Roseville City Council
January 19, 2022

11.3 Million
Total Retail
Inventory (SF)
Roseville
Roseville currently has strong retail performance than its submarket.

There is 11.3 million square feet of retail inventory, a substantial amount for a city of its population size. This translates to 77 square feet of retail per capita which is well above the U.S. average of 24.5 square feet per capita (Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy). Retail is concentrated near the I-80 including the Galleria, the Fountains at Roseville Creekside Town Center, Stanford Crossing, and Downtown Roseville.

Vacancy as of June 2021 is at 4.6% with average retail rents of $25.87.

The significant amount of new residential development that has been constructed on the west side of the city has increased retail spending and driven demand for new retail, especially for day-to-day goods such as grocery, pharmacy, and food & beverage. There has been limited new retail construction on the west side of the city to match the anticipated demand of new residents, especially in the West Roseville and Sierra Vista Specific Plan areas.

Discussions with local experts note that there has been little interest from larger California or Bay Area developers to develop retail in the Roseville market. All recent and upcoming developments are expected to be constructed by local developers.

Increased e-commerce spending over the past decade coupled with the CV-19 pandemic have also made retail developers more hesitant to build speculative retail, with current preferences to build in established trade areas that have little risk. These trends have likely played a factor into retail development on the west side of the city. 93,000
Retail Under
Construction (SF)

4.6%
Retail Vacancy
$25.87
Average Retail
Rent
34 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Retail Market Summary – 10-Minute Drive Distance
10-Minute Drive Time Retail Market Overview
Although there has been a significant amount of residential development on the west side of the city, there has been limited new retail development in recent years.

Retail product in the area is over a decade old and is comprised primarily of neighbourhood centers, standalone buildings, and a strip center. There is approximately 611,000 SF of total inventory spread across 11 sites in a 10-minute drive time from site WB-41. A map of competitive retail sites is displayed further in this section.

Vacancy and Absorption
The local market has nearly double the vacancy compared to the Roseville/Rocklin submarket at 9.9%. Vacancy dropped historically to a low of 2.3% prior to rising again in 2018 and further throughout the pandemic. The 10-year high of 11.5% vacancy occurred in 2011.

Vacancy is more volatile in this trade area due to a smaller inventory.

Most vacant spaces are below 10,000 SF in size. Vacancy rates are forecasted to decrease as retail sales grow and retailers look to expand operations out of the pandemic.

Absorption has been limited in the past decade, with only two years experiencing more than 20,000 SF of retail absorption. The past 12 months saw 16,600 SF of space absorbed into the trade area which falls in line with typical metrics.

The completion of the Plaza at Blue Oaks is expected to increase deliveries and absorption in the trade area.

Leasing
Annual leasing activity has historically maintained below the 20,000 SF mark until recently where larger deals upwards of 25,000 SF were signed. A total of 11,500 SF has been leased in the last year, which is approximately 2.5% of the area’s total inventory.

Figure 3.8: 10-Min Drive Area Net Absorption, Deliveries & Vacancy (2011-2020 YTD)

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%
-40,000
-30,000
-20,000
-10,000
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
YTD
Net Absorption Net Deliveries Vacancy
Source: CoStar
35 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Retail Market Summary – 10-Minute Drive Distance
Rent
The 10-minute drive time area commands a slightly lower rent than the Roseville/Rocklin submarket at $22.80 PSF, due to the absence of Mall and Power Center product which garner higher rents. Rents have averaged 3% annual growth since 2014.

Construction / Deliveries
The construction pipeline has been very limited over the past decade, with a very active few years from 2011 to 2013, lightly in 2015, and 50,000 SF in 2020. Net deliveries over the past decade totals 84,070 SF, which is approximately 14% of the area’s total inventory.

There is 24,700 SF of space currently under construction at the Westpark Village Center at the intersection of Pleasant Grove Blvd and Village Plaza Drive. The neighborhood center will offer 7 spaces ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 SF in size and be anchored by restaurants and coffee shops. This development will add retail options to an underserved Westpark community.

The Plaza at Blue Oaks is the most significant retail project under construction at nearly 50,000 SF. It will be anchored by a Raley’s grocery and is expected to have national inline tenants. This retail center is at an important intersection and will draw from a significant established population base.

Figure 3.9: 10-Minute Drive Area Rent Rate vs. Annual Rent Change (2011-2020 YTD) Sales
Given the relatively small number of properties in the area, sales activity over the past decade reached a high of $15 million in 2020.

Cap rates dropped from 7.5% to 6.2% over the past 10 years as net operating income increased from rising rental rates.

Source: CoStar
-6.00%
-4.00%
-2.00%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%
$17.00
$18.00
$19.00
$20.00
$21.00
$22.00
$23.00
$24.00
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
YTD
Rent Rate ($) Annual Rent Change
36 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Competitive Retail
There are a total of 9 retail areas that
are in competition with the site by
terms of a 10-minute drive distance.

Most of the concentration by size is
at the east along Foothills Rd and
total for 522,848 SF of retail space, or
96% of the area inventory.

The closest retail site is currently at
1771 Pleasant Grove Rd and is a CVS
Pharmacy occupying a single-tenant
building. In terms of direct
competition, the site will be near the
upcoming Plaza at Blue Oaks,
located at 5351 Fiddyment Rd, and
the under construction Westpark
Village just north of Pleasant Grove
Blvd at Village Plaza Dr.

Table 3.3: Competitive Retail within a 10-Minute Drive Distance Source: Google Earth, CoStar 37 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Under Construction &
Proposed Retail
There are 4 notable under
construction and proposed retail
projects around the site, two of which
under construction. Westpark Village
is only a few minutes’ drive from the
site and will feature an assortment of
food & beverage and independent
retailers.

The Plaza at Blue Oaks located at is
slated for completion in 2022 and will
be anchored by a Raley’s grocery
and have other brands like Subway,
Chipotle, and Papa Murphy’s.

Although in proposal stage, Baseline
Marketplace and Placer Vineyards will
add almost a combined 1 million SF
of retail to the local market, including
big box stores, grocers, and small
retailers.

Table 3.4: Under Construction & Proposed Retail Projects within a 10-Minute Drive Source: Google Earth, CoStar, CBRE
38 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Market Comparison
Vacancy rates are the most variable in the Site 10-Min Drive Area due to a relatively small retail inventory, although currently are of the highest in comparison to Roseville/Rocklin and Sacramento, both of which between 5-6%.

Availability rates for the three markets have maintained close distance to one another over the past decade, now hovering between 5-8%.

Availability rates have more than halved over the last 10 years due to positive net annual absorption across the metro market.

Of the 10-Minute Drive Area, Roseville/Rocklin, and Sacramento, The Roseville/Rocklin submarket commands the highest lease rates by far, due to the prestigious Galleria and other malls and power centres.

Sacramento has the lowest lease rates on average.

Figure 3.10: Vacancy Rate Comparison (2011-2020 YTD) Figure 3.12: Lease Rate Comparison (2011-2020 YTD)

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
YTD
Site 10-Min Area Roseville/Rocklin Sacramento
$17.00
$19.50
$22.00
$24.50
$27.00
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
YTD
Site 10-Min Area Roseville/Rocklin Sacramento

2.000%

4.000%

6.000%

8.000%

10.000%

12.000%

14.000%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
YTD
Site 10-Min Area Roseville/Rocklin Sacramento
Figure 3.11: Availability Rate Comparison (2011-2020 YTD) Source: CoStar
Source: CoStar Source: CoStar
39 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES • Vacancy in Metro Sacramento market is at a steady 6% and the retail market has not been impacted significantly by the pandemic compared to some other metro areas.
• Retail absorption has slowed in recent years as developers have built smaller retail centers. Malls and Power Centers capture the highest lease rates in Sacramento and particularly in
Roseville/Rocklin.
• Community-scale retail formats in Roseville have experienced higher vacancies and lower rental growth than malls and power centers.
• The high household income and buying power of Roseville/Rocklin combined with the under-construction housing in the area will support additional retail development in the area. However, this activity is likely to be drawn to a number of competing sites that are more strategically located.
• There is a limited amount of competitive retail currently in the 10- minute drive time from site WB-41, however there are many zoned Community Commercial sites that may be developed first and capture significant market share and pent-up demand.
39 Implications for WB-41 Site
2300 Pleasant Grove Blvd
Blue Oaks Blvd & Woodcreek Oaks Blvd
40 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Retail Anchor Tenant
Opportunity Assessment
4 41 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Retail Assessment – Metro & Submarket Conditions
Retail Gravity Model Analysis
The 10-acre WB-41 site is of sufficient size to support a Community-scale shopping center of 100,000 to 150,000 SF. Such developments typically require an anchor tenant such as a supermarket in order to attract inline tenant interest and construction financing. Anchor tenants do not pay high rents for suburban locations but are essential to attract the inline tenants which pay a rental premium to capitalize off anchor traffic.

Given the importance of a supermarket tenant in ensuring project feasibility, it is essential to evaluate the WB-41 site from an anchor tenant perspective. Supermarkets and drug store chains use an advanced analytical technique known as the Gravity Model to project sales at potential new locations.

Gravity model forecasts are based on established shopping travel patterns documented by operating retail anchor stores. An individual’s annual patronage at one supermarket over another is largely a function of the travel time to the store from their home and the store size.

Shoppers are drawn to supermarkets that are easier to drive to and that are larger so offer a wider variety of products (Figure 4.1). People are generally more sensitive to travel time for Convenience goods such as supermarket and drug stores than they are for Comparison shopping goods such as home electronics, clothing, home furnishings, etc. This sensitivity can be used to successfully forecast sales at potential new locations.

While individual shoppers can often diverge from expected travel behavior, aggregate markets such as neighborhoods typically demonstrate highly predictable shopping travel patterns. A Retail Gravity Model is used to formalize this predictability to estimate retail sales at new anchor store locations. The model works by comparing the location and size of all competing centres in a particular market (the “supply”) as well as each neighborhood’s location and retail spending potential (the “demand”). The Gravity Model forecasts total sales at a potential location as well as providing supporting evidence such as where the supermarket is expected to realize high market share.

A shopper is more likely to shop at a retail center
which is larger and closer than one that is smaller
and more remote.
90%
of spending
Figure 4.1: Key Factors in Deciding Where to Shop
10%
of spending
42 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Retail Assessment
The WB-41 site is approximately 10 acres and so could accommodate over 100,000 SF of retail space in a conventional community shopping center format. Such a development would require an anchor tenant to be feasible. As such, the Retail Gravity Model analysis focused specifically on the viability of an anchor-sized 40,000 SF Supermarket at the WB-41 site.

A drugstore such as CVS or Walgreens could potentially anchor the WB-41 development. However, these operators seek out the same site criteria as a Supermarket, and so the analysis serves as a benchmark for the overall viability of any type of Convenience Retail at the site.

Suburban residents typically drive less than 15 minutes to shop at a Supermarket, with the majority driving less than 10 minutes. The Retail Gravity Model was input with the current and future population located within a 15-minute drive of the WB-41 site as well as their spending profile on Supermarket items. Recognizing that new road infrastructure will improve drive-time access to WB-41 the Gravity Model was run on radius distance from each neighborhood to the site rather than the drive-time to account for the impact of future road network development.

The planned new subdivisions were also input to the model along with mix of dwelling units and associated population estimates. The Supermarket spending profile for these future residents is currently unknown. As such, the average annual Food-at-Home spend per resident within a 10-minute drive time of $2,807 was used as the basis for these new residents (Source: CoStar, Environics). All dollar values in this analysis are held constant.
15-minutes
10-minutes
Figure 4.2: WB-41 Site and
Drive-Time Zones
43 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Retail Assessment
Downtown
Airport
Citrus Heights
Folsom
Rocklin
North
Sacramento
Arden Arcade
15-minute
Drive Time Zone
Annual Supermarket Spend Per Capita
$1,000 $2,000 $3,000
As Figure 4.3 illustrates, Supermarket
spending is particularly high within the 15-
minute drive time zone. Supermarket
spending is highly correlated with household
income, and to a lesser extent with rates of
home ownership (renters tend to dine out
more frequently), and age profile (older
residents tend to consume less groceries than
younger residents).

Roseville’s higher income and younger familyoriented profile results in very high spending on Supermarket merchandise. This retail
category is highly correlated with other
“Convenience” retail categories such as Drug
Store, Personal Services, and Fast Food, and
so is indicative of overall support for a
Convenience Retail Hub.

It is anticipated that the 15-minute Drive Time
Zone will continue to be a high Supermarket
expenditure area over the forecast horizon as
new subdivisions are built out.

Figure 4.3: Average Annual Per Capita Expenditure on Supermarket Goods Roseville
44 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Retail Assessment
As a foundation to the Gravity Model analysis, the total number of additional Supermarkets supportable in West Roseville, Creekview and Sierra Vista at build-out was calculated. Based on the anticipated population and build-out, and assuming the new population will continue to demonstrate the same high level of Supermarket expenditure as current residents, then a total of 262,128 SF of new Supermarket floorspace could be introduced locally.

However, this initial estimate must take into account the new Raley’s currently under construction at Blue Oaks Plaza as well as the estimated net outflow of Supermarket expenditure from the local Trade Area (most notably to Whole Foods, Costco, Trader Joes and Super Wal-mart).

Furthermore, based on the shift to online grocery described previously, an estimated 20% of expenditure on Supermarket-type merchandise is expected to shift from brick-and-mortar operations to online operations.

Taking these factors into account, it is estimated that West Roseville, Creekview and Sierra Vista could ultimately accommodate an additional 135,383 SF of Supermarket floorspace by build-out, or three to four individual locations (excluding the new Raley’s at Blue Oaks Plaza).

In order to project sales at a WB-41 Supermarket, four sites were identified from the 25 properties zoned “Community Commercial” that could support a Supermarket-sized operation and which offered relatively strategic site factors as well as sufficient distance from competitors to warrant a new location. These were input to create the future competitive environment.

While the precise location and composition of future Trade Area competition is unknown, the key objective is simply to estimate the general performance of a WB-41 Supermarket based on the anticipated level of competition at build-out, however that competition will ultimately manifest.

Table 4.1:

Supermarket Demand Calculation
for West Roseville, Creekview & Sierra Vista at Build-out Supermarket Demand Forecast
Population at Build-out 53,000
Trade Area Supermarket Expenditure Per Capita ($2021) $2,807 Trade Area Total Supermarket Expenditure ($2021) $148,771,000 Supermarket Average Sales Per SF ($2021) $567.55/SF
Trade Area Supportable Supermarket SF 262,128 SF
Less Trade Area Net Outflow 15%
Less Outflow to E-commerce 20%
Adjusted Trade Area Supportable Supermarket SF 170,383 SF Less Raley’s at Blue Oaks Plaza (Under Construction) 35,000 SF Incremental New Supportable Supermarket Floorspace 135,383 SF Estimated Number of New Supermarket Locations 3 to 4
45 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Retail Assessment
Current Supermarket competition was
documented in terms of chain, size and
location. These form key inputs into the
Gravity Model. As Figure 4.4 illustrates, the
bulk of competition is located to the east of
newer residential development. This
suggests a current under retailed condition
in the emerging communities of West
Roseville and Sierra Vista.

A total of 26 sites are zoned “Community
Commercial” of which 13 are large enough
to accommodate an anchor-sized grocery
store of 20,000 SF+. Yet only four of these
sites can ultimately support a Supermarket
given the market dynamics described
previously. The four prime competitive
Supermarket sites were identified and input
to the model.

The Gravity Model analysis was run for two
periods: 2024 and a “Build-out” year when
all planned residential and commercial
development is complete. While the timing
of the latter is unknown, the buildout year
can be used to identify if WB-41 does at
some point become viable site for a
Convenience Retail Hub, regardless of
when precisely build-out is achieved.

Figure 4.4: Competitive Supply and Planned Residential
Existing Supermarkets
Zoned Commercial
Specific Plans

MAP KEY
Estimated Competitor
46 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Retail Assessment
WB-41
2024 Weekly Sales: $231,943
Sales Forecasts
The Retail Gravity Model was run for the WB-41 site
for both 2024 and Buildout Year. Figure 4.5
illustrates the output of the model for 2024. The
assumed market conditions are that no other
competitor is introduced to the area in the interim
period, including any development at the WB-42
site.

The darker red areas indicate where a grocer at
WB-41 would capture up to 20% market share
simply because the store would be the most
convenient Supermarket location for residents of
the immediate vicinity. However, most of this high
market share area is currently undeveloped.

Weekly sales for a Supermarket at WB-41 are
estimated to be $232,000 in 2024. Typically,
Supermarket chains target locations which will
generate weekly sales of $555,000 for a mid-size
store (the median weekly sales for a U.S.
supermarket).

Given these target thresholds, it is unlikely that WB41 would attract Supermarket interest in the near term based its 2024 sales performance forecast.

Figure 4.5: WB-41 Market Share in 2024
Market Share
0% 10% 20%
47 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Retail Assessment
WB-41
Buildout Year Weekly Sales: $320,623
Without a Supermarket at WB-42: $365,023
Market Share
0% 10% 20%
Figure 4.6 illustrates the estimated market share for
WB-41 in the Buildout Year, which is the year when
all the planned residential and commercial
development in the area is completed. The specific
buildout year is unknown, but the intent is to
identify if there is any point in time where WB-41
achieves viability as a Supermarket location.

The four sites that are the strongest candidates as
likely future Supermarket sites were identified.

Supermarket sizes for each future competing site
were estimated based on the site capacity for
overall retail development, the typical ratio of
Supermarket anchor to non-anchor floorspace as
well as typical Supermarket sizes found in the
Sacramento area.

As illustrated in Figure 4.6, WB-41’s market share is
likely to be decrease considerably as new
competition is developed in the vicinity. However,
due to introduction of thousands of new homes in
the area, the market will be significantly larger from
which to draw from.

Weekly sales at WB-41 are estimated to be
$321,000 in the Buildout Year (constant $2021). If
WB-42 did not attract a Supermarket, WB-41’s
Supermarket sales would increase to $365,000. This
sales volume estimate remains significantly lower
than the $550,000 targeted by supermarket chains.

Figure 4.6: WB-41 Market Share at Buildout
48 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Site Rating Factor
1 = Low Weighting
10 = High (1 to 10)
Visibility to Local Traffic 2 10
Accessibility to Local Market 2 10
Trade Area Expenditure Profile 10 8
Future Population Growth 6 8
Local Population Density 4 6
Local Employment Density 1 3
Complementary Development within Vicinity 2 5
Site Size, Shape, Topography, Drainage and Soils 7 3
Future Infrastructure Development 6 3
TOTAL SCORE (Out of 10) 4.36

SITE FACTOR
Roseville Rating
Submarket 1 = Low
2021 10 = High
Vacancy Rate 5.40% 7
Vacancy Rate Change (YOY) -0.30% 7
Asking Rent $24.74 6
Asking Rent Change (YOY) 0.85% 4
Cap Rate 6.30% 4
Cap Rate Change (YOY) 0.00% 8
Net Annual Absorption (% of Total Supply) 0.28% 3
Under Construction Units (% of Total Supply) 0.44% 4
Projected Annual Population Growth 2.01% 7
Projected Annual Employment Growth (to 2030) 3.27% 8
TOTAL SCORE (Out of 10) 5.80

MARKET FACTOR
Retail Opportunity Assessment
Final Average Score:

5.08 RETAIL

UNSUITABLE
WB-41 Retail Opportunity Summary
The Retail Gravity Model identified that WB-41 is unlikely to ever attract the interest of a Supermarket anchor based on future supply and demand conditions. In addition to the Gravity Model analysis, the WB-41 site was evaluated for its retail development potential based on a consideration of site factors and market factors relevant to retail feasibility, particular for Convenience retail anchors such as Supermarkets.

Site factors rank poorly, particularly on key feasibility drivers of visibility to high volumes of traffic and accessibility to the local market. Such site factors are essential to attracting an anchor store to the site.

Market factors for the Roseville-Rocklin submarket are considered above average but do indicate near-term headwinds for retail development. Asking rents and their anemic year-over-year growth do not compare favorably to increased construction costs of recent years. Continued population and employment growth should support additional retail development over the longer term but only in the most strategic locations within the city.

The WB-41 site scores an overall rating of 5.08/10 for Retail which is considered “Unsuitable” given the number of interceptory competitors both current and future located within a 10-minute drive of the site. 49 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Evaluation of Alternative Sites
MXD reviewed all sites zoned Community Commercial in the Sierra Vista, West Roseville and Creekside Specific Plan areas using the same site factors used to study the WB-41 site for retail feasibility. The evaluation seeks to emulate how potential retail anchors would approach site selection for a new operation in the West Roseville area.

Each site was rated individually on its merits to attract and implement a successful retail development. MXD considers sites that have a final score of 7/10 or higher the most optimal for near to medium term retail development. Eight sites scored higher than 7. Sites that scored between 5 to 6 are considered marginal for retail development. This may be due to a certain criteria that they did not meet that greatly reduced their score. Ten sites scored between this range.

Sites scoring below 5/10 are considered not feasible for retail development over the next decade. These sites may have limited access and visibility, are not near any complementary uses that would drive foot traffic or have odd shapes and sizes to the site. These sites may have greater retail viability in the long-term if certain conditions change as the built environment changes around them.

The sites with the highest scores are DF-42 and DF-41 (Baseline Marketplace), and JM-41 (Fiddyment Rd. and Pleasant Grove Blvd.).

These sites are anticipated to generate the greatest anchor store interest. WB-41 scores on the lower end of the range.

Evaluation of Alternative Sites
Figure 4.8: Evaluation of Alternative Sites
50 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Ref # Parcel Name Location Size in Acres Development Status Access Visibility Future
Population
Growth
Proximity to
Civic &
Employment
Uses
Vehicle
Counts
(expected by
2035)
Size / Shape
of Site
1 WB-41 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 10.11 Vacant 1 1 3 1 1 5 32% 2 WB-42 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 14.55 Vacant 4 4 4 1 4 5 74% 3 JM-41 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 13.5 Vacant 4 4 5 2 4 5 80% 4 FD-40 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 7.55 Vacant 1 1 3 1 1 4 31% 5 FD-41 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 5.71 Vacant 2 2 5 2 3 4 57% 6 DF-40 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 12.64 Vacant 4 3 5 3 4 3 76% 7 DF-41 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 29.14 Vacant 4 4 5 3 4 4 81% 8 DF-42 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 39.90 Vacant 4 5 5 3 4 5 87% 9 KT-42 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 8.45 Proposed 3 4 5 3 4 4 77% 10 KT-43 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 11.91 Vacant 3 3 5 3 4 4 72% 11 KT-40-A Sierra Vista Specific Plan 5.39 Vacant 2 1 3 2 3 1 41% 12 KT-40-B Sierra Vista Specific Plan 18.10 Vacant 2 2 3 2 3 3 48% 13 KT-41-A Sierra Vista Specific Plan 29.52 Vacant 3 2 3 3 4 3 58% 14 KT-41-B Sierra Vista Specific Plan 29.52 Vacant 3 2 4 3 4 5 64% 15 W-32 West Roseville Specific Plan 3.29 Built (non-retail) 16 W-33 West Roseville Specific Plan 3.09 Built
17 W-30 West Roseville Specific Plan 2.99 Vacant 2 4 3 2 2 1 53% 18 F-30 West Roseville Specific Plan 8.46 Partially Built 5 4 3 2 4 4 76% 19 F-31 West Roseville Specific Plan 13.35 Under Construction 20 F-32 West Roseville Specific Plan 4.67 Vacant 3 3 3 1 3 3 55% 21 F-33 West Roseville Specific Plan 4.68 Vacant 3 3 3 1 3 3 55% 22 F-34 West Roseville Specific Plan 5.29 Vacant 4 4 4 3 4 5 79% 23 F-6D West Roseville Specific Plan 5.05 Vacant 3 2 4 2 2 4 55% 24 F-81 West Roseville Specific Plan 1.97 Vacant 3 3 2 1 3 1 49% 25 C-70 Creekview Specific Plan 9.22 Vacant 3 3 4 1 3 4 60% 26 21 Del Webb Specific Plan 12.72 Vacant 4 4 5 2 4 5 80% Retail Leasability Criteria
Evaluation of Alternative Sites
Table 4.1: Evaluation of Alternative Sites
51 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Evaluation of Alternative Potential Uses
5 52 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%
-600000
-400000
-200000
0 200000
400000
600000
800000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
YTD
Net Absorption Net Deliveries
Vacancy Metro Sacramento Vacancy
Roseville/Rocklin Submarket
Roseville/Rocklin is one of Sacramento’s largest office markets. Like the greater metro area, the local submarket has experienced a surge in vacancies through 2020 and 2021. The vacancy rate is at a high of

12.1% as the market gained 461,000 SF in availability over the past 12 months. New construction has been minimal.

Roseville/Rocklin is also one of Sacramento’s wealthiest submarkets with many of the metro’s large tech and professional service employers located here. But the trend of downsizing office space continues with Hewlett Packard Enterprise, one of the areas largest occupants, lowers their footprint.

Office Opportunity Assessment
Metro Sacramento Market Overview
Sacramento’s office market, as with all office markets, was significantly impacted by the pandemic. Vacancies have risen substantially since mid-2020, now at a high of 16.5% as many companies shift to remote work models.

However, the longer-term prospects for office development in the Sacramento area appear positive for several key reasons:
• Sacramento’s affordability relative to other California’s major cities makes the city an attractive destination for remote work employees and hub-and-spoke offices looking to reduce costs.
• Tech employment has grown greatly with 17.6% job expansion in 2020. Several large brands have moved offices to the Sacramento metro , including Zennify, EA Sports, and Amazon. Employers are drawn to the metro for the large and increasing talent pool supplied by the numerous universities and colleges located here. • There is currently no product in the construction pipeline and the last delivery was made in Q3 of 2020.
• There are signs of recovery in the market as the vaccine rollout and leasing activity has picked up substantially since 2020. Suburban Class A rents have increased by 5.8% YOY as downtown office tenants have sought to move outward.

Figure 5.1: Roseville/Rocklin Net Absorption, Deliveries, & Vacancy Rate (2011-2021 YTD) Source: CoStar
53 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES The submarket has a large proportion of high-end class A product at approximately 4 million SF or 30% of inventory. The area benefits from a large talent base of STEM employees and proximity of other life sciences and tech companies like HPE and Penumbra.

Rents have declined substantially over the past few quarters, totaling a negative 1.1% over the year with average lease rates dropping to $25.20 PSF, a $1.69 PSF discount to metro Sacramento. Higher-end product commands a higher rent at $29.26, although also reports the highest vacancy rate at 14.6%.

A number of departures and sublease openings have put net absorption to fall deeper in the red. Sutter Health recently vacated a 93,000 SF space at 9100 Foothills Blvd and is also looking to sublease other metro spaces, including 312,400 SF at 9100 Foothills Blvd. Implications for WB-41 Site • While Roseville-Rocklin is a strong submarket with an appealing tech-oriented workforce, office development is likely to be muted over the next several years as excess inventory is gradually absorbed.
• Rental rates will likely to consolidate at current levels given the high vacancy and lack of new supply in the pipeline.

Figure 5.2: Roseville/Rocklin Asking Rents (2011-2021 YTD) Source: CoStar
Office Opportunity Assessment
$18.00
$20.00
$22.00
$24.00
$26.00
$28.00
$30.00
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
YTD
Class B Class A Roseville/Rocklin Metro Sacramento
9100 Foothills Blvd 130 Diamond Creek Pl 630 Roseville Pky The submarket has a large proportion of high-end class A product at approximately 4 million SF or 30% of inventory. The area benefits from a large talent base of STEM employees and proximity of other life sciences and tech companies like HPE and Penumbra.

Rents have declined substantially over the past few quarters, totaling a negative

1.1% over the year with average lease rates dropping to $25.20 PSF, a $1.69 PSF discount to metro Sacramento. Higher-end product commands a higher rent at $29.26, although also reports the highest vacancy rate at 14.6%.

A number of departures and sublease openings have put net absorption to fall deeper in the red. Sutter Health recently vacated a 93,000 SF space at 9100 Foothills Blvd and is also looking to sublease other metro spaces, including 312,400 SF at 9100 Foothills Blvd.
54 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Roseville Rating
Submarket 1 = Low
2021 10 = High
Vacancy Rate 11.90% 3
Vacancy Rate Change (YOY) -2.70% 6
Asking Rent (All Classes) $25.01 4
Asking Rent Change (YOY) -0.24% 3
Cap Rate 7.10% 4
Cap Rate Change (YOY) 0.00% 5
Net Annual Absorption (% of Total Supply) 0.07% 3
Under Construction Units (% of Total Supply) 1.70% 7
Projected Annual Population Growth 2.01% 8
Projected Annual Employment Growth (to 2030) 3.27% 9
TOTAL SCORE (Out of 10) 5.20

MARKET FACTOR
Office Opportunity Assessment
Final Average Score:

4.79 OFFICE
WB-41 Office Opportunity Summary
An evaluation of the WB-41 site for its potential as an office development was undertaken which included an evaluation of site factors and market factors relevant to office development feasibility.

Overall WB-41 appears poorly suited to office development. The site scores an overall rating of 4.38/10 for site factors, which are challenged by the lack of existing office employment in the area, the relative inaccessibility to the regional workforce and the lack of amenities in the local area. Market factors score moderately. While the Roseville-Rocklin Class A office garners relatively high rental rates, it is currently challenged by high vacancy rates, slow absorption and commensurately flat rental rate trends. The long-term prospects for office development in Roseville are strong given the forecast increase in population and employment; however, it is unlikely this development will be drawn to WD-41 given its poor site characteristics for office development.

Site Rating Factor
1 = Low Weighting
10 = High (1 to 10)
Travel time for Executives 6 10
Amenities within Immediate Vicinity 1 8
Area Quality/Prestigious Tenants 5 8
Travel time for Workforce 5 8
Access to Highway Infrastructure 2 7
Transit Accessibility 3 6
Future Public Expenditure in Vicinity 6 4
Recent Public Expenditure in Vicinity 6 3
Site Size, Shape, Topography, Drainage and Soils 10 3
Access to Higher Education Facilities 2 1
TOTAL SCORE (Out of 10) 4.38

SITE FACTOR

UNSUITABLE
55 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Roseville/Rocklin Submarket Overview
The pandemic affected the local hotel submarket greatly, with occupancies dipping to a low of 31.7% in April 2020. Levels have since risen to 61.6%, although still well below the historic average of over 71%.

ADR average $129.06 over the past year in the local submarket.

RevPAR has continued to exceed the metro average and is reported to be $68.90 for the past 12 months. Pre-pandemic occupancy levels hovered in the high 60s, and ADRs as high as $142.

A new La Quinta Inns & Suites in Lincoln is in the development pipeline.

Hotel Opportunity Assessment
Metro Sacramento Market Overview
There are a total of 382 hotel properties and an approximate total of 30,000 rooms across the Sacramento metro. The recent pandemic severely impacted the hotel industry globally, and Sacramento was not immune. Occupancy rates fell to a low of 34.5% in April 2020. With the lifting of restrictions and vaccine rollout, travel is returning to the metro. Current monthly occupancy levels are at 65.3%, almost double of the same month last year but well below the historical average of

73.6%.

The 12-month Average Daily Rate (ADR) is $105.65 and is skewed toward upscale and upper midscale hotels, which occupy a majority of the market’s available rooms. Luxury and upper upscale hotels command the highest ADR at $193.87.

Revenue per available room, or RevPAR, is down by 24% on a yearover-year basis at $59.15, although better than the 37.5% decrease felt nationally. There are currently 1,300 rooms in construction, which is significant considering the relatively small size of the market. Cap rates have been declining over the past few years, reaching 7.2%. The total asset value of the market is $4.7 billion.

Courtyard Roseville Galleria Homewood Suites by Hilton Extended Stay America Figure 5.3: Roseville/Rocklin Annual Occupancy Rate & YoY Change (2015-2021 YTD) -20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
52%
54%
56%
58%
60%
62%
64%
66%
68%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 YTD
Occupancy Rate YoY Change
56 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Roseville Rating
Submarket 1 = Low
2019 10 = High
Occupancy 65.3% 3
Occupancy Change (YOY) 4.1% 7
Average Daily Rate (ADR) $138.46 5
ADR Trend 5.7% 5
Revenue Per Available Room (RevPAR) $90.44 5
RevPAR Trend 6.4% 5
Cap Rate 7.8% 6
Cap Rate Trend -0.1% 7
Projected Annual Tourism Growth (to 2024) 11.0% 8
TOTAL SCORE (Out of 10) 5.67

MARKET FACTOR
Hotel Opportunity Assessment
Final Average Score:

3.87 HOTEL
WB-41 Hotel Opportunity Summary
Hotel development at the WB-41 site is likely unfeasible given the property’s site factors. Suburban hotels typically require excellent highway frontage and accessibility. With the rapid growth in online booking and GPS, both these factors are waning in significance but still important considerations.

Suburban hotels also require proximity to business activity or recreational amenities to support new development, which are lacking at WB-41.

The Sacramento hotel market conditions were examined for 2019 due to the extreme impact of Covid-19 on market conditions for 2020-2021.

Occupancy rates of 65.3% are below the typical threshold of 70% to warrant significant new hotel development in a market, although occupancy was trending positively along with Average Daily Rates (ADR) and Revenue per Available Room (RevPAR). The recovery in the hotel market is likely to be strong based on the California Regional Lodging Forecast but it will be several years before significant new hotel development will be supportable in the Sacramento area.

UNSUITABLE
Site Rating Factor
1 = Low Weighting
10 = High (1 to 10)
Regional Accessibility (Car and Transit) 2 10
Visibility from Regional Thoroughfares 1 9
Local Employment Density 1 8
Tourist Destinations in Local Area 1 7
Retail/F&B within 5-minute Drive 3 7
Natural Setting/Views/Waterfront 5 6
Gateway Location for Metro Area 1 5
Recreation Facilities in Local Area 4 3
Proximity to Airport 3 2
Travel Time for Workforce 2 1
TOTAL SCORE (Out of 10) 2.07

SITE FACTOR
57 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Residential Opportunity Assessment
Metro Sacramento Residential Market Overview
Metro Sacramento remains a healthy residential market despite the recent pandemic. The market has benefited from remote work and emigration from the Bay Area and other urban centres. Strong employment growth in high-income sectors such as government, finance and professional services is driving demand for Class A multifamily product and for-sale single detached housing.

Multifamily vacancy across the metro is currently at 2.4% and continues to drop as absorption exceeds deliveries. The average asking rent has grown significantly to $1,690 per month, yet still well below the Bay Area’s $2,500 per month average.

A total of 1,788 units were completed in 2020, expanding inventory by

1.2% primarily in Central Sacramento and Natomas. The construction pipeline is busy with 4,616 units under construction. Cap rates have sustained an average of 5.4%, one of the lowest rates of any California metro. These low rates indicate continued investor interest in the multifamily sector over the forecast horizon.

Roseville-Rocklin Multifamily Submarket Overview
Roseville/Rocklin is one of Sacramento’s most affluent submarkets. The majority of multifamily inventory is Class A product built in the last decade. The unit mix is skewed towards 2- and 3-bedroom units which are attractive to young families and downsizers.

The concentration of destination retail such as Galleria and Fountains, along with major tech employers like Kaiser Permanente and Penumbra are other factors that support residential growth.

Rents are of metro’s highest at an average of $2,034 per month and have increased by 18% since over the previous 12 months. This increase is partly due vacancy rates of 2.9%, an all-time submarket low.

New multifamily product in the submarket commands a large rental premium: units built in the last 10 years ask for roughly $2,600 a month. There have been notable deliveries in the past decade, including the Campus Oaks Apartments.
1900 Blue Oaks Blvd Vintage Square at Westpark 6725 Fiddyment Rd Figure 5.4: Roseville/Rocklin Asking Rents (2011-2021 YTD) $0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
YTD
Roseville/Rocklin Asking Rent Sacramento Asking Rent
Source: CoStar
58 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Residential Opportunity Assessment
Roseville For-Sale Residential
Roseville’s single-family housing market has expanded due to continued demand and a significant number of deliveries in West Roseville. Roseville’s lifestyle is attractive for high-income earners, retirees, and growing families. This provides a wide demographic for various forms of housing. The city is home to great shopping and services, jobs, and highly-rated school districts, all top criteria for families looking to purchase a home.

The median price of a single-family home has increased by 27% over the past 12 months to $635,000, or $315 PSF. Median prices are higher than the metro average due to the proportion of large and high-value product. Homes are selling quickly, and inventory is currently selling on average 4.2% above asking price.

The pandemic has also accelerated demand for homes in the suburbs which has been beneficial to Roseville due to its location. Buyers are looking for homes that offer larger spaces and work-from-home capabilities. This has pushed prices up to record highs. Many homes are receiving multiple offers and well-maintained homes in strong locations can receive 10% to 15% over asking price.

Figure 5.5: Roseville Listing Home Price vs. Median Sold Price (2018-2021 YTD) Source: Realtor.com
Median Home Price:
$635,000
YoY Growth:
27%
Roseville Residential Development Activity
Continued demand for homes in Roseville has allowed for a significant amount of new home development in the West Roseville and Sierra Vista Specific Plan areas. According to city data, West Roseville currently has 1,228 approved units, while Sierra Vista has 2,028 approved units. A review of available listings demonstrates that forsale product in West Roseville and Sierra Vista is focused almost exclusively on single-family residential. There are plans for future high density residential in Sierra Vista, including sites WB-30 and WB-31 which are located directly north of the site under study. This product is expected to include affordable housing and multi-family rental and is unlikely to have for-sale high-end multi-family product. 59 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Roseville Rating
Submarket 1 = Low
MARKET FACTOR 2021 10 = High
Single Family Median Price $635,000 9
Single Family Price Increase (YOY) 27.0% 10
Vacancy Rate 2.9% 10
Vacancy Rate Change (YOY) -0.80% 8
Asking Rent $2,040 10
Asking Rent Change (YOY) 18.0% 10
Cap Rate 4.5% 10
Cap Rate Change (YOY) 0.0% 8
Net Annual Absorption (% of Total Supply) 0.83% 4
Under Construction Units (% of Total Supply) 2.45% 5
Projected Annual Population Growth 2.01% 8
Projected Annual Employment Growth (to 2030) 3.27% 9
TOTAL SCORE (Out of 10) 8.20
Site Rating Factor
1 = Low Weighting
10 = High (1 to 10)
Reputation & Prestige of Area 10 10
Quality of School District 10 9
Access to Retail Amenities 4 8
Access to Recreation Amenities 8 7
Proximity to Major Thoroughfares 3 6
Proximity to Employment 2 6
Sense of Privacy, Security & Tranquility 10 6
Transit Accessibility 3 4
Visibility to Traffic (for Marketing) 3 3
Access to Education Facilities 6 3
Site Ingress & Egress 10 2
Proximity to Medical Facilities 5 2
Access to Cultural Amenities 3 1
TOTAL SCORE (Out of 10) 6.57

SITE FACTOR
Residential Opportunity Assessment
Final Average Score:

7.38 RESIDENTIAL

SUITABLE
WB-41 Residential Opportunity Summary
The WB-41 site was evaluated for its potential as a residential development. This evaluation was based on a consideration of site factors and market factors relevant to residential feasibility along with planning guidelines of the Sierra Vista Plan.

Overall WB-41 appears well-suited to residential development. The site scores an overall rating of 7.38/10 which is considered “Excellent” as few sites in any market exceed 7.5 using this methodology. Market factors score particularly highly given the buoyancy of the Roseville-Rocklin residential market described previously. Site factors are considered “Good”, supported by the area’s general attractiveness as a place to live, although it is somewhat challenged by the lack of employment or amenities in the immediate site vicinity. 60 RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS AND HIGHEST & BEST USE STUDY | WESTPARK COMMUNITIES Land Use Site Market Average
Residential 6.57 8.20 7.38
Retail 4.36 5.80 5.08
Office 4.38 5.20 4.79
Hotel 2.07 5.67 3.87
Alternative Land Use Summary
Alternative Land Use Summary
The WB-41 site was evaluated for its suitability for the development of Retail, Office, Hotel and Residential. Key site and market factors driving development feasibility were evaluated to arrive at a ranking of each potential land use under consideration (Figure 5.5).

Suitable Development: Residential
Residential scored an average of 7.38 out of 10. This score is quite high as few sites evaluated using this methodology exceed 7.5. Strong site fundamentals such as reputation, nearby schools, neighbourhood safety and feeling, among others are factors which support the potential development’s success. On the market side, explosive demand, strained availability, and rising values and rents, as well as declining cap rates make this an attractive investment.

Unsuitable Development Types
While the site is currently zoned for Neighborhood Retail and Community Retail, this type of development is not considered feasible for the site. The site’s biggest challenge is that it is a peripheral “180- degree” site where only half of WB-41’s vicinity will be developed over the forecast horizon.

Sales projections made using the Huff Retail Gravity Model are low scoring at less than 60% of the minimum threshold sales volumes needed to attract anchor tenant interest. Without anchor tenant interest, it is unlikely that sufficient high rent-paying inline tenants could be attracted to the site, or that construction financing could be secured.

Figure 5.5: Alternative Land Use Evaluation Summary
Were Regional University and or Curry Creek to be developed, and parcel WB-42 remained undeveloped, market support may be sufficient to support a retail development on WB-41. However, Regional University includes a competitive retail parcel opposite the WB-41 and Curry Creek would likely include additional retail opportunities. As Figure 4-6 on page 47 shows at buildout WB-41’s trade area shifts west likely resulting in the Regional University site, or a site in Curry Creek being developed ahead of WB-41. If WB-42 develops ahead of development of Regional University, in our opinion WB-41 will never be a viable retail site.

Neither Office or Hotel are suited to the WB-41 site. Both sectors are historically strong performers in the local Roseville area, although they are anticipated to experience headwinds over the next several years as the pandemic exacerbated a pre-existing oversupply condition.

There might be sufficient demand for a smaller Medical Office at the WB-41 site which is able to attract traffic to this relatively remote site; however, this would only require a small fraction of the 10-acre site. 1013 Galleria Blvd | Suite 255 | Roseville, CA 95678 | (916) 773-1900 | Fax (916) 773-2015 www.fehrandpeers.com
Technical Memorandum
Date: July 14, 2021
To: Jeff Jones – Westpark Communities
From: John Gard – Fehr & Peers
Subject: Sierra Vista Specific Plan Parcel WB-41 Retail Feasibility Traffic Analysis RS21-4058
This technical memorandum evaluates anticipated traffic levels along the frontage of Parcel WB-41 in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) for a future year scenario consisting of differing levels of land absorption in North and West Roseville than what is currently assumed in the City of Roseville 2035 travel demand model. Those traffic forecasts will help inform whether this parcel can realistically be expected to develop with retail land uses.

Project Location and Size
Parcel WB-41 is located in the southeast quadrant of the planned Santucci Boulevard/Pleasant Grove Boulevard intersection. The Sierra Vista Specific Plan (2010) shows this parcel as 10.1 acres and consisting of community commercial zoning. The document indicates that community commercial parcels may have floor-to-area ratios (FAR) of up to 0.4. However, experience suggests a more typical FAR is 0.25, which would correspond to approximately 110,000 square feet of retail space.

Land Use Assumptions in North & West Roseville
The City of Roseville 2035 travel demand model was used as the basis for developing cumulative traffic forecasts for the City’s updated General Plan (adopted in August 2020). Table 1 displays the assumed land use growth from the model for six distinct specific plans, projects, and planning areas in North and West Roseville and adjacent unincorporated Placer County.

As shown, over 21,000 new dwelling units and 13 million square feet of retail, office, industrial, medicaloffice, and high-tech industrial space is assumed to be developed in these plans over the next 15 years.

PC ATTACHMENT 5
Mr. Jeff Jones, Westpark Communities
July 14, 2021

Westpark Communities developed a revised set of land use assumptions (i.e., “Westpark Land Use and Roadway Network” scenario) for these six plans/projects, which are shown in Table 2. As shown, land uses within the Amoruso and Creekview Specific Plans were left unchanged, while assumed development in Regional University, Placer Ranch, and the Sunset Industrial Remainder area were decreased substantially.

Within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, the amount of assumed retail was decreased substantially, but no other changes were made.

According to Table 2, the Westpark Land Use and Roadway Network scenario would yield over 17,500 new dwelling units and five million square feet of new retail, office, industrial, medical-office, and high-tech industrial space in these plans. This represents a substantial level of new development when viewed over a 15 to 20 year timeframe.

Table 1 – Land Use Growth (2020 to 2035) in City of Roseville Travel Demand Model Land Use
Category
Specific Plan / Area
Amoruso
Ranch
Specific
Plan
Creekview
Specific
Plan
Regional
University
Placer
Ranch
Specific
Plan
Sunset
Industrial
Area
Remainder
Sierra
Vista
Specific
Plan Total
SingleFamily
Residential
2,044 du’s 1,464 du’s 718 du’s 3,096 du’s 158 du’s 6,131 du’s 13,611 du’s MultiFamily
Residential
982 du’s 547 du’s 945 du’s 2,011 du’s 0 du’s 2,577 du’s 7,062 du’s AgeRestricted
Residential
0 du’s 0 du’s 0 du’s 720 du’s 0 du’s 0 du’s 720 du’s
Retail 442 ksf 162 ksf 133 ksf 1,734 ksf 219 ksf 2,171 ksf 4,861 ksf Office 34 ksf 0 ksf 0 ksf 1,042 ksf 678 ksf 571 ksf 2,325 ksf Industrial 0 ksf 0 ksf 0 ksf 1,692 ksf 2819 ksf 0 ksf 4,511 ksf Medical
Office 0 ksf 0 ksf 0 ksf 0 ksf 204 ksf 0 ksf 204 ksf
High Tech
Industrial 0 ksf 0 ksf 0 ksf 1,104 ksf 0 ksf 0 ksf 1,140 ksf K-12
Schools
650
students
600
students
600
students
1800
students
150
students
4,350
students
8150
students
University
0 students 0 students 6,000 students
46,800
students 1 0 students 0 students 52,800 students
Parks 20 acres 16 acres 35 acres 51 acres 0 acres 106 acres 228 acres PQPL 15 ksf 0 ksf 48 ksf 59 ksf 5 ksf 0 ksf 127 ksf
Note: 1 # of students factored up to match expected trip generation. - du = dwelling units, ksf = thousand square feet
Source: City of Roseville 2035 travel demand model.

Mr. Jeff Jones, Westpark Communities
July 14, 2021

Roadway Network Assumptions in North & West Roseville
Appendix A contains a map showing the cumulative number of planned lanes in the City of Roseville based on the adopted General Plan. As shown, Santucci Boulevard would extend as six lanes from Baseline Road to Blue Oaks Boulevard. Although not shown in the figure, Placer Parkway (four-lane expressway) is assumed in the travel demand model to continue in a northeast direction from Santucci Boulevard through the Amoruso Ranch and Placer Ranch Specific Plans, terminating at State Route 65.

Table 2 – Land Use Growth Under Westpark Land Use and Roadway Network Land Use
Category
Specific Plan / Area
Amoruso
Ranch
Specific
Plan
Creekview
Specific
Plan
Regional
University
Placer
Ranch
Specific
Plan
Sunset
Industrial
Area
Remainder
Sierra
Vista
Specific
Plan Total
SingleFamily
Residential
2,044 du’s 1,464 du’s 718 du’s 2,000 du’s 0 du’s 6,131 du’s 12,357 du’s MultiFamily
Residential
982 du’s 547 du’s 0 du’s 500 du’s 0 du’s 2,577 du’s 4,606 du’s AgeRestricted
Residential
0 du’s 0 du’s 0 du’s 720 du’s 0 du’s 0 du’s 720 du’s
Retail 442 ksf 162 ksf 0 ksf 308 ksf 110 ksf 1,086 ksf 2,108 ksf Office 34 ksf 0 ksf 0 ksf 185 ksf 339 ksf 571 ksf 1,129 ksf Industrial 0 ksf 0 ksf 0 ksf 300 ksf 1410 ksf 0 ksf 1,710 ksf Medical
Office 0 ksf 0 ksf 0 ksf 0 ksf 102 ksf 0 ksf 102 ksf
High Tech
Industrial 0 ksf 0 ksf 0 ksf 196 ksf 0 ksf 0 ksf 196 ksf K-12
Schools
650
students
600
students 0 students 900 students 0 students 4,350 students 5,600
students
University
0 students 0 students 0 students 0 students 0 students 0 students 0 students Parks 20 acres 16 acres 0 acres 51 acres 0 acres 106 acres 193 acres PQPL 15 ksf 0 ksf 0 ksf 10 ksf 3 ksf 0 ksf 28 ksf
Note: 1 Values shown in red represent a reduction in land use relative to Table 1. - du = dwelling units, ksf = thousand square feet
Source: Westpark Communities, 2021.

Mr. Jeff Jones, Westpark Communities
July 14, 2021

The Westpark Land Use and Roadway Network scenario would not construct Placer Parkway from west of Fiddyment Road to Santucci Boulevard. Additionally, Blue Oaks Boulevard would not extend westerly from Westbrook Boulevard to Santucci Boulevard (as Santucci Boulevard/Placer Parkway would not be constructed). Figure 1 shows this modified circulation network.

Traffic Forecasts
The City’s model was modified to reflect the Westpark Land Use and Roadway Network scenario and then run. Appendix A shows average daily traffic volume model plots from the unadjusted model and with the Westpark Land Use and Roadway Network scenario.

Table 3 compares the cumulative volume of traffic passing through the Santucci Boulevard/Pleasant Grove Boulevard intersection under the City’s unadjusted cumulative model and under the Westpark Land Use and Roadway Network scenario.

Table 3 – Cumulative Traffic Volume Passing Through the Santucci Boulevard/Pleasant Grove Boulevard Intersection
Intersection Unadjusted City of Roseville
Traffic Model
Westpark Land Use and
Roadway Network scenario
Santucci Boulevard/Pleasant Grove
Boulevard 3,530 vehicles 720 vehicles (- 80%)
Substantially less traffic (i.e., 80 percent less) would be present along Santucci Boulevard and Pleasant Grove Boulevard under the Westpark Land Use and Roadway Network scenario. This is due to the reduction in land uses in North and West Roseville and the removal of roadways that likely will not be funded and may not be needed without the added development.

Mr. Jeff Jones, Westpark Communities
July 14, 2021

Retail Site Feasibility Evaluation
This section is comprised of three subsections that answer the following questions:

1. Under the Westpark Land Use and Roadway Network scenario, are there sufficient volumes of adjacent street traffic from which to draw pass-by1 trips if retail were developed on Parcel 41?

2. Are there other retail centers within the City of Roseville of whose size and level of adjacent street traffic is comparable to what is forecast for Parcel 41?

3. Is the geographic location of Parcel 41 favorable or unfavorable as a retail destination when viewed under the Westpark Land Use and Roadway Network scenario? Pass-by Traffic Considerations
Data from the Trip Generation Handbook (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017) indicates the following with regard to travel characteristics at retail centers:
• Appendix A presents pass-by trip data for 25 retail centers ranging from 50,000 to 150,000 square feet. These sites had an average pass-by rate of 37 percent during the weekday PM peak period. • Appendix A shows that for 12 retail center data points with at least 25 percent pass-by trips, the average volume of adjacent street traffic was 2,000 vehicles during the PM peak period.

Table 4 shows the number of new and pass-by trips that Parcel 41 would generate during the weekday PM peak hour based on trip rates published in the Trip Generation Manual (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017) and the above information.
1 A pass-by trip is defined as trip already on the adjacent street that enters a retail center en route to a different primary destination. Pass-by trips do not add to the roadway network; however, businesses rely on existing traffic levels to support their activity. Grocery stores, restaurants, coffee shops, and gas stations are examples of land uses that attract pass-by trips.

Mr. Jeff Jones, Westpark Communities
July 14, 2021

Table 4 – Parcel 41 Trip Generation During Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Type Inbound Trips Outbound Trips Total Trips
New Trips (63%) 184 183 367
Pass-by Trips (37%) 108 108 216
Total Trips 292 291 583
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021 based on Trip Generation Manual (ITE, 2017).

Table 5 then shows the proportion of adjacent street travelers that would need to become pass-by trips into Parcel 41 (to achieve the expected pass-by percentages) under the unadjusted City of Roseville travel demand model and under the Westpark Land Use and Roadway Network scenario.

Table 5 – Parcel 41 Weekday PM Peak Hour Pass-by Traffic Considerations Metric
Unadjusted City of Roseville
Traffic Model
Westpark Land Use and Roadway
Network scenario
Adjacent Street Traffic 3,530 vehicles 720 vehicles
Inbound Pass-by Trips 108 vehicles 108 vehicles
Level of Pass-by Activity
Required 1 3 out of every 100 motorists 15 out of every 100 motorists Note: 1 Calculated by dividing number of inbound pass-by trips by adjacent street traffic volume.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021
For the expected 37 percent pass-by proportion to be realized, this would require 15 percent of existing motorists along the project frontage to perform a pass-by trip into the site. This is very much at the high end of this type of travel behavior, as evidenced by the fact that retail sites (with similar pass-by rates) surveyed in the ITE document had an average of 2,000 adjacent street PM peak hour vehicles from which to draw pass-by trips.

Comparison to Similarly Sized Retail Centers in Roseville According to the City’s 2020 base year travel demand model, there are 17 traffic analysis zones (TAZs) within the City that contain retail ranging in size from 80,000 to 140,000 square feet (i.e., within 30,000 square feet of Parcel 41). Appendix A lists each of these TAZs along with their location. As shown, nearly all TAZs are situated along heavily traveled arterial streets. Many of the sites are located along arterials such as Roseville Mr. Jeff Jones, Westpark Communities
July 14, 2021

Parkway, Blue Oaks Boulevard, Foothills Boulevard, Eureka Road, and Pleasant Grove Boulevard, each of which carries in excess of 40,000 vehicles per day. Hence, most of these centers have ample existing adjacent traffic from which pass-by trips can come. This is in contrast to Parcel 41, which would have a little more than 11,000 daily vehicles along its frontages under the Westpark Land Use and Roadway Network scenario.

Thus, there does not exist a retail center in Roseville of comparable size to what Parcel 41 would yield that also has similar levels of traffic to what would be on streets adjacent to Parcel 41 under the Westpark Land Use and Roadway Network scenario.

Parcel 41 Proximity to Nearby Residential
The presence of larger retail sites to the east and south of the project, combined with the majority of Sierra Vista Specific Plan dwelling units being located closer to those parcels, suggests that Parcel 41 may not attract retail trips to the same degree the other sites would.

In conclusion, this analysis has found that under the Westpark Land Use and Roadway Network scenario, Parcel 41 is unlikely to develop as a retail center because it would not have adequate adjacent street traffic flows from which to draw pass-by traffic. Its viability as a retail center is further diminished by its physical location relative to anticipated residential development in West Roseville and competing retail sites.

We hope this information is helpful. Please call or email me with any questions or comments.

PFE Rd
Baseline Rd
Eureka Rd
Foothills Blvd
Blue Oaks Blvd
Cirby Way
Douglas Blvd
Fdi dyment Rd
Pleasant GroveBlvd
Vineyard Rd
Watt Ave
Jun cti on Blvd
RosevillePkwy
Vernon St
WashingtonBlvd
WoodcreekOaksBlvd
N.SunriseAve
Main St
nI dustrial Ave
Granite Dr
Fairway Dr
Atkinson St
Cook Riolo Rd
Taylor Rd Pacific St
WhitneyBlvd
HaydenPw
Atlantic St
Sunset Blvd
CavittStallmanRd
Old Auburn Rd
Olive RanchRd
LeadHillBlvd
Rocklin Rd
Riverside Ave
Galleria Blvd
DiamondOaks Rd
McAnally Dr
Church St
Harding Blvd
DelWebbBlvd
Market St
Roseville Rd
Secret Ravin ePkwy
Oak Ridge Dr
BobDoyleDr
AlexandraDr
CountryClubDr
Berry St
LonetreeBlvd
OlympusDr
ShastaSt
MclarenDr
Whyte Ave
Sierra College Blvd
Stanford Ranch Rd
Westpark Dr
Hallissy Dr
Folsom Rd
Gibson Dr
Professional Dr
Crowder Ln
HighlandParkDr
Johnso n R anchDr
KennerleighPw
Yosemite St
Scarborough Dr
Parkhill Dr
WellingtonWay
Auburn Blvd
Crest Dr
N.CirbyWay
Sunrise Ave
ParkDr
Reserve Dr
Walerga Rd
Sun City Blvd
HoltPkwy
Westbrook Blvd
Vista Gra n de Blvd
FreedomWay
Santucci Blvd
Sunset Blvd
CampusPark Blvd
Placer Pkwy
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
·|þ}65
Placer County
Sacramento County
City of
Roseville
N:\2021 Projects\4058.00_Sierra_Vista_Parcel_41_Retail_Traffic_Feasibility_Analysis\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Fig0x_GPConstrained_TravelLanes.mxd Westpark Modified Roadway Network Scenario
Figure 1

Notes:

1. Does not include turn lanes and auxiliary lanes.

Total Number of Lanes (Both Directions)
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 Appendix A – Model Plots, ITE Data, and City of Roseville General Plan Lane Configuration Map
P
F
E
R
d
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
R
d
EurekaRd
Foothills Blvd
Blue
Oa
ks
B
l
vd
C
i
r
b
y
W
a
y
D
ou
gla
sB
lvd
Fiddyment Rd
P
l
easantGroveBlvd
V
i
n
e
y
a
r
d
R
d
Watt Ave
J
u
n
cti
on Blvd
RosevillePkwy
Vernon St
WashingtonBlvd
WoodcreekOaksBlvd
N.Sun
riseAve
M
a
i
n
S
t
nI dustrial Ave
Granite Dr
Fairway Dr
Atk ni son St
Cook R oi lo Rd
Taylor Rd
PacificSt
WhitneyBlvd
HaydenPw
AtlanticSt
Sunset Blvd
CavittStallmanRd
OldAuburnRd
O
l
i
ve
Ra
nc
h
Rd
LeadHill Blvd
R
o
c
k
l
i
n
R
d
Riversdi e Ave
Galler ai Blvd
DiamondOa
ks
Rd
McAnallyDr
Church St
Harding Blvd
DelWebbBlvd
MarketSt
Roseville Rd
S
e
cretRavin e
Pkwy
Oak Ridge Dr
BobDoyleDr
AlexandraDr
CountryClubDr
B
e
r
r
y
S
t
LonetreeBlvd
Olympus Dr
ShastaSt
Mc
lar
en
Dr
W
h
y
t
e
A
v
e
SierraCollege Blvd
StanfordRanchRd
Westpark Dr
Hall
i
ssyDr
Folsom Rd
Gi
bs
o
n
Dr
Professi
o
nalDr
CrowderLn
HighlandPa
r
k
Dr
Jo
hn
s
o
n R anch Dr
KennerleighPw
YosemiteSt
Scarborough Dr
Pa
r
k
h
il
l
D
r
WellingtonWay
AuburnBlvd
Crest
Dr
N.

Cirby
Way
Sunrise Ave
Pa
r
k
Dr
Reserve Dr
Walerga Rd
Sun
City
Blvd
Holt
Pkwy
Westbrook Blvd
Vi
s
ta
G
r
a
n de Blvd
Free
d
o
m
Way
Santucci Blvd
80 80
65 Pla
ce
r
Co
u
n
ty
Sa
cra
m
e
n
to
Co
u
n
ty
Cityof
Roseville
N:\2017 Projects\3518_Roseville_General_Plan\Graphics\GIS\MXD\EIR_Figures\Fig0x_GPConstrained_TravelLanes.mxd GeneralPlanNumberofTravelLanes
Figure4.3-4
Notes:

1.Doesnotincludeturnlanesandauxiliarylanes.

TotalNumberofLanes(BothDirections)
2345678
City of Roseville 2035 Travel Demand Model
(Daily Volume Plot)
City of Roseville 2035 Travel Demand Model (ADT Plot)
with Westpark Land Use and Roadway Network Adjustments
Figure E.7 Shopping Center (820)
Average Pass-By Trip Percentage vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak period
Numberof studies: 100
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GLA: 329
Data Plot
Appendix E: Database on Passr-By, Diverted, and Primary llrips 191 Figure E.8 Shopping Center (820)
Average passBByTrip peFeentage vs: EN peak Hour TFaffic on Adjacent street Cn a: WeekdayB PM peak peried
Numberof studies: 28
Average FM peek Hr. Trot. On Adj. Stfteet: 38122
Data Plot
192 Trip Generation Handbook, Std Ediitton
TAZ JURISD SUBAREA RET (KSF) Location
11 ROSEVILLE Downtown 101 Adjacent to Washington Blvd and Main St, and Sierra Blvd. 27 ROSEVILLE Downtown 102 Along Vernon and Lincoln St in Downtown 32 ROSEVILLE Riverside Gateway 121 Along Riverside Ave north of Cirby Way 67 ROSEVILLE Infill 105 Along Riverside Ave north of Cirby Way 96 ROSEVILLE Infill 91 Located at Sunrise and Cirby
102 ROSEVILLE Infill 122 Along Orlando Way - Highway Commercial and Entertainment Uses 135 ROSEVILLE Infill 117 Along Douglas Blvd. east of I-80 144 ROSEVILLE Infill 119 Along Taylor Road. Primarily auto repair and related uses 154 ROSEVILLE Northwest 128 Located at Foothills and Baseline 175 ROSEVILLE Northwest 93 Located at Foothills and Junction 201 ROSEVILLE Northwest 89 Located at Woodcreek Oaks and Pleasant Grove Blvd. 210 ROSEVILLE North Cen 89 Located at Blue Oaks Blvd and Washington Blvd. 216 ROSEVILLE North Cen 128 Located along Pleasant Grove Blvd. 239 ROSEVILLE Highlands 134 Located at Fairway Dr. and Pleasant Grove Blvd. 253 ROSEVILLE Northeast 105 Located at Eureka Road and N. Sunrise Ave. 885 ROSEVILLE Stoneridg 120 Located along East Roseville Parkway 915 ROSEVILLE North Ros 81 Located at Blue Oaks Blvd and Woodcreek Oaks Blvd.

SUMMARY OF TAZs WITHIN ROSEVILLE THAT HAVE BETWEEN 80 and 140 KSF OF RETAIL Infill
West Roseville Del Webb
Stoneridge
North Industrial
North Roseville
Northwest Roseville
Creekview
Sierra Vista
Amoruso Ranch
North Central Roseville
Northeast
Roseville
Southeast
Roseville
Downtown
Highland
Reserve
North
Riverside
Gateway
North
Roseville
Infill
Infill
49 17
315
319
21 332
190
38 314
16 1117
20 43
1113
886
1101
318
113
64 209
920
35 9
65 200
888
37 19
313
93 232
1109
7 1189
202
15 331
99 887
201
908
50 131
8 327
75 323
10 67
23 48
192
1502
144
211
31 930
189
881
1111
322
231
34 25
328
330
1114
177
91 36
234
1119
89 1102
225
215
883
1107
18 57
252
191
114
94 214
103
119
1499
85 317
1112
185 22
26 198
59 120
168
326
1110
78 1525
115
1132
87 882
298
1122
308
42 55
1340
152
1511
324
938
306
88 206
925
218
1128
928
98 41
220
1115
892
325
894
39 33
173
66 914
207
1201
321
79 1118
182
909
90 931
256
273
116
63 160
312
937
105
169
210
46 76
1202
222
72 924
14 227
1342
260
917
195
1573
109
911
329
1127
1131
1359
110
1124
1503
316
174
62 1587
163
1106
159
1120
172
69 111
1103
29 226
181
271
918
102
183
156
1198
217
1358
86 219
233
287
157
1319
270
300
1314
1317
68 130
245
112
1204
929
73 310
263
255
1515
40 1356 1357
71 74
1316
1121
1574
275
248
243
1424
1576
1318
921
77 333
11 901
70 893
176
58 95
1105
307
936
244
272
1232
1228
1542
180
289
1589
45 1206
1578
1577
1337
1203
167
56 1523
1205
1211
1313
295
117
1347 1315
294 47
166
257
128
1338
208
92 240
1227
1333
1350
268
1207
132
922
1116
229
309
1354
906 902 203
179
1331
97 1505
197
194
1583
904
140
1344
1351 196
1100
267
250
932
299
281
153
1584
297
1208
916
137
1209 1355
261
133
282
1581 1104
934
926
13 223
24 1199
237
142
238
889
311
249
1200
12 151
28 1517
1230
935
32 134
129
1400
213
879
1125
923
264
907
60 80
44 320
1299
285
247
1341
1520
178
891
259
890
903
288
84 1130
253
228
83 1126
224
1312
118
258
139
221
1529
27 1514
290
262
1129
1123
230
1348
1524
162
246
291 292
880
242
293
188
303
184
885
158
912
1332
165
1575
301 96
1231
136
1065
1504
251
150
104
175 1346
205
939
101
913
216 1224
900
164
1298
915
254
170
302
1233
1343
1585
239
1349
1334
1336
154
186
283
193
1526
187
305
1188
1297
30 1345
1518
135
121
241
905
1521
138
1512
1510
1519
1210
1586
81 108
940
1066
927
910
1226
1528
1294
100
204
1588
1509
141
212
1582
296
884
61 1353
1516
1335
1507
1296
171
286
1558
1225
304
1229
161
1508
155
919
1527
82 877
933
1339
1506
1513
1295
284
1506
N:\2020 Projects\3972.00_Roseville_Housing_Element_Update\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Roseville_Model_Doc\Fig02_Roseville_SubAreas.mxd City of Roseville Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) and Subareas Figure 3
Amoruso Ranch
Creekview 
Del Webb
Downtown
Highland Reserve North
Infill
North Central Roseville
North Industrial
North Roseville
Northeast Roseville
Northwest Roseville
Riverside Gateway
Sierra Vista
Southeast Roseville
Stoneridge
West Roseville
§¨¦80
∙þ65
xxx TAZ Number
PC ATTACHMENT 6
1 3
2 4
8 6 5 15 14 12 11 10 9 7
16 18
17 13
25 19
22 21
20 28
23 24
26 27 29 30 31 32 35
39 33 36 37
42 38
34 41
40 44 43
48 45 49 47
52 46 51
53 50
60 61 54 56 62 55 57 58 59 63
Star Trail Way
Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Daylight Drive
"A" Drive
"B" Way
"C" Way
LC-1 LS-1 LS-2 LS-3 Santucci Boulevard
WB-30
496-100-027-000 WB-31
496-100-029-000
WB-82
496-100-032-000
WESTBROOK VILLAGE 20
EE MAPS 83
WESTBROOK PHASE 2 - VILLAGE 2A / 3A EE MAPS 49

SANTUCCI BOULEVARD
6-LANE ARTERIAL
n.t.s.

A

WEST SIDE EAST SIDE
61'
3'
cg
36'
median
18'
12'
travel lane
11'
travel lane
6'
bike
61'
3'
cg
12'
travel lane
11'
travel lane
6'
bike
8'
walk
40' LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR
PUE/LSE (by others)
8'
landscape
type 2 c&g
40' LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR

PUE/LSE

ROW ROW
CL
8'
landscape
10'
walk
18'
122'
masonry wall
11'
travel lane
11'
travel lane
type 1 barrier curb
PL PL

INCLUDES FUTURE BRT LANES

EXISTING PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD
4-LANE ARTERIAL
n.t.s.

B

SOUTH SIDE NORTH SIDE
38'
3'
cg
14'
median
7'
12'
travel lane
11'
travel lane
5'
bike
38'
3'
cg
12'
travel lane
11'
travel lane
5'
bike
8'
walk
35' LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR
PUE/LSE (by others)
8'
landscape
type 2 c&g
35'/50' LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR

PUE/LSE

ROW ROW
CL
8'
landscape
8'
walk
7'
76'
masonry wall
type 2 barrier curb
PL PL
21'
3'
cg
14'
travel lane
14'
travel lane
3'
cg
4'
walk
ROW

MINOR RESIDENTIAL STREET
42' ROW
n.t.s.

C
CL
21'
42'
ROW
4'
walk

RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL ENTRY D
type 1 c&g

12.5'
PUE

12.5'
PUE
15'
median
3'
cg
17'
travel lane
5'
walk
17'
travel lane
3'
cg
5'
walk

ROW ROW

27.5'
CL

27.5'
55'
24'
(PUE/LSE)
24'
(PUE/LSE)

LANDSCAPE

CORRIDOR

LANDSCAPE

CORRIDOR
PL PL
type 2 c&g
type 2 barrier curb
8'
min. ls
8'
min. ls
WB-41
n.t.s.
24'
3'
cg
16'
travel lane
16'
travel lane
3'
cg
ROW

EXISTING DAYLIGHT DRIVE

PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL STREET
n.t.s.

E
CL
19'
33'
ROW
5'
ls

WEST SIDE EAST SIDE
type 1 c&g
20' to 25'

LSE / PUE
VARIES - 15' MIN.

LSE / PUE
5'
walk
8'
walk
masonry wall
masonry wall
42' R/W
4' WALK
3' C&G
R=32'
TO R/W
R=22'
85° - 105°
R=52'

STANDARD ELBOW
(CITY OF ROSEVILLE STD. DWG ST-16)
n.t.s.

Sheet 1 of 2
July 16, 2021
of the Sierra Vista Specifc Plan
Roseville, CA

COVER SHEET

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
PARCEL WB-41
N

TENTATIVE MAP INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Westpark SV 400, LLC
1420 Rocky Ridge Drive, Suite 265
Roseville, CA 95661
ENGINEER: MacKay & Somps Civil Engineers, Inc.
1025 Creekside Ridge Drive, Suite 150
Roseville, CA 95678
916-773-1189
SITE ADDRESS: 3301 Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Roseville, CA 95661
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 496-100-030
SITE AREA 10.11 ± AC.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE:

Existing: CC
Proposed: MDR
ZONING:

Existing: CC
Proposed: RS/DS
NUMBER OF LOTS/PARCELS: 67 TOTAL LOTS
63 MDR Lots
1 ROW/Landscape Corridor Lot
3 Landscape Lots
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

1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lot 4 in Book DD of Maps at Page 79, Placer County Records.

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 performance criteria in the Development Agreement and 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. Street sections are per the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (Chapter 6) and the Sierra Vista Design Guidelines (Appendix B), except as modified hereon.

9. A minimum 12.5' Public Utility Public Easement (PUE) will be located adjacent to all rights-of-way unless otherwise noted.

10. Landscape corridor widths may be reduced for ancillary right-turn lanes, auxiliary lanes, bus turn-outs, standard tapers, and the like per the provisions in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan.

11. Paseo lots are to be dedicated as street rights-of-way (ROW).

12. The following lots are to be offered to the City of Roseville with the corresponding phase at the time of each Final Map: ROW Lots LC-1 and Landscape Lots LS-1 through LS-3.

13. Landscape corridor lots, paseo lots, and landscape lots are not to be counted as "lots" towards any future boundary line adjustment.

14. Design and placement of entry signage and masonry walls to be consistent with previous phases of the Solaire project.

15. City gateway signage will be incorporated at the corner of Santucci Boulevard and Pleasant Grove Boulevard in conformance with the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Guidelines Figure B-2, Entry Feature Locations.

TENTATIVE MAP NOTES

VICINITY MAP
BLVD

BASELINE ROAD

PLACER COUNTY

SACRAMENTO COUNTY FOOTHILLS BLVD

DOUGLAS
BLVD

ATLANTIC
ST

CIRBY WAY
E.ROSEVIL EUREKA
RD

HARDINGBLVD GALLERIA BLVD

ROSEVILLE

PKWY RIVERSIDE FIDDYMENT ROAD INDUSTRIAL BLVD
SUNSET
BLVD

STANFORD

RANCH RD COOK-RIOLO ROAD
U. P. R. R.

U. P. R. R.

PLEASANT

PFE ROAD
city limits, typ.

PKWY WATT AVENUE

BLVD WOODCREEK OAKS
West Roseville Specific Plan Area
city limits, typ.

GROVE

SIERRA VISTA

SPECIFIC PLAN

BOUNDARY
BLUE
OAKS

ROSEVILLE

CITY OF
COUNTY
PLACER

ROCKLIN

CITY OF
80 65 BLVD
LE WESTBROOK BLVD SANTUCCI BLVD 58'
SITE

PARCEL SUMMARY TABLE

PC EXHIBIT F
P=93.3 P=93.4 P=93.4 P=93.2 P=93.0 P=92.7 P=92.7 P=92.8 P=93.0 P=93.2 P=93.2 P=93.0 P=92.9
P=92.8
P=93.5
P=92.9 P=93.3 P=93.4 P=93.4 P=93.2 P=93.0 P=92.7 P=92.7 P=92.8 P=93.0 P=93.1 P=92.9 P=93.2 P=93.4 P=93.2 P=93.0 P=92.9 P=92.7 P=92.6 P=92.5 P=92.7 P=92.8 P=93.0 P=92.9 P=93.5 P=93.3 P=93.2 P=93.0 P=92.9 P=92.7 P=92.5 P=92.5 P=92.7 P=92.9 P=93.0 P=93.0 P=93.0 P=93.0
P=92.9
P=94.5
P=94.0
P=93.6
P=93.3
P=93.1
P=93.0
P=93.1
P=93.2
P=93.4
1 3
2 4
8 6 5 15 14 12 11 10 9 7
16 18
17 13
25 19
22 21
20 28
23 24
26 27 29 30 31 32 35
39 33 36 37
42 38
34 41
40 44 43
48 45
49 47
52 46 51
53 50
60 61 54 56 62 55 57 58 59 63
85'
85'
87'
90'
92'
93'
94'
85'
91' 85' 90' 95' 95' 95' 95' 95' 95' 95' 95' 95' 95' 95' 73' 78'
21'
45' 45' 72' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 58' 30' 45' 51'
47' 54' 49' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 52' 381'
99'
701'
60' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 59' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 88' 45' 45' 59' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 58' 45' 45' 46' 88' 88' 64' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 59' 88' 88' 63' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 93' 57' 11' 84' 74' 21'
81' 95' 95' 95' 95' 95' 95' 95' 95' 95' 95' 95' 85'
110'
69' 49' 45'
45' 45' 45' 45'
45'
34'
35'
30'
45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 45' 46' 34' 95' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 46' 58' 46' 47' 34'
33'
55' 159' N00°22'01"E 105.83' N04°10'33"E 120.42' N00°35'16"W 220.00' R=50.00' Δ=089°43'00" L=78.29'
R=31.00' Δ=090°00'00" L=48.69'
N89°07'43"E 5.00'
N89°07'43"E 905.43'
N81°24'32"W 60.83' S89°07'43"W 120.00' N79°39'59"E 60.83' N87°38'04"E 230.08' N89°07'43"E 70.46' N86°06'27"W 120.42' N89°07'43"E 150.00' N00°52'17"W 220.00'
N02°46'49"W 150.08' N00°52'17"W 90.50'
R=52' R=32'
R=
3 2' R
=
2 0
0 0' R
=
2 0
0 0' R=22'
R=22'
R=32'
R=52'
R
=22' R=22' R=2 ' R=22'
R=52'
R=32'
R=22'
40'
Star Trail Way
Pleasant Grove Boulevard
Daylight Drive
"A' Drive
"B" Way
"C" Way
LC-1

1.35± AC.

LS-1 - 4,125± sq. ft.

LS-2 - 4,967± sq.ft. LS-3 2,589 ± sq. ft.

Santucci Boulevard
WB-30
496-100-027-000
WB-31
496-100-029-000
WB-82
WESTBROOK PHASE 3 - VILLAGE 20
496-100-032-000
EE MAPS 83
WESTBROOK PHASE 2 - VILLAGE 2A / 3A
EE MAPS 49

12.5' PUE, typ. 12.5' PUE, typ.

12.5' PUE, typ.

12.5' PUE, typ.
20'
76'
27'
103'
19' 36'
32'
88'
89'
34'
54'
20' x20' BUS SHELTER
EASEMENT PER DD MAPS 79
Sheet 2 of 2
July 16, 2021
of the Sierra Vista Specifc Plan
Roseville, CA

GRADING, DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
PARCEL WB-41
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.

UTILITY NOTES

MASONRY WALL WITH PILASTERS

CONCEPTUAL

ESTIMATED
CUT: 12,000± c.y.

FILL: 12,000± c.y.

NET: 0± c.y.

EARTHWORK

SUMMARY

PROPERTY LINE

SECTION A-A
P/L

PROPOSED PAD
2:1
N.T.S.

EXISTING

MASONRY
WALL
WB-20
5'
2%
LS-3

SECTION B-B
N.T.S.

P/L
3:1
P/L
3:1
2'
2' 2' 26'

PROPOSED PAD PROPOSED PAD
Discussion Tables
Roseville Westbrook Rezone
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Prepared for:

Westpark Communities
Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
July 20, 2021
EPS #212068
CC ATTACHMENT 3
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 1
Shallow, Kinarik
From: Kat Fiorentino <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 11:21 AM
To: Shallow, Kinarik
Cc: Alejandro & Susan Garcia; angela Oneill; angela Oneill; Cheryl Hammond; Dave & Muneca Sutherland; Derrick Leeks; Don & Fran Van Skike; Glenda Atwood; Hannah Siviglia; Jeremiah Herrera; Jill & Robert Maccione; June & Robert Maccione; Kathy Wilkey; Raquel Terrazas; Tommy & Julie Thomas; Zach Siviglia Subject: PL21-0162
Attachments: 360 Diamond Oaks Rd Public Hearing Notice.pdf EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Greetings Kinarik,
I received my public hearing notice on the matter of 360 Diamond Oaks Road. I understand there is a Tree Permit to remove native oaks on this proposed development site. I am writing to petition for a copy of the Tree Permit, parcel map or other illustration showing which oak trees will be removed.

I am sure all the owners copied on this request would like to see the projected impact of the removal of these native oak trees allowing an opportunity to provide feedback. I am sure I am not the only one who has knowledge about endangered species using those oaks as a habitat.

I am primarily concerned with the 2 huge trees behind my property that serve as wildlife habitat for the Red-Tailed Hawks. I even thought I saw a Red-shouldered hawk but couldn't get a picture of it. I am concerned about the adverse impact of removing habitat for these endangered species of raptors. There are so many varieties of birds using these trees as a place to call home. I would appreciate it if the city could share with us their environmentally friendly position on which trees will be protected to avoid further loss of endangered species.

I understand we need to address the housing shortage. I also know the city of Roseville is an amazing, desirable place because we have wetlands, greenbelts and park initiatives to maintain space for the preservation of wildlife. Protecting open areas, so we can all enjoy our property, live in harmony with the neighborhood, neighbors and wildlife is fundamental to keeping Roseville Great! This greenbelt at Sierra View has been home to so many migratory birds, endangered species and threatened wildlife for over 60 years. We are very concerned about removal of the Native oaks, some may even be over 100 years old.

CC ATTACHMENT 4
2 Kat Fiorentino
Mortgage Broker, Financial Solutions Management
Branch Manager

Phone: 916-300-6125 Email: [email protected] Website:
https://LoansByKat.com/
Address: 408 Sunrise Ave #7, Roseville, CA 95661
NMLS 230274 DRE 01298989
Follow us

GTG Financial, Inc dba Financial Solutions Management. 1919 Creekside Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95405. Equal Housing Opportunity.

Licensed by the CA Department of Real Estate 02029711 NMLS 1595076. Licensed to do business in the states of CA, CO, TX. 1 Shallow, Kinarik
From: Shallow, Kinarik
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 12:01 PM
To: 'Kat Fiorentino'
Cc: Alejandro & Susan Garcia; angela Oneill; angela Oneill; Cheryl Hammond; Dave & Muneca Sutherland; Derrick Leeks; Don & Fran Van Skike; Glenda Atwood; Hannah Siviglia; Jeremiah Herrera; Jill & Robert Maccione; June & Robert Maccione; Kathy Wilkey; Raquel Terrazas; Tommy & Julie Thomas; Zach Siviglia Subject: RE: PL21-0162
Attachments: PL21-0162, 360 Diamond Oaks, Item 6.1a Sierra View Subdivision, 02 Exhibit F Tree Removal Exhibit.pdf
Hi Kat,
Attached is the tree removal exhibit that identifies the trees to remain, to be removed, and/or encroached into.  The complete set of project plans are located on the City’s Projects of Interest website at www.roseville.ca.us/ProjectsofInterest under “Sierra View Subdivision”.  Consistent with CEQA, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project which included an evaluation on the project’s impacts to biological resources including special‐status and migratory bird species and removal of oak trees.  Mitigation measures will be required of the project to ensure no special‐status species or birds are harmed during tree removal or construction. These measures include the requirement of pre‐construction nesting bird surveys done by a qualified biologist prior to the start of construction to determine whether there are any active nests.  The CEQA document is located online at www.roseville.ca.us/environmentaldocuments under “Sierra View County Club & Sierra Vista Specific Plan Redesignation and Rezone Project, File # PL21‐0161 and File # PL21‐0162”.

Thank you,
Kinnie
Kinarik Shallow
Associate Planner
Development Services Dept. – Planning Division
o: (916) 746-1309
f: (916) 774-5129
Working together to build a quality community.

Civic Center | 311 Vernon Street | Roseville, CA | 95678 From: Kat Fiorentino <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 11:21 AM
To: Shallow, Kinarik <[email protected]>
Cc: Alejandro & Susan Garcia <[email protected]>; angela Oneill <[email protected]>; angela Oneill <[email protected]>; Cheryl Hammond <[email protected]>; Dave & Muneca Sutherland 2 <[email protected]>; Derrick Leeks <[email protected]>; Don & Fran Van Skike <[email protected]>; Glenda Atwood <[email protected]>; Hannah Siviglia <[email protected]>; Jeremiah Herrera <[email protected]>; Jill & Robert Maccione <[email protected]>; June & Robert Maccione <[email protected]>; Kathy Wilkey <[email protected]>; Raquel Terrazas <[email protected]>; Tommy & Julie Thomas <[email protected]>; Zach Siviglia <[email protected]> Subject: PL21‐0162
EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Greetings Kinarik,
I received my public hearing notice on the matter of 360 Diamond Oaks Road. I understand there is a Tree Permit to remove native oaks on this proposed development site. I am writing to petition for a copy of the Tree Permit, parcel map or other illustration showing which oak trees will be removed.

I am sure all the owners copied on this request would like to see the projected impact of the removal of these native oak trees allowing an opportunity to provide feedback. I am sure I am not the only one who has knowledge about endangered species using those oaks as a habitat.

I am primarily concerned with the 2 huge trees behind my property that serve as wildlife habitat for the Red-Tailed Hawks. I even thought I saw a Red-shouldered hawk but couldn't get a picture of it. I am concerned about the adverse impact of removing habitat for these endangered species of raptors. There are so many varieties of birds using these trees as a place to call home. I would appreciate it if the city could share with us their environmentally friendly position on which trees will be protected to avoid further loss of endangered species.

I understand we need to address the housing shortage. I also know the city of Roseville is an amazing, desirable place because we have wetlands, greenbelts and park initiatives to maintain space for the preservation of wildlife. Protecting open areas, so we can all enjoy our property, live in harmony with the neighborhood, neighbors and wildlife is fundamental to keeping Roseville Great! This greenbelt at Sierra View has been home to so many migratory birds, endangered species and threatened wildlife for over 60 years. We are very concerned about removal of the Native oaks, some may even be over 100 years old.

Kat Fiorentino
Mortgage Broker, Financial Solutions Management
Branch Manager

Phone: 916-300-6125 Email: [email protected] Website:
https://LoansByKat.com/
Address: 408 Sunrise Ave #7, Roseville, CA 95661
NMLS 230274 DRE 01298989
Follow us

3 GTG Financial, Inc dba Financial Solutions Management. 1919 Creekside Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95405. Equal Housing Opportunity.

Licensed by the CA Department of Real Estate 02029711 NMLS 1595076. Licensed to do business in the states of CA, CO, TX. 1 Shallow, Kinarik
From: Kat Fiorentino <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 7:17 PM
To: Shallow, Kinarik
Cc: Alejandro & Susan Garcia; angela Oneill; Cheryl Hammond; Dave & Muneca Sutherland; Derrick Leeks; Don & Fran Van Skike; Glenda Atwood; Hannah Siviglia; Jeremiah Herrera; Jill & Robert Maccione; June & Robert Maccione; Kathy Wilkey; Raquel Terrazas; Tommy & Julie Thomas; Zach Siviglia
Subject: Sierra View Country Club Residential Development Attachments: Parcel Map - New.jpg; Sierra View Res Dvlpmnt Letr of intent.pdf EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I received a postcard from the city of Roseville Planning division regarding The following project's notice of MND. The problem is that it seems to address multiple projects so it's a bit confusing. I am hoping you can clarify some questions for our neighborhood as I am sure I am not the only one who has questions about his notice.

We are concerned with identifying the project that borders our neighborhood, specifically Diamond Oaks Road and Shasta Street. It appears you have lumped 3 different development projects on this one postcard so again I am confused. Are we just the 75 units on infill Planning Parcel 3 and listed as APN 015-011-029-000 or are we some combination of the other identifies referenced below? Pleasant Grove does not connect to our Diamond Oaks Neighborhood, but I really can't identify exactly which Parcel and APN pertains to us on this Post Card. 2 --
Kat Fiorentino
Mortgage Broker, Financial Solutions Management
Branch Manager

Phone: 916-300-6125 Email: [email protected] Website:
https://LoansByKat.com/
Address: 408 Sunrise Ave #7, Roseville, CA 95661
NMLS 230274 DRE 01298989
Follow us

GTG Financial, Inc dba Financial Solutions Management. 1919 Creekside Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95405. Equal Housing Opportunity.

Licensed by the CA Department of Real Estate 02029711 NMLS 1595076. Licensed to do business in the states of CA, CO, TX. 1 Shallow, Kinarik
From: Shallow, Kinarik
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 9:10 AM
To: Kat Fiorentino
Cc: Bitter, Greg; Ogden, Derek; Alejandro & Susan Garcia; angela Oneill; Cheryl Hammond; Dave & Muneca Sutherland; Derrick Leeks; Don & Fran Van Skike; Glenda Atwood; Hannah Siviglia; Jeremiah Herrera; Jill & Robert Maccione; June & Robert Maccione; Kathy Wilkey; Raquel Terrazas; Tommy & Julie Thomas; Zach Siviglia Subject: RE: Sierra View Country Club Residential Development Attachments: PL21-0162 Sierra View Subdivision Map.pdf
Hi Kat,
Thanks for reaching out. We realize the project description in the MND notice may be confusing, but it is two projects that are linked to each other. Below are descriptions for each project. File #PL21‐0162 pertains to the Sierra View Country Club property in your neighborhood, which has an address of 360 Diamond Oaks Rd. (APN# 015‐011‐029‐000).

There are currently 168 units allocated to that site, however the project is proposing to build only 75 units (attached is the proposed subdivision map). The remaining 93 units must be transferred elsewhere within the City, and are being transferred to SVSP Parcel WB‐41 and WB‐31, which is why they are referenced in the project description. I apologize for the confusion but hope this provides clarification. Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions.

File #PL21-0162 Request: This 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 WB31 (+30 units).

File #PL21-0161 Request: This project will allow the construction of 63 single-family homes on SVSP Parcel WB-41. 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 also be amended to reflect the 30 additional units transferred to High Density Residential Parcel WB-31. A Second Amendment to 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.

Thank you,
Kinnie
Kinarik Shallow
Associate Planner
Development Services Dept. – Planning Division
o: (916) 746-1309
f: (916) 774-5129
Working together to build a quality community.

Civic Center | 311 Vernon Street | Roseville, CA | 95678 2 From: Kat Fiorentino <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 7:17 PM
To: Shallow, Kinarik <[email protected]>
Cc: Alejandro & Susan Garcia <[email protected]>; angela Oneill <[email protected]>; Cheryl Hammond <[email protected]>; Dave & Muneca Sutherland <[email protected]>; Derrick Leeks <[email protected]>; Don & Fran Van Skike <[email protected]>; Glenda Atwood <[email protected]>; Hannah Siviglia <[email protected]>; Jeremiah Herrera <[email protected]>; Jill & Robert Maccione <[email protected]>; June & Robert Maccione <[email protected]>; Kathy Wilkey <[email protected]>; Raquel Terrazas <[email protected]>; Tommy & Julie Thomas <[email protected]>; Zach Siviglia <[email protected]> Subject: Sierra View Country Club Residential Development EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I received a postcard from the city of Roseville Planning division regarding The following project's notice of MND. The problem is that it seems to address multiple projects so it's a bit confusing. I am hoping you can clarify some questions for our neighborhood as I am sure I am not the only one who has questions about his notice.

We are concerned with identifying the project that borders our neighborhood, specifically Diamond Oaks Road and Shasta Street. It appears you have lumped 3 different development projects on this one postcard so again I am confused. Are we just the 75 units on infill Planning Parcel 3 and listed as APN 015-011-029-000 or are we some combination of the other identifies referenced below? Pleasant Grove does not connect to our Diamond Oaks Neighborhood, but I really can't identify exactly which Parcel and APN pertains to us on this Post Card. 1 Shallow, Kinarik
From: Derek Pell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 1:14 AM
To: Shallow, Kinarik
Subject: Sierra View Country Club & Sierra Vista Specific Plan Redesignation and Rezoning Project File #PL21-0162 and #PL21-0161
EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Kinnie,
I wanted to reach out with some concerns regarding the proposed rezoning for infill parcels 100 and 3. There was obviously a lot of work that went into the combined CEQA document and I understand there are a couple different sets of rules at play here that have to be navigated (SB 330 and CEQA). While on the surface, downzoning one area of the city by 93 units and redistributing them elsewhere in the area seems rational, I am concerned that the analysis is missing the higher-level interactions.

For example, take VMT. For the SV parcels, VMT analysis is not required since the general plan assessed the impact of VMT for the parcel designated at MDR, and the proposed change from baseline creates fewer units and thus fewer VMT. For the SVSP parcel WB-41, VMT analysis showed a decrease based on a strict change from commercial to residential. The conclusion of page 5 of the Cumulative Considerations that the proposed project will reduce VMT impacts, however, intuitively doesn't seem right.

The city is taking housing (or really potential housing) from a centralized location, and pushing it to the far reaches of town. The SV parcels are just over a mile from commercial areas such as Old Town and Downtown, the Church St. Station, and around a mile and a half from The Fountains, where there are restaurants and shops.

Having previously lived just over on Alta Vista Ave, I speak from experience when I say it is a centralized, bikeable, walkable area where VMT could well be below average for the city. Conversely, the parcels in the SVSP will likely be far away from most destinations when they are first constructed, meaning more people in more cars. Looking at the SVSP itself, WB-31 and WB-41 are going to be around a mile from other commercial areas and significantly farther from the main commercial zones along Baseline when SVSP is fully built out. It seems to me that both in the short term (before full SVSP buildout) and in the long-term, the combined effect of the rezoning will be that there will be fewer people close to amenities where it is possible to not drive, and more people in cars travelling longer distances to get the goods and services they need. In fact, re-zoning WB-41 to residential removes the north-west commercial area of the SVSP and, again, will push more people to get in their car and drive, rather than walking or biking down the street.

In conclusion, downzoning infill parcels 3 and 100 is a bad deal for future Roseville residents. It takes one of the city's last opportunities to create denser infill on a greenfield site close to jobs, shops, restaurants and healthcare, and wastes it on a single-family gated subdivision. In addition, pushing more housing out to the edge of the city is a surefire way to force more people into cars.

Thank you for your time,
Derek Pell
530 863 0662

1 Shallow, Kinarik
From: Carol Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 1:36 PM
To: Bitter, Greg; Shallow, Kinarik
Subject: Sierra View Country Club Project
EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Greg and Kinarik,
Please see my comments below for the Planning Commission Meeting on Thursday evening in support of the Sierra View Country Club project that Westpark Communities is processing:

I reside in the Diamond Oaks neighborhood and have been a 30 year member of Sierra View Country Club.  I am also a lifelong resident and former Mayor for the City of Roseville.  I strongly support this project.

The state has increased its desire to impose land use control on local governments, and the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 ties the hands of local jurisdictions to reduce density, even in the face of community opposition.  We are fortunate that Sierra View was able to find a partner in Westpark Communities who was willing to accept units from this project so that Sierra View could reduce the intensity of this project and the impact on the community.  Without this partnership, we would be looking at as many as 168 homes, whereas tonight we are looking at a community of 75 homes that will blend in with the existing community.

I fully support the proposed project and encourage your vote of support tonight.

Carol Garcia
Former Mayor City of Roseville
CC ATTACHMENT 5
1 Shallow, Kinarik
From: Michael Manfredi <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 8:51 AM
To: Bitter, Greg; Shallow, Kinarik
Subject: Sierra View Agenda Item
EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Greg and Kinarik,
I understand that the Planning Commission is meeting tomorrow evening to discuss the proposed Sierra View project.  I will be unable to attend, but wanted to offer my opinion of this project.

I grew up in the neighborhood near Sierra View—on Carmel Avenue.  My parents built the home and lived there for 60 years and were part of the initial “founders” of the  Sierra View Country Club.

I recently moved back from the Bay Area to Placer County, and I am now a member of the Sierra View Country Club.  I think this project would be a great enhancement to the neighborhood.  Quite frankly, I am looking at moving back into this neighborhood if the project is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council.  I think it is an outstanding plan.  I hope the Planning Commission will vote in support of this project.

Thank you very much, Michael Manfredi
Michael Manfredi | CFO
999 Fifth Avenue, Suite 420 | San Rafael, CA 94901
Office: (415) 755‐4512 ext. 203 | Mobile: (415) 595‐7434 www.realtycompartners.com
The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. The advice rendered with regard to any contract facilitation and review is based upon RCP's experience with this subject matter, however, RCP is not a licensed legal advisor or Attorney and does not make any warranties, whether express or implied, including the adequacy or accuracy of such recommendations and shall not be liable to you or any third party regarding the advice rendered. You are advised to seek the advice of your legal advisor, Attorney or licensed professional with regard to any issues concerning any contracts or agreements discussed herein.
 RealtyCom Partners, LLC encourages you to consider the environment before printing this e‐mail 1 Shallow, Kinarik
From: lesli goto <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 8:07 AM
To: Bitter, Greg; Shallow, Kinarik
Subject: Support For Sierra View Project
EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
I am a 44-year resident of Diamond Oaks and live on Diamond Oaks Road. I currently serve on the Placer Board of Education.

I have followed this project for the past year and have attended some of the community outreach meetings. This is an outstanding project, and I strongly support it.

I have known the principals at Westpark for many years, and they do an outstanding job for our community—and are especially good at doing outreach for their projects.

I strongly support the plans for Sierra View Country Club.

Thank you,
Susan Goto
230 Diamond Oaks Road
Roseville, CA 95678
CC ATTACHMENT 6

CC ATTACHMENT 7
916.774.5276 • Fax 916.774.5129 • TDD 916.774.5220 • www.roseville.ca.us

MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Commission
From: Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner
Date: December 8, 2021
Re: Response to Robert and Jane Maccione’s Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Sierra View Subdivision Project (File #PL21-0162) During the 30-day public review period of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Sierra View Subdivision project, City staff received a letter dated December 5, 2021 from Robert and Jane Maccione, owners of 1004 Shasta Street. The letter is included as Attachment 1 to this memorandum. The letter states that they object to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and that it is deficient. 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. However, the letter does not provide any substantial evidence to support these claims. As clearly stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, “argument, speculation, [and] unsubstantiated opinion or narrative” is not substantial evidence. The topics of concern include impacts to biological resources, water quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and density. These concerns are summarized and addressed below.

Biological Resources
The letter claims that the MND does not disclose, discuss, nor provide mitigation for: 1.) the destruction of nesting and breeding habitat of birds protected by the Migratory Birds Act; 2.) the loss of habitat for the native bat population, and 3.) the loss of forage for river otters.

Section IV (Biological Resources) of the Initial Study checklist discusses that special-status and migratory bird species have the potential to occur onsite and because the project requires the removal of several native oak trees, this has the potential to disrupt the nesting of special-status birds and migratory birds.

Therefore, as disclosed and required in the IS/MND, a pre-construction nest survey is required to ensure that no special-status nesting birds or migratory birds are harmed during tree removal or construction of any kind (see Mitigation Measure BIO-2 of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is included with the December 16, 2021 Planning Commission Staff Report (“Staff Report”) as Exhibit K, Attachment 15).

The General Plan (GP) EIR discussed the potential for pallid bats and Townsend’s big-eared bats to occur in the Planning Area. It was determined that the Planning Area is within the species’ range, but no occurrences of the species have been recorded within the Planning Area; however, suitable habitat for the species is present and recorded occurrences of the species are generally present in the vicinity (see Table 4.8-3 of the GP EIR). The pre-construction survey would also ensure that roosting bats are not harmed by implementing the project. Though there would be some loss of unoccupied roosting habitat, the lost acreage is not significant.

As disclosed in the IS/MND, the GP EIR shows that the northern portion of the project site contains a narrow band of riparian woodland surrounding the intermittent tributary (GP EIR, p. 4.8-3). This riparian woodland has the potential to contain habitat, although, there is a low likelihood that it contains habitat DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT – PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276

916.774.5276 • Fax 916.774.5129 • TDD 916.774.5220 • www.roseville.ca.us for any sensitive-status species (see Attachment 4 and Attachment 7 of Staff Report Exhibit H and I).

The drainage is too minor of a tributary to provide forage for river otters, as their diet consists primarily of fish and other aquatic species that are not supported by the drainage due to its intermittent nature. In addition, river otters are not listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and thus are not protected by that statute, as the letter suggests. Any construction that would occur on the bed and bank of a stream or other water body, including drainage canals, must comply with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, which will require the developer obtain a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. There are no known other sensitive natural communities onsite. Any potential impacts to riparian habitat would be less than significant with implementation of MM BIO-3. MM BIO-3 would ensure that all conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures within these permits are followed.

Finally, the letter suggests that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MTBA) and its implementing regulations have a broader reach than is actually the case. The MTBA does not protect all potential breeding habitat of the birds mentioned in the letter. Rather, the Act protects the birds themselves, along with their nests, eggs, and parts. The MTBA makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill protected birds, their parts, their nests, or their eggs; to attempt to take, capture, or kill the protected birds, their parts, their nests, or their eggs; to possess, offer for sale, offer to barter, offer to purchase, or purchase the protected birds, their parts, their nests, or their eggs; to deliver for shipment, ship, import, or export the protected birds, their parts, their nests, or their eggs; or to deliver for transportation, transport, or cause to be transported the protected birds, their parts, their nests, or their eggs. Thus, to the extent that land surrounding a nest might contribute to breeding, the MTBA does not protect all such land.

Water Quality
The letter alleges that in August 2021, the Sierra View Country Club and/or Westpark illegally took a backhoe onto the site and dug into the area of and/or surrounding the tree-sheltered wetlands, seasonal lakes, seasonal streambeds, and vernal pool, with the intent of destroying them. However, staff is not aware of any of these activities occurring on site. The applicant has indicated that Youngdahl Consulting Group dug test pits on site around the time stated in the letter as part of their geotechnical engineering study. This was done lawfully and with all required permits. Regardless, the CEQA process is not the appropriate venue for a party to allege that a property owner has engaged in illegal site work. (See Riverwatch v. County of San Diego (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1453.) In addition, the letter claims that the project’s mitigation through bioswales and retention pond is inadequate to replace the function of the current wetlands and to handle run-off from the golf course and the increased pollution from the proposed residential development. Lastly, the letter states the IS/MND does not adequately address impacts on down-stream salmon habitat and a more detailed environmental study is needed.

The natural drainage shed of the subject property is generally from the south and east towards the northwest; therefore, the project site does not provide for any treatment or accommodation of golf course run-off. The IS/MND discloses that the site contains several aquatic resources, including a central drainage ditch that flows south to north into an intermittent tributary that flows east to west. There are also a number of seasonal wetland and vernal pool features scattered around the site and a narrow band of riparian woodland surrounding the intermittent tributary. An Aquatic Resources Delineation Report was prepared by Madrone Ecological Consulting, a qualified biologist, and is included as Attachment 7 of Staff Report Exhibit I. Section IV (Biological Resources) of the Initial Study identifies that the seasonal wetland swale and intermittent drainage/riparian wetland on site are considered federally regulated waters of the U.S., pursuant to 33 CFR Part 328, and thusly regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (see Attachment 8 of Staff Report Exhibit J). The remaining wetlands and the ditch are Stateregulated waters. A discharge permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, will be required for any impacts to the seasonal wetland swale and intermittent drainage/riparian wetland that will contain conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures to ensure a net zero loss of wetland resources and a less-than-significant impact to any special-status species that

916.774.5276 • Fax 916.774.5129 • TDD 916.774.5220 • www.roseville.ca.us may occur on or near the affected wetland resources. Similar permitting will be required for any Stateregulated aquatic resources that may be impacted. State-issued Waste Discharge Requirements, pursuant to Division 7, Chapter 4, Article 4 of the Water Code established by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, will be required for all impacted wetland resources that are not regulated by the Clean Water Act (see GP EIR, p. 4.8-74). MM BIO-4 would ensure there would be no net loss of wetlands and that all conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures within these permits are followed.

Section X (Hydrology and Water Quality) of the Initial Study checklist evaluates whether the project would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. This section also evaluates whether the project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which result in flooding on- or off-site, or create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

The City’s adopted CEQA Implementing Procedures indicate that compliance with the City’s Design/Construction Standards (Resolution 07-107), Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (RMC Ch. 14.20), and Stormwater Quality Design Manual (Resolution 16- 152) will prevent significant impacts related to water quality or erosion. The standards require preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan for construction activities and include designs to control pollutants within post-construction urban water runoff. The developer is required to treat and detain all stormwater onsite using stormwater swales and other methods which slow flows and preserve infiltration.

The project will require approval of a grading permit and improvement plans from the City prior to the start of construction, which are required to incorporate mitigation measures for dust and erosion control.

In addition, the City has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board that requires the City to reduce pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable. The City does this, in part, by means of the City’s 2016 Design/Construction Standards, which require preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the project. All permanent stormwater quality control measures must be designed to comply with the City’s Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Standards for New Development, the City’s 2016 Design/Construction Standards, Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, and Stormwater Quality Design Manual. A preliminary storm drainage evaluation was prepared for the project by MacKay & Somps (see Attachment 11 of Staff Report Exhibit J). The evaluation includes specific detail on storm drain infrastructure and detention proposed as part of the project to ensure compliance with all applicable measures, permits, and programs by improving drainage and reducing impacts, including installing a network of drainage pipes, large box culverts, a detention basin, vegetated swales, disconnected impervious surfaces, and bioretention facilities.

All of these measures, permits, and programs, which are required for the project, are put in place to ensure that impacts to surface water quality are negligible or less than significant. Therefore, impacts to these resources would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Greenhouse Gas
The letter states there does not appear to be any calculation of the increase of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the establishment of the residential neighborhood, nor the loss of GHG reduction capacity with the removal of the native oak trees and other currently existing flora.

Section VIII (Greenhouse Gases) of the Initial Study checklist discusses the project’s potential impacts to GHG. The principal GHGs that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. A technical memo was prepared by Raney Planning and Management, Inc. that presents the anticipated GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the project, and compares these estimates to the applicable thresholds of

916.774.5276 • Fax 916.774.5129 • TDD 916.774.5220 • www.roseville.ca.us significance established by the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) (see Attachment 10 of Staff Report Exhibit J). The PCAPCD thresholds were designed to analyze a project’s compliance with applicable State laws including Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 32 (SB 32). As noted in Appendix A, Implementation Measures (operation Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions), of the City’s General Plan, the City of Roseville relies on PCAPCD thresholds for determining significance conclusions. PCAPCD recommends that lead agencies use the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) to quantify operational emissions for criterial air pollutants, which evaluates operational emissions from area and mobile sources, energy use, solid waste, and water. The estimated operational GHG emissions in the first year of full buildout were found to be below the PCAPCD’s operational screening threshold of significance. Thus, operations of the proposed project would not be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change.

Density
The letter states that Single-Family Residential (R1) zoning is more appropriate for the property for purposes of density in order to match the surrounding neighborhoods. However, the density of a property is determined based on the land use designation. The project is proposing to reduce density on the site by amending the current land use designation from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR), which is consistent with the adjacent subdivisions to the north and east. The proposed RS zone is an implementing zone for the LDR land use. Per the Zoning Ordinance, the RS zone district is intended to allow either attached or detached single-family dwellings. The proposed tentative subdivision map is designed with larger lots to that will better accommodate a variety of single-story and two-story home plans consistent with the adjacent LDR subdivision.

Conclusion
As previously stated, Robert and Jane Maccione do not provide substantial evidence to support the claims in their letter. Staff is confident that the Initial Study adequately discloses, evaluates, and mitigates the Project’s environmental impacts and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental determination for this project; the Initial Study provides substantial evidence to support this finding.

RESOLUTION NO. 22-023

AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ON

CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, a proposal has been submitted to amend the General Plan 2035 – Land Use Map of the City of Roseville for that portion of certain real property within the City of Roseville known as Infill Planning Parcel 100 from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR), as shown in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the General Plan on December 16, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2021, the Planning Commission considered and adopted the Sierra View Country Club and Sierra Vista Specific Plan Redesignation and Rezone Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2021110118) and the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and recommended that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing at which time the proposed amendments were considered; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2022, the City Council considered the Sierra View Country Club and Sierra Vista Specific Plan Redesignation and Rezone Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2021110118) and the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by the Planning Commission on December 16, 2021; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Roseville desires to approve said amendments to the Roseville General Plan as conducive to public interest, health, safety and welfare, and consistent with the land use practices of the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville that the amendment changing the Land Use Map is hereby adopted as set forth in the attached Exhibit B.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Development Services Director is hereby directed to retain said General Plan Amendments on permanent public display in the Development Services Department of the City of Roseville.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 20 , by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
City Clerk
2 INFILL PARCEL #100
MDR

21.32± AC
Designated
Remainder
Diamond Oaks Road
Shasta Street
35 P.M. 46
Diamond Oaks Unit 7 - N Maps 68
Sierra Townhomes
Unit No. 1
N Maps 69 Sierra Oaks Q Maps 79 Walton Estates M Maps 87 INFILL PARCEL #3
LDR 1.79± AC
INFILL PARCEL #100
LDR

21.32± AC
Designated
Remainder
Diamond Oaks Road
Shasta Street
35 P.M. 46
Diamond Oaks Unit 7 - N Maps 68
Sierra Townhomes
Unit No. 1
N Maps 69 Sierra Oaks Q Maps 79 Walton Estates M Maps 87 INFILL PARCEL #3
LDR 1.79± AC
N

EXISTING LAND USE PROPOSED LAND USE

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Roseville, CA November 18, 2021

SIERRA VIEW

ROSEVILLE

CITY OF

ROCKLIN

CITY OF
65 80city limits, typ.
city limits, typ.

SITE

ROSEVILLE PKWY GALLERIA BLVD FOOTHILLS BLVD WOODCREEK

OAKS BLVD

JUNCTION BLVD

BASELINE ROAD MAIN STATKINSON 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 VICINITY MAP

ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS

CC EXHIBIT A

JUNCTION BL

TAYLOR RD

BLUE OAKS BL

WASHINGTON BL

ROSEVILLE PW

SECRETRAVINE PW

EUREKA RD

ROCKY RIDGE DR

GALLERIA BL

VERNON ST

FIDDYMENT RD

WOODCREEK OAKS BL

S CIRBY WY

RIVERSIDE AV

ATLANTIC ST

DOUGLAS BL

CIRBY WY

PLEASANT GROVE BL

BASELINE RD

HARDING BL

WESTBROOK BL

E ROSEVILLE PW

FAIRWAY DR

N SUNR ISE AV
!"c$
A¤MDR
MDR
MDR
HDR PR
HDR OS
CC/VC
HDR/VC
LDR
MDR/VC
HDR
MDR
OS
LDR
P/QP
CC
CC

P/QP P/QP
LDR
HDR
LDR
OS
CC
PR
LDR
LDR
OS
LDR
PR
LDR
LDR

P/QP MDR
LDR
LDR
MDR

LDR LDR LDR
MDR
MDR
HDR
MDR
MDR
LDR
LDR
PR
HDR
LDR
LDR
P/QP
HDR
CC
MDR
LDR
OS

P/QP PR OS

PR OS OS
OS
CC
OS
OS
CC
MDR

MDR MDR
OS OS
MDR
OS
OS MDR
OS
OS
LDR
P/QP
UR
OS
CC
OS MDR
OS

LDR HDR
CC
LDR
LDR
HDR

LDR LDR
OS
P/QP

P/QP/VC
CC/VC
HDR/VC
PR/VC
MDR/VC
CC
OS
HDR
CC
HDR
LDR OS
HDR
LDR
PR
LDR
LDR
PR
LDR
LDR
OS
CC
MDR
HDR
PR
LDR
HDR
LDRPR
P/QP
PR
LDR
LDR
P/QP
LDR
LDR
LDR
P/QP
PR
LDR
LDR
OS
LDR
HDR
CC

CC/BP LDR
PR
MDR
OS
LDR
OS
LDR
OS
PR
CC
LDR

P/QP CC
LDR
OS HDR
LDR
CC
IND CC
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
PR
MDR
LDR
OS
PR
RC
CC

P/QP P/QP BPP/QP
CC/BP
PR
HDR
OS/FP
CC
LDR
OS
PR

LDR LDR OS/FP PR
LDR
CC
LDR

LDR LDR
HDR
LDR
LI

P/QP CC LDR
LI
LDR
LDR
HDR
PR
CC
P/QP
LDR
LDR
PR
LI
HDR
LDR CC
LDR
PR
PR
CC

LDR LDR
LDR
LDR
PR
P/QP
CC PR
PR

LDR LDR
CC
CC
PR
LDR
CC
LDR
LDR
RC
PR
PR
LDR
LDR

P/QP LDR LDR
PR
PR
RC
P/QP
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
RC
LDR
OS LDR
BP/CC
PR

BP/CC PR

LDR LDR
HDR
OS
PR
CC
PR
HDR
LDR
PR
PR
OS
P/QP
LDR
HDR
LDR
OS
OS

MDR HDR CC
BP
PR
OS
LDR
HDR
HDR
CC LDR
LDR
P/QP
LDR
LDR
MDR
MDR
LDR
PR
PR
PR
HDR
PR
PR
OS/FP
LDR
LDR
LDR
RC
OS
LDR
LDR
HDR
BP LDR
LDR
PR
P/QP
BP CC
CC BP
BP BP
BP
BP
HDR
PR
PR
LDR
LI
LDR OS
LDR
PR
NC LDR
LDR
CC
P/QP
CC
P/QP
LDR
LDR
LDR
CC
OS
LDR
MDR
CC
PR
CC
PR
LI
CC
PR
PR
PR
PR
OS
PR
LDR
PR
LDR
LDR
LDR
CC
PR
LDR
LI
PR
LI
LDR
LDRPR
LDR
OS OS
OS
LI
PR
LDR
P/QP
OS
LDR
LDR
CC

CCBP BP HDR

HDRBPBP
BP
BP
LDR
LDR
PR
LDR
LI
PR
CC
PR
CC
BP
P/QP
PR
PR
HDR

MDR HDR
MDR
LDR
OS
OS
PR LDR
LDR
OS
LDR
LDR
LDR BP
CC
P/QP

LDR LDR BP
HDR
CC
BP

LDR PR MDR
MDR
P/QP
LI
P/QP

LDR LDR
LDR
TS
PR
LI
BP
LDR
LDR

LDR P/QP
P/QP
LDR LI
LDR
LDR

P/QP PR
LDR
BP
LI
P/QP
OS/FP
BP
BP
HDR
LDR
LDR
BP BP
MDR
CC
LI
MDR
MDR
HDR
LDR
LDR
MDRMDR
BP CC
LDR
LDR
HDR
BP
LDR
P/QP
LDR
P/QP
LDR
CC
LDR
BP
CC
LDR
BP
LDR
CC
CC HDR
BP
BP
MDR
LDR
OS
PR
LDR
PR
P/QP
P/QP
LI
PR
NC
CC
CC
BP

MDR MDR
CC
CC LDR
CC
OS
CC
LDR
P/QP
CC BP
HDR
CC
LDR
BP
HDR
MDR BP
BP
LDR
LDR
LDR
BP CC
PR
CC
CC
HDR
CC
MDR
LDR
CC
PR CC
BP
LDR
P/QP
CC
LDR
LDR PR
HDR
LDR
LDR
LDR

LDR LDR
CC
OS LDR
MDR
CC
CC
CC CC
CC
HDR PR
MDR
BP
HDR
CC
HDR
HDR
OS
CC
OS
CC
LDR
BP
OS/FP
HDR
CC
CC
LDR
IND
MDR
BP
CC
PR
IND
OS
LDR
LDR

LDR LDR
LDR
LDR
LI
BP

PR OS/FP
LDR
LDR
CC
OS/FP
LDR
PR
OS
BP
LDR
OS
LDR
PR
LI
LI
LDR
LI
LDR
HDR
HDR
P/QP
LDR
HDR

MDR LDR
LDR
LDRLDR

HDR LDR
LDR
HDR
LDR
LDR
P/QP
CC
CC
LDR

LDR LDR
PR
LDR
PR
LDR
PR
LDR
PR
PR LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
OS
LDR
LDR
CC
LDR
PR
MDR
HDR
P/QP
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
OS
LDR
MDR
BP
P/QP
LDR
LDR
PR
PR
LDR
LDR
LI
LDR PR
OS
OS
LDR
OS
CC
OS
CC
BP
MDR
HDR
LDR
CC
CC
BP/CC
OS/FP
LDR
LDR
OS
LDR
CC
CC
HDR
LI
LDR
LDR
LDR
PR
MDR
LI
OS
LDR
CC HDR
LDR
LDR
BP
LDR
LDR
PR
OS
OS
LDR
LDR
P/QP
LDR
PR
CC
LDR
OS
LDR
PR
NC LDR
MDR
OS/FP
LDR
LDR
LDR
CC
BP
BP
OS
OS
BP
BP
BP
CC
HDR
CC
CC
MDR

LDR LDR
CC/FP
CC
LDR
LDR
OS
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
P/QP

OS/PR/FP
LDR
OS/FP
LDR
LDR
MDR
PR
CC
MDR
MDR

OS/FP OS/FP
LDR
LDR
MDR
CC
PR
OS
LI
OS
IND
CC
LDR
OS/FP
LDR
LDR
LDR
PR
CBD
CC CC
MDR
CBD
CC
CC
BP/LI
IND
LDR
IND
LDR
MDR
LDR
LDR

OS/PR/FP
LDR
CC
OS
LDR
LDR
OS
LDR
LDR
OS
PR

OS LDR LDR LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
PR
OS OS
P/QP
OS/FP
PR
MDR
LDR
BP
CC
LDR
PR
LDR
LDR
CC PR
LI LI

IND IND
PR CC
HDR PR
OSPR
LDR
LDR
LDR

LDRPRP/QP
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR

HDR LDR
OS
LDR
LDR
LDR
MDR
MDR
MDR
PR
LDR
OS
CC
HDR
LDR
LI
CC
CC
BP
T/BP

MDR MDR MDR
LDR
LDR
LDRLDR
PR
LIPR
OS
LI
MDR
PR

P/QP LDR

MDR LDR

LDR LDR

LDR LDR
CC
HDR
MDR

LDR LDR
LDR
MDR
PR
LDR

LDR MDR
MDR
LDR
LDR
MDR
MDR
T/BP
HDR
HDR
BP
OS
HDR
LDR
MDR
PR
OS
PR
MDR
PR
MDR
LDR
LDR OS
P/QP
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
CC CC
LDR
PRHDR

LDR LDR

LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR
LDR
LDR

MDR P/QP
LDR
MDR
LDR
OS
LDR
LDR
LDR
OS
LDR
LDR
LDR
HDR
CC
LDR
LDR
LDR
MDR
OS
LDR
LDR
CC
CC
HDR
MDR
OS
HDR
MDR
MDR
CC/VC
HDR
CC/VC
MDR
LDR
HDR
OS
PR
OS
MDR
PR
PR

P/QP LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR

LDR LDR
LDR
LDRLDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDRLDR
LDR

LDR LDR
PR
LDR
MDR
LDR
LDR
LDR

LDR LDR
OS
OS
LDR
LDR
LDR

LDR LDR
LDR
MDR
MDR
MDR
MDR
MDR
MDR
MDRMDR
LDR
MDR
LDR
HDR

HDR HDR
LDR
OS
OS
OS
OS
LDR
PR
PR
LDR
CC

P/QP LDR
UR
UR
OS
CC
CC
CC
OS
CC
LDR
LEGEND
Planning Area
Landuse
Residential
Low-Density Residential (LDR)
Medium-Density Residential (MDR)
High-Density Residential (HDR)
Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Community Commercial (CC)
Regional Commercial (RC)
Office
Business Professional (BP)
Industrial
Light Industrial (LI)
General Industrial (IND)
Tech/Business Park (T/BP)
Transfer Station (TS)
Special Areas
Central Business District (CBD)
Public/Quasi-Public (PQP)
Parks and Recreation (PR)
Open Space (OS)
Urban Reserve (UR)
I 0 2,500 5,000
FEET
Last updated: December 2021
Combining Uses
Floodplain (FP)
Study Area (SA)
Village Center (VC)

CC EXHIBIT B
ORDINANCE NO.

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 5428 OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED

WITHIN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Roseville has reviewed the findings of the Planning Commission recommending approval of the rezone specified herein, and makes the following findings pursuant to Section 19.86.050 of the Zoning Ordinance:

1. The rezone is in conformance with the public interest, health, safety, or welfare of the City; and

2. The rezone is consistent with the objectives, policies, programs, and land use designations of the City of Roseville General Plan.

SECTION 2. That Section 19.06.020 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roseville, Ordinance No. 5428, is amended to change the zoning of that portion of certain real property located on Parcel 3 and Parcel 100 of the Infill Planning Area in the City of Roseville, as shown and so designated in Exhibit C, attached and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby rezoned from Single-Family Residential (R1) and Multi-Family Housing (R3) to Small Lot Residential (RS).

SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of adoption.

SECTION 4. 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 byposting.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 20 , by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
INFILL PARCEL #100
R3

21.32± AC
Designated
Remainder
Diamond Oaks Road
Shasta Street
35 P.M. 46
INFILL PARCEL #3
R1 1.79± AC
Diamond Oaks Unit 7 - N Maps 68 Sierra Oaks Q Maps 79
Sierra Townhomes
Unit No. 1
N Maps 69 Walton Estates M Maps 87
INFILL PARCEL #100
RS

21.32± AC
Designated
Remainder
Diamond Oaks Road
Shasta Street
35 P.M. 46
INFILL PARCEL #3
RS 1.79± AC
Diamond Oaks Unit 7 - N Maps 68 Sierra Oaks Q Maps 79
Sierra Townhomes
Unit No. 1
N Maps 69 Walton Estates M Maps 87

ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
N

EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING

REZONE EXHIBIT
Roseville, CA November 18, 2021

SIERRA VIEW

ROSEVILLE

CITY OF

ROCKLIN

CITY OF
65 80city limits, typ.
city limits, typ.

SITE

ROSEVILLE PKWY GALLERIA BLVD FOOTHILLS BLVD WOODCREEK

OAKS BLVD

JUNCTION BLVD

BASELINE ROAD MAIN STATKINSON 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 VICINITY MAP

CC EXHIBIT C
RESOLUTION NO. 22-024

AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, a proposal has been submitted to amend the General Plan 2035 – Land Use Map of the City of Roseville for that portion of certain real property within the City of Roseville known as Sierra Vista Specific Plan Parcel WB-41 from Community Commerical (CC) to Medium Density Residential (MDR), as shown in Exhibit D, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, on December 16, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the General Plan and recommended that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing at which time the proposed amendments were considered; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2022, the City Council considered the 6 th Addendum to the
Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010); and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Roseville desires to approve said amendments to the Roseville General Plan as conducive to public interest, health, safety and welfare, and consistent with the land use practices of the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville that the amendment changing the Land Use Map is hereby adopted as set forth in the attached Exhibit E.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Development Services Director is hereby directed to retain said General Plan Amendments on permanent public display in the Development Services Department of the City of Roseville.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of_____________, 20__, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
_________________________________
MAYOR
____________________________
City Clerk
WB-41
CC

10.11± AC
WB-30
HDR
WB-31
HDR
WB-20
MDR
WB-62
PQP
WB-3A
LDR
WB-3B
LDR
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD. SANTUCCI BLVD.

WB-41
MDR

10.11± AC
WB-30
HDR
WB-31
HDR
WB-20
MDR
WB-62
PQP
WB-3A
LDR
WB-3B
LDR
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD. SANTUCCI BLVD.

ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
N

EXISTING LAND USE PROPOSED LAND USE

SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT &
July 15, 2021
of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan
Roseville, CA
PARCEL WB-41

VICINITY MAP
BLVD

BASELINE ROAD

PLACER COUNTY

SACRAMENTO COUNTY FOOTHILLS BLVD

DOUGLAS
BLVD

ATLANTIC ST

CIRBY WAY
E.ROSEVIL EUREKA RD

HARDINGBLVD GALLERIA BLVD

ROSEVILLE

PKWY RIVERSIDE FIDDYMENT ROAD INDUSTRIAL BLVD
SUNSET

BLVD STANFORD

RANCH RD COOK-RIOLO ROAD
U. P. R. R.

U. P. R. R.

PLEASANT

PFE ROAD
city limits, typ.

PKWY WATT AVENUE

BLVD WOODCREEK OAKS
West Roseville Specific Plan Area
city limits, typ.

GROVE SIERRA VISTA

SPECIFIC PLAN

BOUNDARY

BLUE OAKS ROSEVILLE

CITY OF
COUNTY

PLACER ROCKLIN

CITY OF
80 65 BLVD

LE WESTBROOK BLVD SANTUCCI BLVD
58' SITE

CC EXHIBIT D

JUNCTION BL

TAYLOR RD

BLUE OAKS BL

WASHINGTON BL

ROSEVILLE PW

SECRETRAVINE PW

EUREKA RD

ROCKY RIDGE DR

GALLERIA BL

VERNON ST

FIDDYMENT RD

WOODCREEK OAKS BL

S CIRBY WY

RIVERSIDE AV

ATLANTIC ST

DOUGLAS BL

CIRBY WY

PLEASANT GROVE BL

BASELINE RD

HARDING BL

WESTBROOK BL

E ROSEVILLE PW

FAIRWAY DR

N SUNR ISE AV
!"c$
A¤MDR
MDR
MDR
HDR PR
HDR OS
CC/VC
HDR/VC
LDR
MDR/VC
HDR
MDR
OS
LDR
P/QP
CC
CC

P/QP P/QP
LDR
HDR
LDR
OS
CC
PR
LDR
LDR
OS
LDR
PR
LDR
LDR

P/QP MDR
LDR
LDR
MDR

LDR LDR LDR
MDR
MDR
HDR
MDR
MDR
LDR
LDR
PR
HDR
LDR
LDR
P/QP
HDR
CC
MDR
LDR
OS

P/QP PR OS

PR OS OS
OS
CC
OS
OS
CC
MDR

MDR MDR
OS OS
MDR
OS
OS MDR
OS
OS
LDR
P/QP
UR
OS
CC
OS MDR
OS

LDR HDR
CC
LDR
LDR
HDR

LDR LDR
OS
P/QP

P/QP/VC
CC/VC
HDR/VC
PR/VC
MDR/VC
CC
OS
HDR
CC
HDR
LDR OS
HDR
LDR
PR
LDR
LDR
PR
LDR
LDR
OS
CC
MDR
HDR
PR
LDR
HDR
LDRPR
P/QP
PR
LDR
LDR
P/QP
LDR
LDR
LDR
P/QP
PR
LDR
LDR
OS
LDR
HDR
CC

CC/BP LDR
PR
MDR
OS
LDR
OS
LDR
OS
PR
CC
LDR

P/QP CC
LDR
OS HDR
LDR
CC
IND CC
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
PR
MDR
LDR
OS
PR
RC
CC

P/QP P/QP BPP/QP
CC/BP
PR
HDR
OS/FP
CC
LDR
OS
PR

LDR LDR OS/FP PR
LDR
CC
LDR

LDR LDR
HDR
LDR
LI

P/QP CC LDR
LI
LDR
LDR
HDR
PR
CC
P/QP
LDR
LDR
PR
LI
HDR
LDR CC
LDR
PR
PR
CC

LDR LDR
LDR
LDR
PR
P/QP
CC PR
PR

LDR LDR
CC
CC
PR
LDR
CC
LDR
LDR
RC
PR
PR
LDR
LDR

P/QP LDR LDR
PR
PR
RC
P/QP
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
RC
LDR
OS LDR
BP/CC
PR

BP/CC PR

LDR LDR
HDR
OS
PR
CC
PR
HDR
LDR
PR
PR
OS
P/QP
LDR
HDR
LDR
OS
OS

MDR HDR CC
BP
PR
OS
LDR
HDR
HDR
CC LDR
LDR
P/QP
LDR
LDR
MDR
MDR
LDR
PR
PR
PR
HDR
PR
PR
OS/FP
LDR
LDR
LDR
RC
OS
LDR
LDR
HDR
BP LDR
LDR
PR
P/QP
BP CC
CC BP
BP BP
BP
BP
HDR
PR
PR
LDR
LI
LDR OS
LDR
PR
NC LDR
LDR
CC
P/QP
CC
P/QP
LDR
LDR
LDR
CC
OS
LDR
MDR
CC
PR
CC
PR
LI
CC
PR
PR
PR
PR
OS
PR
LDR
PR
LDR
LDR
LDR
CC
PR
LDR
LI
PR
LI
LDR
LDRPR
LDR
OS OS
OS
LI
PR
LDR
P/QP
OS
LDR
LDR
CC

CCBP BP HDR

HDRBPBP
BP
BP
LDR
LDR
PR
LDR
LI
PR
CC
PR
CC
BP
P/QP
PR
PR
HDR

MDR HDR
MDR
LDR
OS
OS
PR LDR
LDR
OS
LDR
LDR
LDR BP
CC
P/QP

LDR LDR BP
HDR
CC
BP

LDR PR MDR
MDR
P/QP
LI
P/QP

LDR LDR
LDR
TS
PR
LI
BP
LDR
LDR

LDR P/QP
P/QP
LDR LI
LDR
LDR

P/QP PR
LDR
BP
LI
P/QP
OS/FP
BP
BP
HDR
LDR
LDR
BP BP
MDR
CC
LI
MDR
MDR
HDR
LDR
LDR
MDRMDR
BP CC
LDR
LDR
HDR
BP
LDR
P/QP
LDR
P/QP
LDR
CC
LDR
BP
CC
LDR
BP
LDR
CC
CC HDR
BP
BP
MDR
LDR
OS
PR
LDR
PR
P/QP
P/QP
LI
PR
NC
CC
CC
BP

MDR MDR
CC
CC LDR
CC
OS
CC
LDR
P/QP
CC BP
HDR
CC
LDR
BP
HDR
MDR BP
BP
LDR
LDR
LDR
BP CC
PR
CC
CC
HDR
CC
MDR
LDR
CC
PR CC
BP
LDR
P/QP
CC
LDR
LDR PR
HDR
LDR
LDR
LDR

LDR LDR
CC
OS LDR
MDR
CC
CC
CC CC
CC
HDR PR
MDR
BP
HDR
CC
HDR
HDR
OS
CC
OS
CC
LDR
BP
OS/FP
HDR
CC
CC
LDR
IND
MDR
BP
CC
PR
IND
OS
LDR
LDR

LDR LDR
LDR
LDR
LI
BP

PR OS/FP
LDR
LDR
CC
OS/FP
LDR
PR
OS
BP
LDR
OS
LDR
PR
LI
LI
LDR
LI
LDR
HDR
HDR
P/QP
LDR
HDR

MDR LDR
LDR
LDRLDR

HDR LDR
LDR
HDR
LDR
LDR
P/QP
CC
CC
LDR

LDR LDR
PR
LDR
PR
LDR
PR
LDR
PR
PR LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
OS
LDR
LDR
CC
LDR
PR
MDR
HDR
P/QP
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
OS
LDR
MDR
BP
P/QP
LDR
LDR
PR
PR
LDR
LDR
LI
LDR PR
OS
OS
LDR
OS
CC
OS
CC
BP
MDR
HDR
LDR
CC
CC
BP/CC
OS/FP
LDR
LDR
OS
LDR
CC
CC
HDR
LI
LDR
LDR
LDR
PR
MDR
LI
OS
LDR
CC HDR
LDR
LDR
BP
LDR
LDR
PR
OS
OS
LDR
LDR
P/QP
LDR
PR
CC
LDR
OS
LDR
PR
NC LDR
MDR
OS/FP
LDR
LDR
LDR
CC
BP
BP
OS
OS
BP
BP
BP
CC
HDR
CC
CC
MDR

LDR LDR
CC/FP
CC
LDR
LDR
OS
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
P/QP

OS/PR/FP
LDR
OS/FP
LDR
LDR
MDR
PR
CC
MDR
MDR

OS/FP OS/FP
LDR
LDR
MDR
CC
PR
OS
LI
OS
IND
CC
LDR
OS/FP
LDR
LDR
LDR
PR
CBD
CC CC
MDR
CBD
CC
CC
BP/LI
IND
LDR
IND
LDR
MDR
LDR
LDR

OS/PR/FP
LDR
CC
OS
LDR
LDR
OS
LDR
LDR
OS
PR

OS LDR LDR LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
PR
OS OS
P/QP
OS/FP
PR
MDR
LDR
BP
CC
LDR
PR
LDR
LDR
CC PR
LI LI

IND IND
PR CC
HDR PR
OSPR
LDR
LDR
LDR

LDRPRP/QP
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR

HDR LDR
OS
LDR
LDR
LDR
MDR
MDR
MDR
PR
LDR
OS
CC
HDR
LDR
LI
CC
CC
BP
T/BP

MDR MDR MDR
LDR
LDR
LDRLDR
PR
LIPR
OS
LI
MDR
PR

P/QP LDR

MDR LDR

LDR LDR

LDR LDR
CC
HDR
MDR

LDR LDR
LDR
MDR
PR
LDR

LDR MDR
MDR
LDR
LDR
MDR
MDR
T/BP
HDR
HDR
BP
OS
HDR
LDR
MDR
PR
OS
PR
MDR
PR
MDR
LDR
LDR OS
P/QP
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
CC CC
LDR
PRHDR

LDR LDR

LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR
LDR
LDR

MDR P/QP
LDR
MDR
LDR
OS
LDR
LDR
LDR
OS
LDR
LDR
LDR
HDR
CC
LDR
LDR
LDR
MDR
OS
LDR
LDR
CC
CC
HDR
MDR
OS
HDR
MDR
MDR
CC/VC
HDR
CC/VC
MDR
LDR
HDR
OS
PR
OS
MDR
PR
PR

P/QP LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR

LDR LDR
LDR
LDRLDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDRLDR
LDR

LDR LDR
PR
LDR
MDR
LDR
LDR
LDR

LDR LDR
OS
OS
LDR
LDR
LDR

LDR LDR
LDR
MDR
MDR
MDR
MDR
MDR
MDR
MDRMDR
LDR
MDR
LDR
HDR

HDR HDR
LDR
OS
OS
OS
OS
LDR
PR
PR
LDR
CC

P/QP LDR
UR
UR
OS
CC
CC
CC
OS
CC
LDR
LEGEND
Planning Area
Landuse
Residential
Low-Density Residential (LDR)
Medium-Density Residential (MDR)
High-Density Residential (HDR)
Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Community Commercial (CC)
Regional Commercial (RC)
Office
Business Professional (BP)
Industrial
Light Industrial (LI)
General Industrial (IND)
Tech/Business Park (T/BP)
Transfer Station (TS)
Special Areas
Central Business District (CBD)
Public/Quasi-Public (PQP)
Parks and Recreation (PR)
Open Space (OS)
Urban Reserve (UR)
I 0 2,500 5,000
FEET
Last updated: December 2021
Combining Uses
Floodplain (FP)
Study Area (SA)
Village Center (VC)

CC EXHIBIT E
RESOLUTION NO. 22-025

AMENDING THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, a proposal has been submitted to amend the land use designation of Parcel WB-41 in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan from Community Commercial (CC) to Medium Density Residential (MDR), as shown in Exhibit F, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the proposed land use amendment requires a Specific Plan Amendment to change the text and land use map within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, as shown in Exhibit G, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan and recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Specific Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan Amendment as proposed and revised is consistent with the adopted City of Roseville General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing at which time the proposed amendments were considered; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2022, the City Council considered the 6 th Addendum to the
Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010); and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Roseville has reviewed the findings of the Planning Commission recommending approval of the Specific Plan Amendment, and makes the following findings:

The Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the City of Roseville General Plan and the Sierra Vista Specific Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville that the proposed changes to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan are adopted as set forth in the attached Exhibits F and G.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 20 , by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
WB-41
CC

10.11± AC
WB-30
HDR
WB-31
HDR
WB-20
MDR
WB-62
PQP
WB-3A
LDR
WB-3B
LDR
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD. SANTUCCI BLVD.

WB-41
MDR

10.11± AC
WB-30
HDR
WB-31
HDR
WB-20
MDR
WB-62
PQP
WB-3A
LDR
WB-3B
LDR
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD. SANTUCCI BLVD.

ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
N

EXISTING LAND USE PROPOSED LAND USE

SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT &
July 15, 2021
of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan
Roseville, CA
PARCEL WB-41

VICINITY MAP
BLVD

BASELINE ROAD

PLACER COUNTY

SACRAMENTO COUNTY FOOTHILLS BLVD

DOUGLAS
BLVD

ATLANTIC ST

CIRBY WAY
E.ROSEVIL EUREKA RD

HARDINGBLVD GALLERIA BLVD

ROSEVILLE

PKWY RIVERSIDE FIDDYMENT ROAD INDUSTRIAL BLVD
SUNSET

BLVD STANFORD

RANCH RD COOK-RIOLO ROAD
U. P. R. R.

U. P. R. R.

PLEASANT

PFE ROAD
city limits, typ.

PKWY WATT AVENUE

BLVD WOODCREEK OAKS
West Roseville Specific Plan Area
city limits, typ.

GROVE SIERRA VISTA

SPECIFIC PLAN

BOUNDARY

BLUE OAKS ROSEVILLE

CITY OF
COUNTY

PLACER ROCKLIN

CITY OF
80 65 BLVD

LE WESTBROOK BLVD SANTUCCI BLVD
58' SITE

CC EXHIBIT F
4-2 City of Roseville
Table 4-1: Plan Area Land Use Summary
Land Use Designation
Applied
Zoning
Districts
Acres % of Total
Acres Units % of Total Units
Residential Neighborhoods
LDR Low Density Residential RS/DS 595.6 28.7% 3,049 34.8% LDR LDR – Age Restricted RS/DS 94.3 4.6% 493 5.6%
MDR Medium Density Residential RS/DS 351.1 16.9% 2,614 29.8% HDR High Density Residential R3 92.0 4.4% 2,367 27.1%
Sub-totals 1,133 54.7% 8,523 97.2%
Commercial and Employment
CC Community Commercial
(Commercial Mixed Use) CMU/SA 29.1 1.4% 249 2.8%
CC/BP Community Commercial/
Business Professional (Mixed
Use)
CC/SA 25.4 1.2% -- --
CC Community Commercial CC & GC 167.2 8.1% -- --
Sub-totals 221.7 10.7% 249 2.8%
Open Space/Public
P/QP Public/Quasi-Public P/QP 64.7 3.1% -- --
PR Parks & Recreation PR 104.6 5.0% -- --
OS Open Space OS 302.0 14.6% -- --
OS Paseo (60’-wide) OS 13.4 0.6% -- --
UR Urban Reserve UR 38.7 1.9% -- --
Sub-totals 523.4 25.3% -- --
Right of Way/ Landscape Corridor 193.82 9.2% -- --
TOTAL 2072.2 ac 100% 8,772 du 100%
Note: See Table 7-4 for net Paseo total acres
Last Updated December 2021

CC EXHIBIT G

City of Roseville 6-5
CIR
C
U
L
A
T IO
N
P
L
A
N
Figure 6-1: Roadway System MDR
City of Roseville 6-9
CIR
C
U
L
A
T IO
N
P
L
A
N
Figure 6-6: Arterial Roadway Traffic Signals and Median Breaks MDR City of Roseville 6-27
CIR
C
U
L
A
T IO
N
P
L
A
N
Figure 6-24: Bus Pull-Out and Shelter Locations MDR
City of Roseville 4-7LAND USE PLAN
Table 4-2: Land Use, Zoning, & Acreage by Parcel (cont.)

PARCEL GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
(Specific Plan Land Use) ZONING ACRES ALLOCATEDUNITS DENSITY UR-92 Urban Reserve UR 38.72
Sub-totals (Urban Reserve) 38.72 0
WB-1A LDR (Residential – Age-Restricted) RS/DS 30.30 126 4.2 WB-1B LDR (Residential – Age-Restricted) RS/DS 22.20 133 6.0 WB-2A LDR (Residential – Age-Restricted) RS/DS 11.81 58 4.9 WB-2B LDR (Residential – Age-Restricted) RS/DS 7.67 39 5.1 WB-3A LDR (Residential – Age-Restricted) RS/DS 11.10 66 5.9 WB-3B LDR (Residential – Age-Restricted) RS/DS 11.23 71 6.3 WB-4 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 16.50 100 6.1
WB-5 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 30.50 157 5.1
WB-6 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 21.70 103 4.7
WB-7 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 25.14 145 5.8
WB-20 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 8.88 66 7.9
WB-21 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 11.80 81 6.9
WB-22 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 4.80 32 6.7
WB-23 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 9.88 71 7.3
WB-24 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 7.50 53 7.1
WB-25 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 14.30 100 7.0
WB-30 HDR (Residential) R3 8.06 237 29.4
WB-31 HDR (Residential) R3 11.10 293 26.4
WB-32 HDR (Residential) R3 5.11 128 25.0
WB-41 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 8.5 63 7.4
WB-42 CC (Commercial) CC 14.55
WB-50 PR (Park) PR 8.74
WB-51 PR (Park) PR 4.47
WB-52 PR (Park) PR 1.50
WB-60 Public/Quasi-Public (Elementary School) P/QP 10.00 WB-61 Public/Quasi-Public (Well) P/QP 0.31
WB-62 Public/Quasi-Public (Lift Station) P/QP 0.80
WB-80 OS (Open Space) OS 36.58
Sub-totals (Westbrook) 365.64 2,029
ROW Right of Way/Landscape Corridors 193.82
Sub-totals (ROW) 193.85 0
Total 2,072.16 8,772
Table Updated December 2021
(GIS acreages revised January 2021)
6-28 City of Roseville

6.5 Park and Ride Facilities
Park and ride lots provide parking for commuters to leave their vehicles to meet carpools, vanpools or access transit. In the SVSP, a total of 2 park and ride lots are dispersed throughout the Plan Area near major roadway intersections on the Baseline Road, Fiddyment Road, and Santucci Blvd. corridors. The park and ride locations shown on SVSP Parcels DF-40 and KT-41A shall provide for 50 park and ride spaces each. Sites designated to provide park and ride facilities are identified on Figure 6-25.

Park and Ride spaces are in addition to the minimum required parking spaces for each project. These spaces will be installed with project development and maintained by the project developer, with all designated spaces signed in accordance with City standards. Park and Ride lots are intended to be made available to commuters during normal commute hours on a daily basis. Additional details regarding the obligations for the construction of park and ride lots, including related facilities, is included in the project development agreements.

6.6 Transportation Systems
Management
Transportation System Management (TSM) measures are designed to reduce the number and length of home-to-work commute trips through actions such as ridesharing, flexible work hours, and support of public transportation. Any project site, common work location, or employer with 50 or more employees is required to comply with the City of Roseville TSM Ordinance and shall incorporate TSM measures to the degree required by the Ordinance.

City of Roseville 6-29
CIR
C
U
L
A
T IO
N
P
L
A
N
Figure 6-25: Park & Ride Facilities MDR
City of Roseville B-11
D
E
SIG
N
G
UID
E
L IN
E
S
Figure B-2: Entry Feature Locations MDR
City of Roseville B-15
D
E
SIG
N
G
UID
E
L IN
E
S
Figure B-3: Wall and Fence Locations MDR
City of Roseville B-23
D
E
SIG
N
G
UID
E
L IN
E
S
Note: Bikeway alignments in open space areas are conceptual and may be refined as detention facilities are designed.

Figure B-5: Paseo Plan MDR
City of Roseville B-41
D
E
SIG
N
G
UID
E
L IN
E
S
Figure B-22: Village Node District MDR
Figure B-25: Neighborhood Connectivity and Gated Subdivisions - updated April 2021 City of Roseville B-47
G
G G
MDR
B-56 City of Roseville
B.12 Commercial Center
for Parcels WB-41
Overview
Parcel WB-41 is a neighborhood-serving retail center that supports planned transit systems and facilitates pedestrian walkability. At 10 acres, development of approximately 175,000 sq. ft. of commercial and/or office space can be supported. This site is adjacent to a planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route along Santucci Blvd. and as such, the site design concept accommodates a transit hub that supports both regional and local transit systems. In addition, the layout of retail buildings allows a point of connection to the adjacent residential neighborhoods, intended to facilitate pedestrian walkability to both this retail center and transit hub.

The mix of uses and layout of buildings will be determined as subsequent entitlements are processed with the City per the guidelines below.

Guidelines
The design concept in Figure B-30 should be used to help direct the final layout of the commercial site. Design consideration should be given to the site’s visibility at a major street intersection and western entry into the City. The concepts and guidelines in this illustrative are intended to augment the City’s adopted Community Design Guidelines for commercial centers.

City of Roseville B-57
D
E
SIG
N
G
UID
E
L IN
E
S
Figure B-30: Concept Plan for Parcel WB-41
ORDINANCE NO.

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 5428 OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED

WITHIN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Roseville has reviewed the findings of the Planning Commission recommending approval of the rezone specified herein, and makes the following findings pursuant to Section 19.86.050 of the Zoning Ordinance:

1. The rezone is in conformance with the public interest, health, safety, or welfare of the City; and

2. The rezone is consistent with the objectives, policies, programs, and land use designations of the City of Roseville General Plan and the Sierra Vista Specific Plan.

SECTION 2. That Section 19.06.020 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roseville, Ordinance No. 5428, is amended to change the zoning of that portion of certain real property located on Parcel WB-41 of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan in the City of Roseville, as shown and so designated in Exhibit H, attached and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby rezoned from Community Commercial (CC) to Small Lot Residential/Development Standards (RS/DS).

SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of adoption.

SECTION 4. 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 byposting.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 20 , by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
WB-41
CC

10.11± AC
WB-30
HDR
WB-31
HDR
WB-20
MDR
WB-62
PQP
WB-3A
LDR
WB-3B
LDR
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD. SANTUCCI BLVD.

WB-41
RS/DS

10.11± AC
WB-30
HDR
WB-31
HDR
WB-20
MDR
WB-62
PQP
WB-3A
LDR
WB-3B
LDR
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD. SANTUCCI BLVD.

ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
N

EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING

REZONE EXHIBIT
July 15, 2021
of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan
Roseville, CA
PARCEL WB-41

VICINITY MAP
BLVD

BASELINE ROAD

PLACER COUNTY

SACRAMENTO COUNTY FOOTHILLS BLVD

DOUGLAS
BLVD

ATLANTIC ST

CIRBY WAY
E.ROSEVIL EUREKA RD

HARDINGBLVD GALLERIA BLVD

ROSEVILLE

PKWY RIVERSIDE FIDDYMENT ROAD INDUSTRIAL BLVD
SUNSET

BLVD STANFORD

RANCH RD COOK-RIOLO ROAD
U. P. R. R.

U. P. R. R.

PLEASANT

PFE ROAD
city limits, typ.

PKWY WATT AVENUE

BLVD WOODCREEK OAKS
West Roseville Specific Plan Area
city limits, typ.

GROVE SIERRA VISTA

SPECIFIC PLAN

BOUNDARY

BLUE OAKS ROSEVILLE

CITY OF
COUNTY

PLACER ROCKLIN

CITY OF
80 65 BLVD

LE WESTBROOK BLVD SANTUCCI BLVD
58' SITE

CC EXHIBIT H
ORDINANCE NO.

ADOPTING A 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 OF ROSEVILLE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. In accordance with Chapter 19.84 of Title 19 of the Roseville Municipal Code (the Zoning Ordinance) of the City of Roseville, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the City of Roseville enter into a Second Amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Westpark S.V. 400, LLC, pertaining to property located within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan area.

SECTION 2. Prior to considering the proposed Second Amendment to Development Agreement, the City Council considered the 6th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.

SECTION 3. The Council of the City of Roseville has reviewed the findings of the Planning Commission recommending approval of the Second Amendment to Development Agreement, and makes the following findings:

1. The Second Amendment to the Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, programs and land use designations of the City of Roseville General Plan and the Sierra Vista Specific Plan;

2. The Second Amendment to the Development Agreement is consistent with the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance;

3. The Second Amendment to the Development Agreement is in conformance with the public health, safety and welfare;

4. The Second Amendment to the Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values; and

5. The provisions of the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement will provide sufficient benefit to the City to justify entering into said Amendment.

SECTION 4. The Second Amendment to Development Agreement, by and between the City of Roseville and Westpark S.V. 400, LLC, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's Department and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville. 2 SECTION 5. The City Clerk is directed to record the executed Development Agreement Amendment within ten (10) days of the execution of the agreement by the City Manager with the County Recorder's Office of the County of Placer.

SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its 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 ___ day of ____________ 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
___________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________________
City Clerk

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT–PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon St, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276

SIERRA VIEW COUNTRY CLUB & SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN

REDESIGNATION AND REZONING PROJECT

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / INITIAL STUDY
&
6TH ADDENDUM TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 2008032115, ADOPTED ON MAY 5, 2010)
Project Titles/File Numbers: Sierra View (SV) & Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) Redesignation and Rezoning Project / File No. PL21-0162 & File No. PL21-0161
Project Locations: 360 Diamond Oaks Road, Roseville, CA 95678 (APN 015-011- 029-000) & 3301 Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Roseville, CA 95661 (APN 496-100-030-000) (Parcel WB-41) / 3250
Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Roseville, CA 95661 (APN 496- 100-029-000) (Parcel WB-31)
Project Applicants: WP Sierra View, LLC & Westpark SV 400, LLC Contact: John Tallman
Property Owners: SVLC 23, LLC & Westpark SV 400, LLC
Lead Agency Contact: Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner, (916) 746-1309 Date: November 5, 2021

INTRODUCTION
The City of Roseville (City) has prepared this environmental analysis document in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), as well as in accordance with recent housing legislation known as Senate Bill 330 (the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 or S.B. 330). The proposed project is called Sierra View (SV) and Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) Redesignation and Rezoning Project (SV and SVSP Redesignation and Rezoning Project).

CEQA generally requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of proposed projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action to approve such proposed projects. As explained below, however, S.B. 330 complicates CEQA for any proposed project that would result

CC EXHIBIT J
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: INTRODUCTION
November 5, 2021
SV & SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162 & PL21-0161

in a reduction in the anticipated housing density in a particular area within a city. No such project can go forward unless the approving city correspondingly increases anticipated housing density somewhere else within its jurisdiction. Under S.B. 330, proposed development projects that would traditionally have been treated separately, with separate CEQA documents, can become joined together for purposes of ensuring the avoidance of any net loss of anticipated housing density within a city. This need to connect otherwise distinct projects exists even if the related projects occur in different areas within a city and involve different planning backgrounds and different operative planning document. Thus, a project that might require a site-specific mitigated negative declaration (MND) might be joined with a project that might be eligible for an addendum to a prior environmental impact report (EIR), or vice versa.

As described below, this “combined environmental document” SV and SVSP Redesignation and Rezoning Project has been prepared with all of these complicated considerations in mind. This document treats what in the past would have been two separate but related projects as a single combined project in order to comply with both CEQA and S.B. 330. Therefore, this CEQA document includes (i) an initial study (IS) supporting a proposed MND for a proposal to reduce permitting density in one area of the City, (ii) a modified IS checklist supporting an addendum to a previously certified final environmental impact report (EIR) to increase housing density in another area of the City, and (iii) a joint cumulative impact analysis that addresses the combined effects of developing both sites as proposed. This combined document thus addresses the impacts associated with development at two different sites located in different planning areas with different background environmental documents.

Development approvals for each site also require different actions by City decisionmakers.

The development approvals for the two sites are related, and therefore have been combined, due to relatively recent changes in state law that 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. The goal is to avoid any net reduction in anticipated housing units. 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).

Here, as discussed below, the Applicants are proposing a reduction in residential capacity on one site (SV) but proposing modification in the designations on two other sites (SVSP) in order to make up for the lost residential capacity at the first site. Because the Legislature, through S.B. 330, has required these consecutive actions, the City has chosen to address the two closely related proposals in a single combined CEQA document, as described above.

Brief Proposed Project Description
The proposed SV and SVSP Redesignation and Rezoning Project consists of two primary actions: (i) amending the City of Roseville General Plan (GP) designation and modifying the zoning for portions of two infill planning parcels (a single assessor’s parcel) adjacent to and east of the SV Country Club to reduce the existing planned residential density by 93 units (aka, the SV project); and (ii) reallocating those 93 residential units to the SVSP area by amending the GP designation and modifying the zoning for one parcel within the SVSP area (Parcel WB-41) and increasing the density on a second parcel (Parcel WB-31) to allow for more units per acre, with corresponding amendments to the specific plan (aka, the SVSP project). The purpose and goal of the SV project is to respond to community requests that future development on the SV project site more closely align with the existing community immediately to the east to promote community cohesion and continuity. The purpose and goal of the SVSP project is to ensure adherence to the statutory requirements of S.B. 330. The two actions proposed together as the SV and SVSP Redesignation and Rezoning Project are described briefly below.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: INTRODUCTION
November 5, 2021
SV & SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162 & PL21-0161

Proposed Sierra View Project
The Applicant proposes to amend the GP designation and to modify the zoning for portions of two parcels located adjacent to and east of the SV Country Club in order to reduce the existing planned residential density. The affected parcels are located within the City’s Infill Area and are known as Infill Parcel 100 and Infill Parcel 3.

These parcels are contiguous, with Infill Parcel 3 located north of Infill Parcel 100. The majority portion of Infill Parcel 100 would be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential and rezoned from R3 (Multi-Family Housing) to RS/DS (Small Lot Residential with Development Standards). A small, southern portion of Infill Parcel 3 would be rezoned from R1 (Single-Family Residential) to RS/DS. A Tentative Map is proposed that would include the redesignated and rezoned portions of the parcels. The Map would reduce the total number of residential units allocated for the original Infill Parcel 100 from 223 to 130, which will consist of the existing 55 medium density units plus the proposed 75 low density units.

Approvals and entitlements for the SV project from the City include:
• Adoption of the MND
• Approval of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • GP Amendment for majority portion of Infill Parcel 100 from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential
• Rezoning a portion of Infill Planning Parcel 100 from R3 to RS/DS and a portion of Infill Planning Parcel 3 from R1 to RS/DS
• Tentative Subdivision Map including 75 single‐family residential lots • Tree Permit
Proposed Sierra Vista Specific Plan Project
The above proposed changes would result in the reduction of 93 units of previously approved residential capacity on the SV project site. In order to comply with S.B. 330, these 93 units must be reallocated elsewhere in the City.

The Applicant proposes to reallocate these units within the SVSP area on Parcels WB-31 and WB-41. SVSP Parcel WB-31 is already designated and zoned for residential with a density of 23.7 units per acre. Under the proposed project, Parcel WB-31 would have its density increased to 26.4 units per acre, as allowable under the GP, to accommodate 30 of the 93 reallocation units. SVSP Parcel WB-41 would be redesignated through a GP amendment from Community Commercial to Medium Density Residential and rezoned from CC (Community Commercial) to RS/DS (Small Lot with Development Standards) to accommodate the remaining 63 of the 93 reallocation units. Both actions would require an amendment to the specific plan.

Approvals and entitlements for the SVSP project from the City include:
• Consideration of the Addendum together with the Final EIR for the Sierra Vista Specific Plan • GP Amendment for SVSP Parcel WB-41 from Community Commercial to Medium Density Residential • Rezoning for SVSP Parcel WB-41 from CC to RS/DS
• Amendments to SVSP:
o Revise text regarding Parcel WB-31 to include the 30 reallocated units o Change Parcel WB-41 from Community Commercial to Medium Density Residential and revise the SVSP Land Use Map
o Revise text regarding Parcel WB-41 to include the zoning change and the 63 reallocated units o Delete Section B.12 of the SVSP
o Revise Sections 6.4 and 6.5 and associated figures
• Amendment to the Westbrook Development Agreement
• Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map for SVSP Parcel WB-41 including 63 medium-density residential lots.

The figure below depicts the locations of the actions described above and the residential unit distribution.

Additional project description information is included in the subsequent CEQA analyses.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: INTRODUCTION
November 5, 2021
SV & SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162 & PL21-0161

Proposed Project Locations and Residential Unit Distribution COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: INTRODUCTION
November 5, 2021
SV & SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162 & PL21-0161

Document Description and Contents
As explained earlier, these two proposed actions are presented in a combined CEQA document because they are related. 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 redesignation/rezoning of the SV project site is analyzed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060 et seq. and 15070 et. seq., as an IS with accompanying environmental checklist and MND because the site is not subject to a specific plan with an accompanying specific plan EIR that could be relied upon for project-level CEQA analysis. As a result, the SV project will require site-specific mitigation measures not previously contemplated in any other planning or environmental documents.

A different approach is appropriate for the proposed modifications to the SVSP, for which a detailed programmatic EIR and a subsequent project-level MND were prepared. The redesignation/rezoning of the SVSP project site is analyzed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 as an addendum to the SVSP EIR, inclusive of the subsequent 2012 MND, with accompanying environmental checklist, because none of the conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or other subsequent CEQA document are present.

Both actions are then considered cumulatively to provide an analysis of their combined and collective impacts.

Because the proposed SV and SVSP Redesignation and Rezoning Project involves different sites in two separate planning areas several miles apart with differing programmatic planning, the City contemplated analyzing these actions in wholly separate CEQA documents. However, that approach seemed confusing given their related nature in light of the requirements of S.B. 330. Equally if not more confusing would be to analyze them in a fully integrated CEQA document because, as previously explained, they require different actions with different approvals in separated planning areas controlled by different underlying planning and CEQA efforts.

This type of integrated analysis would require separate but parallel checklists and individual analysis for each site, which, from a practical perspective, would make the document unnecessarily challenging to understand and overly cumbersome and potentially unclear (see Public Resources Code § 21003(b); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15003(g), 15006 (o)−(q)). Also, this style of analysis does not properly account for prior planning efforts and commensurate CEQA tools that agencies are encouraged to use (see, e.g., CEQA Guidelines § 15164(a)).

This situation is a novel one for the City. The City is not aware of any jurisdiction that has yet attempted to balance the requirements of CEQA and the mandates of S.B. 330, though there may be such jurisdictions.

Without guidance from the State on how to best jointly navigate these statutes, the City opted to prepare this combined CEQA document that contains an MND/IS for the first action, an Addendum to an EIR for the second action, and a joint cumulative analysis addressing the combined effects of the overall SV and SVSP Redesignation and Rezoning Project. With this approach, the City can accurately present the actions together and also present reader-friendly environmental analysis for two very different sites and areas using the appropriate tools under CEQA. This approach also allows the City to maintain its regular approval and entitlement processes.

This combined CEQA document contains, in the following order:

1. This introduction;

2. The MND for SV project with its accompanying IS and environmental checklist;

3. The Addendum for the SVSP project with its accompanying environmental checklist;

4. Cumulative considerations associated with implementation of both actions; and

5. Attachments for both the MND and Addendum.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT–PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon St, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title/File Number: Sierra View (SV) Redesignation and Rezoning Project / File No. PL21- 0162
Project Location: 360 Diamond Oaks Road, Roseville, CA 95678 (APN 015-011-029- 000)
Project Description: The SV project consists of amending the General Plan designation and modifying the zoning for a portion of Infill Planning Parcel 100 (northern part) from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential and from R3 to RS/DS and modifying the zoning for a portion of Infill Planning Parcel 3 (southern part) from R1 to RS/DS.

Other approvals and entitlements from the City include a Tentative Subdivision Map for the site that includes 75 residential units, reducing the number of units approved for the site from 223 to 130, and a tree permit.

Project Applicant: WP Sierra View, LLC
Contact: John Tallman
Property Owner: SVLC 23, LLC
Lead Agency Contact: Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner, (916) 746-1309

DECLARATION
The Planning Manager has determined that the above proposed Sierra View Redesignation and Rezoning project (SV project) will not have significant effects on the environment and therefore does not require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The determination is based on the attached Initial Study and the following findings:

A. The SV project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

B. The SV project will not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.

C. The SV project will not have impacts, which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.

D. The SV project will not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

E. No substantial evidence exists that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.

F. The SV project incorporates all applicable mitigation measures identified in the attached initial study.

G. This Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT–PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon St, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276

INITIAL STUDY
Project Title/File Number: Sierra View Redesignation and Rezoning Project / File No. PL21-0162 Project Location: 360 Diamond Oaks Road, Roseville, CA 95678 (APN 015-011-029) Project Description: The SV project consists of amending the General Plan designation and modifying the zoning for a portion of Infill Planning Parcel 100 (northern part) from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential and from R3 to RS/DS and modifying the zoning for a portion of Infill Planning Parcel 3 (southern part) from R1 to RS/DS.

Other approvals and entitlements from the City include a Tentative Subdivision Map for 75 residential units that reduces the number of residential units approved for the project site from 223 to 130 and a tree permit.

Project Applicant: WP Sierra View, LLC
Contact: John Tallman
Property Owner: SVLC 23, LLC
Lead Agency Contact: Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner, (916) 746-1309__ This Initial Study (IS) has been prepared to identify and assess the anticipated environmental impacts of the above-described project application. The document relies on site-specific studies prepared to address in detail the effects or impacts associated with the proposed Sierra View Redesignation and Rezoning project (SV project), which is considered in conjunction with the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Redesignation and Rezoning project (SVSP project) as explained in the introduction to this combined CEQA document. Where documents were submitted by consultants working for the Applicant, City staff reviewed such documents in order to determine whether, based on their own professional judgment and expertise, staff found such documents to be credible and persuasive. Staff has only relied on documents that reflect their independent judgment, and has not accepted at face value representations made by consultants for the Applicant.

The IS is a public document used by the City’s decision-making bodies to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the lead agency finds substantial evidence that any aspect of the SV project, either individually or cumulatively, may have a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the SV project is adverse or beneficial, the lead agency is required to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR). If the agency finds no substantial evidence that the SV project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment, a negative declaration shall be prepared. If, in the course of analysis, the lead agency recognizes that the SV project may have a significant impact on the environment, but that by incorporating specific mitigation measures to which the Applicant agrees, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant effect, a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared (see Public Resources Code Section 21080 (c), (d).) As demonstrated in this IS, the SV project may have a significant impact on the environment and therefore will require mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less-thansignificant levels. As a result, a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

Table of Contents
Project Description …………………………………………………………………………………… 4
City of Roseville Mitigation Ordinances, Guidelines, and Standards …………………………… 6 Environmental Documents Relied Upon …………………………………………………..... 7 Explanation of Initial Study Checklist ………………………………………………………………. 7 Initial Study Checklist
I. Aesthetics …………………………………………….…..…..…. 8
II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources …………………..…..…..….. 9 III. Air Quality …………………………………………….…..…..…. 11
IV. Biological Resources ……………………………………..…..…. 13
V. Cultural Resources …………………………………..…..…..…. 18
VI. Energy ……………………………………………………..…..…..….. 21
VII. Geology and Soils …………………………………...…..…..…. 22
VIII. Greenhouse Gases …………………………………...…..….... 25
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials …………………..…..…..….. 26 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ……………………………..…..… 29
XI. Land Use and Planning ……………………………….…..…..… 32
XII. Mineral Resources …………………………………..…..…..….. 33
XIII. Noise ………………………………………………….…..…..… 33
XIV. Population and Housing ……………………………...…..…..… 35
XV. Public Services ………………………………………..…..…..… 36
XVI. Recreation ………………………………………………..….... 38
XVII. Transportation / Traffic ………………………………..…..…..… 39 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources …………………………….…..…..…. 41 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ……………………………..…..… 44 XX. Wildfire ……………………………………………….…..…..…. 47
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance …………………..…..…..... 48 Environmental Determination ……………………………………………………………………...... 49 MND Attachments …………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As described in the introduction to this combined CEQA document, the SV project is one of two related actions that occur simultaneously in order to comply with the 2019 California Housing Crisis Act (Senate Bill [S.B.] 330), and specifically with Government Code Section 65300. These actions would occur in different areas of the City with different applicable planning documents and require different types of CEQA analysis. To avoid confusion and ensure the most appropriate analysis is conducted, these actions are considered individually using different CEQA tools but in a combined larger document that also considers their combined impacts cumulatively.

SV Project Location
This SV project is located in the City of Roseville (City) Planning Area known as the Infill Area, situated toward the south of the City.1 The affected property consists of approximately 23.10 acres that includes the majority of Infill Planning Parcel 100 and a small, southern portion of Infill Planning Parcel 3. Both parcels are located adjacent to and east of the Sierra View (SV) Country Club and just north of Shasta Street and south of Diamond Oaks Road. The site address is 360 Diamond Oaks Road, Roseville, CA 95678 and the Assessor’s Parcel Number is 015-011-029-000. See Figure 1 below and Attachment 1 for additional locational maps. See also the figure in the introductory portion of this combined CEQA document.

Figure 1: SV Project Site Location
1 See Infill Land Use Plan:
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Ser vices/Planning/Specific%20Plans%20&%20Planning%20Areas/Infill%20Plan%20Area/Land%20Use%20Tables%20and% 20Map.pdf. See also City Land Use Element, pp. II-4 to II-5, II-9:
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Ser vices/Planning/General%20Plan/Final%20General%20Plan%202020/02%20Land%20Use_Final%20ver.%202021-04.pdf.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

Background and Environmental Setting
Infill Planning Parcel 100 is designated in the City of Roseville General Plan (GP) for Medium Density Residential (MDR) and zoned for Multi-Family Housing (R3). Infill Planning Parcel 3 is designated in the GP for Low Density Residential (LDR) and zoned for Single-Family Residential (R1). The southwest portion of Infill Planning Parcel 100 is developed with multi-family townhomes and the remainder is undeveloped. The majority of Infill Planning Parcel 3 is developed with single-family homes save for the small portion included as part of the SV project. The area surrounding the parcels is fully developed and the Infill area in which the parcels exist is almost fully developed.

Table 1: Surrounding Land Uses
Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Actual Use of Property Site: Infill Planning Parcel
100
Multi-Family
Housing (R3)
Medium Density Residential
(MDR)
Southwest portion developed with
multi-family townhomes; remainder
undeveloped
Site: Infill Planning Parcel 3
SingleFamily
Residential
(R1)
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Majority developed with single-family
homes
North R1 Low Density Residential (LDR) Developed with single-family homes South R1 Low Density Residential (LDR) Developed with single-family homes Southeast
Public/QuasiPublic
(P/QP)
Public/Quasi-Public (P/QP)
Developed with public school;
separated by Shasta Street
East R1 Low Density Residential (LDR) Developed with single-family homes West R1 Parks/Recreation (P/R) Developed with golf course (SV Country Club)
The SV project site as described above is undeveloped and ungraded, with some dirt roadways used for fire control and maintenance access. The site ranges from approximately 160 to 175 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) with rolling terrain that slopes toward the north and south. Powerlines cross the northern portion of the site and the central portion of the site in an east/west direction. For resource-specific existing conditions, refer to the environmental checklist below.

Proposed SV Project
The SV project consists of amending the GP designation and modifying the zoning for a majority portion of Infill Planning Parcel 100 (northern part) and modifying the zoning for a minor portion of Infill Planning Parcel 3 (southern part), both located immediately east of the SV Country Club, in order to reduce the property’s existing planned housing density. The majority of Infill Planning Parcel 100 would be redesignated from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential and rezoned from R3 (Multi-Family Housing) to RS/DS (Small Lot Residential with Development Standards). A minor portion of Infill Planning Parcel 3 would be rezoned from R1 (Single-Family Residential) to RS/DS. A Tentative Subdivision Map is proposed that would include the redesignated and rezoned portion of Infill Planning Parcel 100 and the rezoned portion of Infill Planning Parcel

3. The Tentative Map would reduce the total number of residential units previously anticipated for the SV project site from 223 to 130. These 130 units consist of the existing 55 medium density units plus the currently proposed 75 low density units. These changes are proposed in response to community requests that future development on the SV project site more closely align with the existing community immediately to the east.

The future development on this site will include internal roadways and other infrastructure and utilities, such as sanitary sewer pipes, water lines, storm drains and pipes, stormwater facilities, and retaining walls. The COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

development will be gated with an entrance onto Diamond Oaks Road and pedestrian and emergency vehicle only access onto Shasta Street. The corridors under the existing two powerlines crossing the property will remain open, totaling 4 acres of open space. The resulting net housing density will be 4 units per acre. Modified RS/DS development standards would apply. All of the proposed residential units at the SV project site will pay City neighborhood and City‐wide park fees. It is anticipated that grading for development will require approximately 23,000 cubic yards of cut and 65,000 cubic yards of fill. As part of the SV project, approximately 158 to 168 trees would be removed from the site. For more technical detail, see Attachment 1 for the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map and exhibits showing the proposed roadways and utilities, as well as the GP amendment and rezone.

This action will require the following approvals and entitlements from the City:
• Adoption of the MND;
• Approval of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; • GP Amendment for majority portion of Infill Planning Parcel 100 from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential;
• Rezoning a portion of Infill Planning Parcel 100 from R3 to RS/DS and a portion of Infill Planning Parcel 3 from R1 to RS/DS;
• Tentative Subdivision Map including 75 single‐family residential lots; and • Tree Permit.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE MITIGATION ORDINANCES, GUIDELINES, AND STANDARDS Because the SV project is not consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified, the City is not be able to rely on the specific process set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f) for relying on previously adopted development policies or standards as mitigation for the environmental effects as a means of excluding particular categories of environmental impacts from CEQA analysis. Even so, however, many such policies and standards apply to the SV project, and compliance with them will have the consequence of reducing the severity of, or avoiding, environmental impacts. On January 20, 2021, the City adopted the most recent version of its CEQA Implementing Procedures (Implementing Procedures), along with Findings of Fact describing the effectiveness of particular policies and standards in reducing or avoiding environmental effects (Findings of the Implementing Procedures).

The regulations and ordinances identified below apply to the SV project and have the tendency to reduce or avoid some of its environmental effects.
• Noise Regulation (Roseville Municipal Code [RMC] Ch.9.24) • Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (RMC Ch.9.80)
• Traffic Mitigation Fee (RMC Ch.4.44)
• Drainage Fees (Dry Creek [RMC Ch.4.49] and Pleasant Grove Creek [RMC Ch.4.48]) • City of Roseville Improvement Standards (Resolution 02-37 and as further amended) • City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards (Resolution 01-208 and as further amended) • Tree Preservation Ordinance (RMC Ch.19.66)
• Internal Guidance for Management of Tribal Cultural Resources and Consultation (Tribal Consultation Policy) (Resolution 20-294)
• Subdivision Ordinance (RMC Title 18)
• Community Design Guidelines
• Specific Plan Design Guidelines: None applicable
• City of Roseville 2035 General Plan
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

• City of Roseville CEQA Implementing Procedures for Preparation, Processing, and Review of Environmental Documents (updated on January 20, 2021) (Implementing Procedures)

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
• 2035 General Plan Update EIR, certified August 5, 2020 (SCH# 2019080418) The 2035 General Plan Update EIR (GP EIR) updated all Citywide analyses, including for vehicle miles traveled, greenhouse gas emissions, water supply, water treatment, wastewater treatment, and waste disposal. When applicable, the topical sections within the Initial Study summarize the findings within the GP EIR. The GP EIR is available for review at the Civic Center, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA or online at https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/general_plan_developme nt_guidelines.

EXPLANATION OF INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
The CEQA Guidelines recommend that lead agencies use an Initial Study (IS) Checklist to determine the potential impacts of a proposed project on the physical environment. The IS Checklist provides a list of questions concerning a comprehensive array of environmental issue areas potentially affected by the SV project. This section of the IS incorporates a portion of Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form, contained in the CEQA Guidelines. Within each topical section (e.g. Air Quality) a description of the setting is provided, followed by the checklist responses, thresholds used, and finally a discussion of each checklist answer.

There are four (4) possible answers to the Environmental Impacts Checklist on the following pages. Each possible answer is explained below:
1) A “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from the information that a fair argument based on substantial evidence can be made to support a conclusion that a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change may occur to any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the SV project. When one or more “Potentially significant Impact” entries are made, an EIR is required. 2) A “Less Than Significant with Mitigation” answer is appropriate when the lead agency incorporates mitigation measures to reduce an impact from “Potentially Significant” to “Less than Significant.” For example, floodwater impacts could be reduced from a potentially-significant level to a less-thansignificant level by relocating a building to an area outside of the floodway. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures are identified as MM followed by a number. 3) A “Less Than significant Impact” answer is appropriate if there is evidence that one or more environmental impacts may occur, but the impacts are determined to be less than significant, or the application of development policies and standards to the SV project will reduce the impact(s) to a less-than-significant level. For instance, the application of the City’s Improvement Standards reduces potential erosion impacts to a less-than-significant level.
4) A “No Impact” answer is appropriate where it can be demonstrated that the impact does not have the potential to adversely affect the environment. For instance, a project in the center of an urbanized area with no agricultural lands on or adjacent to the SV project area clearly would not have an adverse effect on agricultural resources or operations. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited in the Initial Study. Where a “No Impact” answer is adequately supported by the information sources cited in the Initial Study, further narrative explanation is not required. A “No Impact” answer is explained when it is based on projectspecific factors as well as generous standards.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off- and on-site, indirect, direct, construction, and operation impacts, except as provided for under State CEQA Guidelines.

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
I. Aesthetics
The SV project is located in a residential area in the southern portion of the City. The site is undeveloped and contains several native oak trees with grasses and small annual plants. The site is surrounded by residential and recreational uses. All of the area surrounding the site has been developed with primarily low density residential to the northwest, north, northeast, and east. Just south of the site is developed with medium-density residential with more low density residential below the medium density. The southeast is developed with more low density residential and an elementary school. The west is developed with a golf course. There are limited direct public views of the site from Diamond Oaks Road and also from the eastern parts the adjacent golf course. The site is currently zoned for medium density residential.

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the SV project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings, within a state scenic
highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
X
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare, which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of an environmental impact cannot always be determined through the use of a specific, quantifiable threshold. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) affirms this by the statement “an ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting.” This is particularly true of aesthetic impacts. As an example, a proposed residential development in a heavily developed COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

area would have markedly different visual effects than the same development near an abundance of undeveloped open space. For the purpose of this study, the significance thresholds are based on the questions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, as shown in a–d of the checklist below. The Findings of the Implementing Procedures indicate that compliance with the Zoning Ordinance (e.g., building height, setbacks, etc.), Subdivision Ordinance (RMC Ch. 18), and the adopted Community Design Guidelines (CDG) (Resolution 95-347) for common design elements and expectations for development within the City will prevent significant impacts in urban settings as it relates to items a, b, and c, below.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a, b) There are no designated or eligible scenic vistas or scenic highways within or adjacent to the City (see GP EIR, p. 4.14-5, 4.14-18). Therefore, there would be no impact to these resources. No mitigation is required. c) The SV project site is located in an urbanized area that is almost fully developed within the City’s Infill Area.

The CDG includes provisions related to architectural design, site design and landscape design, to enhance the visual character of the urban environment. The CDG recommends preserving, to the extent feasible, visual resources such as native oak trees and creek or wetland resources. The site contains more than 300 native oak trees and the SV project will require the removal of at least 158 trees but perhaps up to 168 (see Section IV.

Biological Resources for more detail). Thus, the SV project requires a Tree Permit. Consistent with the City’s Tree Preservation ordinance (RMC Ch. 19.66), the Tree Permit will contain conditions of approval that include protective measures for the trees that will remain onsite, and other measures such as payment of in-lieu fees to compensate for native oak tree encroachment and removal (see also MM BIO-4). The site also contains wetland resources. Some of these wetland resources would be removed or affected by the SV project. However, impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level (see Section IV. Biological Resources, MM BIO-3). The SV project has been reviewed by City staff and was found to be consistent with the goals and policies of the CDG and applicable zoning regulations related to the proposed zone change. As such, impacts related to this criterion would be less than significant with mitigation presented in Section IV. Biological Resources. d) The SV project would eventually involve new nighttime lighting, such as street lights, for the security and safety of future residents. However, the SV project site is located within an urbanized, fully developed, infill setting with many existing light sources. In addition, lighting must comply with City standards contained in the CDG that limit the height of lighting sources, require cut-off lenses and glare shields to minimize light and glare impacts, etc. Further, no proposed elements of the future site development would include highly reflective surfaces. Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact associated with light and glare. No mitigation is required.

II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources
The State Department of Conservation oversees the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, which was established to document the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands, and the conversion of those lands over time. The primary land use classifications on the maps generated through this program are: Urban and Built Up Land, Grazing Land, Farmland of Local Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Prime Farmland. According to the current California Department of Conservation Placer County Important Farmland Map (2012), the majority of the City is designated as Urban and Built Up Land and most of the open space areas of the City are designated as Grazing Land. There are a few areas designated as Farmland of Local Importance and two small areas designated as Unique Farmland located on the western side of the City along Baseline Road. The current Williamson Act Contract map (2013/2014) produced by the Department of Conservation shows that there are no Williamson Act contracts within the City, and only one (on PFE Road) that is adjacent to the City (GP EIR, p. 4.1-5). None of the land within the City is considered forest land by the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

Would the SV project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program
of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
(V.1b-DEIR volume)
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to nonforest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to nonforest use?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Prime Farmland are called out as protected farmland categories within CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Neither the City nor the State has adopted quantified significance thresholds related to impacts to protected farmland categories or to agricultural and forestry resources. For the purpose of this study, the significance thresholds are based on the questions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, as shown in a–e of the checklist above. Agricultural and forestry resources are regulated pursuant to the above-referenced programs and agencies.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–e) The SV project site is not used for agricultural purposes, does not include agricultural zoning, is not within or adjacent to one of the areas of the City designated as a protected farmland category on the Placer County Important Farmland map, is not within or adjacent to land within a Williamson Act Contract, and is not considered forest land. Therefore, the SV project would have no impact on agricultural and forestry resources. No mitigation is required.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

III. Air Quality
The City, along with the south Placer County area, is located in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB). The SVAB is within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin Federal Ozone Non-Attainment Area. Under the Clean Air Act, Placer County has been designated a “serious non-attainment” area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard, “nonattainment” for the state ozone standard, and a “non-attainment” area for the federal and state PM10 standard (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter) (GP EIR, p. 4.4-8). Within Placer County, the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) is responsible for ensuring that emission standards are not violated.

Would the SV project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality
standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

To determine if a project would conflict with an applicable air quality plan, result in cumulatively considerable net increases of criteria pollutants, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (see checklist items a–c), the City looks to PCAPCD adopted thresholds of significance, which were developed by considering both the health-based ambient air quality standards and the attainment strategies outlined in the State Implementation Plan. If a threshold is violated, then a significant impact may occur. The PCAPCDrecommended significance threshold for reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) is 82 pounds daily during construction and 55 pounds (lbs) daily during operation, and for particulate matter (PM) is 82 pounds per day during both construction and operation. For all other constituents, significance is determined based on the concentration-based limits in the Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards. Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) are also of public health concern, but no thresholds or standards are provided by PCAPCD or adopted by the City because they are considered to have no safe level of exposure. Analysis of TAC is based on the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook – A Community Health Perspective (April 2005, California Air Resources Board), which lists TAC sources and recommended buffer distances from sensitive uses. PCAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook recommends that the same thresholds used for project analysis be used for the cumulative impact analysis. Neither PCAPCD nor the City has adopted quantified significance thresholds for exposure to objectionable odors or other emissions. Significance is determined by multiple factors, including screening distances from odor sources (as found in the PCAPCD CEQA Handbook), the direction and frequency of prevailing winds, the time of day when emissions are detectable/present, and the nature and intensity of the emission source.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–c) Analyses are not included for sulfur dioxide, lead, and other constituents because there are no mass emission thresholds; these are concentration-based limits in the Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards that require substantial, point-source emissions (e.g., refineries, concrete plants, etc.) before exceedance will occur, and the SVAB is in attainment for these constituents. Likewise, carbon monoxide is not analyzed because the SVAB is in attainment for this constituent, and the pollutant requires high localized concentrations (called carbon monoxide “hot spots”) before the ambient air quality standard would be exceeded. “Hot spots” are typically associated with heavy traffic congestion occurring at high-volume roadway intersections.

The GP EIR analysis of Citywide traffic indicated that more than 70 percent of signalized intersections would operate at level of service C or better—that is, they will not experience heavy traffic congestion. It further indicated that analyses of existing CO concentrations at the most congested intersections in Roseville show that CO levels are well below federal and state ambient air quality standards. Therefore, no carbon monoxide “hot spots” would result from the SV project (see GP EIR, p. 4.4-49). The discussion below focuses on emissions of ROG, NOx, or PM.

For SV project operation, PCAPCD recommends that lead agencies use the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) to quantify operational emissions for criterial air pollutants (NOX, ROG, and PM) for certain projects. The results are then compared to the significance thresholds detailed above. However, PCAPCD published screening criteria establishing that residential projects with less than 617 single family units will not result in operational NOX emissions that exceed 55 lbs/day, and thus modeling is not required. Because NOX emissions are substantially higher than ROG and PM10, it can be assumed that projects not exceeding the operational NOX threshold will not exceed the operational ROG and PM10 thresholds. Because operation of the proposed development at the SV project site would not exceed applicable thresholds, it would likewise not conflict with an applicable air quality plan, result in cumulatively considerable net increases of criteria pollutants, and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SV project includes the eventual development of 75 residential units, which is well below the PCAPCD threshold for impacts or modeling of potential impacts. It can accordingly be assumed that SV project operation would not result in the exceedance of any applicable thresholds of significance. As a result, there would be no conflict with an applicable air quality plan, no cumulatively considerable net increases of criteria pollutants, and no sensitive receptors exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, any potential impacts resulting from SV project operation would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

For project construction, activities such as grading, excavation, building, operating construction equipment, etc., can result in temporary, short-term emissions. Pollutant emissions would vary daily depending on the level of activity, specific operations, and prevailing weather. Earth-moving, such as excavation and grading would likely result in the highest daily fugitive dust generation. Operation of diesel and gasoline powered construction equipment, such as trucks, tractors, excavators, backhoes, etc., that runs on would generate criteria pollutant emissions. Because the area is in non-attainment for ozone and PM, emissions during construction are a potential concern. However, these emissions are temporary and short-term. Also, the site developer would be required to comply with all PCAPCD rules and regulations for construction, including but not limited to Rule 202 for visible emissions, Rule 217 for volatile organic compounds, and Rule 228 for fugitive dust (GP EIR, pp. 4.4- 17 to 4.4-18). In addition, the project developer would be required to comply with City-adopted construction standards that apply to all projects within City limits. The City’s Department of Public Works Construction Standards (Section 111) are intended to minimize fugitive dust and PM10 emission during construction activities.2 Compliance with all of these rules and standards would be noted on City-approved construction plans and ensure that no thresholds of significance were exceeded. As a result, there would be no conflict with an applicable air quality plan, no cumulatively considerable net increases of criteria pollutants, and no sensitive receptors exposed 2 See City Department of Public Works Construction Standards (Section 111):
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Ser vices/Engineering/Design%20and%20Construction%20Standards/2020%20CS%20Sections/CS-SECTION%20111%20- %20Jan.2020.pdf.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, any potential impacts resulting from project construction would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
d) Residential development is not typically associated with the creation of objectionable odors (GP EIR, pp. 4.4- 50 to 4.4-51). The proposed change in designation and zoning does not affect the type of land use on the SV project site—it remains residential—and in fact reduces the environmental severity of the previously anticipated use by reducing the number of planned units. Eventual project construction would result in some odors related to the operation of diesel-powered construction equipment, but those odors would be short-term, intermittent, temporary, localized, emitted during the daytime only, and are not considered objectionable (GP EIR, p. 4.4-52).

The City is not aware of any other project-related emissions that could adversely affect a significant number of people. Therefore, any potential impacts resulting from odors or other emissions would be less than significant.

No mitigation is required.

IV. Biological Resources
The SV project site is currently undeveloped and consists primarily of nonnative annual grasses with oak woodlands and 324 native oaks trees (see Attachment 2, Arborist Report (June 18, 2020) by California Tree and Landscape Consulting, Inc.; see also Attachment 3, Tree Removal Information for Tree Permit for Sierra View (August 3, 2020) by MacKay & Somps). Vegetation is sparse in the southern portion of the site and denser in the northern portion with more grass species represented; however, no special-status plant species are known to exist onsite (see Attachment 4, Special-Status Plant Survey Report for Sierra View (August 2020) by Madrone Ecological Consulting).

Also not detected onsite were the special-status species Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) and vernal pool branchiopods (fairy shrimp [Branchinecta lynchi] or tadpole shrimp [Lepidurus packardi]) (see Attachment 5, Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Habitat Survey for Sierra View (August 18, 2020) by Madrone Ecological Consulting; Attachment 6, Dry-Season & Wet-Season Branchiopod Survey (August 19, 2020) by Madrone Ecological Consulting). Likewise, no special-status fish species occur onsite because no waterways exist onsite that could support their existence. However, some special-status species have potential to occur on the SV project site with varying degrees of likelihood.

As assessed by a qualified biologist at Madrone Ecological Consulting, several special-status insect, amphibian, and reptile species have the potential to occur in the region; but these species are not likely to occur on the SV project site given their historical lack of presence within City boundaries or because suitable habitat does not occur on site. Species that may occur in the region, but for which the site lacks suitable habitat, include:, California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), and giant gartersnake (Thamnophis gigas) (GP EIR, pp. 4.8-24 to 4.8-27). The western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) has a moderate likelihood of occurring onsite (GP EIR, p. 4.8-26). While the western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) could occur within the large vernal pool onsite, it is highly unlikely to be present given that, if they were, qualified biologists at Madrone Ecological Consulting would have detected tadpoles in their surveys during the wet season (see Attachment 6).

Several special-status bird species are known to regularly occur within City boundaries and the immediate area and potential for their nesting and foraging habitat exists onsite, including: Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), , loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), Long-billed curlew (foraging only, Numenius americanus), and bank swallow (foraging only Riparia riparia) and purple martin (foraging only, Progne subis) (GP EIR, pp. 4.8-27, 4.8-29 to 4.8-32). Other specialstatus bird species are known to occur within City boundaries or in the adjacent areas, but not with any regularity.

These species include: tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), , and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) (GP EIR, pp. 4.8-27 to

4.8-28, 4.8-31). A few special-status bird species are highly unlikely to occur on the SV project site given the lack of suitable habitat and historical lack of occurrence in the City and region. These species include: golden COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), and American peregrine falcon Falco (Peregrinus anatum) (GP EIR, pp. 4.8-28, 4.8-30 to 4.8-32).

A few special-status mammal species could occur onsite because the potential for suitable habitat exists. But historical records show these species occurring only outside City boundaries and not within adjacent areas.

These species include: pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), , Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), and American badger (Taxidea taxus). (GP EIR, pp. 4.8-31 to 4.8-32).

The SV project site contains several aquatic resources, including a central drainage ditch that flows south the north into an intermittent tributary that flows east to west. There are also a number of seasonal wetland and vernal pool features scattered around the site (see Attachment 7, Aquatic Resources Delineation Report for Sierra View (July 31, 2020) by Madrone Ecological Consulting) and a narrow band of riparian woodland surrounding the intermittent tributary (GP EIR, p. 4.8-3).

Would the SV project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect
on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

There is no ironclad definition of significance as it relates to biological resources. Thus, the significance of impacts to biological resources is defined by the use of expert judgment supported by facts, and relies on the policies, codes, and regulations adopted by the City and by regulatory agencies which relate to biological resources (as cited and described in the Discussion of Checklist Answers section). Thresholds for assessing the significance of environmental impacts are based on the questions set forth the CEQA Guidelines checklist (see items a–f, above). Under CEQA, a “substantial adverse effect” is synonymous with “significant effect” and is defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the SV project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance” (see also Preserve Poway v. City of Poway (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 560, 574; County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 945; and Public Resources Code, Sections 21060.5, 21080 (c)(2), 21083(b)). A modest, isolated environmental impact would be considered incremental and not significant.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(1), a project may have a significant effect on the environment if:

The project has the potential to … substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; [or] substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species.

Various agencies regulate impacts to the habitats and animals addressed by the CEQA Guidelines checklist.

These include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration– Fisheries (also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The primary regulations affecting biological resources are described in the sections below.

Checklist item a addresses impacts to special status species. A “special status” species is one which has been identified as having relative scarcity and/or declining populations. Special status species include those formally listed as threatened or endangered, those proposed for formal listing, candidates for federal listing, and those classified as species of special concern. Also included are those species that are “fully protected” under various provisions of the California Fish and Game Code (i.e., Sections 3511, 3513, 4700, and 5050), those granted “special animal” status for tracking and monitoring purposes, and those plant species considered to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). The primary regulatory protections for special status species are within the Federal Endangered Species Act, California Endangered Species Act, California Fish and Game Code, and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Checklist item b addresses all “sensitive natural communities” and riparian (creekside) habitat that may be affected by local, state, or federal regulations/policies, while checklist item c focuses specifically on one type of such a community: protected wetlands. Focusing first on wetlands, the 1987 Army Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual is used to determine whether an area meets the technical criteria for a wetland. A delineation verification by the Army Corps verifies the size and condition of the wetlands and other waters in question, and determines the extent of government jurisdiction as it relates to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and Section 401 COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

of the State Clean Water Act. In addition to the Clean Water Act, several other regulations protect wetlands, including the State’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the City’s GP, pursuant to the GP Open Space and Conservation Element. Federal, State and City regulations/policies all seek to achieve no net loss of wetland acreage, values, or function.

Aside from wetlands, checklist item b also addresses other “sensitive natural communities” and riparian habitat, which includes any habitats protected by local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.

The City GP Open Space and Conservation Element includes policies for the protection of riparian areas and floodplain areas; these are Vegetation and Wildlife Section Policies 2 and 3. Policy 4 also directs preservation of additional area around stream corridors and floodplains if there are sensitive woodland, grassland, or other habitats that could be made part of a contiguous open space area. Other than wetlands, which were already discussed, USFWS and CDFW habitat protections generally result from species protections, and are thus addressed via checklist item a.

For checklist item d, there are no regulations specific to the protection of migratory corridors. This item is addressed by an analysis of the habitats present in the vicinity and analyzing the probable effects on access to those habitats that will result from a project. The City’s Tree Preservation ordinance (RMC Ch.19.66) requires protection of native oak trees, and compensation for oak tree removal. The Implementing Procedures indicate that compliance with the City’s Tree Preservation ordinance (RMC Ch.19.66) will prevent significant impacts related to loss of native oak trees, referenced by item e, above. Regarding checklist item f, there are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans within the City.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) As discussed above, a moderate potential exists for Western Pond Turtles to occur on-site, with little to no potential for other non-avian special-status species to occur. Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 would ensure that Western Pond Turtles, if present, are protected during construction.

MM BIO 1: Conduct Pond Turtle Pre-Construction Survey: A western pond turtle survey shall be conducted in all areas within 150 feet of the intermittent drainage in within 48 hours prior to construction in that area.

If no western pond turtles or nests are found, no further mitigation is necessary. If a western pond turtle is observed within the proposed impact area, a qualified biologist shall relocate the individual to suitable habitat outside of the proposed impact area prior to construction. If a western pond turtle nest is observed within the proposed impact area, the nest shall be fenced off and avoided until the eggs hatch. The exclusion fencing shall be placed no less than 25 feet from the nest. A qualified biologist shall monitor the nest daily during construction to ensure that hatchlings do not disperse into the construction area.

Relocation of hatchlings will occur as stipulated above, if necessary.

Special-status and migratory bird species have the potential to occur onsite as outlined above. The SV project will require the removal of several native oak trees (discussed below), and this has the potential to disrupt the nesting of special-status birds and migratory birds. A pre-construction nest survey required under MM BIO-2 would ensure that no special-status nesting birds or migratory birds are harmed during tree removal or construction of any kind.

MM BIO-2: Protect Special Status Birds, Including Migratory Birds. For all construction-related activities that take place within the nesting season, between February 15 through August 31st, a preconstruction nestingbird survey for special-status specie birds and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than two weeks prior to project initiation within the area of construction and a 300-foot buffer. If active nests are found, a no-disturbance buffer zone shall be established, the size of which will be determined in consultation with the City. Within this buffer zone, no construction shall take place until August 31st or the biologist determines that the nest is no longer active.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

With implementation of mitigation prescribed in the GP EIR, and MMs BIO-1 and BIO-2, potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special-status species would be less than significant. b) The GP EIR shows that the northern portion of the project site contains a narrow band of riparian woodland surrounding the intermittent tributary (GP EIR, p. 4.8-3). This riparian woodland has the potential to contain habitat, although, as discussed just above, there is a low likelihood that it contains habitat for any sensitive-status species (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 7). Any construction that would occur on the bed and bank of a stream or other water body, including drainage canals, must comply with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, which will require the developer obtain a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. There are no known other sensitive natural communities onsite. Any potential impacts to riparian habitat would be less than significant with implementation of MM BIO-3. MM BIO-3 would ensure that all conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures within these permits are followed.

MM BIO-3: Obtain a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. For any construction that will occur on the bed and bank of a stream or other water body, including drainage canals, a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be obtained that complies with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. The Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement will contain conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse effects to riparian habitat within the bed and bank of a stream or other water body that must be implemented as a condition of the agreement that ensures no net loss of riparian acreage. Obtaining this Agreement and adhering to its requirements ensures that performance standards sufficient to meet CEQA mitigation standards are satisfied.

With implementation of MM BIO-3, impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would be less than significant.
c) The project site contains 0.199 acre of seasonal wetlands, 0.024 acre of seasonal wetland swale, and 0.648 acre of vernal pools, 0.223 acre of drainage ditch, and 0.959 acre of intermittent drainage/riparian wetland (see Attachment 7). Of these, the 0.024 acre of seasonal wetland swale and 0.959 acre of intermittent drainage/riparian wetland are considered federally regulated waters of the U.S., pursuant to 33 CFR Part 328, and thusly regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (see Attachment 8, Jurisdictional Determination for Sierra View (June 4, 2021) by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).3 The remaining wetlands and the ditch are State-regulated waters. At least some, but perhaps all, of these aquatic features would be removed and/or disturbed by construction activities. However, a discharge permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, will be required for any impacts to the 0.024 acre of seasonal wetland swale and 0.959 acre of intermittent drainage/riparian wetland that will contain conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures to ensure a net zero loss of wetland resources and a less-than-significant impact to any special-status species that may occur on or near the affected wetland resources. Similar permitting will be required any State-regulated aquatic resources that may be impacted. State-issued Waste Discharge Requirements, pursuant to Division 7, Chapter 4, Article 4 of the Water Code established by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, will be required for all impacted wetland resources that are not regulated by the Clean Water Act (see GP EIR, p. 4.8-74). MM BIO-4 would ensure that all conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures within these permits are followed.

MM BIO-4: No Net Loss of Wetlands by Obtaining Requisite Federal and State Permits. For all wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. or State that are removed or disturbed by project construction, all requisite federal and State permits shall be obtained, including, at least, a discharge permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and possibly State-issued Waste Discharge Requirements pursuant to Division 7, Chapter 4, Article 4 of the Water Code established by the PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act. These federal and State permits will contain conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures that will ensure a net zero loss of wetlands and other waters. Obtaining these permits 3 Please note there is an error in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers verification letter and the Applicant is currently working with Corps of Engineers staff to correct the acreage figures.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

and adhering to their requirements ensures that performance standards sufficient to meet CEQA mitigation standards are satisfied.

With implementation of MM BIO-4, impacts to wetlands would be less than significant. d) The City includes an interconnected network of open space corridors and preserves located throughout the City, to ensure that the movement of wildlife is not substantially impeded as the City develops (see GP EIR, pp.

4.8-76 to 4.8-77). Development of the SV project site will not negatively impact these existing and planned open space corridors. Nor is the SV project site located in an area that has been designated by the City, USFWS, or CDFW as vital or important for the movement of wildlife or the use of native wildlife nursery sites (see GP EIR, p. 4.8-77). Therefore, any potential impact to migratory species or migratory corridors would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
e) As previously stated, the SV project will involve the removal of numerous native oak trees. Of the 324 native oaks onsite, at least 158 will be removed for project construction (see Attachment 3). Up to ten more also may be removed based on arborist recommendations to remove trees with extensive defects, compromised health, and/or structural instability (see Attachment 2). As defined by the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 19.66, Tree Preservation), native oak trees greater than six (6) inch diameter at breast height are defined as protected (see GP EIR, pp. 4.8-79 to 4.8-80). A Tree Permit is required for the removal of any protected tree, and for any regulated activity within the protected zone of a protected tree where the encroachment exceeds 20 percent. All of the up to 168 trees planned for removal are considered protected by the City Code. The arborist report included as Attachment 2 contains recommendations for tree protection measures for the trees that will remain onsite.

The Tree Permit would contain conditions of approval to follow the recommendations of the Arborist Report and mitigation measures that include payment of in-lieu mitigation fees to compensate for oak tree encroachment and removal and/or onsite replacement plantings consisting of both native and nonnative tree species. Any deviation from the approved permit would require a Tree Permit Modification, which must be approved by the City. MM BIO-5 would ensure that all mitigatory and compensatory conditions within the Tree Permit are followed.

MM BIO-5: Obtain Tree Permit and Adhere to Permit Conditions. For all native oaks trees protected by the City Code that shall be removed or encroached upon as a result of the project, a Tree Permit shall be obtained that includes payment of in-lieu mitigation fees to compensate for oak tree encroachment and removal and/or onsite replacement plantings consisting of both native and nonnative tree species as well as protection measures for the trees that will remain onsite. Obtaining a Tree Permit and adhering to its requirements ensures that CEQA performance standards are satisfied.

With implementation of MM BIO-5, conflicts with the local tree preservation policy would be eliminated and this impact would be less than significant.
f) There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans within the City and no other applicable and approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans (see GP EIR, p. 4.8- 80). Therefore, there would be no conflict with such plans and no impact. No mitigation is required.

V. Cultural Resources
As described within the Open Space and Conservation Element of the GP, the Roseville region was within the territory of the Native American group called the Nisenan (also Southern Maidu or Valley Maidu). Two large permanent Nisenan habitation sites have been identified and protected within the City’s open space (in Maidu Park). Numerous smaller cultural resources, such as midden deposits and bedrock mortars, have also been recorded in the City. The gold rush, which began in 1848, marked another settlement period, and evidence of Roseville’s ranching and mining past are still found today. Historic features include rock walls, ditches, low terraces, and other remnants of settlement and activity. A majority of documented sites within the City are located in areas designated for open space uses. See also GP EIR (pp. 4.9-1 to 4.9-6). Based on a recent cultural resources inventory and evaluation, the SV project site does not contain any known historical or COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

archaeological resources that are eligible for formal identification or protection by applicable federal or State statutes (see Attachment 9, Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for Sierra View (June 2021) by ECORP Consulting, Inc.).

Would the SV project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to in
Section 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
unique archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts to cultural resources is based directly on questions found in the CEQA Guidelines checklist (see items a–e listed above), as well as legal principles governing impacts to unique archaeological resources, as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, and impacts to historical resources, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The Archaeological, Historic, and Cultural Resources section of the GP also directs the proper evaluation of and, when feasible, protection of significant resources (Policies 1 and 2). There are also various federal and State regulations regarding the treatment and protection of cultural resources, including the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Antiquities Act (which regulate items of significance in history), Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.9 of the Public Resources Code (which regulates the treatment of human remains) and Section 21073 et seq. of the Public Resources Code (regarding Tribal Cultural Resources). The CEQA Guidelines also contains specific sections, other than the checklist items, related to the treatment of effects on historical resources and unique archaeological resources.

Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, if it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 (a), (b), and (c)). A historical resource is a resource listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Public Resources Code Section 21084.1); a resource included in a local register of historical resources (Public Resources Code Section 15064.5(a)(2)); or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (a)(3)). Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 requires evaluation of historical resources to determine their eligibility for listing on the CRHR.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–c) No historical or unique archeological resources are known to exist on site; however, the possibility exists of uncovering subsurface resources during project construction (Attachment 9). The possibility also exists for uncovering subsurface cultural resources, including human remains and paleontological or tribal cultural resources (see Section VII. Geology and Soils and Section XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources). MM CUL-1 would COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

ensure that all subsurface cultural resource discoveries would be properly handled and managed in accordance with applicable State and federal law. For more detailed procedures related to the discovery and treatment of tribal cultural resources, and other tribal related measures, refer to MMs TCR-1 to TCR-3.

MM CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery. If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural (historical, archeological, paleontological, or tribal) or human in origin are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a 50-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for pre-contact and historic archaeologist shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find (i.e., whether the subsurface deposits could qualify as an historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, or a tribal cultural resource) and shall have the authority to modify the nowork radius as appropriate, using professional judgment. The following notifications and mitigation requirements shall apply, depending on the nature of the find:

1. If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does not represent an historical resource, a unique archaeological resources, or a tribal cultural resource, work may resume immediately, and no agency notifications are required.

2. If the professional archaeologist determines that the find represents a potential historical resource, unique archaeological resource, or tribal cultural resource, the archaeologist shall immediately notify the City and the applicable landowner and/or Applicant. The City shall work with the archaeologist and, if necessary, with other experts or expert agencies (e.g., the State Historic Preservation Officeror, in the case of a potential tribal cultural resource, the relevant Native American organization) to determine whether, based on statutory criteria, the find qualifies as an historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, or a tribal cultural resource. If a determination is made in the affirmative, appropriate mitigation or treatment measures shall be taken, consistent with those set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, subdivisions (b) through (e), and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.4, subdivision (b)(3). Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites, but data recovery may be permitted where preservation would be inconsistent with project design, logistics, and cost considerations. Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the City determines that the site either: 1) is not an historical resources, a unique archaeological resources, or a tribal cultural; or 2) that the mitigation or treatment measures have been completed to the City’s satisfaction.

3. If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, the City and/or the landowner or Applicant shall ensure that reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (A.B. 2641 [Stats. 2006, ch. 863]). The archaeologist shall notify the Placer County Coroner (per Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code, and A.B. 2641 will be implemented. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the Coroner is required by statute to notify the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the Project (Public Resources Code Section 5097.98). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (Public Resources Code Section 5097.94). If no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (Public Resources Code Section 5097.98). This reburial will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (A.B. 2641). Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162