Roseville City Council
January 19, 2022

With implementation of MM CUL-1, potential impacts to unknown subsurface unique archaeological resources, historical resources, tribal cultural resources, and human remains would be less than significant.

VI. Energy
Roseville Electric provides electrical power in the City, and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides natural gas. The City purchases wholesale electrical power from both the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), which is generated by the federal government’s Central Valley Project, which produces 100 percent hydroelectric energy sources from a system of dams, reservoirs, and power plants within central and northern California (see GP EIR, pp. 2-36 tp 2-37). In addition, up to 50 percent of the City’s power is generated at the City-owned Roseville Energy Park (REP) (see GP EIR, p. 2-36). The REP is a 160-megawatt natural-gas-fired power plant that uses a combined cycle gas turbine technology. The City also owns the 48 megawatt combustion-turbine Roseville Power Plant 2 (REP 2), which is used during peak energy use. The City’s electric power mix varies from year-to-year, but is approximately 40 percent eligible renewable resources, 13 percent large hydroelectric, 22 percent natural gas, and 24 percent unspecified (see GP EIR, p. 4.15-1 to 4.15-2).

Would the SV project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

Established in 2002, California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) currently requires that 33 percent of electricity retail sales be served by renewable energy resources by 2020, and 60 percent by 2030. Pursuant to Senate Bill 100 (2018), the State of California is required to generate 100 percent of electricity from carbon free sources by 2045. The City published a Renewables Portfolio Standard Procurement Plan in June 2018, and continues to comply with the RPS reporting and requirements and standards. There are no numeric significance thresholds to define “wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary” energy consumption, and therefore significance is based on the questions found in the CEQA Guidelines checklist (see items a and b, above), and by the use of expert judgment supported by facts, relying on the policies, codes, and regulations adopted by the City and by regulatory agencies with regulatory authority related to energy. The analysis considers compliance with regulations and standards, project design as it relates to energy use (including transportation energy), whether the SV project will result in a substantial unplanned demand on the City’s energy resources, and whether the SV project will impede the ability of the City to meet the RPS standards.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a, b) The SV project would consume energy both during construction and operation. During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. However, the energy consumed during construction would be temporary, and would not represent a significant demand on available resources (see GP EIR, p. 4.15-10). Further, there are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment or methods that would be less energy-efficient or that would be wasteful.

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

The completed SV project would consume energy related to building operation, exterior lighting, landscape irrigation and maintenance, and vehicle trips to and from the SV project site. In accordance with California Energy Code Title 24, the SV project would be required to meet the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These include, to name a few, standards for water and space heating and cooling equipment; insulation for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings; and appliances. The SV project would also be eligible for rebates and other financial incentives from both the electric and gas providers for the purchase of energy-efficient appliances and systems, which would further reduce the operational energy demand of the SV project.

The GP EIR included an assessment of energy impacts for the entire City planning area. The analysis included consideration of transportation energy, and evaluated walkability, alternative transportation modes, and the degree to which the mix and location of uses would reduce vehicle miles traveled in the plan area. The EIR also included a citywide assessment of energy demand based on the existing and proposed land uses within the City, including the Infill Area where the SV project would be located (see GP EIR, pp. 4.15-12 to 4.15-16). Impacts related to operational energy consumption were found to be less than significant (see GP EIR, p. 4.15-18).

Because the SV project, in conjunction with the SVSP project, would not increase the number of residential units that were originally approved for the SV project site in the GP, the SV project would use similar energy as that assumed in the GP. As a result, the SV project is consistent with the current citywide assessment of energy demand, and will not result in substantial unplanned, inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

Further, full buildout of the GP, inclusive of the SV project site, would not conflict with any State or local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency (see GP EIR, p. 4.15-19). Therefore, impacts to energy are less than significant. No mitigation is required.

VII. Geology and Soils
As described in the Safety Element of the GP, there are three inactive faults (Volcano Hill, Linda Creek, and an unnamed fault) in the vicinity, but there are no known active seismic faults within Placer County. The last seismic event recorded in the South Placer area occurred in 1908, and is estimated to have a magnitude of approximately

4.0 on the Richter Scale. Due to the geographic location and soil characteristics within the City, the GP indicates that soil liquefaction, landslides, and subsidence are not a significant risk in the area. See also the GP EIR (pp.

4.7-1 to 4.7-14). According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Database (2020), two types of soil occur on the SV project site: Cometa-Fiddyment complex, present on 1 to 5 percent slopes; and Cometa-Ramona sandy loams, present on 1 to 5 percent slopes (see Attachment 7). According to a 2019 review of geologic maps, literature review, and records search performed at the University of California, Berkeley Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), the SV project site is located in an area known to include rock formations that are of high paleontological sensitivity (GP EIR, pp. 4.7-4 to 4.7-5).

Would the SV project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence
of a known fault?
X
ii. Strong seismic ground X
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to geology and soils is based directly on questions found in the CEQA Guidelines checklist (see items a–f listed above). Regulations applicable to this topic include the Alquist-Priolo Act, which addresses earthquake safety in building permits, and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which requires the state to gather and publish data on the location and risk of seismic faults. The Archaeological, Historic, and Cultural Resources section of the GP also directs the proper evaluation of and, when feasible, protection of significant archaeological resources, which for this evaluation will include paleontological resources (Policies 1 and 2). Section 50987.5 of the California Public Code is only applicable to public land; that statute prohibits the excavation, removal, destruction, or defacement/injury to any vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints or other paleontological feature.

The Findings of the Implementing Procedures indicate that compliance with the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (RMC Ch.9.80) and Design/Construction Standards (Resolution 07-107) will prevent significant impacts related to checklist item b. The Ordinance and standards include permit requirements for construction and development in erosion-prone areas and ensure that grading activities will not result in significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The use of septic tanks or alternative waste systems is not permitted in the City; therefore, no analysis of criterion e is necessary.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The SV project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic shaking, ground failure or landslides.

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

i–iii) According to United States Geological Service mapping and literature, active faults are largely considered to be those that have had movement within the last 10,000 years (within the Holocene or Historic time periods);4 and there are no major active faults in Placer County. The California Geological Survey has prepared a map of the state that shows the earthquake shaking potential of areas throughout California based primarily on an area’s distance from known active faults. The map shows that the City lies in a relatively lowintensity ground-shaking zone. Commercial, institutional, and residential buildings, as well as all related infrastructure, are required, in conformance with Chapter 16, Structural Design Requirements, Division IV, Earthquake Design of the California Building Code, to lessen the exposure to potentially damaging vibrations through seismic-resistant design. In compliance with the Code, all structures in the SV project area would be well-built to withstand ground shaking from possible earthquakes in the region. Therefore, impacts associated with seismic activity would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. iv) Landslides typically occur where soils on steep slopes (15 percent or more) become saturated or where natural or manmade conditions have taken away supporting structures and vegetation (see GP EIR, p.

4.7-10). The existing and proposed slopes of the SV project site are not steep enough to present a hazard during development or upon completion of the SV project. In addition, measures would be incorporated during construction to shore up minor slopes and prevent potential earth movement. Therefore, impacts associated with landslides would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b) Grading activities will result in the disruption, displacement, compaction and over-covering of soils associated with site preparation (grading and trenching for utilities). Grading activities for the SV project will be limited to the SV project site. Grading activities require a grading permit from the Engineering Division. The grading permit is reviewed for compliance with the City’s Construction Standards, including the provision of proper drainage (Section 101), appropriate dust control (Section 111), and erosion control measures (Section 111). Grading and erosion control measures will be incorporated into the required grading plans and improvement plans. Therefore, the impacts associated with disruption, displacement, and compaction of soils associated with the SV project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. c, d) The soils on the site include Cometa-Fiddyment complex and Cometa-Ramona sandy loams (see Attachment 7). These soil types are not listed as geologically unstable or sensitive in the Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey for Placer County Web Soil Survey.5 Nor are the soil types listed as expansive in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, impacts associated with soils would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
e) Future development on the SV project site would not include septic tanks or any onsite wastewater treatment.

The SV project will eventually be hooked up to City sewer facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation is required.
f) No paleontological resources are known to exist on the SV project site per the cultural resources inventory and evaluation conducted for the SV project (see Attachment 9). However, the possibility exists for uncovering subsurface paleontological resources during construction. MM GEO-1, included below, would ensure that all subsurface paleontological discoveries would be properly handled and managed.

MM GEO-1: If paleontological resources are discovered during the course of construction, work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery, the City of Roseville shall be notified, and a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery. If the paleontological resource is considered significant, it should be excavated by a qualified paleontologist and given to a local agency, State University, or other institution with expertise in paleontology, where the resource could be curated and displayed for public education purposes.
4 See U.S. Geological Survey: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/glossary/?term=active%20fault. 5 See Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/.

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

With implementation of MM GEO-1, potential impacts to unknown subsurface paleontological resources and human remains would be eliminated and this impact would be less than significant.

VIII. Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere. The principal GHGs that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. As explained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,6 global average temperature has increased by more than 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 1800s, and most of the warming of the past half century has been caused by human emissions. The City has taken proactive steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which include the introduction of GP policies to reduce emissions, changes to City operations, and climate action initiatives. For an inventory of State and Placer County GHGs, refer to the GP EIR (pp. 4.5-3 to 4.5-5).

Would the SV project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

A.B. 32 (the California Global Warming Solutions Act), signed by Governor Schwarzenegger of California in September 2006, found that climate change resulting from global warming was a threat to California, and directed that “the State Air Resources Board design emissions reduction measures to meet the statewide emissions limits for greenhouse gases . . .”. The target established in A.B. 32 was to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. CARB subsequently prepared the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) for California, which was approved in 2008. The Scoping Plan provides the outline for actions to reduce California’s GHG emissions, and has been updated twice.

Senate Bill 32 (S.B. 32) was signed by the Governor on September 8, 2016, to establish a reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (see GP EIR, pp. 4.5-7 to 4.5-8). CARB’s updated its Scoping Plan in 2017 in order to change the target year from 2020 to 2030, based on the targets established in S.B. 32 (see GP EIR, p. 4.5-7). Critically, the 2017 Scoping Plan also sets the path toward compliance with the 2050 target embodied within Executive Order S-3-05 as well (see GP EIR, p. 4.5-8). According to the 2017 Scoping Plan the statewide 2030 reduction target is 260 million metric tons. The Scoping Plan recommends an efficiency target approach for local governments for 2030 and 2050 target years.

PCAPCD recommends that thresholds of significance for GHG be related to statewide reduction goals and has adopted thresholds that take into account the 2030 reduction target. The thresholds include a de minimis and a bright-line maximum threshold, as well as residential and non-residential efficiency thresholds. In adopting its General Plan 2035, the City included an appendix that contained “implementation measures” consistent with recommended mitigation measures from the EIR for the General Plan. On the question of how to assess the 6 See EPA Climate Change Overview: https://www.epa.gov/climate-change.

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

significance of proposed projects’ operational GHG-related impacts, the appendix provides that the City should assess whether such projects’ GHG emissions exceed “PCAPCD-recommended thresholds of significance” (see GP, Appendix A, p. A-217
). The analysis here takes that approach.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a, b) Operational GHGs are primarily emitted as a result of vehicle operation associated with trips to and from a project, and energy consumption from operation of the buildings. GHGs from vehicles are assessed based on the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) resulting from a project, on a Citywide basis. At full build out, it is anticipated that the SV project would emit approximately 906.65 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e/yr), consisting primarily of mobile emissions (see Attachment 10, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations for Sierra View (October 13, 2021) by Raney Planning & Management, Inc.). These projected emissions fall below the PCAPCD-recommended threshold of significance for project-level operational GHG emissions of 1,100 MTCO2e/yr. Therefore, the SV project would not generate operational GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment, and this impact is less than significant. No mitigation is required. Construction-related GHG emissions occur at one point in time and are therefore not typically expected to significantly contribute to climate change. Climate change is a cumulative effect that occurs over time, as emissions increase on a year-to-year basis due to increases in developed area and other factors; construction emissions are a one-time emission source, which end once the SV project is built. Furthermore, the site developer would be required to comply with all PCAPCD rules and regulations for construction, which would reduce exhaust emissions thereby reducing construction-related GHG emissions (see Section III. Air Quality; see also GP EIR, p. 4.5-29). Although the SV project is subject to these rules and regulations, this is not because the SV project would otherwise cause significant construction-related impacts from GHG emissions. The SV project would not exceed the applicable PCAPCD threshold of significance. The PCAPCD’s bright-line threshold for project construction emissions is 10,000 MTCO2e/yr; the SV project is estimated to produce 719.07 MTCO2e/yr over the approximately two-year construction period—well below the threshold (see Attachment 10).

Therefore, the SV project would not generate construction-related GHG emissions considered to have a significant impact on the environment, and this impact is less than significant. No mitigation is required.

IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The SV project site is undeveloped and does not contain any existing buildings that might contain lead-based paint or other older hazardous building materials. The site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (aka, the Cortese List).8 Would the SV project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials
X
7 See
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Ser vices/Planning/General%20Plan/Final%20General%20Plan%202020/A_Implementation%20Measures_Final.pdf. 8 See California Department of Toxic Substance Control Cortese List: https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/.

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

into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within ¼ miles of an
existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to hazardous materials is based directly on questions found in the CEQA Guidelines checklist (see items a–g listed above). A material is defined as hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, state or local regulatory agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. The determination of significance based on the above criteria depends on the probable frequency and severity of consequences to people who might be exposed to the health hazard, and the degree to which project design or existing regulations would reduce the frequency of or severity of exposure.

As an example, products commonly used for household cleaning are classified as hazardous when transported in large quantities, but one would not conclude that the presence of small quantities of household cleaners at a home would pose a risk to a school located within ¼-mile.

Many federal and State agencies regulate hazards and hazardous substances, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The state has been granted primacy (primary responsibility for oversight) by the EPA to administer and enforce hazardous waste management programs. State regulations also have detailed planning and management requirements to ensure that hazardous materials are handled, stored, and disposed of properly to reduce human health risks. California regulations pertaining to hazardous waste management are published in the California Code of Regulations (see COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

8 CCR, 22 CCR, and 23 CCR). The SV project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private use airport.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a, b) Standard construction activities would require the use of hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, lubricants, glues, paints and paint thinners, soaps, bleach, and solvents. These are common household and commercial materials routinely used by both businesses and average members of the public. The materials only pose a hazard if they are improperly used, stored, or transported either through upset conditions (e.g., a vehicle accident) or mishandling. In addition to use of hazardous materials during construction, operation of the SV project would result in the use of common hazardous materials as well, including bleach, solvents, and herbicides. Regulations pertaining to the transport of materials are codified in 49 Code of Federal Regulations 171–180, and transport regulations are enforced and monitored by the California Department of Transportation and by the California Highway Patrol. Specifications for storage on a construction site are contained in various regulations and codes, including the California Code of Regulations, the Uniform Fire Code, and the California Health and Safety Code. These same codes require that all hazardous materials be used and stored in the manner specified on the material packaging. See the GP EIR for more detail (pp. 4.10-2 to 4.10-2). Existing regulations and programs are sufficient to ensure that potential impacts as a result of the use or storage of hazardous materials are reduced to less-than-significant levels (see GP EIR, p. 4.10-20). No mitigation is required.
c) See response to Items (a) and (b) above. While development of the site will result in the use, handling, and transport of materials deemed to be hazardous, the materials in question are commonly used in both residential and commercial applications, and include materials such as bleach and herbicides. The SV project will not result in the use of any acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste, therefore there would be no release of these materials with ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
d) The SV project is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (see GP EIR, pp. 4.10-2 to 4.10-5), Therefore, no impact will occur. No mitigation is required. e) The SV project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private use airport see GP EIR, p. 4.10-7). Therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation is required. f) This SV project site is located within an area currently receiving City emergency services and development of the site has been anticipated and incorporated into emergency response plans. As such, the SV project will cause a less-than-significant impact to the City's Emergency Response or Management Plans (see GP EIR, p. 4.10-26).

Furthermore, the SV project will be required to comply with all local, State, and federal requirements for the handling of hazardous materials, which will ensure less-than-significant impacts. These will include the following programs:
• A Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) is required of uses that handle toxic and/or hazardous materials in quantities regulated by the California Health and Safety Code and/or the City. • Businesses that handle toxic or hazardous materials are required to complete a Hazardous Materials Management Program (HMMP) pursuant to local, State, or federal requirements.

No mitigation is required.
g) The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is the state agency responsible for wildland fire protection and management. As part of that task, CAL FIRE maintains maps designating Wildland Fire Hazard Severity zones. The City is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and is not in COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

a CAL FIRE responsibility area.
9 Fire suppression is entirely within local responsibility (see GP EIR, p. 4.10-7).

Wildland is defined by CAL FIRE as “unincorporated areas covered wholly or in part by trees, brush, grass, or other flammable vegetation.”10 The SV project site is no located in a wildland area; it is located in an urban infill area and is not adjacent to any wildlands. Therefore, the SV project would not expose people to any risk from wildland fire and there would be no impact. No mitigation is required.

X. Hydrology and Water Quality
With respect to groundwater, the City is located in the North American subbasin, which underlies northern Sacramento, southern Sutter, and western Placer counties. The subbasin is bounded by the Bear River on the north, the Feather River and Sacramento Rivers on the west, the American River on the south, and a north/south line extending from the Bear River south to Folsom Lake that passes about 2 miles east of the City of Lincoln.

The subbasin encompasses approximately 351,000 acres (see GP EIR, p. 4.13-8). For surface water, the City is located within the Pleasant Grove Creek Basin and the Dry Creek Basin (see GP EIR, p. 4.13-3). Pleasant Grove Creek and its tributaries drain most of the western and central areas of the City and Dry Creek and its tributaries drain the remainder of the City. Most major stream areas in the City are located within designated open space. See also the GP EIR (pp. 4.13-1 to 4.13-11). The SV project site contains a central manmade drainage ditch that flows south to north into an intermittent tributary that flows east to west, as well as a number of seasonal wetland and vernal pool features scattered around the site (see Attachment 7; see also Attachment 10, Preliminary Storm Drainage Evaluation for Sierra View (August 3, 2021) by MacKay & Somps11).

Would the SV project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site;
X
9 See CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Safety Zone Map: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. 10 See CAL FIRE 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5590/2018-strategic-fire-planapproved-08_22_18.pdf, p. 34. 11 The Preliminary Storm Drainage Report states that 76 residential units will be developed on the project site; however, only 75 are currently planned. MacKay and Somps based this number on an earlier version of the Tentative Map, and have since verified that their analysis and conclusions remain accurate.

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

ii) Substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in
a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site; or
X
iii) 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,
X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to hydrology and water quality is based directly on questions found in the CEQA Guidelines checklist (see items a–e listed above). For checklist item a, c (i), d, and e, the Findings of the 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. Likewise, it is indicated that the Drainage Fees for the Dry Creek and Pleasant Grove Watersheds (RMC Ch.4.48) and City Design/Construction Standards (Resolution 07-107) will prevent significant impacts related to checklist items c (ii) and c (iii). The ordinance and standards require the collection of drainage fees to fund improvements that mitigate potential flooding impacts, and require the design of a water drainage system that will adequately convey anticipated stormwater flows without increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff. These same ordinances and standards prevent impacts related to groundwater (items a and d), because developers are required to treat and detain all stormwater onsite using stormwater swales and other methods which slow flows and preserve infiltration. Finally, it is indicated that compliance with the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (RMC Ch. 9.80) will prevent significant impacts related to items c (iv) and e. The Ordinance includes standard requirements for all new construction, including regulation of development with the potential to impede or redirect flood flows, and prohibits development within flood hazard areas. Impacts from tsunamis and seiches were screened out of the analysis (item e) because the SV project is not located near a water body or other feature that would pose a risk of such an event.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a, c(i), e) The SV project will involve the disturbance of onsite soils and the construction of impervious surfaces, such as asphalt paving and buildings. Disturbing the soil can allow sediment to be mobilized by rain or wind, and cause displacement into waterways. To address this issue and others, the developer is required to apply for and receive approval from the City for a grading permit and/or improvement plans prior to the start of construction.

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

development such as the SV 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. See also the GP EIR (pp. 4.13-28 to 4.13-30, 4.13-33 to 35). See Attachment 10 for specific detail on storm drain infrastructure and detention proposed as part of the SV 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 SV project, are put in place to ensure that impacts to surface water quality are negligible or less than significant, as would be the case here (see also Attachment 10, p. 13). As a result of these requirements, the SV project would not: violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality; substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner that results in substantial erosion or siltation; or conflict with a surface water quality control plan. Also to note is that the West Placer Groundwater Sustainability Agency, which is the governing groundwater sustainability agency for the region, has not yet finalized and adopted a sustainable groundwater management plan; thus, there can be no conflict with such a sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, impacts to these resources would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
b) The SV project does not involve the installation of groundwater wells. The City maintains wells to supplement surface water supplies during multiple dry years, but the effect of groundwater extraction on the aquifer was addressed in the City’s Urban Water Master Plan and evaluated in the GP EIR. The SV project is consistent with the GP land use designation, in that it does not exceed the planned and approved full buildout of the City’s Infill Area, and is thus consistent with the citywide evaluation of water supply (see GP EIR, p. 4.13-31). As a result, the SV project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies. Furthermore, all permanent stormwater quality control measures must be designed to comply with the Stormwater Quality Design Manual, which requires the use of bioswales and other onsite detention and infiltration methods. These standards ensure that stormwater will continue to infiltrate into the groundwater aquifer and that potential water quality impacts from such groundwater recharge would be less than significant. Given the lack of significant impacts to groundwater, there would not be a conflict with a sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, impacts to these resources would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. c(ii,iii), d) A portion of the SV project site is located in a 200-year flood hazard zone, which means that, statistically, a flood event would occur once every 200 years on these portions of the site (see GP EIR, p. 4.13- 37). However, the SV project has been reviewed by City Engineering staff for conformance with City ordinances and standards. The SV project includes adequate and appropriate facilities to ensure no net increase in the amount or rate of stormwater runoff from the site, and which will adequately convey stormwater flows. See the discussion above on design and construction standards. See also the GP EIR (pp. 4.13-35 to 4.13-41). In fact, improvements made to the site as a result of eventual development would treat and mitigate flood waters in a manner that does not currently occur and better distribute flood water, along with water quality measures, throughout the entirety of the site (see Attachment 10, p. 13). Moreover, the entire City has 200-year flood protection currently in place. Therefore, impacts resulting from runoff would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
d) The SV project has been reviewed by City Engineering staff for conformance with City ordinances and standards. Although a portion of the site is located in a 200-year flood hazard zone (see discussion above on checklist items c(ii,iii), d), the SV project is not located within either the Federal Emergency Management Agency floodplain or the City’s Regulatory Floodplain (defined as the floodplain which will result from full buildout of the City) (see Attachment 10). Moreover, the entire City has 200-year flood protection currently in place. Therefore, the SV project will not impede or redirect flood flows. Nor will it be inundated. The SV project is located within an area of relative flat topography and is not near a waterbody or other feature that could cause a seiche or tsunami COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

(see GP EIR, p. 4.13-41). Therefore, there would be less-than-significant impacts with regard to these criteria.

No mitigation is required.

XI. Land Use and Planning
The SV project site is currently undeveloped and designated/zoned for both Medium Density Residential/R3 (Multi-Family Housing) (Infill Planning Parcel 100) and Low Density Residential/R1 (Single-Family Residential (Infill Planning Parcel 100). The area surrounding the parcels is fully developed and designated/zoned according to Table 1 above.

Would the SV project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to land use is based directly on questions found in the CEQA Guidelines checklist (see items a and b listed above). Consistency with applicable City GP policies, Improvement Standards, and design standards is already required and part of the City’s processing of permits and plans, so these requirements do not appear as mitigation measures.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The area around the SV project site is fully developed as planned, for residential (mostly low density and some medium density), recreation (a golf course), and some public use (a public school). The SV project site, currently planned for medium density residential, is now proposed as low density residential. This change would not alter the underlying land use for the property, which would remain residential. Indeed, it would better align the SV project site with existing low density residential development to the north, northeast, and east of the site.

The SV project would be required to adhere to all City Design Standards to ensure its design features comported with and complemented those of the surrounding developments (see GP EIR, p. 4.1-17). Therefore, the SV project will not physically divide an established community and there would be no impact. No mitigation is required.
b) The SV project would, if approved, formally change the land use designation and zoning for the SV project site; therefore, at that time, it would not conflict with any specific adopted land use plans or zoning designations.

Furthermore, the underlying use of the SV project site as residential development will continue to comport with the underlying anticipated use that exists in current planning documents, albeit at a reduced degree of development (see GP, p. 4.1-24). The reduction in housing on the site would in turn reduce potential environmental impacts and therefore reduce the risk of policy violations. As well, the SV project will be required to adhere to all City Design/Construction Standards, which would ensure local regulations were honored. The SV project will, however, require the removal of several protected trees in conflict with the City’s Tree Ordinance.

However, this potentially significant impact is mitigated by application for and approval of a Tree Permit that will COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

contain conditions of approval and/or measures, as prescribed in MM BIO-4, to ensure tree removal results in a less-than-significant impact. After implementation of MM BIO-4, this impact would be less than significant.

XII. Mineral Resources
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975 requires the State Geologist to classify land into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) based on the known or inferred mineral resource potential of that land. The California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) was historically responsible for the classification and designation of areas containing—or potentially containing—significant mineral resources, though that responsibility now lies with the California Geological Survey (CGS). There are four broad MRZ categories (MRZ1 through MRZ-4), and only MRZ-2 represents an area of known significant mineral resources. CDMG published Open File Report 95-10, which provides the mineral classification map for Placer County. There is only one small MRZ-2 designation area, located at the far eastern edge of the City. But largely, the City does not overlie any known deposits of economically valuable mineral resources (see GP EIR, p. 4.7-1) Would the SV project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of
a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of
a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to mineral resources is based directly on questions found in the CEQA Guidelines checklist (see items a and b listed above). Mineral resources are regulated pursuant to the abovereferenced programs and agencies.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a, b) The SV project site is not in the one small portion of the City known to include any mineral resources that would be of local, regional, or statewide importance. Therefore, the SV project would have impacts on mineral resources. No mitigation is required.

XIII. Noise
The area immediately surrounding the SV project site consists primarily of residences and a golf course, with a public school located southeast of the site and two local roadways leading to, or adjacent to, the site. The nearest arterial roadways are Washington Avenue and Atlantic Street, but both are separated from the SV project site by development. Thus, there are no potential sources of significant noise in the area. Ambient noise levels surrounding the SV project site are made up of typical residential noises, with fixed noise sources such as landscape activities (leaf blowers, mowers, etc.) (see GP EIR, p. 4.6-55) and transportation noises such as local traffic (see GP EIR, p. 4.6-50), as well as fixed noise sources associated with landscaping and maintaining golf course greens.

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) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of a substantial
permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the
project?
X
c) Result in exposure of persons to
or generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
X
d) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

Standards for transportation noise and non-transportation noise affecting existing or proposed land uses are established within the GP Noise Element. The significance of other noise impacts is based directly on questions found in the CEQA Guidelines checklist (see items b and c listed above), as well as the GP Noise Element, the City’s Noise Ordinance, and the professional judgment of City staff and consultants. The Findings of the Implementing Procedures indicate that compliance with the City Noise Regulation (RMC Ch. 9.24) will prevent significant non-transportation noise. The Ordinance establishes noise exposure standards that protect noisesensitive receptors from a variety of noise sources, including non-transportation/fixed noise, amplified sound, industrial noise, and events on public property.

Section 9.24.030(G) of the Noise Ordinance exempts noise from private construction (e.g., construction, alteration, or repair activities) between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday; however, all construction equipment must be fitted with factory installed muffling devices and all construction equipment shall be maintained in good working order.

These exemptions are typical of City and County noise ordinances and reflect the recognition that constructionrelated noise is temporary in character, is generally acceptable when limited to daylight hours, and is part of what residents of urban areas expect as part of a typical urban noise environment (along with sirens, etc.).

The SV project site is not within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public or public use airport and there are also no private airstrips in the vicinity of the SV project area.

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

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a, b) The area immediately surrounding the SV project site includes noise-sensitive land uses, specifically residential and school facilities (see GP EIR, p. 4.6-5). Temporary, short-term construction noise would occur during project construction. However, Section 9.24.030(G) of the City’s Noise Ordinance exempts noise from private construction that occurs between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. on weekends from City noise standards, provided that all construction equipment is fitted with factory installed muffling devices and maintained in good working order (see GP EIR, p. 4.6-48). Project construction would occur within these hours and construction equipment would be outfitted and maintained as prescribed in the Ordinance, pursuant to MM NOISE-1.

MM NOISE-1: Limits Hours of Construction and Muffle/Maintain Construction Equipment. Project construction shall occur only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. on weekends to limit construction noise. All construction equipment shall be fitted with factory installed muffling devices and maintained in good working order, pursuant to City Noise Ordinance Section 9.24.150(G).

With implementation of MM NOISE-1, potential impacts associated with construction noise would be less than significant.

Section 9.24.100 of the City’s Noise Ordinance establishes operational sound level standards by which exposure of sensitive receptors to noise is regulated for area-wide sources, including fixed sources, such as those associated with residential development, and transportation sources, such as local traffic. Hourly sound levels are limited to 50 dB Leq in the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 45 dB Leq at nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) (see GP EIR, p. 4.6-38). Hourly sound levels are limited to 70 dB Lmax in the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 65 dB Lmax at nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The permanent ambient noise levels associated with the proposed residential development would be similar to, if not the same as, surrounding residential development. Quiet urban daytime noise levels are expected to be approximately 50 dBA with nighttime levels around 40 dBA, with landscaping activities such as lawnmowing at a maximum of approximately 68 dBA (see GP EIR, p. 4.6-4). These levels do not exceed the City’s standards. Further, the project developer, and future residents, would be required to comply with City Noise standards, and the City considers this to be adequate for preventing significant noise impacts, including those related to local traffic. Therefore, there would be a lessthan-significant impact to a permanent increase in ambient noise as a result of project operation. No mitigation is required.
c) Surrounding uses may experience short-term increases in groundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels during construction. However, these increases would only occur for a short period of time and would only occur during daytime hours, per MM NOISE-1. While the noise generated may be a minor nuisance, the City Noise standards are designed to ensure that impacts are not unduly intrusive. There would be no excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise during project operation as these events are not associated with low density residential development (see GP EIR, p. 4.6-67). Therefore, with implementation of MM NOISE-1, potential impacts associated with groundborne vibration and groundborne noise would be less than significant. d) The SV project site is not within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public or public use airport and there are also no private airstrips in the vicinity of the SV project area. Therefore, there is no impact. No mitigation is required.

XIV. Population and Housing
The SV project site is located within the Infill Area and has a land use designation of Medium Density Residential.

The GP Table II-4 identifies the total number of residential units and population anticipated as a result of buildout of the City. The GP had allocated a total 223 medium density residential units for the property (inclusive the adjacent development to the south with 55 existing medium density residential units).

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) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to population and housing is based directly on questions found in the CEQA Guidelines checklist (see items a and b listed above). The GP governs planned growth within the City.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The CEQA Guidelines identify several ways in which a project could have growth-inducing impacts (Public Resources Code Section 15126.2), either directly or indirectly. Growth-inducement may be the result of fostering economic growth, fostering population growth, providing new housing, or removing barriers to growth. Growth inducement may be detrimental, beneficial, or of no impact or significance under CEQA. An impact is only deemed to occur when it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be shown that the growth will significantly affect the environment in some other way. The SV project will induce growth, but planned growth. The SV project is consistent in its underlying land use with the GP and proposes less growth (fewer residential units) on the SV project site than is approved under the GP. Thus, any growth induced by the SV project was already identified and its effects disclosed and mitigated through the GP process. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b) The SV project site is undeveloped and vacant. No housing exists on the SV project site, and thus no people or housing would be directly displaced by the SV project. The SV project would, however, reduce the number of residential units that were planned for the site, which would create a violation of the 2019 Housing Crisis Act (S.B. 330) absent an offsetting increase in residential capacity elsewhere within the City. However, these units are being reallocated to two other parcels within the City, as described and analyzed in the subsequent Addendum, for a net zero loss of planned housing units within the City. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

XV. Public Services
The Roseville Fire Department provides fire protection, fire suppression, emergency medical services, and hazardous materials management within the City. The SV project site is approximately 1.4 miles from its nearest fire station, Fire Station No. 1 at 401 Oak Street (see GP EIR, p. 4.11-2). The City Police Department, headquartered at 1051 Junction Boulevard, provides primary law and traffic enforcement services within the City limits (see GP EIR, p. 4.11-1). The SV project site is within the Roseville City School District and adjacent to Ferris Spanger Elementary School. Lastly, the SV project site is located nearby two community parks: Diamond Oaks Park and Woodbridge Park.

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

Would the SV project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to public services is based directly on questions found in the CEQA Guidelines checklist (see items a–e listed above). The GP EIR addressed the level of public services which would need to be provided in order to serve planned growth in the community (see GP EIR, Section 4.11). In all proposed growth areas of the City, the City has adopted policies, Development Agreements, or other requirements or conditions that identify the physical facilities needed to serve growth, and the funding needed to provide for the construction and operation of those facilities and services. In addition, the SV project has been routed to the various public service agencies, both internal and external, to ensure that the SV project meets the agencies’ design standards (where applicable) and to provide an opportunity to recommend appropriate conditions of approval.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) Existing City codes and regulations require adequate water pressure in the water lines, and construction must comply with the Uniform Fire and Building Codes used by the City. Additionally, the Applicant would be required to pay a fire service construction fee, which is used for purchasing capital facilities for the Fire Department; thus, any expansion of physical facilities required for firefighting would be a result of this program and not any one individual development. Therefore, existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure a less-than-significant impact to fire services and firefighting facilities (see GP EIR, pp. 4.11- 23 to 4.11-25). No mitigation is required.
b) Funding for police services is provided through the collection of property taxes and sales taxes. Further, the SV project is required to pay the City’s public facilities fee, which is used to construct or expand facilities, such as the police station, as needed to accommodate the GP policy regarding levels of service. Any expansion of physical facilities required for providing police services would be a result of City-wide decisions and not as a result of any one individual development. Therefore, existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure a less-than-significant impact to police services and law enforcement facilities (see GP EIR, pp. 4.11-22 to 4.11-23). No mitigation is required. b) The SV project would be required to pay school impact fees at a rate determined by the local school district and state law. School fees are collected prior to the issuance of building permits, consistent with City requirements. The Infill Area is almost fully developed and school sites have already been established based on full buildout of the GP for that area. Thus, school facilities would not be impacted by the SV project in a manner that would result in substantial adverse physical impacts causing significant environmental impacts. Therefore, existing codes, regulations, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure a less-than-significant impact to schools and school facilities (see GP EIR, pp. 4.11-25 to 4.11-27). No mitigation is required.

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

c) Pursuant to Conditions of Approval for the proposed development, future residents will be required to pay special taxes collected with the annual property tax bill for each residential parcel, associated with the Infill Community Facilities District No. 4, which provides funding for park services. The Infill Area is almost fully developed and parks have already been established and would not be impacted by the SV project in a manner that would result in substantial adverse physical impacts causing significant environmental impacts (see XVI.

Recreation). Therefore, existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure a less-than-significant impact to parks and park facilities. No mitigation is required. d) The City operates its own library system of three (3) libraries: the Maidu Library, the Downtown Library, and the Martha Riley Community Library. The SV project will pay, at the time of the issuance of a building permit, the City’s public facilities fee, which provides funding for capital improvements related to City facilities. Any expansion of physical facilities required for providing library services would be a result of City-wide decisions and not as a result of any one individual development. In addition, the City charges fees to end-users for other services, such as garbage and greenwaste collection, in order to fund those services. Any expansion of facilities required for those services would likewise be a product of City-wide decisions and not as a result of any one individual development. Therefore, existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure a less-than-significant impact to other public facilities. No mitigation is required.

XVI. Recreation
The SV project site is undeveloped with no approved recreational facilities, but it is located adjacent and to the east of a private golf course (Sierra View) and south of another golf course (Diamond Oaks), albeit separated by low density housing. Also located nearby the site are two community parks (Diamond Oaks Park and Woodbridge Park) as well as recreational facilities located within nearby public schools (Ferris Spanger Elementary School and Roseville High School). Overall, the City possess an abundance of private and public recreational facilities, by design (see GP EIR, pp. 4.11-10 to 4.11-14).

Would the SV project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Include recreational facilities or
require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse
physical effect on the
environment?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to recreation services is based directly on questions found in the CEQA Guidelines checklist (see items a–b listed above). The GP and other City planning mechanisms govern planned recreation within the City.

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

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The SV project does not exceed the planned buildout of the GP and in fact reduces the number of residential units planned for the Infill Area. Notwithstanding, the GP EIR took into account the use of neighborhood and regional recreational facilities at full buildout in its analysis, and found the potential impact to be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 4.11-27). Also, proposed development will include a private home owners’ association (HOA) owned and maintained park and open space for the enjoyment of its future residents, which would reduce any potential usage of other existing nearby recreational facilities (see Attachment 1). The SV project must comply all existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans that govern recreation, which would further ensure that no existing recreation facilities would incur significant physical deterioration as a result of the SV project. Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact to City recreation facilities. No mitigation is required.
b) The proposed development includes a private HOA owned and maintained park (see Attachment 1). The construction of this park would occur as one part of the overall development being proposed as part of the SV project; thus, it is analyzed throughout this document. Each impact conclusion reached, and mitigation measure proposed, applies to the construction of this park. There would be no unforeseen or new impacts related to the construction of this park, which will be part of the overall project analyzed in this IS. As demonstrated throughout this initial study, the SV project would have a less than significant effect on the environmental with some mitigation. Therefore, the construction of this community park also would have less-than-significant impacts with mitigation.

XVII. Transportation/Traffic
The SV project site is surrounded by two local roadway thoroughfares: Diamond Oaks Road to the north and Shasta Street to the east and south. The site is undeveloped and does not contain any internal roadways or formal pedestrian or bike paths.

Would the SV project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards
due to a design feature (for
example, sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (for example,
farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? X
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The City has adopted the following plans, ordinances, or policies applicable to checklist item a: Pedestrian Master Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, Short-Range Transit Plan, and GP Circulation Element. The SV project is evaluated for consistency with these plans and the policies contained within them. For checklist item b, the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 establishes a detailed process for evaluating the significance of transportation impacts. In accordance with this section, the analysis must focus on the generation of VMTs; effects on automobile delay cannot be considered a significant impact. The City developed analysis guidance and thresholds as part of the 2035 GP Update project approved in July 2020. The detailed evaluation and justification is contained within the GP EIR (see GP EIR, pp. 4.3-21 to 4.3-30).

Future projects consistent with the GP will not require further VMT analysis, pursuant to the tiering provisions of CEQA. For projects which are inconsistent, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) allows lead agencies discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b) allows lead agencies the discretion to select their own thresholds and allow for differences in thresholds based on context.

Quantitative analysis would not be required if it can be demonstrated that a project would generate VMT which is equivalent to or less than what was assumed in the GP EIR. When quantitative analysis is required, the threshold of 12.8 VMT/capita may be used for projects not within the scope of the GP EIR, provided the cumulative context of the 2035 GP has not changed substantially. Since approval of the 2035 GP, the City has not annexed new land, substantially changed roadway network assumptions, or made any other changes to the 2035 assumptions, which would require an update to the City’s VMT thresholds contained within the GP EIR.

Therefore, the threshold of 12.8 VMT/capita remains appropriate.

For checklist item b, the analysis here is primarily qualitative because the nature of a project is such that it would not generate VMT that exceeds what was assumed in the GP EIR (see GP EIR, p. 4.3-29; see also Attachment 12, Transportation Impact Study for Sierra View (September 7, 2021) by Fehr & Peers, p. 7). Impacts associated with checklist items c and d are assessed based on the expert judgment of the City Engineer and City Fire Department, as based upon facts and consistency with the City’s Design and Construction Standards.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The City has adopted a Pedestrian Master Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Short-Range Transit Plan. The SV project was reviewed for consistency with these documents. The SV project includes all minor residential streets with pedestrian sidewalks and connectivity to both Diamond Oaks Road and Shasta Street (see Attachment 1). This style of roadway development is consistent with the policies of the adopted, applicable documents listed above. Therefore, there would be no conflict and a less-than-significant impact (see GP EIR, pp. 4.3-40 to 4.3-43). No mitigation is required.
b) Pursuant to the GP EIR and the January 2021 Amendments to the City of Roseville Design and Constructions Standards, VMT analysis is not required for projects that fall within the scope of land uses analyzed in the GP EIR because it can be assumed that such projects would generate equivalent or less VMT than what was assumed in the GP EIR (see Attachment 12, p. 7). If a project falls within these parameters, then it is considered to not exceed the City’s VMT threshold, resulting in a less-than-significant impact (see GP EIR, p. 4.3-29). The proposed development is a reduced version of the originally approved housing density that was analyzed in the GP EIR. As a result, it would not exceed VMT projections that were analyzed in the GP EIR. Therefore, no additional VMT analysis is required and there would be a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation is required. c, d) The SV project’s interior roadways would be constructed to comply with applicable City’s Design Standards, Fire Codes and other emergency-related design standards, pursuant to standard conditions of approval. Indeed, the SV project has been reviewed by the City Engineering and City Fire Department staff and has been found to be consistent with these regulations. For more information on emergency project site access and roadway safety COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

features, refer to Attachment 12, pp. 6 to 7 and the Tentative Map in Attachment 1. Compliance with existing regulations ensures that impacts associated with transportation-related hazards and emergency access would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
As described within the Open Space and Conservation Element of the GP, the Roseville region was within the territory of the Nisenan (also Southern Maidu or Valley Maidu). See the GP EIR for additional tribal regional history (pp. 4.9-2 to 4.9-4). Two large permanent Nisenan habitation sites have been identified and protected within the City’s open space (in Maidu Park). Numerous smaller tribal cultural resources, such as midden deposits and bedrock mortars, have also been recorded in the City. A majority of documented sites containing tribal cultural resources within the City are located in areas designated for open space uses.

Would the SV project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or
X
b) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

In addition to unique archeological resources and historical resources, tribal cultural resources are also given particular treatment. Tribal cultural resources are defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074, as either 1) a site, feature, place, geographically-defined cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, that is listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, or on a local register of historical resources or as 2) a resource determined by the lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according to the historical register criteria in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.

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

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) A cultural resources inventory and evaluation survey was conducted for the SV project site (see Attachment 9). That evaluation did not find any site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is listed or eligible for listing in the in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). However, the possibility exists of uncovering subsurface tribal resources during project construction (see Attachment 9) that might qualify for listing. MM CUL-1 would ensure that all subsurface tribal cultural discoveries would be properly handled and managed in accordance with applicable State law. With implementation of MM CUL-1, potential impacts to unknown subsurface tribal cultural resources that might qualify for listing would be eliminated and this impact would be less than significant. b) Notice of the SV project was mailed to tribes that had requested such notice pursuant to A.B. 52. Notice was also provided pursuant to S.B. 18 for early consultation for the amendment of general plans (see Attachment 13, Tribal Consultation Letters). A request for consultation was received by one culturally affiliated tribe—the United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC)—on August 18, 2021, The City proceeded to consult with this Tribe.

The Tribe indicated the possibility that tribal cultural resources may exist onsite that would be of significance to them and that may be unearthed during construction. After consultation discussions between the Tribe, the City, and the Applicant, the following mitigation measures were developed to address this potential impact taking into account tribal preferences and best practices.

Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Unpaid Tribal Observation
A minimum of seven days prior to beginning earthwork or other soil disturbance activities, the Construction Manager shall notify the City of the proposed earthwork start-date, in order to provide the City representative sufficient time to contact the consulting tribe(s). A single tribal representative shall be invited to, at its discretion, voluntarily observe any or all ground-disturbing activities during construction. The tribe shall be provided 72 hours to accept or decline observation. The single tribal observer shall be required to comply with all job site safety requirements and shall sign a waiver of liability prior to entering the job site. Should the tribe choose not to observe any or all of the activity, the City shall deem the mitigation measure completed in good faith without tribal observation as long as the notification was made and documented.

Mitigation Measure TCR-2: Contractor Awareness Training The Construction Manager shall ensure that a Contractor Awareness Training Program is delivered to train equipment operators about cultural resources and tribal cultural resources. The program shall be designed to inform construction personnel about: federal and state regulations pertaining to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources; the subsurface indicators of resources that shall require a work stoppage; procedures for notifying the City of any occurrences; and project-specific requirements; and enforcement of penalties and repercussions for non-compliance with the program.

The training shall be prepared by a qualified professional archaeologist and reviewed by City for approval, and may be provided in an audio-visual format, such as a DVD. The Construction Manager shall provide culturally affiliated tribes that consulted on the project the option of attending the initial training in person and/or providing additional materials germane to the unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources for incorporation into the training.

The training program shall be required for all construction supervisors, forepersons, and operators of grounddisturbing equipment and all personnel shall be required to sign a training roster and display a hardhat sticker that is visible to City inspectors. The construction manager is responsible for ensuring that all required personnel receive the training. The Construction Manager shall provide a copy of the signed training roster to the City as proof of compliance.

Mitigation Measure TCR-3: Post-Review Discovery Procedures If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin, or tribal cultural resources, are discovered during construction, all work shall halt within a 100-foot radius of the discovery, and the Construction Manager shall immediately notify the City of Roseville Development Services Director by phone. The Construction COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

Manager shall also immediately coordinate with the monitoring archeologist or project archaeologist and (if present) tribal monitor, or, in the absence of either, contact the consulting tribe(s) and a qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology and subject to approval by the City, to evaluate the significance of the find and develop appropriate management recommendations in coordination with the consulting tribe(s) if the find is a tribal cultural resource.

All management recommendations shall be provided to the City in writing for the City’s review and approval. If recommended by the qualified professional and consulting tribes and approved by the City, this may include modification of the no-work radius.

The professional archaeologist must make a determination, based on professional judgement and supported by substantial evidence, within one business day of being notified, as to whether or not the find represents a cultural or tribal resource or has the potential to be a cultural or tribal cultural resource. The consulting tribe shall also be given the opportunity to provide, within one business day of being notified, a determination as to whether or not the find represents a tribal cultural resource or has the potential to be a tribal cultural resource.

The type of discovery, as described below will determine the subsequent actions. These include: 1) a work pause that, upon further investigation, is not actually a discovery and the work pause was simply needed in order to allow for closer examination of soil (a “false alarm”); 2) a work pause and subsequent action for discoveries that are clearly not related to tribal resources, such as can and bottle dumps, artifacts of European origin, and remnants of built environment features; and 3) a work pause and subsequent action for discoveries that are likely related to tribal resources, such as midden soil, bedrock mortars, groundstone, or other similar expressions.

Whenever there is question as to whether or not the discovery represents a tribal resource, culturally affiliated tribes shall be consulted in making the determination. Whenever a tribal monitor is present, the monitor shall be consulted.

The following processes shall apply, depending on the nature of the find, subject to the review and approval of the City:
• Response to False Alarms: If the professional archaeologist determines that the find is negative for any cultural indicators, and tribal representatives have not indicated the find is a tribal cultural resource, then work may resume immediately upon notice to proceed from the City’s representative.

No further notifications or archaeological consultation is necessary if it is determined that the discovery is not a cultural or tribal cultural resource of any kind. The professional archaeologist shall provide written documentation of this finding to the City, which shall include as an attachment any written documentation provided by tribal representatives or monitors. • Response to Non-Tribal Discoveries: If a tribal monitor is not present at the time of discovery and a professional archaeologist determines that the find represents a non-tribal cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, the City shall be notified immediately, to consult on a finding of eligibility and implementation of appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The professional archaeologist shall provide a photograph of the find and a written description to the City of Roseville. The City of Roseville will notify any [tribe(s)] who, in writing, requested notice of unanticipated discovery of non-tribal resources. Notice shall include the photograph and description of the find, and a tribal representative shall have the opportunity to determine whether the find represents a tribal cultural resource. If a response is not received within 24 hours of notification (none of which time period may fall on weekends or City holidays), the City will deem this portion of the measure completed in good faith as long as the notification was made and documented. If requested by a [tribe(s)], the City may extend this timeframe, which shall be documented in writing (electronic communication may be used to satisfy this measure). If a notified tribe responds within 24 hours to COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

indicate that the find represents a tribal cultural resource, then the Response to Tribal Discoveries portion of this measure applies. If the tribe does not respond or concurs that the discovery is nontribal, work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.
• Response to Tribal Discoveries: If the find represents a tribal or potentially tribal cultural resource that does not include human remains, the consulting tribe(s) and City shall be notified. The City will consult with the tribe(s) on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be either a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, or a Tribal Cultural Resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code. Preservation in place is the preferred treatment, if feasible. Work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; or 2) not a Tribal Cultural Resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code; or 3) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction. • Response to Human Remains: If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, the construction supervisor or on-site archaeologist and (if present) tribal monitor shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (AB 2641) and shall notify the City and Placer County Coroner (per § 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, § 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and Assembly Bill 2641 shall be implemented. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. Public Resources Code § 5097.94 provides structure for mediation through the NAHC if necessary. If the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (§ 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code).

If no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains in a respectful manner where they will not be further disturbed (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). This 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 (AB 2641). Work shall 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.

With implementation of MM TCR-1, MM TCR-2, and MM TCR-3, in conjunction with implementation of MM CUL1, potential impacts to unknown subsurface tribal cultural resources that might be of significance to applicable tribes would be less than significant.

XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
Water and wastewater services for the SV project site are provided by the City, storm water would be transferred via pipe into the City’s offsite storm drain system, and solid waste would be collected by the City’s Refuse COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

Department (see GP EIR, pp. 4.12-1, 4.12-6, 4.12-10). The City also would provide electric service to the site, while natural gas would be provided by PG&E (see GP EIR, p. 4.12-11).

Would the SV project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to utilities and service systems is based directly on questions found in the CEQA Guidelines checklist (see items a–e listed above) and regulated by a variety of State and local rules.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a) The SV project includes construction of a variety of utilities infrastructure, including sewer pipes and manholes, water lines, fire hydrants, electricity and cable lines, storm drain pipes/culverts and a stormwater basin, etc. (see Attachment 1, p. 2), which would tie into the City’s facilities or other providers’ facilities.

Construction of this onsite infrastructure would allow the SV project to be properly serviced but would not result in the relocation, construction, or expansion of any larger infrastructure facilities, such as a wastewater treatment plant, because the Infill Area where the SV project would be located is accounted for as existing development that is serviceable by existing facilities, versus new development in areas where specific plans have been or are COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

being prepared, which likely will trigger an expansion of facilities (see GP EIR, pp. 4.12-20 to 4.12-24). Onsite project utility infrastructure is designed to be consistent with the GP and to comply with all applicable regulations.

As well, the Applicant or developer will be required to pay fees that fund the operation of the facilities and the construction of major infrastructure. Furthermore, construction of onsite infrastructure has been considered throughout this checklist as part of overall project development; thus, any associated potential environmental impacts are fully disclosed and mitigated, if necessary. Therefore, the SV project would be no significant environmental impacts associated with the relocation, construction, or expansion of infrastructure and infrastructure facilities, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b) The City of Roseville 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), adopted May 2016, estimates water demand and supply for the City through the year 2040, based on existing land use designations and population projections.12 In addition, the GP EIR estimates water demand and supply for ultimate buildout (see GP EIR, pp. 4.12-25 to 4.12-26). The SV project is consistent with existing underlying land use designations in that is does not exceed buildout assumptions, and is therefore consistent with the assumptions of the UWMP and GP EIR, which found a less-than-significant impact regarding water supply (see GP EIR, p. 4.12-28). In fact, the SV project, in conjunction with SVSP project, will decrease overall City water use by approximately 2.0 acre feet per year less than the usage calculated for the previously approved land uses (see the Addendum for more detail).

The UWMP indicates that existing water supply sources are sufficient to meet all near-term needs, estimating an annual water demand of 48,762 acre-feet per year (AFY) by the year 2035 and existing surface and recycled water supplies in the amount of 60,400 AFY in normal years (see GP EIR, p. 4.12-24). The UWMP establishes some water supply deficit during dry year scenarios, but establishes that mandatory water conservation measures and the use of groundwater to offset reductions in surface water supplies are sufficient to offset the deficit. Thus, the SV project would not require new or expanded water supply entitlements. Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact to water supply. No mitigation is required. c) The SV project would be served by the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant (PGWWTP). The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates water quality and quantity of effluent discharged from the City’s wastewater treatment facilities. The PGWWTP has the capacity to treat 9.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and is currently treating 7.1 mgd (see GP EIR, p. 4.12-29). The SV project is projected to result in approximately 14,630 gpd (or 0.015 mgd) of wastewater, so there are no concerns that the PGWWTP could serve the SV project (see Attachment 14, Sewer Capacity Evaluation for Sierra View (April 21, 2021) by Woodard & Curran, p. 1). Further, the SV project is consistent with existing underlying land use designations in that is does not exceed buildout assumptions, which is how infrastructure capacity is planned. Moreover, the SV project, in conjunction with SVSP project, will decrease overall City wastewater generation by approximately

0.07 million gallons per day than the generation calculated for the previously approved land uses (see the Addendum for more detail).Therefore, the volume of wastewater generated by the SV project could be accommodated by PGWWTP, and the SV project would not contribute to an exceedance of applicable wastewater treatment requirements (see GP EIR, p. 4.12-30). The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
d, e) The Western Placer Waste Management Authority is the regional agency handling recycling and waste disposal for the City and surrounding areas. The regional waste facilities include a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) and the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill (WRSL). Currently, the WRSL is permitted to accept up to 1,900 tons of municipal solid waste per day with a permitted capacity of 36.4 million cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29.1 million cubic yards (see GP EIR, p. 4.12-31). Under current projected development conditions, the WRSL has a projected lifespan extending through 2058. Thus, there is sufficient capacity to serve the SV project. Though the SV project will contribute incrementally to an eventual need to find other means of waste disposal, this impact of City buildout has already been disclosed and analyzed in the GP EIR and found to be less than significant on solid waste infrastructure (see GP EIR, p. 4.12-32). Moreover, all residences and 12 See City Urban Water Management Plan:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/environmental_utilities/at_your_service/water_supply/urban_water_ management_plan.

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

business in the City pay fees for solid waste collection, a portion of which is collected to fund eventual solid waste disposal expansion. Thus, the SV project will not result in any new impacts associated with major solid waste infrastructure. Environmental Utilities staff has reviewed the SV project for consistency with policies, codes, and regulations related to waste disposal and waste reduction regulations and policies and has found that project design is in compliance. Therefore, impacts associated with solid waste would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

XX. Wildfire
The City is not located within or near a state responsibility area and also is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the SV project:

Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response land or
emergency evacuation?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to wildfire is based directly on questions found in the CEQA Guidelines checklist (see items a–d listed above). CAL FIRE is the state agency responsible for wildland fire protection and management. As part of that task, CAL FIRE maintains maps designating Wildland Fire Hazard Severity zones and designates state responsibility areas.

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–d) Checklist questions a–d above do not apply, because the SV project site is not in or near a state COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

responsibility area. fire suppression is entirely within local responsibility. Therefore, there is no impact.

XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Issue Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
X
b) Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of the
past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
X
c) Have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
X
Thresholds of Significance and Regulatory Setting:

The significance of impacts related to mandatory findings of significance is based directly on questions found in the CEQA Guidelines checklist (see items a–c listed above).

Discussion of Checklist Answers:
a–c) The SV project’s general “potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment” has been addressed throughout this IS. Impacts to biological resources are addressed above in the section devoted to that topic. Impacts associated with examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory are addressed in earlier sections addressing cultural resources and tribal cultural resources. The potential for environmental effects to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings is addressed in prior sections on air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and water quality. The cumulative impacts to which the SV project will contribute in small part do not deviate beyond what was contemplated in the GP EIR (see GP EIR, Section

5.2) and do not exceed an thresholds of significant when considered in conjunction with the SVSP project (refer to the Cumulative Considerations section at the end of this combined CEQA document for more detail). With implementation of the City’s Mitigating Ordinances, Guidelines, and Standards and best management practices, mitigation measures described in this checklist, and assorted permitting conditions, the SV project would not COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

have a significant impact on the habitat of any plant or animal species, cultural resources, or human health.

Based on the foregoing, the SV project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of any wildlife species, or create adverse effects on human beings.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
In reviewing the site specific information provided for this project and acting as Lead Agency, the City of Roseville, Development Services Department, Planning Division has analyzed the potential environmental impacts created by the Sierra View Redesignation and Rezoning Project and determined that with mitigation the impacts are less than significant. As demonstrated in the initial study checklist prepared for this Mitigated Negative Declaration, there are no significant effects that cannot be reduced to less than significant effects through mitigation and therefore an EIR is not required. Therefore, on the basis of the foregoing initial study:
[ X ] I find that the proposed SV project COULD, but with mitigation agreed to by the Applicant, clearly WILL NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared.

Initial Study Prepared by:
____________________________________________
Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner
City of Roseville, Development Services – Planning Division

MND ATTACHMENTS
MND Attachment 1 – Sierra View Tentative Subdivision Map and Redesignation/Rezoning Exhibits MND Attachment 2 – Arborist Report (June 18, 2020) by California Tree and Landscape Consulting, Inc.

MND Attachment 3 – Tree Removal Information for Tree Permit for Sierra View (August 3, 2020) by MacKay & Somps
MND Attachment 4 – Special-Status Plant Survey Report for Sierra View (August 2020) by Madrone Ecological Consulting
MND Attachment 5 – Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Habitat Survey for Sierra View (August 18, 2020) by Madrone Ecological Consulting
MND Attachment 6 – Dry-Season & Wet-Season Branchiopod Survey (August 19, 2020) by Madrone Ecological Consulting
MND Attachment 7 – Aquatic Resources Delineation Report for Sierra View (July 31, 2020) by Madrone Ecological Consulting
MND Attachment 8 – Jurisdictional Determination for Sierra View (June 4, 2021) by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
MND Attachment 9 – Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for Sierra View (June 2021) by ECORP Consulting, Inc.

MND Attachment 10 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations for Sierra View (October 13, 2021) by Raney Planning & Management, Inc.

MND Attachment 11 – Preliminary Storm Drainage Evaluation for Sierra View (August 3, 2021) by MacKay & Somps
MND Attachment 12 – Transportation Impact Study for Sierra View (September 7, 2021) by Fehr & Peers MND Attachment 13 – Tribal Consultation Letters
MND Attachment 14 – Sewer Capacity Evaluation for Sierra View (April 21, 2021) by Woodard & Curran COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: MND
November 5, 2021
SV Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162

MND Attachment 15 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT–PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon St, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276
6th ADDENDUM TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 2008032115, ADOPTED ON MAY 5, 2010)
Project Title/File Number: Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) Redesignation and Rezoning Project / File No. PL21-0161
Project Location: 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 Description: The SVSP project consists of amending the General Plan designation and modifying the zoning for SVSP Parcel WB-41 from Community Commercial to Medium Density Residential and from CC to RS/DS and increasing the density of SVSP Parcel WB-31 from 23.7 units per acre to 26.4 units per acre to increase its total planned high-density residential units from 263 to 293. Other approvals and entitlements from the City include a Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map for Parcel WB-41 with 63 medium-density residential lots and all related amendments to the SVSP.

Project Applicant: Westpark SV 400, LLC
Contact: John Tallman
Property Owner: Westpark SV 400, LLC
Lead Agency Contact: Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner, (916) 746-1309 CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 through 15164 deal with what is often called “subsequent review” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These sections are based on statutory language found in Public Resources Code section 21166. CEQA Guidelines section 15162 sets forth the conditions and facts that require a public agency, in considering a proposed project connected to a previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), to prepare a so-called “subsequent EIR.” Section 15163, in turn, identifies conditions and facts in which a “supplement to an EIR” may suffice in lieu of a full subsequent EIR. Section 15164, in turn, sets forth the conditions and facts in which neither one of these two documents is necessary, so that an addendum to the previously certified Final EIR may suffice. In general, an addendum to a previously certified Final EIR may be prepared for a project where only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or where none of the conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Section 15164 also states that an addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can be included in or attached to the certified Final EIR for consideration by the hearing body.

Here, the relevant Final EIR was prepared and certified for the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) in 2010. That document combined project-level review for most areas but only program-level review for areas within the socalled Urban Reserve (UR), inclusive of the two parcels on which the proposed SVSP Redesignation and Rezoning project (SVSP project) addressed in this document would be located. Subsequently, however, with COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in 2012 (2012 MND), this entire UR area was given General Plan, Specific Plan, and zoning designations anticipating a mix of residential, retail, commercial, public space, and open space uses. Taken together, the programmatic analysis of the UR area in the 2010 Final SVSP EIR and the project-level analysis for the former UR area in the 2012 MND create the practical equivalent of a project-level EIR for the former UR area, matching the project-level analysis for the rest of the SVSP area found in the 2010 Final SVSP EIR.

In Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 949, the California Supreme Court explained that “[o]nce a project has been subject to environmental review and received approval, [Public Resources Code] section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 limit the circumstances under which a subsequent or supplemental EIR must be prepared. These limitations are designed to balance CEQA's central purpose of promoting consideration of the environmental consequences of public decisions with interests in finality and efficiency.” The subsequent review provisions, accordingly, are “designed to ensure that an agency that proposes changes to a previously approved project “explore[s] environmental impacts not considered in the original environmental document” (id. at p. 951 [italics added]). “This assumes that at least some of the environmental impacts of the modified project were considered in the original environmental document, such that the original document retains some relevance to the ongoing decision-making process. A decision to proceed under CEQA’s subsequent review provisions must thus necessarily rest on a determination—whether implicit or explicit—that the original environmental document retains some informational value” (ibid).

Consistent with these legal principles and CEQA Guidelines provisions governing subsequent review, the City of Roseville (City) prepared the analysis below in order to determine whether any of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. For purposes of this analysis the prior EIR under consideration is the 2010 SVSP Final EIR as augmented by the project-level analysis for the former UR areas as set forth in the 2012 MND. For purposes of the subsequent review provisions of the CEQA Guidelines, these two documents are treated as the practical equivalent a single, complete, integrated project-level EIR for the former UR areas, in which the two subject parcels are located.

After conducting its analysis in light of the Final EIR and 2012 MND, the City determined that an addendum to that previously certified Final EIR/MND is the appropriate environmental document for the SVSP project, as discussed and demonstrated below. This Addendum appropriately focuses only on those aspects of the SVSP project or its impacts that require additional discussion in light of the environmental analysis already found in the SVSP Final EIR.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

Table of Contents
Project Description …………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Purpose and Scope of Addendum …………………………...…………………………...…….... 6 Environmental Documents Relied Upon ………………………………………………….....…….. 8 Explanation of Environmental Checklist …………………………………………………………… 8 Environmental Checklist
I. Aesthetics …………………………………………….…..…..…. 10
II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources …………………..…..…..….. 12 III. Air Quality …………………………………………….…..…..…. 13
IV. Biological Resources ……………………………………..…..…. 15
V. Cultural Resources …………………………………..…..…..…. 17
VI. Energy ……………………………………………………..…..…..….. 18
VII. Geology and Soils …………………………………...…..…..…. 19
VIII. Greenhouse Gases …………………………………...…..….... 21
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials …………………..…..…..….. 22 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ……………………………..…..… 24
XI. Land Use and Planning ……………………………….…..…..… 26
XII. Mineral Resources …………………………………..…..…..….. 27
XIII. Noise ………………………………………………….…..…..… 28
XIV. Population and Housing ……………………………...…..…..… 29
XV. Public Services ………………………………………..…..…..… 30
XVI. Recreation ………………………………………………..….... 32
XVII. Transportation / Traffic ………………………………..…..…..… 33 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources …………………………….…..…..…. 35 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ……………………………..…..… 38 XX. Wildfire ……………………………………………….…..…..…. 40
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance …………………..…..…..... 41 Environmental Determination ……………………………………………………………………...... 43 Attachments ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As described in the introduction to this combined CEQA document, the SVSP project is one of two related actions that will be considered, and possibly approved, simultaneously in order for the City to comply with the 2019 California Housing Crisis Act (Senate Bill [S.B.] 330), and specifically with Government Code Section 65300.

The development associated with 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 them cumulatively.

Project Location
The SVSP project is located in the northern part of the City of Roseville (City) Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) area, both north and south of Pleasant Grove Boulevard and east of Santucci Boulevard. The affected area consists of Parcels WB-31 and WB-41, which are approximately 11.20 acres and 10.11 acres in size, respectively.1 The site address is 3301 Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Roseville, CA 95661 and the Assessor’s Parcel Number for WB-41 is 496-100-030-000. 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: SVSP Project Location
Background and Environmental Setting
The SVSP was approved on May 5, 2010 (file #2007PL-044). An EIR was certified (SVSP EIR) and a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMRP) was adopted along with the SVSP. At the time, Parcels WB-31 and WB-41 were not yet created and instead were included as part of a larger piece of land within the northwest portion of the plan area known and designated as the Urban Reserve (UR) area. While the majority of the Specific Plan area was analyzed on a project level within the SVSP EIR, the UR area was analyzed mostly at a programmatic level. 1 See Sierra Vista Specific Plan, Chapter 4 Land Use:
https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/specific_plans_planning_areas/sierr a_vista_specific_plan.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

Subsequently, on June 15, 2012, the UR area was redesignated and rezoned into a mix of residential, retail, commercial, public space, and open space land uses. This action, which included approval of GP and SVSP amendments, a rezone, and a tentative map (file #2011PL-043), created the two parcels that are the subjects of this document. Prior to taking these planning actions, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that augmented the SVSP EIR and provided any missing project-level CEQA analysis for the UR area (2012 MND). Taken together, the SVSP EIR and the 2012 MND constitute the totality of the EIR upon which this Addendum is based.
2 Parcel WB-31 is currently designated in the City of Roseville General Plan (GP) and the SVSP as High Density Residential (HDR) and zoned for (Multi-Family Housing) (R3) and allocated 263 units under the GP. Parcel WB41 is designated in the GP and SVSP as Community Commercial (CC) and zoned for Community Commercial (CC). Both parcels are undeveloped. The immediate area surrounding the parcels is also relatively undeveloped; however, approximately 30% percent of the SVSP area has already been developed.

Table 1: Surrounding Land Uses
Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Actual Use of Property Site: Parcel WB-31 (Multi-Family Housing)
R3 High Density Residential (HDR) Undeveloped
North Open Space (OS) Open Space (OS) Undeveloped (Parcel WB-80) South
Community Commercial
(CC)
Small Lot
Residential/Development
Standards (RS/DS)
Community Commercial (CC)
Low Density Residential (LDR)
(Age Restricted)
Undeveloped (Parcel WB-41)
Developed with single-family
homes(Parcel WB-3A)
East R3 High Density Residential (HDR) Undeveloped (West Roseville Specific Plan Parcel W-16)
West
Parks and Recreation
(PR)
R3
Park (PR)
High Density Residential (HDR)
Undeveloped (Parcel WB-52)
Undeveloped (Parcel WB-30)
Site: Parcel WB-41 CC Community Commercial (CC) Undeveloped North R3 High Density Residential (HDR) Undeveloped (Parcel WB-31) South
RS/DS
Public/Quasi-Public
(P/QP)
Medium Density Residential
(MDR)
Public/Quasi-Public (Lift Station)
Developed with single-family
homes(Parcel WB-20)
Developed with a lift station
(Parcel WB-62)
East RS/DS Low Density Residential (LDR)
(Age Restricted)
Developed with single-family
homes (Parcel WB-3A)
West F-B-X 80 Ac. Min. Agriculture/Timberland Unincorporated Placer County Agricultural Uses
The SVSP project site as described above is undeveloped but has been previously graded during construction 2 The SVSP Final EIR serves as the primary source of information from which this Addendum derives its analysis and conclusions, with reliance on the 2012 MND as necessary. The environmental impacts assessed in this document were considered in detail in the SVSP Final EIR and were addressed in numerous mitigation measures that apply to the proposed project. The SVSP FEIR, therefore, retains substantial relevancy and informational value to this action. (See Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 951).3 Although the older checklist could be used for this Addendum because of the date of publication of the original EIR, the updated checklist is used instead as part of a good-faith effort to provide the most up-to-date information to decisionmakers and the public (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1(e); CEQA Guidelines Sections 15002(a)(1), 15003(c)).

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

operations related to adjacent and nearby development. It is dominated by relatively flat topography supporting annual grasslands. There are no structures on the properties. No native oak trees or other trees are present on the subject parcels as the area has been rough graded in the past and maintained.

Proposed SVSP Project
The SVSP project would increase the density of Parcel WB-31 from 23.7 units per acre to 26.4 units per acre, as allowable under the GP, and increase its total planned high-density residential units by 30—from 263 to 293.

The SVSP project also would redesignate Parcel WB-41 from Community Commercial to Medium Density Residential through a GP amendment and rezone it from CC (Community Commercial) to RS/DS (Small Lot with Development Standards) and create a Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map with 63 medium-density residential lots (see Attachment 1). The SVSP project includes an amendment to the SVSP to reflect these changes (see Attachment 2, Amended Sierra Vista Specific Plan). As stated in the introduction to this combined CEQA document, these new 93 residential units capture the 93-unit reduction that would result from the redesignation and rezone of the SV project site, described and analyzed in the MND portion of this combined document.

This action will require the following approvals and entitlements:
• Consideration of the Addendum together with the Final EIR for the SVSP (inclusive of the 2012 MND) • 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.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ADDENDUM
Basis for Addendum
This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. As explained earlier, an addendum is an appropriate subsequent review document EIR when some changes to a project are necessary, but those changes do not create new or increased significant environmental impacts that warrant major revisions to the previously certified Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a), 15164(a); see Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 946; Save Our Heritage Organization v. City of San Diego (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 656, 668). Also, an addendum is appropriate when circumstances surrounding a project have not substantially changed and when no new information of substantial importance has been uncovered that indicates the project would create new significant impacts or increase the severity of the previously identified significant impacts; see discussion immediately below (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a), 15164(a)).

Notably, in assessing whether a proposed project change is eligible for an addendum, public agencies may account for mitigation measures to which an applicant has agreed (see, e.g., River Valley Preservation Project v. Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 154, 168 [“even a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact does not require … the preparation of an SEIR if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the impact to a level of insignificance”]; Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, 809-811 [“[t]o offset the loss of four acres of burrowing owl habitat, the eight[h] addendum includes a number of mitigation measures”]; and Snarled Traffic Obstructs Progress v. City and County of San Francisco (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 793, 802 [discusses mitigation required in connection with addendum]). The addition of new mitigation measures triggers the need for a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR only in two circumstances. Under the first, measures “previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(1)(3)(C)). Under the second circumstance, measures “considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure” (id. at Section 15162(a)(1)(3)(D)). Under both circumstances, an applicant’s agreement to the mitigation measures in question preserves the project’s eligibility for an addendum. Where there are new or revised regulatory standards, new technology and modern data, and/or updated best practices, mitigation measures may be updated in an addendum from those approved in the certified Final EIR and approved mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) without triggering the need for a subsequent EIR (see, e.g., Mani Brothers Real Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1403 [“[m]itigation measures adopted when a project is approved may be changed or deleted if the agency states a legitimate reason for making the changes and the reason is supported by substantial evidence”]; Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 359).

Substantial evidence presented in this Addendum demonstrates that the SVSP project, described above and analyzed below, does not create any new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Nor are there any new circumstances or new information that would create such impacts or require more robust analysis (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)).

All of the impacts of the SVSP project were examined in the applicable prior CEQA documents. Therefore, an addendum is the appropriate CEQA document, and a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not warranted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e)).

Significant and Unavoidable Impact Conclusions in the Previous EIR The SVSP EIR identified the following impacts as significant and unavoidable at full buildout:
• Conversion of agricultural land to developed uses
• Inducement of substantial population growth
• Increased traffic on City of Roseville roadways
• Increased traffic on State Highways, including Interstate 80 • Increased traffic on Placer County roadways
• Increased emissions of fugitive dust and PM10 from grading and trenching activities (short term) • Increased emissions of ozone precursors during construction (short-term) • Increased emissions of air pollutants during operation • Loss of oak trees of greater than 6 inches diameter breast height (dbh) (short-term) • Removal of historically significant properties and/or loss of historic integrity of such resources • Increased demand for solid waste services at the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill • Increased demand for solid waste services at the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) • Construction debris demand for solid waste services
• Alteration of the visual character of the site and vicinity • New sources of light and glare
The SVSP EIR also identified the following cumulative impacts as significant and unavoidable at full buildout:
• Agricultural land conversion
• Air pollutant emissions from construction
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

• Air pollutant emissions from operation
• Contribution to greenhouse gas emissions/global warming • Onsite noise levels that exceed City standards
• Offsite noise levels that exceed City standards
• Traffic impacts to Roseville, Placer County, Sacramento County, Sutter County and State facilities • Increased demand for water
• Increased demand for recycled water distribution system • Increased generation of solid waste
• Change in visual character
City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these impacts when it certified the SVSP EIR.

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
• Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR, certified May 5, 2010 (SCH# 2008032115) The SVSP EIR was certified by City Council on May 5, 2010. The analysis within this Addendum relies mostly on the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the Westbrook Specific Plan Amendment to Sierra Vista Specific Plan MND, listed below), with minor supplements or technical updates where appropriate, and attached hereto. As demonstrated in the environmental checklist below, the project‘s impacts remain the same as or lesser than the impacts described in the SVSP EIR because the project presents the same uses and use types envisioned and analyzed for the entirety of the SVSP area. In the case of the change from a community commercial designation to a residential designation, the footprint-related impacts would be no different. The 2010 SVSP 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/specific_plans_planning_ areas/sierra_vista_specific_plan.
• Westbrook Specific Plan Amendment to Sierra Vista Specific Plan MND, adopted June 15, 2012 (SCH# 2008032115)
The SVSP was amended in 2012 to redesignate and rezone the Urban Reserve (UR) area. As a result, this 2012 MND was prepared and adopted by City Council on June 15, 2012. The analysis within this Addendum relies mostly on the SVSP EIR but references this MND are included, where applicable. The MND 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/specific_plans_planning_ areas/sierra_vista_specific_plan.
• 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 checklist 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 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The purpose of this environmental checklist is to conduct subsequent environmental review for the proposed changes to the SVSP pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162, 15163, and 15164. This checklist evaluates the environmental resources in terms of any “changed condition” (i.e., changed circumstances, project changes, COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental result. A “no” answer in one of the checklist boxes does not necessarily mean there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, but that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed in prior environmental documents.

Checklist Evaluation Categories
Where Was Impact Analyzed in Prior EIR?
This column provides a cross-reference to the pages of the prior environmental documents where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic.

Any New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the changes represented by the current SVSP project will result in new significant impacts that have not already been considered and mitigated by the prior environmental review documents and related approvals or will result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact.

Any New Circumstances Resulting in New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been changes to the SVSP project site or the vicinity (circumstances under which the SVSP project is undertaken) that have occurred subsequent to the certification of prior environmental documents, which would result in the current SVSP project having new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the prior environmental documents or that substantially increase the severity of a previously identified impact.

Since certification of the previous EIR, there have been five amendments to the SVSP with five accompanying addenda to its EIR. Each amendment was found to be within the scope of the environmental impact conclusions presented in the SVSP EIR, and no mitigation measures required updating or revisions. Thus, although some circumstances have changed within the vicinity of the SVSP project site, those changes did not result in new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the SVSP EIR. Nor did they substantially increase the severity of a previously identified impact. Further, no new projects or other development beyond those contemplated in the SVSP EIR or GP EIR have been approved or proposed within the vicinity of the SVSP project site that could impact or increase the project’s environmental effects. As a result, all boxes in this column in the checklist below are marked “No.”
Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3)(A–D) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental documents were certified is available requiring an update to the analysis of the previous environmental documents to verify that the environmental conclusions and mitigation measures remain valid. Either “yes” or “no” will be answered to indicate whether there is new information showing that: (A) the SVSP project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the prior environmental documents; (B) that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the prior environmental documents; (C) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the SVSP project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) that mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the prior environmental documents would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the SVSP project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. If “no,” then no additional environmental documentation (supplemental or subsequent EIR) is required.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

Since certification of the prior EIR, the Appendix G Checklist in the CEQA Guidelines has been updated, effective early 2019.3 This updated checklist material is not considered “new information” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), as it does not constitute any change in governing law or any new facts showing the existence of new significant effects or substantially more severe significant effects. Moreover, as demonstrated below, none of the updates to the Appendix G Checklist require new analysis related to impacts that were not known or that could not have been known at the time the SVSP EIR was prepared. Nor is the City aware of any new information of substantial importance that shows that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found to be infeasible would actually now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the SVSP project or that mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the previously certified CEQA documents would substantially reduce one or more significant effects. Moreover, the City is not aware of any other new information not already included in this document that might bear relevance on the SVSP project’s CEQA analysis. As a result, all boxes in this column in the checklist below are marked “No.”
Any Mitigation Measures?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the prior environmental documents provide mitigation measures (MMs) to address effects in the related impact category. In some cases, the MMs have already been implemented. A “Yes” response will be provided in any instance where mitigation was included, regardless of whether the mitigation has been completed at this time or whether it would apply to development on the SVSP project site. If “No” is indicated, this environmental analysis concludes a significant impact does not occur with this project, no mitigation was previously included, and no mitigation is needed.

Discussion of Checklist Answers
A discussion is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue and how the SVSP project relates to the issue.

The discussion also provides details on applicable mitigation measures from the prior EIR and their status, denoting the ones that require ongoing or future implementation and that would be required for development on the SVSP project site. Mitigation measures that are either not relevant to the SVSP project because they pertain to a different area or land use or have already been implemented are not discussed. Each discussion section also contains an ultimate conclusion, including whether the City can conclude that the SVSP project does not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the prior CEQA documents.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
I. Aesthetics
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.14.2 of the SVSP EIR. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099(d) (applicable only to specific types of infill projects within transit priority areas), would the SVSP project:
3 Although the older checklist could be used for this Addendum because of the date of publication of the original EIR, the updated checklist is used instead as part of a good-faith effort to provide the most up-to-date information to decisionmakers and the public (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1(e); CEQA Guidelines Sections 15002(a)(1), 15003(c)).

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact Analyzed
in Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More
Severe Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect on a
scenic vista?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.14-3 No No No No
b) Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and
historic buildings, within
a state scenic
highway?
Same No No No No
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?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.14-1 No No No No
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or
glare, which would
adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the
area?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.14-2 No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Aesthetic resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). All aesthetic impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable. There is no change in the SVSP project significant enough so as to alter the environmental impact conclusions for this issue. The proposed density and land use changes do not introduce development to properties not already planned for development. The proposed uses are substantially consistent with the buildout assumptions for the SVSP and would not increase the severity of already identified aesthetic significant impacts (see 2012 MND, p. 11). Indeed, impacts related to light and glare from the previously approved commercial development on Parel WB-41 onto adjacent open space (Impact 4.14- 2) would be reduced by its conversion to residential use.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

The SVSP project has been evaluated for compliance with the City’s Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and the design guidelines established in the SVSP. As they relate to aesthetics, these standards ensure the highquality design and architectural character of any buildings developed as well as minimum landscaping standards.

As it relates to light and glare, mitigation would ensure that outdoor lighting would not significantly impact the adjacent open space area to the north. Also, lighting is conditioned to comply with the CDG to limit the height of light standards and also require cut-off lenses and glare shields to minimize light and glare impacts. Thus, the impacts of the SVSP project fall within the scope of the impacts already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: None.

Conclusion: As described above, the SVSP project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding aesthetic resources.

II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.1.2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the SVSP project:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially More
Severe Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
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)

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.1-5 No No No Yes
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act
contract?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.1-3 No No No Yes
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
N/A No No No No
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest
use?
N/A No No No No
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 non-forest use?
N/A No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Agricultural resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND); there are no forest resources within the SVSP area. There is no element of the SVSP project that would change the environmental impact for this section—the SVSP project site will still be fully developed. The SVSP EIR concluded that development of the SVSP area would convert fallow grazing land to urbanized development. The SVSP project will result in the same impact, as it falls within the planned development footprint of the SVSP. The SVSP 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 that has been 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. Although in the past, portions on or near the SVSP project site were classified as “Farmland of Local Importance,” that classification changed once the site was redesignated and rezoned in 2012 (see 2012 MND, p. 12). Thus, the impacts of the SVSP project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MM is applicable to the SVSP project regarding agriculture and forestry resources.
• SVSP EIR MM 4.1-2. Agricultural Conversion Policies
Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measure, the SVSP project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding agricultural and forestry resources.

III. Air Quality
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.4.2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the SVSP project:

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.4-1
to 4.4-4, 4.4-5
No No No Yes
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?
Same No No No Yes
c) Expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant
concentrations?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.4-4 No No No Yes
d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors adversely affecting a
substantial number of
people?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.4-6 No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Air quality was adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). For construction, the SVSP EIR concluded that standard dust control and other construction measures would be sufficient to avoid particulate matter and ozone precursor construction impacts, but that reactive organic gases would remain significant.

However, all construction-related impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels (see 2012 MND, p. 15). Construction activity associated with the SVSP project remain consistent with the scale of activity and resulting scope of impacts analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). For operation, the SVSP project changes the balance of land uses in the area from the approved changes made in 2012, but not in a manner that would increase emissions. Indeed, the proposed redesignation and rezoning of Parcel WB-41 from commercial to residential would substantially reduce the anticipated traffic trips generated by the development, as well as reduce projected vehicle miles travelled (VMT) (see XVII. Transportation/Traffic), which would in turn reduce operational air emissions for the SVSP area related to vehicle use. Any incremental increases in traffic or VMT associated with the increased density of Parcel WB-31 would be more than offset by the substantial reductions on WB-41. Furthermore, any impacts associated with odor would be reduced with the decrease in commercial development because commercial development has the potential to produce some objectionable odors whereas residential development rarely does (see GP EIR, p. 4.4-50). Thus, the impacts of the SVSP project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MMs are applicable to the SVSP project regarding air quality impacts. • SVSP EIR MM 4.4-1. Dust and Construction Control Policies; • SVSP EIR MM 4.5-1. Reduction of Operational Emissions COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, the SVSP project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding air quality.

IV. Biological Resources
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.8.2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the SVSP project:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
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?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.8-2,

4.8-3 to 4.8-6,

4.8-11, 4.8-13 to

4.8-17
No No No Yes
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?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.8-2,

4.8-4 to 4.8-7,

4.8-10, 4.8-11,

4.8-13 to 4.8-17
No No No Yes
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?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.8-1
to 4.8-2, 4.8-11
No No No Yes
d) Interfere substantially with
the movement of any
native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife
species or with

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.8-8 No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

established native resident
or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.8-9 No No No No
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?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.8-12 No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Biological Resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Mitigation measures were adopted to reduce impacts to wetlands, vernal pool species, Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and other protected raptors nesting and foraging habitat to less-than-significant levels. No wetlands or water features exist on the SVSP project site, although some exist on parcels near the site (see 2012 MND, p. 19).

Further, the site is devoid of trees or other natural features. It is primarily populated by non-native annual grasses, and the ground has undergone significance disturbance, likely as a result of nearby roadway and parcel development. However, the site does retain some potential to host special-status species. There are no differences between the SVSP project and the approved SVSP that are significant enough to change the environmental impact conclusions for this section. The SVSP project site was already planned for full development, and that will not change (see 2012 MND, p. 19). Further, the subject property, as part of a larger development area, has received a Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as well as Section 401 certification from the State. Moreover, the Applicant has purchased the required compensatory mitigation. Thus, the impacts of the SVSP project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MMs are applicable to the SVSP project regarding biological resources impacts.
• SVSP EIR MM 4.8-3. Avoid Nesting Sites
• SVSP EIR MM 4.8-4. Onsite and Offsite Grassland Preservation • SVSP EIR MM 4.8‐5. Wildlife Movement Protection Policies • SVSP EIR MM 4.8‐7. Offsite Surveys
• SVSP EIR MM 4.14-3. Avoid Light Spillover in Open Space Areas Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, the SVSP project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding biological resources.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

V. Cultural Resources
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.9.2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the SVSP project:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource pursuant to in
Section 15064.5?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.9-1
to 4.9-2, 4.9-4
No No No Yes
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to Section
15064.5?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.9-1,

4.9-4
No No No Yes
c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Same No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Cultural resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). The SVSP EIR found that no known cultural resources exist on the SVSP project site (see also 2012 MND, p. 22). The SVSP then discussed the potential for subsurface remains or deposits to be found during onsite or offsite construction, and included mitigation measures requiring a cessation of work should any item of cultural interest be found.

The mitigation was found to render potential impacts less than significant. The SVSP project would result in the same impact, and the mitigation remains applicable to the SVSP project. Thus, the impacts of the SVSP project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MM is applicable to the SVSP project regarding cultural resources impacts. • SVSP EIR MM 4.9-1. Cease Work and Consult with Qualified Archaeologist Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measure, the SVSP project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding cultural resources.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

VI. Energy
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.12.5.2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the SVSP project:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Result in potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.12.5-
1 to 4.12.5-2
No No No No
b) Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Same No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Energy was adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Electricity in the area is provided by Roseville Electric and natural gas is provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). The SVSP EIR concluded that development and implementation of the SVSP would add land uses that would increase the demand for electrical services. However, Roseville Electric determined there were no constraints to providing a reliable energy source to serve the development proposed in the SVSP area. Impacts 4.12-5.1 and 4.12-5-2 in the SVSP EIR evaluated the potential for development of the SVSP to increase demands for electricity and natural gas and found these impacts to be less than significant.

The SVSP project would consume energy both during construction and operation, but consumption would be within the scope originally considered in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) because both parcels are planned for full development and will remain planned for full development. During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. However, the energy consumed during construction would be temporary, and would not represent a significant demand on available resources. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment or methods that would be less energy efficient or which would be wasteful. The completed SVSP project would consume energy related to building operation, exterior lighting, landscape irrigation and maintenance, and vehicle trips to and from the use. In accordance with California Energy Code Title 24, the SVSP project would be required to meet the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These include, to name a few, standards for water and space heating and cooling equipment; insulation for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings; and appliances. The SVSP project would also be eligible for rebates and other financial incentives from both the electric and gas providers for the purchase of energy-efficient appliances and systems, which would further reduce the operational energy demand of the SVSP project.

The SVSP was distributed to both PG&E and Roseville Electric for comments prior to its publication, and was found to conform to the standards of both providers; thus, energy supplies are available to serve the SVSP project. The SVSP project will not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Nor COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

would it conflict with or obstruct State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency, especially in consideration of efficiency requirements in SVSP EIR MM 4.5-2 (discussed below). Moreover, the substantial reduction in operational traffic trips from the redesignation and rezoning of Parcel WB-41 from commercial to residential would in turn reduce the localized consumption of fossil fuels, which is the “largest energy consuming sector in California” (GP EIR, p. 4.15-12; see XVI. Transportation/Traffic for more detail).Thus, the impacts of the SVSP project fall within the scope of the impacts already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: No MMs are applicable to the SVSP project regarding impacts to energy resources because no significant impacts exist; however, the following MM is included as a means to further reduce energy usage.
• SVSP EIR MM 4.5-2. Additional Measures to Reduce GHG Emissions (Provisions relating to Energy and Water Efficiency)
Conclusion: As described above, the SVSP project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Additionally, implementation of SVSP EIR MM 4.5.2, Additional Measures to Reduce GHG Emissions (Provisions relating to Energy and Water Efficiency), would further reduce energy usage by the SVSP project. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding energy.

VII. Geology and Soils
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.7.2 (and 4.9.2 for paleontological resources) of the SVSP EIR.

Would the SVSP project:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial
adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for
the area or based on
other substantial
evidence of a known
fault?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.7-4 No No No No
ii. Strong seismic ground
shaking?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.7-4 No No No No
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

iii. Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.7-1,

4.7-3
No No No No
c) Be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become
unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.7-2 No No No No
d) Be located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or
property?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.7-2 No No No No
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater
disposal systems where
sewers are not available
for the disposal of
wastewater?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
f) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic
feature?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.9-3 No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Geology and soils were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). The SVSP EIR concluded that there would be no impacts to or around the SVSP project site associated with seismic activity, landslides, or soils, and no impact related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, as neither are planned for the SVSP area (see 2012 MND, p. 24). The SVSP did find a potential impact related to the discovery of subsurface paleontological resources during onsite or offsite construction, and included a mitigation measure requiring a cessation of work and review should any such item be found. The mitigation was found to render potential impacts less than significant. These same conclusions would apply to the SVSP project, especially given that they are site-specific and not specific to any particular land use. Further, site development would require a grading permit that would be reviewed for compliance with the City standards to ensure erosion control measures were implemented (see 2012 MND, pp. 23 to 24). Thus, the impacts of the SVSP project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MMs are applicable to the SVSP project regarding impacts associated with geology and soils.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

• SVSP EIR MM 4.9-3. Cease Work Until Review conducted by Qualified Paleontologist and Recommendations Implemented
Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measure, the SVSP project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding geology and soils.

VIII. Greenhouse Gases
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.5.2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the SVSP project:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact
on the environment?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.5-1
to 4.5-2
No No No Yes
b) Conflict with an applicable
plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.5-1 No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

The SVSP EIR concluded that buildout of the SVSP project area would cause significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to GHG emissions. Mitigation measures were adopted to reduce the SVSP project’s GHG emissions and resultant impacts, but they still remain significant and unavoidable (see 2012 MND, p. 17).

Construction activity associated with the SVSP project remains consistent with the scale of activity and resulting scope of impacts anticipated in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). For operational impacts, while the SVSP project proposes changes to the balance of land uses in the area from the approved changes made in 2012, it does not do so in a manner that would increase emissions. Indeed, the proposed redesignation and rezoning of Parcel WB-41 from commercial to residential would substantially reduce the anticipated traffic trips generated by the development, even including the additional density proposed for Infill Planning Parcel WB-31, as well as reduce projected vehicle miles travelled (VMT) (see XVII. Transportation/Traffic), which would in turn substantially reduce GHG emissions for the SVSP project site related to vehicle use (mobile emissions are the number one source of GHG emissions [see GP EIR, p. 4.5-20]). GHG emissions, from both the construction and operational phases, would result in impacts consistent with or lesser than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR. Thus, the impacts of the SVSP project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MMs are applicable to the SVSP project regarding GHGs.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

• SVSP EIR MM 4.4-1. Dust and Construction Control Policies • SVSP EIR MM 4.5-1. Reduction of Operational Emissions • SVSP EIR MM 4.5-2. Additional Measures to Reduce GHG Emissions Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, the SVSP project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding GHGs.

IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.10.2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the SVSP project:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Create a significant hazard
to the public or the
environment through the
routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.10-1 No No No No
b) Create a significant hazard
to the public or the
environment through
reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident
conditions involving the
release of hazardous
materials into the
environment?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.10-3
to 4.10-7
No No No Yes
c) Emit hazardous emissions
or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or
waste within ¼ miles of an
existing or proposed
school?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.10-1 No No No No
d) Be located on a site which
is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a
significant hazard to the
public or the environment?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.10-5 No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

e) For a project located
within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public
airport or public use
airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard
for people residing or
working in the project
area?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
f) Impair implementation of
or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.10-2 No No No No
g) Expose people or
structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences
are intermixed with
wildlands?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Hazards or hazardous materials were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). The SVSP EIR concluded that all potentially significant impacts resulting from hazards or hazardous materials associated with the SVSP could be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. The same standard construction activities, which involve the use of hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, lubricants, glues, paints and paint thinners, soaps, bleach, and solvents, that were analyzed in the SVSP apply to the SVSP project. The same is true of the use of the same common household materials that were discussed as part of SVSP operation. Further, the SVSP project site is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The SVSP EIR analysis also found that there would be sufficient emergency services and facilities to serve the SVSP project area, and that the area was not located within an airport land use plan or other aviation hazard area. These conclusions still fit for the SVSP project, which occurs within the same development footprint.

Regulations pertaining to the transport of materials are codified in 49 Code of Federal Regulations 171–180, and transport regulations are enforced and monitored by the California Department of Transportation and by the California Highway Patrol. Specifications for storage on a construction site are contained in various regulations and codes, including the California Code of Regulations, the Uniform Fire Code, and the California Health and Safety Code. These same codes require that all hazardous materials be used and stored in the manner specified on the material packaging. Existing regulations and programs are sufficient to ensure that potential impacts as a result of the use or storage of hazardous materials are reduced to less than significant levels. Moreover, the SVSP project site is not near any wildlands; therefore, risks associates with wildland fires are not applicable (see Section XX. Wildfire). The SVSP project site is located in an area that has been used for agricultural purposes, which could have involved the use of pesticides and/or herbicides, but mitigation ensures any impacts resulting from these prior uses would remain less than significant (see 2012 MND, p. 25). The proposed uses are COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

substantially consistent with SVSP buildout assumptions. Thus, the impacts of the SVSP project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MM is applicable to the SVSP project regarding hazards and hazardous materials.
• SVSP EIR MM 4.10-1. Identify and Remediate Soil Contamination Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measure, the SVSP project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding hazards and hazardous material.

X. Hydrology and Water Quality
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.13.2 (and Section 4.12.1.2 for groundwater) of the SVSP EIR.

Would the SVSP project:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground
water quality?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.13-5 No No No Yes
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that the project may
impede sustainable
groundwater management
of the basin?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.12.1-
2, 4.12.1-6 to

4.12.1-7
No No No No
c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including
through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river
or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) Result in substantial
erosion or siltation onor off-site;

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.13-4 No No No Yes
ii) Substantially increase
the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.13-2
to 4.13-3
No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

manner which would
result in flooding on- or
off-site; or
iii) 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,

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.13-1 No No No Yes
d) In flood hazard, tsunami or
seiche zones, risk release
of pollutants due to project
inundation?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
N/A No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Hydrology and water quality were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). The SVSP EIR concluded that all potentially significant impacts to hydrology and water quality associated with the SVSP could be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. A Drainage and Stormwater Master Plan was prepared and approved by the City as part of the SVSP EIR. As noted in the EIR, the Plan demonstrated that the increases in impervious surfaces being caused by buildout of the SVSP would be offset by proposed drainage facilities and stormwater improvements. Further, no development would occur within the 100-year floodplain area, and consistency with existing City regulations would ensure that all homes would be elevated at least two feet above the 100-year water surface elevation. With regard to stormwater quality, the SVSP EIR noted that there are existing programs, regulations, and permits in place to ensure that all development would not have significant effects related to water pollution from construction or operation, though a mitigation measure is included to require compliance with these regulations. The SVSP project would be subject to all adopted City standards and programs as well as applicable state standards that require the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to grading activities (see 2012 MND, p. 28). The SVSP area is largely flat and is not near any large water bodies or dams/levees, so would not be subject to losses due to dam/levee failure, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The SVSP project falls within the development footprint of the SVSP, and, although some infrastructure modifications will need to be made to accommodate the change in land use on Parcel WB-41, the drainage modifications would not result in any changes to the scope or scale of impacts. Stormwater quality evaluations conducted for the SVSP project site support this assessment (see the Drainage and Stormwater Master Plan for Westbrook prepared for the 2010 Westbrook Specific Plan Amendment to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (File #2011PL-043) and the Stormwater Quality Management Plan prepared for the Sierra Vista Specific Plan; see also Attachment 3, Preliminary Stormwater Quality Evaluation for Parcel WB-41 (July 16, 2021) by MacKay & Somps and Sierra Vista Specific Plan Master Drainage Plan for the Stormwater Quality Management Plan (February 20, 2018) by Civil Engineering Solutions, Inc.). Also note that the West Placer Groundwater Sustainability Agency, which is the governing groundwater sustainability agency for the region, has not yet finalized and adopted a sustainable groundwater management plan; therefore, there can be no conflict with such a sustainable groundwater management plan, pursuant to checklist item e. Thus, the impacts of the SVSP project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

Mitigation Measures: The following MMs are applicable to the SVSP project regarding hydrology and water quality.
• SVSP EIR WMM 4.12-1. Prepare Site Specific Drainage Study (See Attachment 3) • SVSP EIR WMM 4.12-2. Pay fair share of Roseville Regional Stormwater Retention Facility improvements
• SVSP EIR MM 4.13-1. Implementation of Construction Activity Stormwater Protection Standards Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measure, the SVSP project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding hydrology and water quality.

XI. Land Use and Planning
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.1.2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the SVSP project:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Physically divide an
established community?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.1-2 No No No Yes
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an
environmental effect?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.1-1
and 4.1-4
No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Land use and planning were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). The SVSP EIR concluded that there were some potential land use incompatibilities, but that these could be addressed by a mix of mitigation and compliance with the City Noise Ordinance and Grading Ordinance. Land use issues discussed and addressed included noise from McClellan overflights, agricultural uses in Placer County next to urban uses in the SVSP, construction noise, and commercial land use noise. The overflight noise is a potential nuisance discussion requiring disclosure to future purchasers within the SVSP project site area; however, SVSP is outside an airport land use compatibility planning area for any nearby airport. and noise impacts from aircraft overflights to a project and its future residents outside an airport land use compatibility planning area is not a CEQA issue (see GP EIR, p. 4.6-47; see also 2012 MND, p. 33). Nevertheless, noise volumes do not exceed standards. It was concluded that the SVSP would not physically divide an established community and that it did not conflict with any land use policies or regulations. The EIR concluded that all impacts of the SVSP related to land use and planning could be reduced to less-than-significant levels with mitigation.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

The SVSP project involves the same use types within the same development footprint, and therefore the conclusions of SVSP EIR remain applicable to the SVSP project. The SVSP project site area has been planned for development, including adequate roads, pedestrian paths, and bicycle paths to provide connections within the community (see SVSP, Chapter 6 [Circulation Plan];4 see also GP Circulation Element5 ). The SVSP project
involves frontage improvements including new driveways, sidewalks, and pedestrian connections. As such, the SVSP project will not physically divide an established community. Indeed, the conversation of Parcel WB-41 from commercial to residential better aligns with the approved surrounding uses, which are primarily residential.

Thus, the impacts of the SVSP project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MM is applicable to the SVSP project regarding impacts associated with land use; other mitigation in the SVSP required for land use impacts applies to future commercial development only and is therefore not applicable to the SVSP project.
• SVSP EIR WMM 4.1-2. Policies to Minimize Agricultural Impacts • SVSP EIR MM 4.6-1. Construction Noise Reduction
Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measure, the SVSP project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding land use and planning.

XII. Mineral Resources
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.7.2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the SVSP project:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that
would be of value to the
region and the residents
of the state?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locallyimportant mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local
general plan, specific

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 See SVSP Chapter 6 (Circulation Plan):
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Ser vices/Planning/Specific%20Plans%20&%20Planning%20Areas/Sierra%20Vista/06.%20Circulation.pdf. 5 See GP Circulation Element:
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Ser vices/Planning/General%20Plan/Final%20General%20Plan%202020/03%20Circulation_Final.pdf.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

plan, or other land use
plan?
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

The SVSP EIR indicated that there were no significant mineral resources in the area. Therefore, this checklist section does not apply.

XIII. Noise
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.6.2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the SVSP project:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Generation of a
substantial temporary or
permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in
excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance or applicable
standards of other
agencies?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.6-1
to 4.6-10
No No No Yes
b) Result in exposure of
persons to or generation
of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne
noise levels?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.6-1 No No No Yes
c) For a project located
within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would
the project expose people
residing or working in the
project area to excessive
noise levels?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Noise was adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). The SVSP EIR addressed construction noise, roadway noise, noise from non-residential land uses, and aircraft overflight noise. Overflight COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

noise has been addressed in the Land Use and Planning section of this Addendum. Construction noise in general was discussed, and addressed via mitigation. Noise was determined to be an issue for all of the major roadways in the SVSP area. Mitigation was found to reduce noise volumes to levels within GP standards for some impacts, and so these impacts were found to be less than significant. However, construction noise and the increase in traffic noise above existing conditions were found to be significant and unavoidable. Project construction and operation should not exceed noise levels anticipated in the SVSP to such a degree that impact conclusions reached in the SVSP EIR would change (see 2012 MND, p. 32). Indeed, with the reduction in traffic associated with WB-41, traffic-related noise should be substantially less than anticipated in the SVSP EIR (see XVII.

Transportation/Traffic).

An environmental noise assessment was prepared by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. for the SVSP project to evaluate noise levels associated with traffic on the adjacent roadways (see Attachment 5, Noise Assessment for Parcel WB-41 (August 25, 2021) by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc.). In this assessment, it was concluded that implementation of SVSP EIR mitigation measures would reduce noise volumes to levels within GP standards for the SVSP project. The SVSP project would be designed consistent with the mitigation measures to include six-foot masonry sound walls adjacent to the lots located along major roadways, among other measures, to ensure noise volumes stay within the GP thresholds. Thus, the impacts of the SVSP project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MMs are applicable to the SVSP project regarding noise impacts. • SVSP EIR WMM 4.5-2. Construction Noise Policies
• SVSP EIR WMM 4.5-8. Onsite Traffic Noise Attenuation (see Attachment 4) • SVSP EIR MM 4.6-1. Construction Noise Reduction
Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, the SVSP project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding noise.

XIV. Population and Housing
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.2.2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the SVSP project:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Induce substantial
unplanned population
growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.2-4 No No No No
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

b) Displace substantial
numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating
the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.2-3 No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Population and housing were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). The SVSP EIR indicated that the plan would increase the number of housing units above those that had been anticipated in the then-current General Plan, and analyzed the effect on supporting services, infrastructure, and other issues related to environmental impacts. It was concluded that impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The SVSP project further increases number of housing units within the plan area, but not within the overall GP area as the SVSP project is a reallocation of approved units from another site within the City (SV and SVSP Redesignation and Rezoning Project). Notwithstanding, the impact conclusion in the SVSP EIR would not change—it is significant and unavoidable under the currently approved SVSP and will remain significant and unavoidable with the change proposed in this Addendum. The SVSP EIR also indicated that the plan would displace a small number of residences over a 20-year time frame, and therefore the impact would be less than significant.

However, the SVSP project site contains zero residences, and therefore its development per the SVSP project would have an even lesser impact in this regard (see 2012 MND, p. 34). Thus, the impacts of the SVSP project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: None
Conclusion: As described above, the SVSP project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding population and housing.

XV. Public Services
For the environmental setting, refer to Sections 4.11.1-2 to 4.11.2-2, 4.11.3-2, 4.11.4-2, and 4.11.5-2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the SVSP project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Fire protection? SVSP EIR
Impact 4.11.2 No No No Yes
b) Police protection? SVSP EIR
Impact 4.11.1 No No No No
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

c) Schools? SVSP EIR
Impact 4.11.3 No No No Yes
d) Parks? SVSP EIR
Impact 4.11.5 No No No No
e) Other public facilities? SVSP EIR
Impact 4.11.4 No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Public Services were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). The SVSP EIR concluded that the SVSP would have a less-than-significant impact to fire and police protection services, parks, and other public services, such as libraries, without mitigation and a less-than-significant impacts to schools with mitigation. For fire protection services, existing City codes and regulations require adequate water pressure in the water lines, and construction must comply with the Uniform Fire and Building Codes used by the City of Roseville. The site developer or Applicant is required to pay a fire service construction fee, which is used for purchasing capital facilities for the City Fire Department. Further, a new fire station is approved for construction within the SVSP and Fire Station #9 exists in the West Plan area (see 2012 MND, p. 35). For police protection services, sales taxes and property taxes resulting from development will add revenue to the General Fund, which provides funding for police services. Properties in the SVSP also pay into Community Facilities District No. 3 that provides services for fire and police. For parks, the developer will be required to pay fees into a Community Facilities District No. 2, which provides funding for park services. As well, future park and recreation sites and facilities have already been identified and approved as part of SVSP. For other public facilities, the SVSP area would be adequately served by existing libraries, and the City charges fees for end-users for other services, such as garbage and greenwaste collection, in order to fund those services.

None of the impacts to these services or facilities would change as a result of the SVSP project. The newly proposed residential units would be required to adhere to all existing codes, regulations and funding agreements to ensure impacts remain less than significant. Indeed, some impacts may decrease. For example, a decrease in commercial land uses may lead to a decrease in the need for police services as more law enforcement assistance is normally required at commercial properties versus residential.

For schools, the SVSP EIR concluded that three new elementary schools and one new intermediate school would be required in the plan area. The high school students generated from the SVSP were assumed in the nearby high schools located outside the SVSP. A portion of the SVSP is located within the Center Joint Unified School District and a portion is located within the Roseville City School District, although the current SVSP project site is entirely within the Center Joint Unified School District. The SVSP project involves an increase in residential units within the SVSP and, therefore, a potential slight increase in students. The SVSP project is estimated to generate an additional 24 students in grades K-6, 11 students in grades 7- 8, and 18 students in grades 9-12; thus 53 students more than assumed in 2012 (see SVSP, Section 7.3, p. 7-22). The project developer and the Center Joint Unified School District entered into the Landowner Development Agreement setting forth the mitigation fees to be paid by the SVSP project to provide full mitigation of the SVSP project’s impacts to school facilities. Under state law, such payments are deemed to constitute “full and complete mitigation” of impacts to school facilities (Government Code Section 65995(h)); therefore, the increase in students associated with the SVSP project does not translate into a more severe environmental impact than what was anticipated in the SVSP EIR. In addition, the developer or Applicant is required to work with the School District to identify a Safe Routes to School program. Existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure impacts continue to be less than significant. Thus, the impacts of the SVSP project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

Mitigation Measures: The following MM is applicable to the SVSP project regarding impacts associated with public services.
• SVSP EIR WMM 4.11.3-2. School Transportation Policies Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, the SVSP project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding public services.

XVI. Recreation
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.11.5-2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the SVSP project:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Increase the use of
existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other
recreational facilities such
that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility
would occur or be
accelerated?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.11.5 No No No No
b) Include recreational
facilities or require the
construction or expansion
of recreational facilities
which might have an
adverse physical effect on
the environment?
See Other
Sections No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Recreation was adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). The SVSP indicates that the required parkland dedication was met by dedication of parkland throughout the plan area and through payment of park dedication in-lieu fees. As noted in the SVSP EIR, the payment of Citywide and neighborhood park fees will be required, and the payment of fees combined with the dedication of parkland will ensure that impacts to park services are less than significant. The SVSP project will increase total number of residential units anticipated for buildout of the SVSP area, but full buildout of this former UR area includes the construction of

15.5 acres of neighborhood parks and 36 acres of open space that will be used by the future residents on the SVSP project site (see 2012 MND, p. 37). The impact to parks was considered less than significant in the SVSP EIR and 2012 MND, and it will remain less than significant after the change proposed with the SVSP project because any increased usage of planned neighborhood parks would be incremental. The construction of these parks within the SVSP are analyzed as part of the overall plan throughout the SVSP EIR and assigned mitigation COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

measures as necessary. Thus, the impacts of the SVSP project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: See other sections for MMs that would apply to park construction, such as MMs for biological and cultural resource impacts, etc.

Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, the SVSP project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding recreation.

XVII. Transportation/Traffic
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.3.2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the SVSP project:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Conflict with a program
plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.3-1
to 4.3-25
No No No Yes
b) Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.3-1,

4.3-4 to 4.3-14,

4.3-16 to 4.3-24
No No No Yes
c) Substantially increase
hazards due to a design
feature (for example, sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses (for
example, farm
equipment)?
Same as (a) No No No No
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.10-2,

4.11-2
No No No No
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Transportation and traffic were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). The SVSP EIR evaluated the traffic impacts to existing and future roadways from traffic being generated by the anticipated uses within the plan area. The EIR concluded that, with mitigation, impacts to City roadways would be less than significant. Impacts to several adjacent agency roadways were identified as a significant and unavoidable, and mitigation to lessen the impact was presented. Specific mitigation measures were assigned to the SVSP project COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

site and its surroundings in the 2012 MND, which reflected the potential impacts that might occur from traffic increases resulting from full buildout of the UR area (see 2012 MND, pp. 40 to 46). That mitigation would apply to the current SVSP project and is listed below. However, as explained below, the current SVSP project would produce less traffic that the project that was approved in 2010 and contemplated in the 2012 MND.

A transportation evaluation memorandum was prepared for the SVSP project by Fehr & Peers (see Attachment 5). Fehr & Peers concluded that the change in land use designation and zoning on Parcel WB-41 from commercial to residential would “generate fewer site trips, fewer trips entering/exiting the SVSP area, and less VMT.”6 Therefore, even with incremental increases in traffic trips associated with the increased density of Parcel WB-31, the SVSP project still would result in fewer trips, this lesser impacts to traffic and transportation systems, than those described in the SVSP EIR.

The SVSP project does not introduce any hazards resulting from circulation design, as it does not introduce hazards such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections. Nor does it present substantial safety risks associated with emergency access. The SVSP project has been reviewed by the City Engineering Division and City Fire Department staff, and has been found to be consistent with the City’s Design Standards. Furthermore, standard conditions of approval added to all City projects require compliance with Fire Codes and other design standards.

Compliance with existing regulations ensure that traffic safety-related impacts are less than significant. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR have occurred” relative to transportation/traffic.

Thus, the impacts of the SVSP project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MMs are applicable to the SVSP project regarding transportation and traffic impacts.
• SVSP EIR MM 4.3-1. Roseville Intersections: Pay Fair Share of Improvements in the CIP including Improvements to Intersections
• SVSP EIR MM 4.3-6. State Facilities Segments: Pay Fair Share Costs • SVSP EIR MM 4.3-7. Sutter County Facilities: Pay Fair Share Costs Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, the SVSP project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding transportation and traffic. 6 Note that VMT is included here for informational purposes only. An analysis of VMT is not required for this CEQA document because such analysis was not included in the underlying 2010 Final EIR upon which this Addendum is based was prepared. The provisions of CEQA that require VMT analysis, such as CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, were not in full effect until July 1, 2020, and only apply to documents released to the public after that date (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(c) [stating that its VMT provisions applied only prospectively, as provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15007, which provides, among other things, that “[n]ew requirements in amendments will apply to steps in the CEQA process not yet undertaken by the date when agencies must comply with the amendments,” and that “[i]f a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is sent out for public review, the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements”]). Here, the Final EIR for the SVSP, on which this Addendum relies, was prepared in 2010, more than a decade before the VMT requirement took effect (see also Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609, 625-626 [court refuses to address legal challenge to EIR based on a failure to include VMT analysis because the EIR at issue was prepared prior to July 2020]).

Moreover, the circumstances and evidence surrounding this project do not necessitate a VMT analysis. As stated by Fehr & Peers, the project would result in a dramatic decrease in traffic trips below what was considered in the SVSP EIR.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
For the environmental setting, refer to Section 4.9.2 of the SVSP EIR.

Would the SVSP project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Listed or eligible for listing
in the California Register
of Historical Resources, or
in a local register of
historical resources as
defined in Public
Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.9-1
to 4.9-2, 4.9-4
No No No Yes
b) A resource determined by
the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported
by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the
significance of the
resource to a California
Native American tribe
Same No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Tribal cultural resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). The SVSP EIR found that no known cultural resources exist on the SVSP project site, inclusive of tribal cultural resources (see V. Cultural Resources). The SVSP then discussed the potential for subsurface resources to be found during construction, and included mitigation requiring a cessation of work should any item of cultural interest, inclusive of tribal interests, be found. The mitigation was found to render potential impacts less than significant. The SVSP project would result in the same impact, and the mitigation remains applicable to the SVSP project. Moreover, notice of the SVSP project was mailed to tribes that had requested such notice pursuant to S.B. 18 for early consultation for the amendment of general plans, and in consideration of A.B. 52 (see Attachment 6 for Tribal Consultation Letters). On September 8, 2021, the City received a response from a culturally affiliated tribe—the COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC). The UAIC’s Tribal Historic Preservation Department requested consultation and the inclusion of a mitigation measure for unanticipated discoveries. The City proceeded to consult with this Tribe and developed updated mitigation language that reflects new tribal preferences and best practices associated with the inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources. Although no resources are known to occur on the site, mitigation for unanticipated discoveries will ensure proper treatment should a resource be discovered. SVSP EIR MM 4.9-1, listed below, has been updated to reflect these tribal preferences and best practices associated with the inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources. The City did not receive additional responses from other tribes regarding the SVSP project site. Thus, the impacts of the SVSP project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MMs are applicable to the SVSP project regarding cultural resources impacts. • SVSP EIR MM 4.9-1. Cease Work and Consult with Qualified Archaeologist UPDATED TEXT:

Post-Review Discovery Procedures. If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin, or tribal cultural resources, are discovered during construction, all work shall halt within a 100-foot radius of the discovery, and the Construction Manager shall immediately notify the City of Roseville Development Services Director by phone. The Construction Manager shall also immediately coordinate with the monitoring archeologist or project archaeologist and tribal monitor(if present), or, in the absence of either, contact consulting tribes and a qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology and subject to approval by the City, to evaluate the significance of the find and develop appropriate management recommendations, in coordination with the consulting tribe(s) if the find is a tribal cultural resource.

All management recommendations shall be provided to the City in writing for the City’s review and approval. If recommended by the qualified professional archeologist, and consulting tribe(s), and approved by the City, this may include modification of the no-work radius.

The professional archaeologist must make a determination, based on professional judgement and supported by substantial evidence, within one business day of being notified, as to whether or not the find represents a cultural or tribal cultural resource or has the potential to be a cultural or tribal cultural resource. The consulting tribe shall also be given the opportunity to provide, within one business day of being notified, a determination as to whether or not the find represents a tribal cultural resource or has the potential to be a tribal cultural resource. The subsequent actions will be determined by the type of discovery, as described below. These include: 1) a work pause that, upon further investigation, is not actually a discovery and the work pause was simply needed in order to allow for closer examination of soil (a “false alarm”); 2) a work pause and subsequent action for discoveries that are clearly not related to tribal resources, such as can and bottle dumps, artifacts of European origin, and remnants of built environment features; and 3) a work pause and subsequent action for discoveries that are likely related to tribal resources, such as midden soil, bedrock mortars, groundstone, or other similar expressions.

Whenever there is question as to whether or not the discovery represents a tribal resource, culturally affiliated tribes shall be consulted in making the determination. Whenever a tribal monitor is present, the monitor shall be consulted.

The following processes shall apply, depending on the nature of the find, subject to the review and approval of the City:
• Response to False Alarms: If the professional archaeologist determine that the find is negative for any cultural indicators and tribal representatives have not indicated the find is a tribal cultural resource, then work may resume immediately upon notice to proceed from the City’s representative.. No further notifications or archaeological consultation is necessary if it is determined that the discovery is not a cultural or tribal cultural resource of any kind. The professional archaeologist shall provide written COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

documentation of this finding to the City, which shall include as an attachment any written documentation provided by tribal representatives or monitors.
• Response to Non-Tribal Discoveries: If a tribal monitor is not present at the time of discovery and a professional archaeologist determines that the find represents a non-tribal cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, the City shall be notified immediately, to consult on a finding of eligibility and implementation of appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The professional archaeologist shall provide a photograph of the find and a written description to the City of Roseville. The City of Roseville will notify any [tribe(s)] who, in writing, requested notice of unanticipated discovery of non-tribal resources. Notice shall include the photograph and description of the find, and a tribal representative shall have the opportunity to determine whether or not the find represents a tribal cultural resource. If a response is not received within 24 hours of notification (none of which time period may fall on weekends or City holidays), the City will deem this portion of the measure completed in good faith as long as the notification was made and documented. If requested by a [tribe(s)], the City may extend this timeframe, which shall be documented in writing (electronic communication may be used to satisfy this measure). If a notified tribe responds within 24 hours to indicate that the find represents a tribal cultural resource, then the Response to Tribal Discoveries portion of this measure applies. If the tribe does not respond or concurs that the discovery is non-tribal, work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction.
• Response to Tribal Discoveries: If the find represents a tribal or potentially tribal cultural resource that does not include human remains, the consulting tribe(s) and City shall be notified. The City will consult with the tribe(s) on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be either a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, or a Tribal Cultural Resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code.

Preservation in place is the preferred treatment, if feasible. Work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; or 2) not a Tribal Cultural Resource, as defined in Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code; or 3) that the treatment measures have been completed to its satisfaction. • Response to Human Remains: If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, the construction supervisor or on-site archaeologist and (if present) tribal monitor shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (AB 2641) and shall notify the City and Placer County Coroner (per § 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, § 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and Assembly Bill 2641 shall be implemented. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. Public Resources Code § 5097.94 provides structure for mediation through the NAHC if necessary. If the COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (§ 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code).

If no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains in a respectful manner where they will not be further disturbed (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). This 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 (AB 2641). Work shall 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.

Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, the SVSP project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding tribal cultural resources.

XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
For the environmental setting, refer to Sections 4.12.1.2, 4.12.2.2, 4.12.3.2, 4.12.4.2, and 4.12.5.2 of the SVSP EIR. Would the SVSP project:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction of
new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas,
or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
which could cause
significant environmental
effects?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.12.3-
1 to 4.12.3-2,

4.12.5-1 to

4.12.5-2
No No No Yes
b) Have sufficient water
supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably
foreseeable future
development during normal,
dry and multiple dry years?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.12.1-
1 to 4.12.1-2,

4.12.2-1
No No No Yes
c) Result in a determination by
the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or
may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments?

SVSP EIR
Impact 4.12.1-3 No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

d) Generate solid waste in
excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.12.4-
1 to 4.12.4-4
No No No Yes
e) Comply with federal, state,
and local management and
reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?

SVSP EIR
Impacts 4.12.1-
1, 4.12.1-4
No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

Utilities and services systems were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). The SVSP EIR concluded that most potentially significant impacts to utilities and services systems associated with the SVSP could be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. However, impacts associated with increased use of the landfill and its eventual expansion would remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation because this expansion is outside the City’s jurisdiction (2012 MND, p. 51). The SVSP EIR indicated that the Western Placer Waste Management Authority facilities would be used to dispose of solid waste, and that there was insufficient capacity to accept solid waste from the SVSP at full buildout. Solid waste generation is based on population, and the SVSP project would increase the estimated population for the plan area with the increase in residential units. However, the impact conclusion would not change—it is significant and unavoidable and will remain as such. Furthermore, the amount increase of solid waste would not be substantially more severe, but rather an incremental increase and would not increase the City population overall. Notwithstanding, since the time the SVSP EIR was adopted, the Western Placer Waste Management Authority’s Western Regional Sanitary Landfill has expanded and currently has a remaining capacity of 29.1 million cubic yards and a projected closure date of 2058, whereas during preparation of the SVSP EIR, it had a remaining capacity of approximately 25.4 million cubic yards and a closure date of 2041 (SVSP EIR, p. 4.12.4-12). Therefore, this impact would be lesser under the SVSP project than was concluded under the SVSP.

The SVSP EIR addressed water demand for the plan area and determined there was adequate supply to meet the anticipated water demands from full buildout, excluding ultimate buildout of the UR area. Upon the redesignation/rezoning of the UR area, it was determined that existing City water supplies would need to be augmented and that the additional water would come from the City’s current water entitlements for corporate business centers because no such centers were planned (see 2012 MND, p. 49). This arrangement left a remainder 46 acre feet of unused water supply for future use. Water use calculations have been updated for the SVSP project based on the proposed land use changes for the SVSP and in conjunction with the proposed land use changes for the SV project, and it is anticipated that the projected overall waters usage in the City will decrease by approximately 2.0 acre feet per year from the usage calculated for the previously approved land uses (see Attachment 7, Water and Sewer Demands (October 15, 2021) by MacKay & Somps). Furthermore, given the myriad of water conservation legislation that has been passed since 2012, which requires significant progressive reductions in personal water use over a series of years, 7 the SVSP project likely would use less
water than currently anticipated. The City’s Environmental Utilities Department staff reviewed the SVSP project and concluded that water uses by the SVSP project would fall below the water supply that is available for City use. Therefore, impact conclusions related to water supply remain the same. 7 For example, A.B. 1660 (2018) and S.B. 606 (2018) caps indoor residential water use and requires water efficient controls on residential landscaping irrigation.

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

Development of the SVSP project area will require the construction of water lines and sewer lines and facilities, but these were previously identified through the infrastructure master plans developed for the SVSP (see 2012 MND, p. 50). The SVSP project site land use changes in 2012 required that the SVSP project at that time be required to fund its fair share payment toward construction of a new recycled water storage tank and an upgrade to the existing WRSP recycled water pump station, but no other major changes to infrastructural facilities was expected (see 2012 MND, p. 51). Additionally, based on the proposed land use changes for the SVSP project, and when considered in conjunction with the proposed land use changes for the SV project, it is anticipated that projected overall wastewater generation in the City will decrease by approximately 0.07 million gallons per day from what was assumed and previously analyzed in the SVSP EIR and 2012 MND (see Attachment 7). The SVSP EIR concluded that the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plan was sized to accommodate flow from the plan area and that impacts would be less than significant. This conclusion remains applicable to the SVSP project (see 2012 MND, p. 51). The City’s Environmental Utilities Department staff reviewed the SVSP project and determined that project changes fell within the scope of prior assessment in regard to these infrastructure facilities. Thus, the impacts of the SVSP project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: The following MMs are applicable to the SVSP project regarding impacts associated with utilities and service systems.
• SVSP EIR MM 4.11-5. Treatment Plant Capacity
• SVSP EIR WMM 4.11-7. Expand the WRSL Landfill (occurred) • SVSP EIR WMM 4.11-11. Divert Construction Debris
Conclusion: As described above and with implementation of the applicable mitigation measures, the SVSP project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” regarding utilities and service systems.

XX. Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the SVSP project:

Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Substantially impair an
adopted emergency
response land or
emergency evacuation?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
b) Due to slope, prevailing
winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose
project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources,
power lines or other
utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the
environment?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
d) Expose people or
structures to significant
risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage
changes?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is the state agency responsible for wildland fire protection and management. As part of that task, CAL FIRE maintains maps designating Wildland Fire Hazard Severity zones and designates state responsibility areas. The City is not located within or near a state responsibility area and also is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Therefore, this checklist section does not apply.

XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Issue
Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
Prior EIR?
Any New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Resulting in New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Any
MMs?
a) Have the potential to
substantially degrade the
quality of the environment,
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, substantially
reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or
See above
Sections IV.

Biological
Resources; V.

Cultural
Resources; VII.

Geology and
Soils; XVIII.

Tribal Cultural
Resources
No No No Yes
COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

animal or eliminate
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Have impacts that are
individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively
considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a
project are considerable
when viewed in connection
with the effects of the past
projects, the effects of
other current projects, and
the effects of probable
future projects.)
See SVSP EIR
Section 5.7.3 No No No Yes
c) Have environmental
effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
See above
Sections III. Air
Quality; VIII.

Greenhouse
Gases; XI.

Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials; X.

Hydrology and
Water Quality;
XIII. Noise
No No No Yes
Discussion of Checklist Answers:

With implementation of the City’s Mitigating Ordinances, Guidelines, and Standards and best management practices, mitigation measures described in the SVSP and listed in this document, and permit conditions, the SVSP project will not exceed the scope of any impact contemplated SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) that is associated with habitat, species, historic/prehistoric resources, or adverse effects on human beings.

Furthermore, cumulative impacts associated with the SVSP project would not exceed those contemplated in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND) because no SVSP project-related individual impact exceeds the scope of that same impact in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).

Mitigation Measures: See above checklist sections for applicable mitigation measures.

Conclusion: With the implementation of the applicable mitigation measures listed in this Addendum checklist, the SVSP project would not result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than those analyzed in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND). Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” relative to the mandatory findings of significance.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Based on analysis conducted in this Addendum, the previously certified EIR, and the 2012 MND, it is determined that implementation of SVSP project modifications, as described herein, would not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts, either directly or as a result of new circumstances or information. The City may take the following actions in compliance with CEQA:

COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: ADDENDUM
November 5, 2021
SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; File # PL21-0161

• Certify the Addendum
• Adopt the SVSP amendment
• Approve the General Plan and specific plan amendments and rezone In reviewing the site specific information provided for the SVSP project and acting as Lead Agency, the City of Roseville, Development Services Department, Planning Division has analyzed the potential environmental impacts created by this project and determined that the findings of CEQA Section 15162 concerning the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR and the findings of CEQA Section 15164 concerning the decision to prepare an Addendum can be made. As supported by substantial evidence within the Addendum to the SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH # 2008032115, adopted May 5, 2010), inclusive of the WESTBROOK SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH # 2008032115, adopted June 15, 2012), the Lead Agency makes the following findings:
[ X ] No substantial changes are proposed in the SVSP project which would require major revisions of the previous EIR.
[ X ] No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the SVSP project is undertaken.
[ X ] There is no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of due diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete.

Addendum Prepared by:
____________________________________________
Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner
City of Roseville, Development Services–Planning Division

ATTACHMENTS
Addendum Attachment 1 – Sierra Vista Specific Plan Tentative Map and Redesignation/Rezoning Exhibits for WB-41
Addendum Attachment 2 – Amended Sierra Vista Specific Plan Addendum Attachment 3 – Preliminary Stormwater Quality Evaluation for Parcel WB-41 (July 16, 2021) by MacKay & Somps and Master Drainage Plan for the Stormwater Quality Management Plan for the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (February 20, 2018) by Civil Engineering Solutions, Inc.

Addendum Attachment 4 – Noise Assessment for Parcel WB-41 (August 25, 2021) by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc.

Addendum Attachment 5 – Transportation Evaluation for Parcel WB-41 (August 25, 2021) by Fehr & Peers Addendum Attachment 6 – Tribal Consultation Letters
Addendum Attachment 7 – Water and Sewer Demands (October 15, 2021) by MacKay & Somps Addendum Attachment 8 – Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR 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

CUMULATIVE CONSIDERATIONS
The Proposed Project includes two actions, discussed in detail throughout this overall environmental document.

Each action is analyzed separately and differently within this overall document using the appropriate CEQA analytical device for each action—a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) with an Initial Study checklist for the SV project and an Addendum with a modified checklist for the SVSP project. Each analysis, in its respective Mandatory Findings of Significance sections, includes a determination on impacts that might be cumulatively considerable. For the SV project, the MND determined that “cumulative impacts to which the SV project will contribute in small part do not deviate beyond what was contemplated in the GP EIR.” For the SVSP project, the Addendum determined that “cumulative impacts associated with the SVSP project would not exceed those contemplated in the SVSP EIR (inclusive of the 2012 MND).” This section looks at the combined effects of the two projects in order to set forth the total combined level of environmental impact from both the SV project and the SVSP project. This section provides additional consideration of their combined cumulative impacts by looking COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: CUMULATIVE CONSIDERATIONS
November 5, 2021
SV & SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162 & PL21-0161

at the two actions together in the context of the approved full buildout of the General Plan (GP) area as contemplated in the certified 2020 GP EIR for the 2035 GP Update.

Methodology
The process of considering the total combined level of impact from the SV project and SVSP project was complicated by the fact that the separate analysis required consideration of two different baselines for the two different projects. For the SV project, the MND used existing conditions at the time environmental review commenced as the baseline for impact assessment (see Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 320-321). A different approach was used for the SVSP project, as the analysis was in the nature of “subsequent environmental review” under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 through 15164. Environmental analysis of this kind essentially asks whether the impacts of a proposed project will exceed those already anticipated in a previously certified EIR, even if those impacts have not yet occurred in the present physical environment. “When a lead agency is considering whether to prepare a subsequent EIR, the agency is specifically authorized to limit its consideration to effects not considered in connection with the earlier project” (Martis Camp Community Association v. County of Placer (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 569, 608).

The separate approaches taken with the SV project and the SVSP project created so much complexity, and so many analytical challenges that the City concluded that it was not analytically feasible to maintain the separate and distinct approaches when considering the two individual projects together as a combined overall project.

Furthermore, such an assessment would not address the relevant issue of whether these actions together exceed any impact conclusions contemplated in the GP EIR for full buildout of the GP area. Accordingly, to be legally conservative, the City decided to use an existing conditions baseline in assessing the combined overall project. Cumulative analyses, however, are not necessarily forward-looking, in that they account for, in addition to a proposed project, other past, present, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15130(b)(1)(A), 15355(b).). Thus, a proper cumulative impact analysis necessarily involves consideration of a project “under predicted future conditions” (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 445, 450 [italics added].

This cumulative assessment looks at the combined cumulative effect of the SV project and the SVSP project by looking to the scope of analysis and conclusions reached in the GP EIR and any new information offered in their current CEQA analyses. This information will be used to determine whether the two proposed actions, taken together, would increase any impact conclusion as it was presented and certified in the GP EIR. Viewed on a Citywide basis, the combined project represents the same overall amount of housing units anticipated in the General Plan with a reduction in commercial development within the SVSP area. Thus, the overall amount of contemplated development would decrease compared with what would occur over time without the combined overall project. If the analysis determined that the combined overall project would not increase the anticipated cumulative effects of General Plan buildout, the analysis would determine that the combined overall project’s contributions to cumulative effects associated with that buildout were not “cumulatively considerable” and thus were not significant in and of themselves (see CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064(h)(1), 15065(a)(3), and 15130(a)(3)).

Environmental Issue Areas Excluded from this Assessment The following environmental issue areas are excluded from this analysis because any potential impacts would be site specific, localized, temporary in nature, or are generally not applicable. Refer to the MND and Addendum for more details.
• Aesthetics (site specific)
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources (not applicable)
• Biological Resources (site specific, localized, or not applicable) • Cultural Resources (site specific, localized, or not applicable) COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: CUMULATIVE CONSIDERATIONS
November 5, 2021
SV & SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162 & PL21-0161

• Geology and Soils (not applicable)
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (site specific or localized) • Land Use and Planning (site specific or not applicable) • Mineral Resources (not applicable)
• Noise (site specific or localized)
• Population and Housing (not applicable)
• Recreation (not applicable)
• Tribal Cultural Resources (site specific, localized, or not applicable) • Wildfire (not applicable)
Cumulative Assessment and Conclusion
At full buildout, the GP Update EIR assumed an additional 20,000 to 25,000 housing units and 25 to 30 million square feet of non-residential building space, including commercial, would be constructed (GP EIR, p. 2-33). For analytical purposes, the GP EIR assumed at full buildout an approximate total of 75,200 housing units (GP EIR, p. 4.2-1) and 1,900 acres of Community Commercial development (SP EIR, p. 2-30). This development is and will be located within the 16 subareas analyzed in the EIR, inclusive of the Infill Planning Area, where the SV project is located, and the SVSP area, where the SVSP project is located. With the Proposed Project, the number of housing units remains the same, but the amount of Community Commercial development decreases by approximately 10.11 acres (i.e., SVSP Parcel WB-41, which would be converted from Community Commercial to Medium Density Residential). Thus, as stated above, the overall amount of contemplated development would decrease compared to what was approved with the 2035 GP and analyzed in the GP EIR.

This cumulative assessment looks to the following environmental issue areas with respect to impact conclusions reached in the certified GP EIR to determine if the proposed land use changes result in increases to any impact conclusion reached in the GP EIR.

Air Quality
Upon full buildout of the GP area, the GP EIR concluded that the following air quality impacts will occur:
• Impacts from construction- and operation-related air pollutant emissions will be significant and unavoidable (GP EIR, pp. 4.4-28, 4.4-36);
• Impacts to sensitive receptors as a result of exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations will be less than significant during construction but significant and unavoidable during operation (GP EIR, pp. 4.4-45,

4.4-46);
• Impacts from carbon monoxide hotspots will be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 4.4-49); and • Impacts from other emissions such as odor will be significant and unavoidable (GP EIR, p. 4.4-53).

As concluded in the MND, all air quality impacts associated with the SV project would be less than significant.

Air quality impacts associated with the SVSP project would not exceed those anticipated in the SVSP EIR and in fact would be reduced because the substantial reduction in operational traffic trips from the redesignation and rezoning of Parcel WB-41 from commercial to residential would in turn reduce mobile air pollutant emissions.

Furthermore, impacts associated with odor would be reduced with the decrease in commercial development because commercial development has the potential to produce some objectionable odors whereas residential development rarely does (see GP EIR, p. 4.4-50). As a result, the combined SV and SVSP projects would not exceed any air quality impacts analyzed in the GP EIR; on the contrary, the Proposed Project would reduce these impacts.

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

Energy
Upon full buildout of the GP area, the GP EIR concluded that the following transportation and traffic impacts will occur:
• Impacts from the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction and operation will be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 4.15-18); and • Impacts associated with conflicts with State or local energy efficiency plans will be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 4.15-19).

As concluded in the MND, all impacts to energy associated with the SV project would be less than significant.

Energy impacts associated with the SVSP project would not exceed those anticipated in the SVSP EIR and in fact would be reduced because the substantial reduction in operational vehicle trips from the redesignation and rezoning of Parcel WB-41 from commercial to residential would in turn reduce the localized consumption of fossil fuels. Notably, the transportation sector is the “largest energy consuming sector in California” (GP EIR, p. 4.15- 12). Furthermore, all housing units constructed as a result of the Proposed Project would be built on accordance with California Energy Code Title 24, to meet the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, including, but not limited to, standards for water and space heating and cooling equipment, insulation for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings, and energy-saving appliances. The constructed units also would be eligible for rebates and other financial incentives from both the electric and gas providers for the purchase of energy-efficient appliances and systems, which would further reduce the operational energy demand. As a result, the combined SV and SVSP projects would not exceed any transportation and traffic impacts analyzed in the GP EIR; on the contrary, the Proposed Project would reduce these impacts.

Greenhouse Gases
Upon full buildout of the GP area, the GP EIR concluded that the following GHG emission impact will occur:
• Impacts associated with conflicts with applicable plans, policies or regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions will be significant and unavoidable (GP EIR, p. 4.5-27).

As concluded in the MND, all GHG emission impacts associated with the SV project would be less than significant (see MND Attachment 10). GHG emission impacts associated with the SVSP project would not exceed those anticipated in the SVSP EIR and in fact would be reduced because the substantial reduction in operational vehicle trips from the redesignation and rezoning of Parcel WB-41 from commercial to residential would in turn reduce mobile emissions, which are the number one source of GHG emissions (see GP EIR, p. 4.5-20). As a result, the combined SV and SVSP projects would not exceed any GHG emission impacts analyzed in the GP EIR; on the contrary, the Proposed Project would reduce these impacts.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Upon full buildout of the GP area, the GP EIR concluded that the following hydrology and water impacts will occur:
• Impacts from violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or conflicts with a water quality control plan will be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 4.13-30); • Impacts to groundwater recharge or groundwater supplies that might impede implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan will be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 4.13-32); • Impacts to drainage patterns resulting in substantial erosion or siltation will be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 4.13-35);
• Impacts to drainage patterns resulting in runoff exceeding capacity of existing system or increasing flooding sources of polluted runoff will be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 4.13-41); and COMBINED CEQA DOCUMENT: CUMULATIVE CONSIDERATIONS
November 5, 2021
SV & SVSP Redesignation/Rezoning Project; Files # PL21-0162 & PL21-0161

• Impacts from the release of pollutants in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones will be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 4.13-42).

As concluded in the MND, all hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the SV project would be either less than significant or absent. In actuality, improvements made to the SV project site as a result of eventual development would treat and mitigate flood waters in a manner that does not currently occur and would better distribute flood water, along with water quality control features, throughout the entirety of the site (see MND Attachment 10). Hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the SVSP project would not exceed those anticipated in the SVSP EIR and, despite some infrastructure modifications, the scope and scale of potential impacts would remain the same (see Addendum Attachment 3). As a result, the combined SV and SVSP projects would not exceed any hydrology and water quality impacts analyzed in the GP EIR; on the contrary, the Proposed Project could reduce these impacts.

Public Services
Upon full buildout of the GP area, the GP EIR concluded that the following public service impacts will occur:
• Impacts from increased demand for police protection facilities will be less than significant (GP EIR, p.

4.11-23);
• Impacts from increased demand for fire protection services and facilities will be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 4.11-25);
• Impacts from increased demand for school services and facilities will be less than significant (GP EIR, p.

4.11-27); and
• Impacts from the need for new or expanded recreation facilities or accelerated use of existing facilities will be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 4.11-29).

As concluded in the MND, all public service impacts associated with the SV project would be less than significant due to a mixture of (i) requisite fees and taxes that would ensure that the SV project would contribute appropriately to the provision of City public services and (ii) adherence to City codes and regulations that ensure building safety. Public service impacts associated with the SVSP project would not exceed those anticipated in the SVSP EIR. The SVSP and SV projects will pay fees and taxes for public services and be subject to the same codes and regulations resulting in the combined projects not creating any new public service impacts that were not otherwise analyzed in the GP EIR.

Transportation/Traffic
Upon full buildout of the GP area, the GP EIR concluded that the following transportation and traffic impacts will occur:
• Impacts from vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) in exceedance of thresholds will be significant and unavoidable (GP EIR, pp. 4.3-36);
• Impacts to hazards due to design features, incompatible uses, or emergency access will be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 4.3-40); and
• Impacts associated with conflicts with adopted transportation-related policies, plans, or programs will be less than significant (GP EIR, pp. 4.3-43).

As concluded in the MND, all transportation and traffic impacts associated with the SV project would be less than significant. Transportation and traffic impacts associated with the SVSP project would not exceed those anticipated in the SVSP EIR and in fact would be reduced because of the substantial reduction in operational vehicle trips from the redesignation and rezoning of Parcel WB-41 from commercial to residential (see Addendum Attachment 5). As a result, the combined SV and SVSP projects would not exceed any transportation and traffic impacts analyzed in the GP EIR; on the contrary, the Proposed Project would reduce these impacts.

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

Utilities and Service Systems
Upon full buildout of the GP area, the GP EIR concluded that the following utilities and service system impacts will occur:
• Impacts resulting from the relocation of or the construction of new or expanded utilities and service systems facilities will significant and unavoidable (GP EIR, p. 4.12-24); • Impacts to water supplies will be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 4.12-28); • Impacts to wastewater treatment capacity will be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 4.12-30); and • Impacts to solid waste generation and associated capacity statutes and regulations will be less than significant (GP EIR, p. 4.12-32).

As concluded in the MND, all utilities and service system impacts associated with the SV project would be less than significant, with the SV project adhering to City codes and policies associated with infrastructure. As stated in the MND, onsite project utility infrastructure is designed to be consistent with the GP and to comply with all applicable regulations. Likewise with the SVSP project, the infrastructure required for this portion of the Proposed Project was previously identified via adopted master plans that were developed for the SVSP, with no major changes anticipated. Water use for the GP areas would not increase with implementation of the Proposed Project, and in fact will decrease City-wide use overall by approximately 2.0 acre feet per year less than the usage calculated for the previously approved land uses, based on revised calculations that look at the SV and SVSP projects together (see Addendum Attachment 7). Similarly, wastewater generation will decrease based on revised calculations that look at the SV and SVSP projects together by approximately 0.07 million gallons per day less than the generation calculated for the previously approved land uses (see Addendum Attachment 7).

Solid waste generation would likely decrease under the Proposed Project because of the loss of commercial development. Because the housing units contemplated in the GP EIR would remain the same, accordingly the associated population increase projections would remain the same, and projected solid waste generation would remain the same, as such projections are based on population. As a result, the combined SV and SVSP projects would not exceed any utilities and service system impacts analyzed in the GP EIR; on the contrary, the Proposed Project would reduce these impacts.
1 2 3 4 5 7 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 41 40 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Torrey Pines Drive
Bethpage
Southern Hills Court
Bay Hill
Sawgrass Court LOT A LOT B LOT H LOT F LOT G LOT I
LOT J LOT C LOT D N MAPS 68 DIAMOND OAKS UNIT 7 N MAPS 69 SIERRA TOWNHOMES UNIT NO. 1 N MAPS 69 SIERRA TOWNHOMES UNIT NO. 1 M MAPS 87

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

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

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

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

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

ROSEVILLE PKWY

GALLERIA BLVD

FOOTHILLS BLVD

WOODCREEK
OAKS

BLVD JUNCTION BLVD BASELINE ROAD MAIN ST

ATKINSON AVE VINEYARD RD

SHASTA ST

DIAMOND OAKS RD WASHINGTON BLVD DOUGLAS BLVD

ATLANTIC ST

INDUSTRIAL AVE

SIERRA BLVD

LEAD HILLBLVD

FOLSOM RD

OAK ST COUNTY PLACER

SUNRISE AVE NORTH

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
EUREKA
RD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. This project will contain private streets and drainage systems. Water and Sewer will be public service. TENTATIVE MAP NOTES VICINITY MAP MND ATTACHMENT 1

CC EXHIBIT
K
P=166.6 P=166.7 P=171.2P=170.3 P=169.5 P=168.0 P=167.1 P=166.1 P=165.6 P=165.1 P=164.8 P=164.5 P=164.5 P=164.8 P=165.2 P=164.9 P=165.1 P=160.8 P=161.3 P=161.8 P=162.0 P=162.2 P=162.4 P=164.8 P=160.4 P=163.7 P=160.9 P=160.9 P=163.7 P=158.5 P=158.8 P=159.1 P=159.6 P=161.0 P=161.3 2:1 2:1 3:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 3:1 3:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 3:1 2:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 1 2 3 4 5 7 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 89' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 65'
60'
61'
103' 20' 40'
98'
36' 110' 121' 108' 107' 111' 112' 113' 110' 106' 100'
98'
100'
74'
13'
75'
72'
72'
97'
15'
98'
19'
48'
86' 60' 74'
102'
91'
112'
95'
90'
95'
86'
29' 81'
22'
80'
58'
84'
137'
100' 73'
62'
45'
536'
121'
283'
330'
261'
252'
251'
120' 67'
57'
57'
57'
56'
42'
21' 54'
67'
90'
106'
73' 65' 86' 40' 76'
17' 17' 77'
111'
28'
51'
61'
60' 60' 60' 60' 60'
60'
60'
60'
R=270'
R=35 '
R=1805'
R=270'
R=26'
R=43'
R
=
39'
R=49'
R=26' R=26'
R=45' R=43'
R=39' R=49' R=26'
R=26'
R=17
R
'
=17' R=35'
R=35'
R=30'
51'
4'
191'
164' 278'
169'
4'
31'
32' 13' 27' 17' 26'
64' 30' 23'
4 3' 42' 12' 13' 27' 10'
46'
151' 10'
32'
172' 52'
Dunes
Bandon
Court
Sawgrass Court LOT A 0.66± ac. LOT B 1.42± ac. LOT H 2.80± ac. LOT F 1.19± ac. LOT G 0.77± ac. N MAPS 68 DIAMOND OAKS UNIT 7 N17°50'29"E 530.26'
N31°20'52"W 995.30'
N31°20'52"W 995.30'
N89°08'21"E 221.53'
N00°51'54"W 172.55'
R=527.00' Δ=
23°11'4
3" L
=
213.3
5' N89°08'06"E 307.36'
N01°50'04"W 2222.53'
10' PUE, typ.
10' PUE, typ.
10' PUE, typ.
10' PUE, typ.
10' PUE, typ.
10' PUE, typ.
250' TRANSMISSON LINE EASEMENT PER 612 O.R. 534
50' PRIVATE A.E. PER 35 PM 46
50' PRIVATE A.E.

PER 35 PM 46

TO BE ABANDONED
Q MAPS 79

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

STORM DRAIN EASEMENT
PER 1096 O.R. 333 ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER 937 O.R. 692 (TO BE ABANDONED) 30' WATER LINE EASEMENT PER DN 2001-0094055 P.U.E. PER 1105 O.R. 76 P.U.E. PER N B.M. 68 ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER 937 O.R. 692 (TO BE ABANDONED) R=30'
29'
25'
39'
99'
59' 68' 69' 138'
99'
134'
103'
72' 32' 102'
67'
66' 84'
51'
Bay Hill
Whistling
Straits Drive
Drive Dunes
Southern
Hills
Court
Bandon
Drive PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT 2'
2'
FL=158.9 FL=159.7 3' MAXIMUM HEIGHT RETAINING WALL
20' 20' 21 22 23 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 7172 73 74 75
95'
85'
85'
109'
162'
60'
60'
60'
5'
102'
98'
95'
60'
60'
60'
80'
74'
56'
R=240' R=22'
R
=22' R=26'
R=2 ' R
=
26' REALIGN INTERMITENT DRAINAGE APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF INTERMITENT DRAINAGE 108' 165' 57'
62' PROPOSED RIGHT OF ENTRY EASEMENT PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT PROPOSED 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT 99' 2.5' MAXIMUM HEIGHT RETAINING WALL 3.5' MAXIMUM HEIGHT RETAINING WALL 10' PUE PER 35 PM 46 TO BE ABANDONED CULVERT CROSSING Sheet 2 of 3 Roseville, CA August 2, 2021 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP SIERRA VIEW N DESCRIPTION SANITARY SEWER PIPE PROPOSED EXISTING LEGEND SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE WATER LINE GATE VALVE FIRE HYDRANT BLOW-OFF VALVE STORM DRAIN MANHOLE DROP INLET PAD GRADE STORM DRAIN PIPE OVERLAND RELEASE FOR DRAINAGE P=XXX.X RECYCLED WATER LINE STORMWATER FACILITY P=XXX.X 1. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. 2. UTILITIES MAY BE PHASED DEPENDING UPON THE DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE OF THE PROJECT, SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE. 3. THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF PROPOSED WATER, RECYCLED WATER, SEWER, AND STORM DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE DURING FINAL DESIGN, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE WITH IMPROVEMENT PLANS. 4. ANY OFFSITE GRADING SHALL REQUIRE RIGHT OF ENTRY FROM ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. IF A RIGHT OF ENTRY CANNOT BE OBTAINED, RETAINING WALLS ALONG PROPERTY LINES ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN HEREON. 5. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL LOTS ARE TO HAVE CLASS 1 LOT DRAINAGE AS SUCH, 2% SWALES, YARD DRAINS,AND UNDERGROUND PIPE SYSTEMS WITH BUBBLE UPS SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN LIEU OF 1% MINIMUM SWALES. AN OVERLAND RELEASE TO THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE FINISHED LOT GRADING DESIGN TO PRECLUDE ANY PONDING AGAINST FUTURE BUILDING FOUNDATION. POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE BUILDING AT A SLOPE OF 5% MINIMUM SHALL BE PROVIDED, CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 2304.11 OF THE CALIFORNIA BLDG CODE. UTILITY NOTES MASONRY RETAINING WALL CONCEPTUAL GRADING, DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND PROPERTY LINE SECTION A-A N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 2' SWQ OUTFALL SWALE SECTION B-B N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 3' 2' (2:1 MAX) (2% MIN; 2:1 MAX) 7.5' 5' 7.5' (3:1 MAX) (3:1 MAX) CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND (2% MIN; 2:1 MAX) 2' PROPERTY LINE SECTION C-C N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 2' (2:1 MAX) EXISTING PAD PROPERTY LINE SECTION D-D N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L EXISTING PAD PROPOSED WOOD RETAINING WALL PROPERTY LINE SECTION E-E N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 2' (2:1 MAX) CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND WOOD RETAINING WALL 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 ESTIMATED CUT: 23,000 c.y.

FILL: 65,000 c.y.NET: 42,000 c.y. EARTHWORK SUMMARY PROPERTY LINE SECTION J-J N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 1' PROPOSED WOOD RETAINING WALL PROPOSED PAD VARIES 1'-2' VARIES 1'-1.5' ROCKERY RETANING WALL 1 CLASS III (REAR DRAINING LOTS) OPEN VIEW FENCE WOOD FENCE WOOD FENCE WOOD FENCE* WOOD FENCE *OPEN VIEW FENCE WHEN ADJACENT TO GOLF COURSE 1 CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND SWQ OUTFALL SWALE SECTION N-N N.T.S. 7.5' 5' 7.5' (3:1 MAX) (3:1 MAX) CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND (2% MIN; 2:1 MAX) 2' CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND (2% MIN; 2:1 MAX) 2' SWQ SWALE SECTION O-O N.T.S. 3' (3:1 MAX) (3:1 MAX) CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND 2' PROPOSED PAD P/L NOTE: SIDEYARD SLOPES ARE PERMITTED IN LIEU OF RETAINING WALL P=172.8 P=173.2 P=173.4 P=172.9 P=172.6 P=172.4 P=171.6 P=171.3 P=172.3 P=172.0 P=166.9 P=168.0 P=169.0 P=170.1 P=171.1 P=171.5 P=171.1 P=171.3 P=171.0 P=170.6 P=170.4 P=170.1 P=169.9 P=169.8 P=169.8 P=166.6 P=166.6 P=169.4 P=166.7P=170.6 P=170.1 P=169.9 P=169.7 P=169.3 P=174.5 P=174.1 P=174.6P=174.1 P=173.8P=173.0 P=173.3 P=172.1 P=171.2P=170.3 P=169.5 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 2:1 3:1 3:1 MAX 3:1
130' N MAPS 69 SIERRA TOWNHOMES UNIT NO. 1 N MAPS 69 SIERRA TOWNHOMES UNIT NO. 1 N29°44'38"W 80.88'
R=215.0 ' Δ=24°29'24" L=91.90'
N60°48'47"W 159.67'
N08°14'44"W 82.76' R=427.00' Δ=7°29'25" L=55.82' N89°16'52"E 251.89' N35°45'58"E 52.56' R=187.00' Δ=25°52'24" L=84.44'
R=187.00' Δ=68°34'43" L=223.82' N07°33'48"W 22.00' N82°25'52"E 80.24' N78°49'33"W 22.97' N11°10'27"E 7.80' N82°25'52"E 9.51' N73°51'08"W 17.69' R=112.00' Δ=30°04'13" L=58.78' N76°04'39"E 31.60' N67°11'08"W 130.00'
N17°50'29"E 530.26'
N01°50'04"W 2222.53'
M MAPS 87

WALTON ESTATES
M MAPS 87

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

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

DRAINAGE
EASEMENT FL=159.7
PROPOSED 15'

ELECTRICAL &

DRAINAGE

EASEMENT
EXISTING 10'

DRAINAGE
EASEMENT 24' E.V.A. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 3738 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 4950 5152 5354 55 5657 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Bandon Dunes Court
Torrey Pines Drive
Bethpage
Court
Pines
Torrey LOT I 7307± sq. ft. LOT C 0.41± ac. LOT D 9100± sq. ft. 95'
85'
85'
85'
85'
85'
94'
88'
54'
54'
85'
83'
136' 25' 51'
85'
11'
109'
162'
119'
95' 90' 93' 94' 94' 92' 90' 103' 130' 101' 88' 91' 91'
47' 68'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
58'
130'
41'
5'
102'
98'
65' 70' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 66' 75' 65' 65' 65' 65' 73' 83' 95' 60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
48'
27' 10'
42'
10'
52'
126'
110'
87'
72'
51'
15'
64'
80'
74'
113'
78'
81'
15'
59'
178'
105'
56'
56'
56'
56' 65' 65' 65' 65' 75' 67'
65' 66'
61' 60'
60'
81'
60'
57'
58'
67'
78'
149'
111' 65' 60' 77'
88'
71'
78'
83'
5 6'
4'
106'
95' 85' 85' 85'
50'
60' 65' 62'
70' 66' 50'
R=49' R=39'
R=43'
R=45'
R=215'
R=200' R=22'
R=3000'
R=235'
R=240' R=22'
R=230' R=49' R=45' R=43'
R=39'
R=30' R=55'
R=51'
79'
R=2
2' R=26'
113' 55'
123' 28' 55'
116'
119'
101'
111' 40' 14'
46'
60'
98'
57'
9'
24'
55' 93' 134' 24'
5'
R=2 5'
R=22' R
=
26'
LOT J
5036± sq. ft. LOT D 497± sq. ft.

R=41'
R=45' EASEMENT N61°38'21"E 30.18' N28°59'05"W 26.00'
Court 12.5' P.U.E. PER 2583 O.R. 158 2' MAXIMUM HEIGHT RETAINING WALL 54'
58'
70'
74'
60'
47'
90'
85'
87'
83'
92'
29'
5'
75' PROPOSED RIGHT OF ENTRY EASEMENTLOT K 1,201± sq.ft. 5' MAXIMUM HEIGHT RETAINING WALL 4' MAXIMUM HEIGHT RETAINING WALL Sheet 3 of 3 Roseville, CA August 3, 2021 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP SIERRA VIEW N CONCEPTUAL GRADING, DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES PROPERTY LINE SECTION F-F N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 2' (2:1 MAX) CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND PROPERTY LINE SECTION G-G N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L PROPOSED MASONRY RETAINING WALL VARIES 1'-9' EXISTING PAD PROPERTY LINE SECTION H-H N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L PROPOSED MASONRY RETAINING WALL VARIES 1'-4' EXISTING GROUND PROPERTY LINE SECTION I-I N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L PROPOSED ROCKERY RETAINING WALL 9' MAX(2:1 MAX) PROPOSED BASIN PROPERTY LINE SECTION C-C N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 2' (2:1 MAX) EXISTING PAD1. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. 2. UTILITIES MAY BE PHASED DEPENDING UPON THE DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE OF THE PROJECT, SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE. 3. THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF PROPOSED WATER, RECYCLED WATER, SEWER, AND STORM DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE DURING FINAL DESIGN, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE WITH IMPROVEMENT PLANS. 4. ANY OFFSITE GRADING SHALL REQUIRE RIGHT OF ENTRY FROM ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. IF A RIGHT OF ENTRY CANNOT BE OBTAINED, RETAINING WALLS ALONG PROPERTY LINES ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN HEREON. 5. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL LOTS ARE TO HAVE CLASS 1 LOT DRAINAGE AS SUCH, 2% SWALES, YARD DRAINS,AND UNDERGROUND PIPE SYSTEMS WITH BUBBLE UPS SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN LIEU OF 1% MINIMUM SWALES. AN OVERLAND RELEASE TO THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE FINISHED LOT GRADING DESIGN TO PRECLUDE ANY PONDING AGAINST FUTURE BUILDING FOUNDATION. POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE BUILDING AT A SLOPE OF 5% MINIMUM SHALL BE PROVIDED, CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 2304.11 OF THE CALIFORNIA BLDG CODE. UTILITY NOTES PROPERTY LINE SECTION J-J N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 1' PROPOSED WOOD RETAINING WALL PROPOSED PAD VARIES 1'-1.5' PROPERTY LINE SECTION E-E N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 2' (2:1 MAX) CONFORM TO EXISTING GROUND PROPERTY LINE SECTION K-K N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L 1' PROPOSED WOOD RETAINING WALL EXISTING PAD VARIES 1'-2.5' DESCRIPTION SANITARY SEWER PIPE PROPOSED EXISTING LEGEND SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE WATER LINE GATE VALVE FIRE HYDRANT BLOW-OFF VALVE STORM DRAIN MANHOLE DROP INLET PAD GRADE STORM DRAIN PIPE OVERLAND RELEASE FOR DRAINAGE P=XXX.X RECYCLED WATER LINE STORMWATER FACILITY P=XXX.X MASONRY RETAINING WALL WOOD RETAINING WALL ROCKERY RETANING WALL 1 CLASS III (REAR DRAINING LOTS) PROPERTY LINE SECTION L-L N.T.S. PROPOSED PAD P/L PROPOSED MASONRY RETAINING WALL VARIES 1'-4.5' PROPOSED PAD 2' 9' MAX ESTIMATED CUT: 23,000 c.y.

FILL: 65,000 c.y.NET: 42,000 c.y. EARTHWORK SUMMARY PROPERTY LINE SECTION M-M N.T.S. EXISTING GROUND P/L PROPOSED MASONRY RETAINING WALL PROPOSED PAD VARIES 2' MAX WOOD FENCE WOOD FENCE* *OPEN VIEW FENCE WHEN ADJACENT TO GOLF COURSE OPEN VIEW FENCE WOOD FENCE WOOD FENCE OPEN VIEW FENCE WOOD FENCE WOOD FENCE OPEN VIEW FENCE WOOD FENCE NOTE: SIDEYARD SLOPES ARE PERMITTED IN LIEU OF RETAINING WALL 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 August 3, 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
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/DS

21.32± AC
Designated
Remainder
Diamond Oaks Road
Shasta Street
35 P.M. 46
INFILL PARCEL #3
RS/DS 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 August 3, 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
California Tree and Landscape Consulting, Inc.
1243 High Street, Auburn, CA 95603 Office: 530.745.4680 Direct: 916.801.8059 June 18, 2020
Ryan O'Keefe
WP Sierra View, LLC
1420 Rocky Ridge Drive, Suite 265
Roseville, California 95661
Phone: (916) 774-3400
Via Email: [email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 1
Tree Species Trees on
this Site
Protected Trees
on the Site
Proposed for
Removal
Total Proposed
for Retention
Blue Oak 300 300 9 291
Coast Live Oak 10 10 1 9
Interior Live Oak 13 13 0 13
MND ATTACHMENT 2
WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 2 of 39
Tree Species Trees on
this Site
Protected Trees
on the Site
Proposed for
Removal
Total Proposed
for Retention
Valley Oak 1 1 0 1
TOTAL 324 324 10 314

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report Prepared by:

Edwin E. Stirtz, Consulting Arborist
International Society of Arboriculture
Certified Arborist WE-0510A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists
Enc.: Appendix 1 – Map of The Property Showing Tree Locations Appendix 2 – Tree Information Collected
Appendix 3 – General Practices for Tree Protection
WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 6 of 39
APPENDIX 1 – MAP OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING TREE LOCATIONS WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Appendix 1 - Map of the Property showing tree locations W-
'' b- California Tree &
Landscape Consulting, Inc.
z?.' TLC
•3 TREE PROTECTION GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
3 fe£
L
'MS 6576
... . - ®r
|g|
6658<
^04 A
V
IB If .

Y.
•P
£' 4:
:’:6
Ms'
(U; 67 67f
’SET
'. '
•4't
TREE PROTECTION '1KSMSSS?.SK
3 Rap /
TREE INVENTORY EXHIBIT Sierra Vista County Club
o
Sheet No.

TPP 1.0 5 Excellent Date: 6/15/2020
Consulting Arborists Page 6 of 39
6§i
I
!
360 Diamond Oaks Road Roseville, Placer County, CA
Mr
1243 High Street Auburn, CA 95603
&- O'.
- 6807' o
z
6521
-Vi
A'
TIC
5W
589 659^3^9. MM
i
jjii' in Appwsdix 2 in tire
c 'diblme' is not a-.

W";' . •; ~
- EXAfc. ss.5?.r
a
I Property Line
I Measured Tree Canopy
Arborist Rating
1 Extreme Structure or Health Problems O 2 MajorStructure or Health Problems Q 3 Fair - Minor Problems O 4 Good - No Apparent Problems I
s
I Li i
l
I
8 i
Ml
/"
- - it /
' ' ' !'*' '
jMlr'
_ J
' csS
iwT
Par, ,
f* ' W' MJT
c
A a
-a™-
> , w
f
'£.M.
- ’’-Ji?*
« /(
w
Ma
6584
' • :
.MM
i' , .«
i if
>Tree locations are approximate and were
collected using ISO apple products.
>Property line information was downloaded
from Placer County on 06/15/2020. >Development plans dated 10/19/2019. z
' : aM'MM *"’
t’” i
.;J
B
' » - WW
4^
\ ' -A'
. r- ~
52^, ’ ^
6514 ' 6515
l^rxrP'O.IWIfh OV68®4 6803 J
«fe a ' •
HI
MT; M l r’M.
i’ -5 I -^3s4 it 1
.. 1 _. ..
< . 6808
6808Q.
.. , £
1 M-
'-W
‘ 6588^^2
t'
W /
. / • • -r ...
<7- • /' •
Bl . ga I
few$97 . , cot?
'7< : VMM
*8
'^uw •• s ’ .'
- - — ,
F 3 J:

M
.704^ '
' 7 * ' - 'I
L>v' aL' " ' 7;.'-’Tfjsi, ...' -
*4
i 7^0^13
L Theprojscta-bpristlorlhisproiectisCalitomiaTree&landscaMCo-suibnip The piimaiyiontatlinronnaUu iistJicoleHariba- (533(3054)165. TIiepiueclaiLuiislrriay ccntlnur tc provdc wpcrtBc o-d ma<c ::dltlon:l rcccmmcndjllon: during the projects and ixquiied nhen a li'ial lellei vt assessment is reuuiiedby the Jurisdiction.

2. The project a-barist should inspect the esdusionary root protection terci-g installed by rccommc-dcd :rjt:monK>n:s, Addr c-al,,the prcjcct arbenst ;ha I i-i^cs the specilied as the 'canopy radius’ inAppendix 2 in the arbui isl repot unless o .lreiwise : pedfic d byth: orbrxet Note'drlplBc' is not an occcptablc lootla- tor installation of e pmjerr a-bnnsr should drecty supenr re any dearanre p-unm^ rnpatsrm. tiiraticn, placement of mulch and/or c-emi:al treatments. It clea-arce pruning is osers:: the cr.nbtg to be pcifomcd by a tontractdr who is an ISA certified Arborist. or other piece at grading equ pment.
ui parkings' al Lake place within the psulediu'icrij."bees un ur ulT lire sle. supervised by the p-oject'albansTand may be rec uired tb be pe-tormed by hand, by a hydraulic ut air spade, ci utiles method which will place pipes under heath the louts without domagc to the roots.

S. The root prule.tkxi rone for trees is specified as tire 'canopy radi a-tonst report jnleaotherwise spcdflco by th: artxrrist. note ‘ WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 7 of 39
APPENDIX 2 – TREE INFORMATION COLLECTED
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
1 Yes Coast
Live Oak
Quercus
agrifolia 17 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Growing in middle of drainage ditch. No tag.

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

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

Above average dead branches in lower canopy.

Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

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

Crown fair. Vigor fair.

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

Codominant at 5 feet with some inclusion.

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

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

Crown fair.

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

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

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

None at this time.

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

Average dead branches. Vigor fair. Density fair.

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

Density fair.

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

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

Riparian vegetation in dripline. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

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

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

Vigor fair. Density fair.

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

Blackberry and riparian vegetation in dripline.

Codominant at 4 feet some inclusion. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

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

Codominant at 36 inches. Vigor fair. Density fair.

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

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

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

None at this time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

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

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

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

One-sided leaning canopy southeast.

Codominant at 18 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.

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

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

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

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

Density fair.

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

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

Decay effects 70% of cambium and hardwood.

Codominant at 15 feet. Several branch failures.

Decay wounds at trunk. Vigor fair.

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

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

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

Density fair.

None at this time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Above average deadwood in lower canopy.

Vigor fair to poor. Density fair to poor.

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

One-sided leaning canopy northwest. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

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

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

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

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

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

Codominant at 36 inches with some inclusion.

Growing into canopy east. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Density fair to poor.

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

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

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

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

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

Suppressed north. One-sided canopy south.

Vigor fair. Density fair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Growing into canopy east. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vigor fair. Density fair.

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

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

Density fair to poor.

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

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

Density fair to poor.

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

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

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

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

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

Density fair to poor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Above average dead branches in lower canopy.

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

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

Density fair to poor.

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

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

None at this time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Density fair.

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

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

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

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

None at this time.

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

Density fair to poor.

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

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

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

Density fair to poor.

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

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

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

Codominant at 24 inches. Vigor fair to poor.

Density fair to poor.

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

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

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

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

Density fair to poor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Above average dead branches in lower canopy.

Vigor fair. Density fair.

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

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

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

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

Vigor fair. Density fair.

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

Density fair.

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

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

Epicormic growth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vigor poor. Density poor.

None at this time.
6723 344 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 12 feet. Lower canopy
suppressed all sides. Vigor fair. Density fair to
poor.

None at this time.
6724 343 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 12,14 26 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at base with inclusion to stems
with weak attachment. Lower canopy
suppressed all sides. Above average dead
branches lower canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6725 342 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 10 2 Major Structure or Health Problems
Suppressed south. One-sided leaning canopy
northwest. Above average dead branches. Vigor
poor. Density poor.

None at this time.
6726 341 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 12 9
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Codominant at 12 inches to stems. Lower
canopy suppressed south and west. One-sided
leaning canopy north. Above average dead
branches.

None at this time.
6727 340 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 5,5 10 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at base to stems. Density fair. Vigor
fair. None at this time.
6728 156 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 9 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 5 feet. One-sided canopy south.

Vigor fair to poor. Density fair to poor. None at this time. 6729 353 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 6
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems None at this time.
6730 352 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 5,10 15 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at base 6 inches of inclusion. Vigor
fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6731 354 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 36 inches. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 25 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6732 373 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems Codominant at 6 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6733 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 2,3,5 10 54 7
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Codominant at base with weak attachments.

Suppressed north. Leaning canopy south. Vigor
fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6734 356 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 14 54 21 3 Fair - Minor Problems None at this time. 6735 357 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems Codominant at 12 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6736 358 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 15 12 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 12 inches to stems. Vigor fair.

Density fair. None at this time.
6737 359 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 6
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Suppressed south. One side leaning canopy
north. Codominant at 10 feet. None at this time.
6738 335 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 18 12 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 24 inches. Two stems. Vigor fair.

Density fair. None at this time.
6739 350 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 20 12 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 36 inches. Three stems. Vigor
fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6740 324 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 12 24 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 36 inches. Three stems. Canopy
to ground all sides. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6741 333 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Growing into canopy south. Codominant at 6
feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6742 334 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Growing into canopy north. Codominant at 4
feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6743 135 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 12 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 24 inches. Two stems. Above
average dead branches in lower canopy. Vigor
fair to poor. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6744 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 5 feet. Growing into canopies
east and west. Above average dead branches in
lower canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6745 337 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 10 feet. Above average dead
branches in lower canopy. Vigor fair to poor.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6746 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 4
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Suppressed east, north and west. Good
structure. Epicormic growth on trunk. Above
average dead branches. Vigor poor. Density
poor.

None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 26 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6747 355 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7,10 17 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at base to stems growing into
canopy west. Above average dead branches in
lower canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6748 351 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 17 12 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 24 inches. Two stems. Above
average dead branches in canopy. Vigor fair.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6749 360 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 36 36 21 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Codominant at 12 feet. Topped north side for
powerlines. 18-inch limb failure at 12 feet east
side with decay and wound. Vigor fair to poor.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6750 361 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 12 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 12 inches. Five stems. None at this time. 6751 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 3
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Good structure. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6752 362 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 16 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Vines throughout canopy up to 30 feet. Low
vertical lateral at 12 inches west. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

None at this time.
6753 364 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 7 feet. Growing into canopy
south and east. Above average dead branches
lower canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6754 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 12 16 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 24 inches to stems. Growing in
the canopy south and east average dead
branches. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6755 365 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 18 12 20 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 24 inches. Growing into canopy
east and west. Average dead branches in lower
canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6756 366 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 18 24 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems Codominant at 6 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6757 368 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 48 21 1 Extreme Structure or Health Problems Suppressed above. Trunk growing 6 inches
adjacent to trunk south. Bow in trunk at 4 feet
90° to the north. One-sided severe reaching
canopy north. Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of noted defects.
6758 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 7 54 18 2 Major Structure or Health Problems
Suppressed above. Trunk growing 18 inches
adjacent to trunk north. Severe leaning onesided canopy south. Vigor fair to poor. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 27 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6759 367 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 12 16 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Suppressed northwest. One-sided reaching
canopy southeast. Riparian vegetation under
canopy. Codominant at 24 inches. Two stems.

Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6760 369 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Blackberries up to 4 feet. Codominant at 9 feet.

Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6761 370 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 24 17 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Suppressed above. Growing 12 inches adjacent
to trunk. One-sided reaching canopy north.

Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6762 371 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 17 54 21 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Tag tied to low branch west side due to
blackberries. Codominant at 12 feet. None at this time. 6763 372 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 12 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at base with some inclusion. Two
stems. Riparian vegetation and blackberries
under canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6764 423 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 4 feet. Suppression northeast.

Leaning canopy southwest. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

None at this time.
6765 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 48 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 4 feet. Above average dead
branches lower canopy. Vigor fair. Density fair
to poor.

None at this time.
6766 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems Codominant at 12 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6767 Tag # Not Used
6768 416 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 7
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Tag tied to fence south. Codominant at 7 feet.

Topped for powerlines. Vigor fair. Density fair to
poor.

None at this time.
6769 414 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 6
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Codominant at 6 feet. Topped for powerlines.

Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6770 413 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 9
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Codominant at 10 feet. Topped for powerlines.

Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6771 433 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 27 54 24 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 7 feet. Growing into canopy east
and south. Canopy to ground west. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

None at this time.
6772 434 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 26 54 24 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 15 feet. Growing into canopies
south and northwest. East side can be pruned
for powerlines. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 28 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6773 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 5 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6774 435 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 27 54 24 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 15 feet. Growing into canopy
northeast. One-sided leaning canopy southwest.

Canopy to ground west. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6775 436 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 27 54 21 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 10 feet. Growing into canopy
west. Canopy to ground south and northwest.

Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6776 337 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 36 54 33 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Codominant at 12 feet. 18-inch limb failure
south at 8 feet with decay and wound. Average
deadwood in canopy. Vigor fair to poor. Density
fair to poor.

None at this time.
6777 439 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 36 54 33 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Codominant at 15 feet. Broken branch at 7 feet
southwest with decay and wound. 15-inch
lateral at 5 feet south broken and growing on
ground.

None at this time.
6778 438 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 28 54 21 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Codominant at 5 feet. 16-inch central leader
broken off with decay and wound. Powerlines
east side. Vigor poor. Density poor.

None at this time.
6779 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Growing adjacent to chain-link fence on east
side. In contact with barbed-wire at 6 feet.

Codominant at 6 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6780 Yes Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 25 54 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Off-site tree. Tag on post of chain-link fence 36
inches above the ground. Topped for
powerlines. Codominant at 9 feet. Canopy 12
feet into site. Vigor fair to poor. Density fair to
poor.

None at this time.
6781 464 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 24 54 21 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Tree pruned for powerlines. One-sided leaning
canopy east. Epicormic growth east side. None at this time. 6782 465 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 15 54 22 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Suppressed above east. Severe leaning onesided canopy west. Average dead branches.

Vigor fair. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6783 466 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 15 54 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Tree pruned east for powerlines. Epicormic
growth along trunk east side to 25 feet. Onesided leaning canopy west.None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 29 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6784 467 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 23 54 22 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Suppressed north. One-sided leaning canopy
south. Codominant at 8 feet. None at this time.
6785 469 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 34 54 21 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 6 feet. Growing into canopy
north and west. Vigor fair. Density fair. Canopy
growing to ground south and west.

None at this time.
6786 470 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 32 48 40 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 6 feet. Low 10-inch lateral at 6
feet growing to ground south. Average dead
branches. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6787 471 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 15 2 Major Structure or Health Problems
Codominant at 14 feet. Suppressed east. Onesided leaning canopy northwest. None at this time. 6788 472 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 32 54 24 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 18 feet. Canopy to ground
southwest and northeast. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

None at this time.
6789 473 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 23 54 21 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Suppressed east. One-sided leaning canopy
west. Codominant at 12 feet. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

None at this time.
6790 474 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Suppressed south. One-sided leaning canopy
north. None at this time.
6791 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 18 2 Major Structure or Health Problems
Suppressed east. One-sided leaning canopy
west.

None at this time.
6792 476 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems Codominant at 7 feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6793 477 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 54 16 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Suppressed east. One-sided leaning canopy
west. Above average dead branches. Large
Mulberry growing in understory. Vigor fair to
poor. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6794 478 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 10 feet. Large sprawling
Mulberry growing in understory. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

None at this time.
6795 479 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 4,6 10 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at base to stems. Vigor fair. Density
fair. None at this time.
6796 480 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 6,7 13 54 7
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Good structure Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6797 481 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Good structure. Suppressed south. One-sided
leaning canopy north. None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 30 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6798 482 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 12 36 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems Codominant at 36 inches. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6799 483 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 9
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at 15 feet. Above average dead
branches in lower canopy. Vigor fair to poor.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6800 494 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 11 12 9
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Codominant at 12 inches. Suppression north.

One-sided leaning canopy south. Vigor fair.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6801 486 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 13 54 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 6 feet. Growing into canopy
east. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6802 485 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 14 12 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 36 inches. Canopy to ground all
sides. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6803 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 24 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at 24 inches. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6804 487 Yes Coast
Live Oak
Quercus
agrifolia 13 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Growing in drainage ditch and surrounded by
blackberries. Tag on branch at east bank of
ditch. Codominant at 8 feet. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

None at this time.
6805 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 9
2 Major Structure or
Health Problems
Suppressed east. Growing on east bank of
drainage ditch. Codominant at 4 feet. One-sided
leaning canopy west.

None at this time.
6806 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 7 54 15 2 Major Structure or Health Problems
Suppressed east. Growing at base of chain-link
fence. One-sided leaning canopy west.

Codominant at 7 feet.

None at this time.
6807 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 2,4 6 54 4
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Codominant at base. Growing on east bank of
drainage ditch and surrounded by blackberries.

Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6808 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 2,2,3 7 54 4
3 Fair - Minor
Problems Codominant at base. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time. 6809 493 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 34 54 36 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 8 feet. Average dead branches in
lower canopy. Canopy overhangs Shasta Street
20 feet south. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6810 494 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 37 54 36 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Large wound cavity north side from base to 4
feet. Decay and wound. 40% of hardwood
decayed. Driving path in dripline all sides. Vigor
fair to poor. Density fair to poor.

None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 31 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6811 495 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 44 54 30 1 Extreme Structure or Health Problems Codominant at 36 inches. Old main leader
failure breakoff south side decay in wound.

Remaining two stems with included bark and
severe separation. Vigor fair. Density fair to
poor. Driving path under canopy south side.

Tree should be removed.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of noted defects.
6812 407 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 14,15 29 54 18 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 6 feet. Topped for powerlines.

Canopy on Diamond Oaks Road 5 feet. Growing
into canopy west.

None at this time.
6813 401 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Suppressed east. One-sided leaning canopy
west.

None at this time.
6814 403 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 54 5
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Growing into canopy west. Codominant at 5
feet. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6815 402 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 9,11 20 24 10 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Suppressed south. One-sided leaning canopy
north. Codominant at base to stems. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

None at this time.
6816 404 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 16 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Suppressed south. Growing into canopy south
and east. Good structure. One-sided leaning
canopy north. Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.
6817 405 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 5,10 15 54 15 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Codominant at base. Suppressed above. Onesided leaning canopy northwest. Vigor fair.

Density fair.

None at this time.
6818 411 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 17 54 12 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Codominant at 8 feet. Canopy to ground all
sides. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.
6819 412 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 10 54 15 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Suppressed east. Codominant at 7 feet. Onesided leaning canopy west. Above average dead branches lower canopy. Vigor fair to poor.

Density fair to poor.

None at this time.
6820 418 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 10 54 10 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Topped for powerlines. Codominant at 8 feet.

Vigor fair. Density fair to poor. None at this time.
6821 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 7 54 15 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Suppressed west. One-sided leaning canopy
east. Codominant at 20 feet. Vigor fair. Density
fair.

None at this time.
6822 408 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 11 54 18 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Codominant at 6 feet. Severe one-sided leaning
canopy east. Vigor fair. Density fair. None at this time.

WP Sierra View, LLC re: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 32 of 39
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName Species
MultiTrunks
(in.)
DBH
(in.)
Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
6823 409 Yes Interior
Live Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 10 54 15 2 Major Structure or Health Problems Severe leaning canopy east. Vigor fair. Density
fair. None at this time.
6824 Yes Blue Oak Quercus
douglasii 8 48 4
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Adjacent to fence growing on north side in
contact with barbed-wire. Codominant at 6 feet.

Vigor fair. Density fair.

None at this time.

TOTAL INVENTORIED TREES = 324 trees (4,955 aggregate diameter inches) TOTAL RECOMMENDED REMOVALS = 10 trees (256 aggregate diameter inches) TOTAL PROTECTED TREES = 324 Trees (4,955 aggregate diameter inches) WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 33 of 39
APPENDIX 3 – GENERAL PRACTICES FOR TREE PROTECTION
Definitions:

Root zone: The roots of trees grow fairly close to the surface of the soil, and spread out in a radial direction from the trunk of tree. A general rule of thumb is that they spread 2 to 3 times the radius of the canopy, or 1 to 1 ½ times the height of the tree. It is generally accepted that disturbance to root zones should be kept as far as possible from the trunk of a tree.

Inner Bark: The bark on large valley oaks and coast live oaks is quite thick, usually 1” to 2”. If the bark is knocked off a tree, the inner bark, or cambial region, is exposed or removed. The cambial zone is the area of tissue responsible for adding new layers to the tree each year, so by removing it, the tree can only grow new tissue from the edges of the wound. In addition, the wood of the tree is exposed to decay fungi, so the trunk present at the time of the injury becomes susceptible to decay. Tree protection measures require that no activities occur which can knock the bark off the trees.

Methods Used in Tree Protection:

No matter how detailed Tree Protection Measures are in the initial Arborist Report, they will not accomplish their stated purpose unless they are applied to individual trees and a Project Arborist is hired to oversee the construction. The Project Arborist should have the ability to enforce the Protection Measures. The Project Arborist should be hired as soon as possible to assist in design and to become familiar with the project. He must be able to read and understand the project drawings and interpret the specifications. He should also have the ability to cooperate with the contractor, incorporating the contractor’s ideas on how to accomplish the protection measures, wherever possible. It is advisable for the Project Arborist to be present at the Pre-Bid tour of the site, to answer questions the contractors may have about Tree Protection Measures. This also lets the contractors know how important tree preservation is to the developer.

Root Protection Zone (RPZ): Since in most construction projects it is not possible to protect the entire root zone of a tree, a Root Protection Zone is established for each tree to be preserved. The minimum Root Protection Zone is the area underneath the tree’s canopy (out to the dripline, or edge of the canopy), plus 10’.

The Project Arborist must approve work within the RPZ.

Irrigate, Fertilize, Mulch: Prior to grading on the site near any tree, the area within the Tree Protection fence should be fertilized with 4 pounds of nitrogen per 1000 square feet, and the fertilizer irrigated in. The irrigation should percolate at least 24 inches into the soil. This should be done no less than 2 weeks prior to grading or other root disturbing activities. After irrigating, cover the RPZ with at least 12” of leaf and twig mulch. Such mulch can be obtained from chipping or grinding the limbs of any trees removed on the site.

Acceptable mulches can be obtained from nurseries or other commercial sources. Fibrous or shredded redwood or cedar bark mulch shall not be used anywhere on site.

Fence: Fence around the Root Protection Zone and restrict activity therein to prevent soil compaction by vehicles, foot traffic or material storage. The fenced area shall be off limits to all construction equipment, unless there is express written notification provided by the Project Arborist, and impacts are discussed and mitigated prior to work commencing.

No storage or cleaning of equipment or materials, or parking of any equipment can take place within the fenced off area, known as the RPZ.

WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 34 of 39
The fence should be highly visible, and stout enough to keep vehicles and other equipment out. I recommend the fence be made of orange plastic protective fencing, kept in place by t-posts set no farther apart than 6’.

In areas of intense impact, a 6’ chain link fence is preferred.

In areas with many trees, the RPZ can be fenced as one unit, rather than separately for each tree.

Where tree trunks are within 3’ of the construction area, place 2” by 4” boards vertically against the tree trunks, even if fenced off. Hold the boards in place with wire. Do not nail them directly to the tree.

The purpose of the boards is to protect the trunk, should any equipment stray into the RPZ.

Elevate Foliage: Where indicated, remove lower foliage from a tree to prevent limb breakage by equipment.

Low foliage can usually be removed without harming the tree, unless more than 25% of the foliage is removed. Branches need to be removed at the anatomically correct location in order to prevent decay organisms from entering the trunk. For this reason, a contractor who is an ISA Certified Arborist should perform all pruning on protected trees.1
Expose and Cut Roots: Breaking roots with a backhoe, or crushing them with a grader, causes significant injury, which may subject the roots to decay. Ripping roots may cause them to splinter toward the base of the tree, creating much more injury than a clean cut would make. At any location where the root zone of a tree will be impacted by a trench or a cut (including a cut required for a fill and compaction), the roots shall be exposed with either a backhoe digging radially to the trunk, by hand digging, or by a hydraulic air spade, and then cut cleanly with a sharp instrument, such as chainsaw with a carbide chain. Once the roots are severed, the area behind the cut should be moistened and mulched. A root protection fence should also be erected to protect the remaining roots, if it is not already in place. Further grading or backhoe work required outside the established RPZ can then continue without further protection measures.

Protect Roots in Deeper Trenches: The location of utilities on the site can be very detrimental to trees. Design the project to use as few trenches as possible, and to keep them away from the major trees to be protected.

Wherever possible, in areas where trenches will be very deep, consider boring under the roots of the trees, rather than digging the trench through the roots. This technique can be quite useful for utility trenches and pipelines.

Protect Roots in Small Trenches: After all construction is complete on a site, it is not unusual for the landscape contractor to come in and sever a large number of “preserved” roots during the installation of irrigation systems. The Project Arborist must therefore approve the landscape and irrigation plans. The irrigation system needs to be designed so the main lines are located outside the root zone of major trees, and the secondary lines are either laid on the surface (drip systems), or carefully dug with a hydraulic or air spade, and the flexible pipe fed underneath the major roots.

Design the irrigation system so it can slowly apply water (no more than ¼” to ½” of water per hour) over a longer period of time. This allows deep soaking of root zones. The system also needs to accommodate infrequent irrigation settings of once or twice a month, rather than several times a week.

Monitoring Tree Health During and After Construction: The Project Arborist should visit the site at least twice a month during construction to be certain the tree protection measures are being followed, to monitor the health of impacted trees, and make recommendations as to irrigation or other needs. After construction is 1 International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), maintains a program of Certifying individuals. Each Certified Arborist has a number and must maintain continuing education credits to remain Certified.

WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 35 of 39
complete, the arborist should monitor the site monthly for one year and make recommendations for care where needed. If longer term monitoring is required, the arborist should report this to the developer and the planning agency overseeing the project.

Root Structure
The majority of a tree’s roots are contained in a radius from the main trunk outward approximately two to three times the canopy of the tree. These roots are located in the top 6” to 3’ of soil. It is a common misconception that a tree underground resembles the canopy (see Drawing A below). The correct root structure of a tree is in Drawing B. All plants’ roots need both water and air for survival. Surface roots are a common phenomenon with trees grown in compacted soil. Poor canopy development or canopy decline in mature trees is often the result of inadequate root space and/or soil compaction.

Drawing A
Common misconception of where tree roots are assumed to be located Drawing B
The reality of where roots are generally located
WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 36 of 39
Structural Issues
Limited space for canopy development produces poor structure in trees. The largest tree in a given area, which is ‘shading’ the other trees is considered Dominant. The ‘shaded’ trees are considered Suppressed. The following picture illustrates this point. Suppressed trees are more likely to become a potential hazard due to their poor structure.

Co-dominant leaders are another common structural problem in trees.

Photo from Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas by Nelda P. Matheny and James R. Clark, 1994 International Society of Arboriculture Dominant Tree
Growth is
upright
Canopy is
balanced by
limbs and
foliage equally
Suppressed Tree
Canopy weight all to
one side
Limbs and foliage
grow away from
dominant tree
The tree in this picture has a codominant leader at about 3’ and included bark up to 7 or 8’. Included
bark occurs when two or more limbs
have a narrow angle of attachment
resulting in bark between the stems –
instead of cell to cell structure. This is
considered a critical defect in trees
and is the cause of many failures.

Narrow Angle
Included Bark between the
arrows
WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Suppressed Tree
Dominant Tree
Co-dominant leaders are another common structural problem in trees. c
« 4
Narrow Angle
Consulting Arborists Page 36 of 39
Photo from Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas by Nelda P. Matheny and James R. Clark, 1994 International Society of Arboriculture Growth is
upright
Canopy is
balanced by
limbs and
foliage equally
Included Bark between the
arrows
The tree in this picture has a co
dominant leader at about 3’ and
included bark up to 7 or 8’. Included
bark occurs when two or more limbs
have a narrow angle of attachment
resulting in bark between the stems -
instead of cell to cell structure. This is
considered a critical defect in trees
and is the cause of many failures.

Limbs and foliage
grow away from
dominant tree
Canopy weight all to
one side
Structural Issues
Limited space for canopy development produces poor structure in trees. The largest tree in a given area, which is 'shading' the other trees is considered Dominant. The 'shaded' trees are considered Suppressed. The following picture illustrates this point. Suppressed trees are more likely to become a potential hazard due to their poor structure.
t1
u
A'
TLC
if
th-''

I Y , '
ty
IL
I
s&o
A -
tiraa
UJ:

A - '
' J
-
Figure 6. Codominant stems are inherently weak because the stems are of similar diameter.
.z F z, '
ri ' 1
WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 37 of 39
Pruning Mature Trees for Risk Reduction
There are few good reasons to prune mature trees. Removal of deadwood, directional pruning, removal of decayed or damaged wood, and end-weight reduction as a method of mitigation for structural faults are the only reasons a mature tree should be pruned. Live wood over 3” should not be pruned unless absolutely necessary. Pruning cuts should be clean and correctly placed. Pruning should be done in accordance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 standards. It is far better to use more small cuts than a few large cuts as small pruning wounds reduce risk while large wounds increase risk.

Pruning causes an open wound in the tree. Trees do not “heal” they compartmentalize. Any wound made today will always remain, but a healthy tree, in the absence of decay in the wound, will ‘cover it’ with callus tissue. Large, old pruning wounds with advanced decay are a likely failure point. Mature trees with large wounds are a high failure risk.

Overweight limbs are a common structural fault in suppressed trees. There are two remedial actions for overweight limbs (1) prune the limb to reduce the extension of the canopy, or (2) cable the limb to reduce movement. Cables do not hold weight they only stabilize the limb and require annual inspection.

Photo of another tree – not at this site.

Normal limb structure
Over weight, reaching
limb with main stem
diameter small
compared with amount
of foliage present
Photo of another tree – not at this site
WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 38 of 39
Lion’s – Tailing is the pruning practice of removal of “an excessive number of inner and/or lower lateral branches from parent branches. Lion’s tailing is not an acceptable pruning practice” ANSI A300 (part 1) 4.23. It increases the risk of failure.

Pruning – Cutting back trees changes their
natural structure, while leaving trees in their
natural form enhances longevity.

Arborist Classifications
There are different types of Arborists:

Tree Removal and/or Pruning Companies. These companies may be licensed by the State of California to do business, but they do not necessarily know anything about trees; Arborists. Arborist is a broad term. It is intended to mean someone with specialized knowledge of trees but is often used to imply knowledge that is not there.

ISA Certified Arborist: An International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist is someone who has been trained and tested to have specialized knowledge of trees. You can look up certified arborists at the International Society of Arboriculture website: isa-arbor.org.

Consulting Arborist: An American Society of Consulting Arborists Registered Consulting Arborist is someone who has been trained and tested to have specialized knowledge of trees and trained and tested to provide high quality reports and documentation. You can look up registered consulting arborists at the American Society of Consulting Arborists website: https://www.asca-consultants.org/ WP Sierra View, LLC: Sierra View Country Club, City of Roseville, CA June 18, 2020 Consulting Arborists Page 39 of 39
Decay in Trees
Decay (in General): Fungi cause all decay of living trees. Decay is considered a disease because cell walls are altered, wood strength is affected, and living sapwood cells may be killed. Fungi decay wood by secreting enzymes. Different types of fungi cause different types of decay through the secretion of different chemical enzymes. Some decays, such as white rot, cause less wood strength loss than others because they first attack the lignin (causes cell walls to thicken and reduces susceptibility to decay and pest damage) secondarily the cellulose (another structural component in a cell walls). Others, such as soft rot, attack the cellulose chain and cause substantial losses in wood strength even in the initial stages of decay. Brown rot causes wood to become brittle and fractures easily with tension. Identification of internal decay in a tree is difficult because visible evidence may not be present.

According to Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas (Matheny, 1994) decay is a critical factor in the stability of the tree. As decay progresses in the trunk, the stem becomes a hollow tube or cylinder rather than a solid rod. This change is not readily apparent to the casual observer. Trees require only a small amount of bark and wood to transport water, minerals and sugars.

Interior heartwood can be eliminated (or degraded) to a great degree without compromising the transport process. Therefore, trees can contain significant amounts of decay without showing decline symptoms in the crown.

Compartmentalization of decay in
trees is a biological process in which
the cellular tissue around wounds is
changed to inhibit fungal growth
and provide a barrier against the
spread of decay agents into
additional cells. The weakest of the barrier zones is the formation of the vertical wall. Accordingly, while a tree may be able to limit decay progression inward at large pruning cuts, in the event that there are more than one pruning cut located vertically along the main trunk of the tree, the likelihood of decay progression and the associated structural loss of integrity of the internal wood is high.

Oak Tree Impacts
Our native oak trees are easily damaged or killed by having the soil within the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) disturbed or compacted. All of the work initially performed around protected trees that will be saved should be done by people rather than by wheeled or track type tractors. Oaks are fragile giants that can take little change in soil grade, compaction, or warm season watering. Don’t be fooled into believing that warm season watering has no adverse effects on native oaks. Decline and eventual death can take as long as 5-20 years with poor care and inappropriate watering.

Oaks can live hundreds of years if treated properly during construction, as well as later with proper pruning, and the appropriate landscape/irrigation design.

California Tree and Landscape Consulting, Inc.
1243 High Street, Auburn, CA 95603 Office: 530.745.4086 Direct: 916.801.8059 April 27, 2021
Ryan O’Keefe
WP Sierra View, LLC
1420 Rocky Ridge Drive, Suite 265
Roseville, CA 95661
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Sierra View Golf Club Verification of Tree Failure #6517 Ryan,
I am writing to provide confirmation of a recent tree failure at the Sierra View Golf Club surplus property. The tree is located within the proposed development area of the property located at 360 Diamond Oaks Road, Roseville, California.

Unfortunately, the tree suffered a catastrophic failure of the lower trunk approximately 10’ above grade and is a total loss. The remaining debris should be cleaned up and the lower trunk and stump removed.

The attached pictures depict the failure. The tree should be removed from any mitigation calculations associated with the development of the property.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Edwin E. Stirtz, Consulting Arborist
International Society of Arboriculture
Certified Arborist WE-0510A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists
Enc: Photographs
Westpark Communities: Sierra View Golf Club Verification of Tree Failure #6517 April 27, 2021 Consulting Arborists Page 2 of 2
Photographs
Westpark Communities: Sierra View Golf Club Verification of Tree Failure #6517 April 27, 2021 Photographs
k i 4
f.
1",
.*
?*>,*?*
Consulting Arborists Page 2 of 2
WK
t; 1
11 jk, i
..3P
v_.
gillSw
J
Sfc i
K> € ,
J
gs$
*4
pSusuidaDSneinE^R
%fc
Bw
W
I <V-
;wl
sS|
3£h ‘W
IIr- a- . . ?^;
fii
niiili
'Or '
IB.
yRr
fin’ll
oo
sw^wi
1^;-
%%isr
>~r Vi
- ~ * x^'Sr’r
., ,k''-'A:.™? >‘-W
w>- ' • •/' . • -s
' - *f4..'(’. i.;-
w.fci
y
. M
Sliiai®'*®
.kis^Oi Qlljife
IWwIte^wWBNm-tife ?a<
V > ~r' -7 ' .
r ***3S
apyy v»
>. . 1 --7^
fe’ AfewA®Sjg
HE
7^7
2:1 2:1 3:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 3:1 3:1 2:1 2:1 3:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 3:1 3:1 2:1 3:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 3:1 2:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 MAX 3:1 6673 6519 6521 6524 6525 6527 6526 6750 6751 6803 6805 6514 6513 6516 67966795 6786 6773 6779 6551 6552 6550 6554 6589 65886585 6584 6583 65876586 6523 6541 6537 6565 6578 6581 6580 6607 6606 6604 6603 6572 6576 6577 6811 6810 6809 6501 6503 6506 6507 6808 6807 6512 6515 6518 6553 6776 6777 6608 6505 6797 6800 6801 6542 654365456546 6536 6540 6528 65336532 65316534 6529 6530 6547 6549 6785 6782 6785 6560 6559 6562 6561 6563 6557 6558 6556 6555 6597 6598 659966006601 6602 6590 65926591 6569 6571 6570 6568 6566 6574 6573 6772 6812 6813 68156814 6816 6817 68216822 6823 6818 6819 6768 6769 6770 6820 6763 6628 6749 6824 6752 6642 661866226617 6757 6756 6755 6759 6754 6641 6641 6765 67606761 6762 6632 6634 6630 6623 6624 6626 6627 66106609 6611 6612 6625 6616 6615 6614 6613 6619 6620 6672 6671 6670 6669 6668 6674 6679 6675 6676 6677 6678 6680 6681 6684 6685 6691 6686 6682 6683 6688 6687 6689 6690 6692 6693 6694 6695 6696 67036702 6701 6666 6665 6664 6663 6662 6661 6660 6659 6740 67076708 6706 6705 6709 6711 6710 6712 6713 6738 6715 6714 6745 67166746 6726 6727 6725 6724 6723 6722 6728 6721 67296730 6731 6747 6658 6720 6719 6718 6717 6739 6737 6736 6646 6645 6735 6734 6732 6733 6657 66566654 6655 6647 6648 66506653 6651 6652 6605 6511 6510 6509 6508 6504 6502 6804 6806 6520 6522 6535 6539 6538 6544 6548 6787 6789 6788 6790 6791 6792 6793 6794 6798 6799 6802 6595 6594 65966593 6567 6579 6778 6775 6771 6774 6742 6741 6704 6758 6635 6637 424 6697 6698 6699 6700 6743 6744 6748 6753 66396638 6621 6644 6649 6575 6564 6783 6629 6633 6631 6636 6764 6766 6781 6784 Sheet 1 of 1 Roseville, CA August 3, 2021 SIERRA VIEW N ATTACHMENT A TREE PERMIT TREE # EXISTING OAK TREE - TO REMAIN TREE REMOVAL INFORMATION TREE # PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL TREE # ARBORIST RECOMMENDED REMOVAL TREE # EXISTING OAK TREE TO REMAIN (IMPACTED) MND ATTACHMENT 3
Special-Status Plant
Survey Report
SVLC 23 Property
Placer County, California
August 2020
MND ATTACHMENT 4
Prepared for:

SVLC 23, LLC
c/o Sierra View Land Company
105 Alta Vista Drive
Roseville, CA 95678
Recommended Citation:

Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC (Madrone). 2020. Draft Special-Status Plant Survey Report for SVLC 23 Property. Prepared for SVLC 23, LLC. Published on 18 August 2020.

Special-Status Plant Survey Report
SLVC 23 Property August 2020
CONTENTS Special-Status Plant Survey Report
SLVC 23 Property

1.0 INTRODUCTION______________________________________________________________________________1

2.0 METHODOLOGY _____________________________________________________________________________1

3.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS AND HABITAT _______________________________________________2

3.1 Terrestrial Vegetation Communities ..........................................................................................................................3

3.1.1 Non-Native Annual Grasslands .................................................................................................................................3

3.1.2 Oak Woodland .................................................................................................................................................................3

3.2 Aquatic Resources................................................................................................................................................................3

3.2.1 Seasonal Wetlands..........................................................................................................................................................3

3.2.2 Seasonal Wetland Swale...............................................................................................................................................3

3.2.3 Vernal Pools.......................................................................................................................................................................4

3.2.4 Drainage Ditch .................................................................................................................................................................4

3.2.5 Intermittent Drainage....................................................................................................................................................4

3.3 Soils..............................................................................................................................................................................................4

4.0 SURVEY RESULTS ____________________________________________________________________________5

4.1 Big-Scale Balsamroot .........................................................................................................................................................5

4.2 Dwarf Downingia..................................................................................................................................................................5

4.3 Boggs Lake Hedge-hyssop ..............................................................................................................................................5

4.4 Ahart’s Dwarf Rush..............................................................................................................................................................5

4.5 Red Bluff Dwarf Rush.........................................................................................................................................................6

4.6 Legenere....................................................................................................................................................................................6

4.7 Pincushion Navarretia........................................................................................................................................................6

4.8 Sacramento Orcutt Grass..................................................................................................................................................7

4.9 Sanford’s Arrowhead..........................................................................................................................................................7

5.0 CONCLUSION ________________________________________________________________________________7

6.0 REFERENCES__________________________________________________________________________________7 Figures:

Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. CNDDB Plant Occurences
Figure 3. Aquatic Resources
Figure 4. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soils
Attachments:

Attachment A: Botanist Qualifications
Attachment B: Target Plant Species Reference Population Information Attachment C: Plant Species Observed within the SVLC 23 Study Area Special-Status Plant Survey Report Page 1
SLVC 23 Property August 2020

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a special-status plant survey conducted for the approximately 23-acre SVLC 23 Property (Study Area). The Study Area is located north of Shasta Street and south of Diamond Oaks Road, just east of the Sierra View Country Club in the City of Roseville, Placer County, California. The Study Area falls within Section 26, 34, and 35, Township 11 North, Range 6 East (MDB&M) of the “Roseville, California” 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Quadrangle (USGS 2018) (Figure 1).

2.0 METHODOLOGY
Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC (Madrone) Senior Biologist Bonnie Peterson conducted special-status plant surveys of the Study Area on 15 and 16 April and 15 and 20 May 2020 in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants (USFWS 1996), California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009), and the CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines (CNPS 2001).

A list of special-status plant species with potential to occur within the Study Area was developed by reviewing the following literature, and then refining the list based on habitats present within the Study Area:
▪ California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory (CNPS 2020) query of CRPR Lists 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B within the “Roseville, California” USGS topo quadrangle, and the eight surrounding quadrangles; and
▪ the California Natural Diversity Database occurrences of special-status plant species within 5 miles of the Study Area (CNDDB 2020) (Figure 2).

The target species for this survey were:
▪ Big-scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis)
▪ Dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla)
▪ Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala)
▪ Ahart's dwarf rush (Juncus leiospermus var. ahartii)
▪ Red Bluff dwarf rush (Juncus leiospermus var. leiospermus) ▪ Legenere (Legenere limosa)
▪ pincushion navarretia (Navarretia myersii ssp. myersii) ▪ Sacramento Orcutt grass (Orcuttia viscida)
▪ Sanford’s arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii)
The Study Area does not contain suitable habitat for Hispid bird's-beak (Chloropyron molle ssp. hispidum).

Meandering pedestrian surveys were conducted throughout all portions of the Study Area, and focused surveys were conducted in suitable habitats for each species. The surveys were floristic in nature, which Special-Status Plant Survey Report Page 2
SLVC 23 Property August 2020
means that all plant species observed on-site were identified to the taxonomic level necessary to determine rarity. Thus, if a special-status plant was present but not on the target list, it would have been detected and documented. Plant taxonomy was based on the nomenclature in the Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2020). Vegetation communities were classified according to the Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). Qualifications for the botanist that conducted the surveys are included in Attachment A, a list of reference populations of target plants visited is included in Attachment B, and a comprehensive list of all plant species observed during surveys of the Study Area is included in Attachment C.

3.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS AND HABITAT
The Study Area is primarily non-native annual grassland interspersed with oak woodlands, drainages, riparian and seasonal wetlands. The Study Area is bounded on the north by Diamond Oak Road and to the south by Shasta Street. The abutting area east of the Study Area is a residential development, and to the west is a community of townhomes and the Sierra View Country Club and Golf Course.

The Study Area ranges from approximately 160-175 feet above mean seal level (AMSL), with rolling terrain sloping towards the north and south. A transmission line corridor is located within the northern portion of the Study Area, and another bisects the center of the Study Area. An unnamed intermittent tributary to South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek flows to the northwest through the Study Area (SFEI 2020), and a drainage ditch from south to north towards the intermittent tributary.

The Study Area includes a central drainage ditch that flows from south to north through the site into an intermittent tributary to South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek in the northern portion of the site. The intermittent tributary flows from east to west through the Study Area. In addition, there are a number of seasonal wetland and vernal pool features scattered throughout. The Study Area is located in the Upper Coon-Upper Auburn Watershed (HUC 18020161) (USGS 2020). Mean annual precipitation for the Study Area is approximately 20.27 inches per year, and the site received approximately 55% of average rainfall in the 2019-2020 water year (NOAA 2020)
The principal vegetation community within the Study Area is non-native annual grassland. This vegetation community is fairly sparse in the southern portion of the site, with a mix of non-native annual grasses including soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut brome (B. diandrus), perennial ryegrass (Festuca perennis), medusahead grass (Elymus caput-medusa), and wild oats (Avena fatua), and forbs such as Spanish lotus (Acmispon americanus var. americanus), Fitch’s spikeweed (Centromadia fitchii), blue dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum), filaree (Erodium botrys), miniature lupine (Lupines bicolor), hairy hawkbit (Leontodon saxatilis), vetch (Vicia spp.), and English plantain (Plantago lanceolata). In the northern portion of the site, the annual grasslands are much denser in vegetation with a higher percentage of grass species and fewer forbs.

Interspersed throughout the grassland are a number of mature oaks, primarily blue oaks (Quercus douglasii), with scattered Valley oak (Quercus lobata) and live oak (Quercus wislizeni). A number of native and nonnative trees are located along a drainage ditch and intermittent tributary including Chinese tallowtree Special-Status Plant Survey Report Page 3
SLVC 23 Property August 2020
(Triadica sebifera), southern catalpa (Catalpa bignonioides), honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), and willows (Salix spp.).

3.1 Terrestrial Plant Communities

3.1.1 Non-Native Annual Grasslands
The principal vegetation community within the Study Area is non-native annual grassland. This vegetation community is fairly sparse in the southern portion of the site, with a mix of non-native annual grasses including soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut brome (B. diandrus), perennial ryegrass (Festuca perennis), medusahead grass (Elymus caput-medusa), and wild oats (Avena fatua), and forbs such as Spanish lotus (Acmispon americanus var. americanus), Fitch’s spikeweed (Centromadia fitchii), blue dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum), filaree (Erodium botrys), miniature lupine (Lupines bicolor), hairy hawkbit (Leontodon saxatilis), vetch (Vicia spp.), and English plantain (Plantago lanceolata). In the northern portion of the site, the annual grasslands are much denser in vegetation with a higher percentage of grass species and fewer forbs.

3.1.2 Oak Woodland
Interspersed throughout the grassland are a number of mature oaks, primarily blue oaks (Quercus douglasii), with scattered Valley oak (Quercus lobata) and live oak (Quercus wislizeni). These oak woodlands are dominated by interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii), blue oak (Q. douglasii), and Valley oak (Q. lobata).

Common shrubs in the riparian understory of the intermittent tributary include Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), wild rose (Rosa californica), and narrow-leaf willow (Salix exigua).). Where present, the herbaceous understory is largely similar to the non-native annual grassland described above.

3.2 Aquatic Resources
The following aquatic resources are present on site as shown on Figure 3.

3.2.1 Seasonal Wetlands
The Study Area contains 11 seasonal wetlands concentrated along the southern and northern boundaries.

Seasonal wetlands are shallow ephemeral wetlands area characterized by seasonal ponding, Seasonal wetlands within the Study Area are typically dominated by opportunistic facultative wet to facultative grasses and forbs such as Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum), Italian ryegrass, rabbitfoot grass (Polypogon monspellensis), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum hyssopifolium), and curly dock (Rumex crispus).

3.2.2 Seasonal Wetland Swale
The seasonal wetland swale (SWS-1) within the study area flows from south the north and is dominated entirely by Italian ryegrass. This feature lacks evidence of flow or an ordinary highwater mark and did not Special-Status Plant Survey Report Page 4
SLVC 23 Property August 2020
contain water during the 2019-2020 rainy season, but was saturated at the surface during the April survey.

The seasonal wetland swale is connected to the intermittent tributary.

3.2.3 Vernal Pools
The Study Area contains three vernal pools towards the center of the property. Vernal pools are shallow ephemeral wetlands characterized by seasonal ponding, and hydrologically similar to seasonal wetlands; however, vernal pools are typically underlain by an imperious substrate resulting in unique flora. The vernal pools in the Study Area were given this designation based on a dominance of vernal pool plant species, including slender pool popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys stipitatus var. micranthus), dwarf woolyheads (Psilocarphus brevissimus var. brevissimus), great valley coyote-thistle (Eryngium castrense), creeping spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya) and annual hairgrass (Deschampsia danthonioides) and a lower overall vegetative cover.

3.2.4 Drainage Ditch
An earthen drainage ditch conveys irrigation run-off from developments south and east of the Study Area, north to the intermittent drainage. This feature is characterized by steep slopes, and is well vegetated with dense wetland obligates including water plantain (Alisma lanceolatum), broad-leaved cattail (Triadica sebifera), dotted smartweed (Persicaria punctata) and tall nutsedge (Cyperus eragrostis) with scattered native and non-native trees including Chinese catalpa, chinese tallow, willows, and Callery pear (Pyrus calleryan).

3.2.5 Intermittent Drainage
An intermittent drainage and adjacent riparian wetland are located in the northern portion of the Study Area. This drainage flows from east to west through the Study Area and the two segments connected via a culvert under a dirt maintenance road. The City of Roseville storm drainage system outfalls into the northern portion of IDR-2 in the northeast corner of the Study Area south of Diamond Oaks Road. Portions of this intermittent drainage lack an ordinary high water mark, or clear drainage patterns, and is characterized as riparian wetland with a mix of Santa Barbara sedge (Carex Barbara), dallisgrass (Paspalum dilitatum), dotted smartweed, tall nutsedge, Italian rygrass, dense Himalayan blackberry thickets, wild rose, and willows.

3.3 Soils
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Database (NRCS 2020), two soil mapping units occurs within the Study Area (Figure 4): (141) Cometa-Fiddyment complex, 1 to 5% slopes and (142) Cometa-Ramona sandy loams, 1 to 5% slopes. While neither of these soil types are considered hydric, they contain minor hydric components in Alamo depressions and xerofluvent drainageways. Neither of these soil map units have been identified as containing special soils, such as serpentine or saline-alkali inclusions.

Special-Status Plant Survey Report Page 5
SLVC 23 Property August 2020

4.0 SURVEY RESULTS

4.1 Big-Scale Balsamroot
Big-scale balsamroot is not federally or state listed, but it is classified as a CRPR List 1B.2 plant. It is a perennial herbaceous species that occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland and valley and foothill grasslands between 295 and 4,600 feet (CNPS 2020). Big-scale balsamroot blooms from March through June and may be found on serpentine soils, though it is known to grow on other soil types as well (CNPS 2020).

The non-native annual grasslands and oak woodlands throughout the Study Area provide suitable habitat for this species. This species was not observed during the 2020 special-status plant survey of the Study Area.

4.2 Dwarf Downingia
Dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla) is not federally or state listed, but it is classified as a CRPR List 2B.2 plant. Dwarf downingia grows in mesic valley and foothill grassland and in vernal pools between sea level and approximately 1,460 feet (CNPS 2020). This annual herb blooms from March to May (CNPS 2020).

Seasonal wetlands and vernal pools in the southwestern portion of the Study Area represent marginal habitat for this species. This species was not observed during the 2020 special-status plant survey of the Study Area.

4.3 Bogg’s Lake Hedge-Hyssop
Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala) is not federally listed, but it is a California endangered species and a CRPR List 1B.2 plant. Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop grows in vernal pools and around the perimeter of lakes and ponds between 30 and 7,800 feet (CNPS 2020). This small annual herb favors clay soils, and blooms from April to August (CNPS 2020).

Seasonal wetlands and vernal pools in the southwestern portion of the Study Area represents marginal habitat for this species. This species was not observed during the 2020 special-status plant survey of the Study Area.

4.4 Ahart’s Dwarf Rush
Ahart’s dwarf rush (Juncus leiospermus var. ahartii) is not federally or state listed, but it is classified as a CRPR List 1B.2 plant. Ahart’s dwarf rush grows along the edges of seasonal wet habitats such as vernal pools and swales within valley and foothill grasslands between elevations of approximately 100 feet and 750 feet (CNPS 2020). This annual herb blooms from March to May (CNPS 2020).

Special-Status Plant Survey Report Page 6
SLVC 23 Property August 2020
Seasonal wetlands and vernal pools within the Study Area represents marginally suitable habitat for this species. This species was not observed during the 2020 special-status plant survey of the Study Area.

4.5 Red Bluff Dwarf Rush
Red Bluff dwarf rush (Juncus leiospermus var. leiospermus) is not federally or state listed, but it is classified as a CRPR List 1B.2 plant. Red Bluff dwarf rush occurs in vernally mesic areas in chaparral, cismontane woodland, meadows, seeps, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools (CNPS 2002). This is an herbaceous annual that blooms from March through June and is known to occur at elevations ranging from 114 to 4001 feet above MSL (CNPS 2020).

Red Bluff dwarf rush is endemic to California; the current range of this species includes Butte, Placer, Shasta, and Tehama counties (CNPS 2020). However, one documented occurrence is located within the City of Roseville The population was mapped approximately 0.5 miles north of Scow Road Industrial Boulevard, Roseville and is presumed to be extant; however, according the notes on this occurrence “Witham considers this site to be erroneous” (CDFW 2020).

Seasonal wetlands and vernal pools within the Study Area represents marginally suitable habitat for this species. This species was not observed during the 2020 special-status plant survey of the Study Area.

4.6 Legenere
Legenere (Legenere limosa) is not federally or state listed, but it is classified as a CRPR List 1B.1 species. This annual herb is primarily associated with seasonal wetlands with a long hydroperiod, such as vernal pools and marsh and pond edges (CNPS 2020). Legenere occurs at elevations between sea level and 2,600 feet, and blooms from April to June (CNPS 2020).

Seasonal wetlands and vernal pools within the Study Area represents marginally suitable habitat for this species. This species was not observed during the 2020 special-status plant survey of the Study Area.

4.7 Pincushion Navarretia
Pincushion navarretia (Navarretia myersii ssp. myersii) is not federally or state listed, but it is classified as a CRPR List 1B.1 plant. This species is found in vernal pools and other mesic areas in annual grasslands on clay soils (CNPS 2020). Pincushion navarretia is found between approximately 65 and 1,100 feet and blooms in April and May (CNPS 2020).

Seasonal wetlands and vernal pools within the Study Area represent marginally suitable habitat for this species. This species was not observed during the 2020 special-status plant survey of the Study Area.

Special-Status Plant Survey Report Page 7
SLVC 23 Property August 2020

4.8 Sacramento Orcutt Grass
Sacramento Orcutt grass (Orcuttia viscida) is listed as endangered pursuant to both the federal and California Endangered Species Acts, and is classified as a CRPR List 1B.1 plant. Sacramento Orcutt grass is endemic to the southeastern Sacramento Valley (USFWS 2003), with all known occurrences restricted to Sacramento County. Sacramento Orcutt grass is an annual herb that occurs in vernal pools at elevations ranging from 100 to 330ft above sea level, and blooms from April through July (CNPS 2020).

Seasonal wetlands and vernal pools within the Study Area represents marginally suitable habitat for this species. This species was not observed during the 2020 special-status plant survey of the Study Area.

4.9 Sanford’s Arrowhead
Sanford’s arrowhead is not federally or state listed, but it is classified as a CRPR List 1B.2 plant. It generally occurs in shallow freshwater habitats associated with drainages, canals, and larger ditches that sustain inundation and/or slow moving water into early summer. This perennial rhizomatous species blooms from May to October, and occurs from sea level to approximately 2,000 feet (CNPS 2020).

The intermittent drainage and drainage ditch within the Study Area provide suitable habitat for this species.

This species was not observed during the 2020 special-status plant survey of the Study Area.

5.0 CONCLUSION
No special-status plant species were observed during the 2020 protocol-level special-status plant survey of the SCLV 23 Property.

6.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFG). 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. Dated November 24, 2009.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. CNPS botanical survey guidelines. Pages 38-40 in California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (D.P. Tibor, editor). Sixth edition. Special Publication No. 1, California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, 387 pp.

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 05 August 2020].

Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2020. Jepson eFlora, http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ [accessed May through August 2020]
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition.

California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 1300 pp.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture (NRCS). 2020. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.

Special-Status Plant Survey Report Page 8
SLVC 23 Property August 2020
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS). 2018. Roseville, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle. Geological Survey. Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. Sacramento, CA.

Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. CNDDB Plant Occurences
Figure 3. Aquatic Resources
Figure 4. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soils
34 35
27 26
01 02
22 23
25 36 33
28 12
03 11
24 21
06 10 07
Figure 1
Site and Vicinity
SLVC 23 Property
Roseville, Placer County, California
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
C:\Madrone\Sierra View Westpark - 19084\Maps\MXDs\MXDs_RarePlant\Figure_1_site_vicinity_SLVC23Property.mxd 8/5/2020, 2:10:22 PM Study Area Boundary (23 acres)
Source: United States Geologic Survey, 2018
"Roseville, California" 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle Sections 26, 34, and 35, Township 11 North, Range 6 East Longitude -121.283085, Latitude 38.764232
Sacramento
Lincoln
Site
§¨¦80
0 25,000 50,000
Feet
Site
Vicinity
£¤99
§¨¦5
±
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
UV65
UV65
1 6
3 3
5 5
7 4
7 7
2 3
3 3
3 2
Figure2
CaliforniaNaturalDiversityDatabase
OccurrencesofSpecial-Status
PlantSpecies
SLVC23Property
PlacerCounty,California
Source:CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife,August2020.

BasemapSource:NationalGeographicandESRI
C:\Madrone\Sierra View Westpark - 19084\Maps\MXDs\MXDs_RarePlant\Figure_2_CNDDB_plant_SLVC23Property.mxd 8/5/2020, 3:10:58 PM 5-MileRadiusofStudyArea
StudyAreaBoundary(23acres)
Special-StatusPlantSpecies
1-Big-ScaleBalsamroot
2-BoggsLakeHedge-Hyssop
3-DwarfDowningia
4-HispidSaltyBird's-Beak
5-Legenere
6-RedBluffDwarfRush
7-Sanford'sArrowhead
±

01.252.5
Miles
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
± 0 80 160
Feet
C:\Madrone\Sierra View Westpark - 19084\Maps\MXDs\MXDs_ARD\Figure_3_ARD_SierraViewWestpark.mxd 7/23/2020, 2:18:36 PM Aerial Base: City of Roseville, 22 April 2019 Shasta Street
Shasta Street
Diamond Oaks Road
Figure 3
Aquatic Resources
Sierra View Westpark
Roseville, Placer County, California
Walton Way
Study Area Boundary (23 acres)
/ Culvert
Aquatic Resources (2.047 acres)
Wetlands (0.871 acre)
Vernal Pool (0.648 acre)
Seasonal Wetland (0.199 acre)
Seasonal Wetland Swale (0.024 acre)
Other Waters (1.176 acres)
Drainage Ditch (0.223 acre)
Intermittent Drainage and Adjacent
Riparian Wetland (0.953 acre)
Graeagle
Court
Saint Andrews Drive
Spyglass Court
Spyglass
Hill
142
141
142
Figure
Natural Resources Conservation
Service Soils
Sierra View Westpark
Roseville, Placer County, California
0 150 300
Feet
C:\Madrone\Sierra View Westpark - 19084\Maps\MXDs\MXDs_ARD\Figure_2_NRCS_SierraViewWestpark.mxd 7/21/2020, 9:14:03 PM Study Area Boundary (23 acres)
Soil Map Units
141 - Cometa-Fiddyment complex, 1 to 5% slopes
142 - Cometa-Ramona sandy loams, 1 to 5% slopes
Soil Survey Source: USDA, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Placer County, California, Western Part Aerial Base: City of Roseville, 22 April 2019
±
Shasta Street
Diamond Oaks Road
Shasta Street
Walton Way
4 Attachments
Attachment A: Botanist Qualifications
Attachment B: Target Plant Species Reference Population Information Attachment C: Plant Species Observed within the SVLC23 Study Area Attachment A
Botanist Qualifications

POSITION
Senior Biologist

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
▪ 404 Permitting
▪ 401
Certifications
▪ 1602
Agreements

EDUCATION
▪ B.S.,
Conservation
Biology,
California State
University,
Sacramento,
2003

RELEVANT TRAINING
▪ Current
Treasure, SacShasta Chapter
of the Wildlife
Society
▪ CDFW Scientific
Collecting
Permit with
authorizations
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
& 9 (Permit SC9589)
▪ CDFW
Threatened &
Rare Plant

BONNIE PETERSON
Ms. Peterson is a biologist and wetland/water quality regulatory specialist with experience obtaining required permits for a broad range of projects throughout California. She has managed regulatory compliance and implemented permitting strategies for compliance with the federal Clean Water Act Sections 401, 402 and 404; the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act; the Dickey Water Pollution Act; Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations; California Fish and Game Code §1602; and state and federal Endangered Species Acts.

She conducts a range of activities to aid in planning and assure regulatory compliance in the field, including wetland delineations, environmental awareness training, and surveys and habitat assessments for valley elderberry longhorn beetle, burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, giant garter snake, listed vernal pool branchiopods, and other specialstatus species; riparian and oak tree monitoring; vernal pool floristic monitoring, and rare plant surveys. She has monitored constructed and reference wetlands, monitored conservation areas and mitigation banks, prepared annual reports; prepared Mitigation Monitoring Plans and Open Space Monitoring Plans; and conducted biological assessments.

Ms. Peterson is a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control meeting requirements of a QSP/QSD. She directs staff in the preparation of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans and acts as a liaison between developers, contractors, city and county representatives, and various regional water quality control boards.

SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Electra-Pine Grove SCADA Switches
Regulatory Specialist, Amador and Calaveras County, California Conducted site assessment and developed avoidance strategies for sensitive resources to allow work to occur without triggering a need for regulatory permits. Prepared BLM encroachment permit application. Conducted rare plant surveys and provided monitoring and environmental awareness training to construction crews.

Chuckwalla Valley State Prison, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Biologist, Riverside County, California
Acted as a Project Biologist, Ms. Peterson conducted rare plant surveys, habitat assessments, and ordinary high water mark assessments for the Chuckawalla Valley State Prison facility repairs and produced biological survey reports to support the CEQA Notice of Exemption.

BONNIE PETERSON Page 2
Collection
Permit
▪ CPESC, CPESC
Inc, Envirocert
International
(Cert# 6193)
▪ QSP/QSD
,CASQA &
California
Construction
General Permit
Training Team
(Cert# 00294)
▪ USFWS
Threatened &
Endangered
Species Permit
for federally
listed
Branchiopods
▪ Vernal Pool
Taxonomy,
CNPS Plant
Sciences
Training
Program
▪ Basic Wetland
Delineation
Course,
Wetland
Training
Institute
▪ California Rapid
Assessment
Method
(CRAM)
Level II Infill Correctional Facilities Projects at the Mule Creek State Prison Infill Site Biologist, Amador County, California
Ms. Peterson conducted wetland habitat assessments and prepared technical reports to support project planning and construction. She assisted with implementation of an environmental awareness program, and oversight of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan Implementation.

Los Cerros
Project Manager, City of Rocklin, California
As a regulatory specialist and project manager, Ms. Peterson prepared and/or coordinated the preparation of the wetland delineation, cultural resources study, arborist survey, and rare plant survey for the 144-acre residential development. She prepared the state and federal permitting strategy and assisted with the development of a project description for submittal to the City of Rocklin.

Markleeville Creek Restoration
Wetland and Revegetation Specialist, Alpine County, California Ms. Peterson was the lead wetland scientist and a re-vegetation designer for the Markleeville Creek floodplain restoration project, located at a former USDA Forest Service Guard Station in Alpine County, California. Relocation of the USFS facilities to another nearby upland location has provided an opportunity for ecological restoration, environmental education/interpretation, and public recreation and access improvements. Ms. Peterson conducted a wetland delineation, noxious weeds survey, supported visual renderings to depict future vegetation conditions, prepared revegetation plans, and is evaluating the potential environmental impacts for CEQA compliance and preparing permit applications.

Lakeview Farms 320-acre Mitigation Basin
Biologist, City of Lincoln, Placer County, California
Ms. Peterson prepared the Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Operations and Management Plan. The project included the development and entitlement of a dualuse basin; regional flood mitigation and restoration of 154 acres of wetland and pond habitat. She assisted within obtaining required environmental permits and provided preconstruction biological surveys and post-construction long term resource monitoring assistance. She conducted mitigation success monitoring in compliance with U.S. Army Corps approved Mitigation Monitoring Plan.

Bickford Ranch
Regulatory Specialist/Biologist, Placer County, California Ms. Peterson conducted riparian, vegetation, and hydrology monitoring for the onsite mitigation areas, conducted monitoring for VELB, conducted preserve monitoring, and provided management recommendations. She prepared annual monitoring reports for submittal to the USACE and CDFW as required by project permits.

Gill Ranch Mitigation Bank
Biologist, Sacramento County, California
Ms. Peterson conducted branchiopod surveys, and dip net monitoring of historic (i.e., naturally occurring) and constructed/restored mitigation vernal pools as mitigation for vernal pool fairy shrimp, California fairy shrimp, and tadpole shrimp. She also monitored mitigation pools for appropriate hydrology, a vegetative establishment, as required by BONNIE PETERSON Page 3
the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, reviewed associated reports, and delineated wetlands.

City of Roseville Open Space Monitoring
Biologist, Placer County, California
Ms. Peterson acted as the monitoring biologist for the City. She conducted surveys for federally listed Branchiopods over multiple years as a component of the perpetual monitoring of constructed and preserved vernal pools, as well as 5-year success criteria monitoring of constructed or restored wetlands for mitigation purposes for all of the City’s Open Space Preserves. She conducted annual vernal pool floristic assessments and ground nesting bird surveys, recorded residual dry matter data (RDM), and surveyed for factors such as invasive / nonnative plant species, hydrologic integrity, fencing integrity, condition of signage, and evidence of unauthorized use. She has written annual reports addressing the above issues and recommending necessary maintenance and management actions.

Laguna Creek Mitigation Bank
Biologist, Sacramento County, California
Ms. Peterson located and surveyed all associated native and elderberry mitigation plantings for survival rate, size class, and overall health. All elderberry shrubs were monitored for the presence of VELB, and additional stem count data was taken. She collected and organized the data for and prepared the annual monitoring report.

Silverado Oaks Urban Reserve
Biologist, Placer County, California
As a project biologist, Ms. Peterson supervised the collection of data and report preparation for success criteria monitoring for VELB and associated native plantings and oversaw the long-term monitoring of the Open Space Preserve area as required by the Operations and Management Plan for the site.

Attachment B
Target Plant Species Reference Population Information
SVLC 23 Property Page 1
Target Plant Species Reference Population Information
for the SVLC 23 Property
Special-Status Plant Survey
Plant Species
Location of
Reference
Population Date of Visit
Phenology of Reference
Population/ Distinctive
Characteristics
Downingia pusilla
Dwarf downingia
WestPark Open
Space Preserve
(VP_554)
20 May 2020 Four plants in bloom. This
population was also visited on 8 May
2020 and the pool was inundated at
that time.

Legenere limosa
Legenere
Private property in
South Sacramento
County
15 April 2020 Robust population of multiple plants
being monitored for future seed
collection. Wetland was inundated
and plants were submerged but
identifiable.

Sagittaria sanfordii
Sanford's arrowhead
Population north of
Tempo Community
Park in Citrus Heights
10 June 2020 three plants with emergent leaves.

Attachment C
Plant Species Observed within the
SVLC 23 Study Area
.

SVLC 23 Page 1
Plant Species Observed within the SVLC 23 Property Project Area 15 and 16 April and 15 and 20 May 2020
Family / Species Name Common name Native / Non-Native

AGAVACEAE
Chlorogalum angustifolium Narrowleaf soap plant Native
Chlorogalum pomeridianum var.
pomeridianum
Wavyleaf soap plant Native

APIACEAE
Eryngium castrense Great valley coyote-thistle Native
Torilis arvensis Tall sock-destroyer Naturalized

APOCYNACEAE
Asclepias fascicularis Narrow-leaf milkweed Native

ASTERACEAE
Achyrachaena mollis Blow wives Native
Carduus pycnocephalus subsp.
pycnocephalus
Italian thistle Naturalized
Centaurea solstitialis Yellow star-thistle Naturalized
Centromadia fitchii Fitch’s spikeweed Native
Erigeron canadensis Horseweed Native
Holocarpha virgata subsp. virgata Slender tarweed Native Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce Naturalized
Leontodon saxatilis subsp. saxatilis Hairy hawkbit Naturalized Micropus californicus Q-tips Native
Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum Pearly everlasting Naturalized Pseudognaphalium microcephalum Wright's cudweed Native
Psilocarphus brevissimus var. brevissimus Dwarf woollyheads Native Sonchus asper subsp. asper Prickly sow thistle Naturalized Tragopogon dubius Yellow salsify Naturalized

BIGNONIACEAE
Catalpa bignonioides Southern catalpa Naturalized

BORAGINACEAE
Plagiobothrys greenei Greene's spiny-nut popcornflower Native Plagiobothrys stipitatus var. micranthus Slender popcorn flower Native

CYPERACEAE
Carex barbarae Santa barbara sedge Native
Cyperus eragrostis Tall nutsedge Native
SVLC 23 Page 2
Plant Species Observed within the SVLC 23 Property Project Area 15 and 16 April and 15 and 20 May 2020
Family / Species Name Common name Native / Non-Native
Eleocharis macrostachya Creeping spikerush Native
Schoenoplectus acutus var. occidentalis Common tule Native

EUPHORBIACEAE
Triadica sebifera Chinese tallowtree Naturalized

FABACEAE
Acmispon americanus var. americanus Spanish lotus Native Gleditsia triacanthos Honey locust Naturalized
Trifolium glomeratum Clustered clover Naturalized
Trifolium hirtum Rose clover Naturalized
Trifolium subterraneum Subterranean clover Naturalized
Vicia sativa subsp. sativa Spring vetch Naturalized
Vicia villosa subsp. villosa Winter vetch Naturalized
Quercus douglasii Blue oak Native
Quercus lobata Valley oak Native
Quercus wislizeni var. wislizeni Interior live oak Native

GERANIACEAE
Erodium botrys Filaree Naturalized

HYPERICACEAE
Hypericum perforatum subsp. perforatum Klamathweed Naturalized

JUNCACEAE
Juncus bufonius Toad rush Native

LAMIACEAE
Pogogyne zizyphoroides Sacramento beardstyle Native

LILIACEAE
Calochortus luteus Yellow mariposa lily Native

LYTHRACEAE
Lythrum hyssopifolia Hyssop loosestrife Naturalized

ONAGRACEAE
Epilobium canum California fuchsia, zauschneria Native
Epilobium torreyi Torrey’s willow-herb Native
SVLC 23 Page 3
Plant Species Observed within the SVLC 23 Property Project Area 15 and 16 April and 15 and 20 May 2020
Family / Species Name Common name Native / Non-Native

OROBANCHACEAE
Castilleja campestris subsp. campestris Yellow owl’s clover Native

PHRYMACEAE
Mimulus guttatus Seep-spring monkeyflower Native

PLANTAGINACEAE
Callitriche marginata Winged water starwort Native
Gratiola ebracteata Bractless hedge-hyssop Native
Plantago erecta Dotseed plantain Native
Plantago lanceolata English plantain Naturalized

POACEAE
Aegilops triuncialis Barbed goat grass Naturalized
Agrostis stolonifera Creeping bent Naturalized
Avena fatua Wild oat Naturalized
Briza minor Annual quaking grass Naturalized
Bromus hordeaceus Soft chess Naturalized
Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass Naturalized
Cynosurus echinatus Bristly dogtail grass Naturalized
Deschampsia danthonioides Annual hair grass Native
Elymus caput-medusae Medusa head Naturalized
Festuca perennis Rye grass Naturalized
Glyceria declinata Low manna grass Naturalized
Paspalum dilatatum Dallis grass Naturalized

POLEMONIACEAE
Leptosiphon bicolor Miniature lupine Native
Navarretia intertexta Needle leaf navarretia Native
Persicaria punctata Dotted smartweed Native
Polygonum aviculare subsp. depressum Prostrate knotweed Naturalized

RANUNCULACEAE
Delphinium sp. Larkspur Native
Ranunculus bonariensis var. trisepalus Carter’s buttercup Native

ROSACEAE
Prunus cerasifera Cherry plum Naturalized
SVLC 23 Page 4
Plant Species Observed within the SVLC 23 Property Project Area 15 and 16 April and 15 and 20 May 2020
Family / Species Name Common name Native / Non-Native
Pyrus calleryan Callery PEAR Naturalized
Rosa californica California rose Native
Rosa sp. Cultivated rose Naturalized
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry Naturalized

SALICACEAE
Populus fremontii subsp. fremontii Fremont cottonwood Native Salix exigua var. exigua Sandbar willow Native
Salix sp. Willow Naturalized

THEMIDACEAE
Brodiaea elegans subsp. elegans Harvest bordiaea Native Dichelostemma capitatum Blue dicks Native
Dichelostemma multiflorum Wild hyacinth Native
Triteleia hyacinthina White brodiaea, fool's onion Native

TYPHACEAE
Typha latifolia Broad-leaved cattail Native

VITACEAE
Vitis californica California wild grape Native
8421 Auburn Blvd., Suite 248
Citrus Heights, CA 95610
www.madroneeco.com
(916) 822-3230
18 August 2020
John Welch
SVLC 23, LLC
c/o Sierra View Land Company
105 Alta Vista Drive
Roseville, CA 95678
Subject: SVLC 23 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Habitat Survey, Placer County, California
Dear Mr. Welch:

At the request of SVLC 23, LLC., Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC (Madrone) conducted a protocol-level survey for the federally threatened Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus, VELB) habitat within the SVLC 23 Property (Project Area). This letter report presents the methods and results of the survey.

The approximately 23-acre Study Area is comprised of APN 015-011-029-000, located north of Shasta Street and south of Diamond Oaks Road, just east of the Sierra View Country Club in the City of Roseville, Placer County, California. The Study Area falls within Sections 26, 34, and 35, Township 11 North, Range 6 East (MDB&M) of the “Roseville, California” 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Quadrangle (USGS 20181 ) (Figure 1).

Madrone senior biologist Bonnie Peterson surveyed the Project Area on 15 and 16 April and 15 and 20 May 2020. The survey was conducted according to the Framework for Assessing Impacts to the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS 20172). No elderberry shrubs were observed within the Plan Area and no evidence of VELB was observed.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (916) 822-3225 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Sarah VonderOhe
Principal
1 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2018. “Roseville, California” 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map. U. S. Geological Survey.

Denver, Colorado.
2 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Framework for Assessing Impacts to the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. Dated May 2017.

MND ATTACHMENT 5
34 35
27 26
01 02
22 23
25 36 33
28 12
03 11
24 21
06 10 07
Figure 1
Site and Vicinity
SVLC 23 Property
Roseville, Placer County, California
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
C:\Madrone\Sierra View Westpark - 19084\Maps\MXDs\MXDs_ARD\Figure_1_site_vicinity_SierraViewWestpark.mxd 7/21/2020, 9:09:30 PM Study Area Boundary (23 acres)
Source: United States Geologic Survey, 2018
"Roseville, California" 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle Sections 26, 34, and 35, Township 11 North, Range 6 East Longitude -121.283085, Latitude 38.764232
Sacramento
Lincoln
Site
§¨¦80
0 25,000 50,000
Feet
Site
Vicinity
£¤99
§¨¦5
±
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
UV65
UV65
2019-20 Dry-Season & WetSeason Branchiopod Survey
90-Day Report
SVLC 23 Property
(2020-TA-0318)
Placer County, California
19 August 2020

CC EXHIBIT L
MND ATTACHMENT 6
Prepared for:

SVLC 23, LLC
c/o Sierra View Land Company
105 Alta Vista Drive
Roseville, CA 95678
August 2020.

Survey 90-Day Report, SVLC 23 Property (2020-TA-0318). Prepared for SVLC 23, LLC. Published on 19 Madrone Ecological Consulting, Inc. (Madrone). 2020. 2019-20 Dry-Season & Wet-Season Branchiopod Recommended Citation:

TABLE OF

CONTENTS
2019-20 Dry-Season & Wet-Season
Branchiopod Survey
90-Day Report
SVLC 23 Property

1.0 Objective..................................................................................................................................................................1

2.0 Location....................................................................................................................................................................1

3.0 Methods and Materials.....................................................................................................................................1

3.1 Dry-Season Survey...............................................................................................................................................................1

3.2 Wet-Season Surveys............................................................................................................................................................2

4.0 General Site Conditions and Habitats .......................................................................................................3

5.0 Findings ....................................................................................................................................................................3

6.0 References...............................................................................................................................................................4 Figures
Figure 1. Site and Vicinity
Figure 2. Sampling Locations
Attachments
Attachment A. Dry-Season Lab Data Sheet
Attachment B. Wet-Season Data Sheets
Attachment C. Representative Photographs
2019-20 Dry and Wet-Season Branchiopod Survey 90-Day Report Page 1 SVLC 23 Property 19 August 2020

1.0 OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this report is to summarize the results of protocol surveys for listed large vernal pool branchiopods conducted by Madrone Ecological Consulting (Madrone) within the SVLC 23 Property (formally Sierra View – Westpark) Project Area (Study Area) during the 2019-2020 dry-season and wet-season. Target species included the federally endangered conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio) and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), as well as the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). Dry-season and wet-season surveys were conducted under the authority of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Recovery Permits for Dustin Brown (TE85084C-0) and Bonnie Peterson (TE205600-1) of Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA, 16 U.S. Code 1531 et seq. and in accordance with the 13 November 2017 Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (Guidelines) (USFWS 2017). Authorization to conduct dry-season surveys was issued by the USFWS in an e-mail to Dustin Brown on 8 November 2019 and wet-season surveys was issued by the USFWS in an e-mail to Dustin Brown on 19 December 2019 (USFWS reference number 2020- TA-0318).

2.0 LOCATION
The approximately 23-acre Study Area is located north of Shasta Street and south of Diamond Oaks Road, just east of the Sierra View Country Club in the City of Roseville, Placer County, California. The Study Area falls within Section 35, Township 11 North, Range 6 East (MDB&M) of the “Roseville, California” 7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Quadrangle (USGS 1992) (Figure 1).

3.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS

3.1 Dry-Season Survey
All potential large vernal pool branchiopod habitat within the Study Area was sampled. Potential habitat for federally listed large branchiopods is defined as any seasonally inundated depression that, on average, ponds water at a sufficient depth and duration for a listed large branchiopod to complete its lifecycle. Habitats that swiftly flow water (e.g., creeks, streams, and ephemeral drainages) or habitats that are semi-to-permanently inundated and support perennial populations of predators (e.g., bullfrogs, fish, and crayfish) generally do not provide suitable habitat for listed large branchiopods (USFWS 2017). Figure 2 is an exhibit of potential branchiopod habitat within the Study Area (City of Roseville 2019). All vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, and seasonal wetland swales were sampled during the dry-season survey totaling 19 features. The seasonal wetland swale (SWS-1) was sampled during the dry season survey. It was not sampled during the wet season survey because it did not pond and exhibited flowing water during rain events and was unsuitable habitat for vernal pool branchiopods.

Dry soil/substrate was collected from the top 1 to 3 centimeters with a hand spade from the lowest topographic areas within each sampled feature. Wherever possible, substrate samples were collected in chunks to avoid damaging branchiopod eggs. The number and volume of soil/substrate samples collected was proportionate 2018-19 Dry and Wet-Season Branchiopod Survey 90-Day Report Page 2 SVLC 23 Property 19 August 2020
to the size of the sampled feature pursuant with the requirements summarized in Table 1 of the Guidelines (USFWS 2017). Soil/substrate samples were transferred to liter-sized plastic bags and marked with the project name, aquatic feature number, and collection date for transport to Madrone’s laboratory. Madrone senior biologist Dustin Brown collected soil samples for 16 features on 12 November 2019. Three additional habitat features were identified during the wet season survey and soil for those three features (SW-13, 14, and 15) were collected by Bonnie Peterson upon drying. Dry-season samples were collected in accordance with the Guidelines (USFWS 2017) and the special terms and conditions of Mr. Brown’s and Ms. Peterson’s permits.

A brine solution was prepared in the lab by stirring non-iodized salt with lukewarm tap water in a large container. Soils/substrate samples collected from each aquatic feature were individually placed into the brine solution, and manually worked by hand to reduce soil structure. Floating organic material was decanted into either a 710-micron-diameter pore-size sieve stacked atop a 150- micron-diameter pore-size sieve. The soil material was processed through the top sieve by flushing it with lukewarm tap water while gently rubbing it with a soft-bristle brush. The organic material retained from the 150-micron-diameter pore-size sieve was then removed and thinly spread into plastic petri dishes.

All sieved fractions were microscopically inspected for the presence of large branchiopod eggs by Mr. Brown.

Soil samples were prepared and inspected pursuant to the Guidelines (USFWS 2017) and the special terms and conditions of Mr. Brown’s Take Permit (TE85084C-0) dated 5 March 2019.

If present, total egg abundance information for each sampled feature was reported in terms of: low abundance (estimate of 1-10 eggs/sampled feature); medium abundance (estimate of 11-50 eggs/sampled feature); and high abundance (estimate of more than 50 eggs/sampled feature).

Scanning electron micrographs of eggs (Gilchrist 1978, Hill and Shepard 1998, Mura 1991) are used to identify and compare any branchiopod eggs observed within the soil samples. Evidence of other aquatic invertebrates encountered was also noted on the lab data sheet. Attachment A contains the Dry-Season Lab Data Sheet, which lists sampled aquatic features.

3.2 Wet-Season Survey
Field surveys were conducted by Mr. Brown or Ms. Peterson every 14 days between 11 December 2019, and 28 April 2020, in accordance with the Guidelines (USFWS 2017). Sampling of inundated features occurred on 11 and 24 December 2019, 8 and 22 January, 5 and 19 February, 4 and 18 March, and 1 and 14 April 2020. All features representing appropriate federally-listed large vernal pool branchiopod habitat were dry by the final sampling date of 28 April 2019.

All potential large vernal pool branchiopod habitat was sampled with a 5-foot long dip net equipped with a 12- inch D-ring and 650 micron mesh. Sampling involved making a series of pulls by extending the net out and pulling it back in a sweeping motion. The net was examined for the presence of large vernal pool branchiopods and then cleaned of debris between pulls. The number of pulls made in each feature was commensurate to 2018-19 Dry and Wet-Season Branchiopod Survey 90-Day Report Page 3 SVLC 23 Property 19 August 2020
feature size and ponding depth. In addition, all potential habitat was visually inspected for the presence of large vernal pool branchiopods throughout the sampling sessions. Air temperature, water temperature, and approximate maximum depth of ponding was measured and recorded during the sampling sessions.

Attachment B contains the wet-season data sheets with the above described field data.

4.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS AND HABITATS
The Study Area is bounded on the north by Diamond Oak Road and to the south by Shasta Street. The abutting area east of the Study Area is a residential development, and to the west is a community of townhomes and the Sierra View Country Club and Golf Course.

The Study Area ranges from approximately 160-175 feet above mean seal level (AMSL), with rolling terrain sloping towards the north and south. A transmission line corridor is located within the northern portion of the Study Area, and another bisects the center of the Study Area. An unnamed intermittent tributary to South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek flows to the northwest through the Study Area (SFEI 2020), and a drainage ditch from south to north towards the intermittent tributary.

The principal vegetation community within the Study Area is non-native annual grassland. This vegetation community is fairly sparse in the southern portion of the site, with a mix of non-native annual grasses including soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut brome (B. diandrus), perennial ryegrass (Festuca perennis), medusahead grass (Elymus caput-medusa), and wild oats (Avena fatua), and forbs such as Spanish lotus (Acmispon americanus var. americanus), Fitch’s spikeweed (Centromadia fitchii), blue dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum), filaree (Erodium botrys), miniature lupine (Lupines bicolor), hairy hawkbit (Leontodon saxatilis), vetch (Vicia spp.), and English plantain (Plantago lanceolata). In the northern portion of the site, the annual grasslands are much denser in vegetation with a higher percentage of grass species and fewer forbs.

Interspersed throughout the grassland are a number of mature oaks, primarily blue oaks (Quercus douglasii), with scattered Valley oak (Quercus lobata) and live oak (Quercus wislizeni). A number of native and non-native trees are located along a drainage ditch and intermittent tributary including Chinese tallowtree (Triadica sebifera), southern catalpa (Catalpa bignonioides), honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), and willows (Salix spp.).

Common shrubs in the riparian understory of the intermittent tributary include Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), wild rose (Rosa californica), and narrow-leaf willow (Salix exigua).

Aquatic resource features delineated within the Study Area consist of the south to north flowing drainage ditch, an intermittent drainage and associated riparian wetland, a seasonal wetland swale and a number of scattered vernal pools and seasonal wetlands. See Figure 2 for the sampling locations.

5.0 FINDINGS
No listed or non-listed large vernal pool branchiopod eggs (cysts) were observed in any sample collected during the 2019 and 2020 dry-season sampling. No listed or non-listed large branchiopods were observed within the Study Area during the 2019-20 wet-season protocol surveys. 2018-19 Dry and Wet-Season Branchiopod Survey 90-Day Report Page 4 SVLC 23 Property 19 August 2020

6.0 REFERENCES
City of Roseville Aerial Photograph. 2019. Aerial Photograph of the Study Area. Aerial photograph taken on 22 April 2019.

Eng. L.L., D. Belk, and C.H. Erikson. 1990. California Anostraca: Distribution, Habitat and Status. Journal of Crustacean Biology 10(2): 247-277.

Eriksen, C.H., and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy Shrimps of California’s Puddles, Pools, and Playas. Mad River Press, Inc., Eureka, California.

Gilchrist, B. M. 1978. Scanning electron microscope studies of the egg shell in some Anostraca (Crustacea: Branchiopod). Cell Tiss. Res. 193: 337-351.

Helm, B. P. 1999. Feeding ecology of Linderiella occidentalis (Dodds) (Crustacea: Anostraca).

Doctoral thesis. University of California, Davis. 158 pp.

Hill, R. E., and W. D. Shepard. 1998. Observation on the identification of California Anostraca cysts.

Hydrobiologia 359: 113-123.

Mura, G. 1991. SEM morphology of resting eggs in the species of the genus Branchinecta from North America. J. Crust. Biol. 11: 432-436.

Patton, S.E. 1984. The Life History Patterns and the Distribution of Two Anostraca, Linderiella occidentalis and Branchinecta sp. MS Thesis, California University, Chico. 50 pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS). 1992. Roseville, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle. Geological Survey. Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods. Sacramento, California. Revised November 13, 2017.

Figures
Figure 1. Site and Vicinity
Figure 2. Sampling Locations
34 35
27 26
01 02
22 23
25 36 33
28 12
03 11
24 21
06 10 07
Figure 1
Site and Vicinity
SLVC 23 Property
Roseville, Placer County, California
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
C:\Madrone\Sierra View Westpark - 19084\Maps\MXDs\MXDs_90DayReports\Figure_1_site_vicinity_SLVC23Property.mxd 8/12/2020, 3:46:35 PM Study Area Boundary (23 acres)
Source: United States Geologic Survey, 2018
"Roseville, California" 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle Sections 26, 34, and 35, Township 11 North, Range 6 East Longitude -121.283085, Latitude 38.764232
Sacramento
Lincoln
Site
§¨¦80
0 25,000 50,000
Feet
Site
Vicinity
£¤99
§¨¦5
±
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
UV65
UV65
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
IDR-2
VP-1
DD-2
DD-1
SW-12
IDR-1
DD-3
SW-1
VP-3
SW-6
SWS-1
SW-2
VP-2
SW-4
SW-9
SW-7
SW-11
SW-5
SW-8
SW-10
SW-3
IDR-2
SW-13
SW-15
SW-14
± 0 80 160
Feet
C:\Madrone\Sierra View Westpark - 19084\Maps\MXDs\MXDs_90DayReports\Figure_2_SamplingLocs_SLVC23Property.mxd 8/12/2020, 3:46:16 PM Aerial Base: City of Roseville, 22 April 2019
Shasta Street
Shasta Street
Diamond Oaks Road
Figure 2
Sampling Locations
SLVC 23 Property
Roseville, Placer County, California Walton Way
Study Area Boundary (23 acres)
/ Culvert
Aquatic Resources (2.044 acres)
Potential Habitat (0.868 acre)
Seasonal Wetland (0.191 acre)
Seasonal Wetland Swale (0.024 acre)
Vernal Pool (0.653 acre)
Non-Habitat - Not Sampled (1.176 acres)
Drainage Ditch (0.223 acre)
Intermittent Drainage and Adjacent
Riparian Wetland (0.953 acre)
Graeagle Court
Saint Andrews Drive
Spyglass Court
Spyglass Hill
Attachments
Attachment A. Dry-Season Lab Data Sheet
Attachment B. Wet-Season Data Sheets
Attachment C. Representative Photographs
Attachment A
Dry-Season Lab Data Sheet
Dry Season Lab Data Sheet Project Information Biologist Information Quad: Soil Collection Conducted By:

Range: Soil Processing Conducted By: Comments Nematoda Collembola Other Species VP-3 XX X x X X XX X X X X X X X Feature Number Branchinecta sp. Lepidurus packardi Linderiella occidentalis Lynceus brachyurus Cyzicus californicus Hydracarina Live 5,0'’-° X-X ^-z su/- gI\3 3m - \Q. xj - \z Mf - I yP- 2 XX XX Po4rxCir5 Rz>VX>r5> Rcrk)'FrS Ro-k)-fcr£ - I $ Xj_X 3M- Il XX g ar S 8- S. 8 “ a C O < o flU> (D “ 8 8 5? CO O f fsS’ £ pldJ-ej 2 fl^-Us 4 pk-k^ 1 2 pkFgs X p I s 4£5 pk4-es H Pk-Us S plexus H P/^4e$ Project Name: USFWS Project Number^^^^ Fcy^yill/7 TownshipJLAM£ Section: 3s [XcX? I 4 e I XeS ly pigj-<°s O 3a? 8 'S 8 s & a Name of Pers<^(s)^Whio Co^^cted^he^Following Tags and^P^rmit^Nurgber(s) j bcz^Zi'H Bif0U/\ Soil Analysis/Cysts ID Conducted By: rs | b l)us*Ti/\ Soil Collection Date: 1 1 /) 2- / 1 So’1 Processing Date: I nvertbrates Present (X) Number of Large Branchiopod Eggs c°u"ly: fWir Lst 32.7-63^ L°ng: IXI.2-g2.7-IM Attachment B
Wet-Season Data Sheets
SW-12 13 6.5 80 X eggsX X
SW-11 Satura 0 0 X X
SW-10 13 4 80 X old X
SW-8 13 1 90 X X
SW-9 13 4 90 X X
VP-3 14 3 80 X X
SW-7 Too shallow 0.25 5 old road
VP-2 14 4 95 old road
VP-1 13 12 100 X eggsX X
SW-6 Dry 0 0 X X
SW-4 Dry 0 0 X X
SW-5 Dry 0 0 X X
SW-2 Dry 0 0 X X
SW-3 Dry 0 0 X X
SW-1 Dry 0 0 X X
SW-13 13 4 80 X X
SW-14 13 3 65 old road
SW-15 13 3 95 old road
Large Branchiopods: BRLY = Branchinecta lynchi, BRME = Branchinecta mesovallensis, LIOC = Linderiella occidentalis, LEPA = Lepidurus packardi, CYCA = Cyzicus californicus, LYBR = Lynceus brachyurus Land Use: Grazed (C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, O = other) Hydrology: S = saturated, N/P = not ponded
X = species present, Large Branchiopods abundance = (1's, 10's, 100's, 1000's) Wet Season Survey Data Sheet
Project Name: SVLC 23 Property
12/11/2019 Weather Conditions: Overcast, Calm Permit #: TE205600-1 Start Time: 1100 Start Air Temperature (°C): 12 Permitted Biologist: Bonnie Peterson End Time:1255 End Air Temperature (°C): 14 Assisted By:

Crustacea
Amphipoda
Cladocera
Copepoda
Ostracoda
LYBR
Large Branchiopods
BRLY
BRME
CYCA
LEPA
LIOC
Feature No.

Water Temperature (°C)
Present Ponded Depth
inches
Current % Surface Area
Micro-Turbellaria
Land Use
Odonata
Bufo boreas
Pseudacris sierra
Undisturbed
Insecta
Gastropoda
Hydracaini
Herps Habitat Condition
Hemiptera
Limnephilidae
Dytiscidae
Hydrophilidae
Haliplidae
Chironomidae
Disturbed
Fallow
Agriculture
Coleoptera Diptera Grazed Ephemeroptera Culicidae Corixidae Notonectidae Zygoptera Anisoptera Tire Ruts Garbage Plowed or Disked Light Moderate Heavy
Page ____ of ____
SW-12 8 9 95 X X
SW-11 Dry 0 0 X X
SW-10 8 4 95 X old X
SW-8 8 3 95 X X
SW-9 8 3 95 X X
VP-3 8 1.5 45 X X
SW-7 Dry 0 0 old road
VP-2 8 3 100 old road
VP-1 8 12 100 X X
SW-6 Dry 0 0 X X
SW-4 Dry 0 0 X X
SW-5 Dry 0 0 X X
SW-2 8 6 40 X X
SW-3 Dry 0 0 X X
SW-1 Dry 0 0 X X
SW-13 8 3 95 X X
SW-14 8 2 95 old road
SW-15 9 8 100 old road
Large Branchiopods: BRLY = Branchinecta lynchi, BRME = Branchinecta mesovallensis, LIOC = Linderiella occidentalis, LEPA = Lepidurus packardi, CYCA = Cyzicus californicus, LYBR = Lynceus brachyurus Land Use: Grazed (C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, O = other) Hydrology: S = saturated, N/P = not ponded
X = species present, Large Branchiopods abundance = (1's, 10's, 100's, 1000's) Garbage
Plowed or Disked
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Page ____ of ____
Disturbed
Fallow
Agriculture
Coleoptera Diptera Grazed Ephemeroptera Culicidae Corixidae Notonectidae Zygoptera Anisoptera Tire Ruts Land Use
Odonata
Bufo boreas
Pseudacris sierra
Undisturbed
Insecta
Gastropoda
Hydracaini
Herps Habitat Condition
Hemiptera
Limnephilidae
Dytiscidae
Hydrophilidae
Haliplidae
Chironomidae
Feature No.

Water Temperature (°C)
Present Ponded Depth
inches
Current % Surface Area
Micro-Turbellaria
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Cladocera
Copepoda
Ostracoda
LYBR
Large Branchiopods
BRLY
BRME
CYCA
LEPA
LIOC
Start Time: 1100 Start Air Temperature (°C): 10 Permitted Biologist: Bonnie Peterson End Time:1300 End Air Temperature (°C): 10.5 Assisted By:

Wet Season Survey Data Sheet
Project Name: SVLC 23 Property
12/24/2019 Weather Conditions: Overcast, breezy Permit #: TE205600-1 SW-12 12 9.5 95 X X X X
SW-11 Dry X X
SW-10 12 2 80 X X old X
SW-8 Dry X X
SW-9 Dry X X
VP-3 Dry X X
SW-7 Dry old road
VP-2 Dry old road
VP-1 11 12 90 X X X X X X X X X
SW-6 Dry X X
SW-4 Dry X X
SW-5 Dry X X
SW-2 Dry X X
SW-3 Dry X X
SW-1 Dry X X
SW-13 Dry X X
SW-14 Dry old road
SW-15 13 7 90 old road
Large Branchiopods: BRLY = Branchinecta lynchi, BRME = Branchinecta mesovallensis, LIOC = Linderiella occidentalis, LEPA = Lepidurus packardi, CYCA = Cyzicus californicus, LYBR = Lynceus brachyurus Land Use: Grazed (C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, O = other) Hydrology: S = saturated, N/P = not ponded
X = species present, Large Branchiopods abundance = (1's, 10's, 100's, 1000's) Garbage
Plowed or Disked
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Page ____ of ____
Disturbed
Fallow
Agriculture
Coleoptera Diptera Grazed Ephemeroptera Culicidae Corixidae Notonectidae Zygoptera Anisoptera Tire Ruts Land Use
Odonata
Bufo boreas
Pseudacris sierra
Undisturbed
Insecta
Gastropoda
Hydracaini
Herps Habitat Condition
Hemiptera
Limnephilidae
Dytiscidae
Hydrophilidae
Haliplidae
Chironomidae
Feature No.

Water Temperature (°C)
Present Ponded Depth
inches
Current % Surface Area
Micro-Turbellaria
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Cladocera
Copepoda
Ostracoda
LYBR
Large Branchiopods
BRLY
BRME
CYCA
LEPA
LIOC
Start Time: 1300 Start Air Temperature (°C): 11 Permitted Biologist: Bonnie Peterson End Time:1430 End Air Temperature (°C): 11 Assisted By:

Wet Season Survey Data Sheet
Project Name: SVLC 23 Property
1/8/2020 Weather Conditions: Overcast, calm Permit #: TE205600-1 SW-12 12 9 100 X X X X
SW-11 Dry X X
SW-10 12 5 100 X X old X
SW-8/9 11 4 80 X X
VP-3 Dry X X
SW-7 Dry old road
VP-2 11 5 100 X old road
VP-1 11 12 100 X X X X X X X X X
SW-6 11 10 25 X X X X
SW-4 Dry X X
SW-5 Dry X X
SW-2 Dry X X
SW-3 Dry X X
SW-1 Dry X X
SW-13 11 2 100 X X X X
SW-14 Dry old road
SW-15 11 7 100 old road
Large Branchiopods: BRLY = Branchinecta lynchi, BRME = Branchinecta mesovallensis, LIOC = Linderiella occidentalis, LEPA = Lepidurus packardi, CYCA = Cyzicus californicus, LYBR = Lynceus brachyurus Land Use: Grazed (C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, O = other) Hydrology: S = saturated, N/P = not ponded
X = species present, Large Branchiopods abundance = (1's, 10's, 100's, 1000's) Wet Season Survey Data Sheet
Project Name: SVLC 23 Property
1/22/2020 Weather Conditions: Overcast, calm Permit #: TE205600-1 Start Time: 1052 Start Air Temperature (°C): 13 Permitted Biologist: Bonnie Peterson End Time:1200 End Air Temperature (°C): 16 Assisted By:

Crustacea
Amphipoda
Cladocera
Copepoda
Ostracoda
LYBR
Large Branchiopods
BRLY
BRME
CYCA
LEPA
LIOC
Feature No.

Water Temperature (°C)
Present Ponded Depth
inches
Current % Surface Area
Micro-Turbellaria
Land Use
Odonata
Bufo boreas
Pseudacris sierra
Undisturbed
Insecta
Gastropoda
Hydracaini
Herps Habitat Condition
Hemiptera
Limnephilidae
Dytiscidae
Hydrophilidae
Haliplidae
Chironomidae
Disturbed
Fallow
Agriculture
Coleoptera Diptera Grazed Ephemeroptera Culicidae Corixidae Notonectidae Zygoptera Anisoptera Tire Ruts Garbage Plowed or Disked Light Moderate Heavy
Page ____ of ____
SW-12 20 9 80 X X X X X X X
SW-11 Dry X X
SW-10 Dry X old X
SW-8/9 Dry X X
VP-3 Dry X X
SW-7 Dry old road
VP-2 Dry old road
VP-1 16 12 85 X X X X X X X
SW-6 16 3 10 X X X X X X
SW-4 Dry X X
SW-5 Dry X X
SW-2 Dry X X
SW-3 Dry X X
SW-1 Dry X X
SW-13 Dry X X
SW-14 Dry old road
SW-15 13 7 X X old road
Large Branchiopods: BRLY = Branchinecta lynchi, BRME = Branchinecta mesovallensis, LIOC = Linderiella occidentalis, LEPA = Lepidurus packardi, CYCA = Cyzicus californicus, LYBR = Lynceus brachyurus Land Use: Grazed (C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, O = other) Hydrology: S = saturated, N/P = not ponded
X = species present, Large Branchiopods abundance = (1's, 10's, 100's, 1000's) Garbage
Plowed or Disked
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Page ____ of ____
Disturbed
Fallow
Agriculture
Coleoptera Diptera Grazed Ephemeroptera Culicidae Corixidae Notonectidae Zygoptera Anisoptera Tire Ruts Land Use
Odonata
Bufo boreas
Pseudacris sierra
Undisturbed
Insecta
Gastropoda
Hydracaini
Herps Habitat Condition
Hemiptera
Limnephilidae
Dytiscidae
Hydrophilidae
Haliplidae
Chironomidae
Feature No.

Water Temperature (°C)
Present Ponded Depth
inches
Current % Surface Area
Micro-Turbellaria
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Cladocera
Copepoda
Ostracoda
LYBR
Large Branchiopods
BRLY
BRME
CYCA
LEPA
LIOC
Start Time: 0100 Start Air Temperature (°C): 14 Permitted Biologist: Bonnie Peterson End Time: 0215 End Air Temperature (°C): 14 Assisted By: None Wet Season Survey Data Sheet
Project Name: SVLC 23 Property
Date: 2/5/2020 Weather Conditions: Sunny, Clear Permit #: TE205600-1 SW-12 Dry X X
SW-11 Dry X X
SW-10 Dry X old X
SW-8/9 Dry X X
VP-3 Dry X X
SW-7 Dry old road
VP-2 Dry old road
VP-1 16 11 25 X X X X X X X X
SW-6 16 0.5 2 X X X X
SW-4 Dry X X
SW-5 Dry X X
SW-2 Dry X X
SW-3 Dry X X
SW-1 Dry X X
SW-13 Dry X X
SW-14 Dry old road
SW-15 16 2 40 X old road
Large Branchiopods: BRLY = Branchinecta lynchi, BRME = Branchinecta mesovallensis, LIOC = Linderiella occidentalis, LEPA = Lepidurus packardi, CYCA = Cyzicus californicus, LYBR = Lynceus brachyurus Land Use: Grazed (C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, O = other) Hydrology: S = saturated, N/P = not ponded
X = species present, Large Branchiopods abundance = (1's, 10's, 100's, 1000's) Garbage
Plowed or Disked
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Page ____ of ____
Disturbed
Fallow
Agriculture
Coleoptera Diptera Grazed Ephemeroptera Culicidae Corixidae Notonectidae Zygoptera Anisoptera Tire Ruts Land Use
Odonata
Bufo boreas
Pseudacris sierra
Undisturbed
Insecta
Gastropoda
Hydracaini
Herps Habitat Condition
Hemiptera
Limnephilidae
Dytiscidae
Hydrophilidae
Haliplidae
Chironomidae
Feature No.

Water Temperature (°C)
Present Ponded Depth
inches
Current % Surface Area
Micro-Turbellaria
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Cladocera
Copepoda
Ostracoda
LYBR
Large Branchiopods
BRLY
BRME
CYCA
LEPA
LIOC
Start Time: 1000 Start Air Temperature (°C): 14 Permitted Biologist: Bonnie Peterson End Time: 1100 End Air Temperature (°C): 14 Assisted By: None Wet Season Survey Data Sheet
Project Name: SVLC 23 Property
Survey Date: 2/19/20 Weather Conditions: Sunny, Clear Permit #: TE205600-1 SW-12 Dry X X
SW-11 Dry X X
SW-10 Dry X old X
SW-8/9 Dry X X
VP-3 Dry X X
SW-7 Dry X old road
VP-2 Dry X old road
VP-1 Dry X X
SW-6 Dry X X
SW-4 Dry X X
SW-5 Dry X X
SW-2 Dry X X
SW-3 Dry X X
SW-1 Dry X X
SW-13 Dry X X
SW-14 Dry old road
SW-15 Dry road, freq dist
Large Branchiopods: BRLY = Branchinecta lynchi, BRME = Branchinecta mesovallensis, LIOC = Linderiella occidentalis, LEPA = Lepidurus packardi, CYCA = Cyzicus californicus, LYBR = Lynceus brachyurus Land Use: Grazed (C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, O = other) Hydrology: S = saturated, N/P = not ponded
X = species present, Large Branchiopods abundance = (1's, 10's, 100's, 1000's) Wet Season Survey Data Sheet
Project Name: SVLC 23 Property
Survey Date: 3/04/20 Weather Conditions: Sunny, Clear Permit #: TE205600-1 Start Time: 12:40 Start Air Temperature (°C): 25 Permitted Biologist: Bonnie Peterson End Time: 13:15 End Air Temperature (°C): 26 Assisted By: None Crustacea
Amphipoda
Cladocera
Copepoda
Ostracoda
LYBR
Large Branchiopods
BRLY
BRME
CYCA
LEPA
LIOC
Feature No.

Water Temperature (°C)
Present Ponded Depth
inches
Current % Surface Area
Micro-Turbellaria
Land Use
Odonata
Bufo boreas
Pseudacris sierra
Undisturbed
Insecta
Gastropoda
Hydracaini
Herps Habitat Condition
Hemiptera
Limnephilidae
Dytiscidae
Hydrophilidae
Haliplidae
Chironomidae
Disturbed
Fallow
Agriculture
Coleoptera Diptera Grazed Ephemeroptera Culicidae Corixidae Notonectidae Zygoptera Anisoptera Tire Ruts Garbage Plowed or Disked Light Moderate Heavy
Page ____ of ____
SW-12 55 11 90 x x X X
SW-11 Dry 0 X X
SW-10 55 5 80 X old X
SW-8/9 54 6 90 x X X
VP-3 Dry 0 X X
SW-7 Dry 0 X old road
VP-2 56 4 80 X old road
VP-1 54 9 80 x x X X
SW-6 58 6 50 X X
SW-4 Dry 0 X X
SW-5 Dry 0 X X
SW-2 Dry 0 X X
SW-3 56 3 40 X X
SW-1 Dry 0 X X
SW-13 55 5 80 X X
SW-14 56 3 70 old road
SW-15 54 6 100 road, freq dist
Large Branchiopods: BRLY = Branchinecta lynchi, BRME = Branchinecta mesovallensis, LIOC = Linderiella occidentalis, LEPA = Lepidurus packardi, CYCA = Cyzicus californicus, LYBR = Lynceus brachyurus Land Use: Grazed (C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, O = other) Hydrology: S = saturated, N/P = not ponded
X = species present, Large Branchiopods abundance = (1's, 10's, 100's, 1000's) Garbage
Plowed or Disked
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Page ____ of ____
Disturbed
Fallow
Agriculture
Coleoptera Diptera Grazed Ephemeroptera Culicidae Corixidae Notonectidae Zygoptera Anisoptera Tire Ruts Land Use
Odonata
Bufo boreas
Pseudacris sierra
Undisturbed
Insecta
Gastropoda
Hydracaini
Herps Habitat Condition
Hemiptera
Limnephilidae
Dytiscidae
Hydrophilidae
Haliplidae
Chironomidae
Feature No.

Water Temperature (°F)
Present Ponded Depth
inches
Current % Surface Area
Micro-Turbellaria
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Cladocera
Copepoda
Ostracoda
LYBR
Large Branchiopods
BRLY
BRME
CYCA
LEPA
LIOC
Start Time: 12:05 Start Air Temperature (°F): 46 Permitted Biologist: Dustin Brown End Time: 14:25 End Air Temperature (°F): 49 Assisted By: None Wet Season Survey Data Sheet
Project Name: SVLC 23 Property
Survey Date: 3/18/20 Weather Conditions: Sunny, Clear Permit #: TE85084C-0 SW-12 22 3 5 X X X X
SW-11 Dry 0 X X
SW-10 Dry 0 X old X
SW-8/9 Dry 0 X X
VP-3 Dry 0 X X
SW-7 Dry 0 X old road
VP-2 22 11 10 X X X X old road
VP-1 Dry 0 X X
SW-6 Dry 0 X X
SW-4 Dry 0 X X
SW-5 Dry 0 X X
SW-2 Dry 0 X X
SW-3 Dry 0 X X
SW-1 Dry 0 X X
SW-13 Dry 0 X X
SW-14 Dry 0 old road
SW-15 20 4 60 road, freq dist
Large Branchiopods: BRLY = Branchinecta lynchi, BRME = Branchinecta mesovallensis, LIOC = Linderiella occidentalis, LEPA = Lepidurus packardi, CYCA = Cyzicus californicus, LYBR = Lynceus brachyurus Land Use: Grazed (C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, O = other) Hydrology: S = saturated, N/P = not ponded
X = species present, Large Branchiopods abundance = (1's, 10's, 100's, 1000's) Corixidae
Notonectidae
Zygoptera
Anisoptera
Garbage
Plowed or Disked
Light
Moderate
Heavy
Page __1__ of __1__
Tire Ruts
Disturbed
Fallow
Agriculture
Coleoptera Diptera Grazed Ephemeroptera
BRLY
BRME
CYCA
LEPA
LIOC
Culicidae
Land Use
Odonata
Bufo boreas
Pseudacris sierra
Undisturbed
Insecta
Gastropoda
Hydracaini
Herps Habitat Condition
Hemiptera
Limnephilidae
Dytiscidae
Hydrophilidae
Haliplidae
Chironomidae
Feature No.

Water Temperature (°C)
Present Ponded Depth
inches
Current % Surface Area
Micro-Turbellaria
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Cladocera
Copepoda
Ostracoda
LYBR
Large Branchiopods
Start Time:1210 Start Air Temperature (°C): 24 Permitted Biologist: Bonnie Peterson End Time: 1455 End Air Temperature (°C): 25 Assisted By: None Wet Season Survey Data Sheet
Project Name: SVLC 23 Property
Survey Date: 4/1/20 Weather Conditions:Scattered clouds Permit #: TE205600-1 SW-12 25.2 6 10 X X X X
SW-11 Dry 0 X X
SW-10 Dry 0 X old X
SW-8/9 Dry 0 X X
VP-3 Dry 0 X X
SW-7 Dry 0 X old road
VP-2 25.9 8 10 X X X old road
VP-1 Dry 0 X X
SW-6 Dry 0 X X
SW-4 Dry 0 X X
SW-5 Dry 0 X X
SW-2 Dry 0 X X
SW-3 Dry 0 X X
SW-1 Dry 0 X X
SW-13 Dry 0 X X
SW-14 Dry 0 old road
SW-15 19.7 4 80 road, freq dist
Large Branchiopods: BRLY = Branchinecta lynchi, BRME = Branchinecta mesovallensis, LIOC = Linderiella occidentalis, LEPA = Lepidurus packardi, CYCA = Cyzicus californicus, LYBR = Lynceus brachyurus Land Use: Grazed (C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, O = other) Hydrology: S = saturated, N/P = not ponded
X = species present, Large Branchiopods abundance = (1's, 10's, 100's, 1000's) Wet Season Survey Data Sheet
Project Name: SVLC 23 Property
Survey Date: 4/15/20 Weather Conditions:Scattered clouds Permit #: TE205600-1 Start Time:1300 Start Air Temperature (°C): 25 Permitted Biologist: Bonnie Peterson End Time: 1355 End Air Temperature (°C): 25.6 Assisted By: None Crustacea
Amphipoda
Cladocera
Copepoda
Ostracoda
LYBR
Large Branchiopods
BRLY
BRME
CYCA
LEPA
LIOC
Feature No.

Water Temperature (°C)
Present Ponded Depth
inches
Current % Surface Area
Micro-Turbellaria
Land Use
Odonata
Bufo boreas
Pseudacris sierra
Undisturbed
Insecta
Gastropoda
Hydracaini
Herps Habitat Condition
Hemiptera
Limnephilidae
Dytiscidae
Hydrophilidae
Haliplidae
Chironomidae
Disturbed
Fallow
Agriculture
Coleoptera Diptera Grazed Ephemeroptera Culicidae Corixidae Notonectidae Zygoptera Anisoptera Tire Ruts Garbage Plowed or Disked Light Moderate Heavy
Page __1__ of __1__
Attachment C
Representative Photos
SVLC 23 Property
Photograph of VP-1 facing north on 12 November 2019
Photograph of the Study Area facing southwest on 12 November 2019 SVLC 23 Property
Photograph of SWS-1 facing south on 12 November 2019
Facing southwest at SW-12 on 18 March 2020
SVLC 23 Property
Facing north at SW-8 on 18 March 2020
Facing northwest at VP-1 on 18 March 2020
Aquatic Resources
Delineation Report
SVLC 23 Property
APN: 015-011-029-000
Placer County, California
31 July 2020
MND ATTACHMENT 7
Prepared for:

SVLC 23, LLC
c/o Sierra View Land Company
105 Alta Vista Drive
Roseville, CA 95678
Recommended Citation:

Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC (Madrone). 2020. Aquatic Resources Delineation Report for SVLC 23 Property. Prepared for SVLC 23, LLC. Published on 31 July 2020.

Aquatic Resources Delineation
SVLC 23 Property 31 July 2020

CONTENTS
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
SVLC 23 Property

1.0 Introduction__________________________________________________________________________________1

1.1 Contact Information ...........................................................................................................................................................1

2.0 Methodology_________________________________________________________________________________1

3.0 Existing Conditions __________________________________________________________________________2

3.1 Hydrology.................................................................................................................................................................................2

3.2 Soils..............................................................................................................................................................................................2

3.3 Driving Directions ................................................................................................................................................................3

4.0 Results ________________________________________________________________________________________3

4.1 Wetlands ...................................................................................................................................................................................4

4.2 Other Waters...........................................................................................................................................................................5

5.0 Conclusion____________________________________________________________________________________6

6.0 References____________________________________________________________________________________7 Figures
Figure 1. Site and Vicinity
Figure 2. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soils
Figure 3. Aquatic Resources
Attachments
Attachment A. Arid West Wetland Determination Data Forms Attachment B. Aquatic Resources Delineation
Attachment C. Plant Species Observed within the Study Area Attachment D. GIS Shapefiles and the Aquatic Resources Excel Spreadsheet Attachment E. Representative Site Photographs
Attachment F. Permission to Enter
Tables
Table 1. Aquatic Resources Mapped within the Study Area..............................................................................................3 Aquatic Resources Delineation Page 1
SVLC 23 Property 31 July 2020

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a delineation of aquatic resources within the SVLC 23 Property site (Study Area) conducted by Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC (Madrone). The approximately 23-acre Study Area is comprised of APN 015-011-029-000, located north of Shasta Street and south of Diamond Oaks Road, just east of the Sierra View Country Club in the City of Roseville, Placer County, California. The Study Area falls within Section 35,34, and 26, Township 11 North, Range 6 East (MDB&M) of the “Roseville, California”

7.5-Minute Series USGS Topographic Quadrangle (USGS 2018) (Figure 1).

1.1 Contact Information
Property Owner
John Welch
SVLC 23, LLC
c/o Sierra View Land Company
105 Alta Vista Drive
Roseville, CA 95678
Agent
Sarah VonderOhe
Madrone Ecological Consulting, LLC
8421 Auburn Blvd., Suite #248
Citrus Heights, CA 95610
(916) 822-3225
[email protected]

2.0 METHODOLOGY
Madrone senior biologist Bonnie Peterson conducted a delineation of aquatic resources within the Study Area on 15 and 16 April and 15 and 20 May 2020. Aquatic features and data points were mapped in the field with a GPS unit capable of sub-meter accuracy (Arrow 100). Three-parameter data (vegetation, soils, and hydrology) were collected at each data point, documenting wetland/waters or upland status, as appropriate. The delineation map was prepared in accordance with the Updated Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program (USACE 2016a). The GPS data was overlayed on an ortho-rectified aerial photograph (City of Roseville 2019).

The delineation was performed in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2008a), A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2008b), and the Sacramento District’s Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Preliminary Wetlands Delineations (USACE 2016b). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulations (33 CFR 328) were used to determine the presence of Waters of the United States other than wetlands. The most recent National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar et al. 2016) was used to determine the wetland indicator status of plants observed in the Study Area. The Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2020) was used for plant nomenclature.

Aquatic Resources Delineation Page 2
SVLC 23 Property 31 July 2020

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Study Area is bounded on the north by Diamond Oak Road and to the south by Shasta Street. The abutting area east of the Study Area is a residential development, and to the west is a community of townhomes and the Sierra View Country Club and Golf Course.

The Study Area ranges from approximately 160-175 feet above mean seal level (AMSL), with rolling terrain sloping towards the north and south. A transmission line corridor is located within the northern portion of the Study Area, and another bisects the center of the Study Area. An unnamed intermittent tributary to South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek flows to the northwest through the Study Area (SFEI 2020), and a drainage ditch from south to north towards the intermittent tributary.

The principal vegetation community within the Study Area is non-native annual grassland. This vegetation community is fairly sparse in the southern portion of the site, with a mix of non-native annual grasses including soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut brome (B. diandrus), perennial ryegrass (Festuca perennis), medusahead grass (Elymus caput-medusa), and wild oats (Avena fatua), and forbs such as Spanish lotus (Acmispon americanus var. americanus), Fitch’s spikeweed (Centromadia fitchii), blue dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum), filaree (Erodium botrys), miniature lupine (Lupines bicolor), hairy hawkbit (Leontodon saxatilis), vetch (Vicia spp.), and English plantain (Plantago lanceolata). In the northern portion of the site, the annual grasslands are much denser in vegetation with a higher percentage of grass species and fewer forbs.

Interspersed throughout the grassland are a number of mature oaks, primarily blue oaks (Quercus douglasii), with scattered Valley oak (Quercus lobata) and live oak (Quercus wislizeni). A number of native and nonnative trees are located along a drainage ditch and intermittent tributary including Chinese tallowtree (Triadica sebifera), southern catalpa (Catalpa bignonioides), honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), and willows (Salix spp.). Common shrubs in the riparian understory of the intermittent tributary include Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), wild rose (Rosa californica), and narrow-leaf willow (Salix exigua).

3.1 Hydrology
The Study Area includes a central drainage ditch that flows from south to north through the site into an intermittent tributary to South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek in the northern portion of the site. The intermittent tributary flows from east to west through the Study Area. In addition, there are a number of seasonal wetland and vernal pool features scattered throughout the Study Area. The wetlands and other waters are described in more detail within the results portion of this report.

The Study Area is located in the Upper Coon-Upper Auburn Watershed (HUC 18020161) (USGS 2020). Mean annual precipitation for the Study Area is approximately 20.27 inches per year, and the site received approximately 55% of average rainfall in the 2019-2020 water year (NOAA 2020) Aquatic Resources Delineation Page 3
SVLC 23 Property 31 July 2020

3.2 Soils
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Database (NRCS 2020), two soil mapping units occurs within the Study Area (Figure 2): (141) Cometa-Fiddyment complex, 1 to 5% slopes and (142) Cometa-Ramona sandy loams, 1 to 5% slopes. While neither of these soil types are considered hydric, they contain minor hydric components in Alamo depressions and xerofluvent drainageways.

3.3 Driving Directions
To access the Study Area from Sacramento, drive north east on Interstate 80 towards Reno. Exit 105A into Atlantic Street turn right on Yosemite Street, and Right on Shasta Street. The Study Area is directly across from Ferris Spranger Elementary School. The Study Area is fenced and not accessible without prior arrangements.

4.0 RESULTS
Aquatic resource features delineated within the Study Area consist of the south to north flowing drainage ditch, an intermittent drainage and associated riparian wetland, a seasonal wetland swale and a number of scattered vernal pools and seasonal wetlands. Data sheets are included in Attachment A, a map of the aquatic resources is included as Figure 3 and Attachment B. A list of the plant species observed in the Study Area with their wetland indicator status is included in Attachment C. GIS Shapefiles and the Aquatic Resources Excel Spreadsheet for the aquatic resources are included on as Attachment D. Photographs of the Study Area and Aquatic Resources is included as Attachment E.

Table 1. Aquatic Resources Mapped within the Study Area Waters Type Acreage/ Linear Feet
Wetlands
Seasonal Wetland
SW-1 0.033
SW-2 0.020
SW-3 0.001
SW-4 0.008
SW-5 0.002
SW-6 0.022
SW-7 0.025
SW-8 0.002
SW-9 0.003
SW-10 0.075
SW-11 0.008
Seasonal Wetland Subtotal 0.199
Seasonal Wetland Swale
SWS-1 0.024
Seasonal Wetland Swale Subtotal 0.024
Vernal Pool
Aquatic Resources Delineation Page 4
SVLC 23 Property 31 July 2020
VP-1 0.614
VP-2 0.006
VP-3 0.028
Vernal Pool Subtotal 0.648
Other Waters
Drainage Ditch
DD-1 0.077/ 614
DD-2 0.109/ 876
DD-3 0.038/ 311
Drainage Ditch Subtotal 0.223/ 1,801
Intermittent Drainage
IDR-1 0.047/ 215
IDR-2 0.921/ 1,791
Intermittent Drainage Subtotal 0.953/ 2,006
Total 2.047 acres/ 3,807 linear feet

4.1 Wetlands

4.1.1 Seasonal Wetlands
The Study Area contains 11 seasonal wetlands concentrated along the southern and northern boundaries.

Seasonal wetlands are shallow ephemeral wetlands area characterized by seasonal ponding, Seasonal wetlands within the Study Area are typically dominated by opportunistic facultative wet to facultative grasses and forbs such as Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum), Italian ryegrass, rabbitfoot grass (Polypogon monspellensis), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum hyssopifolium), and curly dock (Rumex crispus).

A few of the seasonal wetlands in the northern portion of the Study Area (SW-4, SW-5) did not display the necessary redox features to meet the redox dark surface hydric soil indicator, however, as saturation was observed during the growing season (May 16) it was assumed that the dark soils in these features where masking redoximorphic features when both wetland vegetation and wetland hydrology were present. None of the seasonal wetlands have a direct surface water connection to the ditch or intermittent drainage.

4.1.2 Seasonal Wetland Swale
The seasonal wetland swale (SWS-1) within the study area flows from south the north and is dominated entirely by Italian ryegrass. This feature lacks evidence of flow or an ordinary highwater mark and did not contain water during the 2019-2020 rainy season, but was saturated at the surface during the April survey.

The seasonal wetland swale is connected to intermittent Drainage IDR-2.

4.1.3 Vernal Pools
The Study Area contains three vernal pools towards the center of the property. Vernal pools are shallow ephemeral wetlands characterized by seasonal ponding, and hydrologically similar to seasonal wetlands; however, vernal pools are typically underlain by an imperious substrate resulting in unique flora. The vernal pools in the Study Area were given this designation based on a dominance of vernal pool plant species, including slender pool popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys stipitatus var. micranthus), dwarf woolyheads Aquatic Resources Delineation Page 5
SVLC 23 Property 31 July 2020
(Psilocarphus brevissimus var. brevissimus), great valley coyote-thistle (Eryngium castrense), creeping spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya) and annual hairgrass (Deschampsia danthonioides) and a lower overall vegetative cover. Vernal pools in the Study Area exhibited primary hydrology indicators including inundation, saturation, and oxidized rhizospheres along living roots. Soils exhibited a depleted matrix (D3).

None of the vernal pools on-site have a direct surface water connection to the ditch or intermittent drainage.

There is an earthen dam between VP-1 and SW-6 that prevents downstream flow and impounds water in VP-1.

4.2 Other Waters

4.2.1 Drainage Ditch
An earthen drainage ditch conveys irrigation run-off from developments south and east of the Study Area, north to the intermittent drainage. This feature is characterized by steep slopes, and is well vegetated with dense wetland obligates including water plantain (Alisma lanceolatum), broad-leaved cattail (Triadica sebifera), dotted smartweed (Persicaria punctata) and tall nutsedge (Cyperus eragrostis) with scattered native and non-native trees including Chinese catalpa, chinese tallow, willows, and Callery pear (Pyrus calleryan).

This feature was apparently constructed concurrent with the adjacent development to the south and east sometime after 1966 and before 1993 (HistoricAerials.com 2020). A culvert under a dirt maintenance road is located between the two drainage ditch segments (DD-1 and DD-2), and between segments DD-2 and DD-3. Stormwater and irrigation runoff enter the ditch though a culvert at the southern end of DD-3. The ditch flows to the intermittent drainage IDR-2 in the northern portion of the Study Area.

4.2.2 Intermittent Drainage
An intermittent drainage and adjacent riparian wetland are located in the northern portion of the Study Area. This drainage flows from east to west through the Study Area and the two segments (IDR-1 and IDR2) are connected via a culvert under a dirt maintenance road. The City of Roseville storm drainage system outfalls into the northern portion of IDR-2 in the northeast corner of the Study Area south of Diamond Oaks Road. The intermittent drainage is the upper watershed, and ultimately a tributary to, South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek.

IDR-1 and IDR-2 typically exhibit a bed, bank, and channel, ranging in width from 1-3 ft wide. Portions of this intermittent drainage lack an ordinary high water mark, or clear drainage patterns, and is characterized as riparian wetland with a mix of Santa Barbara sedge (Carex Barbara), dallisgrass (Paspalum dilitatum), dotted smartweed, tall nutsedge, Italian rygrass, dense Himalayan blackberry thickets, wild rose, and willows.

The boundaries of the intermittent drainage were delineated at the ordinary high water mark, or the edge of riparian vegetation, whichever was in the most upland position. Minimal surface water was observed ponding in isolated section of this feature during the April field survey and non during the May visit. This intermittent drainage ultimately connects to the South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek.

Aquatic Resources Delineation Page 6
SVLC 23 Property 31 July 2020

5.0 CONCLUSION
Implementation of the USACE delineation protocol resulted in the identification of 2.047 acres/ 3,807 linear feet of wetlands or other waters within the Study Area. Each agency must determine if these wetlands and other waters, once delineated, are regulated by the local, state, and federal laws. The applicant is requesting the USACE concurrence regarding the quantity and locations of aquatic resources mapped within the Study Area (Figure 3, Attachment B) utilizing the USACE delineation protocol, and that the USACE determine Federal jurisdiction of these aquatic resources by providing the applicant with an approved jurisdictional determination letter. A signed form providing USACE staff accompanied access to the Study Area is included as Attachment F.

Aquatic Resources Delineation Page 7
SVLC 23 Property 31 July 2020

6.0 REFERENCES
City of Roseville 2019, Aerial Photograph of the Study Area, ESRI georeferenced aerial library dated 22 April 2019
Google Earth. 1993-2020. Roseville, CA. Accessed: April through July 2020.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Miss.

HistoricAreals.com. 2020. Viewer available at : https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2018. Jepson eFlora. Available on-line at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ [accessed May through July 2020]
Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) (2020). California Nevada River Forecast Center, Monthly Precipitation Summary Water Year 2020. Updated July 22, 2020. Retrieved from:
http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/monthly_precip.php. Accessed July 22, 2020.

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI). 2017. "California Aquatic Resource Inventory (CARI) version 0.3." Accessed July 21, 2020. https://www.sfei.org/data/california-aquatic-resource-inventory-cariversion-03-gis-data#sthash.B9TTJ59P.dpbs Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture (NRCS). 2020. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed May through July 2020.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016a. Updated Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program. Dated February 10, 2016. Available online at:
http://www.spd.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Public-Notices-andReferences/Article/651327/updated-map-and-drawing-standards/ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016b. Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District. Dated January 2016.

Available online at: http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/regulatory/jd/ minimum-standards/Minimum_Standards_for_Delineation_with_Template-final.pdf U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008a. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble.

ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008b. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. A Delineation Manual.

Prepared by R. W. Lichvar and S. M. McColley. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.

Aquatic Resources Delineation Page 8
SVLC 23 Property 31 July 2020
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS). 2018. Roseville, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle. Geological Survey. Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS). 2020. USGS Water Resources Division (WRD) and U.S. Department of Agricultural (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Watershed Boundaries Dataset (WBD)
Figures
Figure 1. Site and Vicinity
Figure 2. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soils
Figure 3. Aquatic Resources
34 35
27 26
01 02
22 23
25 36 33
28 12
03 11
24 21
06 10 07
Figure 1
Site and Vicinity

SVLC 23 Property
Roseville, Placer County, California
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
C:\Madrone\Sierra View Westpark - 19084\Maps\MXDs\MXDs_ARD\Figure_1_site_vicinity_SierraViewWestpark.mxd 7/21/2020, 9:09:30 PM Study Area Boundary (23 acres)
Source: United States Geologic Survey, 2018
"Roseville, California" 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle Sections 26, 34, and 35, Township 11 North, Range 6 East Longitude -121.283085, Latitude 38.764232
Sacramento
Lincoln
Site
§¨¦80
0 25,000 50,000
Feet
Site
Vicinity
£¤99
§¨¦5
±
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
UV65
UV65
142
141
142
Figure 2
Natural Resources Conservation
Service Soils

SVLC 23 Property
Roseville, Placer County, California
0 150 300
Feet
C:\Madrone\Sierra View Westpark - 19084\Maps\MXDs\MXDs_ARD\Figure_2_NRCS_SierraViewWestpark.mxd 7/21/2020, 9:14:03 PM Study Area Boundary (23 acres)
Soil Map Units
141 - Cometa-Fiddyment complex, 1 to 5% slopes
142 - Cometa-Ramona sandy loams, 1 to 5% slopes
Soil Survey Source: USDA, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Placer County, California, Western Part Aerial Base: City of Roseville, 22 April 2019
±
Shasta Street
Diamond Oaks Road
Shasta Street
Walton Way
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
± 0 80 160
Feet
C:\Madrone\Sierra View Westpark - 19084\Maps\MXDs\MXDs_ARD\Figure_3_ARD_SierraViewWestpark.mxd 7/23/2020, 2:18:36 PM Aerial Base: City of Roseville, 22 April 2019
Shasta Street
Shasta Street
Diamond Oaks Road

Figure 3
Aquatic Resources
SVLC 23 Property
Roseville, Placer County, California Walton Way
Study Area Boundary (23 acres)
/ Culvert
Aquatic Resources (2.047 acres)
Wetlands (0.871 acre)
Vernal Pool (0.648 acre)
Seasonal Wetland (0.199 acre)
Seasonal Wetland Swale (0.024 acre)
Other Waters (1.176 acres)
Drainage Ditch (0.223 acre)
Intermittent Drainage and Adjacent
Riparian Wetland (0.953 acre)
Graeagle Court
Saint Andrews Drive
Spyglass Court
Spyglass Hill
Attachments
Attachment A. Arid West Wetland Determination Data Forms Attachment B. Aquatic Resources Delineation
Attachment C. Plant Species Observed within the Study Area Attachment D. GIS Shapefiles and the Aquatic Resources Excel Spreadsheet Attachment E. Representative Site Photographs
Attachment F. Permission to Enter
Attachment A
Arid West Wetland Determination Data Forms
State: CA
Lat: Long:

Yes No
, Soil Yes X No
, Soil
Yes X No
Yes X* No X
Yes X No

1. (A)

2. 3. (B)

4. 0 =Total Cover (A/B)
Prevalence Index Worksheet:

1. 2. 10 x1 =

3. 0 x2 =

4. 45 x3 =

5. 20 x4 =
0 =Total Cover 15 x5 =
90 (A) (B)

1. 20 Y FACU

2. 10 N OLB

3. 5 N FAC

4. 40 Y FAC

5. 5 N UPL X

6. 5 N UPL

7. 5 N UPL

8. 90 =Total Cover

1. 2.
=Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
Leontodon saxatilis
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: __________ )
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ____1 meter sq_ )
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
2 Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
0 3.3
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
135
80 75
300
50%
Soil Map Unit Name:

Are Vegetation
FAC species
Remarks:

Geranium dissectum
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ___________) 1
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Dominance Test is >50%
Ranunculus bonariensis
% Cover of Biotic Crust
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
Rumex crispus
Festuca perennis
Trifolium campestre
Acmispon americanus
10 Morphological Adaptationd1
(Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site:

Investigator(s): Bonnie Peterson/Madrone Eco Section, Township, Range: M 11N 06E 35

4.16.2020
DP-1
Sampling Date:

Sampling Point:

SVLC 23 Property City/County: Roseville/ Placer County
Applicant/Owner: WP Sierra View, LLC/ SVLC 23, LLC
Multiply by:
10 0
Total % Cover of:

OBL species
FACW species
Prevalence Index = B/A =
142 - Cometa-Ramona sandy loams, 1 to 5% slopes
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

NWI Classification:

X
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. significantly disturbed?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:

Status
Remarks:Located in lowest point of SW-4
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Is the Sampled Area
dfswithin a Wetland? Yes
Slope (%):

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
1 Concave
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
<2
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ________________ )
Are Vegetation , or Hydrology
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley floor
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Local relief (concave, convex, none):

Subregion (LRR): Mediterranean California (LRR C) 38.7662057 -121.2270614 NAD 83 No
, or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) %
100
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) X
Yes No
Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
X Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
X Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
No
Water Table Present? X No
X No Yes No
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Matrix
10 YR 3/2
(inches)
0-14
Depth
Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11)
Redox Features
Texture
Sandy loam
Color (moist) Type1
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. % Loc2 Color (moist)

HYDROLOGY
Biotic Crust (B12)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Hydric Soil Present? X*
Remarks: Note, required redox to meet F6 were not evident, however, they are likely masked by the dark soil.

Depth (inches):

Type:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
SOIL DP-1
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Remarks
Reduced Vertic (F18)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.

Redox Depressions (F8)
Vernal Pools (F9)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3
:
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
12 10 Wetland Hydrology Present?
Depth (inches):