual Absorption %(2) 1.03%
Floor-Area Ratio (FAR) 0.30
Asking Rent for New Retail in Submarket $28.00
Project Annual Rental Rate Increase 2.50%
(1) Vacancy rate at which supply is sufficiently constrained to cause market rent increases. (2) Source: CoStar
Roseville-Rocklin Submarket
Inventory
SF
Vacancy
SF
Vacancy
%
Occupied
SF
% of Metro
Occupied
Inventory
Average Net
Absorption
(SF/Yr)
Average
Annual Rent
Change
YTD
Inventory
Growth SF
Asking
Base
Rents
Cap
Rate
Inventory
SF
Vacancy
SF
Vacancy
%
Occupied
SF
% of Metro
Occupied
Inventory
Asking
Rents
Cap
Rate
Malls 1,712,319 57,766 3.4% 1,654,553 27.3% (646) 1.64% 0 $34.22 6.1% 1,702,619 40,964 2.4% 1,661,655 29.4% $29.07 7.1% Power Center 3,552,373 130,293 3.7% 3,422,080 32.9% 58,110 0.59% 6,000 $26.37 6.4% 3,216,259 433,391 13.5% 2,782,868 33.3% $24.87 7.4% Neighborhood Center 5,064,820 459,834 9.1% 4,604,986 12.7% 52,379 0.34% 47,500 $23.56 6.2% 4,963,218 934,404 18.8% 4,028,814 12.4% $22.77 7.4% Strip Center 1,096,861 105,085 9.6% 991,776 11.4% 19,228 0.32% 0 $20.98 6.2% 1,059,964 279,696 26.4% 780,268 9.9% $20.32 7.6% General Retail 3,812,847 60,856 1.6% 3,751,991 9.5% 54,827 0.51% 46,400 $21.74 6.4% 3,384,570 235,681 7.0% 3,148,889 8.6% $20.66 7.7% Other Retail 137,337 15,141 11.0% 122,196 11,109 5,100 $22.24 5.8% - - Local Submarkets 15,376,557 828,975 5.4% 14,547,582 14.2% 195,008 0.58% 105,000 $24.78 6.3% 14,326,630 1,924,136 13.4% 12,402,494 13.4% $23.40 7.4% Metro Sacramento
Inventory
SF
Vacancy
SF
Vacancy
%
Occupied
SF
% of Metro
Occupied
Inventory
Average Net
Absorption
(SF/Yr)
Average
Annual Rent
Change
YTD
Inventory
Growth SF
Asking
Base
Rents
Cap
Rate
Inventory
SF
Vacancy
SF
Vacancy
%
Occupied
SF
% of Metro
Occupied
Inventory
Asking
Rents
Cap
Rate
Malls 6,960,404 894,375 12.8% 6,066,029 100.0% 36,831 2.29% 3,300 $28.34 6.3% 6,064,736 403,846 6.7% 5,660,890 100.0% $22.60 7.4% Power Center 11,186,740 794,750 7.1% 10,391,990 100.0% 185,791 1.23% 166,583 $25.55 6.6% 9,406,076 1,057,784 11.2% 8,348,292 100.0% $22.60 7.6% Neighborhood Center 39,493,459 3,177,218 8.0% 36,316,241 100.0% 344,278 1.11% 49,700 $21.67 6.6% 37,729,325 5,200,146 13.8% 32,529,179 100.0% $19.41 7.7% Strip Center 9446097 771515 82% 8674582 1000% 73624 123% 35727 $1892 64% 9275430 1410711 152% 7864719 1000% $1674 77% Current Market Conditions Historic Market Conditions (2010) Table 3.1: Metro Retail Market Conditions, Current and Historic Source: CoStar
30 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Leasing
The types of tenants in Roseville/Rocklin reflect the high wages and buying power of the community. Major big box tenants like Target, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Nordstrom Rack and upscale grocers such as Whole Foods are located in the submarket. Several notable deals have been signed over the past year, including a 16,600 SF property movein by Goldfield Trading Post, a music venue, at 238 Vernon St. Most lease signings were under 10,000 SF, which is historically typical of the Roseville/Rocklin submarket.

Retail Market Summary – Roseville/Rocklin
Roseville/Rocklin Submarket Overview
Roseville/Rocklin is a wealthy submarket of Sacramento that translates into strong buying power and a substantial retail market size. The submarket is healthier on average than the metro with lower vacancy rates, positive annual demand, and a consistent supply cycle.

Vacancy and Absorption
Total vacancy across the submarket typically falls approximately a percentile below the Sacramento average and is currently at 5.4%.

Vacancies have been steadily dropping since 2011 and have only risen recently due to the pandemic. They are expected to level out into 2021 as markets stabilize. The 5-year average vacancy rate is a healthy

5.3%.

Demand has been strong with net positive absorption across past decade aside from 2018 and 2020. 2014, 2015, and 2019 were particularly robust years for absorption, reaching above 200,000 SF annually. The submarket had a higher net absorption over the past 12 months compared to Sacramento, with a total of 133,000 SF absorbed, demonstrating Roseville/Rocklin’s attractiveness for retail in the metro.

Figure 3.6: Roseville/Rocklin Net Absorption, Deliveries & Vacancy (2011-2020 YTD) Source: CoStar

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%
-100,000
0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
YTD
Net Absorption Net Deliveries Vacancy Metro Sacramento Vacancy 31 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Retail Market Summary – Roseville/Rocklin
Rent
Rent growth has slowed since 2018, although still on par with the metro at 0.5%. Annual gains over the past three years averaged 2.9%.

The average asking rent is $24.74 PSF and is one of the highest across Sacramento submarkets. The total asset value of the submarket is $3.8 billion, or 15.8% of the metro’s total asset value.

High rents are attributed to the area’s concentration of malls and power centers, which account for roughly one third of the total product. Rents are trailing by 5% of the asking rate in 2008. General Retail and Strip Center product are among the fastest growing rents in the submarket. Malls command an average $34.00 PSF, substantially higher than Power Center asking rates of $26.50 PSF. This is likely influenced by the Westfield Galleria at Roseville and its destination appeal.

Construction / Deliveries
Several deliveries have been completed in 2021, including the 43,000 SF Campus Oaks Town Center. Nugget Markets, Panda Express, Starbucks and a community center are among the tenants of the power center. 2015, 2019, and 2020 were significant years for net deliveries in the submarket, each adding over 100,000 SF of retail space.

Construction activity has decreased since the pandemic and is forecasted to be limited in the near term. Overall, 216,000 SF has been delivered over the past 12 months and approximately 68,500 SF is under construction. Proposed developments are primarily concentrated along I-80 and the Route 65 corridor.

Figure 3.7: Roseville/Rocklin Retail Lease Rates by Asset Type (2011-2020 YTD) Sales
Sales activity has been limited since 2019 as investors are cautious due to the pandemic. Average transactional price is near $300 PSF. Cap rates are lower than the metro average at 5.8%. A notable transaction is Living Spaces’ $28.8 million purchase of a 109,000 SF building at 1851 Freedom Way.

Source: CoStar
$15.00
$17.50
$20.00
$22.50
$25.00
$27.50
$30.00
$32.50
$35.00
2021
YTD
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Mall Power Center Neighborhood Center
Strip Center General Retail Other Retail
32 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Retail Assessment – Metro & Submarket Conditions
Roseville-Rocklin Retail Submarket Typology Conditions
The Roseville-Rocklin submarket is one of the strongest in Metro Sacramento, driven by strong demographics and rapid population growth. RosevilleRocklin exhibits lower vacancy rates than the wider Metro (5.4% versus 6.4%) and higher average rental rates ($24.78 versus $21.40). The submarket contains 15.4 million SF of inventory (14% of Metro total) yet has absorbed an average of 195,000 SF/year since 2010 or over 21% of Metro absorption.

It is important to note that the low overall retail vacancy in this submarket is driven by the very low vacancy rate for Malls (3.4%), Power Centers (3.7%) and General Retail (1.6%). Roseville-Rocklin does exhibit signs of over-development of Neighborhood Centers and Strip Centers, where vacancies exceed 9% vacant, asking rents are low and have increased marginally in the range of 0.33%/year since 2010.

In summary, Roseville-Rocklin appears poised to continue its growth as a retail powerhouse in the Metro area. However, it is anticipated that the current over-supply of Neighborhood Centers and Strip Centers will result in consolidation of these formats over the next decade, with new development occurring in only the most strategic locations central to new residential subdivisions.

Retail
Market Analysis Assumptions
Year 1 of Projection 2021
Balanced Vacancy Rate (1) 7.0%
Metro Average Annual Absorption %(2) 1.03%
Floor-Area Ratio (FAR) 0.30
Asking Rent for New Retail in Submarket $28.00
Project Annual Rental Rate Increase 2.50%
(1) Vacancy rate at which supply is sufficiently constrained to cause market rent increases. (2) Source: CoStar
Roseville-Rocklin Submarket
Inventory
SF
Vacancy
SF
Vacancy
%
Occupied
SF
% of Metro
Occupied
Inventory
Average Net
Absorption
(SF/Yr)
Average
Annual Rent
Change
YTD
Inventory
Growth SF
Asking
Base
Rents
Cap
Rate
Inventory
SF
Vacancy
SF
Vacancy
%
Occupied
SF
% of Metro
Occupied
Inventory
Asking
Rents
Cap
Rate
Malls 1,712,319 57,766 3.4% 1,654,553 27.3% (646) 1.64% 0 $34.22 6.1% 1,702,619 40,964 2.4% 1,661,655 29.4% $29.07 7.1% Power Center 3,552,373 130,293 3.7% 3,422,080 32.9% 58,110 0.59% 6,000 $26.37 6.4% 3,216,259 433,391 13.5% 2,782,868 33.3% $24.87 7.4% Neighborhood Center 5,064,820 459,834 9.1% 4,604,986 12.7% 52,379 0.34% 47,500 $23.56 6.2% 4,963,218 934,404 18.8% 4,028,814 12.4% $22.77 7.4% Strip Center 1,096,861 105,085 9.6% 991,776 11.4% 19,228 0.32% 0 $20.98 6.2% 1,059,964 279,696 26.4% 780,268 9.9% $20.32 7.6% General Retail 3,812,847 60,856 1.6% 3,751,991 9.5% 54,827 0.51% 46,400 $21.74 6.4% 3,384,570 235,681 7.0% 3,148,889 8.6% $20.66 7.7% Other Retail 137,337 15,141 11.0% 122,196 11,109 5,100 $22.24 5.8% - - Local Submarkets 15,376,557 828,975 5.4% 14,547,582 14.2% 195,008 0.58% 105,000 $24.78 6.3% 14,326,630 1,924,136 13.4% 12,402,494 13.4% $23.40 7.4% Metro Sacramento
Inventory
SF
Vacancy
SF
Vacancy
%
Occupied
SF
% of Metro
Occupied
Inventory
Average Net
Absorption
(SF/Yr)
Average
Annual Rent
Change
YTD
Inventory
Growth SF
Asking
Base
Rents
Cap
Rate
Inventory
SF
Vacancy
SF
Vacancy
%
Occupied
SF
% of Metro
Occupied
Inventory
Asking
Rents
Cap
Rate
Malls 6,960,404 894,375 12.8% 6,066,029 100.0% 36,831 2.29% 3,300 $28.34 6.3% 6,064,736 403,846 6.7% 5,660,890 100.0% $22.60 7.4% Power Center 11,186,740 794,750 7.1% 10,391,990 100.0% 185,791 1.23% 166,583 $25.55 6.6% 9,406,076 1,057,784 11.2% 8,348,292 100.0% $22.60 7.6% Neighborhood Center 39,493,459 3,177,218 8.0% 36,316,241 100.0% 344,278 1.11% 49,700 $21.67 6.6% 37,729,325 5,200,146 13.8% 32,529,179 100.0% $19.41 7.7% Strip Center 9,446,097 771,515 8.2% 8,674,582 100.0% 73,624 1.23% 35,727 $18.92 6.4% 9,275,430 1,410,711 15.2% 7,864,719 100.0% $16.74 7.7% General Retail 40,891,283 1,203,294 2.9% 39,687,989 100.0% 263,174 1.38% 182,349 $19.39 6.4% 39,832,611 3,039,535 7.6% 36,793,076 100.0% $16.90 7.7% Current Market Conditions Historic Market Conditions (2010) Table 3.2: Roseville-Rocklin Retail Market Conditions, Current and Historic Source: CoStar
33 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Retail Market Summary – Roseville