Agenda — Roseville City Council, March 16, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

AGENDA
March 16, 2022

CITY COUNCIL

HOUSING AUTHORITY
6:00 p.m.

Council Chambers
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, California
www.roseville.ca.us
The meeting may be viewed on Comcast channel 14, Consolidated Communications channel 73, and AT&T U-Verse. City Council meetings are also video streamed live on the City’s website at roseville.ca.us/watch and roseville.ca.us/agenda, and the City’s YouTube channel at youtube.com/CityofRosevilleCa.

If you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact Voice: 916-774-5200, TDD: 916-774-5220. Requests must be made as early as possible.

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE WELCOMES YOUR PARTICIPATION
If an agenda item is open to public comment, such public comment shall be addressed to the chair of the meeting.

Public Comment
- Speakers have three minutes under Public Comment to speak on issues that
are not listed on the agenda and are within the City's jurisdiction. The Brown Act does not permit any action or discussion on items not listed on the agenda.

Consent Calendar
- If applicable, the Consent Calendar consists of routine items that may be approved by one motion. Any person can remove an item from the Consent Calendar to be discussed separately.

Agenda Items
- Speakers have five minutes to address items that are listed on the agenda.

Americans with Disabilities Act
- Notify the City Clerk or Secretary at least 72 hours in advance if special assistance is required to participate in a meeting including the need of auxiliary aids or services.

Audio/Visual Presentations
- If making a presentation regarding an agenda item, audio/visual materials must be submitted to the City Clerk or Secretary at least 72 hours in advance.

Security procedures are in place to attend Roseville City Council meetings.

All attendees must
successfully pass through a security metal detector.

Any person with a prohibited item will not be
allowed entry.

Prohibited items include, but are not limited to: firearms (even with valid CCW), knives, pepper spray/mace, explosives of any kind/ any weapons and/or dangerous devices of any kind, illegal drugs and alcohol.

Roseville City Clerk 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 916-774-5200 TDD 916-774-5220

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. MEETING PROCEDURES

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1. Resolution - Emma Meadows
Commend Emma Meadows for all of her accomplishments in wrestling, and wish her much success in the future.

CONTACT:

Blair Hutchison 916-774-5266 [email protected]

5.2. Resolution - Jazzy Roschmann
Commend Jazzy Roschmann for all of her accomplishments in wrestling, and wish her much success in the future.

CONTACT:

Blair Hutchison 916-774-5266 [email protected]

5.3. Proclamation - Child Abuse Prevention Awareness Month April 2022 Proclaim April 2022 as Child Abuse Prevention Awareness Month and urges all citizens to join KidsFirst and its engaged partners, as they support each family's efforts to keep themselves and their children safe, healthy and in a nurturing environment.

CONTACT:

Blair Hutchison 916-774-5266 [email protected]

6. PUBLIC COMMENTS

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

BEGINNING OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Bids / Purchases / Services

7.1. Miscellaneous Waterworks Materials (RFQ 10-3314) - Purchase Orders Memo from Buyer Becky Philipp and Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer Dennis Kauffman recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-068 APPROVING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE

OF MISCELLANEOUS WATERWORKS MATERIALS ON AN AS-
NEEDED BASIS; and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-069 APPROVING A

PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF MISCELLANEOUS
WATERWORKS MATERIALS ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS. Staff
recommends Council approve purchase orders to Pace Supply Corporation and Ferguson Enterprises, LLC dba Ferguson Waterworks as the lowest responsive and responsible bidders for the purchase of miscellaneous waterworks materials on an as-needed basis. The estimated annual total of the initial award is $625,000. The estimated total is $183,000 for the remainder of FY2021-22 and $442,000 for FY2022-23 and is included in departmental budgets. Staff requests authorization for one optional renewal year without further Council approval, pending approval of the annual budget.

CC #:
1963
File #:
0203-09
CONTACT:

Becky Philipp 916-774-5724 [email protected]

7.2. Vehicle – Purchase Orders
Memo from Fleet Manager Brian Craighead and Public Works Director Jason Shykowski recommending the City Council approve a purchase order to Riverview International Trucks LLC for one International truck with a PB asphalt patch body utilizing Sourcewell contract# 060920-NVS in the amount of $261,543; and approve a purchase order to Napa Valley Ford Lincoln Mercury, Inc. dba Napa Ford Lincoln for seven Ford F150 trucks utilizing RFQ 10-3316 in the amount of $244,050; and approve a purchase order to Riverview International Trucks LLC for one International truck with a dump body utilizing RFQ 10-3319 in the amount of $173,028. Funding for these vehicles is included in the FY2021-22 Electric Fund and Fleet Replacement Fund budgets.

CC #:
1972
File #:
0203-01
CONTACT:

Brian Craighead 916-774-5731 [email protected]

7.3. Systems Furniture Design & Reconfiguration Services - Contract Purchase Agreement
Memo from Project Coordinator Lori Hogan and Public Works Director Jason Shykowski recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-070

APPROVING A CONTRACT PURCHASE AGREEMENT, BY AND

BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND VERTEX OFFICE

SOLUTIONS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE (3001850). Staff requests Council approval of a $500,000 not-to-exceed contract purchase agreement with Vertex Office Solutions for citywide systems furniture design and configuration services on an as-needed basis. The projected spending for the remainder of FY2021-22 is $150,000. Staff requests authorization to utilize four optional renewal years of the agreement without further City Council approval, provided that the applicable budget is approved by the City Council each year, or until City staff determines that continuing with the same vendor is not in the City’s best interest. Funding for this agreement is included in the Facility Services, Facility Rehabilitation, and various departments' approved budgets.

CC #:
1966
File #:
0203-04
CONTACT:

Lori Hogan 916-774-5707 [email protected]

Resolutions

7.4. Prohousing Designation Application
Memo from Associate Planner Jessica Lynch and Development Services Director Mike Isom recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-065 AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION AND PARTICIPATION IN THE

PROHOUSING DESIGNATION PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE. The purpose of the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Prohousing Designation Program is to demonstrate to HCD and the State the City’s current and planned housing policies that support the acceleration of housing development. In exchange, the Prohousing Designation Program provides incentives to cities in the form of additional points and other preferences in the scoring for competitive housing, community development, and infrastructure grant funding programs. This effort is being completed using already budgeted staff time, and no additional funding from the City’s General Fund is required.

CC #:
1959
File #:
0800-06
CONTACT:

Jessica Lynch 916-774-5352 [email protected]

7.5. Sacramento Area Council of Governments Discretionary Federal Transit Administration Funding - Grant Authorization
Memo from Transportation Analyst Ed Scofield and Public Works Director Jason Shykowski recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-077 APPROVING A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE SACRAMENTO

AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE ALL RELATED FORMS
AND AGREEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE.

Staff
requests Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to submit an application to the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and to execute all related forms and agreements that will allow the City to receive up to $560,000 from the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) 5307/5339 discretionary funds. The funds will be used to purchase up to four zero-emission electric transit vans and one 60 kWh DC Fast Charger to charge the vans as part of Roseville Transit’s Microtransit pilot program. The total estimated cost of the vans and charger is anticipated to be up to $700,000. If successful, the FTA discretionary funding would pay for $560,000.

The remaining $140,000 would be paid by local transit funds. In the event that a lesser amount of funding is awarded, the local funds will be reduced proportionally to meet the required 80/20 match requirement. Staff will present a final funding plan for the project to the City Council at a future meeting. No General Fund resources will be used for this project.

CC #:
1971
File #:
0721 & 0214
CONTACT:

Ed Scofield
916-869-9109
[email protected]

7.6. Materials Testing Services and Construction Inspection Services - On-Call Professional Services Agreements
Memo from Construction Inspection Superintendent Orville Chatterton and Development Services Director Mike Isom recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-073

APPROVING AN ON-CALL

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE

CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND PSOMAS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE; and adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 22-074 APPROVING AN ON-

CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND UNICO ENGINEERING, INC., AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
; and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-075

APPROVING AN ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY

AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND BLACKBURN

CONSULTING, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE; and adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 22-
076 APPROVING AN ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT,

BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND ENGEO

INCORPORATED, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
. Staff requests Council approve
On-Call Professional Services Agreements for construction inspection services with Psomas and UNICO Engineering, Inc. and On-Call Professional Services Agreements for materials testing services with Blackburn Consulting and ENGEO Incorporated. Each contract shall not exceed $500,000 in any one fiscal year unless the City Council approves contract amendments. Funding for these agreements is provided by pass-through funds collected from a developer on a project by project basis. These agreements will not have an impact on the General Fund. Additionally, staff requests authority for the City Manager or his designee to execute four (4) additional one (1) year renewals without further City Council approval, provided that the applicable budget is approved by the City Council each year, or until City staff determines that continuing with the same vendor is not in the City’s best interest.

CC #:
1970
File #:
0800-06
CONTACT:

Orville Chatterton 916-774-5339 [email protected]

7.7. Electric Interconnection - Agreement Amendment
Memo from Electric Resource Planner Brian Schinstock and Electric Utility Director Daniel Beans recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-062 APPROVING AMENDMENT 3 AND REVISIONS TO

EXHIBITS A, B AND D TO WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT 04-SNR-00850, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE.

Staff
requests the approval of amendment three and revisions to exhibits A, B, and D of Roseville’s Interconnection Agreement with Western Area Power Administration, accommodating the newly installed KY4A transformer at the Fiddyment substation. The estimated total 5-year funding requirement is $569,042. Funding is included in the Electric Department budget.

CC #:
1964
File #:
0800-03
CONTACT:

Brian Schinstock 916-746-1658 [email protected]

7.8. Electric Landscaping Improvements - Fiddyment Substation Project - Award of Contract
Memo from Senior Power Engineer Mitch Larkin and Electric Utility Director Daniel Beans recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22- 063 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE AND MARINA LANDSCAPE, INC., AND AUTHORIZING

THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE. Staff requests Council award an agreement to Marina Landscaping, Inc. in the amount of $566,000 for construction at Fiddyment Substation. This agreement provides all work associated with the landscape requirements of the Fiddyment Substation. Staff is also requesting authorization for the Electric Utility Director or designee to approve and pay for contract change orders that could increase the contract amount by no more than 15% or $84,900, for a total of $650,900. Funding is included in the Electric Fund for FY2021-22.

CC #:
1954
File #:
0900-03
CONTACT:

Mitch Larkin 916-746-1601 [email protected]

7.9. Utility Bill Print and Mail Services - Professional Services Agreement Amendment
Memo from Administrative Technician Emily Sawin and Electric Utility Director Daniel Beans recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22- 071 APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE AND INFOSEND, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE. Staff requests approval of a first amendment to the professional services agreement with Infosend, Inc. for utility bill print and mail services. The cost of service is based on a fee schedule and the number of items processed, but is estimated at $650,000. S
taff recommends the City Council provide
authorization to adjust the contract cost based on the amount included in future year adopted budgets.

Funding for this agreement is included in the adopted
FY2021-22 Electric Department budget. This item has no impact to the City's General Fund.

CC #:
1967
File #:
0200
CONTACT:

Emily Sawin 916-774-5388 [email protected]

7.10. Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant Energy Recovery Project - Professional Design Services Agreement Amendment
Memo from Senior Engineer Tracie Mueller and Environmental Utilities Director Richard Plecker recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22- 064 APPROVING A THIRD AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL DESIGN

SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF

ROSEVILLE AND BROWN AND CALDWELL, AND AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ROSEVILLE. Staff requests Council approval of the third amendment to the professional design services agreement with Brown and Caldwell for engineering services during construction for the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant Energy Recovery Project. The amendment increases the previous contract amount of $3,871,361 by $563,213 for a revised total contract cost of $4,434,574. Funding for this work is provided under the capital improvement projects for the South Placer Wastewater Authority and will be jointly funded between the City and the other Regional Partners, Placer County and the South Placer Municipal Utility District.

CC #:
1958
File #:
0800-02
CONTACT:

Tracie Mueller 916-774-5688 [email protected]

7.11. West Side Tank and Pump Station Project (Phase 2) - Professional Design Services Agreement Amendment
Memo from Assistant Engineer Rana Moore and Environmental Utilities Director Richard Plecker recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22- 078

APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL DESIGN

SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF

ROSEVILLE AND WATER WORKS ENGINEERS, LLC, AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE. Staff
requests approval of a First Amendment to
the professional design services agreement with Water Works Engineers, LLC for the West Side Tank and Pump Station project (Phase 2) in the amount of $101,142 due to construction logistics causing a delay in the start of the project. This project is funded by the Water Construction Fund and can be accommodated within the existing Capital Improvement Plan budget. No additional funding is required at this time.

CC #:
1973
File #:
0900-02
CONTACT:

Rana Moore 916-774-5552 [email protected]

7.12. Roseville Regional Soccer Complex - Environmental Compliance Services - Professional Services Agreement
Memo from Park Planning and Development Superintendent Tara Gee and Parks, Recreation & Libraries Director Jill Geller recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-066 APPROVING A

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE

CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND MONTROSE ENVIRONMENTAL
SOLUTIONS, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE.

Staff requests
Council approval of a professional services agreement with Montrose Environmental Solutions, Inc. to expand the scope of their original agreement entered into in December 2021, to include an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in the amount of $92,840. Given the relocation of the proposed regional park site from its original location in the West Roseville Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, and in consideration of the project as a whole, it has been determined that a project-level California Environmental Quality Act review of the proposed regional soccer complex is necessary in order to identify potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. Funding will be provided by West Roseville citywide park fee funds previously allocated toward this capital improvement project.

CC #:
1960
File #:
0704
CONTACT:

Tara Gee 916-774-5253 [email protected]

Ordinances (for introduction and adoption - appropriation/urgency measures)

7.13. Traffic Signal Maintenance Shop Expansion Project - Budget Adjustment Memo from Engineering Manager Stefanie Kemen and Public Works Director Jason Shykowski recommending the City Council adopt ORDINANCE NO. 6461 AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR
2021-22 BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE
IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE. Staff requests a budget adjustment in the amount of $300,000 to the Traffic Signal Maintenance Shop Expansion project. Funding for this project is available in the Electric Fund and Traffic Mitigation Fees Fund. No General Fund resources will be used for the project.

CC #:
1953
File #:
0900-04-03 & 0201-01
CONTACT:

Stefanie Kemen 916-746-1300 [email protected]

7.14. Barton Road Water Treatment Plant - East Applied Pipeline Project - Budget Adjustment
Memo from Associate Engineer Jonathan Cummings and Environmental Utilities Director Richard Plecker recommending the City Council adopt ORDINANCE NO. 6460 AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO
THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS

ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE AS AN
APPROPRIATION MEASURE. Staff requests Council approval of a budget adjustment to initiate and fund the Barton Road Water Treatment Plant – East Applied Pipeline Project with $856,000 from available resources in the Water Rehabilitation Fund. The Water Rehabilitation Fund is funded through water utility sales.

CC #:
1952
File #:
0800-02 & 0201-01
CONTACT:

Jonathan Cummings 916-774-5566 [email protected]

7.15. Emergency Medical Services Program - Capital Asset Donation and Budget Adjustment
Memo from Emergency Medical Services Quality Assurance Coordinator Trent Waechter and Fire Chief Rick Bartee recommending the City Council adopt ORDINANCE NO. 6462 AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO
THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS

ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE AS AN
APPROPRIATION MEASURE. Staff requests Council accept a donation of $128,015 in capital assets from the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Fund managed by the Sierra-Sacramento Valley EMS Agency and approve the FY2021-22 budget adjustment for $40,854 in reimbursable maintenance. In 2022 the Fire Department will receive eight (8) Lund University Cardiac Assist System chest compression devices for the EMS program through the EMS Fund managed by the Sierra-Sacramento Valley (S-SV) EMS Agency, a Placer County government agency responsible for regulating EMS services in the county. The devices improve the quality and consistency of chest compressions, increase End-Tidal CO2 levels as well as the ability to sustain life-saving circulation during prolonged resuscitation attempts. The capital asset donation and reimbursable maintenance is provided through S-SV with no impact to the General Fund.

CC #:
1955
File #:
0324 & 0201-01
CONTACT:

Trent Waechter 916-774-5844
[email protected]

7.16. Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program - Grant Award and Budget Adjustment
Memo from Department Public Safety Programs Coordinator Nina Phelps and Police Chief Troy Bergstrom recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-067 ACCEPTING A GRANT AWARD FROM THE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE

PROGRAMS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR MAYOR TO

EXECUTE THE GRANT AWARD DOCUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF ROSEVILLE; and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 6464 AUTHORIZING
CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 BUDGET AND

DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE. A grant has been allocated in the amount of
$19,914
to the City from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. The amount of the grant is determined by a formula comprised of the jurisdiction's population and crime rate. The grant will be added to the Police Department budget in the General Fund to support its crime prevention, marketing, and public outreach programs.

CC #:
1962
File #:
0214 & 0201-01
CONTACT:

Nina Phelps 916-746-1081 [email protected]
Mark Peinado 916-774-5021 [email protected]

Ordinances (for second reading and adoption)

7.17. Second Reading - Military Equipment Policy
ORDINANCE NO. 6463 ADOPTING A MILITARY EQUIPMENT POLICY

AND APPROVING THE USE, ACQUISITION, AND SEEKING OF
FUNDING FOR MILITARY EQUIPMENT, for second reading and adoption.

CC #:
1957
File #:
0323-01
CONTACT:

Troy Bergstrom 916-774-5058 [email protected]
Doug Blake 916-746 1043 [email protected]

Reports / Requests

7.18. Out-of-State Travel Request - Information Technology Department Memo from Information Technology Program Manager Karl Grover and Chief Information Officer Hong Sae recommending the City Council approve out-of- state travel requests for two Information Technology staff members to separately attend the Tyler New World Conference in Indianapolis, Indiana in May of 2022 and the Cisco Live Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada in June of 2022. Staff members seek to further their technical knowledge, experience and professional relationships by traveling to and participating in job-specific conferences. Funding for travel, lodging and conference costs for Cisco Live is estimated to be $3,000 and for Tyler New World is estimated at $3,250, totaling $6,250. Funding is included in the FY2021-22 Information Technology Operations Fund budget.

CC #:
1958
File #:
0600-02
CONTACT:

Karl Grover 916-774-5145 [email protected]

7.19. Roseville Junction Final Map
Memo from Assistant Engineer Kerry Andrews and Development Services Director Mike Isom recommending the City Council approve the Roseville Junction final map. Engineering has completed its review of the final map and found that it is in compliance with the approved tentative map. This map will be creating 6 commercial lots. The actions requested have no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund.

CC #:
1974
File #:
0400-06-03 & 0400-07
CONTACT:

Kerry Andrews 916-774-5346 [email protected]

Ceremonial Documents

7.20. Resolution - Duke Arakaki
Commend Duke Arakaki for his 25 years of outstanding service and dedication to the City of Roseville, congratulate him on his many accomplishments, and extend wishes for a long, healthy, and enjoyable retirement.

CC #:
1969
File #:
0102-10
CONTACT:

Blair Hutchison 916-774-5266 [email protected]

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR

8. APPOINTMENTS

8.1. Board of Appeals and Senior Commission - Unscheduled Vacancy Appointment Memo from City Clerk Technician Katrina Six and City Clerk Carmen Avalos recommending the City Council appoint one (1) individual to the Board of Appeals to a term expiring December 31, 2022 from the applications received from: Ronda Leuty and Tom Rutherford; and appoint one (1) individual to the Senior Commission to a term expiring December 31, 2024 from the applications received from Dee Britton, Ted Deehr, and Malinda Meeks.

CC #:
1968
File #:
0103 & 0103-41-02 & 0103-12-02
CONTACT:

Katrina Six 916-774-5267 [email protected]

9. SPECIAL REQUESTS/REPORTS/PRESENTATION

9.1. Roseville Independent Redistricting Commission’s Adoption of a Final Redistricting Report and Final Map
Senior Deputy City Attorney Joe Mandell and Roseville Independent Redistricting Commission Chair Paul Frank recommending the City Council receive an informational presentation regarding Roseville City Council district boundaries. The Roseville Independent Redistricting Commission unanimously adopted the Final Redistricting Report and Final Map at its public meeting on February 28, 2022. The Final Map will define the Roseville City Council district boundaries until the next redistricting process takes place after the 2030 U.S.

Census. The Independent Redistricting Commission, established by Roseville voters and made up entirely of community members, has the exclusive authority to redraw council district boundaries without Roseville City Council input or direction. The City Council may not rescind, supersede, or revise the district boundaries adopted by the Commission. There is no fiscal impact associated with this informational presentation.

CC #:
1978
File #:
0103-33-02
CONTACT:

Joe Mandell 916-774-5325
[email protected]

9.2. Placer Regional Homelessness Project
Memo from Government Relations Administrator Mark Wolinski and Assistant City Manager Dion Louthan recommending the City Council provide comments and perspectives on the draft Placer Regional Homelessness Project. The last assessment of homelessness conducted by Placer County occurred six years ago. Last year, Placer County initiated the Placer Regional Homelessness Project to review current efforts regarding homelessness in South Placer. The focus of the project is to undertake a process to develop a regional strategic plan for homelessness. There is no financial impact associated with this action.

CC #:
1976
File #:
0111-01
CONTACT:

Mark Wolinski 916-774-5179 [email protected]

10. PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
City Council, when considering the matter scheduled for hearing, will take the following actions:

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Open the Public Hearing
Presentation by Staff
Presentation by applicant or Appellant
Accept Public Testimony
Appellant or Applicant Rebuttal Period
Close the Public Hearing
City Council Comments and Questions
City Council Action

In the future, if you wish to challenge in court any of the matters on this agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues, which you, or someone else raised orally at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence received by the City or before the hearing

Public Hearings listed for continuance will be continued as noted and posting of this agenda serves as notice of continuation.

10.1. Sierra Vista Specific Plan - Parcel KT-20 and KT-30 - Affordable Unit Transfer Memo from Associate Planner Shelby Maples and Development Services Director Mike Isom recommending the City Council adopt RESOLUTION NO. 22-072 AMENDING THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN; and adopt the five (5) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ORDINANCE OF THE

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ADOPTING A FIRST

AMENDMENT OF THE

BASELINE P&R, LLC

DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND

SIERRA VISTA COMMUNITIES, LLC, RELATIVE TO THE SIERRA

VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE. The requested entitlements for the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) Parcel KT-20 and KT-30 Affordable Unit Transfer project (City File # PL21-0289) will allow the transfer of the obligation to provide 31 middle-income purchase units from parcel KT-20 and parcel KT-30 within the SVSP area, and re-designate the units as 16 low and 15 very low-income units.

The project is not anticipated to result in any
negative impacts to the City’s General Fund.

CC #:
1976
File #:
0400-04-12
CONTACT:

Shelby Maples 916-746-1347 [email protected]

10.2. HOUSING AUTHORITY - FY2022-23 Annual Plan
Memo from Housing Supervisor Suzi Cook-Turner and Economic Development Director Melissa Anguiano recommending the City Council, acting as the Board of Directors for the Housing Authority, adopt RESOLUTION NO. 1- 22 APPROVING THE FY2022-23 ANNUAL PLAN. This item also requests Council authorize submission of the FY2022-23 Roseville Housing Authority Annual Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development along with the required certifications, disclosures, and related documents. This item does not create any additional cost to the City’s General Fund.

CC #:
1961
File #:
0709-01 & 0103-03-02
CONTACT:

Suzi Cook-Turner 916-774-5414 [email protected] Trisha Isom 916-746-1239 [email protected]

11. REPORTS / PUBLIC COMMENTS

12. ADJOURNMENT

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1979
File #:
0102-06
Title:

Resolution - Emma Meadows
Contact:

Blair Hutchison 916-774-5266 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 5.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Commend Emma Meadows for all of her accomplishments in wrestling, and wish her much success in the future.

BACKGROUND
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.

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

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal B - Support community engagement and advocacy

Respectfully Submitted,
Blair Hutchison, City Clerk Technician
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution - Emma Meadows

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1980
File #:
0102-06
Title:

Resolution - Jazzy Roschmann
Contact:

Blair Hutchison 916-774-5266 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 5.2.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Commend Jazzy Roschmann for all of her accomplishments in wrestling, and wish her much success in the future.

BACKGROUND
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal B - Support community engagement and advocacy

Respectfully Submitted,
Blair Hutchison, City Clerk Technician
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution - Jazzy Roschmann

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1977
File #:
0102-06
Title:

Proclamation - Child Abuse Prevention Awareness Month April 2022 Contact:

Blair Hutchison 916-774-5266 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 5.3.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Proclaim April 2022 as Child Abuse Prevention Awareness Month and urges all citizens to join KidsFirst and its engaged partners, as they support each family's efforts to keep themselves and their children safe, healthy and in a nurturing environment.

BACKGROUND
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Not applicable.

Respectfully Submitted,
Blair Hutchison, City Clerk Technician
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Proclamation - Child Abuse Prevention Awareness Month April 2022

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1963
File #:
0203-09
Title:

Miscellaneous Waterworks Materials (RFQ 10-3314) - Purchase Orders Contact:

Becky Philipp 916-774-5724 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends Council adopt resolutions to approve purchase orders to Pace Supply Corporation and Ferguson Enterprises, LLC dba Ferguson Waterworks as the lowest responsive and responsible bidders for the purchase of miscellaneous waterworks materials on an as-needed basis.

The bid allowed for one optional renewal year. Staff requests authorization to continue utilizing the optional renewal year of the bid contracts without further Council approval until the contracts expire or until City staff determines that continuing with the same vendors are not in the City's best interest.

BACKGROUND
Various City departments have ongoing requirements for waterworks materials to maintain City facilities and infrastructure. The materials are primarily used for repairs, upgrades, maintenance, and new service additions to the City’s water and sewer lines.

A formal bid was issued for 473 waterworks items as a sampling of products regularly purchased either by end using departments for specific projects or by Purchasing staff to stock the Central Stores Warehouse. The bid will be awarded by line item, and bidders were asked to quote a quantity of one for each item to obtain the unit price. Bidders were also asked to quote a percentage discount of the manufacturer's list price for broad categories of waterworks items not specifically listed in the bid. The bid specified that the two bidders with the greatest number of low bids would be awarded the contract. Vendor responses are listed on the attached bid summary sheet.

FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated total award for the combined initial contracts through March 15, 2023 is $625,000.

The initial award includes $183,000 for the remainder of FY2021-22 and $442,000 for FY2022- 23, and funding is included in departmental budgets. Spending for the renewal will be contingent upon Council approval of budgets. Projected spending for the optional renewal year is estimated to be $656,000, and includes $192,000 for the remainder of FY2022-23 and $464,000 for FY2023-24.

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

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services

Respectfully Submitted,
Becky Philipp, Buyer
Dennis Kauffman, Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-068
Resolution 22-069
Bid Summary Sheet
RESOLUTION NO. 22-068

APPROVING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF MISCELLANEOUS

WATERWORKS MATERIALS ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS

WHEREAS, a purchase order for the purchase of miscellaneous waterworks materials on an as-needed basis, between the City of Roseville and Pace Supply Corporation, has been reviewed by the Council; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said purchase order is approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that one (1) additional one (1) year renewal is hereby approved without further City Council approval, provided that the applicable budget is approved by the City Council, or until City staff determines that continuing with the same vendor is not in the City’s best interest, and upon receipt and approval of bonds by the City Attorney’s office.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ______________, 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

_______________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

__________________________
City Clerk

RESOLUTION NO. 22-069

APPROVING A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF MISCELLANEOUS

WATERWORKS MATERIALS ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS

WHEREAS, a purchase order for the purchase of miscellaneous waterworks materials on an as-needed basis, between the City of Roseville and Ferguson Enterprises, LLC has been reviewed by the Council; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said purchase order is approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1972
File #:
0203-01
Title:

Vehicle – Purchase Orders
Contact:

Brian Craighead 916-774-5731 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.2.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Sourcewell
Staff recommends City Council approve a purchase order to Riverview International Truck LLC for one International truck with a PB asphalt patch body utilizing Sourcewell contract# 060920- NVS to replace Fleet ID 09-716 approved in the FY2021-22 Fleet Replacement budget. The total cost, including options and sales tax, is $261,543.

RFQ 10-3316
Staff recommends City Council approve a purchase order to Napa Valley Ford Lincoln Mercury, Inc. dba Napa Ford Lincoln for seven Ford F150 trucks utilizing RFQ 10-3316 to replace Fleet ID 08-169, 11-057, 05-110, 06-243 and three fleet additions approved in the FY2021-22 Electric Capital Outlay and Fleet Replacement budget. The total cost, including options and sales tax, is $244,050.

RFQ 10-3319
Staff recommends City Council approve a purchase order to Riverview International Truck LLC for one International truck with a dump body utilizing RFQ 10-3319 to replace Fleet ID 06-398 approved in the FY2021-22 Fleet Replacement budget. The total cost, including options and sales tax, is $173,028.

BACKGROUND
Sourcewell
The Public Works Street Resurfacing division is purchasing one International truck with a PB asphalt patch body to replace Fleet ID 09-716. This asphalt tuck is used for daily paving operations and is a key tool for hauling hot mix asphalt and oil to job sites. In addition, this truck keeps asphalt at proper temperatures during repairs and maintenance to streets, potholes, and other unsafe road conditions. Sourcewell is a public agency that offers competitively solicited purchasing contracts for products and equipment to all government, education and non-profit agencies across the U.S.

RFQ 10-3316
The Police Department is purchasing two Ford F150 trucks to replace Fleet ID 08-169 and 11- 057. One of the trucks is assigned to the crime scene investigations (CSI) team to respond to calls for service to assist with evidence collection and accident investigations.

The second truck is
used to perform follow-up investigations, respond to emergency call-outs, and respond to crime scenes.

The Environmental Utilities Tech Services division is purchasing one Ford F150 truck to replace Fleet ID 05-110. This truck is used by both technical services staff and project managers to attend regularly scheduled construction meetings across the City, including project site visits to monitor project progress and facilitate on-site coordination with contractors. In addition, it will be used for offsite non-construction meetings and
will be shared amongst the division.

The Environmental Utilities Wastewater Collections division is purchasing one Ford F150 truck as a fleet addition. The truck will be used by a new Senior Utility Maintenance Worker position that is responsible for the implementation of the Fats Oils and Grease (FOG) program. In addition, this truck will assist in inspecting all restaurants in the City and the inspection of grease interceptors and sand oil separators. This program keeps us in compliance with California State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 and compliance with the requirements of our Sewer System Management Plane (SSMP) Section 5-5.7.

The Environmental Utilities Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant is purchasing one Ford F150 truck as a fleet addition. This truck will be used by a grade IV Wastewater Operator position at the treatment plant. This position was added two years ago and is a supervisor/lead position over the operations at the plant. The truck will travel throughout the water and wastewater treatment plants and sites throughout the City.

The Roseville Electric Construction and Maintenance division is purchasing one Ford F150 truck to replace Fleet ID 06-243. The truck is used daily for offsite developer meetings for new construction and maintenance work associated with the electrical distribution system. The truck requires four-wheel drive due to the high frequency of traveling in undeveloped areas and along non-paved power corridors for State-mandated General Order inspections. This truck also supports emergency response events.

The Parks Recreation and Libraries, Parks Operations division is purchasing one Ford F150 truck as a new fleet addition. This truck will be used to facilitate and implement park maintenance activities to ensure public safety and onsite visits of City infrastructure within our park system throughout the City.

RFQ 10-3316 included options based on every division’s needs. Since all options are not required for every Ford F150, the PO pricing will be lower than the total price. The low bidder Penske Chevrolet did not include all options pricing as required by the bid and is deemed non- responsive.

A formal bid was issued with the following vendor responses:

Vendor

Total Price (with all potential options)

Penske Chevrolet

$264,713.05
Cerritos, CA

Napa Ford

$456,218.00
Napa, CA

RFQ 10-3319
The Environmental Utilities Water Distribution division is purchasing one International truck with a dump body to replace Fleet ID 06-398. The dump truck is used by the construction leak crew for scheduled and emergency repairs to water mains, service lines, blow-offs, and air release valves.

The truck also pulls a backhoe on a large equipment trailer that is used on every project. In addition, the truck hauls rock, dirt, and other materials to and from the jobs. The leak crew’s quick response with the appropriate tools and equipment is vital to ensure fast repairs to minimize water waste, especially during these lean water years when every drop counts.

RFQ 10-3319 included some options that will not be purchased so the PO price will be lower than the total price.

A formal bid was issued with the following vendor responses:

Vendor

Total Price (with all potential options)

Riverview International Trucks LLC

$173,614.92
West Sacramento, CA

Logtech Group LLC

$186,000.00

Vehicle replacements are based on the Fleet Scoring System, which considers factors such as age, mileage, reliability, prior maintenance and repair costs, and current condition. Below are the vehicle replacement scores. A score of 23 or more indicates the vehicle is eligible for replacement.

Vehicle ID
Replacement Score
Vehicle Condition
09-716
26 Meets City replacement criteria
08-169
27 Meets City replacement criteria
11-057
24 Meets City replacement criteria
05-110
28 Meets City replacement criteria
06-243
30 Meets City replacement criteria
06-398
29 Meets City replacement criteria

FISCAL IMPACT
Sourcewell
The total cost of one International truck with a PB asphalt patch body, including options and sales tax, is $261,543. Funding is included in the FY2021-22 Fleet Replacement Fund budget.

RFQ 10-3316
The total cost of seven Ford F150 trucks, including options and sales tax, is $244,050. Funding is included in the FY2021-22 Electric Fund and Fleet Replacement Fund budgets.

RFQ 10-3319
The total cost of one International truck with a dump body, including options and sales tax, is $173,028. Funding is included in the FY2021-22 Fleet Replacement Fund budget.

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

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services

Respectfully Submitted,
Brian Craighead, Fleet Manager
Jason Shykowski, Public Works Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1966
File #:
0203-04
Title:

Systems Furniture Design & Reconfiguration Services - Contract Purchase Agreement
Contact:

Lori Hogan 916-774-5707 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.3.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a $500,000 not-to-exceed
contract purchase agreement with Vertex Office Solutions for systems furniture design and configuration services.

The agreement allows for four optional renewal years at one-year intervals. Staff requests authorization to utilize the optional renewal years of the agreement without further Council approvals, provided that the applicable budget is approved by the City Council each year, or until City staff determines that continuing with the same vendor is not in the City's best interest.

BACKGROUND
The Public Works Department released Request for Proposals No. 01-043 in February of 2022 to solicit bids for as-needed Systems Furniture Design and Configuration services. These services include the design and reconfiguration of office and systems furniture for new and current spaces. Two companies submitted proposals and one was rejected for a late submission. One proposal was evaluated on overall proposal, project understanding, cost, qualifications, and experience. Vertex Office Solutions was rated as qualified, and staff is recommending they be awarded the contract purchase agreement.

FISCAL IMPACT
Projected spending for this on-call agreement for the remainder of FY2021-22 is $150,000.

Funding for this agreement is included in the Facility Services and Facility Rehabilitation approved budgets. Additional projects may be paid for with funds from approved budgets from other City departments.

Funds will be encumbered one year at a time pending Council approval of the budget for each year. Projected spending and contract value for the optional renewal years is as follows: FY2022- 23 $500,000; FY2023-24 $525,000; FY2024-25 $550,000; FY2025-26 $575,000; and FY2026- 27 $600,000. Note that the dates of this contract are not in line with fiscal year budgeting, so budgets may span multiple renewal years.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) only applies to projects which have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3)).

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Lori Hogan, Project Coordinator
Jason Shykowski, Public Works Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-070
CPA 3001850 Vertex

RESOLUTION NO. 22-070

APPROVING A CONTRACT PURCHASE AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY

OF ROSEVILLE AND VERTEX OFFICE SOLUTIONS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, a contract purchase agreement (3001850) for Citywide systems furniture design and configuration services on an as-needed basis, between the City of Roseville and Vertex Office Solutions, has been reviewed by the Council; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said agreement is approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute it and all other related documents on behalf of the City of Roseville.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute four (4) additional one (1) year renewals without further City Council approval, provided that the applicable budget is approved by the City Council each year, or until City staff determines that continuing with the same vendor is not in the City’s best interest.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

City Clerk
Contract Purchase Agreement 3001850
Supplier Details:

Company Vertex Office Solutions
Contact Ken Woodward
Address 4212 Roseville Road
Suite F
North Highlands, CA 95660
Submit your response to:

Company City of Roseville
Contact Tiffany Valdez
Address Purchasing Division
2075 Hilltop Circle
Roseville, CA 95747
Phone (916) 774-5708
Fax (916) 774-5736
E-mail [email protected]
This Contract Purchase Agreement is sent for your review and acceptance. Notify the Buyer via email of any needed changes to the company name, address, and contact information. The Buyer will update the agreement prior to you signing the document.

Return two (2) signed originals of the agreement to the Buyer noted on the agreement. Alterations or modifications to the agreement are not allowed. Upon receipt of all necessary documents, the City will sign the agreement and return a fully executed copy to you. Receipt of the signed copy will be your notice to proceed with the work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Work must not begin until the contract has been fully executed.

The following guidelines must be followed for the signature block on the agreement:

Sole proprietorship - By owner
Partnership - Any general partner
Corporation - Two options:
(1) A signature from the President and the corporate seal; OR (2) One signature from the Chairman of the Board, President, or any Vice President AND one signature from the Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, or any Treasurer or Assistant Treasurer of the corporation
*General Manager, Office Manager and/or Sales Manager are not corporate officer titles. The agreement will be rejected if not signed in accordance with these guidelines.

Insurance requirements:

The City's insurance requirements are referenced on Attachment A of the agreement. By signing the agreement, you are confirming that your company has the minimum insurance limits required. 1 Contract Purchase Agreement 3001850
Agreement 3001850
Agreement Date 22-FEB-2022
Revision 0
Agreement Amount 500,000.00 USD
Invoice To City of Roseville
Accounts Payable
311 Vernon St
ROSEVILLE CA 95678
Supplier Vertex Office Solutions
4212 Roseville Road
Suite F
North Highlands, CA 95660
Phone:

Fax:

Email:
(916) 774-5488
(916) 784-3796
[email protected]
Phone:

Fax:

Email:
()
()
[email protected]
Description of
Labor,
equipment
and/or materials

THE SERVICES CALLED FOR UNDER CITY OF ROSEVILLE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #01-043 AND CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSAL THERETO TITLED CITY OF ROSEVILLE BID RFP 01-043 SYSTEMS FURNITURE DESIGN & CONFIGURATION SERVICES (HEREINAFTER "PROPOSAL"). THE TERMS AND SCOPE OF WORK OF CITY OF ROSEVILLE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #01-043 AND CONTRACTOR'S

PROPOSAL ARE HEREIN MADE PART OF THIS CONTRACT PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND FULLY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.

Please contact Lori Crittenden at 916-774-5707 for questions regarding this agreement.

The total cost of service is an approximate value only. The City cannot guarantee whatsoever the actual value of this contract.

Customer # Supplier # Payment Terms Freight Terms FOB Shipping Method 12658 Net 30 Freight on Board at the destination Destination Best Method Start Date End Date Confirm To
16-Mar-2022 15-Mar-2023 Tiffany Valdez Phone 1-916-774-5708 Attention: Total Cost not to exceed the agreement amount without prior approval of the Purchasing office.

2 Contract Purchase Agreement 3001850

Contract Terms and Conditions

1. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and save and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from any claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth, or on account of, injuries to or death of any person (including but not limited to workers and the public), or damage to property, resulting from or arising out of Contractor's willful misconduct or negligent act or omission while engaged in the performance of obligations or exercise of rights created by this Agreement, except those matters arising from City's sole or active negligence or willful misconduct. The parties intend that this provision shall be broadly construed. Contractor's responsibility for such defense and indemnity obligations shall survive the termination or completion of this Agreement for the full period of time allowed by law. The defense and indemnity obligations of this Agreement are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Agreement.

2. Contractor is an independent contractor, and shall not be considered an officer, agent or employee of the City.

3. Without the written consent of the City, this Agreement is not assignable by Contractor either in whole or in part.

4. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.

5. At any time during the term of this Agreement, the City has the right to terminate this Agreement, provided Contractor is given thirty (30) days written notice. City's termination shall be without further liability to City; however, Contractor shall be entitled to all costs reasonably incurred prior to the date of termination. Contractor acknowledges that City may terminate this Agreement should funds not be appropriated by its governing body to continue services under this Agreement.

6. This Agreement may only be amended or modified in writing. It is integrated and contains the complete understanding of the parties.

7. All equipment, supplies and services sold to the City of Roseville shall conform to the general safety orders of the State of California.

8. Unless notified to the contrary, in writing, the City assumes that the Contractor has accepted the work in accordance with the plans and specifications (if any) and agrees to do the work in compliance with this Agreement.

9. All prevailing wages and fair employment practices must be adhered to. For prevailing wage contracts over $25,000, copies of certified payroll must be submitted with invoices.

Prevailing wage rates may be obtained from the State Department of Industrial Relations and/or the following website address:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/DPreWageDetermination.htm.

10. Contractor agrees to the below insurance requirements:
a. Unless otherwise specified, the Contractor shall maintain the policies of insurance outlined in Attachment A, incorporated herein by this reference, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement. The City of Roseville retains sole discretion in determining the types and proper levels of insurance coverage.
b. Form. Contractor shall submit a certificate evidencing such coverage for the period covered by this Agreement in a form satisfactory to Risk Management and the City Attorney, prior to undertaking any work hereunder. Any insurance written on a claims made basis is subject to the approval of Risk Management and the City Attorney.
c. Additional Insureds. Contractor shall also provide a separate endorsement or 3 Contract Purchase Agreement 3001850

section of the policy showing City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers as additional insureds for each type of coverage (except Workers' Compensation) and for ongoing and completed operations. Such insurance shall specifically cover the contractual liability of Contractor. The additional insured coverage under the Contractor's policy shall be primary and noncontributory, as evidenced by a separate endorsement or section of the policy, and shall not seek contribution from City's insurance or self-insurance. In addition, the additional insured coverage shall be at least as broad as the Insurance Services Office (ISO) CG 20 01 Endorsement. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and limits shall be available to the additional insureds. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be:
(1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the full coverage and maximum limits of any insurance proceeds available to the named insureds, whichever is greater.
d. Cancellation/Modification. Contractor shall provide ten (10) days written notice to City prior to cancellation or modification of any insurance required by this Agreement.
e. Umbrella/Excess Insurance. The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and excess insurance. Any excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and noncontributory basis for the benefit of City (if agreed to in a written contract) before City's own insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.
f. Subcontractors. Contractor agrees to include in its contracts with all subcontractors the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement, including the indemnity and insurance requirements, to the extent they apply to the scope of the subcontractor's work. Furthermore, Contractor shall require its subcontractors to agree to be bound to Contractor and City in the same manner and to the same extent as Contractor is bound to City under this Agreement.

Additionally, Contractor shall obligate its subcontractors to comply with these same provisions with respect to any tertiary subcontractor, regardless of tier. A copy of City's indemnity and insurance provisions will be furnished to the subcontractor or tertiary subcontractor upon request.
g. Self-Insured Retentions. All self-insured retentions (SIR) must be disclosed to Risk Management for approval and shall not reduce the limits of liability.

Policies containing any SIR provision shall provide or be endorsed to provide that the SIR may be satisfied by either the named insured or City. City reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any insurance policy and endorsements. The failure to exercise this right shall not constitute a waiver of such right.
h. Waiver of Subrogation. Contractor hereby agrees to waive subrogation which any insurer of Contractor may acquire from Contractor by virtue of the payment of any loss under a Workers Compensation, Commercial General Liability or Automobile Liability policy. All Workers Compensation, Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability policies shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers for all work performed by Contractor, its employees, agents and subcontractors. i. Liability/Remedies. Insurance coverage in the minimum amounts set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve Contractor of liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it preclude City from taking such other actions as are available to it under any other provisions of this Agreement or law.

11. Contractor shall comply with all federal, state and local laws and ordinances, including but not limited to the City's storm water regulations, as may be applicable to the 4 Contract Purchase Agreement 3001850

performance of services under this Agreement. Failure to comply with local ordinances may result in monetary fines and cancellation of this Agreement. Refer to www.roseville.ca.us/stormwater for links to more information on the City's storm water regulations.

12. In the event that the terms of any attachment or exhibit conflict with any terms of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall control.

13. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. In the event that any signature is delivered by facsimile transmission or by e- mail delivery of a ".pdf" format data file, such signature shall create a valid and binding obligation of the party executing (or on whose behalf such signature is executed) with the same force and effect as if such facsimile or ".pdf" signature page were an original thereof.

14. If either party commences any legal action against the other party arising out of this Agreement or the performance thereof, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover its reasonable litigation expenses, including but not limited to, court costs, expert witness fees, discovery expenses, and attorneys' fees. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in Placer County, California, regardless of where else venue may lie. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

15. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the respective parties hereto.

16. If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are for any reason held invalid or unenforceable, such holding shall not affect the remaining provisions or the validity and enforceability of the Agreement as a whole.

17. For purposes of this Agreement, the terms "Contractor," "Consultant," and "Supplier" are used interchangeably.

18. No contractor or subcontractor may work on a public works project unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5.

During the performance of this agreement, Contractor and its subcontractors shall have a continuing legal obligation to maintain current registration with the Department of Industrial Relations. Contractor is hereby notified that this project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.

19. Contractor must submit all claims as defined in and in accordance with the claim resolution process set forth in Section 9204 of the Public Contract Code. Each such claim must be sent to the City by registered mail or certified mail with return receipt requested and must contain reasonable documentation to support the claim. All claims must be received prior to acceptance of the work.

20. Contractor certifies that Contractor, its employees, directors, officers, agents, subcontractors, vendors, and volunteers are not presently debarred, excluded, suspended, declared ineligible, voluntarily excluded, or proposed for debarment, exclusion, suspension or ineligibility by any federal, state, or local department or agency.

21. This Agreement may be amended via change order, but only if such change order is made in writing, approved by the City, and signed by both parties.

22. CONTRACTOR agrees to defend and indemnify CITY if, despite the parties intent and practice, any venue, agency, or court with competent jurisdiction determines that CONTRACTOR and/or any of its agents, officers, employees, volunteers, independent contractors, or subcontractors, are characterized as employee(s) of CITY.

CONTRACTOR and CITY agree that: (a) CONTRACTOR is free from the control and direction of CITY in connection with the performance of the work; (b) CONTRACTOR is providing services directly to CITY; (c) CONTRACTOR has and will maintain at all relevant times a business license; (d) CONTRACTOR maintains a business location that 5 Contract Purchase Agreement 3001850

is separate from CITY; (e) CONTRACTOR is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed hereunder; (f) CONTRACTOR actually contracts with other businesses to provide the same or similar services and maintains a clientele without restrictions from CITY; (g) CONTRACTOR advertises and holds itself out to the public as available to provide the same or similar services; (h) CONTRACTOR provides its own tools, vehicles, and equipment to perform the services; (i) CONTRACTOR has negotiated its own rates; (j) CONTRACTOR set its own hours and location of work in accomplishing CITY's on-call needs; and (k) CONTRACTOR has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired and exercises its own expert independent judgement.

The supplier named hereon by the acceptance of this order agrees to the provisions of this document titled "Contract Purchase Agreement" and all accompanying terms, conditions, and attachments.

Roseville Business License No. ____________________________________ Contractor License No. ____________________________________________ DIR Registration No. _______________________________________________ Check mark the applicable company type below:
___________ Corporation
___________ Limited Liability Company
___________ Partnership
___________ Sole Proprietor
City Reserves the right to withold any payments to contractor in the event of noncompliance with insurance requirements or if required by law.

Construction T&C
REV 3/2/21 JS

6 Contract Purchase Agreement 3001850

ATTACHMENT A

HUMAN RESOURCES/RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

AGREEMENT OVER FORMAL BID LIMIT OR INVOLVING HIGH RISK ACTIVITIES General - Required Coverage/Documentation
● General Liability: $1 Million per occurrence /$2 Million aggregate ● Automobile Liability: $1 Million combined single limit ● Workers' Compensation: Statutory *Must provide a Waiver of subrogation ● Additional Insured Endorsement (AIE) - General Liability policy: CG 20 38 04 13 or an equivalent, blanket endorsement or section of the policy. Endorsement shall cover the City of Roseville, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers as additional insured. ● Policies must be primary and non-contributory
● A 30 day notice of cancellation must be provided
● List certificate holder as: The City of Roseville - Insurance Compliance, PO Box 100085-R1, Duluth, GA 30096
Additional Liability/Insurance Requirements if required by Agreement (and marked below):

Construction:X
General Liability:
$2 Million/occurrence
$4 Million aggregate
Design Professional:____
General Liability:
$2 Million/occurrence
$4 Million aggregate
Professional Liability:
$2 Million/occurrence
Professional Consultant:____
Professional Liability:
$1 Million/occurrence
IT Services:____
Professional Liability:
$1 Million/occurrence
No auto required
Hazardous Materials:____
Pollution Liability:
$1 Million/occurrence
Special Events/Caterers-Vendors:____
No auto required
No workers' comp required
Professional Counseling/ Psychological:____
Professional Liability:
$1 Million/occurrence
No auto required
7 Contract Purchase Agreement 3001850

Pyrotechnics:____
General Liability:
$5 Million/occurrence
$10 Million aggregate
Auto - $2 Million/occurrence
Chemical/Environmental:____
General Liability:
$3 Million/occurrence
$6 Million aggregate
Pollution – $2 Million/Occurrence
Auto - $2 Million/Occurrence
Insurance Submission Process
The City of Roseville Human Resources/Risk Management Department uses a service called EBIX to manage our insurance certificate tracking.

How It Works
● The vendor's contact information is entered into EBIX. EBIX will contact the vendor to request proof of insurance.
● The Vendor can forward the request to their Insurance Agent(s) if necessary. ● Vendor/Insurance Agent submits insurance to EBIX by email to [email protected] or by fax to (770) 325-5727. After faxing or emailing the certificate, please DO NOT send the certificate by mail to EBIX.

Please do not mail, email or fax any certificates to the City of Roseville. ● Once submitted, EBIX reviews the insurance documentation. If there are deficiencies, EBIX will send a follow up letter or email requesting additional information.

Questions Regarding Insurance Submission: Contact EBIX at (951) 652-4239 Questions Regarding Insurance Requirements Contact Risk Management at (916) 774-5202

8 Contract Purchase Agreement 3001850

Asbestos-Containing Materials in City-Owned Buildings
California Health and Safety Code Section 25915 requires that all City of Roseville employees, contractors and lessees be notified annually of the presence of asbestos in City-owned buildings constructed prior to 1979. Please post this notice in an area(s) accessible to all employees, contractors and lessees. Contact Facility Maintenance & Operations at (916) 774-5740 for more information about Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) in specific City-owned buildings. For more information about asbestos refer to the OSHA website.

The City of Roseville is committed to maintaining a safe and healthy work environment. The City's Facility Maintenance & Operations staff conducts ongoing inspections to identify and safely manage previously installed asbestos-containing products. Renovation of City-owned buildings MUST be reviewed in advance by Facility Maintenance & Operations to ensure the City is in compliance with building codes, Americans with Disabilities Act and that no ACMs are disturbed without proper safeguards. Work that requires removal or repair of ACMs is restricted to trained and qualified persons only. Facility Maintenance & Operations will need to approve the qualified contractors.

Use the following measures to protect you and others from exposure to airborne asbestos:
● Presume all building materials contain asbestos until determined otherwise by Facility Maintenance & Operations.
● Do not install walls, closets, cabinets, ceilings.
● Do not remove, cut, drill, sand, grind or otherwise disturb any material in the buildings, including carpet and tile.
● Do not paint (this includes any walls, ceilings, floors and electrostatic painting of office furniture).
● Do not remove any items nailed or screwed to the walls (this includes pictures, cabinets, electrical, etc.).
● Do not go above ceilings, behind walls or into building spaces such as attics and crawlspaces unless these areas have been inspected and cleared by Facility Maintenance & Operations.
● Do not pull cable or wiring through above-ceiling spaces with asbestos. ● Do not install screws, pins, nails or hangers into asbestos ceiling or wall plaster. ● Be careful not to damage walls, ceilings or floors when moving furniture or equipment. It is recommended that Facility Maintenance & Operations be contacted prior to moving furniture or equipment.
● Do not brush, sweep or vacuum textured asbestos ceiling plaster or plaster debris. ● Immediately report any damage or deterioration of suspect building materials to Facility Maintenance & Operations or Risk Management.

It is important to note that the presence of asbestos does not mean you have been exposed.

Exposure results when friable asbestos particles are inhaled or ingested. Asbestos becomes friable when material containing asbestos is drilled, sanded or disturbed by remodeling or demolition work or when the ACM has deteriorated. Intact, bonded, sealed or undisturbed asbestos does not pose a hazard.

Employees may review the asbestos survey reports, results of bulk sampling or air monitoring conducted in City-owned buildings. All asbestos data will be available by appointment with Facility Maintenance & Operations.
9 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1959
File #:
0800-06
Title:

Prohousing Designation Application
Contact:

Jessica Lynch 916-774-5352 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.4.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommend the City Council adopt a resolution to authorize application to and participation in the California Department of Housing and Community Development Prohousing Designation Program.

BACKGROUND
On July 1, 2021, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) established the Prohousing Designation Program pursuant to California Government Code §65589.9. The Program creates incentives for cities and counties that are compliant with Housing Element requirements and can demonstrate that they have enacted, or plan to enact, Prohousing policies in four category areas: Favorable Zoning and Land Use, Accelerating Production Timeframes, Reducing Construction and Development Costs, and Providing Financial Subsidies.

Jurisdictions wishing to apply for the Prohousing Designation must complete and submit an application to HCD and provide documentation of their policies and, before Prohousing Designation is granted, must adopt and submit a resolution authorizing application to the Program.

HCD provides a template resolution from which jurisdictions may base their resolution, though all changes to the resolution template must be approved by HCD. The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed HCD’s resolution template and proposed minor modifications, which are consistent with changes accepted by HCD. Resolution 22-065, as modified by the City Attorney’s Office is included as Exhibit A.

Planning Division staff submitted the City’s initial draft Prohousing Designation application to HCD on February 10, 2022, and HCD has 60 days to review the application and provide a response to the City. This is an "over-the-counter" application process, which allows HCD and City staff to communicate during application review and make changes as needed. The Resolution is the final step in the application submission. If the application is accepted, the City will be granted HCD’s Prohousing Designation and be given incentives in the form of additional points and other preferences (to be determined by HCD) in several of the State’s competitive grant funding programs, including the: Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities (AHSC), Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG), Transformative Climate Communities (TCC), and Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP). The State intends to add more funding programs to this list.

The application requires that the City document its existing policies, programs, procedures, and practices that incentivize, encourage, and accelerate the production of housing. The application includes a self-scoring worksheet that provides between 1 and 3 points for each Prohousing policy. Additional points can be awarded for “enhancement factors” for policies that further implement specified Statewide goals. To earn the Prohousing Designation, a City must achieve a score of 30 points. Documentation of each Prohousing policy, program, procedure, or practice must be provided to HCD either in the form of a link to a webpage or PDF. The program criteria and self-scoring sheet submitted to HCD as part of the City’s application has been provided as Attachment 1 for review. Planning staff determined that the City qualifies for a total of 37 points according to the program criteria. The City's application does not commit the City to any new policies or programs not already adopted or underway. The application documents the City's existing policies and related projects.

FISCAL IMPACT
Preparation of the Resolution and application for the Prohousing Designation were completed internally by City staff using currently budgeted staff time. No additional costs were incurred.

Granting of the Prohousing designation would provide the City with a competitive advantage for several State grant funding programs, which could make more funding available to the City. This has no negative impact on the City's General Fund.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Adoption of the Resolution supports the City’s Strategic Plan goal to invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth because it allows the City to apply for the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) Prohousing Designation, which, if granted, gives the City a competitive advantage when applying for several State grant funding programs, including the: Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities (AHSC), Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG), Transformative Climate Communities (TCC), and Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP). The State intends to add more funding programs to this list.

Respectfully Submitted,
Jessica Lynch, Associate Planner
Mike Isom, Development Services Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-065
Attachment 1 Prohousing Application Summary
RESOLUTION NO. 22-065

AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION AND PARTICIPATION IN THE PROHOUSING

DESIGNATION PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, Government Code section 65589.9 established the Prohousing Designation Program (“PDP” or “Program”), which creates incentives for jurisdictions that are compliant with state housing element requirements and that have enacted Prohousing local policies; and

WHEREAS, such jurisdictions will be designated Prohousing, and, as such, will receive additional points or other preference during the scoring of their competitive applications for specified housing and infrastructure funding; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Community Development (“Department”) has adopted emergency regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 25, § 6600 et seq.) to implement the Program (“Program Regulations”), as authorized by Government Code section 65589.9, subdivision (d); and

WHEREAS, the City of Roseville (“Applicant”) desires to submit an application for a Prohousing Designation (“Application”).

THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED THAT:

1. Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to submit an Application to the Department.

2. Applicant acknowledges and confirms that it is currently in compliance with applicable state housing law.

3. Applicant acknowledges and confirms that it will continue to comply with applicable housing laws and to refrain from enacting laws, developing policies, or taking other local governmental actions that may or do inhibit or constrain housing production. Applicant further acknowledges and confirms that it commits itself to affirmatively furthering fair housing pursuant to Government Code section 8899.50.

4. If the Application is approved, Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to enter into, execute, and deliver all documents required or deemed necessary or appropriate to participate in the Program, and all amendments thereto (the “Program Documents”).

5. Applicant acknowledges and agrees that it shall be subject to the Application; the terms and conditions specified in the Program Documents; the Program Regulations; and any and all other applicable law.

6. The City Manager or his designee of the City of Roseville is authorized to execute and deliver the Application and the Program Documents on behalf of the Applicant for participation in the Program.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ______________, 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

______________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

I hereby attest and certify that the foregoing is a true and full copy of a resolution of the Applicant’s governing body adopted at a duly convened meeting on the date above-mentioned, and that the resolution has not been altered, amended, or repealed.

________________________ Date: __________________
City Clerk

Project Proposal
Category 1: Favorable Zoning and Land Use

Category Prohousing Policy Description Points
1A Sufficient sites, including rezoning, to accommodate 150 percent or greater of the current or draft RHNA, whichever is greater, by total or income category.
3 1B Permitting missing middle housing uses (e.g., duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes) by right in existing low-density, single-family residential zones.
3 1C Sufficient sites, including rezoning, to accommodate 125 to 149 percent of the current or draft RHNA, whichever is greater, by total or income category. These points shall not be awarded if the applicant earns three points pursuant to Category (1)(A) above. 2 1D Density bonus programs which exceed statutory requirements by 10 percent or more.
2 1E Increasing allowable density in low-density, single-family residential areas beyond the requirements of state Accessory Dwelling Unit law (e.g., permitting more than one ADU or JADU per single-family lot). These policies shall be separate from any qualifying policies under Category (1)(B) above.
2 1F Reducing or eliminating parking requirements for residential development as authorized by Government Code sections
65852.2; adopting vehicular parking ratios that are less than the relevant ratio thresholds at subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of Government Code section 65915, subdivision (p)(1); or adopting maximum parking requirements at or less than ratios pursuant to Government Code section 65915, subdivision (p).
2 1G Zoning to allow for residential or mixed uses in one or more non- residential zones (e.g., commercial, light industrial). Qualifying non-residential zones do not include open space or substantially similar zones.
1 1H Modification of development standards and other applicable zoning provisions to promote greater development intensity.

Potential areas of focus include floor area ratio; height limits; 1 minimum lot or unit sizes; setbacks; and allowable dwelling units per acre. These policies must be separate from any qualifying policies under Category (1)(B) above.
1I Establishment of a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone, as defined in Government Code section 65620, or a housing
sustainability district, as defined in Government Code section 66200.
1 1J Demonstrating other zoning and land use actions that measurably support the Acceleration of Housing Production.
1 Category 2: Acceleration of Housing Production Timeframes

Category Prohousing Policy Description Points
2A Establishment of ministerial approval processes for a variety of housing types, including single-family and multifamily housing. 3 2B Establishment of streamlined, program-level CEQA analysis and certification of general plans, community plans, specific plans with accompanying Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), and related documents.
2 2C Documented practice of streamlining housing development at the project level, such as by enabling a by-right approval process or by utilizing statutory and categorical exemptions as authorized by applicable law (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21155.1, 21155.4, 21159.24, 21159.25; Gov. Code, § 65457; Cal Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15303, 15332; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21094.5, 21099, 21155.2, 21159.28).
2 2D Establishment of permit processes that take less than four months.

Policies under this Category (2)(D) must address all approvals necessary to issue building permits.
2 2E Absence or elimination of public hearings for projects consistent with zoning and the general plan.
2 2F Establishment of consolidated or streamlined permit processes that minimize the levels of review and approval required for projects, and that are consistent with zoning regulations and the general plan. 1 2G Absence, elimination or replacement of subjective development and design standards with objective development and design standards that simplify zoning clearance and improve approval certainty and timing.
1 2H Establishment of one-stop-shop permitting processes or a single point of contact where entitlements are coordinated across city approval functions (e.g., planning, public works, building) from entitlement application to certificate of occupancy.
1 2I Priority permit processing or reduced plan check times for ADUs/JADUs, multifamily housing, or homes affordable to lower- or moderate-income households.
1 2J Establishment of a standardized application form for all entitlement applications.
1 2K Practice of publicly posting status updates on project permit approvals on the Internet.
1 2L Limitation on the total number of hearings for any project to three or fewer. Applicants that accrue points pursuant to Category (2)(E) are not eligible for points under this Category (2)(L).
1 2M Demonstration of other actions, not listed above, that quantifiably decrease production timeframes or promote the streamlining of approval processes.
1 Category 3: Reduction of Construction and Development Costs

Category Prohousing Policy Description Points
3A Waiver or significant reduction of development impact fees for residential development.
3 3B Adoption of ordinances or implementation of other mechanisms that result in less restrictive requirements than Government Code 2 sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 to reduce barriers for property owners to create ADUs/JADUs. Examples of qualifying policies include, but are not limited to, development standards
improvements, permit processing improvements, dedicated ADU/JADU staff, technical assistance programs, and pre- approved ADU/JADU design packages.
3C Adoption of other fee reduction strategies separate from Category (3)(A) above, including fee deferrals and reduced fees for housing for persons with special needs.
1 3D Promoting innovative housing types (e.g., manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, park models) that reduce development costs.
1 3E Measures that reduce costs for transportation-related infrastructure or programs that encourage active modes of transportation or other alternatives to automobiles. Qualifying policies include, but are not limited to, publicly funded programs to expand sidewalks or protect bike/micro-mobility lanes; creation of on-street parking for bikes; transit-related improvements; or establishment of carshare programs.
1 3F Adoption of universal design ordinances pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17959.
1 3G Establishment of pre-approved or prototype plans for missing middle housing types (e.g., duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes) in low-density, single-family residential areas.
1 3H Demonstration of other actions, not listed above, that quantifiably reduce construction or development costs.
1 Category 4: Providing Financial Subsidies

Category Prohousing Policy Description Points
4A Establishment of local housing trust funds or collaboration on a regional housing trust fund.
2 4B Provide grants or low-interest loans for ADU/JADU construction affordable to lower- and moderate-income households.
2 4C A comprehensive program that complies with the Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code, § 54220 et seq.) and that makes publicly owned land available for affordable housing, or for multifamily housing projects with the highest feasible percentage of units affordable to lower income households. A qualifying program may utilize mechanisms such as land donations, land sales with significant write-downs, or below-market land leases.
2 4D Establishment of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District or similar local financing tool that, to the extent feasible, directly supports housing developments in an area where at least 20 percent of the residences will be affordable to lower income households.
2 4E Directed residual redevelopment funds to affordable housing. 1 4F Development and regular (at least biennial) use of a housing subsidy pool, local or regional trust fund, or other similar funding source.
1 4G Prioritization of local general funds for affordable housing. 1 4H Demonstration of other actions, not listed above, that quantifiably promote, develop, or leverage financial resources for housing. 1 Project Proposal
Enhancement Factors

The Department shall utilize enhancement factors to increase the point scores of Prohousing Policies. Each Prohousing Policy will receive extra points for enhancement factors in accordance with the chart below.

Category Prohousing Policy Description Points
1 Policy that represents one element of a unified, multi-faceted strategy to promote multiple planning objectives, such as efficient land use, access to public transportation, affordable housing, climate change solutions, and/or hazard mitigation.
2 2 Policies that promote development consistent with the state planning priorities pursuant to Government Code section 65041.1. 1 3 Policies that diversify planning and target community and economic development investments (housing and non-housing) to improve lower opportunity areas. Such areas include, but are not limited to, Low Resource and High Segregation & Poverty areas designated in the most recently updated TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, and disadvantaged communities pursuant to California Senate Bill 535 (2012).
1 4 Policies that go beyond state law requirements in reducing displacement of lower income households and conserving existing housing stock that is affordable to lower income households. 1 5 Rezoning and other policies that support high-density development in Location Efficient Communities.
1 6 Rezoning and other policies that result in a net gain of housing capacity while concurrently mitigating development impacts on or from Environmentally Sensitive or Hazardous Areas.
1 7 Zoning policies that increase housing choices and affordability in High Resource and Highest Resource areas, as designated in the most recently updated TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps.
1 8 Other policies that involve meaningful actions towards affirmatively furthering fair housing pursuant to Government Code section 8899.50, including, but not limited to, outreach campaigns, updated zoning codes, and expanded access to financing support. 1 Category
Number
Concise Written
Description of
Prohousing Policy
Enacted
or
Proposed
Documentation Type
(e.g., resolution,
zoning code)
Insert Web
Links to
Documents or
Indicate that
Electronic
Copies are
Attached as
Appendix 5
Points Enhancement
Category
Number
Enhancement
Points
Total Points
1B The City will adopt
amendments to the
Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinances compliant
with SB 9 in April 2022.

The ordinances will
make adjustments to
setbacks, parking
requirements, lot line
adjustment and parcel
map procedures, and
revise notice and
hearing requirements to
allow for a more
streamlined by-right
ministerial process to
allow two units and lot
splits in single family
residential zoning
districts.

Proposed SB 9 Amendments to
Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision
Ordinance. A staff
report describing the
proposed process can
be found at the link.
https://rosevill
e.novusagend
a.com/Agenda
Public/Covers
heet.aspx?Ite
mID=9859&M
eetingID=1560
3 3
1C The Housing Element
Residential Sites
Inventory and the
Rezone Program will
accommodate 127.6
percent of the current
RHNA.

Enacted Adopted Housing
Element. Housing
Element Program 14.

Policies H3.2, H3.4,
H3.5
https://p1cdn4
static.civiclive.
com/UserFiles
/Servers/Serv
er_7964838/Fi
le/Government
/Departments/
Development
%20Services/
Planning/Hous
ing%20Eleme
nt%202021-
2029/2021%2
0Housing%20
Element%20A
dopted%208.1

8.21.pdf
2 2
1F The City has eliminated
the requirement for
parking spaces for
JADUs and studio
ADUs. The Downtown
Specific Plan contains
policies that reduce
parking requirements
for new development,
promote shared parking
to reduce need, and
allow in lieu parking
fees to discourage
onsite parking.

Enacted Municipal Code
Section

19.60.070(H)(1) and
Downtown Specific
Plan Policy 6.6.2
Municipal
Code:
https://qcode.u
s/codes/rosevi
lle/

and
Downtown
Specific Plan:
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=8
775091
2 2
1G Residential uses are
permitted by right in
Commercial Mixed Use
(CMU) zone and
conditionally permitted
in Neighborhood
Commercial (NC),
Community
Commercial (CC),
General Commercial
(GC), and Old Town
Historic (HC) zones.

The Riverside Gateway
Specific Plan includes a
Special Area overlay
(SA) that created the
CMU/SA-RG zoning
district that allows
residential development
by right.

Enacted Municipal Code
Section 19.12.020 and
Sections 9.3.1 through

9.3.3 of the Riverside
Gateway Specific Plan
Municipal
Code:
https://qcode.u
s/codes/rosevi
lle/

And Riverside
Gateway Plan:
https://p1cdn4
static.civiclive.
com/UserFiles
/Servers/Serv
er_7964838/Fi
le/Government
/Departments/
Development
%20Services/
Planning/Spec
ific%20Plans
%20&%20Pla
nning%20Area
s/Riverside%2
0Gateway%20
Specific%20Pl
an/Riverside%
20Gateway%2
0Specific%20
Plan.pdf
1 1
1H The Development
Standard (DS) overlay
district provides for
modifications of
development standards
in any zone district or
specific plan minimum
lot size, width, yard
setbacks, useable open
space, landscaping
setbacks, and parking
ratios; maximum lot
depth, coverage, and
building height; and
principal building types
to provide for increased
development flexibility.

There are currently
5,812.1 acres within
26,373 parcels within
the city that have DS
overlay zoning.

Enacted Municipal Code
Section 19.18.020
https://qcode.u
s/codes/rosevi
lle/
1 1
1J The City is currently
processing Corridor
Plans for the Atlantic
Street,
Douglas/Harding, and
Sunrise Douglas
commercial corridors.

The Corridor Plans will
streamline housing
development by
correcting non-
conforming zoning
issues, adding more
emphasis on allowing
housing in mixed use
environments, and by
streamlining CEQA
analysis. The three
plans will provide for an
additional 850 new
housing units. This will
further expand the
City’s comprehensive
and successful specific
plan strategy in the
City’s Infill areas. Like
the specific plan
strategy, the Corridor
Plans will provide
streamlining using the
specific plan
exemption, eliminating
most future
entitlements and CEQA
Planned Commercial Corridors
website, General Plan
Growth Management
Strategy (starting on
page II-33).

Commercial
Corridor
Website:
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/g
overnment/de
partments/dev
elopment_serv
ices/planning/
commercial_c
orridors_proje
ct

https://p1cdn4
static.civiclive.
com/UserFiles
/Servers/Serv
er_7964838/Fi
le/Government
/Departments/
Development
%20Services/
Planning/Gen
eral%20Plan/F
inal%20Gener
al%20Plan%2
02020/02%20
Land%20Use_
Final%20ver.
%202021-

04.pdf
1 2 1 2
requirements for future
projects.

The City’s Growth
Management strategy
supports the State’s
planning priorities by
setting priorities for new
development through
specific plans, which
prohibits leapfrog
development, require
mixes of land uses and
densities, which
promotes conservation
of open space and
biological resources
and reduces VMT. The
Corridor Plans
implement the infill
components of the
City’s Growth
Management strategy.
2A Adopted ministerial
approval process,
including objective
design standards for:
multifamily housing with
at least 20% affordable
housing and projects
meeting the SB 35
criteria. In addition, the
City does not require
for single family
housing; only a building
permit is required.

Enacted Housing Element
Program 15,
Resolution 21-152,
Municipal Code

19.74.010, Objective
Design Standards,
and Objective Design
Standards webpage
See Appendix
5 for
Resolution 21-
152.

Housing
Element:
https://p1cdn4
static.civiclive.
com/UserFiles
/Servers/Serv
er_7964838/Fi
le/Government
/Departments/
Development
%20Services/
Planning/Hous
ing%20Eleme
nt%202021-
2029/2021%2
0Housing%20
Element%20A
dopted%208.1

8.21.pdf

Municipal
Code:
https://qcode.u
s/codes/rosevi
lle/

3 3
Objective
Design
Standards:

Objective
Design
Standards -
City of
Roseville
2B Certified General Plan
EIR and several
specific plan program
EIRs that provide
program-level CEQA
analysis for projects.

The City has a
documented practice of
streamlining housing
development through
the CEQA exemption
for projects consistent
with a specific plan
(Government Code
section 65447).

Nearly all housing
projects are located
within specific plan
areas, and most
housing qualifies.

Enacted General Plan EIR
(2020), Downtown
Specific Plan EIR
(2009), Northeast
Roseville Specific Plan
EIR (1987), North
Central Roseville
Specific Plan EIR
(1990), Southeast
Roseville Specific Plan
EIR (1988),
Stoneridge Specific
Plan EIR (1998),
Hewlett Packard
Master Plan EIR
(1996), Highland
Reserve Specific Plan
EIR (1997), Northwest
Roseville Specific Plan
EIR (1989), North
Roseville Specific Plan
EIR (1997, 1999,
2000), Del Webb
Specific Plan EIR
(1993), West Roseville
Specific Plan EIR
(2004), Sierra Vista
Specific Plan EIR
(2010), Creekview
Specific Plan EIR
(2012), Amoruso
Specific Plan EIR
(2016)
Specific Plans
Webpage
(Click on map
of each plan
for all plan
documents):
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=8
774576
2 2
2C The City’s CEQA
Implementation
Procedures document
the City’s adopted
approach to
streamlining housing
development using the
CEQA statutory and
categorical exemptions.

In addition, the City has
an adopted ministerial
process for multifamily
housing providing at
least 20% affordable
housing.

Enacted City of Roseville
CEQA Implementing
Procedures for
Preparation,
Processing, and
Review of
Environmental
Documents,
Exemption Examples,
Resolution 21-152
See Appendix
5 for PDF of
CEQA
Implementing
Procedures,
Resolution 21-
152, and two
recent
Exemptions
that have
implemented
these
procedures.
2 2
2D Typical permit
processing times for
multifamily housing
projects are between 8
and 16 weeks.

Affordable housing
projects are given
priority in processing
and are exempt from
design review, which
usually saves three
months in time and
$8,000 in fees. Single
family production units
usually take 2-3 weeks
and 2-3 months for
master plan reviews.

Custom single family
reviews typically take 6-
12 weeks.

Enacted Page X-147, Housing
Element
https://p1cdn4
static.civiclive.
com/UserFiles
/Servers/Serv
er_7964838/Fi
le/Government
/Departments/
Development
%20Services/
Planning/Hous
ing%20Eleme
nt%202021-
2029/2021%2
0Housing%20
Element%20A
dopted%208.1

8.21.pdf
2 2
2E Housing projects that
qualify to use the City’s
ministerial approval
process and objective
design standards,
including projects with
at least 20% affordable
units and projects that
meet SB 35 criteria are
not required to go
through public
hearings.

Enacted Resolution 21-152 and
Objective Design
Standards, and
Objective Design
Standards Webpage
See Appendix
5 for PDF of
Resolution 21-
152

Objective
Design
Standards -
City of
Roseville
2 2
2F The City uses a robust
specific planning
process for most new
housing development.

All housing projects that
are consistent with the
specific plan in which
the project is located
use the specific plan
CEQA exemption.

Single family
development is exempt
from design review and
the City has developed
a ministerial process for
multifamily housing
projects, so most
housing can be
approved at the staff
level
Enacted General Plan Policy
LU-1.1, Municipal
Code 19.74.010
General Plan:
https://p1cdn4
static.civiclive.
com/UserFiles
/Servers/Serv
er_7964838/Fi
le/Government
/Departments/
Development
%20Services/
Planning/Gen
eral%20Plan/F
inal%20Gener
al%20Plan%2
02020/02%20
Land%20Use_
Final%20ver.
%202021-

04.pdf

And Municipal
Code:
http://qcode.us
/codes/rosevill
e/
1 1
2G The City has Ministerial
Objective Design
Standards for projects
with at least 20%
affordable units, which
shortens timeframes by
an average of three to
four months.

Enacted Objective Design
Standards
Objective
Design
Standards -
City of
Roseville
1 1
2H The City operates a
physical Permit Center
where applicants can
meet with planners and
permit technicians, as
well as representatives
from Fire, Engineering,
and Environmental
Utilities in person, as
well as an Online
Permit Center where
they can apply for any
entitlement and pay
fees. Each project is
assigned to a planner
who coordinates the
project throughout its
life and acts as a single
point of contact for all
other department
contacts.

Enacted Webpage and
Brochure
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=1
0101469

https://p1cdn4
static.civiclive.
com/UserFiles
/Servers/Serv
er_7964838/Fi
le/Government
/Departments/
Development
%20Services/
Planning/AFH/
Handouts/Entit
lement%20Per
mit%20Revie
w%20Process
.pdf
1 1
2I Planning prioritizes the
processing of
multifamily
development projects
with affordable units,
which reduces
processing times by up
to 25%. In addition,
projects with at least
20% affordable units for
low and very low
income households and
SB 35 projects qualify
to use Planning’s
streamlined process,
which removes the
project’s Design
Review Permit
requirements and
saves $8,000 in fees.

Enacted Housing Element p. X-
147
https://p1cdn4
static.civiclive.
com/UserFiles
/Servers/Serv
er_7964838/Fi
le/Government
/Departments/
Development
%20Services/
Planning/Hous
ing%20Eleme
nt%202021-
2029/2021%2
0Housing%20
Element%20A
dopted%208.1

8.21.pdf
1 1
2J The City has a
universal planning
application form for all
entitlement
applications. In
addition, Planning
provides application
checklists for every
entitlement type to
assist applicants in
providing all of the
needed information
consistently and in a
timely manner.

Enacted Form and Entitlement
Application Checklists.

Click on Planning tab
https://p1cdn4
static.civiclive.
com/UserFiles
/Servers/Serv
er_7964838/Fi
le/Government
/Departments/
Development
%20Services/
Planning/AFH/
Applications/U
niversal%20Fil
lable%20Form
%20-
%20Planning.
pdf

and
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=1
0388959
1 1
2K The City publicly posts
status updates on
projects and permits
online on its
Development Activity
Reporting webpage and
the Online Permitting
Services (OPS) portal,
which allows anyone to
looks up status updates
and documents.

Enacted Webpage and online
portal
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/g
overnment/de
partments/dev
elopment_serv
ices/planning/
development_
activity_report
s

and

https://permits
online.rosevill
e.ca.us/OPS/
Default.aspx
1 1
2M A Project Evaluation
Meeting (PEM) is held
early in the application
process for
discretionary projects to
discuss possible site
and design issues. It is
attended by
representatives from
City departments
(including Engineering,
Building, Fire, Utilities,
etc.) with the project
applicant, architect,
engineer, etc. to
disclose potentially
costly and time
consuming issues early
enough to efficiently
make changes.

Enacted Entitlement Permit
Review Process
brochure
https://p1cdn4
static.civiclive.
com/UserFiles
/Servers/Serv
er_7964838/Fi
le/Government
/Departments/
Development
%20Services/
Planning/AFH/
Handouts/Entit
lement%20Per
mit%20Revie
w%20Process
.pdf
1 1
3A The City offers fee
deferral and fee
financing programs for
affordable housing
projects. (p. X-153)
Traffic fees are reduced
for age-restricted
housing. (p. X-153) The
Downtown Specific
Plan waives park in lieu
fees and reduces
parking in lieu fees for
residential
development. (pp. X-
90 and X-191
Enacted Housing Element,
Downtown Specific
Plan
https://p1cdn4
static.civiclive.
com/UserFiles
/Servers/Serv
er_7964838/Fi
le/Government
/Departments/
Development
%20Services/
Planning/Hous
ing%20Eleme
nt%202021-
2029/2021%2
0Housing%20
Element%20A
dopted%208.1

8.21.pdf

and

https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=8
775091
1 1
3D Promote ADUs both in
single family and
multifamily using
brochures available to
the public online and at
the permit center
Enacted Brochures Multifamily
ADU
Brochure:
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=8
775091

Single Family
ADU
Brochure:
https://p1cdn4
static.civiclive.
com/UserFiles
/Servers/Serv
er_7964838/Fi
le/Government
/Departments/
Development
%20Services/
Planning/AFH/
Handouts/Acc
essory%20Dw
elling%20Unit
s%20-
%20Single%2
0Family.pdf

ADU
Requirements
1 1
Brochure:
https://p1cdn4
static.civiclive.
com/UserFiles
/Servers/Serv
er_7964838/Fi
le/Government
/Departments/
Development
%20Services/
Planning/AFH/
Handouts/AD
U%20Require
ments%20Han
dout.pdf
3E The City established
and currently funds and
operates a
Transportation Systems
Management (TSM)
program to focus on the
development and
operation of alternative
transportation modes.

The TSM program
provides for: materials
marketing alternative
transportation for new
residents and required
TSM plans for all
businesses with 10 or
more employees that
provide information and
amenities that support
alternative
transportation modes.

The City also requires
Development
Agreements for new
development, which
outline developer
obligations for
providing, building, and
funding facilities for
alternative
transportation modes.

Funding is also
provided via grants and
Enacted Municipal Code
Chapter 11.33,
Ordinance 5660.

Municipal
Code:
https://qcode.u
s/codes/rosevi
lle/

and

See Appendix
5 for PDF of
Ordinance
5660
1 1
capital improvement
funds.
3G The Riverside Gateway
Specific Plan includes
four sets of pre-
approved prototype
development plans that
can be used by
applicants for their
projects and allow them
to eliminate the design
review process. Each of
the prototype plans
demonstrates
redevelopment
potential on the four
common lot sizes
located within the plan
area.

Enacted Appendix C of the
Riverside Gateway
Plan and Housing
Element p. X-88.

Riverside
Gateway
Plan:
https://p1cdn4
static.civiclive.
com/UserFiles
/Servers/Serv
er_7964838/Fi
le/Government
/Departments/
Development
%20Services/
Planning/Spec
ific%20Plans
%20&%20Pla
nning%20Area
s/Riverside%2
0Gateway%20
Specific%20Pl
an/Specific%2
0Plan%20App
endices.pdf

And
Housing
Element:
https://p1cdn4
static.civiclive.
com/UserFiles
/Servers/Serv
er_7964838/Fi
le/Government
1 1
/Departments/
Development
%20Services/
Planning/Hous
ing%20Eleme
nt%202021-
2029/2021%2
0Housing%20
Element%20A
dopted%208.1

8.21.pdf
4A The City established
the Housing Trust Fund
in 2004 and began
using it to fund
affordable housing
projects in 2019.

Enacted Housing Element p. X-
29, Housing Trust
Fund Annual Report
https://p1cdn4
static.civiclive.
com/UserFiles
/Servers/Serv
er_7964838/Fi
le/Government
/Departments/
Development
%20Services/
Planning/Hous
ing%20Eleme
nt%202021-
2029/2021%2
0Housing%20
Element%20A
dopted%208.1

8.21.pdf and
See Appendix
5 for PDF of
Housing Trust
Fund Annual
Report
2 2
4E The City acts as the
successor agency for
the now dissolved
Roseville
Redevelopment
Agency. Most of the
$5.9 million in residual
redevelopment funds
were spent on an
affordable housing
project built by Mercy
Housing in 2018 using
a loan of nearly $5.8
million. Current
revenues primarily
come from loan
repayments and are
used for small gap
funding for future
affordable housing
projects in areas of high
opportunity or in areas
at risk of displacement.

Enacted Council
Communication and
Report of Required
Information
See Appendix
5 for PDF of
Council
Communicatio
n
1 1
4F The City issues a
Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA)
each year making
available funding for
affordable housing
projects to qualified
builders. Other projects
may be funded from the
Housing Trust Fund on
an as-needed basis.

Enacted Housing Trust Fund
Annual Report
See Appendix
5 for PDF of
Housing Trust
Fund Annual
Report
1 1

Total 36 1 37

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1971
File #:
0721 & 0214
Title:

Sacramento Area Council of Governments Discretionary Federal Transit Administration Funding - Grant Authorization
Contact:

Ed Scofield
916-869-9109
[email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.5.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee
to submit an application to the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) and to execute all related forms and agreements that will allow the City to receive up to $560,000 from the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) 5307/5339 discretionary funds to purchase up to four zero-emission electric transit vans and one 60 kWh DC Fast Charger to charge the vans as part of Roseville Transit’s Microtransit pilot program.

BACKGROUND
The Sacramento Urbanized Area (UZA) annually receives formula funds through the FTA 5307/5339 Bus and Bus Facilities programs. Sacramento UZA operators include El Dorado Transit, Placer County Transit, Roseville Transit, Sacramento Regional Transit District (SRTD), and Yolo County Transportation District (YCTD). Most of the FTA funds are distributed by formula to the transit agencies, but SACOG retains 12% of these funds for distribution through a competitive grant process. The amount available in the current competitive funding round is $7,156,930 ($3,600,973 from FFY20 and $3,555,957 from FFY21).

The proposed grant would fund the purchase of four electric transit vans and one charger that would be used as part of Roseville's upcoming Microtransit 2-year pilot program. Attachment 1 provides details of the type of van that would be used as part of this project.

The Microtransit pilot program is a multi-jurisdiction effort to procure on-demand rideshare software for use in South Placer County. Microtransit services are similar to Uber and Lyft pooled ride services but for transit buses. Microtransit services have been successfully launched in many areas around the country. Placer County has taken the lead on releasing the joint Request for Proposals for this project. The selected firm will provide cloud-based software and applications for the service, while the transit agencies, including Roseville Transit, will provide the buses/vans, dispatch services, and drivers. We anticipate that the program will begin in late 2022 or early 2023 in a yet to be defined area of the City. If successful, and if funding is available, Microtransit may expand to other locations throughout the City.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total estimated cost of the vans and charger is anticipated to be up to $700,000. If successful, the
FTA discretionary funding would
pay for $560,000. The remaining $140,000
would be paid by local transit funds. In the event that a lesser amount of funding is awarded, the local funds will be reduced proportionally to meet the required 80/20 match requirement. Staff will present a final funding plan for the project to the City Council at a future meeting. No General Fund resources will be used for this project.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Ed Scofield, Transportation Analyst
Jason Shykowski, Public Works Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-077
Sample Electric Transit Van
RESOLUTION NO. 22-077

APPROVING A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF

GOVERNMENTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO

EXECUTE ALL RELATED FORMS AND AGREEMENTS ON BEHALF OF

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Urbanized Area (UZA) annually receives formula funds through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5307/5339 Bus and Bus Facilities programs; and

WHEREAS, most of the FTA funds are distributed by formula to the transit agencies, but Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) retains 12% of these funds for distribution through a competitive grant process; and

WHEREAS, available funding up to $560,000 from the FTA’s 5307/5339 discretionary funds will be used to purchase up to four zero -emission electric transit vans and one 60 kWh DC Fast Charger to charge the vans as part of Roseville Transit’s Microtransit pilot program; and

WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to submit an application to SACOG and to execute all related forms and agreements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville hereby approves filing of the grant application to SACOG on behalf of the City of Roseville.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute all related forms and agreements on behalf of the City of Roseville.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
Lightning’s digital dashboard provides all the
information the driver needs
Cumulative Fleet Miles Driven and Weekly Miles Driven
Cumulative Miles Driven
Weekly Miles Driven
Range of Typical Economy by Temperature (mi/kWh)
Ambient Temperature (F)
Weekly data from through 11/7/2021 11/13/2021
Miles Driven Last Week
Miles Driven
Vehicle Utilization By Day
Miles Driven
Unit 174
Unit 180
Unit 48
Unit 78
Unit 81
Unit 84
Unit 97
Average Economy

1.60 Overall (mi/kWh)

53.81, 0.63
MPGe, kWh/mi

1.60 Weekly (mi/kWh)

Fleet Uptime
95%
Overall
100%
Weekly
Weekly Temperature
85 Average Ambient Temp (F)
LIGHTNING EMOTORS CONFIDENTIAL Generated 11/15/2021
Lightning Analytics provides real-time and time-suma-
rized data on the performance of our EVs in your fleet
Let us put you in the driver’s seat!
Phone: 1-800-223-0740
Email: [email protected]
Lightning Electric
Transit Passenger Van
The Lightning Electric Transit passenger van is equipped with a state-of-the-art electric drivetrain which delivers the best effi- ciency of any vehicle in its weight class, while providing a quiet, smooth and familiar driving experience that your drivers – and passengers – will love.

In use with fleets across North America for micro-transit and shut- tle services, the passenger van is reliable and efficient.

Available in battery-electric versions offering 140-mile and 170- mile ranges, this van provides practical, reliable service while pro- ducing zero emissions on the road. Charging is simple and quick, with both Level 2 AC charging and DC Fast Charge supported.

We use the highest-quality components available, including thermally-managed battery packs which deliver the best range, efficiency and lifetime of any batteries in the market. lightningemotors.com

FLEETS POWERED BY LIGHTNING
Satisfies conditions (A) & (B)
of Title 49 U.S.C. § 50101(b)(3)
Lightning eMotors’ EV powertrain is
over 83% domestic origin by costProterra battery packs
✓ Battery-electric vehicle
✓ Smooth, quick and quiet
✓ Engineered and built in the USA
✓ Class-leading efficiency
✓ Elegant cabin integration with
batteries fully under the floor
✓ CARB certified and HVIP eligible
✓ Lightning Analytics gives insight
into usage and efficiency
✓ Available New or Repower
Over 100 Class 3 Lightning eMotors EVs successfully
deployed in North America
Base chassis Ford Transit 350HD Passenger Van
GVWR 10,360 lbs
Wheelbase 148 in
Charging options Level 2 AC up to 13.2 kW
and DC Fast Charge (up to 80 kW) with J1772 CCS1 Combo
Efficiency 61 MPGe / EPA City and 66 MPGe / EPA Highway Driving range* up to 140 miles up to 170 miles
Battery capacity 80 kWh (nameplate)

73.6 kWh (usable)
120 kWh (nameplate)
110.4 kWh (usable)
Charge time 5 hours (Level 2, at up to 13.2 kW)

1.5 hours (DC Fast Charge, at up to 80 kW)

8.5 hours (Level 2, at up to 13.2 kW)
2 hours (DC Fast Charge, at up to 80 kW)
Passenger capacity** Up to 15 passengers (including driver) Maximum speed 65 mph (electronically limited)
Peak Power 215 HP (160 kW)
Torque Rating (after trans-
mission) 733 lb-ft (994 Nm)
Warranty
Base Chassis: Ford standard warranty
Electric powertrain and batteries: Lightning eMotors standard warranty (5 year / 60,000 miles)
Analytics ✓ Preventive Maintenance ✓ Range Analysis ✓ Driver Behavior Lightning Electric
Transit Passenger Van
Specifications
November 2021. The information presented here may be subject to change at any time. © 2021 Lightning eMotors [email protected] lightningemotors.com Contact us today!
Phone: 1-800-223-0740 / +1 970-744-4047
Email: [email protected]
Fewer parts means lower
maintenance costs
Regenerative braking
dramatically reduces
brake wear
Save vehicle downtime
with no emissions testing
Zero emissions means
cleaner air in commu-
nities you serve
BEVs save money
on fuel costs
Significant savings
on operating costs
* All-electric range can vary depending on route or drive cycle, environmen- tal conditions, vehicle or equipment configurations, and driver behavior. ** Payload and passenger capacity can vary and greatly depend on vehicle wheelbase, seating configuration, and other characteristics or features as delivered by the OEM or chassis manufacturer. Equipment added to the base chassis by aftermarket upfitters or equipment installers could also affect payload and passenger capacity.

Lightning’s team of fleet experts stand behind our work and provide exceptional customer service, from vehicle deployment and techni- cal support to custom analytics reports and operator training.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1970
File #:
0800-06
Title:

Materials Testing Services and Construction Inspection Services - On-Call Professional Services Agreements
Contact:

Orville Chatterton 916-774-5339 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.6.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends City Council adopt two (2) resolutions approving On-Call Professional Services Agreements for construction inspection services with Psomas and UNICO Engineering, Inc. and adopt two (2) resolutions approving Cn-Call Professional Services Agreements for materials testing services with Blackburn Consulting and ENGEO Incorporated, and authorizing the City Manager to execute all agreements on behalf of the City of Roseville.

Staff is additionally requesting authority for the City Manager or his designee to execute four (4) additional one (1) year renewals without further City Council approval, provided that the applicable budget is approved by the City Council each year, or until City staff determines that continuing with the same vendor is not in the City’s best interest.

BACKGROUND
The Development Services Department’s staffing model for construction inspection relies on the use of specialized contract support for inspection of a variety of project types, including installation of new above ground and underground public infrastructure, subdivision improvements, major arterial roadway construction, community facilities district-funded improvements, and specific plan backbone infrastructure.

In addition, the Development Services Department relies on the use of contracts for specialized materials testing expertise. Materials testing ensures construction materials such as asphalt, concrete, aggregate base, engineered soil, etc., are supplied and installed with public infrastructure improvements that meet City design and construction standards. These services are necessary to ensure the public's safety once the improvements are installed and to avoid costly maintenance or repair at a later time at the City's expense.

The cost of inspection services and material testing is paid by development projects as services are rendered, resulting in no cost to the General Fund.

Consistent with the City’s contracting requirements, staff issued a Request for Proposals for construction inspection services and material testing on October 1, 2021. A total of 18 firms submitted proposals in response to both RFP’s. Psomas and UNICO ranked highest for inspection services in terms of service, experience, and available staffing resources to meet the City’s needs; and Blackburn and ENGEO ranked the highest for material testing in terms of service, experience, and available staffing resources to meet the City's needs.

Consistent with best practices, two separate firms will be engaged for each service to eliminate any possible conflicts of interest that may arise due to one or more firms' existing or future contracts with other private entities. For consistency and to ensure the City's customer service expectations are met, staff will train and meet with the consultant firms quarterly throughout the duration of the contracts. Each contract has a term of one year with four one-year optional renewals and not-to-exceed contract amounts of $500,000 per year for the term of each agreement.

Each professional services contract specifies similar services and hourly rates to ensure consistency and fairness.

Executing the on-call construction inspection services and material testing agreements is necessary to avoid disruption and delays to underway development projects. The current on-call agreements expire May 4, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no General Fund impact associated with this request. Each contract shall not exceed $500,000 in any one fiscal year unless approved by the City Council via contract amendment. The Engineering Division accounts for these professional services as part of the annual budget process. Budget adjustments are proposed as needed to reflect any increase or decrease in workload and related costs. Development agreements between the City and developers require the owners/developers to reimburse the City for the actual costs of providing inspection testing services. The entire amount of this agreement is considered "pass-through," in which all services would be reimbursed by either owners/developers with no expenses incurred by the General Fund.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Orville Chatterton, Construction Inspection Superintendent Mike Isom, Development Services Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-073
PSA Inspection Services- PSOMAS
Resolution 22-074
PSA Inspection Services- UNICO
Resolution 22-075
PSA Materials Testing-Blackburn
Resolution 22-076
PSA Materials Testing ENGEO
RESOLUTION NO. 22-073

APPROVING AN ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND

BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND PSOMAS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, an on-call professional services agreement to provide construction inspection services, by and between the City of Roseville and PSOMAS, has been reviewed by the City Council; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said on-call agreement is hereby approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

City Clerk

RESOLUTION NO. 22-074

APPROVING AN ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND UNICO ENGINEERING, INC., AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, an on-call professional services agreement to provide construction inspection services, by and between the City of Roseville and UNICO Engineering, Inc., has been reviewed by the City Council; and

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

City Clerk

RESOLUTION NO. 22-075

APPROVING AN ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND

BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND BLACKBURN CONSULTING, AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, an on-call professional services agreement to provide materials testing services, by and between the City of Roseville and Blackburn Consulting, has been reviewed by the City Council; and

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

City Clerk

RESOLUTION NO. 22-076

APPROVING AN ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND

BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND ENGEO INCORPORATED, AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, an on-call professional services agreement to provide materials testing services, by and between the City of Roseville and ENGEO Incorporated, has been reviewed by the City Council; and

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1964
File #:
0800-03
Title:

Electric Interconnection - Agreement Amendment
Contact:

Brian Schinstock 916-746-1658 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.7.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the attached Amendment 3 and Exhibits of the Interconnection Agreement (IA) with Western Area Power Administration (WAPA).

BACKGROUND
Roseville is interconnected to Western Area Power Administration's (WAPA) transmission system at the Roseville (Berry) and Fiddyment substations. The Interconnection Agreement (IA) establishes ownership rights of assets at the substation yards, terms for transfer of ownership, inspection rights, and load shedding procedures. The IA became effective in 2005 (resolution 04- 554) and continues through March 24, 2037.

Amendment 3 and the Revisions to Exhibits A, B, and D are required due to physical equipment changes at the Fiddyment substation resulting from the addition of the new 230/60 kV transformer, KY4A. KY4A was installed to increase system redundancy and reliability (resolution 19-10).

Amendment 3 clarifies the definition of the 230/60/12-kV transformers. Exhibit A updates the system diagram to include the KY4A transformer. Exhibit B contains cost estimates for operations and maintenance. Exhibit B periodically receives updates ensuring the most current projections are reflected. This revision, revision 5, includes the estimated costs from 2022 through 2026.

Exhibit D is the load shedding procedure and has been updated to include language regarding KY4A.

FISCAL IMPACT
The annual breakdown of estimated costs for operations and maintenance are separately identified in the attached Exhibit B, Revision 5. Assuming WAPA’s final charges are as estimated, the total 5-year funding requirement is $569,042. Funds are included in the Electric Department budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) only applies to projects which have the potential to cause significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines §
15061(b)(3)).

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Brian Schinstock, Electric Resource Planner
Daniel Beans, Electric Utiltiy Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-062
00850 Amendment 3 Cover Letter
00850 Amendment 3
00850 Exhibit A B and D Cover Letter
00850 Exhibit A Rev 2
00850 Exhibit A Rev 2 System Diagram
00850 Exhibit B Rev 5
00850 Exhibit D Rev 1
RESOLUTION NO. 22-062

APPROVING AMENDMENT 3 AND REVISIONS TO EXHIBITS A, B AND D TO WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT 04-SNR-00850, AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, Roseville is interconnected to Western Area Power Administration's (WAPA) transmission system at the Roseville (Berry) and Fiddyment substations; and

WHEREAS, the Interconnection Agreement (IA) establishes ownership rights of assets at the substation yards, terms for transfer of ownership, inspection rights, and load shedding procedures; and

WHEREAS, Amendment 3 and revisions to Exhibits A, B, and D are required due to physical equipment changes at the Fiddyment substation resulting from the addition of the new 230/60 kV transformer, KY4A; and

WHEREAS, Amendment 3 and Exhibits A, B and D of Contract 04-SNR-00850 to the WAPA Agreement, have been reviewed by City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said Amendment 3 and Exhibits A, B and D of Contract 04-SNR-00850 to the WAPA Agreement is hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

Department of Energy
Western Area Power Administration
Sierra Nevada Region
114 Parkshore Drive
Folsom, CA 95630-4710

Sent via E-Mail

Mr. Dominick Casey
City Manager
City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678

Dear Mr. Casey:

Enclosed is Amendment 3 of Contract 04-SNR-00850 between the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) and the City of Roseville. Amendment 3 clarifies the definition of the 230/60/12-kV transformers.

If you agree with the terms and conditions Amendment 3, please have the appropriate Roseville representatives sign and attest Amendment 3. Once signed, please return Amendment 3 to Mr. Joshua Blake at [email protected] for WAPA’s signature. Once we have countersigned, we will return fully executed copies Amendment 3 to you for your files.

If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact Ms. Sharol Lynch at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Sonja A. Anderson
Senior Vice President and
Sierra Nevada Regional Manager

Enclosure

Contract 04-SNR-00850
Amendment 3

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA

AMENDMENT 3
(Oil Detention Structure)

TO THE

CONTRACT FOR DIRECT INTERCONNECTION

WITH

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

Contract 04-SNR-00850
Amendment 3

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA

AMENDMENT 3
(Oil Detention Structure)

TO THE

CONTRACT FOR DIRECT INTERCONNECTION
WITH

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

Section Table of Contents Page

1. Preamble .................................................................................................... 1

2. Recitals ....................................................................................................... 1

3. Agreement .................................................................................................. 2

4. Term of Amendment ................................................................................... 2

5. Modification to Section 17 (Operations, Maintenance, and Replacement) of the Interconnection Contract ........................................ 2

6. Interconnection Contract to Remain in Effect ............................................. 3

7. Authority to Execute ................................................................................... 3

8. Execution by Counterparts ......................................................................... 3

9. Electronic Signatures .................................................................................. 4

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11 12

13 14

15 16

17 18

19 20

21 22

23 24

25 26

27 28

Amendment 3 to Contract 04-SNR-00850 1

Contract No. 04-SNR-00850
Amendment No. 3

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA

AMENDMENT 3
(Oil Detention Structure)

TO THE

CONTRACT FOR DIRECT INTERCONNECTION
WITH

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

1. PREAMBLE:

This Amendment to Contract 04-SNR-00850 (Interconnection Contract) is made this _______ day of _________________, 2022, between the UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, WESTERN AREA POWER
ADMINISTRATION (WAPA) and the CITY OF ROSEVILLE (Roseville), also hereinafter referred to individually as Party and together as Parties, pursuant to the same authorities as the Interconnection Contract.

2. RECITALS:

2.1 The Parties entered into the Interconnection Contract on December 23, 2004. The Interconnection Contract provides for Roseville to connect its Fiddyment 230/60-kV Substation to WAPA’s Roseville-Elverta No. 1 230-kV transmission line.
///
///
///

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11 12

13 14

15 16

17 18

19 20

21 22

23 24

25 26

27 28

Amendment 3 to Contract 04-SNR-00850 2

2.2 On June 19, 2014, the Parties entered into Amendment 1 to the Interconnection Contract. Amendment 1 provides for accounting and settlement for transmission losses.

2.3 On, January 23, 2019, the Parties entered into Amendment 2 to the Interconnection Contract. Amendment 2 provided for WAPA to perform work to assist Roseville with adding a second 230/60-kV transformer and a second section of the 60-kV bus to the Fiddyment Substation in order to accommodate Roseville’s expected load growth. Amendment 2 also updated the General Power Contract Provisions (GPCP).

2.4 WAPA desires to modify Subsection 17.5 of the Interconnection Contract to include additional equipment maintained by Roseville. Roseville is agreeable to modifying Subsection 17.5 and the Parties are entering into this Amendment 3 to affect the modification.

3. AGREEMENT:

The Parties agree to the terms and conditions set forth herein.

4. TERM OF AMENDMENT:

This Amendment 3 shall become effective upon execution and shall remain in effect concurrently with the Interconnection Contract.

5. MODIFICATION TO SECTION 17 (OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT) OF THE INTERCONNECTION CONTRACT:

The following subsection of Section 17 of the Interconnection Contract is hereby modified as shown below:
///

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11 12

13 14

15 16

17 18

19 20

21 22

23 24

25 26

27 28

Amendment 3 to Contract 04-SNR-00850 3

17.5 At Roseville’s expense, Roseville shall perform the operation, maintenance, and replacement of the 60-kV and 12-kV portions of the Roseville 230/60-kV Substation, the 230/60/12-kV transformers and their associated oil detention structure (ODS), Roseville’s control building, and ancillary equipment as deemed necessary by Roseville. Roseville is responsible for environmental activities related to hazardous materials contained in the two (2) 230/60/12-kV transformers and their associated ODS.

6. INTERCONNECTION CONTRACT TO REMAIN IN EFFECT:

Except as expressly modified by this Amendment 3, said Interconnection Contract shall remain in full force and effect, and this Amendment shall be subject to all provisions of the Interconnection Contract, except as herein amended.

7. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE:

Each individual signing this Amendment 3 certifies that the Party represented has duly authorized such individual to execute this Amendment 3 that binds and obligates the Party.

8. EXECUTION BY COUNTERPARTS:

This Amendment 3 may be executed in any number of counterparts and, upon execution and delivery by each Party, the executed and delivered counterparts together shall have the same force and effect as an original instrument as if all Parties had signed the same instrument. Any signature page of this Amendment 3 may be detached by any counterpart of this Amendment 3 without impairing the legal effect of any signatures thereon and may be attached to another counterpart of this Amendment 3 identical in form hereto, by having attached to it one or more signature pages. ///
///

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11 12

13 14

15 16

17 18

19 20

21 22

23 24

25 26

27 28

Amendment 3 to Contract 04-SNR-00850 4

9. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES:

The Parties agree that this Amendment 3 may be executed by handwritten signature or digitally signed using DocuSign, Adobe Sign, or Adobe E-Signature. An electronic or digital signature is the same as a handwritten signature and shall be considered valid and acceptable.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to be executed the day and year first above written.

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

By:

Name: Sonja A. Anderson
Title: Senior Vice President and
Sierra Nevada Regional Manager
Address: 114 Parkshore Drive
Folsom, California 95630
Date:

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

Attest:

By: _____________________ By:

Name: ___________________ Name:

Title: ____________________ Title: City Manager Address: 311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95354
Date:

Department of Energy
Western Area Power Administration
Sierra Nevada Region
114 Parkshore Drive
Folsom, CA 95630-4710

Sent via E-Mail

Mr. Dominick Casey
City Manager
City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678

Dear Mr. Casey:

Enclosed is Exhibit A, Revision 2 (Exhibit A), Exhibit B, Revision 5 (Exhibit B), and Exhibit D, Revision 1 (Exhibit D) under Amendment 2 of Contract 04-SNR-00850 between Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) and the City of Roseville.

Exhibits A and D provide updated system diagram and load shedding procedures for the Fiddyment 230/60 kV Substation, respectively. Exhibit B provides the estimated costs for operations and maintenance of the 230-kilovolt (kV) portion of the Fiddyment 230/60-kV Substation facilities for calendar years 2022 through 2026. We have updated the costs to include the new equipment at the Fiddyment 230/60-kV Substation.

If you agree with the terms and conditions in Exhibits A, B and D, please have the appropriate Roseville representatives sign and attest the Exhibits. Once signed, return Exhibits A, B and D to Mr. Joshua Blake at [email protected] for WAPA’s signature.

Once we have countersigned, we will return fully executed copies of Exhibit A, B and D to you for your files.

If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact Ms. Sharol Lynch at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Sonja A. Anderson
Senior Vice President and
Sierra Nevada Regional Manager

Enclosures

City of Roseville
Contract 04-SNR-00850
Exhibit A, Revision 2

Exhibit A
(System Diagram)

1. This Exhibit A, Revision 2 (Exhibit), to be effective under and as part of Contract 04-SNR-00850, shall become effective upon signature by City of Roseville and Western Area Power Administration; shall supersede the current Exhibit A; and shall remain in effect until superseded by another Exhibit A or termination of the Contract.

2. The System Diagram for the Roseville 230/60-kV Substation and Fiddyment 230/60-kV Substation is attached to this Exhibit and is made part of this Contract.

3. Execution of Counterparts: This Exhibit may be executed in any number of counterparts and, upon execution and delivery by each Party, the executed and delivered counterparts together shall have the same force and effect as an original instrument as if all Parties had signed the same instrument. Any signature page of this Exhibit may be detached by any counterpart of this Exhibit without impairing the legal effect of any signatures thereon, and may be attached to another counterpart of this Exhibit identical in form hereto, by having attached to it one or more signature pages.

4. Electronic Signatures: The Parties agree that this Exhibit may be executed by handwritten signature or digitally signed using DocuSign or other mutually agreeable electronic signature application. An electronic or digital signature is the same as a handwritten signature and shall be considered valid and acceptable.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

By:

Name: Dominick Casey
Attest: Title: City Manager
By: Address: 311 Vernon Street
Name: Roseville, CA 95678 Title: Dated:

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

By:

Name: Sonja A. Anderson
Title: Senior Vice President and
Sierra Nevada Regional Manager
Address: 114 Parkshore Drive
Folsom, California 95630
Dated:

City of Roseville
Contract 04-SNR-00850
Exhibit B, Revision 5

Page 1 of 3 ends

EXHIBIT B
(Itemized Estimated Cost of Operations and Maintenance)

1. This Exhibit B, Revision 5, effective under and as a part of Contract 04-SNR-00850, shall become effective on _______________; shall terminate and supersede Exhibit B, Revision 4; and shall remain in effect until either superseded by another Exhibit B or termination of the Contract.

2. Maintenance:

2.1 The estimated annual charges for the operation and maintenance of the 230-kV portion of the Fiddyment 230/60-kV Substation facilities up to the high side bushings of the two 230/60/12-kV transformers, including but not limited to, the two 230-kV revenue metering equipment and associated instrument transformers, 230-kV breakers, bus work, disconnects, and associated equipment, the fiber optic communication system and SCADA system, and the 230-kV protection and control systems, are based on the following:

2.1.1 Four power circuit breakers;

2.1.2 Ten disconnect switches;

2.1.3 Two ground switches;

2.1.4 Two sets of three-phase potential transformers;

2.1.5 Two remote terminal units;

2.1.6 Communication equipment;

2.1.7 Protective relays; and

2.1.8 Miscellaneous ancillary equipment.

2.2 The estimated work and labor-days for the years 2022 through 2026 are attached.

2.3 The yearly cost for WAPA to perform the work is as follows:

2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
$73,080.31 $18,822.22 $19,349.48 $31,998.72 $37,112.67

City of Roseville
Contract 04-SNR-00850
Exhibit B, Revision 5

Page 2 of 3 ends

3. Operations:

3.1 Roseville shall be assessed a yearly charge for WAPA’s operations services.

3.2 The yearly cost for WAPA to perform operations is as follows:

2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
$39,457.48 $60,074.02 $81,300.17 $103,149.59 $104,696.84

4. Electronic Signature:

The Parties agree that this Exhibit may be executed by handwritten signature or digitally signed using DocuSign or other mutually agreeable electronic signature application. An electronic or digital signature is the same as a handwritten signature and shall be considered valid and acceptable.

5. Execution by Counterparts:

This Exhibit may be executed in any number of counterparts and, upon execution and delivery by each Party, the executed and delivered counterparts together shall have the same force and effect as an original instrument as if all Parties had signed the same instrument. Any signature page of this Exhibit may be detached by any counterpart of this Exhibit without impairing the legal effect of any signatures thereon, and may be attached to another counterpart of this Exhibit identical in form hereto, by having attached to it one or more signature pages.

City of Roseville
Contract 04-SNR-00850
Exhibit B, Revision 5

Page 3 of 3 ends

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

By:

Name: Dominick Casey
Attest: Title: City Manager
By: Address: 311 Vernon Street
Name: Roseville, CA 95678 Title: Dated:

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

By:

Name: Sonja A. Anderson
Title: Senior Vice President and
Sierra Nevada Regional Manager
Address: 114 Parkshore Drive
Folsom, CA 95630
Dated:

City of Roseville
Contract 04-SNR-00850
Exhibit D, Revision 1

Page 1 of 2 ends

EXHIBIT D
(Load Shedding Procedures)

1. This Exhibit D, Revision 1 (Exhibit), effective under and as a part of Contract 04-SNR-00850, shall become effective on ________________; shall terminate and supersede Exhibit D; and shall remain in effect until either superseded by another Exhibit D or termination of the Contract.

2. Roseville must confirm, implement, and maintain an Under-Frequency Load Shedding plan that meets the requirements of the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Off-Nominal Frequency Load Shedding and Restoration Plan, which includes fulfillment of Western Area Power Administration’s obligations under the WECC Southern Island Load Tripping Plan.

3. Roseville must adhere to the requirements of the Under-Voltage Load Shedding as delineated annually by the Sacramento Valley Study Group (SVSG) for operating within the WECC reliability criteria for simultaneous import.

4. The Interconnection Capacity for the Points of Interconnection is currently limited to 600 MW, which includes the total of four (4) transformers of 150 MW each, two (2) at Roseville and two (2) at Fiddyment 230/60-kV Substations. Should one or more of the transformers be out of service, the Interconnection Capacity will be decreased proportionally.

5. The simultaneous import capability into Roseville is currently limited. This limit is determined by the annual SVSG operational studies.

6. Execution of Counterparts: This Exhibit may be executed in any number of counterparts and, upon execution and delivery by each Party, the executed and delivered counterparts together shall have the same force and effect as an original instrument as if all Parties had signed the same instrument. Any signature page of this Exhibit may be detached by any counterpart of this Exhibit without impairing the legal effect of any signatures thereon, and may be attached to another counterpart of this Exhibit identical in form hereto, by having attached to it one or more signature pages.

7. Electronic Signatures: The Parties agree that this Exhibit may be executed by handwritten signature or digitally signed using Adobe Sign or Adobe E-Signature. An electronic or digital signature is the same as a handwritten signature and shall be considered valid and acceptable.

City of Roseville
Contract 04-SNR-00850
Exhibit D, Revision 1

Page 2 of 2 ends

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

By:

Name: Dominick Casey
Attest: Title: City Manager
By: Address: 311 Vernon Street
Name: Roseville, CA 95678 Title: Dated:

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION

By:

Name: Sonja A. Anderson
Title: Senior Vice President and
Sierra Nevada Regional Manager
Address: 114 Parkshore Drive
Folsom, CA 95630
Dated:

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1954
File #:
0900-03
Title:

Electric Landscaping Improvements - Fiddyment Substation Project - Award of Contract
Contact:

Mitch Larkin 916-746-1601 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.8.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to approve an agreement with Marina Landscape Inc. for the construction of the Electric Landscape Improvements - Fiddyment Substation Project, and authorize the City Manager to execute it. Staff also requests authority for a 15% construction contingency.

BACKGROUND
In 1997, Roseville Electric built the Fiddyment 230/60kV Substation. This substation is one of two substations used by Roseville Electric to deliver power from outside of the City to Roseville customers. When the substation was constructed, a minimal amount of landscaping was installed.

Over the years the landscaping has deteriorated and trash tends to collect in the seasonal vernal pool.

As part of this project, the City has worked with the California State Water Resources Control Board and the United States Army Corps of Engineers to remove and mitigate the vernal pool so it can be landscaped along with the rest of the frontage along Fiddyment Road. Additionally, Roseville Electric has performed a security evaluation on the Fiddyment Substation, which has identified the need for additional lighting that has been included in this project.

City Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized the call for bids at the June 2, 2021 meeting. Subsequently, Roseville Electric solicited proposals through RFQ# 07-074 seeking a contractor to provide the necessary construction services. Staff received one bid which was opened on October 26, 2021. After staff review of the proposal, Marina Landscape Inc. was determined to be the lowest responsive bidder.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of the agreement with Marina Landscape, Inc. is $566,000 with a 15%, or $84,900, contingency not to exceed $650,900. Funding is included in the Electric Fund for FY2021-22.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed work of the Electric Landscape Improvements - Fiddyment Substation project is an action that is subject to CEQA. Project level CEQA compliance for the Electric Landscape Improvements - Fiddyment Substation project was accomplished with preparation of the City of Roseville Electric Department 230-60-kV Fiddyment Substation Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Adopted January 17, 1996) (SCH No. 1995012023). Because the Electric Landscape Improvements - Fiddyment Substation project is consistent with the project evaluated in the Roseville Electric Department 230-60-kV Fiddyment Substation Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, all applicable mitigation measures from the Roseville Electric Department 230-60-kV Fiddyment Substation Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration will be implemented, and no new effects would be expected to occur. As such, no additional CEQA action is required at this time.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services

Respectfully Submitted,
Mitch Larkin, Sr. Power Engineer
Daniel Beans, Electric Utility Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-063
Contract Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. 22-063

APPROVING AN AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND MARINA LANDSCAPE, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE

IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, an Agreement regarding Electric Landscaping Improvements - Fiddyment Substation Project, by and between the City of Roseville and Marina Landscape, Inc., has been reviewed by the City Council; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said Agreement is hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville, as well as any addenda or documents necessary to fulfill its purpose.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to approve change orders for the project, consistent with the contract terms, provided that the net cost of all change orders shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the contract price.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1967
File #:
0200
Title:

Utility Bill Print and Mail Services - Professional Services Agreement Amendment Contact:

Emily Sawin 916-774-5388 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.9.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with InfoSend for utility bill print and mail services.

Staff additionally requests authority for the City Manager or his designee to execute four (4) additional one (1) year renewals without further City Council approval, provided that the applicable budget is approved by the City Council each year, or until City staff determines that continuing with the same vendor is not in the City’s best interest.

BACKGROUND
A Request for Proposal (RFP) for bill print and mail services was issued in late 2018. On April 3, 2019 City Council approved a professional services agreement with Infosend, Inc.. This agreement was for an initial period of three years with the option of annual renewals thereafter.

Staff recommend executing the annual renewal option for the one-year period beginning April 4, 2022, with four additional one-year optional renewals with a final expiration date of April 3, 2027.

Infosend, Inc. has a vast knowledge of bill print, mail and marketing services with the City of Roseville and requires no integration or process changes.

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of Infosend's service will be based on a fee schedule and the number of items processed for utility statements, notices and various marketing materials. Funding for this agreement is included in the adopted FY2021-22 Electric Department budget, estimated at $650,000. However, given the total contract cost is based on the number of items processed and increases each year, staff recommends the City Council provide authorization to adjust the contract cost based on the amount included in future year adopted budgets. This recommendation has no impact on the City's General Fund.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services

Respectfully Submitted,
Emily Sawin, Administrative Technician
Daniel Beans, Electric Utility Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-071
Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. 22-071

APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND INFOSEND, INC., AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT

ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, a First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for utility bill print and mail services, by and between InfoSend, Inc. and the City of Roseville, has been reviewed by the City Council; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said first amendment is hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1958
File #:
0800-02
Title:

Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant Energy Recovery Project - Professional Design Services Agreement Amendment
Contact:

Tracie Mueller 916-774-5688 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.10.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that City Council adopt a resolution to approve the Third Amendment to Professional Design Services Agreement with Brown and Caldwell for engineering services during construction of the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant Energy Recovery Project.

BACKGROUND
Project Background
The Energy Recovery Project is currently under construction to add energy recovery facilities at the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant (PGWWTP) that will beneficially utilize digester gas produced by the new treatment processes being constructed as part of the PGWWTP Expansion Project.

The City awarded the Design-Assist and Construction contract on November 6, 2019.

Construction of the PGWWTP Energy Recovery Project was expected to be completed in February 2022; however the Contractor’s schedule currently shows the project completion being delayed to October 2022.

Professional Design Services Agreement Background
On September 2, 2015, Brown and Caldwell (BC) was awarded a professional design services agreement (PDSA) in the amount of $468,908 to conduct the alternatives/economic analysis and basis of design study. Based on the several technology options that could be used to meet the project goals, staff determined that the PDSA would need to be issued and amended as needed based on project findings. In January 2017, the City awarded the First Amendment to the PDSA to BC for design services, contractor procurement support, and engineering services during construction. In March 2020, the City awarded the Second Amendment to the PDSA to BC for changes in design scope, procurement of newly identified grant and loan funding, and design- assist project lesson learned.

The Third Amendment to the PDSA to BC is required for BC to provide additional Engineering Services During Construction (ESDC) during the projected eight to nine month construction schedule extension, for BC’s development of the project record drawings, and for modifications of the scopes of services included in the first and second amendments to the PDSA.

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost for the work included in the Third Amendment is $563,213. The Third Amendment increases the previous contract amount of $3,871,361 to a revised total contract cost of $4,434,574. Funding for this work will be covered under the capital improvement projects for the South Placer Wastewater Authority and will be jointly funded between Roseville and the other SPWA Regional Partners (i.e. Placer County and the South Placer Municipal Utility District).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Implementation of the PGWWTP Energy Recovery Project was previously evaluated in the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion and Energy Recovery Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (SCH# 2016122040) (certified by the City Council on April 6, 2017), and the Addendum to the IS/MND (SCH# 2016122040) (certified by the City Council on November 7, 2018). The improvement plans included in the design-assist and construction agreement are consistent with the project evaluated in the certified Final IS/MND and the Addendum, and consequently no additional CEQA action is required for the Third Amendment approval.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Tracie Mueller, Senior Engineer
Richard Plecker, Environmental Utilities Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-064
Third Amendment to PDSA
RESOLUTION NO. 22-064

APPROVING A THIRD AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES

AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND BROWN AND

CALDWELL, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT

ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, a Third Amendment to Professional Design Services Agreement for the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant Energy Recovery Project, by and between the City of Roseville and Brown and Caldwell, has been reviewed by the City Council; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said third amendment is hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1973
File #:
0900-02
Title:

West Side Tank and Pump Station Project (Phase 2) - Professional Design Services Agreement Amendment
Contact:

Rana Moore 916-774-5552 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.11.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends City Council adopt a resolution to approve the First Amendment to Professional Design Services Agreement with Water Works Engineers, LLC in the amount of $101,142 for the West Side Tank and Pump Station Project (Phase 2), and authorize the City Manager to execute it.

BACKGROUND
As part of the West Side Tank and Pump Station (Phase 2) Project, a Crew Facility and shop is currently under design, and will be constructed on the same property.

On February 7, 2018, Water Works Engineers, LLC (WWE) was awarded a professional design services agreement for the design and construction management services for the West Side Tank and Pump Station Project, which included the Crew Facility.

Due to construction logistics, Environmental Utilities delayed construction of the Crew Facility to a year after start of construction of the project. It was planned for WWE to provide construction management services simultaneously for both projects. However, due to the delayed start and extended schedule of the Crew Facility, an amendment to WWE’s budget is required to support the project through completion of the Crew Facility.

The main areas of support this amendment will allow WWE to provide through project completion include:

Engineering services during design, permitting and construction; Construction administration oversight of the project;
Onsite construction management; and
Technical submittal reviews.

The total fee for extending WWE’s services is $336,921. City staff are eliminating an optional task from WWE’s original agreement in the amount $235,739. The optional task was for the design of a hydroelectric facility to generate supplemental on-site power. A preliminary evaluation by WWE of this option deemed it infeasible for the site. The net not-to-exceed change in WWE’s contract is $101,142.

FISCAL IMPACT
This project is funded by the Water Construction Fund and can be accommodated within the existing Capital Improvement Plan budget. No additional funding is required at this time.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Development of the West Side Tank and Pump Station was previously evaluated in the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2008032115), certified June 15, 2016. Construction of the West Side Tank and Pump Station is within the scope of the project covered by the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR. The EIR provides environmental analyses of community infrastructure and facilities, including specifically addressing potable water storage and potable water storage tank location on the West Side Tank and Pump Station project site. Because the project is consistent with the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR, no new effects would be expected to occur and all applicable mitigation measures from the Amoruso Specific Plan EIR will be implemented during the design and construction of the project. As the proposed project meets the requirements identified in Section 15183 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no additional CEQA review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Rana Moore, Assistant Engineer
Richard Plecker, Environmental Utilities Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-078
First Amendment to Professional Design Services Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 22-078

APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES

AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND WATER WORKS

ENGINEERS, LLC, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON

BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, a First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for the West Side Tank and Pump Station Project (Phase 2), by and between the City of Roseville and Water Works Engineers, LLC, has been reviewed by the City Council; and

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

City Clerk

[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D016\P004\00065044.DOCX:02/16/2022]

FIRST AMENDMENT TO

PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES AGREEMENT
West Side Tank and Pump Station Project (Phase 2)

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES
AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ___ day of __________, 20__, by and between the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation (“CITY”), and Water Works Engineers, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company (“CONSULTANT”); and

W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT previously entered into a Professional Design Services Agreement dated February 7, 2018 (“Agreement”) regarding the West Side Tank and Pump Station Project (Phase 2) (“Project”);
WHEREAS, CITY desires to amend the Agreement to include additional services as described in CONSULTANT’s letter/proposal dated February 10, 2022, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is willing and able to provide such additional services; and

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1. CONSULTANT shall provide additional services as described in Exhibit “A” of this First Amendment to Agreement.

[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D016\P004\00065044.DOCX:02/16/2022]

2. Section 2 of the Agreement is amended by adding an additional paragraph to read as follows:
“CITY shall pay one hundred one thousand, one hundred forty-two dollars ($101,142), in consideration of the additional services as set forth in Exhibit “A” to the First Amendment to Agreement. This brings the total not to exceed contract amount to two million, six hundred eighty-nine thousand, fifty-three dollars ($2,689,053).”

3. All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, has authorized the execution of this First Amendment to Agreement in duplicate by its City Manager and attested to by its City Clerk under the authority of Resolution No. _________, adopted by the Council of the City of Roseville on the ___ day of ___________, 20__, and CONSULTANT has caused this First Amendment to Agreement to be executed.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a WATER WORKS ENGINEERS, LLC, an
municipal corporation Arizona limited liability company

BY: _______________________________ BY: _______________________________ DOMINICK CASEY its: _______________________________ City Manager

and

[SIGNATURES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE]
Managing Member, Michael J Fisher

[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D016\P004\00065044.DOCX:02/16/2022] ATTEST:

BY: _______________________________
its: _______________________________

BY: _______________________________

SONIA OROZCO
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BY: _______________________________

MICHELLE SHEIDENBERGER
City Attorney

APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE:

BY: _______________________________
RICHARD D. PLECKER
Environmental Utilities Director

Managing Member, Sami Kader

[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D016\P004\00065044.DOCX:02/16/2022]

EXHIBIT “A”

Water Works Engineers, LLC · 2260 Douglas Blvd., Suite 105, Roseville, CA 95661

February 10, 2022
City of Roseville
Attn: Rana Moore - Assistant Engineer - Environmental Utilities – Technical Services 2005 Hilltop Circle
Roseville, CA 95747

RE: Scope of Services to Provide Design Services f or the City of Roseville West Side Tank and Pump Station Project (Phase 2)
Operations Crew Building Design Build Oversight Assistance

Water Works Engineers, LLC (Water Works or WWE) is pleased to submit our Scop e of Services to Provide Additional Professional Services for the City of Ro seville (City) West Side Tank and Pump Station Pro ject (Phase 2). The City desires ENGINEER’s assistance to oversee design, permitting and construction of the Operations Crew Building at the West Side Tank and Pump Station site. ENGINEER will provide engineering services during design, permitting and construction and construction administration oversight of the project as further described herein.

Water Works is an Arizona LLC. Our Project Manager and Principal-in-Charge for the requested services shall remain Mike Fisher, P.E., in close coordination with our Construction Manager, Steve Hooper, P.E. We respectfully request that payment for services rendered be sent to our Scottsdale, AZ office, Attn: Accounts Payable. Contact information for our Roseville, CA and Scottsdale, AZ offices are provided below.

Project Manager / Principal-in-Charge
Michael J. Fisher
Water Works Engineers
2260 Douglas Blvd., Suite 105
Roseville, CA 95661
(office) 916-780-2888 x401
(office – direct) 916-277-9027
(cell) 916-521-9200
[email protected]
Payment Contact
Attn: Accounts Payable
Water Works Engineers
7500 North Dobson Rd., Suite 200
Scottsdale, AZ 85256
O 480-661-1742
[email protected]

If you have questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mike Fisher. We look forward to working with the City and the selected Contractor to deliver this project smoothly and efficiently.

Very Truly Yours

WATER WORKS ENGINEERS, LLC

Mike Fisher, P.E., Project Manager/ Principal-in-Charge Water Works Engineers, LLC Managing Member
Roseville Office Manager;
[email protected] ; 916-521-9200 (cell)

Scope of Engineering Design Services for the
West Side Tank and Pump Station Project
Operations Crew Building Design Build Oversight Assistance

Letter Proposal – Scope of Work

Page 2 ends

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The City of Roseville (City, CLIENT) intends to con struct the West Side Tank and Pump Station (WST&PS) Operations Crew Building improvements. The Operati ons Crew Facility will be procured as a standalone design- build (D-B) project. Water Works Engineers, LLC (E NGINEER) produced bridging documents for the D-B co ntract consisting of Concept Technical Specifications and Concept Drawings. These documents, combined with C ity Contract, Request for Proposal (RFP) and D-B CONTRACTOR (Design-Builder) proposal are the basis for the design and construction of the improvements.

The work of the D-B CONTRACTOR includes, but is not limited to, Design, Permitting and Construction of a new Crew Building at the West Side Tanks and Pump Station site 4501 Westpark Drive, Roseville, CA 95747. The Crew Building will consist of a nominal 6000 square foot building with approximately 50% of the floor space built as office space and 50% of the floor space built as a high-ceiling two-bay mechanic shop. The architectur al design and finishes of the facility will match and/or be complimentary to the West Side Pump Station facility located on the same site. Paved and gravel parking areas will be provided with the facility and the site, and site drainage will be completed in coordination with the overall facil ity layout. Electrical and control systems located in the crew facility will be coordinated with the West Side Pump Station as well as the overall City communications system.

The general arrangement and intent for the facility have been described in the West Side Tanks and Pump Station Operations Crew Facility Project Design-Build Request for Proposals, preliminary plans and specifications provided with the RFP. The Design-Builder has the overall responsibility to complete the detailed design, carrying the design concepts presented in the preliminary design drawin gs, through the final design process, to produce a code- compliant facility which accomplishes the design in tent shown in the preliminary design drawings and specifications. The design process will be iterative and collaborative with the City with the final design as approved by the City. Design-Builder will apply for and get all required permits to construct the project, incl uding but not limited to building permits, grading permits, etc. After design and permitting have been completed, Design-Builder will be responsible for the construction, testing and start-up of all equipment, and commissioning of the facility.

The City desires ENGINEER’s assistance to oversee d esign, permitting and construction of the Operation s Crew Building in accordance with the design intent of th e ENGINEER’s bridging documents. ENGINEER will prov ide engineering services during design, permitting and construction and construction administration oversight of the project as described herein.

PROJECT STATUS
Water Works Engineers provides this summary of scope and schedule changes that have impacted the execution and budget of the Professional Services Agreement a s related to the Operations Crew Facility (i.e., “C rew Building”) portion of the WST&PS Project.

Original Scope
The initial design assumptions for the Crew Building were included in the original Professional Services Agreement dated 2/7/2018. The pertinent Crew Building design assumptions related to this additional scope reque st are summarized as follows:

• Crew Building was scoped to be a metal building del ivered using the City’s existing Design-Build (D-B) procurement “front ends” (Contract, RFP, etc) and constructed in parallel with the WST&PS. • Designed for six users (roughly 1,600 sq ft), but e xpandable (in the future, not part of the D-B procurement) to accommodate 10-12 users (roughly 3,000 sq ft). • Included an office space, lunchroom, bathroom, showers, locker room, and storage for PPE/small tools.

Scope of Engineering Design Services for the
West Side Tank and Pump Station Project
Operations Crew Building Design Build Oversight Assistance

Letter Proposal – Scope of Work

Page 3 ends

• Assumed a single Basis of Design Kick-off Workshop to receive input from City staff on intended/desire d uses of the Crew Building, followed by development of a Basis of Design Report that would be attached to existing City D-B “front-ends” to select a desig n-build team to complete design, permitting and construction of the building described in the Basis of Design Report.

Scope Changes
During the kick-off meeting, it was determined by C ity staff that the facility required expansion from the design assumptions to meet a wider range of operation and maintenance staff needs, including:

• Crew area (office) was expanded to serve roughly 10-12 users (immediate, not as an expansion). • A training / conference room was added to the office space. • 2-bay “shop” area (roughly 3,000 sq. ft of “shop”) was added with elevated roof to accommodate large vehicles (bringing the total building size to roughly 6,000 sq. ft). • To accommodate the additional features added to the Crew Building and a desire by the City and Engineer to efficiently receive collaborative input from all of the potential City users of the facility, the E ngineer facilitated an interactive Crew Building design development process that included multiple meetings and reviews of design concepts with City Engineering, Operations and Management staff to further refine City needs and finalize the building / shop concept. En gineer communicated to the City potential scope and budget impacts related to these changes. Through t his design development process, it was determined that concept drawings and specifications were a better way to communicate the design intent to the D-B teams, when used in combination with the City D-B R FP and Agreement. The Engineer ended up submitting 50%, 80% and 99% versions of the Crew Building Concept Design (drawings and specifications) for use in the D-B procurement process.

Schedule Changes
After submittal of the 99% submittal, the City dire cted the Engineer to hold work on the Crew Building D-B procurement documents due to potential changes in timing of construction (i.e., delaying it to accommodate other City priorities). The location and coordination requirements for the Crew Building impacts on the WST&PS Design Assist Contractor were still included as part of th e WST&PS procurement documents, but all work on the Crew Build D-B procurement package was stopped at that t ime. Engineer communicated that delaying construct ion would impact scope, schedule and budget for this po rtion of work. It was agreed that at that point in time at which the City wished to move forward with the proj ect, modifications to the scope and fee would be ne cessary to accommodate the modified delivery and procurement schedule.

Budget Changes
In roughly August of 2020, the City and Engineer be gan discussions about re-starting the Concept Desig n for the Crew Building and putting it out for D-B procurement in the first quarter of 2021. The City requested Water Works finalize the Concept Design Documents and review th e City’s latest D-B Contract and RFP and assist the City in finalizing the procurement package. A budget adjus tment letter was sent to the City describing budget impacts of the re-start related to Engineer’s design and bi dding phase services. An increase of $7,000 to acc ommodate the final design and assistance with bidding was mo ved from unspent contingency budget to the Crew Bui lding Task. Services beyond bidding were eliminated from Engineer’s scope given the Crew Building was no longer going to be constructed in parallel with the West Side Ta nk and Pump Station and the associated efficiencies of having staff support both construction activities at the same time was no longer feasible.

Proposal for Scope to Complete the Project
The City has completed the design, bidding and proc urement phases of the WST&PS Crew Building project. The City now requests additional engineering services to assist with D-B detailed design, permitting and construction phases. These additional services are detailed in the following scope of work.

Scope of Engineering Design Services for the
West Side Tank and Pump Station Project
Operations Crew Building Design Build Oversight Assistance

Letter Proposal – Scope of Work

Page 4 ends

SCOPE OF WORK
Task 10 – Operations Crew Building Design-Build Oversight Assistance Task 10.1 Design Phase
ENGINEER will provide engineering services during design, including o Review of the following D-B Contractor submittals for general compliance with the concept design by Resident Engineer (E2), Senior Engineer (E4) and Principal Engineer (E5) staff resources:
o Project execution and management plan
o Architectural / engineering submittals (60%, 90%, 100% Plan Check Ready) o Value-engineering proposals
o Other items pertinent to design as requested by City
o Resident Engineer (E2) engineering assistance, with intermittent technical assistance by Principal and Senior Engineering (E5 & E4) resources, for the following activities:
o Periodic correspondence with City staff to support evaluation of D-B Contractor design. o Attend and participate on weekly project status calls o Attend design-review meetings for Architectural / engineering submittals

ENGINEER’s level of effort, and basis for fee estimate, during this phase of work is as follows (based on D-B CONTRACTOR Notice to Proceed – NTP - schedule)
October 2021 – March 2022 (6 months)
E5 – Principal Engineer (Mike Fisher, Sami Kader) 18 hrs/month E4 – Senior Engineer / Construction Manager (Steve Hooper, etc.) 8 hrs/month E2 – Associate / Resident Engineer (Jon Roy, Sheil a Magladry, etc.) 40 hrs/month

Task 10.2 Permitting Phase
ENGINEER will provide engineering services during permitting, including o Participate in periodic correspondence with City staff to support evaluation of D-B Contractor permitting efforts and Reponses from City building department review comments. o Attend and contribute to permit-review meetings

ENGINEER’s level of effort, and basis for fee estimate, during this phase of work is as follows (based on D-B CONTRACTOR NTP schedule)
February – July 2022 (6 months)
E5 – Principal Engineer (Mike Fisher, Sami Kader) 6 hrs/month E4 – Senior Engineer / Construction Manager (Steve Hooper, etc.) 6 hrs/month E2 – Associate / Resident Engineer (Jon Roy, Sheil a Magladry, etc.) 20 hrs/month

Task 10.3 Construction Engineering, Administration and Observation Services ENGINEER will provide construction support services as further describe:
o Project Management of ENGINEER team activities in support of project execution, including coordination with Construction Management team, D-B Contractor and CLIENT. o Assist City in confirming D-B Contractor’s architectural and engineering team are completing Submittal, RFI and Design Clarification procedure, and are documenting and tracking their own efforts o Review Change/Change Order Request review, documentation and tracking o Provide City with Engineering review of proposed D-B Contractor Design Revisions o Confirm D-B Contractor’s maintenance of Record Drawings o Confirm D-B Contractor’s production of O&M Manuals and provision of Training o Support City for contractor walk-through, final inspection and demonstration. o Provide periodic (twice-weekly) onsite Associate / Resident Engineer support.

Scope of Engineering Design Services for the
West Side Tank and Pump Station Project
Operations Crew Building Design Build Oversight Assistance

Letter Proposal – Scope of Work

Page 5 ends

o Provide periodic (monthly) off-site construction administration support by a combination of Construction Manager and Associate / Resident Engineer, including o Schedule review and tracking
o Cash flow review and tracking (as provided by D-B Contractor) o Change Management (in coordination with CLIENT, Contractor and ENGINEER) o Participate in periodic Construction Conferences (weekly or semi-weekly as agreed to by ENGINEER and CLIENT)
o Support proactive communications between D-B Contractor, CLIENT PM, Operations Staff, Building Department, and ENGINEER’s team
o Confirm D-B Contractor is coordinating with City Staff and other local jurisdictional agencies o Provide City with engineering support of Plans and Specifications Interpretations and Clarifications with the intent of ensuring design intent is met with constructed product. o Review Contractor Schedule Submittal and work with Contractor to develop final working project schedule
o Work with Contractor to receive consistent updates of Project Schedule (at minimum twice monthly)
o Review of Contractor pay applications
o Construction Observation (twice weekly or as mutually agreed to by ENGINEER and CLIENT)  Observing construction for conformance with plans and specifications.  Observation / investigation of field conditions that differ from Contract Documents  Review D-B Contractor coordination of geotechnical, structural and electrical inspections  Prepare periodic observation diary
 Review working days and D-B Contractor completion of weekly working day statement  Periodic digital photos of pre-construction conditions, construction activities and post- construction conditions
o Review D-B Contractor’s Tracking of Permit Compliance o Review D-B Contractor’s compliance with regulatory requirements (SWPPP, RWQCB, OSHA, etc.) o Review D-B Contractor’s permit compliance issues (SWPPP violations, potable water discharge dechlorination, etc.) and follow mitigation activities by the contractor for timeliness, monitoring and recording the steps taken, and reporting all compliance issues to the CLIENT immediately. o Review D-B Contractor’s Tracking of all required Inspections, Special Inspection and Testing

ENGINEER’s level of effort, and basis for fee estimate, during this phase of work is as follows (based on D-B CONTRACTOR NTP schedule)

August 2022– June 2023 (11 months)
E5 – Principal Engineer (Mike Fisher, Sami Kader) 4 hrs/month E4 – Senior Engineer / Construction Manager (Steve Hooper, etc.) 8 hrs/month E2 – Associate / Resident Engineer (Jon Roy, Sheil a Magladry, etc.) 100 hrs/month

Scope of Engineering Design Services for the
West Side Tank and Pump Station Project
Operations Crew Building Design Build Oversight Assistance

Letter Proposal – Scope of Work

Page 6 ends

ADDITIONAL SERVICES FEE
Total fee for services proposed above shall be billed on a time plus expenses basis. For detailed labor estimate by staff position see attached fee estimate spreadshee t. CLIENT shall be responsible for any fees for pr ocessing applications. The following summarizes estimated costs by task:

Subtask Title Not to Exceed Fee

10.1 Design Phase $78,042

10.2 Permitting Phase $37,559

10.3 Construction Engineering, Administration and O bservation Services $221,280 Subtotal $336,921

PROJECT BUDGET INCREASE
To accommodate a portion of these additional servic es, Engineer requests that Optional Task 2.5 – Opti onal Hydroelectric Design be eliminated from our scope, as Hydroelectric was deemed infeasible for the site, and Task

2.5 budget of $235,739 be reallocated to cover a po rtion of the proposed additional services described herein.

The following summarizes the current approved task budgets, the revised task budgets (inclusive of add itional services) and the resultant additional budget request accommodate all scope:

Description Current
Project
Budget
Revised
Project
Budget
Additional
Budget
Request
Task s 1-9 –Project Design and CM Tasks $2,352 ,172 $2,352 ,172 $0 Task 2.5 – Op tional Hydro electric Des ign $235 ,739 $0 $-235,739 Task 10 – Operations Crew Building Design -Build Oversight $0 $336,921 $336,921 Total Project Contract Amount $2,587,911 $2, 689,053 $101,142

Scope of Engineering Design Services for the
West Side Tank and Pump Station Project
Operations Crew Building Design Build Oversight Assistance

Letter Proposal – Scope of Work

Page 7 ends

PAYMENT
Total fee for services proposed above shall be billed on a time plus expenses basis. For detailed labor estimate by staff position see attached fee estimate spreadsheet. CLIENT shall be responsible for any fees for processing applications. The following summarizes estimated costs by task: Payment for the scope described above will be on a Time and Expense basis in accordance with the Project Hourly Wage Rates in the following table including annual increases and invoiced monthly.

Classification Title Hourly Rate
AA1 Administrative Assistant $79
AA2 Senior Administrative Assistant $111
E0 Engineering Assistant $111
E1 Staff Engineer $139
E2 Associate Engineer / Resident Engineer $170
E3 Project / Structural Engineer $191
E4 Senior Project Engineer / Manager / Construction Manager $221 E5 Principal Engineer $256
I1 Field Inspector $149
I2 Senior Inspector $167
I3 Supervising Inspector $185
T1 CADD Tech 1 / Drafter/Jr. Technician $94
T2 CADD Tech 2 / Designer/Sr. Technician $126
T3 CADD Tech 3 / Senior Designer $153
Notes:

1. A markup of 10% will be applied to all project related Direct Costs and Expenses.

2. An additional premium of 25% will be added to the above rates for Expert Witness and Testimony Services.

3. Rate effective through December 31, 2022. A 3% increase will be added for any services performed in each year thereafter. .

Scope of Engineering Design Services for the
West Side Tank and Pump Station Project
Operations Crew Building Design Build Oversight Assistance

Letter Proposal – Scope of Work

Page 8 ends

DETAILED FEE ESTIMATE

Year Rate Months Hrs/Month Total Hrs Cost
Design Phase: October 2021 – March 2022 (6 months)
E5 Sami 21 $249.00 3 16 48 $11,952
E4 Steve 21 $215.00 3 4 12 $2,580
E5 Mike 21 $249.00 3 2 6 $1,494
E2 TBD 21 $165.00 3 40 120 $19,800
E5 Sami 22 $256.47 3 16 48 $12,311
E4 Steve 22 $221.45 3 12 36 $7,972
E5 Mike 22 $256.47 3 2 6 $1,539
E2 TBD 22 $169.95 3 40 120 $20,394
Subtotal $78,042
Permitting Phase: February – July 2022 (6 months)
E5 Sami 22 $256.47 6 5 30 $7,694
E4 Steve 22 $221.45 6 6 36 $7,972
E5 Mike 22 $256.47 6 1 6 $1,539
E2 TBD 22 $169.95 6 20 120 $20,394
Subtotal $37,599
Construction Phase: August 2022– June 2023 (11 mon ths) E2 TBD 22 $169.95 5 100 500 $84,975
E4 Steve 22 $221.45 5 8 40 $8,858
E5 Sami/Mike 22 $256.47 5 4 20 $5,129
E2 TBD 23 $175.05 6 100 600 $105,029
E4 Steve 23 $228.09 6 8 48 $10,948
E5 Sami/Mike 23 $264.16 6 4 24 $6,340
Subtotal $221,280
Total $336,921
Fee Estimate (Febraury 2022)

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1960
File #:
0704
Title:

Roseville Regional Soccer Complex - Environmental Compliance Services - Professional Services Agreement
Contact:

Tara Gee 916-774-5253 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.12.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends City Council adopt a resolution to approve a professional services agreement with Montrose Environmental Solutions, Inc., and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.

BACKGROUND
The Regional Soccer Complex is located off of Westbrook Boulevard just south of Blue Oaks Boulevard. This 25 acre park site, combined with a smaller 3 acre park site immediately to the north, is proposed to be developed as a regional soccer complex.

In December 2021, the City entered into an agreement with Montrose Environmental Solutions to perform professional services related to an initial study specific to the pending purchase of 20 acres located on parcel W-60b. The cost of these services was estimated at $64,635. This additional land extends the overall project boundaries.

In reviewing the entire project, the Regional Soccer Complex would be located on four parcels including W-60a, W-60b, W-50e and possibly a small portion of the parcel adjacent to W-50e.

Given the relocation of the proposed regional park site from its original location in the West Roseville Specific Plan EIR (SCH No. 2002082057), and in consideration of the project as a whole, it has been determined that a project-level California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the proposed regional soccer complex is necessary in order to identify potential environmental impacts of the proposed project.

The actions requested seek Council’s approval of the new professional services agreement to expand the scope to include an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in the amount of $92,840 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. If approved, the original professional services agreement with Montrose to perform an initial study will be terminated by staff and replaced with this agreement.

A rough schedule will complete the traffic study 10 weeks after Council approval and issuance of a Notice to Proceed and 5-6 months for full CEQA completion including public review.

FISCAL IMPACT
Work performed under this professional services agreement will be funded by West Roseville citywide park fee funds previously allocated toward this capital improvement project.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal D - Enhance economic vitality
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Tara Gee, Park Planning & Development Superintendent
Jill Geller, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-066

MES PSA
Vicinity map
RESOLUTION NO. 22-066

APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND MONTROSE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC., AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, a professional services agreement for CEQA Compliance Services for the Roseville Regional Soccer Complex, by and between the City of Roseville and Montrose Environmental Solutions, Inc., has been reviewed by the City Council; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that said professional services agreement is hereby approved and that the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

City Clerk
[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D028\P004\00065253.DOCX;02/28/2022]

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Roseville Regional Soccer Complex – CEQA Compliance Services THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ___ day of ________________, 20__, by and between the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation (“CITY”), and Montrose Environmental Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“CONSULTANT”); and W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, CITY desires professional services consisting of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance Services in support of the Roseville Regional Soccer Complex; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has prepared a proposal dated February 25, 2022, which describes the scope of work to be performed by CONSULTANT, the budget for the work, and the schedule for performance of the work; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is qualified and experienced to provide such professional services.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1. Services. CONSULTANT shall perform, at the direction of CITY, the scope of services as described in EXHIBIT “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D028\P004\00065253.DOCX;02/28/2022] 2 2. Compensation. For its services provided hereunder, CONSULTANT shall be compensated on a time and expense basis in accordance with the budget estimate as described in EXHIBIT “A”. Total compensation shall not exceed ninety-two thousand, eight hundred forty dollars ($92,840).

CONSULTANT shall submit one monthly invoice for its services. Such invoices shall be delineated by task, the person performing the services, and the hourly rate, which shall be stated in time increments of not greater than one tenth (1/10) hours. CITY shall pay invoices within thirty (30) days after receipt, if the services specified in the invoice have been satisfactorily completed.

3. Indemnification. To the fullest extent allowed by law, CONSULTANT shall defend, indemnify, and save and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from any claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth, or on account of, injuries to or death of any person (including but not limited to workers and the public), or damage to property, resulting from or arising out of CONSULTANT's willful misconduct or negligent act or omission while engaged in the performance of obligations or exercise of rights created by this Agreement, except those matters arising from CITY's sole negligence or willful misconduct. The parties intend that this provision shall be broadly construed.

CONSULTANT agrees to defend and indemnify CITY if, despite the parties intent and practice, any venue, agency, or court with competent jurisdiction determines that CONSULTANT and/or any of its agents, officers, employees, volunteers, independent contractors, or subcontractors, are characterized as employee(s) of CITY. [\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D028\P004\00065253.DOCX;02/28/2022] 3 CONSULTANT’s responsibility for such defense and indemnity obligations shall survive the termination or completion of this Agreement for the full period of time allowed by law. The defense and indemnity obligations of this Agreement are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Agreement.

4. Insurance. CONSULTANT agrees to continuously maintain, in full force and effect, the following minimum policies of insurance during the term of this Agreement.

COVERAGE LIMITS OF LIABILITY
Workers’ Compensation Statutory
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence $2,000,000 aggregate
Personal Injury:
$1,000,000 each occurrence
$2,000,000 aggregate
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit
Professional Liability (errors and $1,000,000 per claim omissions) $2,000,000 aggregate
a. Form. CONSULTANT shall submit a certificate evidencing such coverage for the period covered by this Agreement in a form satisfactory to Risk Management and the City Attorney, prior to undertaking any work hereunder. Any insurance written on a claims made basis is subject to the approval of Risk Management and the City Attorney. b. Additional Insureds. CONSULTANT shall also provide a separate endorsement form or section of the policy showing CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers as additional insureds for each type of coverage, except for Workers’ Compensation and Professional Liability. Such insurance shall specifically cover the contractual liability of CONSULTANT. The additional insured coverage under the CONSULTANT’s policy shall be [\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D028\P004\00065253.DOCX;02/28/2022] 4 primary and noncontributory, as evidenced by a separate endorsement or section of the policy, and shall not seek contribution from CITY’s insurance or self-insurance. In addition, the additional insured coverage shall be at least as broad as the Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) CG 20 01 Endorsement. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and limits shall be available to the additional insureds.

Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be: (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the full coverage and maximum limits of any insurance proceeds available to the named insureds, whichever is greater. c. Cancellation/Modification. CONSULTANT shall provide ten (10) days written notice to CITY prior to cancellation or modification of any insurance required by this Agreement.
d. Umbrella/Excess Insurance. The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and excess insurance. Any excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and noncontributory basis for the benefit of CITY (if agreed to in a written contract) before CITY’s own insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. e. Subcontractors. CONSULTANT agrees to include in its contracts with all subcontractors the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement, including the indemnity and insurance requirements, to the extent they apply to the scope of the subcontractor’s work.

Furthermore, CONSULTANT shall require its subcontractors to agree to be bound to CONSULTANT and CITY in the same manner and to the same extent as CONSULTANT is bound to CITY under this Agreement. Additionally, CONSULTANT shall obligate its subcontractors to comply with these same provisions with respect to any tertiary subcontractor, [\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D028\P004\00065253.DOCX;02/28/2022] 5 regardless of tier. A copy of CITY’s indemnity and insurance provisions will be furnished to the subcontractor or tertiary subcontractor upon request.
f. Self-Insured Retentions. All self-insured retentions (“SIR”) must be disclosed to Risk Management for approval and shall not reduce the limits of liability.

Policies containing any SIR provision shall provide or be endorsed to provide that the SIR may be satisfied by either the named insured or CITY. CITY reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any insurance policy and endorsements. The failure to exercise this right shall not constitute a waiver of such right.
g. Waiver of Subrogation. CONSULTANT hereby agrees to waive subrogation which any insurer of CONSULTANT may acquire from CONSULTANT by virtue of the payment of any loss under a Workers Compensation, Commercial General Liability or Automobile Liability policy. All Workers Compensation, Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability policies shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers for all worked performed by CONSULTANT, its employees, agents and subcontractors.
h. Liability/Remedies. Insurance coverage in the minimum amounts set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve CONSULTANT of liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it preclude CITY from taking such other actions as are available to it under any other provisions of this Agreement or law.

5. Records. CONSULTANT and its subcontractors shall maintain all files and records relating to the services performed hereunder during the term of this Agreement and for a period of not less than one (1) year after the date of termination or expiration. Provided, however, that in the event of litigation or settlement of claims arising from the performance of [\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D028\P004\00065253.DOCX;02/28/2022] 6 this Agreement, CONSULTANT and its subcontractors shall maintain all files and records until such litigation, appeals or claims are resolved. Duly authorized representatives of CITY shall have right of access during normal business hours and after reasonable notice to CONSULTANT’s and subcontractors’ files and records relating to the services performed hereunder, and may review and copy the files and records at appropriate stages during performance of the services and during the one (1) year period following termination or expiration of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall include this provisions in its contracts with all subcontractors.

6. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.

7. Prevailing Wages. When applicable, for purposes of this Agreement, CONSULTANT and its subcontractors shall comply with all applicable prevailing wage laws, e.g., but not limited to, California Labor Code Sections 1770 et seq. In accordance with said Section 1775, CONSULTANT shall forfeit as a penalty to the City two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar day or portion thereof for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates for such work or craft in which such worker is employed for any work done on-site under the Agreement by CONSULTANT or by any subcontractor in violation of the provisions of the Labor Code and in particular, Labor Code Sections 1770 to 1780, inclusive. In addition to said penalty and pursuant to said Section 1775, the difference between such stipulated prevailing wage rates and the amount paid to each worker for each calendar day or portion thereof for which each worker was paid less than the stipulated prevailing wage shall be paid to each worker by CONSULTANT or the applicable subcontractor.

Pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1773, the contracting department has identified the source, stated below, of the general prevailing rate of wages [\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D028\P004\00065253.DOCX;02/28/2022] 7 applicable to the site to be done, for straight time, overtime, and holiday work. The holiday wage rate listed shall be applicable to all holidays recognized in the collective bargaining agreement of the particular craft, classification or type of worker concerned. These wage rates may be obtained from the State Department of Industrial Relations and/or the following website address: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/DPreWageDetermination.htm.

Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, general prevailing wage rates set forth above, which forms a part of this Agreement, shall be posted by CONSULTANT at a prominent place at the work site. Prevailing wage rates to be posted at the work site will be furnished by the contracting department. The possibility of wage increases is one of the elements to be considered by CONSULTANT in determining its proposal, and will not under any circumstances be considered as the basis of a claim against CITY or the Agreement.

8. Compliance with Laws. CONSULTANT shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and policies as may be applicable to the performance of services under this Agreement.

9. Ability to Perform. CONSULTANT agrees and represents that it has the time, ability and professional expertise to perform the services required under this Agreement.

10. Governing Agreement. In the event of any conflict between this Agreement and its EXHIBITS, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern. In the event of any conflict between any of the EXHIBITS, the provisions of the first in order of attachment shall govern.

11. Assignment. CONSULTANT is employed to perform unique personal services.

CONSULTANT shall not assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of CITY.

CONSULTANT shall not employ or otherwise incur any obligation to pay other specialists or experts for services in connection with this Agreement, without prior written consent of CITY. [\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D028\P004\00065253.DOCX;02/28/2022] 8 12. Independent Contractor. CONSULTANT, inclusive of its agents, officers, employees, volunteers, independent contractors, and subcontractors, shall act as an independent contractor, and covenants and agrees that it will conduct itself consistent with such status, that it will neither hold itself out as, nor claim to be, an officer or employee of CITY by reason of this Agreement.

CONSULTANT and CITY agree that: (a) CONSULTANT is free from the control and direction of CITY in connection with the performance of the work; (b) CONSULTANT is providing services directly to CITY; (c) CONSULTANT has and will maintain at all relevant times a business license; (d) CONSULTANT maintains a business location that is separate from CITY; (e) CONSULTANT is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed hereunder; (f) CONSULTANT actually contracts with other businesses to provide the same or similar services and maintains a clientele without restrictions from CITY; (g) CONSULTANT advertises and holds itself out to the public as available to provide the same or similar services; (h) CONSULTANT provides its own tools, vehicles, and equipment to perform the services; (i) CONSULTANT has negotiated its own rates; (j) CONSULTANT set its own hours and location of work in accomplishing CITY’s on- call needs; and (k) CONSULTANT has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired and exercises its own expert independent judgement.

13. Representations and Warranties. CONSULTANT warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or [\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D028\P004\00065253.DOCX;02/28/2022] 9 making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, CITY shall have the right to terminate as void this Agreement, without liability, or, in its discretion, to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or contingent fee.

14. Successors in Interest. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the respective parties hereto.

15. Copyright, Ownership and Use of Materials. All tangible material (“Material”) created or delivered pursuant to this Agreement is considered a work made for hire under the Copyright Act. To the extent such Material does not qualify as a work made for hire, CONSULTANT hereby assigns to CITY all right, title, and interest, including but not limited to all copyrights, in all Material created by CONSULTANT in its performance under this Agreement. Material constitutes the scope of work outlined in Exhibit A and attached hereto, and all written and other tangible expressions, including but not limited to, drawings (including computer aided drawings), papers, documents, reports, surveys, renderings, exhibits, sketches, maps, models, prints, paintings or photographs, in any and all media or formats in which such materials have been created or are maintained. All Material furnished by CONSULTANT is, and shall remain, the property of CITY.

CONSULTANT shall execute any documents necessary to effectuate such assignment.

In the event that CONSULTANT uses, employs, designates, or retains any person or entity who is not an employee of CONSULTANT, to perform any work required of it pursuant to this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall require said person or entity to execute an agreement containing the preceding paragraph.
[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D028\P004\00065253.DOCX;02/28/2022] 10 16. Termination of Agreement. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving CONSULTANT ten (10) days advance written notice from the City Manager.

CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving CITY thirty (30) days advance written notice. In the event of termination through no fault of CONSULTANT, CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for services performed as of the date of termination, upon the release to CITY of all Material hereunder, in any and all media or formats in which such materials have been created or are maintained. CITY retains the right to receive and use any Material, notwithstanding any termination or any dispute regarding the amount to be paid.

17. Attorney’s Fees; Venue; Governing Law. If either party commences any legal action against the other party arising out of this Agreement or the performance hereof, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover its reasonable litigation expenses, including but not limited to, court costs, expert witness fees, discovery expenses, and attorney’s fees. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in Placer County, California, regardless of where else venue may lie. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

18. Modification. This Agreement and each provision contained herein may be waived, amended, supplemented or eliminated only by mutual written agreement of the parties.

19. Severability. If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are for any reason held invalid or unenforceable, such holding shall not affect the remaining provisions or the validity and enforceability of the Agreement as a whole.

20. Notices. Any notices to parties required by this Agreement shall be delivered personally or mailed, U.S. first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D028\P004\00065253.DOCX;02/28/2022] 12 APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BY: _______________________________

MICHELLE SHEIDENBERGER
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE:

BY: _______________________________

JILL GELLER
Parks, Recreation & Libraries Director

[\\Rosenet\rosenetdfs\CITY ATTORNEY\CYCOM\WPDOCS\D028\P004\00065253.DOCX;02/28/2022] EXHIBIT “A”
T
ara L. Gee, Park Planning & Development Superintendent February 25, 2022 City of Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries
RE
: Revised Scope of Work for CEQA Compliance Services for Roseville Regional Soccer Complex D
ear Ms. Gee:

Mo
ntrose Environmental (Montrose) is pleased to present our revised scope of work to the City of Roseville (City) to provide California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) co mpliance services in support of the Roseville Regional Soccer Complex project. Montrose is enthusiastic about the opportunity to continue supporting the City.

M
ontrose acknowledges that the original contract for the W-60b Land Purchase EIR Addendum dated December 9, 2021, between Montrose (formerly Analytical Environmental Services) and the City of Roseville, is to be terminated in lieu of a new contract. Work performed thus far towards the original contract has been carried over to this revised scope of work (see Task 0).

M
ontrose appreciates the opportunity to present this revised scope of work to the City and looks forward to continuing work on the Roseville Regional Soccer Complex project Sinc
erely,
K
elly Boyle
Project Manager

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND UNDERSTANDING
In April 2020, the City of Roseville (City) approved an addendum to the 2004 West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP) Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) to develop a 6-field soccer complex on WRSP Parcel W-60a (prior project). The City now proposes to acquire adjacent Parcel W-60b within the WRSP Area and expand the proposed soccer complex (Proposed Project). T he City previously anticipated that the Proposed Project would require the preparation of an Environmental Checklist and Addendum to the 2004 WRSP EIR; in December 2021, the City and Montrose contracted to prepare the Environmental Checklist and an Addendum for the Proposed Project.

T
he City is now considering preparation of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Proposed Project, as a result of an expanded site plan and use of adjacent parcels, in order to evaluate the entire project as a whole . At this time, Montrose assumes that an IS/MND is the appropriate environmental document for the Proposed Project. However, Montrose recommends that technical light/noise/traffic studies be comp leted as soon as possible , in order to confirm whether the Proposed Project has no unmitigable impacts. If the technical studies determine that unmitigable impacts exist, a focused EIR would need to be prepared for the Proposed Project. At that time, Montrose would submit a scope of work/cost estimate for those services.

M
ontrose understands that the Proposed Project would be located on the four parcels shown in the table below (Project Site).

PARCEL CURRENT LAND USE / ZONING ACREAGE
WRSP Parcel W-50e Parks and Recreation 3.10
WRSP Parcel W-60a Parks and Recreation 25.20
WRSP Parcel W-60b Light Industrial 29.98
City of Roseville APN 017-101-017-000 Parks and Recreation (southern portion), Commercial (northern portion)

7.68 T
he Proposed Project would include development of 10 soccer fields at full buildout, as well as a universally accessible playground, parking lots, and picnic areas . Development of the Proposed Project would not be located on the southern 10 acres of Parcel W -60b or the northern section of APN 017-101- 017-000 (acreage yet to be determined) . Montrose assumes that the parcels will eventually be merged and new APNs assigned; however, Montrose does not have detailed information on the parcel split at this time.

SCOPE OF WORK
Task 0. Work Previously Completed for W-60b EIR Addendum As noted above, Montrose initiated work on the environmental checklist and addendum to the 2004 WRSP EIR for Parcel W-60b in December 2021. Montrose identified “red flags” related to environmental issue areas discussed in a typical CEQA document, and communicated the preliminary findings with the City. Additionally, Fehr & Peers began work on the approved traffic analysis for Parcel W -60b, and communicated preliminary findings with the City. Montrose assumes that Fehr & Peers will include all past invoices on a revised scope of work and submit to the City. Montrose’s January 2022 invoice totals have been incorporated into this scope of work and are shown in the cost table below.

Task 1. Project Initiation and Project Description
Montrose will utilize the relevant documentation provided by the City and background text recently drafted for the EIR Addendum to prepare a project description. Montrose will participate in a call with the City to address any information gaps needing to be filled for the project description. The project description will include a full description of the Proposed Project, history of the property, location, detailed background information, list of agency approvals and required permits, and construction components, including a description of techniques, implementation of best management practices, schedule, and phasing, if applicable. Where appropriate, flexibility will be built into the project description in anticipation of minor adjustments to project layout and design. The project description will serve as the basis of the CEQA analysis.

Task 2. Technical Studies
Task 2.1: Review of Existing Technical Studies and Reports The following reports and technical studies have been supplied by the City , which contain information that can be used in support of the IS analysis. Several of these reports evaluate technical impacts of the prior project proposed on Parcel W -60a. Montrose will review these reports and incorporate relevant content into the IS/MND in evaluation of the Proposed Project to the extent feasible to avoid duplicative efforts and increase efficiency. Montrose has already begun review of these studies in support of the previous EIR addendum; therefore, time to complete review is expected to be minimal.

1. 2004 WR
SP EIR

2. 2020 WRSP Amendments for Parcel W-60a

3. Photometric Analysis prepared for Parcel W-60a

4. WRSP Parcels F-55 and W-60a Rezone Environmental Noise Assessment prepared by j.c. brennan & associates, Inc., November 2019

5. Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) of Proposed Rezones to WRSP Parcels 55 and 60a prepared by Fehr & Peers, October 2019

6. Preliminary analysis conducted by Montrose for the EIR Addendum for Parcel W-60b Task 2.2: Biological Resources Report
Montrose will conduct background review of biological databases to identify special -status species with the potential to occur in the region of the Project Site, critical habitats, and potentially occurring wetlands and waters of the U.S. Montrose will conduct a b iological survey of the Project Site. The survey will be conducted using a hand-held GPS system. Survey goals will include identifying habitat types, special-status species, and suitable habitat to support special -status species. Results will be included in a Biological Resources Report and attached as an appendix to the IS/MND. If necessary, the report will recommend mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts to biological resources.

D
eliverables: Montrose will provide the City with an electronic co py via email in PDF format of the Biological Resources Report.

Task 2.3: Cultural Resources Letter Report and Native American Consultation Montrose will submit a record search request to the North Central Information Center (NCIC) asking for a review of the National and California registers of historic resources as well as previous archaeological survey and excavation reports, archaeological site records, historic maps, and formal property listings within 1/2-mile of the Project Site, to obtain a feeling f or the types of resources found on the landscape.

The cost estimate provided below includes the cost of the records search, estimated at no more than $450. Montrose assumes that a rush record search will not be required. At the same time, Montrose will submit a request to the Native American Heritage Commission, asking for a search of the Sacred Lands File and for a list of individuals who might have information regarding cultural resources within the Proposed Project area. Montrose will not contact these i ndividuals, but will append the information to the CEQA document. Montrose’s information collection cannot be substituted for AB 52 consultation; AB 52 mandates early consultation between tribes and government agencies. Montrose assumes the City will complete AB 52 consultation and provide Montrose relevant information for inclusion in the IS/MND.

Montrose is available to assist the City with tribal consultation at an additional cost.

O
nce the NCIC results are received, Montrose will complete an archaeological survey of the Project Site.

Any changes to previously recorded cultural resources in the Proposed Project area will be documented, and newly identified archaeological sites will be recorded on standard California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 forms; location information will be collected by GPS. This scope of work assumes that archaeological resources will not be identified during the survey.

A
Montrose archaeologist will prepare a Cultural Resources Letter Report. The report will deve lop environmental and cultural contexts for the Proposed Project area; document records search findings; and describe field methods and results. Any resources identified will be assessed for National and California register eligibility and avoidance measur es or further work will be recommended as appropriate. All results will be incorporated into the CEQA document.

D
eliverables: Montrose will provide the City with an electronic copy via email in PDF format of the Cultural Resources Letter Report.

Task 2.4: Transportation Impact Analysis Review
Montrose assumes that Fehr & Peers will submit a separate scope of work to the City to conduct a Transportation Impact Analysis. Under Task 2.4, Montrose will coordinate with Fehr & Peers and the City during preparation of the transportation impact analysis as needed, review the draft technical report, and incorporate results and conclusions into the Administrative Draft IS. Montrose assumes the technical report will be adequate and will not require major revisions. Additionally, Montrose staff will attend up to two (2) conference call s with Fehr & Peers regarding the Transportation Impact Analysis , as appropriate.

Task 2.5: Noise/Vibration Analysis
Task 2.5.1: Existing Noise/Vibration Environment
 Community Noise and Vibration Survey: Saxelby Acoustics will conduct a noise survey within the project area to quantify existing background noise levels. The survey will consist of short -term noise level measurements and continuous noise level measurements for a minimum period of 24- h
ours. It is expected that the noise measurement survey will include measurement at the nearest existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.

Task 2.5.2: Analysis of Traffic Noise Environment
Saxelby Acoustics will evaluate increased traffic noise levels at existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. This task will be performed using traffic volumes provided by the traffic engineer. Saxelby Acoustics anticipate providing traffic noise levels for existing, existing plus project, cumulative, and cumulative plus project scenarios. However, should additional scenarios be included in the traffic study, Saxelby Acoustics will also evaluate those scenarios.

Task 2.5.3: Analysis of Stationary Noise Environment
Saxelby Acoustics will provide an analysis of noise levels associated with operation of the proposed project at the nearest noise
-
sensitive uses. Saxelby Acoustics will also conduct an analysis of the noise and vibration impacts associated with construction of the project at existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.

Task 2.5.4: Report Preparation
Saxelby Acoustics will provide a draft report which details our findings, methodology, and noise reduction measures (if required). The report will be prepared to meet the requirements of the City of Roseville and CEQA. Saxelby Acoustics will provide the technical noise study in a generic technical format. Saxelby Acoustics will respond to staff or applicant comments on the draft technical report.

Task 2.5.5: Response to Comments
Saxelby Acoustics will respond to comments on the draft technical report. After comments are received, a final report will be provided. This task also includes up to 10 hours for response to public comments.

Task 2.5.6: Meetings
Saxelby Acoustics will attend coordination up to two public hearings. This task assumes up to 8 hours of effort.

U
nder Task 2.5, Montrose will coordinate with Saxelby Acoustics during preparation of the noise/vibration impact analysis, review the draft technical report, and incorporate results and conclusions into the Administrative Draft IS. Montrose assumes the technical report will be adequate and will not require major revisions. Additionally, Montrose staff will at tend up to two (2) conference calls with Saxelby Acoustics regarding the Noise/Vibration Analysis, as appropriate.

Task 2.6: Light Study
Montrose recommends preparation of a light study for the Proposed Project. Montrose assumes that Musco Lighting will p repare a light study that will determine the light spill from the Project Site and impacts on nearby residences, the results of which will not yield significant visual impacts, and this report will be completed free of charge. The light study will evaluate the full buildout of the Proposed Project (10 fields). Montrose will coordinate with the City and the Project design team to initiate this work.

U
nder this task, Montrose will coordinate with Musco Lighting during preparation of the light study, review the draft report, and incorporate results and conclusions into the Administrative Draft IS. Montrose assumes the light study will be adequate and will not require major revisions. Additionally, Montrose staff will attend up to two (2) conference calls with Musco Lighting regarding the light study scope of work and findings, as appropriate.

Task 3. Administrative Draft Initial Study
Montrose will prepare an IS for the Proposed Project that meets the legal requirements of a complete, adequate, and objective statement of the Proposed Project’s environmental consequences. Montrose will incorporate preliminary research and findings conducted for the EIR Addendum into the IS. The resulting CEQA document will provide a concise, integrated source of information for the public, City staff, and decision makers . Montrose will use a standard template for an IS/MND, unless the City provides a preferred IS/MND template. The Administrative Draft IS will consider all potentially significant environmental effects from implementation and include mitigation recommendations. For each major issue area included within the IS checklist, the general outline of the CEQA impact analysis will include the Environmental Setting, the Standards of Significance, Answers to the Checklist Questions, and Mitigation Measures. Montrose will establish the methodology for the analysis, determine and identify thresholds of significance, identify impacts, and identify feasible mitigation measures or methods to avoid significant impacts. CEQA Checklist issues required to be addressed include:
 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
 Aesthetics
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources
 Energy
 Geology, Soils and Seismicity
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Mineral Resources
 Noise/Vibration
 Population and Housing
 Public Services
 Recreation
 Transportation and Circulation
 Tribal Cultural Resources
 Utilities and Service Systems
 Wildfire
D
eliverables: Montrose will provide the City with an electronic copy via email in PDF and Word formats of the Administrative Draft IS. Following incorporation of comments and City approval, Montrose can submit the revised Administrative Draft IS to City staff for review in PDF and Word formats.

Task 4. Preparation of IS/MND and Notice of Intent
If the results of the technical studies dictate that the preparation of a Focused EIR is necessary, Montrose would provide a revised scope for preparation of a focused EIR. If technical studies determine that all impacts can be mitigated , Montrose will resume with preparation of the IS/MND and prepare the document for noticing. Montrose will incorporate comments from the City on the Administrative Draft IS and prepare the IS for public circulation. Montrose will prepare a draft Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed Project. It is assumed that the City will distribute the NOI to interested parties, and will post it on its website. The City will be responsible for the coordination and costs of publishing the NOI in a local newspaper.

M
ontrose will prepare a Notice of Completion (NOC) and file the Draft MND with the State Clearinghouse (SCH) to initiate the 30-day public review period. An electronic copy of the Draft MND will be sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution. Montrose will work with the City to set up a State Clearinghouse registration for Project submittal as in person deliveries are no longer accepted.

D
eliverables: Montrose will provide the City with PDF and Word versions of the public review Draft IS.

Montrose will prepare and file the NOC with the SCH along with an electronic copy of the Draft MND.

Task 5. Response to Comments, MMRP, and NOD
If requested by the City, Montrose will prepare responses to each comment received during the public review period for the IS/MND. The responses are assumed to require only clarification and/or explanation of the conclusions in the IS without the need to revise the analysis, elaborate substantially, or add new issues or alternatives. This cost estimate assumes that no more than 20 hours will be required to address public comments. Montrose will request that technical subconsultants preparing traffic/light/noise studies include time in their scopes of work to respond to questions that relate to their subject matter.

Once the mitigation measures have been approved by the City staff, Montrose will prepare a Mitiga tion Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) that will identify the agency with implementing and monitoring responsibility, compliance standards for the implementation of mitigation measures, and the necessary timing of mitigation measures. If requested by th e City, Montrose will prepare the Notice of Determination (NOD) to be filed with the State Clearinghouse following adoption of the Final MND.

Montrose assumes that the City will file the NOD.

D
eliverables: Montrose will provide the City with an electronic copy of the Responses to Comments document to support the City’s adoption of the MND. Montrose will provide the City with an electronic copy of the MMRP and the NOD.

Task 6. Meetings and Coordination
During the course of the IS, Montrose will attend up to four (4) conference calls with the Project team for discussion of work/progress and review of draft documents. If requested, Montrose will attend up to two (2) City Planning Commission meetings to answer questions on the Initial Study , assumed to be no more than two hours each . Montrose will request that technical subconsultants preparing traffic/light/noise studies will include time in their scopes of work to attend up to two council meetings.

Montrose is prepared to start work immediately following an executed contract with the Client. Montrose staff are available to complete the CEQA documentation for the Proposed Project within the approximate timeframe shown in the following table. The timeframe below assumes all project information is complete and available upon project initiation. The final schedule would be contingent on timelines related to City review, cultural records search results, and technical studies.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Task Approximate Duration Task 1: Project Initiation and Project Description 1 week Task 2: Technical Studies
Task 2.1: Incorporation of Existing Technical
Studies and Reports
4 weeks Task 2.2: Biological Resources Report
Task 2.3: Cultural Resources Letter Report
and Native American Consultation
Task 2.4: Transportation Impact Analysis 10 weeks from contract initiation Task 2.5: Noise/Vibration Analysis 2 weeks from traffic study Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Task Approximate Duration Task 2.6: Light Study TBD
Task 3: Administrative Draft Initial Study
Admin Draft IS/MND
City Review
3 - 4 weeks after technical studies are complete
TBD
Task 4: Preparation of IS/MND and Notice of Intent
Screencheck Draft IS/MND, and NOI
City Review
Publish Public Review IS/MND and NOI
30-day Public Review
3 days from City comments
TBD
2 days
30 days
Task 5: Response to Comments, MMRP, and NOD
Response to Comments
MMRP
Draft and File NOD
1 - 2 weeks
Task 6: Meetings and Coordination Ongoing
Montrose will perform the above scope of services on a time and materials basis for an estimated cost of $92,840. A detailed breakdown of the costs is provided below. If additional time is needed to complete a task, Montrose will provide the City with a scope of work and estimate and receive authorization prior to any additional work.

Task Cost
Task 0. Work Previously Completed for W-60b EIR Addendum (Montrose only) $11,185
Task 1: Project Initiation and Project Description $5,520 Task 2: Technical Studies
Task 2.1: Incorporation of Existing Technical Studies and Reports $1,190
Task 2.2: Biological Resources Report $6,290
Task 2.3: Cultural Resources Report and Native American Consultation $5,985
Task 2.4: Transportation Impact Analysis Review $2,050
Task 2.5: Noise/Vibration Analysis $15,130
Task 2.6: Light Study $1,240
Task 3: Administrative Draft Initial Study $26,210
Task 4: Preparation of IS/MND and Notice of Intent $3,360 Task Cost
Task 5: Response to Comments, MMRP, and NOD $6,550
Task 6: Meetings and Coordination $8,130
TOTAL COST $92,840

ASSUMPTIONS

1. All significant impacts of the Proposed Project can be reduced to less than significant levels; t
herefore, preparation of an IS is the appropriate document to meet CEQA compliance requirements. If determined after preparation of the IS that an EIR is required, Montrose will p
rovide a revised scope of work.

2. The City’s public works department will calculate and determine whether there will be sufficient capacity to meet the water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure needs of the Project. It is assumed that no off-site improvements would be required for water, wastewater, o r
s
tormwater service to the Project.

3. Montrose will be provided with energy demand estimates for the Proposed Project.

4. The biological and cultural surveys (Task 2.2 and 2.3) can be completed concurrently in a single site visit.

5. The cultural records search will not cost more than $450.

6. No additional technical studies, surveys, or reporting will be required beyond those described in the Scope of Work to analyze impacts to environmental resources.

7. The Proposed Project does not have the potential to adversely affect tribal cultural resources, wetlands, or federal/state listed species.

8. Wetland and biological permitting are not included in the scope of services; however, mitigation measures may require that such permits be obtained prior to Proposed Project implementation.

9. Pre -construction surveys and construction monitoring are not included within this proposal .

S
hould these tasks be identified as mitigation measures through the IS/MND process, a separate scope of work and cost estimate may be submitted.

10. The City will be responsible for fees associated with public noticing and permitting.

11. Attendance at a public hearing for adoption of the IS/MND is not included in this cost estimate b
ut can be completed for an additional cost.

12. The City will notify Montrose of any project changes that may impact the outlined Scope of Work.

A
ny changes to the project description once the draft project description is approved by the City could require a contract modification to adjust the scope of analysis.

13. APN 017-101-017-000 can indeed be used for the Proposed Project and is not in the jurisdiction of Roseville Electric.

14. Deliverables will be provided in electronic format. If printing of a document is required, this can be completed at an additional cost.

Regional Soccer Complex
Vicinity Map

Westbrook Blvd W-50E (3 ac) 1.5 acre W-60A (25 ac) Blue Oaks Blvd

W-60B (20 ac) Pistachio Regional Park West Park High School Waste Water Treatment Plant

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1953
File #:
0900-04-03 & 0201-01
Title:

Traffic Signal Maintenance Shop Expansion Project - Budget Adjustment Contact:

Stefanie Kemen 916-746-1300 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.13.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends City Council adopt an ordinance to approve a budget adjustment in the amount of $300,000 to establish funds for the Traffic Signal Maintenance Shop Expansion Project.

BACKGROUND
The Traffic Signal Maintenance Section of Public Works/Engineering (Section) is responsible for the maintenance and operation of over 200 traffic signals and numerous Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) devices. A study in 2016 concluded that, based on the rate of development at that time, additional staffing will be needed in the Section to continue to meet traffic signal maintenance and operation needs as the City grows. Since that time, development has continued at a rate that meets or exceeds what was anticipated.

The existing Traffic Signal Maintenance Shop is located at 2025 Hilltop Circle in the Corporation Yard in a small 1,200 SF area next to the Street Maintenance Division. A Space Needs Study in 2016 concluded that 2,300 SF is needed for the expected growth of the Section over the next several years.

Public Works staff have been working closely with Finance and Electric staff to identify the impacts to their existing occupied spaces at 2075 and 2090 Hilltop Circle due to the recent acquisition and move of many of their staff to 116 Grant Street in the downtown area.

Two spaces are currently being evaluated to meet the needs of the Traffic Signal Maintenance Section staff - Corp Yard - Building B (2075 Hilltop Circle), and the Electric Operations Building (2090 Hilltop Circle). This request is for funds to evaluate the most economical and suitable solution to meet the needs of City operations, to design the tenant Improvements for the selected space, and to begin construction of the improvements.

Remaining construction funds are anticipated to be included in the FY2022-23 budget that will be presented to Council later this year.

FISCAL IMPACT
This budget adjustment for $300,000 from the Electric Fund will cover the planning and design of the project, and the start of construction.

The total cost of the project is expected to be $1.2 million, and the remaining funds are anticipated to be included in the FY2022-23 budget that will be presented to Council later this year.

Construction will be funded by electric funds, and approximately $200,000 of developer-paid Traffic Mitigation Fees for the Traffic Operations Center and server room that will be included as a part of the expansion project. No General Fund resources will be used for the project.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project involves the minor alteration and reconstruction of an existing public structure. The proposed activities are categorically exempt from CEQA as Class 1 and Class 2 Exemptions (State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15302). The Exemption has been prepared and no further CEQA action is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Stefanie Kemen, Engineering Manager
Jason Shykowski, Public Works Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Ordinance 6461
Budget Adjustment

ORDINANCE NO. 6461

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-22

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Traffic Signal Maintenance Shop Expansion project.

SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an appropriation measure, immediately effective pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03 of the Charter.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post a true copy of the foregoing ordinance in each of three (3) conspicuous locations in the City and she shall immediately after such posting enter in the ordinance book, under the record of the ordinance, a certificate under her hand stating the time and place of such publication by posting.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1952
File #:
0800-02 & 0201-01
Title:

Barton Road Water Treatment Plant - East Applied Pipeline Project - Budget Adjustment
Contact:

Jonathan Cummings 916-774-5566 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.14.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends City Council adopt an ordinance approving the attached Request for Budget Adjustment to initiate and fund the Barton Road Water Treatment Plant – East Applied Pipeline Project with $856,000 from available resources in the Water Rehabilitation Fund.

BACKGROUND
On October 2, 2019, City Council approved a professional design services agreement (PDSA) with Carollo Engineers to conduct a condition assessment of major assets at the Barton Road Water Treatment Plant (BRWTP). The goal of the project was to establish a baseline condition of the treatment plant and acquire pertinent data for forecasting capital improvements and funding needs to support the Environmental Utilities Department’s rehabilitation planning process.

The BRWTP Condition Assessment included a non-invasive visual inspection of the 72-inch East Applied Pipeline and a geotechnical analysis of the supporting soils was conducted. It serves as the primary effluent pipe for the treatment plant’s three flocculation and sedimentation basins.

Originally designed and constructed as a subgrade alignment, approximately 100 feet of the pipeline has been partially exposed since 2006 as a result of the excavation requirements for the adjacent construction of the mechanical dewatering building, completed as part of the Water Treatment Plant Expansion Phase III Project.

To extend the longevity of the pipeline, this project will serve to implement the recommendations resulting from the visual inspection and the geotechnical analysis, which includes rehabilitation and improvements to the pipelines exterior condition, structural support, drainage, and connection to the flocculation and sedimentation basins.

FISCAL IMPACT
A budget adjustment is being recommended to fully fund this new project. The proposed cost for the On-Call PDSA with Carollo Engineers is $106,000. The engineer estimate for construction is $690,000. Staff estimates an allowance of $60,000 for City staff labor. Therefore, staff is requesting a budget adjustment for the project’s total estimated cost of $856,000 from available resources in the Water Rehabilitation Fund.

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

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community

Respectfully Submitted,
Jonathan Cummings, Associate Engineer
Richard Plecker, Environmental Utilities Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Ordinance 6460
Budget Adjustment
ORDINANCE NO. 6460

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-22

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Barton Road Water Treatment Plant East Applied Pipeline Project.

SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an appropriation measure, immediately effective pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03 of the Charter.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
2/11/20222:49 PM
1 REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Jonathan Cummings, Associate Engineer FISCAL YEAR: 2022 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Nancy Rothlisberger, Sr. EU Business Analyst COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 3/16/2022 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: EU/Technical Services ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
6130 6587 84001 500225 796,000
6130 5080 84001 500225 60,000
856,000

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
856,000

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
6130 (856,000)
(856,000)
Justification for Budget Adjustment:
2/11/2022

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

As part of the Water Treatment Plant Condition Assessment Project, the 72-inch East Applied Pipeline underwent an inspection that identified structural, drainage, and connection areas of concern necessitating rehabilitation/improvements to extend the pipeline's longevity. With construction targeted for November 2022, design needs to start in March 2022. Design will be completed using an existing on-call professional design services agreement with Carollo Engineers. The construction contract will be awarded in the Fall 2022. This budget adjustment requests $856,000 from the available resources in the Water Rehabilitation Fund (6130) to initiate this new project: $796,000 is for design and construction (if this estimate is insufficient after construction bid award, staff will return to Council to request additional budget) and $60,000 is for City staff secondary labor. The secondary labor reimbursement is included in various EU operating budgets for FY2021-22 and will be programmed for FY2022-23 as well.

Secondary Labor for new project #500225
TOTAL
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Capital Outlay for new project #500225
Reduce available resources in the Water Rehab Fund

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1955
File #:
0324 & 0201-01
Title:

Emergency Medical Services Program - Capital Asset Donation and Budget Adjustment
Contact:

Trent Waechter 916-774-5844
[email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.15.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that Council accept a donation of $128,015 in capital assets from the EMS Fund managed by the Sierra-Sacramento Valley EMS Agency and adopt an ordinance approving the attached FY2021-22 budget adjustment for $40,854 in reimbursable maintenance.

BACKGROUND
The Roseville Fire Department provides advanced life support services for medical response calls for the community. Various pieces of equipment and supplies are used to treat any person in need of medical aid, supporting the projected 18,000 calls for service and meeting the approved fire apparatus minimum medical equipment local EMS agency requirements for the advanced life support program.

In 2022, the Department will receive eight LUCAS chest compression system devices for the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) program through the EMS Fund managed by the Sierra- Sacramento (S-SV) Valley EMS Agency, a Placer County government agency responsible for regulating EMS services in the county. The devices improve the quality and consistency of chest compressions, increase ETCO2 (End-tidal CO2) levels, as well as being able to sustain life- saving circulation during prolonged resuscitation attempts. The Department would like to accept the eight capital assets valued at $128,015. Additionally, the Department will purchase a $40,854 four-year extended maintenance agreement for the devices which will be fully reimbursed from the EMS Fund.

FISCAL IMPACT
The capital asset donation is provided through S-SV with no impact to the General Fund.

Maintenance costs will be prepaid through the extended maintenance agreement and will also be reimbursed through the EMS Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. Approval of the Capital Asset Donation and Budget Adjustment - Emergency Medical Services Program meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community

Respectfully Submitted,
Trent Waechter, Emergency Medical Services Quality Assurance Coordinator Rick Bartee, Fire Chief

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Funding Approval Letter
Ordinance 6462
Budget Adjustment

JIM HOLMES

JPA BOARD CHAIRPERSON

WWW.SSVEMS.COM
SIERRA – SACRAMENTO VALLEY

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AGENCY

VICKIE PINETTE, MS

REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
535 MENLO DRIVE, SUITE A
ROCKLIN, CA 95765
TROY M. FALCK, MD, FACEP, FAAEM

MEDICAL DIRECTOR
PHONE: (916) 625-1702
FAX: (916) 625-1720

SERVING BUTTE, COLUSA, GLENN, NEVADA, PLACER, SHASTA, SISKIYOU, SUTTER, TEHAMA & YUBA COUNTIES

Page 1 of 1 ends

January 27, 2022
Trent Waechter, RN
EMS Coordinator
City of Roseville Fire Department
316 Vernon St., #480
Roseville, CA 95678-2618
Mr. Waechter,
The Placer County EMS Advisory Committee and the S-SV EMS Agency have approved the attached City of Roseville Fire Department funding request for the following supplies/equipment:
• 8 – Stryker LUCAS 3 Chest Compression System, supplies and preventative service contracts – amount not to exceed $200,000.00 without additional S-SV EMS approval.

Please note the following regarding this purchase/reimbursement approval:
• This purchase will be reimbursed from the Placer County EMS Improvement Fund, which has a fund balance of approximately $375,000.00 as of 12/31/2021. • Pursuant to the Placer County EMS Ambulance EOA agreement currently in place between S-SV EMS and AMR Placer County, Page 38, Section 7.1 Relationships and Accountability:
o Contractor (AMR Placer County) shall make medical equipment and supplies purchasing opportunities available to Placer County Fire Agencies to allow for more competitive pricing. • If AMR Placer County purchases this equipment for the City of Roseville Fire Department through their vendor contracts in order to secure more competitive pricing, pursuant to current EOA agreement language, S-SV EMS will reimburse AMR Placer County directly following receipt of an appropriate invoice. This process has been utilized multiple times over the past several years for several different Placer County Fire Agencies without any issues. • If the City of Roseville Fire Department chooses to purchase these items, please submit appropriate invoices/purchase documentation directly to S-SV EMS for reimbursement.

Respectfully,

John Poland, Associate Director
Sierra – Sacramento Valley EMS Agency
Our Mission… Protect and enhance the safety and well being of residents, businesses, customers and partners.

We will accomplish this by…Delivering exceptional service and compassionate solutions as a cohesive team with dedication, pride and vigilance.

City of Roseville Fire Department • 316 Vernon St., #480 • Roseville, California 95678-2618 (916) 774-5800 • (916) 774-5810 FAX • (916) 774-5220 TDD • www.roseville.ca.us

John Poland
Associate Director, QI/Investigator
Sierra-Sacramento Valley EMS Agency
535 Menlo Dr. Suite A
Rocklin, CA 95765
John. Poland @ ssvems.com

Dear Mr. Poland,

Roseville Fire Department (RFD) is requesting funds for eight mechanical chest compression devices that helps lifesaving teams around the world deliver high-quality, guidelines-consistent chest compressions to sudden cardiac arrest patients; in the field, on the move and in the hospital (LUCAS DEVICE), to improve and enhance RFD medical delivery and better serve the citizens of Roseville and the Region.

We provide primary fire protection and fire based ALS EMS response for the City of Roseville. Roseville Fire Department is currently trained department wide for use of LUCAS device and deploys 2 units (Engine 5 and Engine 3) with them. This purchase will outfit the remaining ALS apparatus for our Agency. We also have been awarded the AHA Mission Life Line Award the last 5 years.

RFD is seeking equipment to allow our first responders to render safe effective care, with high quality CPR.

RFD has worked with other Fire/EMS Agencies and vendors to obtain a quote for eight Lucas devices that is cost effective while meeting the recommendation. The attached quote will equip the remaining First Line Responding RFD units. This quote for eight Lucas devices, service and necessary non disposable items would be $175,912.20 does not include tax, thus RFD is requesting an additional funding to cover the complete cost. (See attached quote)
With the listed equipment, RFD will improve and enhance our response and the regions response with high quality CPR.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this request.

Respectfully submitted,
Trent Waechter RN, EMS Coordinator Roseville Fire Department Quote Summary
Delivery Address

End User - Shipping - Billing

Bill To Account

Name:

ROSEVILLE FIRE DEPT

Name:

ROSEVILLE FIRE DEPT

Name:

ROSEVILLE FIRE DEPT

Account #:

1322477

Account #:

1322477

Account #:

1322477

Address:

316 VERNON ST STE 480

Address:

316 VERNON ST STE 480

Address:

316 VERNON ST STE 480

ROSEVILLE

California 95678

Equipment Products:
#

Product

Description

Qty

Sell Price

Total

1.0 99576-000063

LUCAS 3, v3.1 Chest Compression System, Includes
Hard Shell Case, Slim Back Plate, (2) Patient Straps, (1) Stabilization Strap, (2) Suction Cups, (1) Rechargeable Battery and Instructions for use With Each Device

8 $12,973.50

$103,788.00

2.0 11576-000060

LUCAS Desk-Top Battery Charger

8 $926.25

$7,410.00

3.0 11576-000071

LUCAS External Power Supply

8 $293.25

$2,346.00

4.0 11576-000080

LUCAS 3 Battery - Dark Grey - Rechargeable LiPo

8 $566.25

$4,530.00

5.0 11576-000046

LUCAS Disposable Suction Cup (3 pack)

5 $111.00

$555.00

Equipment Total:

$118,629.00

ProCare Products:
#

Product

Description

Qty

Sell Price

Total

6.1 78000020

ProCare LUCAS Prevent Service: Annual onsite
preventive maintenance inspection and unlimited repairs including parts, labor and travel with battery coverage for LUCAS 3, v3.1 Chest Compression System, Includes
Hard Shell Case, Slim Back Plate, (2) Patient Straps, (1) Stabilization Strap, (2) Suction Cups, (1) Rechargeable Battery and Instructions for use With Each Device

8 $7,160.40

$57,283.20

ProCare Total:

$57,283.20

Price Totals:

Grand Total:

$175,912.20

Comments/Terms/Signatures

LUCAS x10

Quote Number:

10162811

Remit to:

Stryker Medical

P.O. Box 93308

Version:

1 Chicago, IL 60673-3308

Prepared For:

ROSEVILLE FIRE DEPT

Rep:

Sahel Segovia

Attn: Rick Bartee

Email:

[email protected]

Phone Number:

(408) 545-8169

(916) 774-5800

Quote Date:

12/15/2021

Expiration Date:

01/31/2022

1 Stryker Medical - Accounts Receivable - [email protected] - PO BOX 93308 - Chicago, IL 60673-3308 ORDINANCE NO. 6462

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-22

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Emergency Medical Services Program.

SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an appropriation measure, immediately effective pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03 of the Charter.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Katrina Rostam, Management Analyst II FISCAL YEAR: 2022 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Katrina Rostam, Management Analyst II COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 3/2/2022 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Fire Department/Fire EMS - Patient Care ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
1001 6550 48070 128,015
1001 5301 48070 40,854
168,869

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
1001 4640 48070 128,015
1001 4780 48070 40,854
168,869
-

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019
TOTAL
TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Eight donated medical devices - recognize contribution

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

In 2022 the Fire Department will receive eight medical devices for the Emergency Medical Services program through the EMS Fund managed by the Sierra-Sacramento (S-SV) EMS, a Placer County government agency responsible for regulating EMS services in the county. The department would like to recognize $128,015 for eight capital assets. Additionally the Fire Department will purchase a $40,854 extended maintenance agreement for the devices and be fully reimbursed through the same program.

Capital Outlay - eight medical devices to be capitalized TOTAL

ACCOUNT STRING DESCRIPTION
Reimbursement for maintenance agreement
Maintenance agreement for medical devices
2/9/20224:32 PM
1 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1962
File #:
0214 & 0201-01
Title:

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program - Grant Award and Budget Adjustment
Contact:

Nina Phelps 916-746-1081 [email protected]
Mark Peinado 916-774-5021 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.16.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
The Police Department recommends that City Council adopt a resolution accepting the grant award in the amount of $19,914 and authorize the City Manager or Mayor to execute the required documents on behalf of the City. Additionally, staff recommends that City Council adopt an ordinance to approve a budget adjustment in the amount of $19,914.

BACKGROUND
The City of Roseville has been allocated a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program allocates funds annually to states and local jurisdictions for law enforcement and criminal justice purposes.

The amount of the grant is determined by a formula comprised of the jurisdiction's population and crime rate. This year, the City of Roseville has been allocated $19,914. The Police Department recommends using the grant to support the department's crime prevention, marketing, and public outreach efforts.

The grant will support a current part-time temporary Marketing Technician position within the Police Department. The position assists in coordinating the many crime prevention, marketing, and public education programs that enhance the safety and economic viability of our City. The position works approximately 20 hours per week and will not exceed 1,000 hours per year.

If the Police Department does not receive the Justice Assistance Grant in the future, this position will be eliminated from the Department budget and the position will not be filled.

FISCAL IMPACT
The grant will add $19,914 to the Police Department budget in the General Fund to support its crime prevention, marketing, and public outreach programs.

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

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal B - Support community engagement and advocacy

Respectfully Submitted,
Nina Phelps, Public Safety Programs Coordinator
Troy Bergstrom, Police Chief

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-067
Certifications (requires Mayor signature)
Ordinance 6464
Budget Adjustment
RESOLUTION NO. 22-067

ACCEPTING A GRANT AWARD FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER

OR MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE GRANT AWARD DOCUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

WHEREAS, each year Congress allocates funds to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program for law enforcement; and

WHEREAS, funds are distributed to local government according to a population and crime rate-based formula; and

WHEREAS, the City of Roseville has been allocated $19,914;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roseville that the City Manager or Mayor is authorized to submit the grant application and all related documents on behalf of the City of Roseville; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City will accept the 2021 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance grant funds once awarded.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

City Clerk

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program FY 2021 Local Solicitation Certifications and Assurances by the Chief Executive of the Applicant Government On behalf of the applicant unit of local government named below, in support of that locality’s application for an award under the FY 2021 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (“JAG”) Program, and further to 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a), I certify to the Office of Justice Programs (“OJP”), U.S. Department of Justice (“USDOJ”), that all of the following are true and correct:

1. I am the chief executive of the applicant unit of local government named below, and I have the authority to make the following representations on my own behalf as chief executive and on behalf of the applicant unit of local government. I understand that these representations will be relied upon as material in any OJP decision to make an award, under the application described above, to the applicant unit of local government.

2. I certify that no federal funds made available by the award (if any) that OJP makes based on the application described above will be used to supplant local funds, but will be used to increase the amounts of such funds that would, in the absence of federal funds, be made available for law enforcement activities.

3. I assure that the application described above (and any amendment to that application) was submitted for review to the governing body of the unit of local government (e.g., city council or county commission), or to an organization designated by that governing body, not less than 30 days before the date of this certification.

4. I assure that, before the date of this certification— (a) the application described above (and any amendment to that application) was made public; and (b) an opportunity to comment on that application (or amendment) was provided to citizens and to neighborhood or community-based organizations, to the extent applicable law or established procedure made such an opportunity available.

5. I assure that, for each fiscal year of the award (if any) that OJP makes based on the application described above, the applicant unit of local government will maintain and report such data, records, and information (programmatic and financial), as OJP may reasonably require.

6. I have carefully reviewed 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(5), and, with respect to the programs to be funded by the award (if any), I hereby make the certification required by section 10153(a)(5), as to each of the items specified therein.
_
Signature of Chief Executive of the Applicant Unit of
Local Government
_
Date of Certification
_
_
Printed Name of Chief Executive
_
Title of Chief Executive
_
_
Name of Applicant Unit of Local Government
_ _ _
Rev. May 11, 2021
ORDINANCE NO. 6464

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-22

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended by transferring appropriations as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.

SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an appropriation measure, immediately effective pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.03 of the Charter.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville, this _ day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1957
File #:
0323-01
Title:

Second Reading - Military Equipment Policy
Contact:

Troy Bergstrom 916-774-5058 [email protected]
Doug Blake 916-746 1043 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.17.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 6463 ADOPTING A MILITARY EQUIPMENT POLICY AND APPROVING THE USE, ACQUISITION, AND SEEKING OF FUNDING FOR MILITARY EQUIPMENT, for second reading and adoption.

BACKGROUND
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not applicable.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal B – Support community engagement and advocacy
Goal C – Maintain a safe and healthy community

Respectfully Submitted,
Doug Blake, Police Captain
Troy Bergstrom, Chief of Police

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Ordinance 6463
ORDINANCE NO. 6463

ADOPTING A MILITARY EQUIPMENT POLICY AND APPROVING THE USE,

ACQUISITION, AND SEEKING OF FUNDING FOR MILITARY EQUIPMENT

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1.

A. On September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481, relating to the use of military equipment by law enforcement agencies.

B. Assembly Bill 481, codified at California Government Code sections 7070 through 7075, requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of the applicable governing body, by an ordinance adopting a “military equipment” use policy, at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.

The term “military equipment” is defined in California Government Code section 7070(c).

C. Assembly Bill 481 allows the governing body of a city to approve the funding, acquisition, and/or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it makes specified findings.

D. The proposed Roseville Police Department military equipment use policy is titled “Military Equipment”, Policy No. 706, within the Roseville Police Department Policy Manual.

E. Roseville Police Department Policy No. 706 “Military Equipment”, along with a list of current “military equipment”, was published on the Roseville Police Department’s internet website on January 28, 2022 and has remained published.

The Roseville Police Department Policy No. 706 “Military Equipment” was presented to City Council for the City of Roseville on March 2, 2022.

F. The Roseville Police Department Policy No. 706 “Military Equipment” meets the requirements of California Government Code section 7070(d).

SECTION 2. The Council of the City of Roseville has reviewed the facts and findings made at the March 2, 2022, City Council meeting, and makes the following findings:

A. The “military equipment” (as defined by California Government Code section 7070(c)) is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety;

B. The proposed “Military Equipment” Policy No. 706 will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties;

C. The current “military equipment” identified in “Military Equipment” Policy No. 706 and purchasing any future “military equipment” on the list of “military equipment” (as defined by California Government Code section 7070(c)) is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety;

D. Prior “military equipment” use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time;

E. Roseville Police Department Policy No. 706 “Military Equipment” is approved and adopted and City Council authorizes the use, acquisition, and seeking of funds for all “military equipment” as defined by California Government Code section 7070(c) and Policy No. 706 “Military Equipment”.

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

SECTION 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause this ordinance to be published in full at least once within fourteen (14) days after it is adopted in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, or shall within fourteen (14) days after its adoption cause this ordinance to be posted in full in at least three (3) public places in the City and enter in the Ordinance Book a certificate stating the time and place of said publication by posting.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this day of , 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

City Clerk

2 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1958
File #:
0600-02
Title:

Out-of-State Travel Request - Information Technology Department Contact:

Karl Grover 916-774-5145 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.18.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Recommend the City Council approve out-of-state travel requests for two Information Technology staff members to separately attend the Cisco Live Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada in June of 2022 and the Tyler New World Conference in Indianapolis, Indiana in May of 2022.

BACKGROUND
The Cisco Live Conference focuses on content relevant and important to a network analyst. It provides access to keynote presentations, innovative discussions, technical sessions and networking opportunities with other organizations.

The Tyler Technologies Open Data / New World Conference focuses on citizen engagement through data transparency (performance measurements, open budget and capital improvement projects) as well as computer aided dispatch (CAD) for public safety. It provides access to informative sessions, insights into new features and trends, and networking with other organizations.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for travel, lodging and conference costs for Cisco Live is estimated to be $3,000 and for Tyler New World is estimated at $3,250, totaling $6,250. Funding is included in the FY2021-22 Information Technology Operations Fund budget.

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

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal E - Deliver exceptional city services
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Karl Grover, IT Program Manager
Hong Sae, Chief Information Officer

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Out-of-State Travel supporting document
Information Technology FY2021-2022
Out-of-State Travel Requests

Cisco Live 2022 - June 12-16, 2022 | Networking Event - Cisco

Tyler Connect 2022 | Forward Together | Tyler Technologies

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1974
File #:
0400-06-03 & 0400-07
Title:

Roseville Junction Final Map
Contact:

Kerry Andrews 916-774-5346 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.19.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
It is recommended that the City Council approve the final map on file with the City Clerk and accept on behalf of the public the easements offered thereon; and approve the abandonment of the easements listed thereon.

BACKGROUND
The Development Services Department, Engineering section, has reviewed the subject final map and found that it is in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance and all conditions of the tentative map have been met. This map will create 6 commercial lots.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund associated with this approval.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Approval of the Roseville Junction final map is an action that is subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Project level CEQA compliance for the Roseville Junction final map was accomplished with the preparation of an Addendum to the Roseville Hotel and Conference Center Project EIR (SCH #2013112058, certified August 6, 2014). The Addendum was adopted by the City of Roseville on September 9, 2021. Because the Roseville Junction final map is consistent with the project evaluated in the Addendum, no new effects would be expected to occur and all applicable mitigation measures identified from the Addendum will be implemented. As such, no additional CEQA action is required at this time.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Kerry Andrews, Assistant Engineer
Mike Isom, Development Services Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Final Map
Vicinity Map
SHEET 1 OF 4 SHEETS
ACCEPTED FOR RECORD AND FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF PLACER COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AT _____ MINUTES AFTER _____ O'CLOCK ___.M. ON THE _______ DAY OF __________________, 20___ AND RECORDED IN BOOK ______ OF MAPS, AT PAGE ______, AT THE REQUEST OF MORTON & PITALO, INC.FILE NO. _________________ __________________________________________ RECORDER OF PLACER COUNTYFEE $ ____________________ STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY ______________________________________DEPUTY I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS FINAL MAP OF "ROSEVILLE JUNCTION" AND FIND IT TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THE TENTATIVE MAP ON FILE AND ANY APPROVEDALTERATIONS THEREOF; THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND ALL APPLICABLE CITY ORDINANCES HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH.DATED __________________________________________________________________MARC STOUT, CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF ROSEVILLER.C.E. 69879EXP. DATE: 9/30/2022I HEREBY STATE THAT I AM SATISFIED THAT THIS FINAL MAP OF "ROSEVILLE JUNCTION" ISTECHNICALLY CORRECT.FOR MARC STOUT, CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF ROSEVILLEDATED __________________________________________________________________TIMOTHY G. BLAIR, P.L.S. 8278EXP. DATE: 12/31/2023

RECORDER'S STATEMENT

CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT
OWNER'S STATEMENTTHIS FINAL MAP OF "ROSEVILLE JUNCTION" WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCES AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, IN JUNE 2021. I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS FINAL MAP OF "ROSEVILLE JUNCTION" SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, AND THAT ALL THE MONUMENTSARE OF THE CHARACTER AND OCCUPY THE POSITIONS INDICATED, OR THAT THEY WILL BE SET IN THOSE POSITIONS ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 2022 AND THAT THE MONUMENTSARE, OR WILL BE, SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED.DATED __________________________________________________________________MICHAEL J. CHIARAP.L.S. 9058

SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
NOTARY'S STATEMENTA NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THEIDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE ISATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.STATE OF _____________________COUNTY OF ___________________ON __________________, BEFORE ME, __________________________________,A NOTARY PUBLIC PERSONALLY APPEARED____________________________________________________WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S)WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZEDCAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY HIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THEINSTRUMENT.I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIATHAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT.WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL_________________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF__________________________ PRINT NAME ______________________________________MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS ______________________ COUNTYMY COMMISSION NO. ________________________________________MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ____________________________________ FINAL MAP OFROSEVILLE JUNCTIONSUBDIVISION NO. PL21-0153BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 (35 P.M. 55)CONFERENCE CENTER DRIVE (N.C.R.S.P. PARCEL 40(a))BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 26, T.11N., R.6E., M.D.M.CITY OF ROSEVILLE, COUNTY OF PLACER, CALIFORNIAMARCH 2022MORTON & PITALO, INC.NOTARY'S STATEMENTA NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THEIDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE ISATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.STATE OF _____________________COUNTY OF ___________________ON __________________, BEFORE ME, __________________________________,A NOTARY PUBLIC PERSONALLY APPEARED____________________________________________________WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S)WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZEDCAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY HIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THEINSTRUMENT.I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIATHAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT.WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL_________________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF__________________________ PRINT NAME ______________________________________MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS ______________________ COUNTYMY COMMISSION NO. ________________________________________MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ____________________________________ BOOK _____ OF MAPS, PAGE _____
THE UNDERSIGNED BEING THE ONLY PERSONS HAVING ANY RECORD TITLE INTEREST IN THE LANDSSUBDIVIDED HEREON, HEREBY CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION AND RECORDATION OF THIS FINALMAP OF "ROSEVILLE JUNCTION".THE FOLLOWING ARE DEDICATIONS OF EASEMENTS TO THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE:A.PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICES TOGETHER WITH ANY AND ALL APPURTENANCES THERETO ON, OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS THOSE STRIPS OF LAND 20 FEET WIDE SHOWN HEREON AND DESIGNATED (20' WATER & SEWER EASEMENT).B.PUBLIC ACCESS / MAINTENANCE EASEMENT FOR THE INGRESS AND EGRESS OF VEHICLES, ON, OVER AND ACROSS LOTS 3, 4, AND 5, BEING 40 FEET WIDE OVER THE MOST NORTHERLY STRIP OF LAND SHOWN HEREON AND DESIGNATED (PUBLIC ACCESS/MAINTENANCE EASEMENT).ROSEVILLE JUNCTION, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANYBY: APRR MANAGEMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, MANAGERBY:____________________________________ ROHIT RANCHHOD, MANAGING MEMBERCHIRAYU PATEL, MANAGING MEMBERDATE:DATE:WOODLAND PARTNERS I, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANYBY:____________________________________ ROHIT RANCHHOD, MANAGING MEMBERCHIRAYU PATEL, MANAGING MEMBERDATE:DATE:

I HEREBY STATE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE HAS APPROVED THIS FINAL MAP OF "ROSEVILLE JUNCTION" AND HAS ACCEPTED ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC, ALL EASEMENTSOFFERED HEREON FOR DEDICATION AND HAS APPROVED THE ABANDONMENT OF THE EASEMENTS LISTED WITHIN NOTE 1, ON SHEET 3.DATED _________________________________________________________CITY CLERK, CITY OF ROSEVILLEBY______________________________________ASSISTANT CLERK, CITY OF ROSEVILLE

CITY CLERK'S STATEMENT
SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS
FINAL MAP OFROSEVILLE JUNCTIONSUBDIVISION NO. PL21-0153BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 (35 P.M. 55)CONFERENCE CENTER DRIVE (N.C.R.S.P. PARCEL 40(a))BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 26, T.11N., R.6E., M.D.M.CITY OF ROSEVILLE, COUNTY OF PLACER, CALIFORNIAMARCH 2022MORTON & PITALO, INC.

TRUSTEE'S STATEMENTPLACER TITLE COMPANY, TRUSTEE UNDER THE DEED OF TRUST RECORDED JUNE 29, 2021, IN DOCUMENT NO. 2021-84231-00, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF PLACER COUNTY.

PRINT TITLE: ________________________PRINT NAME: _________________________BY: _________________________________PRINT TITLE: ________________________PRINT NAME: _________________________BY: _________________________________DATE: _______________________________DATE: _______________________________NOTARY'S STATEMENTA NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THEIDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE ISATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.STATE OF _____________________COUNTY OF ___________________ON __________________, BEFORE ME, __________________________________,A NOTARY PUBLIC PERSONALLY APPEARED____________________________________________________WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S)WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZEDCAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY HIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THEINSTRUMENT.I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIATHAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT.WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL_________________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF__________________________ PRINT NAME ______________________________________MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS ______________________ COUNTYMY COMMISSION NO. ________________________________________MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ____________________________________ BOOK _____ OF MAPS, PAGE _____
338.02'
N32°55'49"E188.55'114.50'
233.41'118.69'
N56°56'08"W
R=1250' (1)Δ=05°50'01"(1) L= 127.27'(1)N50°09'14"W(1) 127.21'(1) N53°11'25"W(1) 236.24'(1)
FOUND 5/8" REBAR TAGGED"LS 4533"
N32°50'58"E(1) 205.31'(1)
NO INGRESS/EGRESS RIGHTSPER 2735 O.R. 744, 3620 O.R. 589& 32 P.M. 89 N32°50'44"E(1) 662.20'(1)
"LS 3923"

57.08'
BASIS OF BEARINGSFOUND 5/8" REBAR TAGGED"LS 4533"
N57°55'56"W(1) 599.93'(1) 117.54'(1)

95.92'
386.46'482.39'(1)
N50°08'52"W(1) 560.71'(1)

67.41'
159.05'
334.25'
N81°46'09"E(1) 169.93'(1)
N80°31'36"E(1) 195.13'(1)37.25'N66°27'02"E(1) 194.97'(1) FOUND 5/8" REBAR TAGGED
157.72'58.70'N23°32'58"W
N52°29'27"W 184.24'89.63'

94.61'
N50°08'52"W 207.00'
TEMPORARY EMERGENCYACCESS EASEMENT PERDOC. NO. 2018-0056992 N32°04'04"E(1) 526.05'(1)303.23'222.82' N57°09'02"W(1) 529.82'(1)30'30' 25' P.U.E.PER (1)
N11°56'03"W(1)39.36' (39.35')(1)
N57°09'02"W(1) 557.56'(1)219.54'N45°34'26"E(1)9.27'(1)N28°40'14"E(1) 156.14'(1)25' DRAINAGE EASEMENTPER DOC. NO. 2018-005699225' DRAINAGE EASEMENTPER DOC. NO. 2018-0056992

1.670 ACRES±1.032 ACRES±3.005 ACRES±

1.003 ACRES±2.081 ACRES±

2.218 ACRES±
N39°15'48"E 228.42'
N39°56'57"E
40' PUBLIC ACCESS/MAINTENANCE ESMT.
40' PUBLIC ACCESS/MAINTENANCE ESMT.

Δ=45°58'22"(1)R=39.50'(1)L=31.69'(1)N55°50'09"E 30.85'(1) Δ=54°44'38"R=60.50'L=57.81'N51°27'01"E 55.63'
Δ=126°00'40"R=60.50'L=133.06'N38°55'38"W107.82'
S57°09'02"E28.50'
N32°50'58"E121.50'N32°50'58"E
N49°06'51"W55.96'N43°23'03"E26.03'20' WATER & SEWEREASEMENTSEE DETAIL SHEET 3 N32°50'58"EN57°14'10"W34.20'
S65°44'00"E 32.66'
N50°08'52"W 46.61'
N38°33'45"E74.43' (T)

46.67'27.76'110.11'
N52°29'27"W11.40'N50°03'55"W28.00'

79.88'N37°30'33"E90.00'
N39°56'48"E70.09'
N52°31'29"W
40' P.U.E. AND BIKE PATHEASEMENT PER R MAPS 24
40' P.U.E. AND BIKE PATHEASEMENT PER R MAPS 24
C1
20' WATER & SEWEREASEMENTSEE DETAIL SHEET 3
C1Δ=180°45'23" (TOTAL)R=60.50'L=190.87'N11°33'21"W (N11°33'21"W)(1) 121.00' Δ=91°11'25" (Δ=91°11'11")(1)R=60.50'L=96.29'N32°28'19"E (N32°28'12"E)(1) 86.44'(1) Δ=45°58'22"(1)R=39.50'(1)L=31.69'(1)N09°51'47"E 30.85'(1) N39°51'08"E30.00'94.47'N57°33'36"W
SEE DETAIL SHEET 3SEE DETAIL SHEET 3
SEE DETAIL SHEET 3

55.00'65.00'
DOC.# 2022-__________________SIGN EASEMENT PERN32°04'04"E55.00'N57°55'56"W65.00' SHEET 3 OF 4 SHEETS
BASIS OF BEARINGSTHE MERIDIAN OF THIS SURVEY IS THE WESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 40(a) SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP ENTITLED "PARCEL MAP OF LOT 40, HIGHLAND RESERVE SOUTH" RECORDED IN BOOK 32 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 89, PLACER COUNTY RECORDS, THE BEARING OF WHICH IS SHOWN AS N32°50'44"E AND WAS BASED ON MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON AS FOUND. (1)............RECORD DATA PER 35 P.M. 55 .............SET 1" GALVANIZED IRON PIPE WITH PLASTIC PLUG STAMPED L.S. 9058 .............DIMENSION POINT, NOTHING FOUND OR SET
P.U.E........PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
LEGEND .............FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED .............FOUND 5/8" REBAR TAGGED "LS 3923" PER (1) .............FOUND 5/8" REBAR, NO TAG PER (1) .............FOUND 1" GALVANIZED IRON PIPE W/ PLASTIC CAP LS 7350 PER 35 P.M. 55 .............FOUND CENTER PUNCHED COPPERWELD MONUMENT STAMPED LS 7350 FINAL MAP OFROSEVILLE JUNCTIONSUBDIVISION NO. PL21-0153BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 (35 P.M. 55)CONFERENCE CENTER DRIVE (N.C.R.S.P. PARCEL 40(a))BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 26, T.11N., R.6E., M.D.M.CITY OF ROSEVILLE, COUNTY OF PLACER, CALIFORNIAMARCH 2022 SCALE: 1"=80'MORTON & PITALO, INC.

GRAPHIC SCALE1 in = 80 ft0408080160
BOOK _____ OF MAPS, PAGE _____
(T)............TOTAL DISTANCE
NOTES1.PURSUANT TO SECTION 66434(g) OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, THE FOLLOWING EASEMENTS NOT SHOWN HEREON ARE HEREBY ABANDONED.A."SIGN EASEMENT" -EASEMENT FOR INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SIGNS AS GRANTED ON THE PARCEL MAP OF CONFERENCE CENTER DRIVE FILED FOR RECORD NOVEMBER 6, 2013 IN BOOK 35 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 55, PLACER COUNTY RECORDS.B. "LINE OF SIGHT EASEMENT"PUBLIC EASEMENT FOR THE PASSAGE OF LINE OF SIGHT AS GRANTEDON THE PARCEL MAP OF CONFERENCE CENTER DRIVE FILED FOR RECORD NOVEMBER 6, 2013 IN BOOK 35 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 55, PLACER COUNTY RECORDS.2.COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, EASEMENTS, ASSESSMENMTS, LIENS, CHARGES, TERMS AND PROVISIONS WHICH MAY AFFECT THE LAND SHOWN HEREON ARE RECORDED IN DOCUMENTS NO. 90-07287, ORPC, RE-RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 90-079378 ORPC, AND MODIFIED PER DOCUMENT NOS. 95-0024499, 97-80505, 98-019773 AND 2015-0092732-00 ORPC.

3.AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR ACCESS IS RECORDED IN DOCUMENT NO. 99-0058611 ORPC.4.AN EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO TRAIL EASEMENTS AND A DRIVEWAY EASEMENT IS RECORDED IN INSTRUMENT NO. 2003-0178320 ORPC.5.A "GRANT OF RECIPROCAL RIGHTS AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONSREGARDING ACCESS, CONSTRUCTION, AND PARKING" IS RECORDED IN INSTRUMENT NO. 2005-106461, ORPC.6.A "NOTICE OF AGREEMENT AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY" STATING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS SHALL AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN IS RECORDED IN INSTRUMENT NO. 2005-106462, ORPC.7.A "USE RESTRICTION AGREEMENT" AFFECTING THE REAL PROPERTY "STATING THAT THE PROPERTY IS TO BE USED FOR THE OPERATION OF A HOTEL AND CONFERENCE CENTER AND RELATED AND COMPLIMENTARY USES" IS RECORDED IN INSTRUMENT NO. 2005-0108027ORPC.

8.A "FIRE ACCESS, DRAINAGE AND RECIPROCAL ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT IS RECORDED IN INSTRUMENT NO. 2018-0056992-00 ORPC.9.THE TOTAL AREA OF THIS SUBDIVISION IS 11.010 ACRES, CREATING 6COMMERCIAL LOTS.

N57°09'02"W 132.67'
N56°58'25"W 105.46'89.26'16.20'
N52°29'27"W 129.50'
N82°24'57"E81.31'
N39°56'47"E60.40''
N50°12'41"W 65.77'

82.53'

26.62' N57°09'02"W 83.14'
N32°50'58"E 274.52'
25' P.U.E.PER (1)
10'10'
10'10'
10'10'10'10'10'10'

52.34'
N50°08'52"W 109.15'
N39°34'56"E30.00'
N32°04'04"E
N57°33'36"W28.50'
N50°08'52"W11.91'N23°32'58"W4.99' 69.13'N32°50'58"E20.71' N57°09'02"W20.00'

22.67'N50°08'52"W53.39'
20' WATER & SEWEREASEMENT
20' WATER & SEWEREASEMENT25' DRAINAGE EASEMENTPER DOC. NO. 2018-0056992 25' DRAINAGE EASEMENTPER DOC. NO. 2018-0056992
TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENTPER DOC. NO. 2018-0056992
S32°50'58"W 127.24
N57°09'02"W 514.33'
S57°09'02"E 487.50'S28°40'14"W25.07' S57°09'02"E170.14'N57°09'02"W144.80' N32°04'04"E25.00'
N32°50'58"E 127.24'

21.25'
N28°40'14"E12.24'N45°34'26"E9.27'
C1C5C2 C3C4
N32°04'04"29.53'
N27°36'10"E 228.84'S27°36'10"W 229.12'L1L2
N32°04'04"E 10.00'N32°04'04"E 12.38'N32°04'04"E 39.96'
N67°07'24"W 70.59'
N57°33'54"W28.51'

14.01'
FINAL MAP OFROSEVILLE JUNCTIONSUBDIVISION NO. PL21-0153BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 (35 P.M. 55)CONFERENCE CENTER DRIVE (N.C.R.S.P. PARCEL 40(a))BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 26, T.11N., R.6E., M.D.M.CITY OF ROSEVILLE, COUNTY OF PLACER, CALIFORNIAMARCH 2022 SCALE: 1"=40'MORTON & PITALO, INC.

BOOK _____ OF MAPS, PAGE _____
GRAPHIC SCALE1 in = 40 ft020404080
C1Δ=42°58'48"R=60.50'L=45.38'CHD=N72°14'00"W 44.33'C2Δ=34°20'35"R=20.00'L=11.99'CHD=N54°18'31"E 11.81'C3Δ=70°39'21"R=29.00'L=35.76'CHD=N08°33'49"W 33.54'C4Δ=76°47'21"R=51.00'L=68.35'CHD=S11°36'29"E 63.35'C5Δ=34°20'35"R=20.00'L=11.99'CHD=S18°46'31"E 11.81'L1N35°20'11"E21.04'L2S09°58'20"W16.47'SHEET 4 OF 4 SHEETS

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1969
File #:
0102-10
Title:

Resolution - Duke Arakaki
Contact:

Blair Hutchison 916-774-5266 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 7.20.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Commend Duke Arakaki for his 25 years of outstanding service and dedication to the City of Roseville, congratulate him on his many accomplishments, and extend wishes for a long, healthy, and enjoyable retirement.

BACKGROUND
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal B - Support community engagement and advocacy

Respectfully Submitted,
Blair Hutchison, City Clerk Technician
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution - Duke Arakaki

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1968
File #:
0103 & 0103-41-02 & 0103-12-02
Title:

Board of Appeals and Senior Commission - Unscheduled Vacancy Appointment Contact:

Katrina Six 916-774-5267 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 8.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Recommend Council appoint one (1) individual to the Board of Appeals to a term expiring December 31, 2022 from the applications received from: Ronda Leuty and Tom Rutherford.

Appoint one (1) individual to the Senior Commission to a term expiring December 31, 2024 from the applications received from Dee Britton, Ted Deehr, and Malinda Meeks.

BACKGROUND
The resignation of Basil Deem created an unscheduled vacancy on the Board of Appeals with a term expiring December 31, 2022. The resignation of Brian Parry created an unscheduled vacancy on the Senior Commission with a term expiring December 31, 2024. Recruitment for all vacancies occurred in February. The applications and video interviews were compiled and provided to the City Council for consideration.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact.

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

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal B - Support community engagement and advocacy

Respectfully Submitted,
Katrina Six, City Clerk Technician
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1978
File #:
0103-33-02
Title:

Roseville Independent Redistricting Commission’s Adoption of a Final Redistricting Report and Final Map
Contact:

Joe Mandell 916-774-5325
[email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 9.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Informational Presentation on the Roseville Independent Redistricting Commission’s Adoption of a Final Redistricting Report and Final Map.

BACKGROUND
Every ten (10) years, after the U.S. Census, the City of Roseville must re-establish the boundaries for City Council districts. The resulting council district boundaries must be balanced in population in accordance with state and federal rules governing the redistricting process.

In 2021, the
Roseville Independent Redistricting Commission, made up entirely of community members, was formed to establish district boundaries in a process that is open and transparent and allows public comment on the drawing of City Council district boundaries. The redistricting process also ensures that the district boundaries are drawn according to the redistricting criteria set forth in the City Charter and applicable state and federal laws, and that the process is conducted with integrity, fairness, and without personal or political considerations.

The Commission consisted of eleven (11) members and five (5) alternates. In a public setting, the City Clerk randomly selected the initial eight (8) members of the Commission from the qualified applicants, two (2) each from four (4) geographic quadrants of the City: a northwest quadrant, a northeast quadrant, a southeast quadrant, and a southwest quadrant.

The commissioners
selected by the City Clerk then selected three (3) at-large commissioners and five (5) at-large alternates from the remaining applicants on the basis of each applicant’s relevant analytical skills, ability to comprehend and apply the applicable state and federal legal requirements, familiarity with the City’s neighborhoods and communities, familiarity with the City’s demographics and geography, ability to be impartial, and apparent ability to work cooperatively with other commissioners.

The Commission was required to hold at least five (5) public hearings to consider the draft map, one (1) in each council district, prior to adopting a final map.

Selection of Draft Map B-1
At its public meeting on January 24, 2022, the Independent Redistricting Commission voted by motion to move forward with Draft Map B-1 as the proposed final map. The motion passed by a vote of 7 - 4. Following the selection of Draft Map B-1 as the proposed final map, the City Attorney’s Office provided the opinion to the Commission that Draft Map B-1 should be considered a new “draft” map for purposes of subsection A of Section 11.10, Article XI of the Roseville City Charter due to the fact that the edits that created Draft Map B-1 resulted in the shift of a portion of the population from one district to another.

In an effort to provide the public with further opportunity to comment on Draft Map B-1, the Commission held five (5) more public hearings during the thirty (30) day period following publication of Draft Map B-1 by the City Clerk on January 27, 2022, in accordance with subsection B of Section 11.10, Article XI of the Roseville City Charter.

In February 2022, the Commission held the five (5) public hearings on Draft Map B-1 at the following locations:

Public Hearing #1 – February 3, 2022 at 6pm
City Council Chambers – 311 Vernon St.

Public Hearing #2 – February 9, 2022 at 6pm
Maidu Community Center – 1550 Maidu Dr.

Public Hearing #3 – February 15, 2022 at 6pm
Mike Shellito Indoor Pool – 10210 Fairway Dr.

Public Hearing #4 – February 17, 2022 at 6pm
Martha Riley Library – 1501 Pleasant Grove Blvd.

Public Hearing #5 – February 22, 2022 at 6pm
St. John’s Episcopal Church – 2351 Pleasant Grove Blvd.

Final Map Adoption
Following the additional five (5) public hearings to receive public comment on Draft Map B-1, the Commission held a public meeting on February 28, 2022 to consider adoption of Draft Map B-1 as the Final Map and the attached report as the Final Redistricting Report. At that meeting on February 28, 2022, the Independent Redistricting Commission passed a motion by the roll call vote of 10 aye votes and 0 no votes (1 Commissioner absent) to adopt the “Resolution of the
Independent Redistricting Commission of the City of Roseville Adopting a Final Redistricting Report and Final Map” and
approved Draft Map B-1 as the Final Map and approved the Final Redistricting Report.

As outlined in Article XI of the Roseville City Charter, the Commission-adopted Final Redistricting Report and Final Map has the force and effect of law and is effective thirty (30) calendar days after it is filed with the City Clerk. The Final Redistricting Report and Final Map were filed with the Roseville City Clerk on March 1, 2022.

Effect of Redistricting on Incumbents

In accordance with Section 11.11 of Article XI of the Roseville City Charter, the term of office of any councilmember who has been elected and whose term of office has not expired shall not be affected by any change in the boundaries of the district from which the councilmember was elected. Accordingly, upon any redistricting pursuant to the provisions of this Resolution, each incumbent councilmember will continue, during the remainder of the councilmember’s term, to represent the electoral district to which the councilmember was elected prior to such redistricting.

Please visit

www.roseville.ca.us/redistricting

for further details on the 2021-22 redistricting
process in the City of Roseville.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this informational presentation.

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

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal B - Support community engagement and advocacy

Respectfully Submitted,
Joe Mandell, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
IRC Final Restricting Report
Roseville Final Map Large Format
1 INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
Final Redistricting Report

Filed with City Clerk – March 1, 2022
Effective Date – March 31, 2022

Background and History
Every ten (10) years, after the U.S. Census, the City of Roseville must re-establish the boundaries for City Council districts. The resulting council district boundaries must be balanced in population in accordance with state and federal rules governing the redistricting process.

In 2021, the Roseville Independent Redistricting Commission, made up entirely of community members, was formed to establish district boundaries in a process that is open and transparent and allows public comment on the drawing of City Council district boundaries. The redistricting process also ensures that the district boundaries are drawn according to the redistricting criteria set forth in the City Charter and applicable state and federal laws, and that the process is conducted with integrity, fairness, and without personal or political considerations.

The Commission consists of eleven (11) members and five (5) alternates. In a public setting, the City Clerk randomly selected the initial eight (8) members of the Commission from the qualified applicants, two (2) each from four (4) geographic quadrants of the City: a northwest quadrant, a northeast quadrant, a southeast quadrant, and a southwest quadrant. The commissioners selected by the City Clerk then selected three (3) at-large commissioners and five (5) at-large alternates from the remaining applicants on the basis of the applicant’s relevant analytical skills, ability to comprehend and apply the applicable state and federal legal requirements, familiarity with the City’s neighborhoods and communities, familiarity with the City’s demographics and geography, ability to be impartial, and apparent ability to work cooperatively with other commissioners.

As an independent body, the Commission is empowered to adopt the district boundaries, without City Council approval. The district map approved by the Commission must follow all local, state and federal laws, be substantially equal in population, be geographically contiguous, and follow all of the substantive and procedural requirements listed in Article XI of the Roseville City Charter. As further detailed below, the Commission is required to hold at least five (5) public hearings to consider the draft map(s), one (1) in each council district, prior to adopting a

2 final map. The following section sets forth the redistricting criteria to be considered by the Commission in approving a final map.

Redistricting Criteria for Final Map
Section 11.09 of Article XI of the Roseville City Charter sets forth the following redistricting criteria for the Independent Redistricting Commission to consider when approving a final map:

A. The Commission shall draw its final map so that:

1. Council districts are substantially equal in population as required by the United States Constitution. Population equality shall be based on the total population of residents of the City as determined by the latest federal decennial census.

2. Council district boundaries comply with the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, and any other requirement of state or federal law applicable to charter cities.

B. The Commission shall adopt district boundaries using the following criteria as set forth in the following order of priority:

1. To the extent practicable, council districts shall be geographically contiguous. Areas that meet only at the points of adjoining corners are not contiguous. Areas that are separated by water and not connected by a bridge, tunnel, or regular ferry service are not contiguous. Areas that are separated by a railyard or a highway are not contiguous.

2. To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood, local neighborhood association boundaries, or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division. A “community of interest” is a population that shares common social or economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Communities of interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.

3. Council district boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable by residents. To the extent practicable, council districts shall be bounded by natural and artificial barriers, by streets, or by the boundaries of the City.

4. Where it does not conflict with the preceding criteria in this subdivision, council districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness in a manner that nearby areas of population are not bypassed in favor of more distant populations.

3 5. Other Commission-adopted criteria that do not conflict with the other requirements and criteria listed in this section or with state or federal law.

C. The Commission shall not adopt council district boundaries for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against a political party.

D. The Commission shall not consider place of residence of any individual, including any incumbent or political candidate, in the creation of a map. (Added by Measure R in the General Municipal Election on November 3, 2020.)

Procedure for Adoption of Final Redistricting Report and Final Map Section 11.10 of Article XI of the Roseville City Charter sets forth the following procedure for the Independent Redistricting Commission to follow when approving a final map:

A. The Commission shall file a preliminary redistricting plan and draft map with the City Clerk, along with a written statement of findings and reasons for adoption, which shall include the criteria employed in the process and a full analysis and explanation of decisions made by the Commission. The City Clerk shall publish the preliminary redistricting plan and draft map at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the adoption of a final redistricting report and final map.

B. During the thirty (30) calendar day period after publication, the Commission shall hold at least five (5) public hearings, including one (1) public hearing in each existing council district.

C. After having heard comments from the public on the preliminary redistricting plan and draft map, the Commission shall adopt a final redistricting report and final map. A Commission-adopted final redistricting report and final map has the force and effect of law and is effective thirty (30) calendar days after it is filed with the City Clerk and shall remain effective until the adoption of new district boundaries following the next federal decennial census. The City Council may not rescind, supersede, or revise the district boundaries adopted by the Commission.

D. After the final map is adopted, the City Clerk shall number each council district such that, for as many residents as possible, the number of the council district they reside in remains the same.

E. The final redistricting report and final map shall be subject to referendum in the same manner as ordinances.

F. If the Commission does not adopt council district boundaries by the deadlines set forth in this article, the City Attorney shall immediately file a petition in Placer County Superior Court for an order adopting council district boundaries. The map prescribed by the court shall be used for all subsequent council elections until a final redistricting report and final map are adopted by the Commission to replace it. (Added by Measure R in the General Municipal Election on November 3, 2020.)

4 Six (6) Preliminary Draft Maps for Public Consideration

At its December 20, 2021 meeting, the Independent Redistricting Commission selected a group of six (6) draft maps for further public consideration at six (6) public hearings in January 2022.

The six (6) draft maps that were approved at the December 20, 2021 meeting are attached below to this report and have been labeled as Draft Map A, Draft Map B, etc. Each attached draft map contains written findings, criteria employed in the decision process, and a full analysis and explanation of the reasons supporting further Commission and public consideration.

For ease of review, the six (6) draft maps that were selected on December 20, 2021 for further consideration can be summarized as follows:
• Draft Map A – Formerly “Public Map # 1”
• Draft Map B – Formerly “Public Map # 6”
• Draft Map C – Formerly “Public Map # 8”
• Draft Map D – Formerly “Public Map # 14”
• Draft Map E – Formerly “Public Map # 15”
• Draft Map F – Formerly “Public Map # 25”
The six (6) draft maps selected by the Commission for further consideration were posted by the City Clerk on December 22, 2021 and were available for at least thirty (30) days for public review. During that thirty (30) day period following publication by the City Clerk, the Commission held six (6) public hearings:

• Public Hearing #1 – January 6, 2022 at 6pm
Maidu Community Center – 1550 Maidu Dr.

• Public Hearing #2 – January 11, 2022 at 6pm
City Council Chambers – 311 Vernon St.

• Public Hearing #3 – January 13, 2022 at 6pm
Mike Shellito Indoor Pool – 10210 Fairway Dr.

• Public Hearing #4 – January 15, 2022 at 2pm
City Council Chambers – 311 Vernon St.

• Public Hearing #5 – January 18, 2022 at 6pm
Martha Riley Library – 1501 Pleasant Grove Blvd.

• Public Hearing #6 – January 20, 2022 at 6pm
St. John’s Episcopal Church – 2351 Pleasant Grove Blvd.

Selection of Final Draft Maps

Following the six (6) public hearings, the Commission held a meeting on January 24, 2022 to consider the selection and adoption of a final map. At its January 24, 2022 meeting, the Commission, by motion, removed Draft Map F from further consideration, leaving five (5) remaining draft maps. Subsequent to the removal of Draft Map F from further consideration, the 5 Commission analyzed various proposed edits to the five (5) remaining Draft Maps A – E. After analyzing the various proposed edits to Draft Maps A – E, the Commission voted by motion to only consider three (3) maps moving forward - the edited versions of the following maps – Draft Map B, Draft Map C, and Draft Map E. For ease of reference and to distinguish the remaining edited maps from the original draft maps, the edited maps from the January 24, 2022 meeting were labeled by the Commission as:

• Draft Map B-1
• Draft Map C-1
• Draft Map E-1

Selection of Draft Map B-1

On January 24, 2022, after receiving further public input regarding Draft Maps B-1, C-1, and E- 1, the Commission voted by motion to move forward with Draft Map B-1 as the proposed final map. The motion passed by a vote of 7 - 4.

Following the selection of Draft Map B-1 as the proposed final map, the City Attorney’s Office provided the opinion to the Commission that Draft Map B-1 should be considered a new “draft” map for purposes of subsection A of Section 11.10, Article XI of the Roseville City Charter due to the fact that the edits that created Draft Map B-1 resulted in the shift of a portion of the population from one district to another.

Additional Public Hearings to Consider Comments on Draft Map B-1

In February 2022, the Commission held the five (5) public hearings on Draft Map B-1 at the following locations:

• Public Hearing #1 – February 3, 2022 at 6pm
City Council Chambers – 311 Vernon St.
• Public Hearing #2 – February 9, 2022 at 6pm
Maidu Community Center – 1550 Maidu Dr.
• Public Hearing #3 – February 15, 2022 at 6pm
Mike Shellito Indoor Pool – 10210 Fairway Dr.
• Public Hearing #4 – February 17, 2022 at 6pm
Martha Riley Library – 1501 Pleasant Grove Blvd.
• Public Hearing #5 – February 22, 2022 at 6pm
St. John’s Episcopal Church – 2351 Pleasant Grove Blvd.

6 Adoption of Final Redistricting Report and Final Map

Following the additional five (5) public hearings to receive public comment on Draft Map B-1, the Commission held a public meeting on February 28, 2022 to consider adoption of Draft Map B-1 as the Final Map and this report as the Final Redistricting Report. At that meeting on February 28, 2022, the Independent Redistricting Commission passed a motion by the roll call vote of 10 aye votes and 0 no votes (1 Commissioner absent) to adopt the “Resolution of the Independent Redistricting Commission of the City of Roseville Adopting a Final Redistricting Report and Final Map” and approved Draft Map B-1 as the Final Map and this report as the Final Redistricting Report. The Final Map and Resolution are attached to this Final Redistricting Report. All other maps considered by the Commission at public hearings are also attached to this Final Redistricting Report for future reference and use with subsequent redistricting efforts.

Effect of Redistricting on Incumbents

Dissolution of Commission

Section 11.14 of Article XI of the Roseville City Charter states that the Independent Redistricting Commission shall cease operations and dissolve on the ninety-first (91st) day following approval of the Final Redistricting Report and Final Map (91 days after February 28, 2022 is May 30, 2022), unless a referendum against the Final Redistricting Report and Final Map has qualified or a lawsuit has been filed to enjoin or invalidate the Final Redistricting Report and Final Map, in which case the Commission shall continue operations until a Final Redistricting Report and Final Map is implemented by the City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a lawsuit to enjoin or invalidate a Final Redistricting Report and Final Map is filed later than the ninety-first (91st) day following approval of a Final Redistricting Report and Final Map, the Commission shall automatically revive and continue operations during the pendency of such lawsuit and until a Final Redistricting Report and Final Map is implemented by the City.

*****
Please visit www.roseville.ca.us/redistricting for further details on the 2021-22 redistricting process in the City of Roseville.
7 FINAL MAP

8 Resolution of the Independent Redistricting Commission of the City of Roseville Adopting a Final Redistricting Report and Final Map Passed on February 28, 2022

9 DRAFT MAP B-1
Adopted by the Commission as the Final Map on February 28, 2022 City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map B-1 – Districts Summary Statistics
01/25/2022
Ideal Population Criterion
Ideal Population 29,594
Overall Range 9.4%
< 5.0% 5.0 - 10.0% > 10.0%
California Statewide Database Adjusted
(incarcerated persons reallocation) 2020
Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data
Summary Files - Total Population.

Total Population & Deviation per District
District Total
Population
Over / Under
Ideal
Deviation From
Ideal
1 29,453 -141 -0.5%
2 31,058 1,464 4.9%
3 28,274 -1,320 -4.5%
4 28,854 -740 -2.5%
5 30,330 736 2.5%
Total Population by Race/Ethnicity per District
District White Black or
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian Native
Hawaiian and
Pacific
Islander
Some
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic/
Latino
1 66.7% 1.9% 0.4% 8.7% 0.2% 0.6% 6.2% 15.3%
2 59.9% 2.0% 0.6% 5.5% 0.3% 0.6% 6.7% 24.5%
3 60.2% 2.8% 0.3% 14.0% 0.6% 0.5% 6.8% 14.9%
4 66.3% 2.4% 0.2% 12.3% 0.2% 0.5% 6.1% 12.0%
5 53.0% 2.9% 0.3% 21.6% 0.3% 0.4% 7.3% 14.1%
California Statewide Database Adjusted 2020 Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data Summary Files - Total Population by Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin.

CVAP by Race/Ethnicity per District
District White Black or
African
American
American
Indian or Alaska
Native
Asian Native Hawaiian
and Pacific
Islander
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic/
Latino
1 80.8% 2.0% 0.1% 5.2% 0.2% 1.7% 10.3%
2 70.2% 1.9% 0.2% 3.6% 0.1% 3.0% 20.8%
3 70.3% 2.9% 0.1% 9.8% 0.3% 4.3% 11.9%
4 76.5% 1.3% 0.2% 10.8% 0.1% 2.3% 8.6%
5 62.6% 2.9% 0.1% 18.3% 0.4% 2.8% 12.6%
California Statewide Database Adjusted 2015-2019 American Community Survey Citizen Voting-age Population (CVAP) by Race and Ethnicity Special Tabulation. Rounding of estimates may lead to summation of percentages not equal to 100% (+/- 1%).

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map B-1 – Districts Summary Statistics
01/25/2022
Contiguity Criterion
Are all the districts contiguous? Yes
Preservation of Geographic Integrity Criteria (i.e., minimize division of cities, communities of interest, etc.)
COI Category Total #
of COIs
# of COIs Preserved
in Minimum Districts
% of COIs Preserved
in Minimum Districts
COIs Not Preserved in Minimum # of Districts
Elementary School
Districts
5 3 60% Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District,
Roseville Elementary School District
Neighborhood
Associations
45 39 87% Diamond Oaks, Fiddyment Farm, Foothills
Junction, Kaseberg-kingswood, Stoneridge,
Woodcreek Oaks
Compactness Measures per District
District Polsby-Popper Schwartzberg Reock Convex Hull Length-Width 1 0.31 1.81 0.38 0.76 0.83
2 0.26 1.95 0.49 0.74 0.76
3 0.28 1.89 0.32 0.68 0.74
4 0.68 1.22 0.62 0.94 0.78
5 0.27 1.93 0.35 0.60 0.80
A single definitive measure of compactness does not exist, and no specific scores for any measures indicate satisfoctory or unsatisfactory compactness. Measures are typically based on comparing geometric features of the district (e.g. perimeters, areas) to the features of a related base geometric object (e.g. minimum bounding circle, convex hull). In practice, compactness tends to be assessed by a visual test-a district in which people generally live near each other is usually more compact than one in which they do not. In California, districts are compact when they do not bypass nearby population for people farther away. Note that Polsby-Popper, Reock, Convex Hull, and Length-Width scores fall within the range of 0-1, with 0 being the least compact and 1 being the most compact. In comparison, a Schwartzberg score of 1 is the most compact and higher scores are increasingly less compact.

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map B-1 – Districts Summary Statistics
01/25/2022
Existing District
Change Area
Scenario District - 1
Scenario District - 2
Scenario District - 3
Scenario District - 4
Scenario District - 5
Metadata
Run Time Stamp: 2022-01-25 00:47:39
Workflow Directory: C:\Workspace\F2074_01_01_Roseville\Projects\Alteryx\ District Scenario: File: gdb:C:\Workspace\F2074_01_01_Roseville\Data\Redist.gdb|||Districts_Scenario_Draft_Map_B1 Total deviation

9.4%
87% of
neighborhoods
preserved
District #1
District #2
District #3
District #4
District #5
District #5 is

2.5% above
the ideal
Draft Map B-1
7 DRAFT MAP C-1
Removed from further consideration on January 24, 2022
City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map C - 1 1/20/2022 – Districts Summary Statistics 01/21/2022
Ideal Population Criterion
Ideal Population 29,594
Overall Range 9.4%
< 5.0% 5.0 - 10.0% > 10.0%
California Statewide Database Adjusted
(incarcerated persons reallocation) 2020
Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data
Summary Files - Total Population.

Total Population & Deviation per District
District Total
Population
Over / Under
Ideal
Deviation From
Ideal
1 29,564 -30 -0.1%
2 28,209 -1,385 -4.7%
3 29,277 -317 -1.1%
4 31,003 1,409 4.8%
5 29,916 322 1.1%
Total Population by Race/Ethnicity per District
District White Black or
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian Native
Hawaiian and
Pacific
Islander
Some
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic/
Latino
1 67.4% 1.8% 0.4% 6.2% 0.2% 0.6% 6.3% 17.0%
2 59.4% 2.0% 0.6% 6.3% 0.3% 0.5% 6.6% 24.3%
3 60.8% 2.7% 0.3% 15.0% 0.5% 0.5% 6.7% 13.7%
4 63.7% 2.4% 0.2% 14.3% 0.2% 0.4% 6.5% 12.3%
5 54.3% 3.1% 0.3% 19.7% 0.4% 0.5% 7.0% 14.7%
California Statewide Database Adjusted 2020 Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data Summary Files - Total Population by Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin.

CVAP by Race/Ethnicity per District
District White Black or
African
American
American
Indian or Alaska
Native
Asian Native Hawaiian
and Pacific
Islander
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic/
Latino
1 78.7% 2.3% 0.1% 3.9% 0.2% 1.9% 12.9%
2 71.8% 1.6% 0.0% 4.0% 0.1% 2.8% 19.7%
3 71.2% 2.7% 0.1% 10.7% 0.4% 4.3% 10.7%
4 74.1% 1.6% 0.2% 12.3% 0.1% 2.5% 9.0%
5 65.1% 2.8% 0.3% 16.0% 0.4% 2.6% 12.4%
California Statewide Database Adjusted 2015-2019 American Community Survey Citizen Voting-age Population (CVAP) by Race and Ethnicity Special Tabulation. Rounding of estimates may lead to summation of percentages not equal to 100% (+/- 1%).

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map C - 1 1/20/2022 – Districts Summary Statistics 01/21/2022
Contiguity Criterion
Are all the districts contiguous? Yes
Preservation of Geographic Integrity Criteria (i.e., minimize division of cities, communities of interest, etc.)
COI Category Total #
of COIs
# of COIs Preserved
in Minimum Districts
% of COIs Preserved
in Minimum Districts
COIs Not Preserved in Minimum # of Districts
Elementary School
Districts
5 2 40% Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District,
Eureka Union School District, Roseville
Elementary School District
Neighborhood
Associations
45 40 89% Diamond Oaks, Fiddyment Farm, Harding,
Hist. Sierra Vista, Pleasant Grove
Compactness Measures per District
District Polsby-Popper Schwartzberg Reock Convex Hull Length-Width 1 0.30 1.81 0.30 0.83 0.38
2 0.28 1.89 0.45 0.72 0.97
3 0.33 1.75 0.31 0.71 0.85
4 0.28 1.89 0.28 0.62 0.56
5 0.52 1.39 0.46 0.82 0.69
A single definitive measure of compactness does not exist, and no specific scores for any measures indicate satisfoctory or unsatisfactory compactness. Measures are typically based on comparing geometric features of the district (e.g. perimeters, areas) to the features of a related base geometric object (e.g. minimum bounding circle, convex hull). In practice, compactness tends to be assessed by a visual test-a district in which people generally live near each other is usually more compact than one in which they do not. In California, districts are compact when they do not bypass nearby population for people farther away. Note that Polsby-Popper, Reock, Convex Hull, and Length-Width scores fall within the range of 0-1, with 0 being the least compact and 1 being the most compact. In comparison, a Schwartzberg score of 1 is the most compact and higher scores are increasingly less compact.

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map C - 1 1/20/2022 – Districts Summary Statistics 01/21/2022
Existing District
Change Area
Scenario District - 1
Scenario District - 2
Scenario District - 3
Scenario District - 4
Scenario District - 5
Metadata
Run Time Stamp: 2022-01-21 17:20:33
Workflow Directory: C:\Workspace\F2074_01_01_Roseville\Projects\Alteryx\ District Scenario: File: gdb:C:\Workspace\F2074_01_01_Roseville\Data\Redist.gdb|||Districts_Scenario_Draft_Map_C_ Frank_20220120
Total deviation

9.4%
Formerly Public Map #8
Author Comment: This map focuses on creating compact, contiguous districts.

This map has a very low total deviation (4.4%). This allows for planned growth to be shared between the western two districts (numbered 4 and 5 on this map).

To the extent possible, natural and physical boundaries are used to create district boundaries and communities of interest are respected.

District #1
District #2
District #3
District #4
District #5
District #4 and #5
are 4.8% and 1.1%
above the ideal,
respectively
Draft Map C – 1
89% of
neighborhoods
preserved
8 DRAFT MAP E-1
Removed from further consideration on January 24, 2022

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map E - 1 1/21/2022 – Districts Summary Statistics 01/21/2022
Ideal Population Criterion
Ideal Population 29,594
Overall Range 7.1%
< 5.0% 5.0 - 10.0% > 10.0%
California Statewide Database Adjusted
(incarcerated persons reallocation) 2020
Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data
Summary Files - Total Population.

Total Population & Deviation per District
District Total
Population
Over / Under
Ideal
Deviation From
Ideal
1 30,505 911 3.1%
2 30,048 454 1.5%
3 30,067 473 1.6%
4 28,399 -1,195 -4.0%
5 28,950 -644 -2.2%
Total Population by Race/Ethnicity per District
District White Black or
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian Native
Hawaiian and
Pacific
Islander
Some
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic/
Latino
1 66.3% 1.8% 0.4% 10.0% 0.2% 0.6% 6.1% 14.6%
2 60.3% 2.3% 0.5% 6.6% 0.4% 0.6% 6.7% 22.6%
3 61.2% 2.6% 0.2% 14.6% 0.4% 0.5% 7.1% 13.3%
4 61.1% 2.5% 0.4% 9.9% 0.4% 0.5% 6.6% 18.7%
5 56.5% 2.8% 0.2% 21.1% 0.3% 0.3% 6.5% 12.2%
California Statewide Database Adjusted 2020 Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data Summary Files - Total Population by Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin.

CVAP by Race/Ethnicity per District
District White Black or
African
American
American
Indian or Alaska
Native
Asian Native Hawaiian
and Pacific
Islander
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic/
Latino
1 80.0% 1.8% 0.1% 6.2% 0.3% 1.6% 10.0%
2 69.8% 3.0% 0.1% 4.7% 0.1% 4.1% 17.8%
3 72.4% 1.7% 0.2% 12.7% 0.2% 2.9% 10.0%
4 71.9% 1.7% 0.2% 6.9% 0.1% 2.8% 16.3%
5 67.3% 2.7% 0.1% 17.0% 0.4% 2.3% 9.7%
California Statewide Database Adjusted 2015-2019 American Community Survey Citizen Voting-age Population (CVAP) by Race and Ethnicity Special Tabulation. Rounding of estimates may lead to summation of percentages not equal to 100% (+/- 1%).

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map E -1 1/21/2022 – Districts Summary Statistics 01/21/2022
Contiguity Criterion
Are all the districts contiguous? Yes
Preservation of Geographic Integrity Criteria (i.e., minimize division of cities, communities of interest, etc.)
COI Category Total # of
COIs
# of COIs Preserved in
Minimum Districts
% of COIs Preserved in
Minimum Districts
COIs Not Preserved in Minimum # of
Districts
Elementary School
Districts
5 3 60% Dry Creek Joint Elementary School
District, Roseville Elementary School
District
Neighborhood
Associations
45 42 93% Highland Reserve, Pleasant Grove, Sun
City
Compactness Measures per District
District Polsby-Popper Schwartzberg Reock Convex Hull Length-Width 1 0.40 1.58 0.51 0.81 0.75
2 0.35 1.69 0.40 0.71 0.74
3 0.39 1.61 0.41 0.77 0.62
4 0.24 2.05 0.40 0.63 0.91
5 0.31 1.80 0.46 0.67 0.88
A single definitive measure of compactness does not exist, and no specific scores for any measures indicate satisfoctory or unsatisfactory compactness. Measures are typically based on comparing geometric features of the district (e.g. perimeters, areas) to the features of a related base geometric object (e.g. minimum bounding circle, convex hull). In practice, compactness tends to be assessed by a visual test-a district in which people generally live near each other is usually more compact than one in which they do not. In California, districts are compact when they do not bypass nearby population for people farther away. Note that Polsby-Popper, Reock, Convex Hull, and Length-Width scores fall within the range of 0-1, with 0 being the least compact and 1 being the most compact. In comparison, a Schwartzberg score of 1 is the most compact and higher scores are increasingly less compact.

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map E - 1 1/21/2022 – Districts Summary Statistics 01/21/2022
Existing District
Change Area
Scenario District - 1
Scenario District - 2
Scenario District - 3
Scenario District - 4
Scenario District - 5
Metadata
Run Time Stamp: 2022-01-21 17:53:12
Workflow Directory: C:\Workspace\F2074_01_01_Roseville\Projects\Alteryx\ District Scenario: File: gdb:C:\Workspace\F2074_01_01_Roseville\Data\Redist.gdb|||Districts_Scenario_Draft_Map_E_ Larkin_20220121
Total deviation

7.1%
Formerly Public Map #15
Author Comment: Contiguous, communities of interest together, EVERY neighborhood association intact with the exception of Sun City which has one tiny piece across Blue Oaks (Note: in the program, this piece is showing up in both Blue Oaks AND the Sun City neighborhood associations). All Police districts together with the exception of 26 (one tiny block upper right corner - zero population- Sun City). All but 5 specific plans together and one of those is Sun City because one block that crosses over Blue Oaks. I believe a 8.2% deviation, with less population in D5 to allow for more growth.

Compact, and natural lines were possible.

District #1
District #2
District #3
District #4
District #5
District #5 is

2.2% below the
ideal, leaving
room for
expected growth
Draft Map E – 1 1/21
93% of
neighborhoods
preserved
(Sun City split affects
no population)
9 DRAFT MAP A
Removed from further consideration on January 24, 2022

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map A – Districts Summary Statistics
12/21/2021
Ideal Population Criterion
Ideal Population 29,594
Overall Range 9.5%
< 5.0% 5.0 - 10.0% > 10.0%
California Statewide Database Adjusted
(incarcerated persons reallocation) 2020
Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data
Summary Files - Total Population.

Total Population & Deviation per District
District Total
Population
Over / Under
Ideal
Deviation From
Ideal
1 30,505 911 3.1%
2 30,612 1,018 3.4%
3 30,666 1,072 3.6%
4 28,339 -1,255 -4.2%
5 27,847 -1,747 -5.9%
Total Population by Race/Ethnicity per District
District White Black or
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian Native
Hawaiian and
Pacific
Islander
Some
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic/
Latino
1 66.3% 1.8% 0.4% 10.0% 0.2% 0.6% 6.1% 14.6%
2 59.9% 2.1% 0.6% 5.6% 0.3% 0.6% 6.6% 24.4%
3 60.4% 2.9% 0.2% 14.1% 0.5% 0.5% 6.9% 14.4%
4 67.5% 2.1% 0.3% 8.7% 0.3% 0.5% 6.2% 14.3%
5 51.1% 3.2% 0.2% 24.3% 0.3% 0.4% 7.2% 13.3%
California Statewide Database Adjusted 2020 Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data Summary Files - Total Population by Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin.

CVAP by Race/Ethnicity per District
District White Black or
African
American
American
Indian or Alaska
Native
Asian Native Hawaiian
and Pacific
Islander
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic/
Latino
1 80.0% 1.8% 0.1% 6.2% 0.3% 1.6% 10.0%
2 69.9% 2.7% 0.1% 3.6% 0.1% 2.6% 21.0%
3 70.3% 2.5% 0.0% 12.2% 0.2% 4.5% 10.1%
4 77.7% 0.9% 0.3% 6.7% 0.1% 2.4% 11.5%
5 60.0% 3.6% 0.1% 21.8% 0.5% 2.8% 11.0%
California Statewide Database Adjusted 2015-2019 American Community Survey Citizen Voting-age Population (CVAP) by Race and Ethnicity Special Tabulation. Rounding of estimates may lead to summation of percentages not equal to 100% (+/- 1%).

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map A – Districts Summary Statistics
12/21/2021
Contiguity Criterion
Are all the districts contiguous? Yes
Preservation of Geographic Integrity Criteria (i.e., minimize division of cities, communities of interest, etc.)
COI Category Total # of
COIs
# of COIs Preserved in
Minimum Districts
% of COIs Preserved in
Minimum Districts
COIs Not Preserved in Minimum # of
Districts
Elementary School
Districts
5 3 60% Dry Creek Joint Elementary School
District, Roseville Elementary School
District
Neighborhood
Associations
45 39 87% Blue Oaks, Harding, Hist. Sierra Vista,
Quail Glen, Stoneridge, Sun City
Compactness Measures per District
District Polsby-Popper Schwartzberg Reock Convex Hull Length-Width 1 0.43 1.52 0.50 0.83 0.79
2 0.30 1.81 0.47 0.71 0.97
3 0.35 1.68 0.39 0.76 0.69
4 0.62 1.28 0.51 0.89 0.91
5 0.31 1.81 0.42 0.63 0.87
A single definitive measure of compactness does not exist, and no specific scores for any measures indicate satisfoctory or unsatisfactory compactness. Measures are typically based on comparing geometric features of the district (e.g. perimeters, areas) to the features of a related base geometric object (e.g. minimum bounding circle, convex hull). In practice, compactness tends to be assessed by a visual test-a district in which people generally live near each other is usually more compact than one in which they do not. In California, districts are compact when they do not bypass nearby population for people farther away. Note that Polsby-Popper, Reock, Convex Hull, and Length-Width scores fall within the range of 0-1, with 0 being the least compact and 1 being the most compact. In comparison, a Schwartzberg score of 1 is the most compact and higher scores are increasingly less compact.

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map A – Districts Summary Statistics
12/21/2021
Existing District
Change Area
Scenario District - 1
Scenario District - 2
Scenario District - 3
Scenario District - 4
Scenario District - 5
Metadata
Run Time Stamp: 2021-12-21 08:54:02
Workflow Directory: C:\Workspace\F2074_01_01_Roseville\Projects\Alteryx\ District Scenario: File: gdb:C:\Workspace\F2074_01_01_Roseville\Data\Redist.gdb|||Districts_Scenario_Draft_Map_A Total deviation

9.5%
89% of
neighborhoods
preserved
Formerly Public Map #1 (note: one block in northeast Sun City with zero population was moved from District 4 to District 3 to meet the contiguity criterion) Author comment: This map is generally divided evenly by population with a deviation of 9.5 (District 3 plus +3.6, District 5 minus -5.9). Given District 5 expected growth over the next 10 years, it makes sense that it has the lowest current population.

Communities of interest priority is to neighborhood associations. All populated neighborhood associations are kept intact except Blue Oaks and Quail Glen, which are each shared by two districts due to population considerations.

All school districts are kept in single districts except Dry Creek, which is shared by two districts due to population and geographic considerations.

All districts are contiguous and compact.

District #5 is

5.9% below the
ideal, leaving
room for
expected growth
District #1
District #2
District #3
District #4
District #5
Draft Map A
10 DRAFT MAP B
Removed from further consideration on January 24, 2022

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map B – Districts Summary Statistics
12/21/2021
Ideal Population Criterion
Ideal Population 29,594
Overall Range 6.3%
< 5.0% 5.0 - 10.0% > 10.0%
California Statewide Database Adjusted
(incarcerated persons reallocation) 2020
Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data
Summary Files - Total Population.

Total Population & Deviation per District
District Total
Population
Over / Under
Ideal
Deviation From
Ideal
1 29,453 -141 -0.5%
2 29,752 158 0.5%
3 29,962 368 1.2%
4 28,472 -1,122 -3.8%
5 30,330 736 2.5%
Total Population by Race/Ethnicity per District
District White Black or
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian Native
Hawaiian and
Pacific
Islander
Some
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic/
Latino
1 66.7% 1.9% 0.4% 8.7% 0.2% 0.6% 6.2% 15.3%
2 59.3% 2.0% 0.6% 5.6% 0.3% 0.6% 6.8% 24.8%
3 60.6% 2.7% 0.3% 13.4% 0.6% 0.5% 6.8% 15.1%
4 66.4% 2.4% 0.2% 12.4% 0.2% 0.5% 6.0% 11.9%
5 53.0% 2.9% 0.3% 21.6% 0.3% 0.4% 7.3% 14.1%
California Statewide Database Adjusted 2020 Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data Summary Files - Total Population by Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin.

CVAP by Race/Ethnicity per District
District White Black or
African
American
American
Indian or Alaska
Native
Asian Native Hawaiian
and Pacific
Islander
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic/
Latino
1 80.8% 2.0% 0.1% 5.2% 0.2% 1.7% 10.3%
2 68.9% 1.8% 0.2% 3.6% 0.2% 2.9% 21.7%
3 71.6% 2.9% 0.1% 9.3% 0.3% 4.3% 11.7%
4 76.7% 1.3% 0.2% 10.9% 0.1% 2.3% 8.5%
5 62.6% 2.9% 0.1% 18.3% 0.4% 2.8% 12.6%
California Statewide Database Adjusted 2015-2019 American Community Survey Citizen Voting-age Population (CVAP) by Race and Ethnicity Special Tabulation. Rounding of estimates may lead to summation of percentages not equal to 100% (+/- 1%).

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map B – Districts Summary Statistics
12/21/2021
Contiguity Criterion
Are all the districts contiguous? Yes
Preservation of Geographic Integrity Criteria (i.e., minimize division of cities, communities of interest, etc.)
COI Category Total # of
COIs
# of COIs Preserved in
Minimum Districts
% of COIs Preserved in
Minimum Districts
COIs Not Preserved in Minimum # of
Districts
Elementary School
Districts
5 3 60% Dry Creek Joint Elementary School
District, Roseville Elementary School
District
Neighborhood
Associations
45 41 91% Fiddyment Farm, Kaseberg-kingswood,
Stoneridge, Woodcreek Oaks
Compactness Measures per District
District Polsby-Popper Schwartzberg Reock Convex Hull Length-Width 1 0.31 1.81 0.38 0.76 0.83
2 0.27 1.92 0.46 0.75 0.76
3 0.34 1.71 0.34 0.70 0.74
4 0.62 1.27 0.62 0.94 0.77
5 0.27 1.93 0.35 0.60 0.80
A single definitive measure of compactness does not exist, and no specific scores for any measures indicate satisfoctory or unsatisfactory compactness. Measures are typically based on comparing geometric features of the district (e.g. perimeters, areas) to the features of a related base geometric object (e.g. minimum bounding circle, convex hull). In practice, compactness tends to be assessed by a visual test-a district in which people generally live near each other is usually more compact than one in which they do not. In California, districts are compact when they do not bypass nearby population for people farther away. Note that Polsby-Popper, Reock, Convex Hull, and Length-Width scores fall within the range of 0-1, with 0 being the least compact and 1 being the most compact. In comparison, a Schwartzberg score of 1 is the most compact and higher scores are increasingly less compact.

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map B – Districts Summary Statistics
12/21/2021
Existing District
Change Area
Scenario District - 1
Scenario District - 2
Scenario District - 3
Scenario District - 4
Scenario District - 5
Metadata
Run Time Stamp: 2021-12-21 08:55:22
Workflow Directory: C:\Workspace\F2074_01_01_Roseville\Projects\Alteryx\ District Scenario: File: gdb:C:\Workspace\F2074_01_01_Roseville\Data\Redist.gdb|||Districts_Scenario_Draft_Map_B Total deviation

6.3%
91% of
neighborhoods
preserved
Formerly Public Map #6
Author Comment: This map keeps many district boundaries in tact, while cleaning up other lines. It is generally even by population, with the deviation at 6.3%. In this map, only four neighborhood associations are shared by two districts, unlike the current districts which has eleven neighborhood associations shared by different districts.

Draft Map B
District #1
District #2
District #3
District #4
District #5
District #5 is

2.5% above
the ideal
11 DRAFT MAP C
Removed from further consideration on January 24, 2022

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map C – Districts Summary Statistics
12/21/2021
Ideal Population Criterion
Ideal Population 29,594
Overall Range 4.4%
< 5.0% 5.0 - 10.0% > 10.0%
California Statewide Database Adjusted
(incarcerated persons reallocation) 2020
Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data
Summary Files - Total Population.

Total Population & Deviation per District
District Total
Population
Over / Under
Ideal
Deviation From
Ideal
1 29,576 -18 -0.1%
2 29,395 -199 -0.7%
3 30,422 828 2.8%
4 29,443 -151 -0.5%
5 29,133 -461 -1.6%
Total Population by Race/Ethnicity per District
District White Black or
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian Native
Hawaiian and
Pacific
Islander
Some
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic/
Latino
1 66.4% 1.7% 0.4% 5.3% 0.2% 0.6% 6.1% 19.1%
2 61.8% 2.1% 0.5% 6.9% 0.4% 0.5% 6.6% 21.3%
3 59.0% 2.7% 0.3% 15.9% 0.5% 0.6% 6.9% 14.2%
4 64.2% 2.4% 0.2% 13.8% 0.2% 0.4% 6.4% 12.3%
5 54.2% 3.1% 0.3% 19.9% 0.4% 0.5% 7.0% 14.6%
California Statewide Database Adjusted 2020 Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data Summary Files - Total Population by Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin.

CVAP by Race/Ethnicity per District
District White Black or
African
American
American
Indian or Alaska
Native
Asian Native Hawaiian
and Pacific
Islander
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic/
Latino
1 77.7% 2.2% 0.1% 3.7% 0.2% 2.1% 14.2%
2 72.6% 1.7% 0.0% 5.2% 0.1% 2.8% 17.7%
3 70.8% 2.6% 0.1% 10.9% 0.4% 4.1% 10.9%
4 74.8% 1.7% 0.2% 11.4% 0.2% 2.4% 8.9%
5 65.1% 2.8% 0.3% 16.0% 0.4% 2.6% 12.4%
California Statewide Database Adjusted 2015-2019 American Community Survey Citizen Voting-age Population (CVAP) by Race and Ethnicity Special Tabulation. Rounding of estimates may lead to summation of percentages not equal to 100% (+/- 1%).

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map C – Districts Summary Statistics
12/21/2021
Contiguity Criterion
Are all the districts contiguous? Yes
Preservation of Geographic Integrity Criteria (i.e., minimize division of cities, communities of interest, etc.)
COI Category Total #
of COIs
# of COIs
Preserved in
Minimum Districts
% of COIs
Preserved in
Minimum Districts
COIs Not Preserved in Minimum # of Districts
Elementary
School Districts
5 2 40% Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District, Eureka Union School District, Roseville Elementary School
District
Neighborhood
Associations
45 35 78% Blue Oaks, Campus Oaks, Diamond Oaks,
Fiddyment Farm, Folsom Road, Highland Reserve,
Hist. Sierra Vista, Johnson Ranch, Pleasant Grove,
Roseville Heights
Compactness Measures per District
District Polsby-Popper Schwartzberg Reock Convex Hull Length-Width 1 0.32 1.77 0.30 0.84 0.38
2 0.29 1.85 0.45 0.73 0.89
3 0.25 1.98 0.28 0.65 0.84
4 0.23 2.08 0.26 0.59 0.56
5 0.50 1.41 0.44 0.81 0.69
A single definitive measure of compactness does not exist, and no specific scores for any measures indicate satisfoctory or unsatisfactory compactness. Measures are typically based on comparing geometric features of the district (e.g. perimeters, areas) to the features of a related base geometric object (e.g. minimum bounding circle, convex hull). In practice, compactness tends to be assessed by a visual test-a district in which people generally live near each other is usually more compact than one in which they do not. In California, districts are compact when they do not bypass nearby population for people farther away. Note that Polsby-Popper, Reock, Convex Hull, and Length-Width scores fall within the range of 0-1, with 0 being the least compact and 1 being the most compact. In comparison, a Schwartzberg score of 1 is the most compact and higher scores are increasingly less compact.

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map C – Districts Summary Statistics
12/21/2021
Existing District
Change Area
Scenario District - 1
Scenario District - 2
Scenario District - 3
Scenario District - 4
Scenario District - 5
Metadata
Run Time Stamp: 2021-12-21 08:56:16
Workflow Directory: C:\Workspace\F2074_01_01_Roseville\Projects\Alteryx\ District Scenario: File: gdb:C:\Workspace\F2074_01_01_Roseville\Data\Redist.gdb|||Districts_Scenario_Draft_Map_C Total deviation

4.4%
78% of
neighborhoods
preserved
Formerly Public Map #8
Author Comment: This map focuses on creating compact, contiguous districts.

This map has a very low total deviation (4.4%). This allows for planned growth to be shared between the western two districts (numbered 4 and 5 on this map).

To the extent possible, natural and physical boundaries are used to create district boundaries and communities of interest are respected.

Draft Map C
District #1
District #2
District #3
District #4
District #5
District #4 and #5
are 0.5% and 1.6%
below the ideal,
respectively, leaving
room for expected
growth
12 DRAFT MAP D
Removed from further consideration on January 24, 2022

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map D – Districts Summary Statistics
12/21/2021
Ideal Population Criterion
Ideal Population 29,594
Overall Range 6.3%
< 5.0% 5.0 - 10.0% > 10.0%
California Statewide Database Adjusted
(incarcerated persons reallocation) 2020
Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data
Summary Files - Total Population.

Total Population & Deviation per District
District Total
Population
Over / Under
Ideal
Deviation From
Ideal
1 30,505 911 3.1%
2 29,513 -81 -0.3%
3 28,644 -950 -3.2%
4 29,679 85 0.3%
5 29,628 34 0.1%
Total Population by Race/Ethnicity per District
District White Black or
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian Native
Hawaiian and
Pacific
Islander
Some
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic/
Latino
1 66.3% 1.8% 0.4% 10.0% 0.2% 0.6% 6.1% 14.6%
2 60.6% 2.0% 0.6% 5.7% 0.3% 0.6% 6.5% 23.7%
3 59.4% 3.0% 0.2% 15.9% 0.5% 0.5% 6.9% 13.7%
4 61.0% 2.6% 0.3% 11.3% 0.4% 0.6% 6.8% 17.0%
5 58.1% 2.7% 0.2% 19.2% 0.3% 0.3% 6.7% 12.5%
California Statewide Database Adjusted 2020 Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data Summary Files - Total Population by Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin.

CVAP by Race/Ethnicity per District
District White Black or
African
American
American
Indian or Alaska
Native
Asian Native Hawaiian
and Pacific
Islander
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic/
Latino
1 80.0% 1.8% 0.1% 6.2% 0.3% 1.6% 10.0%
2 69.2% 2.4% 0.1% 4.2% 0.1% 3.6% 20.2%
3 69.3% 2.6% 0.0% 14.0% 0.2% 4.1% 9.6%
4 73.3% 1.9% 0.2% 8.0% 0.1% 2.3% 14.2%
5 70.3% 2.2% 0.2% 14.4% 0.3% 2.4% 9.8%
California Statewide Database Adjusted 2015-2019 American Community Survey Citizen Voting-age Population (CVAP) by Race and Ethnicity Special Tabulation. Rounding of estimates may lead to summation of percentages not equal to 100% (+/- 1%).

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map D – Districts Summary Statistics
12/21/2021
Contiguity Criterion
Are all the districts contiguous? Yes
Preservation of Geographic Integrity Criteria (i.e., minimize division of cities, communities of interest, etc.)
COI Category Total #
of COIs
# of COIs Preserved
in Minimum Districts
% of COIs Preserved
in Minimum Districts
COIs Not Preserved in Minimum # of Districts
Elementary School
Districts
5 2 40% Center Joint Unified School District, Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District, Roseville
Elementary School District
Neighborhood
Associations
45 42 93% Harding, Quail Glen, Sun City
Compactness Measures per District
District Polsby-Popper Schwartzberg Reock Convex Hull Length-Width 1 0.40 1.58 0.51 0.81 0.75
2 0.24 2.04 0.40 0.70 0.96
3 0.37 1.65 0.38 0.80 0.57
4 0.30 1.82 0.26 0.70 0.34
5 0.26 1.95 0.33 0.70 0.64
A single definitive measure of compactness does not exist, and no specific scores for any measures indicate satisfoctory or unsatisfactory compactness. Measures are typically based on comparing geometric features of the district (e.g. perimeters, areas) to the features of a related base geometric object (e.g. minimum bounding circle, convex hull). In practice, compactness tends to be assessed by a visual test-a district in which people generally live near each other is usually more compact than one in which they do not. In California, districts are compact when they do not bypass nearby population for people farther away. Note that Polsby-Popper, Reock, Convex Hull, and Length-Width scores fall within the range of 0-1, with 0 being the least compact and 1 being the most compact. In comparison, a Schwartzberg score of 1 is the most compact and higher scores are increasingly less compact.

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map D – Districts Summary Statistics
12/21/2021
Existing District
Change Area
Scenario District - 1
Scenario District - 2
Scenario District - 3
Scenario District - 4
Scenario District - 5
Metadata
Run Time Stamp: 2021-12-21 08:56:54
Workflow Directory: C:\Workspace\F2074_01_01_Roseville\Projects\Alteryx\ District Scenario: File: gdb:C:\Workspace\F2074_01_01_Roseville\Data\Redist.gdb|||Districts_Scenario_Draft_Map_D Total deviation

6.3%
93% of
neighborhoods
preserved
Formerly Public Map #14
Author Comment: Contiguous, communities of interest together, all neighborhoods associations are intact with the exception of Quail Glen. Sun City has one tiny piece across Blue Oaks but it is showing in the Blue Oaks AND the Sun City neighborhood associations. All Police districts together with the exception of 26 (one tiny block upper right corner - zero population- Sun City) & 27 dividing Quail Glen. All but 4 specific plans together. I believe a 6.3% deviation, compact, and natural lines were possible.

District #1
District #2
District #3
District #4
District #5
District #4 and #5
are 0.3% and 0.1%
above the ideal,
respectively
Draft Map D
13 DRAFT MAP E
Removed from further consideration on January 24, 2022

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map E – Districts Summary Statistics
12/21/2021
Ideal Population Criterion
Ideal Population 29,594
Overall Range 8.3%
< 5.0% 5.0 - 10.0% > 10.0%
California Statewide Database Adjusted
(incarcerated persons reallocation) 2020
Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data
Summary Files - Total Population.

Total Population & Deviation per District
District Total
Population
Over / Under
Ideal
Deviation From
Ideal
1 30,505 911 3.1%
2 28,402 -1,192 -4.0%
3 29,262 -332 -1.1%
4 30,850 1,256 4.2%
5 28,950 -644 -2.2%
Total Population by Race/Ethnicity per District
District White Black or
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian Native
Hawaiian and
Pacific
Islander
Some
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic/
Latino
1 66.3% 1.8% 0.4% 10.0% 0.2% 0.6% 6.1% 14.6%
2 60.0% 2.3% 0.6% 6.2% 0.4% 0.6% 6.8% 23.2%
3 60.7% 2.7% 0.2% 15.0% 0.4% 0.5% 7.0% 13.5%
4 61.8% 2.4% 0.4% 9.8% 0.4% 0.5% 6.7% 18.0%
5 56.5% 2.8% 0.2% 21.1% 0.3% 0.3% 6.5% 12.2%
California Statewide Database Adjusted 2020 Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data Summary Files - Total Population by Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin.

CVAP by Race/Ethnicity per District
District White Black or
African
American
American
Indian or Alaska
Native
Asian Native Hawaiian
and Pacific
Islander
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic/
Latino
1 80.0% 1.8% 0.1% 6.2% 0.3% 1.6% 10.0%
2 69.6% 3.0% 0.1% 4.4% 0.1% 3.9% 18.4%
3 71.6% 1.9% 0.2% 13.0% 0.2% 3.4% 9.7%
4 72.7% 1.6% 0.2% 6.9% 0.1% 2.6% 15.9%
5 67.3% 2.7% 0.1% 17.0% 0.4% 2.3% 9.7%
California Statewide Database Adjusted 2015-2019 American Community Survey Citizen Voting-age Population (CVAP) by Race and Ethnicity Special Tabulation. Rounding of estimates may lead to summation of percentages not equal to 100% (+/- 1%).

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map E – Districts Summary Statistics
12/21/2021
Contiguity Criterion
Are all the districts contiguous? Yes
Preservation of Geographic Integrity Criteria (i.e., minimize division of cities, communities of interest, etc.)
COI Category Total # of
COIs
# of COIs Preserved in
Minimum Districts
% of COIs Preserved in
Minimum Districts
COIs Not Preserved in Minimum # of
Districts
Elementary School
Districts
5 3 60% Dry Creek Joint Elementary School
District, Roseville Elementary School
District
Neighborhood
Associations
45 44 98% Sun City
Compactness Measures per District
District Polsby-Popper Schwartzberg Reock Convex Hull Length-Width 1 0.40 1.58 0.51 0.81 0.75
2 0.22 2.11 0.39 0.65 0.87
3 0.25 2.00 0.39 0.71 0.62
4 0.35 1.69 0.47 0.67 0.89
5 0.31 1.80 0.46 0.67 0.88
A single definitive measure of compactness does not exist, and no specific scores for any measures indicate satisfoctory or unsatisfactory compactness. Measures are typically based on comparing geometric features of the district (e.g. perimeters, areas) to the features of a related base geometric object (e.g. minimum bounding circle, convex hull). In practice, compactness tends to be assessed by a visual test-a district in which people generally live near each other is usually more compact than one in which they do not. In California, districts are compact when they do not bypass nearby population for people farther away. Note that Polsby-Popper, Reock, Convex Hull, and Length-Width scores fall within the range of 0-1, with 0 being the least compact and 1 being the most compact. In comparison, a Schwartzberg score of 1 is the most compact and higher scores are increasingly less compact.

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map E – Districts Summary Statistics
12/21/2021
Existing District
Change Area
Scenario District - 1
Scenario District - 2
Scenario District - 3
Scenario District - 4
Scenario District - 5
Metadata
Run Time Stamp: 2021-12-21 08:57:48
Workflow Directory: C:\Workspace\F2074_01_01_Roseville\Projects\Alteryx\ District Scenario: File: gdb:C:\Workspace\F2074_01_01_Roseville\Data\Redist.gdb|||Districts_Scenario_Draft_Map_E Total deviation

8.3%
98% of
neighborhoods
preserved
Formerly Public Map #15
Author Comment: Contiguous, communities of interest together, EVERY neighborhood association intact with the exception of Sun City which has one tiny piece across Blue Oaks (Note: in the program, this piece is showing up in both Blue Oaks AND the Sun City neighborhood associations). All Police districts together with the exception of 26 (one tiny block upper right corner - zero population- Sun City). All but 5 specific plans together and one of those is Sun City because one block that crosses over Blue Oaks. I believe a 8.2% deviation, with less population in D5 to allow for more growth.

Compact, and natural lines were possible.

District #1
District #2
District #3
District #4
District #5
Draft Map E
District #5 is

2.2% below the
ideal, leaving
room for
expected growth
14 DRAFT MAP F
Removed from further consideration on January 24, 2022

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map F – Districts Summary Statistics
12/21/2021
Ideal Population Criterion
Ideal Population 29,594
Overall Range 6.0%
< 5.0% 5.0 - 10.0% > 10.0%
California Statewide Database Adjusted
(incarcerated persons reallocation) 2020
Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data
Summary Files - Total Population.

Total Population & Deviation per District
District Total
Population
Over / Under
Ideal
Deviation From
Ideal
1 30,505 911 3.1%
2 28,741 -853 -2.9%
3 29,262 -332 -1.1%
4 30,511 917 3.1%
5 28,950 -644 -2.2%
Total Population by Race/Ethnicity per District
District White Black or
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian Native
Hawaiian and
Pacific
Islander
Some
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic/
Latino
1 66.3% 1.8% 0.4% 10.0% 0.2% 0.6% 6.1% 14.6%
2 59.2% 2.3% 0.6% 6.0% 0.3% 0.6% 6.6% 24.4%
3 60.7% 2.7% 0.2% 15.0% 0.4% 0.5% 7.0% 13.5%
4 62.6% 2.5% 0.3% 9.9% 0.4% 0.6% 6.9% 16.8%
5 56.5% 2.8% 0.2% 21.1% 0.3% 0.3% 6.5% 12.2%
California Statewide Database Adjusted 2020 Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data Summary Files - Total Population by Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin.

CVAP by Race/Ethnicity per District
District White Black or
African
American
American
Indian or Alaska
Native
Asian Native Hawaiian
and Pacific
Islander
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic/
Latino
1 80.0% 1.8% 0.1% 6.2% 0.3% 1.6% 10.0%
2 68.1% 2.9% 0.1% 3.7% 0.2% 4.2% 20.6%
3 71.6% 1.9% 0.2% 13.0% 0.2% 3.4% 9.7%
4 74.2% 1.7% 0.2% 7.6% 0.1% 2.4% 13.8%
5 67.3% 2.7% 0.1% 17.0% 0.4% 2.3% 9.7%
California Statewide Database Adjusted 2015-2019 American Community Survey Citizen Voting-age Population (CVAP) by Race and Ethnicity Special Tabulation. Rounding of estimates may lead to summation of percentages not equal to 100% (+/- 1%).

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map F – Districts Summary Statistics
12/21/2021
Contiguity Criterion
Are all the districts contiguous? Yes
Preservation of Geographic Integrity Criteria (i.e., minimize division of cities, communities of interest, etc.)
COI Category Total # of
COIs
# of COIs Preserved in
Minimum Districts
% of COIs Preserved in
Minimum Districts
COIs Not Preserved in Minimum # of
Districts
Elementary School
Districts
5 3 60% Dry Creek Joint Elementary School
District, Roseville Elementary School
District
Neighborhood
Associations
45 44 98% Sun City
Compactness Measures per District
District Polsby-Popper Schwartzberg Reock Convex Hull Length-Width 1 0.40 1.58 0.51 0.81 0.75
2 0.19 2.28 0.37 0.66 0.87
3 0.25 2.00 0.39 0.71 0.62
4 0.33 1.75 0.32 0.80 0.44
5 0.31 1.80 0.46 0.67 0.88
A single definitive measure of compactness does not exist, and no specific scores for any measures indicate satisfoctory or unsatisfactory compactness. Measures are typically based on comparing geometric features of the district (e.g. perimeters, areas) to the features of a related base geometric object (e.g. minimum bounding circle, convex hull). In practice, compactness tends to be assessed by a visual test-a district in which people generally live near each other is usually more compact than one in which they do not. In California, districts are compact when they do not bypass nearby population for people farther away. Note that Polsby-Popper, Reock, Convex Hull, and Length-Width scores fall within the range of 0-1, with 0 being the least compact and 1 being the most compact. In comparison, a Schwartzberg score of 1 is the most compact and higher scores are increasingly less compact.

City of Roseville Redistricting Summary Statistics
Draft Map F – Districts Summary Statistics
12/21/2021
Existing District
Change Area
Scenario District - 1
Scenario District - 2
Scenario District - 3
Scenario District - 4
Scenario District - 5
Metadata
Run Time Stamp: 2021-12-21 08:58:29
Workflow Directory: C:\Workspace\F2074_01_01_Roseville\Projects\Alteryx\ District Scenario: File: gdb:C:\Workspace\F2074_01_01_Roseville\Data\Redist.gdb|||Districts_Scenario_Draft_Map_F Total deviation

6.0%
98% of
neighborhoods
preserved
Formerly Public Map #25
Author Comment: Another variation of map 11 - but with all neighborhoods intact except for a tiny detached part of Sun City just South of Blue Oaks, and divided by a weird panhandle from the rest of Sun City. All police districts intact. 6.2% deviation District #1
District #2
District #3
District #4
District #5
Draft Map F
District #5 is

2.2% below the
ideal, leaving
room for
expected growth
South Branch PleasantGroveCreek
Curry Creek
Plea sant Grove Creek
P leasantGrove
Cre ekPleasant Grove Creek
Cirby Creek
Pleasant Grove Creek
Dry Creek
Linda Creek
Dry Cree k
Antelo peCreek
Kasebe rg Creek
65 65
80 80
Duluth
Glenbrook
La
vand
e
SierraCollege
Vernon
Mayhill
Miners Ravine
Rand
Oak
Pruett
Quincy
Katama
Holt
Painted Desert
Summerland
Vineyard
Whaley
Bellanca
Crawford
Campus
W
es
tbrook
Bob Doyle
Loveland
Burnt Cedar
SecretGarden
Rose
Garden
Timberrose
Whistlestop
Dreamgarden
Cottage
CoachLamp
Fer nw
ood
Washing
ton
Fiddyment
Stanwyck
Fern
Five Star
Main
Fifth
Hopscotch
Northpark Woodcreek Oaks
Milstead
Daylight
Chorus
Daystar
Foothills
Scarborough
Baseline
Upland
Carneilian
Alexandra
Michener
Montrose
Rose
Creek
ElefaPark Regency
Sun City
Village Green
Junction
Harvey
Trailee
Autum
n
Leaves
Sum
m
erfaire
Mcanally
Cushenda
ll
Rustler
Monarch Grove
Varick
Hayden
SantaClara
Crimson Ridge
Ma
genta
Tanya
Medical
Rose
Glen
Wills
Kingswood
Taylor
Berry
Horncastle
Pleasant
Grove
SecretRavine
Cortina
Chignahuapan
San Fernando
PleasantGrove
Evelyn
Kaseberg
Sixth
Canevari
Calle Las Casas
Eureka
Empingham
Westlake
StoneCanyon
Sunrise
Porter
Cam
ino
Capistrano
Orchard View
Autom a ll
Afterlight
Hillsborough
OldAubu
rn
StonePoint
Vista Grande
Sierragate
CrockerRanch
Jon
quil
Marilyn
Rocky Ridge
Highland Park Maple Creek
Provincetown
Grand Canyon
Roseville
Junction
Chase
Harding
Roseville
Olympus
Zinfandel
Galilee
Washington
M
isty
W
oo
d
Foothills
Hallissy
Sunrise
Cou
ntryClub
Lead Hill
Brittain
Creekside
RidgeMonument
M
arket
Village Plaza
Village Center
Switchman
Hem
in gway
Lava Ridge
Parkhill
W
ind
ing
Cree
k
Blue Oaks
Galleria
Professional
Strauch
W
oodcreek O
aks
SaintAndrews
Reserve
West
Schellhous
Andalusian
Sierra College
Sierra Village
Wade Ashland
Trestle
Manhattan
Alta Vista
Solaire
Brookstone
DeerValley
Gibson
Shasta
Octave
Sterling
Pleasant Grove
Pleasant Grove
Atlantic
Cirby
ShadowRidge
Mill Run
Riverside
H
ighland
Pointe
Cirby
Ante
lope Creek
Sylvan
Glen
Carmel
Wellington
Roseville
Portmarnock
Molten Creek
Ashford
Ch
andler
Olga
New Eng
land
San
Sim
eon
Folsom
New Meadow
W
oodhill
Trimble
Eskaton
Apollo
Stoffels
Volonn
e
Dolphin
Garland
Dennis
Bass
Parkham
Chapelle
Snapdragon
Kirkw
ood
Diamond Creek
Turret
Yefim
Grasscreek
Dartm
outh
Ardley
King
Kensing ton
Barbara
Gossamer
Robinson
FireflyGreen
Debenham
Laver
Heritage
Thornhill
Arran
Drake
K irkhill
Enzie
Jo
Gunnar
Champ
ionOaks
Yoton
Galway
Dorchester Elvenden
Cres
tmont
Knox
Indus
Vittorio
Wadsw
orth
B
Solar
Universal
Second
Spillane
Church
PorchSwing
Amington
Ella
Hillcrest
Dolce
StarTra i l
Mambo
Dum
as
Fourth
Smokehouse
G
reenborough
Lower Bank
Travis
Corvus
Hillmont
King Mountain
Yosemite
As
hbrook
Goldfield
Overjoy
Muir
Franklin
Demartini
M
ae
Loretto
Brookwood
C h allis
Essington
Maui
AlderPoint
ParkOak
Billington
Cum
be
rland
Dillon
A delaide
Rimm
a
Instone
Curry
Wellfleet
Coral
Gemini
Santa InesSan Jose
Myrna
Reef
Nobleboro
Eddie
Brentwoo
d
Meadow
Stonington
Sutt er
Daggett
Brans
ton
Hailey
Pasqual
MallardCreek
Valley Forge
Makeway
Cardiff
Blue Skies
Cirby Hills
ReuterRan
ch
ConcordView
Elko
Kinsella
Lennon
Hourglass
Denio
Manzanita
Balboa
Eastridg
e
Melrose
Della Verona
Eagleton
Spyglass
Verrazona
Coloma
Coronado
Amber
Fence Post
Loon Lake
Grey Bunny
Keehner
Ainsdale
Ursula
VistaCreek
Young
Somers
Aberdeen
Thomas
Peabody
Nighthawk
Center
Butler
Foxhollow
Oakbriar
Acton
Baslow
Cove
Hovey
Malibu
Peridot
Crestfield
Weatherva ne
Bridgeford
Roseville
Oa
kRidg
e
OakCrest
Proteus
Angus
Europa
Solar Point
Impala
TailRace
Eaton
Sheridan
Bonita
Horton
Pit
Mt
Evans
Aven
idaMartina
Ca
stleRock
Bulen
Hurlston
Mills Gap
View
Dunham
Knollcrest
Sequoia
Mahan
Silver Spruce
ColumbiaMaciel
Raeburn
Tilbury
Zola
Ha nce
Sunningdale
Courtside
Thistle Down
Enchanted
Provide
nce
Cardero
Skipperling
Bobbie
Vinewood
Westover
Echo Rock
Morningstar
Sussex
Firestone
Placer
Chaucer
Southampton
Colonial
Ambridge
Civic
Linda
Farridge
Salters
Roan
Morley
Swallowtail
Vine
Capri
Ludlow
Steinbeck
Benet
Sun Tree
Avanti
Doyle
Amberwood
Lora
Ballet
Br
ickM
a
son
Sawtell
Castaic
Stonecrest
Mclaren
Carb
u ry
Magnolia
Solstice
Trim
stone
Lafayette
Gailes
Mercedes
Newport
Courante
Arbor Ri dge
Atkinson
Solis
Bettencourt
Inglis
Niles
Caswell
Belfast
Stagecoach
Beckenham
Soledad
Walker
Stephens
Inman
Marblethorpe
Brixham
Darling
Hull
La Vina
Honolulu
Abby Gate
Lyon
Minuet
Macon
Kodiak
Ob erlande
r
Cortez
Box Canyon
Liverpool
Zinnia
Big Bear
Lu
cera
Roseville
IvyGlen
Ho
rnby
Ri
dgecrest
Marcia
Twilight
Blue
M
o
on
Monet
Alden
Chico
Silver Mill
Cattledrive
Dean
Allegrett
o
WhisperW
ind
Ashley Woods
Legends
Padside
Frensham
Parkview
Miller
Lockton
Fillingham
Cottonwood
Tradewinds
Anac
apa
Quartet
Crescent
Oakborough
Dickinson
Dana
Summergrove
Chilton
Atwell
W
ildflower
Machado
Morro
Vallejo
Marie
Big Creek
Edgartown
Stroll
Clarewood
GreyOwl
Winlock
Somerton
Etchingham
Blue
Squirrel
Starfield
SkippingStone
Ashton
Blanchard
Broughton
Auburn
Thornecroft
SanJuan
Judah
FalconPointe
Kelmscott
Casa Sedona
Lomitas
Kilpatrick
Alta
East
Greenburn
Cresthaven
Parkside
Iceberg
Talgarth
Hutley
PoppyField
Casterbridge
Southington
Bramblewood
Artisan
Monterey Pines
Har dwick
Josselin
Verbena
Hancock
Jana
W
inslow
Evergreen
Ellison
Sunbelt
Alonso
Campo
BrookPark
Mariposa
Indepen
dence
Red Canard
Lemontree
Milan
Aylesbury
Channel Islands
Wayne
Corniche
Littleton
MotherLo
de
Brookhaven
Wren
Third
Killarney
Short
Cha
ffin
Tab
lona
Mt Tailac
Rider
Antrim
Fairmont
Arabesque
Trehowell
Yorktown
Kersey
Sierra
Mallard
Circuit
Symphony
Bronte
Musg r ave
Rudgwick
L
i nfield
Deshutes
Avil
a
Milky W
ay
Brightside
Knightswood
Taylor
Laysan Teal
Ind ianRunner
Jarrow
Old Coach
Pacific
Rock Creek
Ira
Hilmerton
Huntington
Spring Grove
Rifle
M
artha
Krpan
Gregory
Opal
El Dorado
Kramer
Dee
r
Mystic
Luna
Jefferson
Cargill Huddlestone
SettlersRidge
Sevilla
Syke
Wo
odfield
Barley
RainbowTrout
Branch
Blair
Ben Ezra
Palomares
Arling
ton
Graf
Cam
arena
Manza
Haywood
Lindsay
C
Bandori
Sierra
Morena
Himalaya
Solar Flare
Arlene
Len
Halifax
Lake Range
BrandingIron
Elmwoo d
Old Hart Ranch
La Croix
DiamondWoo
ds
Lund
Ferndale
Zien
Tanglewood
Roberts
Lathw
ell
Pullen
Wringer
Sebastian
Lorimer
Cody
Tim
be
rlod
ge
Diamond Oaks
Orland
o
Blue Dog
BentTree
Lip h an
Element
Luminary
Riding Path
Fleming
Venezian
Badovinac
Hawk Crest
Castle
Tahoe
Payson
Sprout
Al
icante
Foothills
Su
nstone
Palatia
Fortuna
Gramp
ian
Hanisch
Dunford
Siggens
GreenGrove
Cordwell
Rozan
RoyalGorge
Bradford
Granite
Lanett
Spa
hnRanch
Wild Oat
Steamboat
Vignolia
Albury
Taggert
Camas
Astill
Hackamore
Serene
Pottiger
Green
for
d
Ivory
Avondale
VistaRidge
Esher
Chuckwagon
South Bluff
Tenby
Whyte
Upper Bank
Parry
Lon
gfellow
Ivan
Tyrolean
Saugus
River Oak
Lorraine
Thoreau
Ash
Johnson Ranch
Grant
Danielle
Lanter n Grove
Carradale
Sea Cliff
Knots
Stavros
Cres
cendo
Ell esm
ere
Retreat
Corin
W
anderlust
Helios
Penhurst
Stonebridg
e
Paiute
Point
Springfield
Miners
Beckett
Pilgrims
Rose Bridge
Silverwire
Camelot
DeltaBreeze
Valentino
Hogan
Audrey
Orvietto
Burwell
Oakdale
Tatiana
Chancellor
Quail
Piedmont
Blakesley
Northstar
Thu
rton
Legacy
Nap
a
Sierra Gardens
Silverhorn
Goldstar
Oak Grove
Devonport
Erickson
Disc overy
Granada
Pass
Patina
Belvedere
Goose Meadows
Radiant Leighham
Cantamar
M
t Rose
Spaulding
Opera
Quartz
Hiawatha
Swing
Borealis
Testarossa
Salmon
C am
pcreek
M
ckinley
Coryton
Marinette
Vista Park
Mockingbird
Fox Trot
Myrtle
HydraDaybreak
Elm
Earl Rush
Wharton
Maidu
Cascade
ChipShot
Parkminster
Grea
tfield
Mission
John
Henry
Locomotive
Lo
ngview
Washoe
Kennerleigh
Hesketh
Marlin
Fifteen Mile
Sinclair
R
ichards
Sidesaddle
Equator
Taurus
Bossa Nova
Va
lley Glen
Justin
Halverson
StoneyPoint
Flint
Falcon
Holly Hill
Starry Night
Swazey
Moondanc er
Charter
Palmerston
Hermitage
Nunzia
Frontier
S
an Carlos
Lakehaven
Lyndhurst
Nettleton
Hickory
Eastwood
Sonata
Hayride
R
hodes
Felton
Orbital
Nantucket
Trolleybell
Windermere
Baroness
Derrylin
Portia
Wabash
Hummingbird
Mcintosh
W
hitstable
Eldmire
Broken Spoke
St
ebbing
Brent Mill
Ivy Bridge
Knapton
Union
Twin Suns
Morice
ScotchPine
Overton
Mansfield
Ri dgerun
W
oodglen
Ironside
Avenida Alvarado
Jet
Copper
Foxrun
Patagonia
M
ammoth
Murray
Brennen
Lost Lake
Asta
ire
H awthorne
Dorrington
B ickleigh
Morels
Grider
Brigh t Star
Ashbury
Stansfield
Fairfield
Keeble
William
Mcrae
Quails Nest
RockyM
ountain
Wyman
Ta marindo
Pe
rretti
Prentiss
Mt Baldy
Sharon
Osterville
Halesworth
Troon
Russell
RyanTaylor
Alnwick
Ro adrunner
Juanita
Garcia
Eckersley
Baldwin
Opportunity
Lu
n ardi
Fort Collins
She
ffiel d
Yuma
Rye
Telluride
Alcott
Canterbury
Petruchio
Ashridge
Barret
Cappas
BeamsleyBagby
Syracuse
Berkshire
Pineschi
Lyne Bay
Shenencock
Bogart
Diam
ondPark
Belle
Lan
cas ter
Vanst on
Earl
Fuhrm
an
Gold M
ine
Luton
Limington
Lyrical
Portside
Ledbury
Pe oria
Knowles
Meeker
Spokane
Chaney
Vitale
Royc r oft
Lee
Barrymore
Haman
M
eado
wvista
M
uirfield
Jesse
Ap
ple Hollow
Mango
W
eston
Wh
ee
lright
H
idalgo
Dragonfly
Carpenter
Beatty
Emerson
Via
Riata
Austen
Rumba
Martinique
Evening
Euclid
Running Wolf
Rigby
Caldarella
Jam
estown
Angelrock
Peters borough
Gilleland
Kinross
Saltmill
Wisteria
Yura
Luciana
Terrawood
Millport
Sawyer
Moraga
Crea
mery
Farm
ing
to n
Estates
Paizano
Fergus
San Esteban
Red Squirrel
Blade
Randolph
App
le
Bernini
VistaVerde
Athan
Lockridg
e
Eriswell
Tr
easure
Dallen
Pistachio
BelAir
Edinburgh
Cicero
Mccloud
Lochness
Acacia
Pratt
Blossom
Hi
ll
Tiffany
Tanager
Raindance
Doulton
Vanney
Breuner
Norfolk
Meadowlark
Pfe
Oriole
Oakwood
Isaac
W
hisperlodge
Sundown
Canberra
Onyx
EagleGlen
Harwood
Cadfael
Ranchland
Creekhollow
D
Glastonbury
Big Brook
Louis
Atessa
Presi dio
Cinnabar
School House
Americana
Chapelhill
Malachite
Shadylane
IceHouse
Mcmindes
Fisc
her
Roberta
Oak Hill
Bridle
Cruxton
Woolston
Hidden Hil ls
Cloud Burs
t
Copperlea
f
Fenton
Bucks
kin
Mccall
Edgemont
George
Cloverdale
Melway
Dawnridge
Allimore
Oakland
Waddell
Viola
Al der Park
Berkeley
Shelly
W
arm Hearth
Tam
arack
Kirkton
Zenith
Palermo
Van Ness
Calabria
Ardmore
Charleston
Melba
Striped Moss
Bramble
Booth
Sutter Buttes
Kyla
Ross
Exit308
Adrienne
Lar iat
Bosbury
Carlina
Camelia
Birch
All America City
Keith
Crosby
Gorgon
Justice Center
Pride
Roma
Industrial
Zodiac
Kinloch
Wrangler
Springdale
Red W
illow
Treese
Ha
nford
Braddock
Ridgeview
Henley
Heredia
Lowdan
Aldridge
Blackstone
Bunker Hill
DuPont
Orlov
Strozzi
Fandango
Cor
field
Walton
Pennell
Toscano
Kent
Caragh
Sandmont
Cressida
Reilly
Melville
Outrigger
Twinwood
Station
Saxony
Dove
Wild wood
Trai lbla
zer
Farmstead
IndigoCreek
Apts
Banbury
Fawn
Rugby
Tilden
Croatia
Dowsby
Shropshi re
Langtree
Fir
PentroPersano
Lytham
Renpoint
Glouster
Encinal
Zeus
Hiddenview
Cindy
Rogue
G
len
wood
Turnberry
Fiddym
ent
Swallow
Matterhorn
Privett
Ridgeside
Calypso
Fitzroy
Larkin
GreatBasin
Bunya
Starboard
Condor
Ch
ippend
al e
Stra
wberrySt ation
Lincoln
Cymb
eline
Silverad o
Ivy
Bla ckheath
Highland
Glenm
ark
Shiveley
Trevor
HammillVoyager
Nokota
Brenton
Halflinger
Park
RidgeCreek
Lilly Cross
Terrazo
Lin ier
Early
Holsteiner
Bolero
Vi ctoria
Arbor
Black Bear
Rundel
Lawton
Poppy
Artemis
W
emberly
Vaughn
Ivy Creek
Herbert
Paddl
ewhe
el
Clina
Herzer
Oakview
Wailea
Royer
Florene
Cedar
Can
dycan
e
Trinity Alps
Waddington
Duranta
Jerome
Sharp
Hurst
Barnside
Reardon
Raleigh
Lanton
Widg
eon
Appers ett
Tiger
Carver
Lowell
Private Street
Dunbar
Sunstream
Chantilly
Vista Grande
Leighton
Laporte
Claiborne
M
osscreek
Fig
Pettigrew
Voltaire
Donnelly
Pe
nstone
Du
Bois
Guava
LostOak
Clarice
Cypress
Concerto
Chelmsford
High
Unity
Pioneer
Stella
Clear
view
GrazzianiAvocado
Republican
Carnation
Gerry
Titan
Freedom
Regency
Barjo
Rowan
Fluxton
Tina
Sebago
Briggs
Shorthorn
Unnamed Street
Sunburst
Kipling
Irene
Berkswell
Gabrielli
Rainier
Marian
Red Leaf
W
inchester
Blue Beaver
Saint P
atrick
Lanai
Belhurst
Nicklaus
Claud
io
Kristou
Dr if tway
Allenwood
Le o
Neriss
a
Toyon
Cardigan
Laurel Crest
Jaffrey
Talmage
Lem
ar
Cardinal
Shearer
Wickenby
Beardsley
Shale
BelleRose
Elisa
Linwood
Kn
owlton
Prestwick
Exit103A
Rockingha
m
P inion
Haviland
Cordovan
DelWebb
Edmonton
Porthill
Crater Lake
E
Moh awk
Lucetta
W
hitefish
La Rue
Windchime
Pipestone
Bu
rrelton
Westhills
Dunsley
Morella
Azure
B
ri dgeway
BigBend
Killdeer
Creekpark
Buckboard
Oak Meadow
Plumber
Crete
Corbridge La sse
n
Sky Watch
Lenka
Pyrite
Ensemble
Kingbird
Adora
Roseto
SutherlandRan
ch
Don
ner
Oliva
Kris
Nevada
Forestdale
Tar rantW
indrush
Starbuck
W
oodg ate
Coibion
Jo Anne
Westpark
Stanford
Ranch
Aco
rn
Glen
Rising M
ist
Kendall
Trinidad
Fidelity
Livingston
Sandley
Culverhill
Frances
Garfield
Beatrice
Thrive
Madden
Chelsea Creek
Wood
Dream Inn
Northam
M
istHill
Duncan
Roxby
Demetrius
Camino Real
Sha nnon
Hollowtop
Pl
easantGrove
Spencer
Lemonade
Albertsons
Treehouse
Luxor
Incline
Northbrook
Swan
F alls
Shaldon
Dempsey
Veterans
Willow
De cker
Markham
Buljan
Sno
w
Goose
BingJubilee
Melody
Clinton
Hilltop
Marseille
Cam
eron Terra
Whiteclover
Skopas
Grape
Macero
Westbrook
Everett
Walcott
Stanford
Hemisphere
Compass Dusk
Rosestone
Farleton
Lysander
Samo
a
W
ood
grove
Expedition
Callawassie
Maple
Woodacre
Ascot
Silkwood
Haystack
Kit C arson
Heirloo
m
Morrison
Michael
Clay Creek
March
Fitzwilliam
Westbrook
Pegasus
Santucci
Donahue
Mead
Puebla
Lilja
OakTree
Maddux
Laneworth
B enton
Ve
rwood
Alyssum
Central Park
Nelson
Bamboo
Elk
Ravine
Conroy
CouncilRock
DeerHollow
Palm
Flamenco
Maes tro
Douglas
Encore
Roc h dale
Mt
Tamalpais
CopeRidge
RollingHills
Oak Trail
Summerwind
Enwoo
d
Finch
Woodhaven
WhisperRidge
Giggs
Duet
Mine
r al Springs
S
omerd ale
Sierra Glen
R
evere
Blue
Olive P o int
C
hadbu
ry
ConferenceCenter
Ch ablis
Oakm
ont
Lockhart
Ajay
Brady
PaseoPenasco
Foxfield
Flagst aff
Smith
Niblick
Rainhi ll
Malta
Fitzge
rald
San ta Fe
LiveOak
Polley
Xavier
Lucy
LandEn d
Earthli ght
Sunset
Colnar
Me ndota
Augusta
Sandlewood
Sa
n Antonio
Plympton
Mule Team
Grov
ewoo
d
Valleywood
PrairieTown
Hartland
HudsonCove
Far
m
gate
Susan
Arrow
Wo
od
Everley
Sa
n Diego
Staxton
Alantown
Parkcrest
Lamar
S hasta Daisy
Exit 309
Gras mere
Barnwood
SomerRidge
S ag Harb or
Panther
Rockr ose
Woodleaf
Robin
Broo
k
Bushy Tail
W aterfordGlen
Exit 307
Exi t 106
Exit 105A
Emerald Oak
Margaret
Bauser
W
iskel
Greywood
Kenroy
Bro okline
PagelPass
Bla
c kbird
Pine
Valley
Yale
Wi ghill
Waterfield
Dante
Commerce
WaterSong
Old
Mill
Terracina
Harrison
Exit 102
Fairway
Iro nwood
Sugar Pine
Julliard
Jennifer
Star Dance
Castle P i nes
Champagne
Exit103B
Spr
ing
Valley
Exit 105B
Exit306B
Southwood
Sienna
Exit 103
Long Creek
Derek
Corporation Yard
Phillip
Exit306A
Event Center
Benchmark
Phillip
Welton
Valley
Oak
Brave
Hawk
Grand
Junc
tion
TuscanGrove
SlateCreek
Apts
RosemeadeAt
Olympus Pointe
Industrial
Area East
Campus Oaks
Stanford
Quail Glen
Highland
Reserve HardingPleasant
Grove
Galleria Creekside
Diamond
Oaks Stoneridge
Woodcreek
Oaks Foothills
Junction
Junction West
Hist. Sierra Vista
Folsom
Road
Lead
Hill
Los Cerritos
Roseville
Heights Olympus
Pointe
Vineyard Johnson Ranch
Maidu
Sierra GardensTheiles
Manor
Hillcrest
Cirby Side
Meadow
Oaks
Cresthaven South
Cirby
Cirby
Ranch
Hilltop
Circle
Stanford Crossing
Kaseberg-Kingswood
Blue
Oaks
Sun
City
Fiddyment Farm
Westpark
Silver
Springs
Cherry Glen
Amoruso
Ranch
Creekview
Solaire
Market SideVista Grande 1
2 34
5 City of Roseville, Maxar
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
´
Legend
Existing City
Council
Districts
Neighborhoods
Streets
Streams
Census Block
District Number
1 2
3 4
5 Total Population Deviation
California Database Adjusted (incarcerated persons reallocation) 2020 Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data Summary Files - Total Population.

Total Population & Deviation Per District
California Database Adjusted 2020 Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data Summary Files - Total Population by Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin.

Total Population by Race/Ethnicity Per District
California Database Adjusted 2015-2019 American Community Survey Citizen Voting-Age Population (CVAP) by Race and Ethnicity Special Tabulation. Rounding of estimates may lead to summation of percentages not equal to 100% (+/- 0.1%).

Citizens of Voting Age Population (CVAP)
by Race/Ethnicity Per District
City of Roseville | Independent Redistricting Commission February 28, 2022
City Council Districts - Final Map
Ideal Population = 29,594
Overall Range = 9.4%

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1976
File #:
0111-01
Title:

Placer Regional Homelessness Project
Contact:

Mark Wolinski 916-774-5179 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 9.2.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff requests the City Council’s comments and perspectives on the draft Placer Regional Homelessness Project – Phase One. (Attachment A).

BACKGROUND
The last assessment of homelessness conducted by Placer County occurred six years ago. Last year, Placer County initiated the Placer Regional Homelessness Task Force to review current efforts regarding homelessness in South Placer. The focus of the project is to undertake a process to develop a regional strategic plan for homelessness. The project began with a series of research and stakeholder engagement activities to help identify gaps, issues and opportunities, and to create a set of potential strategies to address homelessness in South Placer.

Over the course of time since the project began the project team has accomplished the following:
• Placer County homelessness response system review and inventory of services • Best practices research
• Consultations with the regional Continuum of Care, the Placer Law Enforcement Agencies (PLEA), individuals with lived experience of homelessness, service providers, and the local Office of Education, etc.
• Mapping of key amenities for a preliminary housing location analysis • Dialogue among key public agency staff and elected officials, including law enforcement and health care providers
• Convening public safety and legal counsel across the region to discuss potential and aligned responses to the
Martin v. Boise
decision.

Additionally, the process involved a series of meetings with two working groups. The Ad Hoc Group that was comprised of two elected officials from each city in South Placer and the Regional Working Group that consisted of staff from the same cities and selected organizations that work with the homeless community.

The two groups worked independently until a final meeting when the strategies developed, based on the discussions during these meetings, were presented to the Ad Hoc Group for their consideration.

Strategies for consideration arose from an issues and opportunities analysis and best practices research done in the first few months of the project, as well as from discussions among the stakeholders and Regional Working Group members.

Based on the discussions and recommendations during a December 15, 2021, Ad Hoc Group meeting, an additional meeting was held with the group on February 24, 2022, for the purpose of providing the consultant with additional insights and perspectives before the draft report was finalized.

The consultant is meeting with the City Councils of the cities in South Placer to present the draft report and gain input and layout the proposed next phase of the project. Once the meetings have concluded, the consultant will present the draft report, including the insights and perspectives gained from the meetings with the City Councils, to the Placer County Board of Supervisors for their direction regarding Phase 2 of the project.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact associated with this action.

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

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community

Respectfully Submitted,
Mark Wolinski, Government Relations Administrator
Dion Louthan, Assistant City Manager

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Attachment A - Final Placer Homelessness Response Emerging Strategies Phase One Report

March 2022

HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES
PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE ii PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES Phase One Report, March 2022 PREPARED BY PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE iii PREFACE This document was prepared with the assistance of many people who care about those experiencing homelessness, and the impacts homelessness has on our community. We would like to acknowledge the professionals, volunteers and others who provided quantitative and qualitative data to inform this report of homelessness in mid and south Placer County. A list of strategies to advance to the next phase of planning is presented in Section IV. The strategies listed in this document represent a base of ideas for additional analysis and testing, implementation considerations, and community and stakeholder input; they do not represent endorsement of the group of elected officials who took part in this process. A next step will be to present these strategies to the public and listen and respond to their ideas and concerns. Doing so will better help process participants to develop a feasible set of solutions to help Placer to maintain the lowest rate of homelessness in Northern California. Last, even though this first phase was intended to surface overall strategies rather than any specific proposal, participants consistently wondered how The Gathering Inn’s Campus of Hope concept was connected to it. Participants were repeatedly reassured that this process was designed to identify a homeless solutions continuum framework and possible strategies, as opposed to specific initiatives or projects. At the time of this writing, no specific Campus of Hope proposal has been brought before the full Board of Supervisors. County Staff Bekki Riggan, Deputy County Executive, County of Placer Raúl Martínez, Assistant Director of Health and Human Services, County of Placer MIG Consultants Carolyn Verheyen, Principal-in-Charge Lou Hexter, Sr. Project Manager Amanda Luckey, Deputy Project Manager PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE iv Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 1 II. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................... 6 III. GUIDING FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................................. 10 IV. DRAFT STRATEGIES FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION ............................................................................. 12 PREVENTION ............................................................................................................................................................12 CRISIS RESPONSE………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..….16 HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES .............................................................................................................................19 SYSTEM INTEGRATION AND COORDINATION .....................................................................................................................23 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT .........................................................................................................................................25 V. NEXT STEPS .................................................................................................................................. 27 VI. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 28

1 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 1 I. Executive Summary Placer County experiences the lowest rate of homelessness in northern California, the fourth-lowest rate of homelessness in the state overall, and the lowest rate of unsheltered homeless in the state. At the same time homelessness and blight have become more visible due to a variety of factors including judicial rulings and the COVID pandemic, which has created a number of issues from economic stress to health concerns. Addressing homelessness requires a coordinated and steady effort by multiple partners from municipal jurisdictions, the Continuum of Care, community-based organizations, the local business and faith communities, service providers, and County departments over an extended period of time. To expedite progress and address deep-rooted challenges, Placer County and the six cities and town in the region are taking a systemic and practical approach to plan, coordinate, integrate, and fully leverage shared action across sectors and geographies within the mid and south Placer region.

The Placer Regional Homelessness Response project was initiated in July 2021, six years since the last assessment. The process to develop a regional strategic response to homelessness began with a series of research and stakeholder engagement activities to help identify gaps,

2 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 2 issues and opportunities, and to create a set of potential strategies to address these. Over the course of five months, the project team accomplished the following: • Placer County homelessness response system review and inventory of services • Best practices research • Consultations with the regional Continuum of Care, the Placer Law Enforcement Agencies (PLEA), individuals with lived experience of homelessness, service providers, and the local Office of Education, etc. • Mapping of key amenities for a preliminary housing location analysis • Dialogue among key public agency staff and elected officials, including law enforcement and health care providers • Convening public safety and legal counsel across the region to discuss potential and aligned responses to the Martin v. Boise decision. Figure 3: Number of Homeless per 10,000 people (2021) Strategies for consideration arose from the issues and opportunities analysis and best practices research done in the first few months of the project, as well as from discussions among the stakeholders and Regional Working Group1 members. These ideas were brought 1 The Regional Working Group was comprised of representatives from each of the jurisdictions, the local Continuum of Care, along with regional funders

3 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 3 to the Ad Hoc Group2 for deliberation. Support for many of the strategies was contingent on additional analysis, implementation considerations, and community and stakeholder input, which will be the focus in the next phase of this work. Overall Outcome: Maintain the lowest rate of homelessness in Northern California. Prevention Making the experience of homelessness RARE through strategies that address the root causes of homelessness in addition to financial assistance and case management support that prevents individuals and families from ever becoming homeless.* Many prevention strategies (rental assistance, eviction prevention, counseling) are well underway in Placer County, yet sheltering in particular is an important backstop to prevent people from ending up on the streets. 1A. Continue to explore need for emergency shelter in south Placer outside of residential neighborhoods with on-site services or proximate access to services. (Members of the Ad Hoc Group expressed mixed support for this strategy but were generally open to further exploration.) 1B. Renew conditional use permit for North Auburn emergency shelter. (Members of the Ad Hoc Group were largely in favor of this strategy, with many deferring to the North Auburn community for its approval.) 1C. Explore Safe Park and/or Safe Camp locations. (Most members of the Ad Hoc Group were strongly opposed to this strategy.) Crisis Response Making the experience of homelessness as BRIEF as possible through culturally specific programs3 and services that create pathways out of homelessness and into permanent housing. 2A. Expand partnerships between law enforcement and social services for outreach and response. (Members of the Ad Hoc Group were highly supportive of this strategy, pointing to its current success.) 2B. Explore the potential of a Sobering Center (short-term respite and urgent care center for people experiencing intoxication or mental health crises) with appropriate services and support. (Members of the Ad Hoc Group expressed cautious support for this strategy and were interested in further exploration.) 2 The Ad Hoc Group was created as a representative body of elected officials from the Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of each municipality in the region. 3 Culturally Specific programming adapts to the cultures and needs of the individuals and communities served.

4 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 4 Housing and Supportive Services Making the experience of homelessness NON-RECURRING through permanent housing and by advocating for additional affordable housing opportunities. 3A. Explore the possibility of growing the amount of supportive interim housing by converting hotels/motels into interim housing informed by siting criteria. (Members of the Ad Hoc Group were mostly in favor of this strategy and were open to further exploration.) 3B. Resume focus on additional permanent supportive and/or affordable housing and distribute across the region. (Members of the Ad Hoc Group expressed mixed support for this strategy but were generally open to further exploration.) 3C. Adopt Placer County regional housing siting criteria and apply them consistently. (Members of the Ad Hoc Group were largely in favor of this strategy.) 3D. Explore creative solutions for point-to-point transportation. (Members of the Ad Hoc Group expressed mixed support for this strategy but were generally open to further exploration.) System Integration and Coordination Promote and sustain a sense of shared responsibility and clarity of roles. 4A. Evaluate and strengthen Coordinated Entry/211. (The Ad Hoc Group did not discuss this strategy yet did not express reservations in prior meetings.) 4B. Implement regionally-compatible ordinances and law enforcement practices. (The Ad Hoc Group did not discuss this strategy but expressed support in prior meetings.) 4C. Designate an interjurisdictional task force to provide stewardship of, and advocacy for, the Strategic Action Plan. (The Ad Hoc Group did not discuss this strategy yet did not express reservations to it in prior meetings.) Community Engagement Increase public awareness regarding homelessness and possible response strategies. 5A. Create regionally-coordinated, public information around homelessness. (Members of the Ad Hoc Group were largely in favor of this strategy.) Next Steps With this report’s discussion of the benefits and concerns related to these potential desired outcomes and strategies – the first phase of this process draws to a close. In the next few months, many of the stakeholders who have been involved will be invited to continue their participation, as we translate the strategies into specific initiatives. In addition, there will be a broader community dialogue, including presentations to the decision-making bodies in each of the jurisdictions, as well as town-hall-style conversations in both south and mid-Placer with residents and businesses across the region. And throughout this process, there will continue to

5 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 5 be opportunities to get feedback on the plan from people who are currently or previously served by our continuum of care. Ultimately, Placer’s Regional Homelessness Response will identify those strategies and actions that can be pursued in the near-term, including who will be engaged in their implementation, where the funding will come from and in what timeframe there can be measurable progress. It is hoped that all of this will be guided by a shared vision, operating principles, mutually desired outcomes and a commitment to working together to achieve results.

6 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 6 II. Introduction and Overview Placer County experiences the lowest rate of homelessness in northern California, the fourth-lowest rate of homelessness in the state overall, and the lowest rate of unsheltered homeless in the state.4 Over the past five years the region has increased its capacity of beds and services, resulting in a reduction in the rate of chronic homelessness. At the same time homelessness and blight have become more visible due to a variety of factors including the COVID pandemic, which has created a number of issues from economic stress to health concerns. There have been strains on the local shelters as currently configured, and recent court rulings (Martin v. Boise5, in particular) have established the right to camp when insufficient bed options are available. Additionally, some of the unhoused who interface with law enforcement decline services and regularly use costly resources in the health care and criminal justice system. Specifically, they opt for camping or parking on public lands rather than seeking traditional housing and/or shelter. Addressing homelessness requires a coordinated and steady effort by multiple partners from municipal jurisdictions, the Continuum of Care, community-based organizations, the local business and faith communities, service providers, and County departments over an extended period of time. To expedite progress and address deep-rooted challenges, Placer County and the six cities and town in the region are taking a systemic and practical approach to plan, coordinate, integrate, and fully leverage shared action across sectors and geographies within the mid and south Placer region. The Placer Regional Homelessness Response project was initiated in July 2021, six years since the last assessment. It was kicked off by a regional summit that brought together service providers, elected officials, community leaders and agency stakeholders with an interest in addressing the many complex issues of homelessness, including the visible nature of unsheltered homelessness and its impacts as well as community concerns about the siting of homeless housing. The process to develop a regional approach for homelessness began with a series of research and stakeholder engagement activities to help identify gaps, issues and opportunities, and to create a set of potential strategies to address these. To assist in this first phase, the region established three consultative groups: • The Steering Group provided process oversight and guidance. The Regional Working Group – comprised of representatives from each of the jurisdictions, the local 4 National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2020 Edition 5 2018 decision in which the Ninth Circuit held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties on unsheltered homeless persons for sitting, sleeping or lying outside on public property. Martin prohibits jurisdictions from enforcing camping ordinances when the number of homeless individuals in a jurisdiction exceeds the number of available shelter beds.

7 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 7 Continuum of Care, along with regional funders, -- discussed the needs and opportunities, and helped to define the draft strategies from the perspective of front line staff and/or technical experts. • The Ad Hoc Group was created as a representative body of elected officials from the Board of Supervisors and the City Councils of each municipality in the region. These members provided feedback and direction regarding the draft strategies. (Membership lists of each of these groups is provided in Appendix A.) The project team proposed a framework to help describe the impact areas of this strategic response process. This continuum model was adapted from King County (Seattle) and was used to organize the system review and the strategy development process. As shown in the diagram below, the five impact areas are: • Prevention • Crisis Response • Housing (and Supportive Services) • Integrative Programs and Systems • Community Engagement and Support Over the course of five months, the project team accomplished the following: • Placer County homelessness response system review and inventory of services • Best practices research

8 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 8 • Consultations with the regional Continuum of Care, the Placer Law Enforcement Agencies (PLEA), individuals with lived experience of homelessness, service providers, and the local Office of Education, etc. • Mapping of key amenities for a preliminary housing location analysis • Dialogue among key public agency staff and elected officials, including law enforcement and health care providers • Convening public safety and legal counsel across the region to discuss potential and aligned responses to the Martin v. Boise decision • Identification and discussion of potential strategies across the five impact areas There were many issues and opportunities that emerged from the research and discussion. Some of the most significant findings included: • Cross-service teams are an effective means for bringing solutions to the people who need them. • There is a need to focus on the chronically homeless and on those who refuse services; and there is a desire to focus on those with clear ties to Placer. • The region would benefit from a coordinated response to enforcement based on accountability with compassion. • In order to both meet housing demand and support the ability of first responders to enforce public ordinances, there is a need to expand the housing options at all points on the spectrum – emergency, interim and permanent supportive.

9 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 9 • There is a need to provide more options for people who do not meet current entrance requirements for sheltering and other services. • To promote coordination in locating housing it would be useful to get cross-jurisdictional agreement on a set of guiding criteria. • The development of any Regional Homelessness Action Plan must involve conversations with residents and businesses – about the unhoused members of their communities and the programs, services and facilities that are in place, and how they operate – and to understand community concerns and goals. These themes led to the development of potential strategies that were discussed and evaluated by the stakeholder groups. The list of proposed strategies advancing to the next phase of planning is presented in Section IV. It is important to note that not all strategies received consensus support from the Ad Hoc Group. The initial focus of the next phase of the process will be to listen and respond to community concerns and goals regarding homelessness, so that elected officials across the region can make the decisions necessary to take action that will help Placer to maintain the lowest rate of homelessness in northern California.

10 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 10 III. Guiding Framework The following foundational elements (Desired Outcomes, Vision and Guiding Principles) were presented and discussed at various times throughout the process. While needing additional collaborative revision, these elements will eventually represent a shared approach to addressing homelessness in the region, as embraced by residents, businesses and local officials. Draft Desired Outcomes Based on research and conversations with stakeholders, the process participants propose an initial set of measurable outcomes for the region’s homelessness response, organized along the five impact areas. The priority actions developed in this phase, combined with those identified in later phases, will have significant impact in these areas, as Placer moves to a more coordinated and effective system of facilities, programs, services and supports. A key step in the Phase 2 will be linking these outcome statements to data sources and developing a plan to track systematically. Overall Outcome: Maintain the lowest rate of homelessness in Northern California. Prevention / Crisis Response 1. Decreased number of people becoming homeless for the first time 2. Increased number of Veterans connected with resources they are entitled to 3. More timely progression from assessment to referral to placement for individuals experiencing homelessness (E.g.: Assessment within 48 hours; referral within 72 hours; placement within 7 days) 4. Bed/placement/service provided for all those striving to advance out of homelessness, regardless of their sobriety, mental health, or criminal record Housing and Supportive Services 1. Increased number of people transitioning from emergency placements to permanent homes 2. Decreased number experiencing unsheltered homelessness 3. Increased number of placements for people experiencing domestic violence, human trafficking, and sexual assault System Integration and Coordination 1. Consistent understanding and application of Martin v. Boise across the county 2. Integrated response among front-line/first responders (law and fire) on ordinances related to camping/parking

11 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 11

3. Regular communication and collaboration between the local elected officials, law enforcement agencies, county office of education, the Continuum of Care and other partners to implement the strategic action plan Community Engagement and Support 1. Progress toward addressing homelessness as described by key influencers and policymakers 2. Increased number of articles, editorials and/or survey results indicating support or a sense of shared responsibility for implementing homelessness solutions 3. Increased involvement in employment and training programs by local employers 4. Increased landlord participation in housing vouchers The following draft statements were presented to the Ad Hoc group, following expressed support from the RWG. The Ad Hoc group did not reach consensus on these elements, preferring to gather feedback from their constituents prior to formally adopting any final vision statements or guiding principles. Draft Vision Statement “We in Placer County seek to make homelessness rare, brief and non-recurring by supporting our unhoused community members in a coordinated system of care as they work towards self-sustaining futures.” Draft Guiding Principles A. We work to influence the behaviors and environments that can lead people down the path of homelessness, improving people’s dignity and safety, while keeping people off the streets. B. Solutions and services need to be data-driven and human-centered, based on each particular context, as we recognize that not all situations are alike. C. We are committed to compassion with accountability: our success will depend on the integration of new housing solutions, supportive services and compatible approaches to enforcement. D. By providing additional housing options, we can help provide safety and order for our whole community in addition to meeting the needs of our neighbors who are unhoused. E. We create and implement solutions with a commitment to shared responsibility, while respecting the autonomy of each jurisdiction and the need for flexibility and tailoring of approaches.

12 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 12 IV. Draft Strategies for Future Discussion Strategies developed for consideration arose from the issues and opportunities analysis and best practices research done in the first few months of the project, as well as from discussions among the stakeholders and Regional Working Group members. These ideas were brought to the Ad Hoc Group for deliberation. Support for many of the strategies was contingent on additional analysis, implementation considerations, and community and stakeholder input. In the section below, the draft strategies are presented within each of the five impact areas. There is a background narrative describing the strategy, including benefits and concerns often articulated about it, and in some cases where this strategy has been implemented and with what results. There is also a summary of the Ad Hoc Group’s comments related to each strategy, focused on the level of support expressed. Prevention Making the experience of homelessness RARE through strategies that address the root causes of homelessness in addition to financial assistance and case management support that prevents individuals and families from ever becoming homeless.6 1A. Continue to explore need for emergency shelter in south Placer outside of residential neighborhoods with on-site services or proximate access to services. Members of the Ad Hoc Group expressed mixed support for this strategy but were generally open to further exploration. Background The only shelter model in south Placer is nomadic, meaning it moves from location to location. Yet, the highest concentration of unsheltered individuals occurs in south Placer zip codes. A new emergency shelter in this area would place temporary housing closer to where the majority of homeless people are currently located. It could be established with the same operational parameters as the mid-Placer shelter, or it could include more expansive inclusion criteria consistent with a lower barrier shelter. The following paragraphs describe the low-barrier approach to emergency shelter. Cities of all sizes throughout the country regularly turn away homeless individuals and families from emergency shelter beds because of requirements or rules of shelters that determine who can enter. These barriers can operate to keep cause unsheltered people to remain on the street. 6 Some of these strategies (rental assistance, eviction prevention, counseling) are well underway, yet sheltering in particular is an important backstop to prevent folks from ending up on the streets.

13 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 13 Eligibility Criteria that people must meet to receive shelter can include: • sobriety (on-site breathalyzers and drug screens); • strict curfews; • admission dependent on chapel or class attendance; • mandatory program participation; • background checks; • income requirements and verification; • criminal records; • credit checks; and • required labor participation. Remaining on the streets leaves homeless people at increased risk of exposure, violence and theft. Some communities have decided to implement low-barrier or “come as you are” shelters. Although many low-barrier shelters have different criteria to make shelter beds and services more accessible, some have chosen to create a shelter policy to prohibit the possession and use of drugs, alcohol and weapons in its facilities. There is often also an expectation that guests obey the law and behave in a manner that is respectful, non-threatening and not overly disruptive. For the most part, all rules are stripped down to health and safety considerations. Benefits Low-barrier shelters will allow people to gain access to safe housing who would otherwise remain on the streets or camping on public lands. People who have the highest needs can often lose shelter beds due to non-compliance issues. On a policy level, although not having a low barrier shelter isn’t non-compliant on its face, the existence of low-barrier beds may well allow the county to remain in compliance with the 2018 ruling in Martin v. City of Boise which prohibited law enforcement from criminalizing “behavior consistent with the eighth amendment when no sleeping space is practically available in any shelter.” Concerns Some argue that a low barrier shelter might not feel safe and welcoming to those who are in recovery. Additionally, it may be harder to enforce expectations around respectful behavior, especially actions that result in violence or theft. It might be challenging to re-train staff to have a shared understanding about which behaviors are a safety issue and which behaviors are a behavior management issue. Finally, low barrier shelters may experience community resistance due to perceptions of lack of safety, particularly if they allow 24/7 access to enter and exit the premises. Potential Funding opportunities • Emergency Solutions Grant (HUD) • https://www.bezosdayonefund.org/day1familiesfund

14 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 14 1B. Renew conditional use permit for North Auburn emergency shelter. Members of the Ad Hoc Group were largely in favor of this strategy, with many deferring to the North Auburn community for its approval. Background The Gathering Inn-Mid Placer is a 100-bed emergency housing and services program located at the Placer County Government Center in North Auburn. The Mid Placer shelter accommodates Placer County residents 18 years or older, who must be clean and sober and have no history of sexual related crimes. It is monitored 24/7 by at least three staff at any given time. Four full-time Case Managers work with guests to identify and work through barriers to housing, such as the need for increased income or access to continued education. Case Managers provide follow-up support for up to one year in an effort to reduce recidivism to homelessness. Mid Placer provides basic needs such as a safe and secure campus, necessities such as clean clothing and bedding, shower facilities, and 3 meals per day. They also offer life skills courses, drug and alcohol recovery meetings, and additional groups intended to help individual development and support the move from homelessness to housing. Benefits The shelter’s current location is on County-owned property and is close to a number of County-sponsored services. It is also easier to continue the operations of a shelter that is already in operation than to begin an entirely new project. The existing emergency shelter has been part of the collection of strategies that have combined to help Placer County maintain the lowest rate of unsheltered homelessness in California. Concerns A conditional use permit is needed because a homeless shelter is not a permitted use under the site's commercial zoning. Some community members have expressed concern about negative impacts to the neighborhoods, emphasizing the site’s proximity to schools. Although many agree that the internal management of the Mid Placer shelter has improved over the last several years, the increase of people camping out around the Placer County Government Center in and around the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a corresponding increase in community complaints, most notably that the government center feels unsafe and unsanitary. 1C. Explore Safe Park and/or Safe Camp locations Most members of the Ad Hoc Group were strongly opposed to this strategy but a small number would entertain limited exploration, particularly if requested by community members.

15 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 15 Background The first Safe Parking pilot was launched in Santa Barbara in 2004, when a counseling center partnered with city officials and faith leaders to open up parking lots each night for homeless families living out in their vehicles and to connect them to a continuum of care and housing. In the past, some safe parking lots that were too large or poorly run did not have positive outcomes. However, as expertise grew, safe parking lots have been successful, especially when specific protocols are followed (as to number of vehicles, security, neighborhood engagement, etc.). Safe Parking Programs utilize existing public or privately owned parking infrastructure to provide vehicle residents with a safe, reliable, and legal place to park. Lots can be for RVs, exclude RVs, or include both RVs and other vehicles. Some safe parking lots are very large and others are quite small (less than 10 vehicles). Over time, providers have learned that smaller lots with case management and security are more optimal than other choices. In Santa Barbara, a driver’s license, vehicle registration, and vehicle insurance are required to enroll in the shelter component of the program. In addition, they also offer rapid rehousing services and other housing assistance services to community members through the program, having transitioned nearly 1,000 program participants into permanent housing since 2004. They operate the Safe Parking Program in cooperation with numerous local churches, governmental and nonprofit agencies, and businesses, and their program has served as a model for dozens of communities throughout the country. They have created a Safe Parking Program Manual that is a guide created for other communities seeking to begin their own program to assist the vehicular homeless. The manual outlines best practices, challenges, tips, and “pearls of wisdom.” There is also an extensive three-day training program. Another Safe Park Program in Boulder, CO identified the following best practices: ● Robust community engagement; ● Location in a parking lot of a faith-based venue with nonprofit management; ● Safe parking for about eight to ten (8-10) vehicles; ● Transitional housing plan for each person with case management ; ● Onsite security; ● No RV’s (for this pilot); ● Cost free for parking participants; ● Specific minimum amenities; ● Anticipated outcome of at least 75% residents achieving stabilized housing within two years; ● Focus on particular population of unhoused individuals (with vehicles) that currently aren’t eligible, aren’t able to reside in shelters, or don’t fare well in shelters – i.e. older adults, couples, small families, single parents, people with specific medical conditions that make group situations difficult, or people with support animals;

16 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 16 ● Complements Housing First strategies Benefits A person’s vehicle can represent a personal refuge: the last remaining link to a sense of privacy, stability, and personal autonomy. Adequate shelters are also commonly inaccessible to vehicle residents because there is no place to leave the vehicle. For many, their vehicle is their home. Unfortunately, many parking restrictions effectively banish vehicle residents from parking in many locations. Often, vehicle residents are unable to pay for citations, which then evolve into criminal infractions. Other laws commonly allow for the impoundment of a vehicular home, forcing vehicle residents to endure even greater trauma on the street. And, contrary to the beliefs of critics, there is no data to suggest that safe parking incentivizes homelessness. Rather, safe parking catches individuals using vehicles before they slip into abject homelessness. In fact, data indicates a high rate of safe parking participants transitioning into stable housing with a rate of 65-70% that may be higher than most shelter rates.7 Other potential positive impacts of a Safe Park include the following: ● Can reduce fire hazards and poor water quality conditions. ● Unsafe structures, open flames, and the proliferation of trash can be regulated. ● Protects parks and greenspaces from improper use ● Provides monitored area for people who cannot/will not access shelter and/or will not abandon vehicles ● Protects neighborhoods with limited parking ● Provides a new shelter model without any financial commitment from City/County ● Makes visible a previously invisible population and connects them with services ● Increases the safety of parking lot participants and neighborhoods ● Increases opportunity for successful transition to affordable housing because people are able to get a good night’s sleep and maintain personal hygiene vital to successful employment ● Demonstrates solid success in transitioning unhoused individuals into permanent housing with case management/supportive services. Safe parking program provides connecting links to available services. ● Provides a gap service that complements a Housing First approach with no additional City financial commitment. Concerns In locations that already have initiated Safe Park Programs, opponents often report that safety is their primary concern. The biggest bone of contention is background checks, as critics argue 7 https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/4171/download?inline

17 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 17 that all participants should be subject to criminal background checks before they can join in the safe lot program as anything less would jeopardize the safety of nearby residents. Neighboring residents aren't worried about whether the person has a record of misdemeanors or property crimes; they are primarily interested in knowing whether the participant is a violent felon or a sex offender. Communities also frequently voice worries about operational challenges, as comprehensive background checks could potentially be expensive and time-consuming to conduct. Other critics claim that it’s not the people admitted into the Safe Parking Program who concern them; it's those who are turned away and end up making neighborhood streets their home. Crisis Response Making the experience of homelessness as BRIEF as possible through culturally specific programs and services that create pathways out of homelessness and into permanent housing. 2A. Expand partnerships between law enforcement and social services for outreach and response Members of the Ad Hoc Group were highly supportive of this strategy, pointing to its current success. Background In Placer County, the Homeless Liaison Team is coordinated by the Placer County Sheriff's Office, Probation, and Health & Human Services. The Team is assigned to different areas throughout the County, where they work with HHS and The Gathering Inn to help find shelter and provide resources for the homeless. The City of Roseville Police Dept. Social Services Unit (SSU) also works with a Social Worker to locate and secure services available to homeless individuals, including identifying shelters to provide services and referrals to identify mental health services and finding family connections to attempt reunification. Expansion of this partnership would provide more resources for mobile assessment and mobile services, such as the renovated bookmobile, that will also include a mobile court. Benefits A pre-booking diversion program directs those arrested for low-level drug and other offenses away from prosecution and incarceration and toward intensive, trauma-informed case management and support, often including counseling, housing, and drug treatment. These types of programs provide law enforcement and other related agencies with an option outside of the formal criminal justice system in response to those dealing with substance abuse and mental health issues, homelessness, and extreme poverty. The presence of a trained practitioner or social worker can greatly increase the engagement outcomes in contrast to what is possible with law enforcement alone.

18 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 18 Concerns Any additional programs would incur more costs, for both training and ongoing implementation. Additionally, much of the staff time spent in this popular model is not billable to health insurance and/or other state and federal funding sources that fund most behavioral health and social services. Inter-agency partnerships might also incur complications with respect to decision making authority and communications. 2B. Explore the potential of a Sobering Center (short-term respite and urgent care center for people experiencing intoxication or mental health crises) with appropriate services and support. Members of the Ad Hoc Group expressed cautious support for this strategy and were interested in further exploration. Background A sobering center is a short-term care facility that operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to allow individuals who are intoxicated and nonviolent to safely recover from the debilitating effects of alcohol or drugs. Sobering centers are designed to be short term, as they have lengths of stay ranging from four to just under 24 hours, which makes them separate and distinct from two other kinds of alcohol-related care facilities: detoxification centers, which support individuals in the gradual and complete cessation of alcohol consumption over a period of days, and sober living houses, which provide a group residential setting for those in recovery and abstinent from drugs and alcohol. While at the sobering center, clients are monitored regularly for negative effects of intoxication, including alcohol poisoning and drug overdose. A primary goal of sobering centers is to help connect clients to other community services providing care for substance use, mental health, or stabilization. Sobering programs provide safe environments and critical access to a range of community health services for at-risk populations, while relieving pressure on both the emergency medical system and law enforcement by diverting rapidly growing numbers of intoxicated adults from emergency rooms and jail. Benefits The role of a sobering center in helping provide care for those with comorbid homelessness and substance use, therefore, cannot be overstated. Practical, onsite interventions to improve quality of life can include shower and hygiene facilities, clean clothing, delousing care and medication, laundry, food, and oral rehydration. Care coordination services may include peer navigation, case management, and referrals to shelter or housing. Best Practices: • A compassionate, streamlined service model which minimizes barriers such as paperwork, eligibility requirements, and complex intake processes.

19 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 19 • Around-the-clock staffing and services that allow sobering centers to provide an immediate response to individuals in crisis while facilitating timely communication with other service and referral partners. • The ability to be flexible and pivot to meet the specific needs of individuals as well as the community at large has been cited as important for sobering centers. Concerns Sobering centers can bring up a worldview conflict surrounding the root cause of addiction, especially in regards to how to best care for a person who is publicly intoxicated or under the influence. Some argue that placement in a jail cell is a more appropriate response, as managing people under the influence of unknown substances takes a lot of resources and can be dangerous. Critics of Sobering Centers argue that they are places without financial or legal consequences which potentially enable problematic or illegal behavior. Others worry that most Sobering Center patients won’t pursue additional help either from a treatment or rehabilitation program, resulting in costly expenditure without long-lasting results. Potential Funding sources: ● Medi-Cal ● Proposition 47 ● No Zip Code Left Behind ● Proposition 63 (the Mental Health Services Act) ● Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Source: https://www.chcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/SoberingCentersExplainedInnovativeSolutionAcuteIntoxication.pdf Housing and Supportive Services Making the experience of homelessness NON-RECURRING through permanent housing and by advocating for additional affordable housing opportunities. 3A. Explore the possibility of growing the amount of supportive interim housing by converting hotels/motels into interim housing informed by siting criteria. Members of the Ad Hoc Group were mostly in favor of this strategy and were open to further exploration. Background Though it takes many forms, transitional housing or supportive interim housing broadly refers to temporary housing for different segments of the homeless population or those experiencing a crisis. Certain types of transitional housing might focus on different populations, such as those experiencing domestic violence, mental health challenges, suffering from drug addiction, or experiencing temporary homelessness. Transitional housing

20 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 20 intends to equip people with the tools, structure, and support they need to re-enter permanent housing and be successful in their futures. While specific lengths of stays at transitional housing facilities vary, they are intended to be temporary solutions that can help people transition from homelessness or another crisis into permanent housing. Lengths of stays at transitional housing facilities range from a couple of weeks to a few years. Currently, Project Homekey provides an opportunity for state, regional, and local public entities to develop a broad range of transitional/interim and/or permanent housing types, including but not limited to hotels, motels, hostels, single- family homes and multifamily apartments, adult residential facilities, and manufactured housing, and converting commercial properties and other existing buildings. Benefits Transitional housing is intended to bridge the gap from a crisis — such as abuse or homelessness — into permanent housing. Typically, transitional housing is more private than other emergency homeless shelters. Transitional housing’s goal is to offer a safe space in which people can process their trauma, work on the issues that led to their homelessness, and build a supportive network that will help them in the future. Project Homekey is an innovative way to repurpose existing buildings and expand the supply of affordable housing needed to bring people indoors and provide the necessary services to help solve their homelessness. A key benefit of this program is that it doesn’t require building entirely new facilities. An additional positive aspect of this strategy is that there is ample state and federal funding available to support it. Concerns One key concern is that the funding is not guaranteed. The county will have to apply for the funding. The Project Homekey Round 2 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) was released on September 9, 2021, and the Project Homekey Round 2 Application was made available in late September 2021. Completed applications will be accepted on a rolling basis until funds are exhausted or May 2, 2022, whichever comes first. Additional concerns are community resistance to the siting of the interim housing location 3B. Resume focus on additional permanent supportive and/or affordable housing and distribute across the region. Members of the Ad Hoc Group expressed mixed support for this strategy but were generally open to further exploration.

21 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 21 Background Of those currently staying in an emergency shelter, about 50% are ready for a housing option immediately.8 On any given day there are between 125 to 150 people in an emergency shelter, meaning between 63 and 75 are ready for an immediate housing option.9 Of those who are unsheltered, about 25% are ready for a housing option.10 During the 2021 homeless count, 328 people were designated as unsheltered, meaning about 80 would be ready for a non-shared permanent supportive housing option. A successful Homekey award should put a sizable dent in this number. Currently Placer County has scattered Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) and affordable housing sites which has been successfully maintained for 20 years. No permanent supportive housing (PSH) has been purchased in over a year. The community will need to resume such purchases or risk regressing on some of the outcomes identified through this process, such maintaining the lowest rate of homelessness in Northern California. The question of where to locate any new housing sites remains one of the biggest questions to answer, although it appears that there is the highest level of support for placing any new PSH out of residential neighborhoods (either in rural areas or near homeless resources). Placer County, similar to the state as a whole, has had an ongoing affordable housing shortage. Nearly 40% of all households are housing cost burdened in unincorporated Placer County. Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) clients can make use of a voucher to subsidize their housing. Typically, residents must pay between 30 and 50% of their income and/or must qualify for a voucher or subsidy either through: mental health status, disability, income level, and/or involvement in a program that offers vouchers based on veteran status, family status/ income, etc. In 2020-21, 246 people resided in permanent supportive housing units in 2020-21, a 6% increase over the previous fiscal year. Placer County Housing coordinators helped 53 people move into permanent supportive housing, a 12% decrease over the previous fiscal year. These declines were likely due to a combination of workforce challenges and reduced housing availability brought on by the eviction moratorium. Benefits In addition to reducing the bottleneck in the Continuum of Care in which people who are ready for housing are not able to find any vacancies, increasing the supply of permanent supportive and affordable housing may prevent Placer County from facing harsher penalties from the State’s new policies aimed at cities who fail to meet their development targets. 8 Data source: Placer County Adult System of Care, 2021 9 Ibid 10 Data Source: Placer County Adult System of Care, 2021

22 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 22 Concerns Housing developments are costly, both in time and financial resources. There are additional potential barriers in terms of prohibitive zoning regulations and community opposition, especially the permanent supportive housing is sited in residential neighborhoods and includes single men rather than families. 3C. Adopt Placer County regional housing siting criteria and apply them consistently. Members of the Ad Hoc Group were largely in favor of this strategy. Background Opposition to housing developments tends to revolve around similar arguments including increased crime, decreased property values, greater infrastructure strain and compromising the character of the neighborhood. When there is a perception that proponents of a housing project are dismissive of concerns or withholding information, this can intensify opposition and create feelings of mistrust. Therefore, it is important for projects to listen and be responsive to community concerns. One of the key ways that Placer County can address potential concerns with respect to housing projects is to adopt regionally consistent housing siting criteria and share those criteria with residents and community members. Benefits Local opposition to the siting of homeless housing and services often creates costly obstacles to the provision of more housing and services for homeless people. It is important to adopt a regionally consistent approach to the development of housing siting criteria to foster community acceptance, allowing developers/sponsors of homeless and housing services to obtain funding and land-use approvals with fewer delays and reduced development costs. The regionally consistent criteria must respond to the legitimate concerns of the local community, while supporting the needs of both current and prospective residents. If each city uses different criteria, it will create challenges in the framing and implementation of an effective regional communications strategy. Concerns Each city in the county, regardless of how close in location, has a unique culture with particular needs, and there is a potential that the emphasis on regional coordination will not allow for the nuance necessary for each jurisdictional context. Care will need to be taken to make sure that cities do not feel that their autonomy and responsibility to advocate for their own residents is threatened or overlooked in the efforts to create a shared regional approach.

23 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 23 3D. Explore creative solutions for point-to-point transportation. Members of the Ad Hoc Group expressed mixed support for this strategy but were generally open to further exploration. Background Some of the unhoused people in Placer County have reported that it can take up to an entire day to travel to and from appointments or to the grocery store, due to transportation limitations. Point to Point transportation would allow more flexibility in siting new housing locations while still guaranteeing people can access necessary goods and services. Existing programs in other cities11 provide clients rides to places such as medical appointments, labs, pharmacies, the DMV, the post office and other locations. Benefits Mobility gives people independence. Point to point transportation is particularly helpful for those individuals who are physically or cognitively unable to ride public transportation. Additionally, these types of programs make sure that even those who are isolated, don't have a vehicle or can’t access a computer can still get their needs met. Concerns The biggest issue with this type of program is the cost and coordination of operations. There is also concern that it would be redundant to provide this kind of service, and it might be better to support the public transit that already exists rather than starting new programs. System Integration and Coordination Promote and sustain a sense of shared responsibility and clarity of roles. 4A. Evaluate and strengthen Coordinated Entry/211. The Ad Hoc Group did not discuss this strategy yet did not express reservations in prior meetings. Background The Coordinated Entry System (CES) is an assessment process designed to quickly identify, assess, refer, and connect people in crisis to housing and assistance no matter where they initially ask for help. It is a shared tool that is used by homeless programs working collaboratively within a community to match people experiencing homelessness to the most appropriate housing and services. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires all projects funded under Continuums of Care (CoC) to utilize CES. CES integrates Housing First, Harm Reduction, and Trauma Informed Care approaches into its housing and 11 See examples in Filling the Gap: Volunteer Transportation Programs (https://www.sacog.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/filling_the_gap_- _a_guide_to_volunteer_transportation_programs.pdf?1573582397)

24 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 24 supportive services. In Placer County, the Homeless Management Information System provides a coordinated platform for multiple agencies to assess and serve unhoused people. All 30 participating agencies can be found here. Benefits CES is meant to help people move through the system faster by reducing the amount of time they spend moving from one program to another before finding the right match. It can also reduce homelessness by offering prevention and diversion services upfront when that is the most appropriate solution, rather than entering the homelessness system. Like all programs, Placer County’s Coordinated Entry program would benefit from periodic process and outcome evaluation in order to make continuous modifications and improvements. Concerns One substantial concern is the lack of clarity of who should take on the evaluation of the CES, as well as questions around where additional funding to undertake the process will be sourced. 4B. Implement regionally-compatible ordinances and law enforcement practices. The Ad Hoc Group did not discuss this strategy but expressed support in prior meetings. Background There are different approaches to defining and enforcing camping and sit/lie/sleep ordinances across the region. These differences can create a situation in which unhoused individuals will gravitate to the community with the most lenient restrictions. The recent Martin v. Boise legislation created some judicial opinion about the legality of no-camping ordinances; but it also left many questions unanswered. Benefits Having a consistent, or at least coordinated, approach to these no-camping ordinances will allow Placer County to respond uniformly to the parameters of the Martin v. Boise decision. It will also make sure that each city is better able to leverage their existing resources in partnership with neighboring cities. Concerns Similar to the conversation around a regional approach to adopting housing siting criteria, each city in the county, regardless of how close in location, has a unique culture with particular needs and there is a potential that the emphasis on regional coordination will not allow for the nuance necessary for each jurisdictional context. Care will need to be taken to make sure that cities do not feel that their autonomy and responsibility to advocate for their own residents is threatened or overlooked in the efforts to create a shared regional approach.

25 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 25 4C. Designate an interjurisdictional task force to provide stewardship of, and advocacy for, the Strategic Action Plan. The Ad Hoc Group did not discuss this strategy yet did not express reservations to it in prior meetings. Background A plan is only good if it is successfully implemented. After a path forward is agreed upon, the stakeholders must also delegate the implementation roles responsibilities for each component of the strategic action items. Benefits Everyone will benefit if there is clarity and accountability with respect to making sure that the actions are followed through in a timely and efficient manner. Concerns The follow through on the plan will take additional time and resources, both for ongoing meetings and for potential new roles or added workloads for existing positions. There is also concern that the people tasked with moving the plan forward might not have the authorizing authority or funding access needed to make key decisions, especially with mandates that exist across different jurisdictions and dependent on multiple funding sources. Community Engagement Increase public awareness, understanding and support regarding homelessness and the response strategies. 5A. Create regionally-coordinated, public information around homelessness. Members of the Ad Hoc Group were largely in favor of this strategy. Background How we talk about addressing homelessness in our communities matters. But while researchers and practitioners have been developing significant evidence around what works programmatically and systemically, we often don’t employ the most effective ways to talk about the work in order to inform individuals and communities about our efforts. That means we need all our communication to clearly broadcast why we do what we do—to talk openly about how actions align with our proposed outcomes.

26 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 26 Additionally, the people we are trying to engage in this work need to see themselves in the stories in order for them to understand and connect with their own roles. Stories need to be told about what addressing homelessness has meant to landlords, small business owners, and police officers, along with the many other champions and potential champions in our communities. Most people don’t understand how a variety of federal, state, and local policies affect housing stability and homelessness. As a result, some may overestimate the connection between individual choices and homelessness or that there is nothing public agencies can do to prevent and end homelessness. In order to inform the community, regional stakeholders should develop a unified communications so that we can be sure that everyone has access to the same information and facts. Benefits To build momentum for change, it is necessary to connect all the dots of how our policy decisions affect individuals in ways that might push them into homelessness or make it difficult for them to exit homelessness. And we need to describe what would happen if those policy decisions changed. For example, when growing communities create new jobs, but housing development fails to keep up with the demand, lower-wage workers and retirees get priced out of the market, often with no place to go. For our neighborhoods to be vibrant, prosperous places where all people can thrive, we must make sure that local land use policies allow the supply of housing to keep up with demand. This intentional, collective approach can respond to community concerns or hone our strategic actions. Concerns An overly slick or uncomplicated public relations campaign can have the opposite effect of that which was intended, leading community members to feel insulted, ignored or manipulated. It is important that all communications remain honest and straightforward while resisting the temptation to simplify the issue or gloss over any controversial points. An additional concern might be that each city will want to have their own communication style and approach.

27 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 27 V. Next Steps With this report’s discussion of the benefits and concerns related to these potential desired outcomes and strategies – the first phase of this process draws to a close. In the next few months, many of the stakeholders who have been involved will be invited to continue their participation as we translate the strategies into specific initiatives. In addition, there will be a broader community dialogue, including presentations to the decision-making bodies in each of the jurisdictions, as well as two town-hall-style conversations in both south and mid-Placer with residents and businesses across the region. And throughout this process, there will continue to be opportunities to get feedback on the emerging strategies from people who are currently or previously served by our continuum of care. Ultimately, Placer’s Regional Homelessness Response will identify those strategies and actions that can be pursued in the near-term, including who will be engaged in their implementation, where the funding will come from and in what timeframe there can be measurable progress. It is hoped that all of this will be guided by a shared vision, operating principles, mutually desired outcomes and a commitment to working together to achieve those outcomes. Communities across the U.S. are struggling with how to address the multi-faceted issues that contribute to homelessness; and Placer shares many of those struggles. But the region also has a robust and vital network of social services, health care and law enforcement programs to meet these challenges. And there are significant and time-sensitive funding programs to support many of the strategies. Clearly, this is a time of great need and great opportunity. In pursuing a strategic homelessness response, Placer will be positioned to strengthen its homelessness response and make a difference in the lives of many mid- and south-Placer residents.

28 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 28 VI. Appendices Appendix A: Rosters of Stakeholder Groups Convened in Phase One of the Regional Homelessness Response Process Appendix B: Summary of Existing Conditions Appendix C: Preliminary Mapping of Homelessness Services and Resources Appendix D: Preliminary Mapping of Housing Locations Near Priority Amenities

29 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 29 Appendix A: Rosters of Stakeholder Groups Convened in Phase One of the Regional Homelessness Response Process Steering Group Members Bekki Riggan, Deputy Executive Officer County of Placer [email protected] Raúl Martínez, Assistant Director, Health and Human Services County of Placer [email protected] Dr. Robert Oldham, Director of Health and Human Services, Interim Health Officer, Chief Psychiatrist County of Placer [email protected] Aly Zimmermann, City Manager City of Rocklin [email protected] | www.rocklin.ca.us Dion Louthan, Assistant City Manager City of Roseville [email protected] Scott Thurmond, Continuum of Care Coordinator [email protected] Kristine L. Mollenkopf, City Attorney City of Lincoln [email protected] Mark Wolinski, Government Relations Administrator City of Roseville [email protected]

30 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 30 Regional Working Group Members First Name Last Name Jurisdiction/Organization Position Todd Leopold Placer County County Executive Officer Shayne Wright Placer Co Sheriff’s Office Captain Robert Oldham Homeless Resource Council of the Sierras Health and Human Services Director, Interim Health Officer, Chief Psychiatrist Amy Ellis HRCS HHS Adult System of Care Deputy Director Scott Thurmond HRCS Continuum of Care Coordinator Suzanne Acrell HRCS Housing Analyst Aldo Pineschi Independent Consultant Ryan Loofbourrow Sutter Health Government Affairs Manager Brian Heller de Leon Kaiser Permanente Public Affairs Director Veronica Blake Placer Community Fndtn Chief Executive Officer Dion Louthan Roseville Assistant City Manager Mark Wolinski Roseville Government Relations Administrator Troy Bergstrom Roseville Police Chief Aly Zimmermann Rocklin City Manager Trent Jewell Rocklin Police Captain Kristine Mollenkopf Lincoln City Attorney Matt Alves Lincoln Police Chief John Donlevy, Jr. Auburn City Manager Ryan Kinnan Auburn Police Chief Sean Rabé Loomis Town Manager Wes Heathcock Colfax City Manager Bekki Riggan Placer County Deputy County Executive Officer Raúl Martínez Placer County Health and Human Services Assistant Director

31 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 31 Ad Hoc Group Members First Name Last Name Jurisdiction/ Organization Position Bonnie Gore Placer County Supervisor Jim Holmes Placer County Supervisor Morgan Gire Placer County District Attorney Krista Bernasconi Roseville Mayor Bruce Houdeshelt Roseville Vice Mayor Jill Gayaldo Rocklin Mayor Bill Halldin Rocklin Vice Mayor Alyssa Silhi Lincoln Mayor Paul Joiner Lincoln Council Member Matt Spokely Auburn Mayor Daniel Berlant Auburn Council Member Jennifer Knisley Loomis Mayor Pro Tempore Danny Cartwright Loomis Council Member Marnie Mendoza Colfax Council Member Trinity Burruss Colfax Mayor Pro Tem

32 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 32 Appendix B: Summary of Existing Conditions In the first two months of the process, the project team conducted a review of the current system of services and resources in the mid- and south-Placer region, along with a survey of best practices with respect to homelessness response around California and the nation. The results of those studies were presented in the Existing Conditions Report (MIG, September 2021, available upon request). The following is an executive summary of that report. A Snapshot of Homelessness in Placer County Based on the latest data (2020), Placer County experiences the lowest rate of homelessness in northern California, the fourth-lowest rate of homelessness in the state, and the lowest rate of unsheltered homeless in the state. Since the report prepared by Dr. Robert Marbut in 201512 that documented his study of homelessness in Placer County, the region has increased its capacity of beds and services, which has helped bring down the chronic rate of homelessness. At the same time homelessness and blight have become more visible due to a variety of factors including the COVID pandemic, which has created a number of issues from economic stress to health concerns. There have been strains on our shelters as currently configured, and recent court rulings have established the right to camp when insufficient bed options are available. Additionally, there are a small group of individuals who decline services and who regularly use resources in our criminal justice and healthcare system. Key pieces of supportive data include: From the Roseville Point in Time survey 2020 • 73% lived in Placer County for over a year before becoming homeless From the most current HMIS13 data (July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021) • 1,168 individuals actively homeless • 29.3% were experiencing chronic homelessness14 • 70.7% were experiencing non-chronic homelessness. • Of the total, 590 or 51% of those actively homeless reported having a disability. • 78 people were returning to homelessness from permanent housing. 12 ‘Homeless Needs Assessment and Action Plan for Placer County’ by Marbut Consulting: Robert G. Marbut Jr., Ph.D. and Shaun Lee, MSW, MBA, March 30, 2015 13 A Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) is a local information technology system used to collect client-level data and data on the provision of housing and services to homeless individuals and families and persons at risk of homelessness.HMIS draws from a by-name list of people experiencing homelessness in the Placer community. HMIS and the by-name list represent several different sources that can help paint a picture of homelessness and, like any source, come with caveats. For instance, while the by-name list strives for real-time information there may be more current information around housing obtainment that might not be updated. Moreover, it is common for people to go in and out of suitable housing, and those periods of suitable housing may not be captured in HMIS. 14 Chronic Homelessness is defined as having a disability and living in a shelter, safe haven, or place not meant for human habitation for twelve continuous months or for four separate occasions in the last three years.

33 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 33 • 223 people had reconnected with HMIS after a period of being inactive or non-responsive to services. • 446 individuals were housed into permanent supportive housing or a permanent destination. The distribution of permanent supportive housing units across Placer County shows a higher concentration in Roseville and Auburn. Currently, the inventory of Placer County beds spans the spectrum from emergency housing to long-term permanent housing. Best Practices and Current Services in Placer County The “best practice” model for identifying effective approaches has proven successful through rigorous scientific research in other fields and can be adapted and applied to the context of addressing homelessness. The full report includes a brief overview of the current best practice strategies currently being used to address homelessness, as well as appendix with an inventory of Existing Efforts in Placer County. Issues and Opportunities This project examined and assessed the County’s status of homelessness response in five impact categories and developed an initial list of issues and potential opportunities within each, with the issues more briefly summarized here: Prevention: Addressing the factors and root causes that lead to homelessness, including domestic violence, job loss/unemployment, foster care emancipation, health crises, substance abuse/addiction or other behavioral health challenges. There are many resources that seek to prevent individuals and families from losing their homes -- financial assistance, job training and placement programs, family support and social services, including drug treatment and mental health counseling. With the COVID-19 pandemic disrupting the economy more individuals and families found themselves in financial hardship, even with extended unemployment benefits, direct payments and moratorium on housing evictions. Crisis Response (including outreach, engagement, intake, assessment and referral): Meeting people where they are and assessing their needs; identifying and connecting to appropriate resources and systems. Law enforcement personnel often have the most contact with the chronically homeless population, providing an important point of contact for the latest information and referral. It is of critical importance that there are enough points of contact with unhoused individuals and that personnel are trained and equipped for interfacing with these individuals, including having access to the services and supports available to meet their needs.

34 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 34 Housing and Supportive Services: Providing shelter and housing -- from emergency shelter to transitional to permanent supportive housing -- and services to stabilize and support (i.e., recovery, mental health, medical, job training, food and clothing, financial assistance, case management). In our interviews with shelter residents, they noted that the chronic issues of mental health and substance abuse are key factors that prevented individuals from sustaining shelter and the means for supporting themselves. Among those interviewed were law enforcement personnel, including some who expressed frustration with homeless people who they report as unmotivated to change their situation. Some believe that the incentives (or the system) may not always encourage chronically homeless individuals to make use of shelter or housing options. Interviewees agreed that those who have lifted themselves out of homelessness have had to be tireless self-advocates. Integrative Programs and Systems: Knitting together the services, programs, and resources into a single system of support; sharing information to avoid duplication, increase impact, and leverage funding opportunities. The Homeless Resource Council of the Sierras, as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-designated Continuum of Care consortium for Nevada and Placer Counties, is charged with promoting regional coordination in homelessness services. They meet monthly and report on activities from the health and human services, education, and housing perspectives. There is an opportunity for enhancing coordination across the region by providing more visibility and more direct interface with decisionmakers and other partners. Community Engagement: Many Placer County residents are sympathetic to the homeless population, yet express concern about housing and service options that are located within residential neighborhoods. There have been some widely publicized examples of community resistance fueled by a perceived lack of transparency in siting homeless services and facilities. There is a need to increase engagement and education of landlords to prevent evictions and improve tenant-landlord relationships over time, as well as communication efforts that invite community members to engage on homelessness issues and solutions.

35 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 35 Appendix C: Preliminary Mapping of Homelessness Services and Resources MIG created a database of local programs and resources connected to homelessness response and used that to populate a geolocation map and network map. These tools are dynamic and can be used to illustrate and support coordination and service referrals. https://kumu.io/MIG/placer-county-homelessness-solution#service-locations

36 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 36 https://api.mapbox.com/styles/v1/migcom/ckvb4um1g0aip14pax2m0z9u5.html?title=view&access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoibWlnY29tIiwiYSI6ImNrUllYc3MifQ.isgDkadcGHvdQKkSC1ohfQ&zoomwheel=true&fresh=true#10.58/38.8324/-121.1525

37 PLACER REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE EMERGING STRATEGIES MARCH 2022 PHASE ONE REPORT PAGE 37 Appendix D: Preliminary Mapping of Housing Locations Near Priority Amenities

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #:
1976
File #:
0400-04-12
Title:

Sierra Vista Specific Plan - Parcel KT-20 and KT-30 - Affordable Unit Transfer Contact:

Shelby Maples 916-746-1347 [email protected]

Meeting Date: 3/16/2022
Item #: 10.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
At the January 27, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council take the following actions on the project:

Adopt a resolution approving text and map amendments to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan; and B.

Adopt the five (5) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the First Amendment of the
Baseline P&R, LLC
Development Agreement by and between the City of
Roseville and Sierra Vista Communities, LLC.

BACKGROUND
This Council Communication provides a summary evaluation of the project and a summary of the January 27, 2022 Planning Commission hearing. A more detailed background and evaluation is provided in the Planning Commission staff report, included as Attachment 1.

Background/Project Description
The subject large lot parcels, KT-20 and KT-30, are located in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan area (SVSP). On December 10, 2015, the Planning Commission approved a Tentative Subdivision Map (SVSP KT Properties Tentative Subdivision Map, File No. PL13-0096) within the SVSP to allow the creation of 1,163 single-family lots, one (1) High Density Residential lot, one (1) school lot, two (2) park lots, 53 landscape lots, and eight (8) open space lots, and an Administrative Permit to reallocate residential units between villages.

Additionally, PL13-0096 reduced the
overall number of units within the SVSP by 21 units, and modified the development standards for SVSP Medium Density Residential Villages KT-20, KT-21A, and KT-21B .

In January 2018, the City administratively approved an Extension of the Tentative Subdivision Map (PL13-0096) and an Administrative Permit for Unit Transfers, granting a six (6) year extension of the tentative map and allowing the transfer of 21 Medium Density Residential (MDR) units to parcel KT-30 (File No. PL17-0305). This resulted in total of 171 allocated units to parcel KT-30, which is the current allocation.

The total affordable unit allocation for parcel KT-30 will be 155 units with the proposed amendment, including 78 low-income rental units and 77 very low-income rental units.

As the
request modifies the Affordable Housing section of the SVSP as well as the obligations in the Development Agreement, both a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) and Development Agreement Amendment (DAA) are required.

Summary Evaluation
As described above, the project involves the transfer of the obligation to provide affordable units from large lot parcel KT-20 to parcel KT-30. The 31 units will be converted from middle income purchase units to 16 low and 15 very-low income rental units.

A SPA is required to remove parcel
KT-20 from the affordable housing allocation table (Table 5-3) and map (Figure 5-1) within Chapter 5 of the SVSP. The Specific Plan table was also updated to reflect administrative changes that have occurred since the last SPA, as well as to track the current project file number and a description of the proposed amendment. The total number of units within the SVSP and the number of affordable units allocated within the SVSP will remain the same. As proposed, the SPA is consistent with the goals and policies of the SVSP.

The project includes a first amendment of the
Baseline P&R, LLC
DA. The DA will be amended
to reflect the proposed affordable obligation transfer and conversion of unit type. The proposal is beneficial to the City in that more units will be allocated to the low and very low income rental housing inventory. According to the Housing Element, adopted by the City Council on August 18, 2021, the City of Roseville has a deficit of approximately 1,791 low and very low income housing units in comparison to the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The City’s RHNA is assigned by the State and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), based on a fair-share assessment of housing demand in the region divided into a range of income categories.

While moderate income purchase housing is also an important component of the City’s housing portfolio, the Housing Element shows that the City currently has a surplus of approximately 3,006 units in that category. Therefore, if approved, the change will reduce the deficit in the low and very low income category while maintaining a surplus of moderate income housing units, contributing to the City’s affordable housing goals. No other changes to the DA are proposed. As proposed, the DAA is consistent with the General Plan, SVSP, and Zoning Ordinance.

Public Outreach
A notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was sent to neighbors and property owners within 300 feet of the project parcels, as well as published in the newspaper and online. Following publication of hearing notices and the staff report, staff received one comment letter. The comment letter addressed distribution of affordable housing in the SVSP, as well as identified tabulation errors in the exhibits. The comment was noted and corrections were made to the identified table prior to the Planning Commission hearing.

Summary of Planning Commission Meeting
The project was heard by the City’s Planning Commission on January 27, 2022. The applicant’s representative addressed the Commission, spoke in favor of the project, and requested that the Commission take the actions recommended by staff. There were no questions or discussion, and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approved the proposed project.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project is not anticipated to result in any negative impacts to the City’s General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR, which evaluated the potential for significant environmental impacts to the project area, was certified by the City Council on May 2, 2010 (SCH#2008032115).

The project involves the transfer of an affordable unit development obligation from one parcel to another; however, it does not change the number of units that will be developed on each large lot parcel. No changes to the adopted land use plan or the project footprint are proposed. As the project is consistent with the SVSP, the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15182 as a residential project pursuant to a Specific Plan for which an EIR was certified. No new effects are expected to occur and all applicable mitigation measures will be applied. No additional environmental documentation is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Shelby Maples, Associate Planner
Mike Isom, Development Services Director

_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-072
Exhibit A - SVSP Change Pages
Ordinance No. XX Development Agreement Amendment
Exhibit B - First Amendment to Development Agreement, Sierra Vista Communities LLC Attachment 1 - January 27, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments

RESOLUTION NO. 22-072

AMENDING THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, a proposal has been submitted to amend to the affordable housing obligation in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan to transfer 31 units from Parcel KT-20 to Parcel KT-30, and convert the 31 middle income purchase units to 16 low income and 15 very low income rental units, as shown in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and

WHEREAS, the proposed reallocation of the affordable housing obligation requires a Specific Plan Amendment to change the text and Affordable Housing map within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, as shown in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and

WHEREAS, on January 27, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan and unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Specific Plan Amendment; and

WHEREAS, the Specific Plan Amendment as proposed and revised is consistent with the adopted City of Roseville General Plan; and

WHEREAS, on March 16, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing at which time the proposed amendments were considered; and

WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Roseville has reviewed the findings of the Planning Commission recommending approval of the Specific Plan Amendment, and makes the following findings:

The Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the City of Roseville General Plan and the Sierra Vista Specific Plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville that the proposed changes to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan are adopted as set forth in the attached Exhibit A.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this 16th day of March, 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
5-4 City of Roseville
Allocation of Affordable Housing Goal
The affordable housing units within the SVSP have been allocated to specific MDR and HDR parcels as identified in Table 5- 3, with designated parcels reflected on Figure 5- 1. The intent is to distribute affordable units throughout the Plan Area. In addition, through implementation of the Affordable Housing Plan, the City should work with property owners to define alternative solutions, such as carriage units or granny flats in LDR and MDR areas, which also meet the intent of the Program.

Table 5-3: Affordable Housing Allocation
Parcel Land
Use
Total
Units in
Parcel
Total
Affordable
Allocation
Very Low
Income
Rental
Low
Income
Rental
Middle1
Income
Purchase
CG-20 MDR 44 20 20
CO-20 MDR 84 34 34
DF-204 MDR 113 4 4
CG-31 HDR 420 80 40 40
FD-32 HDR 178 43 43
FD-34 HDR 172 172 86 86
KT-305 HDR 171 155 77 78
JM-303 HDR 176 176 88 88
WB-30 HDR 237 2372 68 1692
WB-32 HDR 128 1282 92 362
Total 1,0492 451 4972 101

1. Middle-income purchase unit obligations may also be fulfilled via additional
low-income rental units. 41 middle-income units were converted to low-income units
via the Westbrook SPA approved in 2016.

NOTE: SVSP Section 5. 4 allows for the transfer of affordable units. Check with t
he Housing Division to confirm current affordable housing obligations.

Table 5-2: Affordable Housing Goal
Income Category Units Required to Meet Goal
40% Very-Low-Income 347 du
40% Low-Income 347 du
20% Middle-Income 174 du
Total Affordable Housing Need 868 du (10% of 8,679 du)

CC EXHIBIT A

2. Includes 162 units transferred to Westbrook from WRSP Parcel W-16.

3. Parcel JM-30 includes 8 units (4 Very-Low and 4 Low) transferred from NRSP Parcel M-31 (File #PL17-0204), 5 units transferred from SVSP Parcel JM-40 (File #PL20-0103), and 12 units transferred from SVSP Parcel JM-21 (File #PL20-0191).

4. File # PL20-00098 for Parcel DF-20 eliminated the carriage unit language in the Development Agreement and transferred 9 low and 9 very low inco me units to the Infill
area of the City. Middle income purchase units were reduced from 5 to 4.

5.Parcel KT-30 includes 31 units transferred from SVSP Parcel KT-20 (File #PL21-0289).

WB-30
HDR
CO-20
MDR
CG-31
HDR
FD-34
HDR
CG-20
MDR
FD-32
HDR
JM-30
HDR
WB-32
HDR
KT-30
HDR
DF-20
MDR
WB-20
MDR
WB-41
CC
WB-31
HDR
WB-52
PR
WB-80
OS
JM-72
OS
JM-70
OS
JM-61
P/QPJM-20
MDRFD-8B
LDR
FD-77
OS
FD-24
MDR
CO-2B
LDR
CO-70
OS
JM-71
OS
JM-71
OS
CO-71
OS JM-1
MDR
FD-4
LDR
FD-75
OS
FD-73B
OS
JM-73
OS
FD-74
OS
FD-3
LDRCO-21
MDR
CO-1
LDR
FD-52
PR
CO-3
LDR
FD-41
CC JM-3
LDR
FD-8A
LDR
FD-65
P/QP FD-33
HDR
FD-80
OS
FD-63
P/QP
FD-64
P/QP FD-53
PR
CO-80
OS
JM-50
PR
CO-40
CC
JM-60
P/QPFD-82A
OS
FD-82B
OS FD-85
OS
FD-87B
OS
CG-81
OS
DF-42
CC
JM-84
OS
JM-85
OS
CG-80
OS
DF-40
CC
JM-21
LDR
FD-10
MDR
FD-23
MDR
FD-88B
OS
JM-81
OS
JM-82
OS
CO-50
PR
CO-22
MDR
FD-21
MDR
FD-20A
MDR
FD-72A
OS
FD-84
OS
FD-61
P/QP
JM-80
OS
FD-88A
OS
FD-2
MDR
FD-70
OS
FD-51
PR
UR-92
UR
FD-83
OS
DF-41
CC
CO-81
OS
FD-9
LDR
FD-40
CC
FD-86
OS
CO-2A
LDR
FD-22A
LDRFD-1
LDR
FD-7
LDR
FD-6
LDR
CG-70
OS
JM-51
PR
JM-52
PR
JM-2
LDR
JM-41
CC
JM-83
OS
JM-4
LDR
WB-23
MDR
WB-50
PR
WB-60
P/QP
WB-4
LDR
WB-21
MDR
WB-62
P/QP WB-3B
LDR
WB-3A
LDR WB-1A
LDR
WB-42
CC
WB-22
MDR
WB-2B
LDR
WB-2A
LDR
WB-5
LDR
WB-24
MDR
WB-51
PR
WB-6
LDR
WB-7
LDRWB-25
MDR
WB-61
P/QP
KT-81
OS
KT-5
LDR
KT-20
MDR
KT-52
PR
KT-21B
MDR
KT-50
PR
KT-21A
MDRKT-1B
LDR
KT-1A
LDR
KT-80A
OS
KT-61
P/QP
KT-2
LDR
KT-3A
LDR
KT-4
LDR
KT-3B
LDR
KT-40B
CC KT-43
CC
CG-1
LDR
CG-50
PR
CG-30
HDR
DF-80
OS
DF-70
OS
DF-71
OS
DF-72
OS DF-2
LDR
DF-50
PR
DF-1
LDR
KT-40A
CC
KT-41A
CC
KT-42
CC
FD-62
P/QP
FD-81
OS
KT-41B
CC
WB-1B
LDR
KT-80B
OS
KT-82
OS
FD-71B
OS
FD-20B
MDR
FD-50
PR
FD-22B
LDR
FD-71A
OS
FD-73A
OS
DF-81
OS
CG-82
OS
FD-5
LDR
JM-40
MDR
KT-51
PR
KT-60
P/QP

PLEASANT GROVE BL

SUMMERFAIRE
DR

SOLAIRE DR

SIERRA GLEN DR
UPLAND
DR
W

ESTBROOK
BL

VISTA GRANDE BL

MARKETST

SIERRA VILLAGE DR

VISTA PARK DR

FEDERICO DR

BASELINE RD
SILVER
SPRUCE
DR

SANTUCCIBL
Affordable Housing Sites
SVSP Affordable Housing Sites
Development Services
[
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
ORDINANCE NO.

ADOPTING A FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND

BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND SIERRA VISTA COMMUNITIES, LLC

RELATIVE TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

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

SECTION 2. The Co uncil of the City of Roseville has reviewed the findings of the Planning Commission recommending approval of the First Amendment to Development Agreement, and makes the following findings:

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 3. The First Amendment to Development Agreement, by and between the City of Roseville and Sierra Vista Communities, LLC, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's Department and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk is directed to record the executed Development Agreement Amendment within ten (10) days of the execution of the agreement by the City Manager with the County Recorder's Office of the County of Placer.

SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its adoption.

2 SECTION 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause this ordinance to be published in full at least once within fourteen (14) days after it is adopted in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, or shall within fourteen (14) days after its adoption cause this ordinance to be posted in full in at least three (3) public places in the City and enter in the Ordinance Book a certificate stating the time and place of said publication by posting.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of ____________ 2022, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
___________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:

______________________________________
City Clerk

Planning Division Staff Report
Planning Commission Meeting January 27, 2022
Prepared by: Shelby Maples, Associate Planner
ITEM 6.1: Specific Plan Amendment And Development Agreement Amendment – 3301 Santucci Bl. – SVSP PCL KT-20 & KT-30 – Affordable Unit Transfer – PL21-0289

REQUEST
The applicant requests approval of a Specific Plan Amendment and Development Agreement Amendment to transfer the obligation for 31 middle-income purchase units from parcel KT-20 to parcel KT-30 within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan area, and re-designate the units as 16 low and 15 very low-income units.

Applicant— Julie Hanson, J.R. Hanson Consulting LLC
Owner – Larry Gualco, Sierra Vista Communities LLC

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

A. Recommend the City Council approve the Specific Plan Amendment; and B. Recommend the City Council approve the Development Agreement Amendment.

SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES
There are no outstanding issues associated with this request.

BACKGROUND
The subject large lot parcels, KT-20 and KT-30, are located in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan area (SVSP), specifically, that portion of the SVSP associated with the Baseline P&R Development Agreement . On December 10, 2015, the Planning Commission approved a Tentative Subdivision Map (SVSP KT Properties Tentative Subdivision Map, File No. PL13-0096) within the SVSP to allow the creation of 1,163 single-family lots, one (1) High Density Residential lot, one (1) school lot, two (2) park lots, 53 landscape lots, and eight (8) open space lots, and an Administrative Permit to reallocate residential units betw een villages. Additionally, PL13-0096 reduced the overall number of units within the SVSP by 21 units, and modified the development standards for SVSP Medium Density Residential Villages KT-20, KT-21A, and KT-21B.

In January 2018, the City administrative ly approved an Extension of the Tentative Subdivision Map (PL13-0096) and an Administrative Permit for Unit Transfers, granting a six (6) year extension of the tentative map and allowing the transfer of 21 Medium Density Residential (MDR) units to parcel K T-30 (File No. PL17-0305). This resulted in total of 171 allocated units to parcel KT -30, which is the current allocation.

The current request would transfer the obligation to provide 31 affordable units on parcel KT-20 to parcel KT-30 within the SVSP. With the transfer, the units will be redesignated, converting the 31 middle-income purchase units to 16 low and 15 very low -income rental units. Parcel KT-30 has a land use designation of High Density Residential (HDR) with a total unit allocation of 171 units. With the proposed amendment, the total affordable unit allocation for parcel KT -30 will be 155 units, with 78 units for low-income rental units and 77 units for very low-income rental units. As the request modifies the Affordable Housing section of the SVSP as well as the obligations in the Sierra Vista Communities LLC Development Agreement, both a Specific Plan Amendment and Development Agreement Amendment are required.

CC ATTACHMENT 1
SVSP PCL KT-20 & KT-30 – Affordable Unit Transfer; 3301 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0289 Planning Commission – January 27, 2022 – Page 2 of 4

EVALUATION
As described in the Background section of this report, the proposed project will transfer the affordable unit obligation from parcel KT-20 to KT-30 within the SVSP. This requires an amendment to the Affordable Housing section of the SVSP, as well as an amendment o f the Development Agreement. Specific Plan Amendments (SPA) are analyzed for consistency with the goals and policies of the affected plan.

Development Agreement Amendments (DAAs) are subject to the criteria outlined in Section 19.84.040 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Specific Plan Amendment
The SVSP includes a table (Table 5-3) and map (Figure 5-1) to identify the Specific Plan parcels with an affordable housing unit allocation in the Plan area. The proposed amendment would modify these pages to remove parcel KT-20, a medium density parcel, from the listed parcels. The table will also be updated to reflect the current number of units allocated to parcel KT -30 (171, rather than 155), and show the updated affordable allocation of 155 units, with 77 very low income rental units and 78 low income rental units. Additionally, table footnote no. 4 will be updated to include the current project file number and a brief description of the unit transfer. The map in Figure 5 -1 will be updated to reflect the proposed changes.

While the location of the allocated units will change if the project is approved, the total number of units within the SVSP and the number of affordable units allocated within the SVSP will remain the same. As proposed, the modification is consistent with the goals and policies of the SVSP.

Development Agreement Amendment
Section 19.84.040 of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance specifies that recommendations for approval or denial of a Development Agreement (DA), including Amendments, shall include consi deration of the following:

1. Consistency with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and the Sierra Vista Specific Plan;

2. Consistency with the provisions of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance;

3. Conformity with the public health, safety, and general welfare;

4. The effect on the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values; and

5. Whether the provisions of the Agreement shall provide sufficient benefit to the City to justify entering into the Agreement.

DAs are binding contracts that set the terms, rules, conditions, regulations, entitlements, responsibilities, and other provisions relating to the development of the covered properties. The project includes the First Amendment of the Baseline P&R, LLC DA. The DA will be amended to reflect the transfer of the affordable obligation from parcel KT-20 to parcel KT-30.

The proposal is beneficial to the City in that more units will be allocated to the low and v ery low income rental housing inventory. According to the Housing Element, adopted by the City Council on August 18, 2021, the City of Roseville has a deficit of approximately 1,791 low and very low income housing units in comparison to the City’s Regional Housin g Needs Allocation (RHNA). The City’s RHNA is assigned by the State and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), based on a fair -share SVSP PCL KT-20 & KT-30 – Affordable Unit Transfer; 3301 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0289 Planning Commission – January 27, 2022 – Page 3 of 4

assessment of housing demand in the region divided into a range of income categories. While moderate income purchase housing is also an important component of the City’s housing portfolio, the Housing Element shows that the City currently has a surplus of approximate ly 3,006 units in that category.

Therefore, if approved, the change will reduce the deficit in the low and very low income category while maintaining a surplus of moderate income housing units , contributing to the City’s affordable housing goals. No other changes to the DA are proposed.

City staff has found the proposed DAA to be consistent with the Gen eral Plan, SVSP, and the Zoning Ordinance. The DAA is in conformance with the public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values. Therefore, the proposed DAA is consistent with items 1-5 above.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
The proposed project was distributed to the various agencies and departments which have requested notice of City applications, and all comments were considered and incorporated into the Conditions of Approval, as appropriate. Notice of the application was also distributed to the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations. No comments were received. A public notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published on January 14, 2022, and was distributed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no comments have been received.

CONCLUSION
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, SVSP, and Zoning Ordinance, and the required findings for a DAA can be made.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR, which evaluated the potential for significant environmental impacts to the project area, was certified by the City Council on May 2, 2010 (SCH#2008032115). The project involves the transfer of an affordable unit development obligation from one parcel to another; however, it does not change the number of units that will be developed on each large lot parcel. No changes to the adopted land use plan or the project footprint are proposed. As the project is consistent with the SVSP, the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15182 as a residential project pursuant to a Specific Plan for which an EIR was certified. No new effects are expected to occur and all applicable mitigation measures will be applied. No additional environmental documentation is required.

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

A. Recommend the City Council approve the Specific Plan Amendment; and B. Recommend the City Council approve the Development Agreement Amendment.

Exhibits
A. Sierra Vista Specific Plan Text and Figure Change Pages (redline) B. Sierra Vista Specific Plan Text and Figure Change Pages (clean) C. Draft First Amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Sierra Vista Communities, LLC Relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Note to Applicant and/or Developer: Please contact the Planning Division staff at (916) 774-5276 prior to the Commission meeting if you have any questions on any of the recommended conditions for your project. If you challenge the decision of the Commission in court, you SVSP PCL KT-20 & KT-30 – Affordable Unit Transfer; 3301 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0289 Planning Commission – January 27, 2022 – Page 4 of 4
B:\Development Services\Planning Division\2022\PC\01-Jan 27\PL21-0289 SVSP KT-20 and KT-30 Affordable Unit Transfer\PL21-0289, 3301 Santucci, SVSP PCL KT-20 and KT-30 - Affordable Unit Transfer, 01 staff report.docx

may be limited to raising only those issues which you or someone else raised at the public hearing hel d for this project, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Manager at, or prior to, the public hearing. 5-4 City of Roseville
Allocation of Affordable Housing Goal
The affordable housing units within the SVSP have been allocated to specific MDR and HDR parcels as identified in Table 5- 3, with designated parcels reflected on Figure 5- 1. The intent is to distribute affordable units throughout the Plan Area. In addition, through implementation of the Affordable Housing Plan, the City should work with property owners to define alternative solutions, such as carriage units or granny flats in LDR and MDR areas, which also meet the intent of the Program.

Table 5-3: Affordable Housing Allocation
Parcel Land
Use
Total
Units in
Parcel
Total
Affordable
Allocation
Very Low
Income
Rental
Low
Income
Rental
Middle1
Income
Purchase
CG-20 MDR 44 20 20
CO-20 MDR 84 34 34
DF-201 4 MDR 113 23 9 9 5
KT-20 MDR 202 31 31
CG-31 HDR 420 80 40 40
FD-32 HDR 178 43 43
FD-34 HDR 172 172 86 86
KT-30 HDR 150 124 62 62
JM-303 HDR 176 176 88 88
WB-30 HDR 237 2372 68 1692
WB-32 HDR 128 1282 92 362
Total 1,0492 451 4972 101
1 Carriage units are intended to fulfill the very-low and low income obligation

1. Middle-income purchase unit obligations may also be fulfilled via additional low-income rental units. 41 middle -income units were converted to low - income units via the Westbrook SPA approved in 2016.

NOTE: SVSP Section 5.4 allows for t he transfe r of affordable u nits. Check with the Housing Division to confirm current af fordable housing obligations.

2. Includes 162 units transferred to Westbrook from WRSP Parcel W-16.

3. Parcel JM-30 includes 8 units (4 Very-Low and 4 Low) transferred from NRSP Parcel M-31 (File #PL17-0204), 5 units transf
erred from SVSP Parcel JM-40 (File #PL20-0103),
and 12 units transferred from SVSP Parcel JM-21 (File #PL20-0191).

4. File # PL20-0098 for Parcel DF-20 eliminated the carriage unit language in the Development Agreement and transferred 9 low and 9 very low inco me units to the
Infill area of the City. Middle income purchase units were reduced from 5 to 4 units.

5. Parcel KT-30 includes 31 units transferred from SVSP Parcel KT-20 (File #PL21-0289).

PC EXHIBIT A
44 City of Roseville 5-5

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN
Figure 5-1: Affordable Housing Sites (refer to Table 5-3 for most current allocations) Santucci Blvd.
5-4 City of Roseville
Allocation of Affordable Housing Goal
The affordable housing units within the SVSP have been allocated to specific MDR and HDR parcels as identified in Table 5- 3, with designated parcels reflected on Figure 5- 1. The intent is to distribute affordable units throughout the Plan Area. In addition, through implementation of the Affordable Housing Plan, the City should work with property owners to define alternative solutions, such as carriage units or granny flats in LDR and MDR areas, which also meet the intent of the Program.

1. Midd le-income purchase unit obligations may also be fulfilled via additional
low-income rental units. 41 middle-income units were converted to low-income
units via the Westbrook SPA approved in 2016.

NOTE: SVSP Section 5. 4 allows for the transfer of affordable units. Check with the Housing Division to confirm current affordable housing obligations.

PC EXHIBIT B

2. Includes 162 units transferred to Westbrook from WRSP Parcel W-16.

4. File # PL20-00098 for Parcel DF-20 eliminated the carriage unit language in the Development Agreement and transferred 9 low and 9 very low income units to the Infill area of the City. Middle income purchase units were reduced from 5 to 4.

5.Parcel KT-30 includes 31 units transferred from SVSP Parcel KT-20 (File #PL21-0289).

PLEASANT GROVE BL

SUMMERFAIRE
DR

SOLAIRE DR

SIERRA GLEN DR
UPLAND
DR
W

ESTBROOK
BL

VISTA GRANDE BL

MARKETST

SIERRA VILLAGE DR

VISTA PARK DR

FEDERICO DR

BASELINE RD
SILVER
SPRUCE
DR

SANTUCCIBL
Affordable Housing Sites
SVSP Affordable Housing Sites
Development Services
[
0 0.25 0.5
Miles

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Document entitled to free recording
Government Code Section 27383

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City Clerk
City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
(SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER’S USE)

FIRST AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND SIERRA VISTA COMMUNITIES, LLC

RELATIVE TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
This First Amendment of Development Agreement is entered into this ____ day of ________, 2021, by and between the CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a municip al corporation (“City”), and SIERRA VISTA COMMUNITIES , LLC, a California limited liability company (“SVC”) pursuant to Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the Government Code of California.

RECITALS
A. Baseline P&R, LLC (“Baseline”) and City entered into a Development Agreement (the “Development Agreement”) which was approved by the C ity Council of City on May 19, 2010, and r ecorded on June 18, 2010, in the Official Records of Placer County as Document No. 2010-0045892-00.

B. Baseline and City entered into the Development Agreement relative to development within a portion of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Area, as such is more precisely defined in Exhibit “A” and depicted in Exhibit “B” of the Development Agreement (the “Property”). Except as otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Development Agreement.

C. Baseline assigned a portion of its interest in the Development Agreement to SVC pursuant to that certain “Assignment and Assumption Agreement of the Development Agreement By and Between the City of Roseville and Baseline P&R, LLC Relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (Baseline P&R)” dated as of September 4, 2018, and recorded September 4, 2018, as Document No. 2018-0063961-00, in the Official Records of Placer County, California.

PC EXHIBIT C

D. This First Amendment to the Development Agreement (the “ First Amendment”) affects certain portions of the Property owned by SVC (the “First Amendment Property”) and is more precisely defined in Exhibit “A” and depicted in Exhibit “B” attached hereto. SVC and City intend for this First Amendment to eliminate SVC’s obligation to reserve thirty-one (31) units as detached and/or attached single-family residential units affordable to middle -income purchasers within KT -20 and replace the same with an obligation to reserve an additional thirty-one (31) units for rental to very low and low income households within KT-30 as further set forth below.

E. This First Amendment is authorized by Section 1.4 of the Development Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMEN T AGREEMENT. The following
sections and exhibits of the Development Agreement are hereby amended as follows:

a. REVISED SECTION 2.2. The land use designations, approximate acreages, and unit counts in Section 2.2 of the Development Agreement (“Vested Entitlements”) for the First Amendment Property for “High Density Residential” are hereby revised as follows:

“High Density Residential 171 units on 7.5 Net Acres”

b. DELETED SECTION 2.6.1. Section 2.6.1 of the Development Agreement for the First Amendment Property is hereby deleted.

c. REVISED SECTION 2.6.2.1. Section 2.6.2.1 of the Development Agreement for the First Amendment Property is hereby amended and revised in its entirety to read as follows:
“2.6.2.1 Affordable Obligation. Landowner agrees that one hundred fifty- five (155) affordable rental units will be reserved within the Property, including seventy-seven (77) units for rental to very low income households and seventy-eight (78) units for rental to low income households as follows:

Parcel Total Units In
Parcel
Total Affordable
Unit Allocation
Very Low
Income Units
Low Income
Rental Units
KT-30 171 155 77 78

d. REVISED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits attached to the Development Agreement are proposed to be deleted and replaced by new exhibits attached to this First Amendment as follows:

Exhibit “F” --- “Affordable Housing Sites”, attached to this First Amendment as Exhibit “C”, is added to the list of exhibits and replaces the existing Exhibit “F” for the First Amendment Property.

2. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN. The City Council has found and determined that this First Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Sierra Vista Specific Plan.

AMENDMENT LIMITED TO FIRST AMENDMENT PROPERTY. This First Amendment is limited to and applies only to development of the First Amendment Property and does not affect or apply in any manner with respect to the development of any other property within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Area, including without limitation, any other portion of the Property.

4. AMENDMENT. This First Amendment amends, but does not replace or supersede, the Development Agreement, except as specified herein. As amended hereby with respect to the First Amendment Property, the Development Agreement remains in full force and effect.

5. FORM OF AMENDMENT. This First Amendment is executed in two duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original.

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank – Signature Blocks on Following Page] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, has authorized the execution of this First Amendment in duplicate by its City Manager and attested to by its City Clerk under the authority of Ordinance No. ______, adopted by the Council of the City of Roseville on the ____ day of _______, 2021.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE,
a municipal corporation

By:______________________________
Dominick Casey
City Manager

ATTEST:

By:______________________________
Sonia Orozco
City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM;

By:______________________________
Michelle Sheidenberger
City Attorney

APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE:

By:______________________________
Mike Isom
Development Services Director

SIERRA VISTA COMMUNITIES, LLC,
a California limited liability company

By:____________________________
Name: _____________
Its: _____________

7310.024
08/24/2021
MRD

Page 1 of 1 ends

Roseville City CouncilMarch 16, 2022

Roseville City Council
March 16, 2022