Agenda — Roseville City Council, April 20, 2022 (part 6 of 9)

App. A: 35
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Animal Licensing and Permit Fees
Fee Description FY 21-22 Fee FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Animal License (Dog or Cat)
a) 1 Year
i) Certified altered animal $23 $24 each Y
ii) Non-altered animal $47 $48 each Y
iii) Senior Discount $5 off standard fee $5 off standard fee each N b) 2 Years
i) Certified altered animal $46 $47 each Y
ii) Non-altered animal $91 $95 each Y
iii) Senior Discount $10 off standard fee $10 off standard fee each N c) 3 Years
i) Certified altered animal $68 $70 each Y
ii) Non-altered animal $136 $142 each Y
iii) Senior Discount $15 off standard fee $15 off standard fee each N d) Transfer of active license from other jurisdiction $0 $0 each Y 2 Delinquent Penalty for Failure to Renew License within 15 days of Expiration
a) Altered dog $5 $5 flat fee N
b) Unaltered dog $10 $10 flat fee N
3 Lost License or Tag $5 $5 flat fee N
4 Rabies Test Pass-through of actual
cost
Pass-through of actual
cost
flat fee N
5 Kennel License
a) Initial $121 $127 each Y
b) Renewal $60 $63 each Y
6 Special Animal Permit
a) Initial $60 $63 each Y
b) Renewal $60 $63 each Y
7 Voluntary Disposal Fee
a) Dogs and Other Animals Commonly Considered Pets $40 $42 per animal/litter Y b) Wild Animals $40 $42 per animal Y
8 Appeal of Decision to Destroy Vicious Animal $100 $100 flat fee N * Per RMC 7.16.070, license fees are waived for: service dog owned by a person with a need for assistance; dog used by any law enforcement personnel; dog owned by any government entity or political subdivision App. A: 36
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Oversize Vehicle Permit Fees and Building Moving Permit Fees Fee Description FY 21-22 Fee FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Oversize Vehicle Permit
a) Single trip permit $16 $16 per vehicle [a] N
b) Annual permit $90 $90 per vehicle [a] N
2 Building Moving Permit
a) Base Fee $29 $30 per request Y
b) Costs of plan review, utility and street light moving, tree trimming, traffic directing, etc.
actual costs actual costs per request Y
[a] Oversize vehicle permit fees set to match fees adopted by California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). * Note regarding annual inflationary adjustment: For items billed at actual cost, the underlying hourly billing rates should inflate annually by the change in hourly labor rates and/or indirect cost rate multipliers.

App. A: 37
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Parking Permit Fees
Fee Description FY 21-22 Fee FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Residential Parking Permit $0 $0 per vehicle N
2 Merchant Parking Permit
a) January 1st through December 31st $20 $20 per vehicle N b) July 1st through December 31st $10 $10 per vehicle N * Permit is valid only for the calendar year issued. A merchant parking permit is issued to a specific vehicle and is not transferable. A valid merchant parking permit decal must be appropriately displayed on the left rear bumper or left rear window of the permittee's vehicle.

App. A: 38
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Special Event, Film, and Banner Permit Fees
Fee Description FY 21-22 Fee FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Special Event Permit
a) Application Fee
i) Event that requires limited site/plan review, no closures, etc. (i.e. park rentals/activities, misc. events, etc.) $135 $160 per event [a] Y
ii) Event that requires, but not limited to, street/parking lot closures, site/plan review, trail use, etc. (i.e. fun runs, festivals, parking garage, etc.)
$275 $300 per event [a] Y
b) Service Charges actual costs actual costs Y
c) Park/facility rental fee varies by location varies by location per event N 2 Photography and Filming Permit
a) Application Fee
i) Cast and Crew Totaling One to Three Persons $135 $160 per permit [a],[b] Y ii) Cast and Crew Totaling Four or More Persons; or with Street Closure
$275 $300 per permit [a],[b] Y
b) Service Charges actual costs actual costs
Y
3 Banner Permit $65 $70 Y
[a] Application fees are non-refundable.
* Note regarding annual inflationary adjustment: For items billed at actual cost, the underlying hourly billing rates should inflate annually by the change in hourly labor rates and/or indirect cost rate multipliers. [b] Non-commercial photography and photography/film not requiring exclusivity does not need a permit. The Department Director may waive fees for bona fide student film/photography projects and non-profit projects. The permitting process for filming/photography is still applicable for these projects (i.e. permit is required). Service charges are still applicable.

App. A: 39
City of Roseville
Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
Parks, Recreation, & Libraries Department Fees
Fee Description FY 21-22 Fee FY 22-23 Fee Unit Note
Y'rly
In'fltr
1 Parks, Recreation, & Libraries Department Program, Class, Facility Use, and Service Fees
See Note See Note [a] N
2 Capital Replacement Fee Not to exceed 10% of
program fee
Not to exceed 10% of
program fee
per registration N
[a] See Department for Recreation Guide and Programs, Events, and Classes information, Facility Use, and Service Fees. Information is updated seasonally. Fees are approved by the Department Director. Fees are established and updated using the Departmental Pricing Policy.

App. A: 40
Appendix B – Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis
User and Regulatory Fees
Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis
App. B: 1
Table of Contents Page(s)
Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis
Administrative Fees (City Clerk) 3
Utility Billing, Accounting, and Meter Reading Services 8 Development Services Fees (Planning, Engineering, Building, Permit Center, Code Enforcement) 11 Development Impact Fee Deferral Fees 49
Electric Fees 52
Environmental Utilities Fees 54
Fire & Life Safety Fees 57
Police Fees 66
Animal Licensing Fees 72
Parking Permits and Other Vehicle/Moving Permits (e.g. Oversize Loads) 75 Special Event, Film, and Banner Permit Fees 79
Parks, Recreation, & Libraries Department Fees 81
Transportation Divisions 87
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Fee Modifications 89
App. B: 2
Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis
- Administrative Fees (City Clerk) -
App. B: 3
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
City Clerk Department - Calculation of Targeted Hourly Rates and Indirect Cost Rate Multipliers (for Public Records Requests) Labor Allocation Statistics
Direct Service Units (functional units for fee-setting purposes) Est. FTE Notes City Clerk - Administration 8.00
Total 8.00
Calculation of Estimated Expenditures for Direct Services Units Direct Service Units (Functional Units) - City Clerk Administration Center
# Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages Est. Benefits
Est. Recurring
Non-Labor
Est. C'wide
Overhead
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses Notes
36001 City Clerk 8.00 $ 629,756 $ 361,361 $ 173,755 $ - $ 1,164,872 [a],[b],[c] Total 8.00 $ 629,756 $ 361,361 $ 173,755 $ - $ 1,164,872 Calculation of Targeted Hourly Rate
Direct Services for Fee-Related Cost of Service (Functional Units) City Clerk Administration
Center
# Description Est. FTE
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Est. Annual
Leave Hours
Per FTE [b]
Est. Productive
Hours Per FTE
Est % of Time
Spent on
Indirect
Activities [c]
Total Est.

Direct Svc
Hours
Total Est.

Direct Svc
Hours (All FTE)
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate Notes
36001 City Clerk 8.00 $ 1,164,872 2,080 320 1,760 0% 1,760 14,080 $ 83 [d],[e] Total 8.00 $ 1,164,872 2,080 320 1,760 0% 1,760 14,080 $ 83 Calculation of Estimated ICR Multiplier
Center
# Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Total Est.

Annual Hours
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
Assuming 2,080
Hours
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate ICR Multiplier
Straight Hourly
Rate * ICR
Multiplier *
Direct Hours Notes
36001 City Clerk 8.00 $ 629,756 2,080 16,640 $ 38 $ 83 2.19 $ 1,164,872 Source: Estimated labor and FTE information based on FY 21/22 position budgeting data. Estimated recurring non-labor expenditures and estimated citywide overhead based on conservative estimates developed for purposes of this analysis only (see footnotes [a],[b], and [c] for additional details regarding estimates for recurring non-labor and citywide overhead expenditures). [a] The calculated hourly rate is intended to comply with Government Code 6253(b). The hourly rate shown represents only the labor costs of City Clerk personnel that typically perform reproduction services. Estimated non-labor and citywide overhead costs are deliberately excluded. [d] Annual leave assumes the following: Holiday - 12 days; Vacation - 14 days; Sick - 12 days; Mgmt/Jury/Other - 2 days. Actual amounts may vary based on employee length of service and job title.

Amounts shown are intended to serve as reasonable for purposes of estimation. [e] Indirect activities and services may include mandatory rest periods, meetings, training, and other administrative activities. However, these amounts have been excluded in order to err on the side of caution in an effort to comply with Government Code 6253(b) regarding requests for public records. The hourly rate shown represents only the labor costs of City Clerk personnel that typically perform reproduction services.
[b] In accordance with footnote [a], estimated recurring non-labor only include the Division's direct share of insurance, IT, and facilities costs, etc. attributable to the division. [c] In accordance with footnote [a], the hourly rate calculation for public records requests, exlcudes the division's share of allocated citywide overhead costs.

App. B: 4
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
City Clerk Department - Passport Center Calculation of Targeted Hourly Rates and Indirect Cost Rate Multipliers Statistical Information
Description Total Notes
Estimated Citywide Overhead as a Percent of Salaries for Fee-Related Services Hourly Rate Calculation 10% [a] Labor Allocation Statistics
Direct Service Units (functional units for fee-setting purposes) Est. FTE Notes Passport Center 4.00
Total 4.00
Calculation of Estimated Expenditures for Direct Services Units Direct Service Units (Functional Units)
Center
# Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages Est. Benefits
Est. Recurring
Non-Labor
Est. C'wide
Overhead
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses Notes
36020 Passport Center 4.00 $ 169,524 $ 133,278 $ 109,181 $ 16,952 $ 428,935 Total 4.00 $ 169,524 $ 133,278 $ 109,181 $ 16,952 $ 428,935 Calculation of Targeted Hourly Rate
Direct Services for Fee-Related Cost of Service (Functional Units) Center
# Description Est. FTE
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Est. Annual
Leave Hours
Per FTE [b]
Est. Productive
Hours Per FTE
Est % of Time
Spent on
Indirect
Activities [c]
Total Est.

Direct Svc
Hours
Total Est.

Direct Svc
Hours (All FTE)
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate Notes
36020 Passport Center 4.00 $ 428,935 2,080 320 1,760 15% 1,496 5,984 $ 72 [b],[c] Total 4.00 $ 428,935 2,080 320 1,760 15% 1,496 5,984 $ 72 Calculation of Estimated ICR Multiplier
Center
# Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Total Est.

Annual Hours
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
Assuming 2,080
Hours
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate ICR Multiplier
Straight Hourly
Rate * ICR
Multiplier *
Direct Hours Notes
36020 Passport Center 4.00 $ 169,524 2,080 8,320 $ 20 $ 72 3.52 $ 428,935 Source: Estimated labor and FTE information based on FY 21/22 position budgeting data. Estimated recurring non-labor expenditures based on FY 21/22 adopted budget. Estimated citywide overhead based on conservative estimates developed for purposes of this analysis only (see footnote [a] for additional details regarding estimates for citywide overhead). [a] Amount is intended to serve as a reasonable, conservative, estimate of central service support received by the City Clerk Department from other central service units, such as finance, attorney, city manager, etc. The City's existing overhead cost allocation plan allocates central service costs to direct service units. Consequently, there is no formal allocation of citywide overhead to the City Clerk.

While, the City Clerk Department primarily operates as a central service unit, for certain fee-related services the department provides direct services. The overhead allocation is intended to provide an estimate of support received by the City Clerk Department that enables staff to perform direct services, when requested. [b] Annual leave assumes the following: Holiday - 12 days; Vacation - 14 days; Sick - 12 days; Mgmt/Jury/Other - 2 days. Actual amounts may vary based on employee length of service and job title.

Amounts shown are intended to serve as reasonable for purposes of estimation. [c] Indirect activities and services may include mandatory rest periods, meetings, training, and other administrative activities.

App. B: 5
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Administrative Fees
Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Cost + Paper +
Toner,
Postage,
Other =
Est. Cost
of
Service Notes
Current
Fee
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee Change
($)
Proposed
Fee Change
(%)
City-Wide Records
1 Documents
a) 8.5 x 11 - Black and White
i) 0 - 9 Copies $0.23 + $0.01 + $0.03 = $0.27 [a],[b],[c] No Charge No Charge ii) 10+ Copies $0.23 + $0.01 + $0.03 = $0.27 [a],[b],[c] $0.10 37% $0.10 37% $0.00 0% b) 8.5 x 14 and 11 x 17 - Black and White $0.46 + $0.05 + $0.06 = $0.57 [d],[e],[c] $0.20 35% $0.20 35% $0.00 0% c) Color Copies
i) 8.5 x 11 $0.46 + $0.01 + $0.25 = $0.72 [b],[c],[d] $0.50 70% $0.50 70% $0.00 0% ii) 11 x 17 $0.69 + $0.05 + $0.50 = $1.23 [f],[e],[c] $1.00 81% $1.00 81% $0.00 0% iii) 18 x 24 $1.38 + $0.10 + $0.99 = $2.47 [g] $2.00 81% $2.00 81% $0.00 0% iv) 24 x 36 $2.76 + $0.19 + $1.98 $4.93 [h] $3.00 61% $3.00 61% $0.00 0% 2 Photos $0.46 + $0.01 + $0.25 = $0.72 [b],[c],[d] $0.50 70% $0.50 70% $0.00 0% 3 Recordings $20.68 + $0.00 + $0.54 = $21.22 [i],[j] $6.00 28% $6.00 28% $0.00 0% 4 Digital Media (e.g. USB Flash Drive) $0.00 + $0.00 + $8.00 = $8.00 [k] $8.00 $8.00 100% 0% 5 Agenda Subscription
a) 6 Months $82.73 + $0.65 + $5.64 = $89.02 [l] $20.00 22% $20.00 22% $0.00 0% b) 12 Months $165.46 + $1.30 + $11.28 = $178.04 [m] $40.00 22% $40.00 22% $0.00 0% 6 Budget Book
a) Available on City website No charge No charge
b) Hardcopy varies Actual cost
or per page
fee
100% Actual cost
or per page
charge
100%
7 Requests Requiring Special Programming or
Formatting
varies [n] Actual cost 100% Actual cost 100%
Passport
8 Passport Processing Fee n/a [o] $35.00 n/a $35.00 n/a $0.00 0% 9 Passport Photo Fee $11.95 + $0.01 + $0.25 = $12.21 [p] $12.00 98% $12.00 98% $0.00 0% 10 Passport Express Postage actual cost [q] Actual
postage cost
100% Actual
postage
100%
Notary
11 Notary Charge n/a [r] $15.00 n/a $15.00 n/a $0.00 0% Subpoena $0.00
12 Subpoena Fees varies [r] Fees Vary -
See Note
varies
Election
13 Candidate Nomination Filing Fee n/a [r] $25.00 n/a $25.00 n/a $0.00 0% 14 Fee for Late Filing of Reports of Campaign
Contributions and Expenditures
n/a [s] See Note See Note
App. B: 6
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Administrative Fees
Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Cost + Paper +
Toner,
Postage,
Other =
Est. Cost
of
Service Notes
Current
Fee
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee Change
($)
Proposed
Fee Change
(%)
Amplified Sound
15 Sound Permit $27.58 = $27.58 [t] $25.00 91% $25.00 91% $0.00 0% Franchise Application
16 Franchise Application Fee
a) Refuse Hauler not examined as part of this study [u] $260.00 $260.00 $0.00 0% b) Community Antenna Television
System
not examined as part of this study [u] $100.00 $100.00 $0.00 0% c) All Others not examined as part of this study [u] $150.00 $150.00 $0.00 0% [a] Assumes 10 seconds per page.
[b] Assumes $50 plus tax for 5,000 sheets of paper.
[c] Source: Xerox - US Cost per page assuming varying levels of coverage. [d] Assumes 20 seconds per page processing time.
[e] Assumes $22 per 500 sheets of paper.
[f] Assumes 30 seconds per page processing time.
[g] Non-standard request. Estimates based on twice the 11x17 amount. [h] Non-standard request. Estimates based on twice the 18x24 amount. [i] Assumes 15 minutes per request.
[j] Assumes $25 plus tax for 50 re-writeable CDs.
[k] Assumes $8 per flash drive (e.g. 32GB flash drive). [l] Assumes 5 minutes per agenda mailing, plus 5 pages per agenda, plus standard postage rates for two meetings per month for six months. [m] Assumes 5 minutes per agenda mailing, plus 5 pages per agenda, plus standard postage rates for two meetings per month for twelve months. [n] Amounts vary depending on request.
[o] Processing fee is payable separately from amount payable to US Department of State. [p] Assumes ten minutes per typical request and conservative estimate for materials costs. [q] City will pass-through any requested express postage costs. [r] Maximum fees established by other governmental entities. [s] See Roseville Municipal Code Fine Schedule and/or Roseville Municipal Bail Schedule. [t] Assumes 20 minutes per request.
[u] Franchise application fees are not examined as part of this study. Certain reviews are now conducted by the State.

App. B: 7
Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis
- Utility Billing, Accounting, and Meter Reading Services - App. B: 8
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Utility Customer Services - Billing, Accounting, and Meter Reading Services - Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rates and Indirect Cost Rate Multipliers Calculation of Estimated Expenditures for Departmental Overhead and Direct Services Units Department Overhead
Center
# Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages Est. Benefits
Est. Recurring
Non-Labor
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses for
Hrly Rate Calc
Total OT; PT
Labor and
Contracts
Total Vacancy
Factor & Leave
Payoffs
Total
Reimbursed
Expense Total
Est. C'wide
Overhead
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses Notes
74181 Water UBS - Admin 1.53 $ 146,626 $ 78,967 $ 132,819 $ 358,412 $ 13,333 $ 2,751 $ (73,217) $ 301,279 $ 14,663 $ 373,075 Total 1.53 $ 146,626 $ 78,967 $ 132,819 $ 358,412 $ 13,333 $ 2,751 $ (73,217) $ 301,279 $ 14,663 $ 373,075 Direct Services for Fee-Related Cost of Service (Functional Units) Center
# Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages Est. Benefits
Est. Recurring
Non-Labor
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses for
Hrly Rate Calc
Total OT; PT
Labor and
Contracts
Total Vacancy
Factor & Leave
Payoffs
Total
Reimbursed
Expense Total
Est. Alloc. of
Dept.

Overhead
Est. C'wide
Overhead
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses Notes
74182 Water UBS - Field Srv 3.13 $ 177,785 $ 152,826 $ 55,254 $ 385,865 $ 59,182 $ 3,655 $ (50,678) $ 398,024 $ 155,396 $ 17,779 $ 559,039 74183 Water UBS - Billing 1.19 $ 87,124 $ 49,963 $ 32,760 $ 169,847 $ 14,868 $ 1,909 $ (29,290) $ 157,334 $ 59,175 $ 8,712 $ 237,734 [a] 74184 Water UBS - Customer Svc 3.19 $ 172,185 $ 106,351 $ 37,195 $ 315,731 $ 9,999 $ 3,960 $ (11,053) $ 318,637 $ 158,504 $ 17,219 $ 491,453 Total 7.50 $ 437,094 $ 309,140 $ 125,209 $ 871,443 $ 84,049 $ 9,524 $ (91,021) $ 873,995 $ 373,075 $ 43,709 $ 1,288,227 Calculation of Estimated Fully-Burdened Hourly Rates
Direct Services for Fee-Related Cost of Service (Functional Units) Center
# Description Est. FTE
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Est. Annual
Leave Hours
Per FTE [b]
Est. Productive
Hours Per FTE
Est % of Time
Spent on
Indirect
Activities [c]
Total Est.

Direct Svc
Hours
Total Est.

Direct Svc
Hours (All FTE)
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate Notes
74182 Water UBS - Field Srv 3.13 $ 559,039 2,080 320 1,760 13% 1,540 4,813 $ 116 74183 Water UBS - Billing 1.19 $ 237,734 2,080 320 1,760 13% 1,540 1,833 $ 130 74184 Water UBS - Customer Svc 3.19 $ 491,453 2,080 320 1,760 13% 1,540 4,909 $ 100 Total 7.50 $ 1,288,227 2,080 320 1,760 13% 1,540 11,554 $ 111 Calculation of Estimated ICR Multiplier
Center
# Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Total Est.

Annual Hours
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
Assuming 2,080
Hours
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate ICR Multiplier
Straight Hourly
Rate * ICR
Multiplier *
Direct Hours Notes
74182 Water UBS - Field Srv 3.13 $ 177,785 2,080 6,500 $ 27 $ 116 4.25 $ 559,039 74183 Water UBS - Billing 1.19 $ 87,124 2,080 2,475 $ 35 $ 130 3.69 $ 237,734 74184 Water UBS - Customer Svc 3.19 $ 172,185 2,080 6,630 $ 26 $ 100 3.86 $ 491,453 Total 7.50 $ 437,094 2,080 15,605 $ 28 $ 111 3.98 $ 1,288,227 Source: Estimated labor and FTE information based on FY 21/22 position budgeting data. Estimated recurring non-labor expenditures based on FY 21/22 adopted budget. Estimated citywide overhead assumes 10% of direct salaries (conservative allocation to account for divisional restructuring). [b] Annual leave assumes the following: Holiday - 12 days; Vacation - 14 days; Sick - 12 days; Mgmt/Jury/Other - 2 days. Actual amounts may vary based on employee length of service and job title. Amounts shown are intended to serve as reasonable for purposes of estimation. [c] Amounts shown are intended to serve as conservative estimates. Indirect activities and services may include mandatory rest periods, meetings, training, public information and assistance, and other administrative activities.
[a] Adjustment to exclude distorting expenses. This is intended to serve as a conservative estimate and corresponds to recurring services and supplies share for the budget unit.

App. B: 9
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Utility Customer Services - Billing, Accounting, and Meter Reading Services Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Est. Labor Hours Estimated Cost of Service
Fee Description
Util Bill
Svc
Util
Field
Svcs
Elec
Meter
Wrkr
EU
Meter
Wrkr Total
Util Bill
Svc
Util
Field
Svcs
Elec
Meter
Wrkr
EU
Meter
Wrkr Total
Current
Fee
Current
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Change
Service Fees
1 Reestablishment Fee - Residential Electric
a) During Normal Hours $40 n/a $40 n/a $0
b) After Hours $85 n/a $85 n/a $0
2 Reestablishment Fee - Commercial Electric
a) During Normal Hours $150 n/a $150 n/a $0
b) After Hours $175 n/a $175 n/a $0
3 Reestablishment Fee - Water $150 n/a $150 n/a $0
4 Returned Check/ABD/ACH Fee (for first
dishonored check or EFT)
$25 n/a $25 n/a $0
5 Subsequent Returned Check/ABD/ACH Fee
(after the first dishonored check or EFT)
$35 n/a $35 n/a $0
6 Late Payment Fee 5% of late
balance
n/a 5% of late
balance
n/a $0
7 Unauthorized Service Reconnect Fee $50 n/a $50 n/a $0 8 Utility Bill Reprint Fee $1 n/a $1 n/a $0
9 Access Fee $50 n/a $50 n/a $0
10 Same Day Service Equal to
Reestablis
hment Fee
n/a Equal to
Reestablis
hment Fee
n/a $0
* Maximum returned check fees are governed by State law.

Re-establishment fees, late
payment fees, access fees, etc.
were not examined as part of this
study.

While the current costs of reestablishing service are
significantly higher than fees
charged, over the next few years
significant technological changes
are anticipated that will reduce
the cost of shut-off and reactivation of service.

Certain items listed are intended
to include a behavior modification
component (e.g. late payment
fee).

Re-establishment fees, late
payment fees, access fees, etc.
were not examined as part of this
study.

Certain items listed are intended
to include a behavior modification
component (e.g. late payment
fee).

App. B: 10
Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis
- Development Services Fees (Planning, Engineering, Building) - App. B: 11
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services Department - Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rates and Indirect Cost Rate Multipliers Calculation of Estimated Expenditures for Departmental Overhead and Direct Services Units Department Overhead
Center Description
Est. Salaries
and Wages Est. Benefits
Est. Recurring
Non-Labor
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses for
Hrly Rate Calc
Total OT; PT
Labor and
Contracts
Total Vacancy
Factor & Leave
Payoffs
Total
Reimbursed
Expense Total
Est. C'wide
Overhead
Total Dept
Costs for Hrly
Rate Calc
Allocation to
Direct Svc Units
Allocated
Amount Notes
66001 Dev Svcs - Admin $ 289,763 $ 164,128 $ 123,061 $ 576,952 $ - $ (11,692) $ (37,500) $ 527,760 $ 388,655 $ 965,607 100% $ 965,607 66010 Dev Svcs - Business Svcs $ 969,022 $ 610,395 $ 215,222 $ 1,794,639 $ - $ (40,010) $ (134,000) $ 1,620,629 $ 136,871 $ 1,931,510 100% $ 1,931,510 Total $ 1,258,785 $ 774,523 $ 338,283 $ 2,371,591 $ - $ (51,702) $ (171,500) $ 2,148,389 $ 525,526 $ 2,897,117 $ 2,897,117 Allocation of Department Overhead to Direct Service Units Org Key Description
Allocated
Amount Planning
Building
Inspection Engineering
Code
Enforcement Total Notes
66001 Dev Svcs - Admin $ 965,607 30% 30% 30% 10% 100% [a] 66010 Dev Svcs - Business Svcs $ 1,931,510 15% 55% 25% 5% 100% [b] Total $ 2,897,117
Org Key Description
Allocated
Amount Planning
Building
Inspection Engineering
Code
Enforcement Total Notes
66001 Dev Svcs - Admin $ 965,607 $ 289,682 $ 289,682 $ 289,682 $ 96,561 $ 965,607 66010 Dev Svcs - Business Svcs $ 1,931,510 $ 289,727 $ 1,062,331 $ 482,878 $ 96,576 $ 1,931,510 Total $ 2,897,117 $ 579,409 $ 1,352,013 $ 772,560 $ 193,136 $ 2,897,117 Direct Service Unit Costs of Service (Functional Units) Org Key Description
Est. Full-Time
Salaries and
Wages Est. Benefits
Est. Recurring
Non-Labor
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses for
Hrly Rate Calc
Total OT; PT
Labor and
Contracts
Total Vacancy
Factor & Leave
Payoffs
Total
Reimbursed
Expense Total
Est. Alloc. of
Dept.

Overhead
Est. C'wide
Overhead
Total Dept
Costs for Hrly
Rate Calc Notes
66020 Bldg Inspection $ 1,912,355 $ 1,234,856 $ 617,592 $ 3,764,803 $ 686,207 $ (92,726) $ (4,500) $ 4,353,784 $ 1,352,013 $ 446,709 $ 5,563,525 [c] 66030 Code Enforcement $ 400,474 $ 245,142 $ 192,700 $ 838,316 $ 123,030 $ (21,511) $ - $ 939,835 $ 193,136 $ 68,786 $ 1,100,238 66040 Planning $ 985,361 $ 593,923 $ 245,702 $ 1,824,986 $ 5,668 $ (41,723) $ (550,000) $ 1,238,931 $ 579,409 $ 346,436 $ 2,750,831 66050 Engineering $ 2,198,881 $ 1,286,691 $ 532,046 $ 4,017,618 $ 108,040 $ (99,444) $ (2,414,037) $ 1,612,177 $ 772,560 $ 322,337 $ 5,112,515 Total $ 5,497,071 $ 3,360,612 $ 1,588,040 $ 10,445,723 $ 922,945 $ (255,404) $ (2,968,537) $ 8,144,727 $ 2,897,117 $ 1,184,268 $ 14,527,108 Calculation of Estimated Fully-Burdened Hourly Rates
Calculation of Direct Service Hours
Org Key Description Total FTE
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Adjust for
Typical Leave
Productive
Hours Per FTE Direct Hours % Total Hours
Productive
Hours Direct Hours Notes
66020 Bldg Inspection 23.00 2,080 (216) 1,864 67% 47,840 42,872 28,724 [d] 66030 Code Enforcement 5.00 2,080 (216) 1,864 75% 10,400 9,320 6,990 [d] 66040 Planning 9.90 2,080 (216) 1,864 70% 20,592 18,454 12,918 [d] 66050 Engineering 21.25 2,080 (216) 1,864 65% 44,200 39,610 25,747 [d] Total
App. B: 12
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services Department - Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rates and Indirect Cost Rate Multipliers Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rates
Org Key Description
Est. Recurring
Exp Excluding
Part-Time Help Direct Hours
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate Notes
66020 Bldg Inspection $ 5,563,525 28,724 $ 194
66030 Code Enforcement $ 1,100,238 6,990 $ 157
66040 Planning $ 2,750,831 12,918 $ 213
66050 Engineering $ 5,112,515 25,747 $ 199
Total
App. B: 13
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services Department - Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rates and Indirect Cost Rate Multipliers Calculation of Estimated ICR Multiplier
Org Key Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages [a]
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Total Est.

Annual Hours
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
Assuming Total
Annual Hours
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
ICR Multiplier
at FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate Notes
66020 Bldg Inspection 23.00 $ 1,912,355 2,080 47,840 $ 40 $ 194 4.85 66030 Code Enforcement 5.00 $ 400,474 2,080 10,400 $ 39 $ 157 4.09 66040 Planning 9.90 $ 985,361 2,080 20,592 $ 48 $ 213 4.45 66050 Engineering 21.25 $ 2,198,881 2,080 44,200 $ 50 $ 199 3.99 Estimated Cost Recovery for Divisions that Rely Primarily on Hourly Billing via ICR Org Key Description
Current ICR
Used for
Hourly Billings
Calculated ICR
at Full Cost
Recovery
Estimated
Cost Recovery Current ICR Proposed ICR
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed Cost
Recovery Notes
66040 Planning 3.15 4.45 71% 3.15 3.31 71% 74%
66050 Engineering 3.13 3.99 78% 3.13 3.29 78% 82%
Estimated Cost Recovery for Divisions that Rely Primarily on Uniform Underlying Hourly Rate for Fee Setting Org Key Description
Current Hourly
Rate Used for
Fee Setting
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Estimated
Cost Recovery
Current Hourly
Rate Used for
Fee Setting
Proposed
Hourly Rate
Used for Fee
Setting
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed Cost
Recovery Notes
66020 Bldg Inspection $ 190 $ 194 98% $ 190 $ 194 98% 100% [d] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates developed for purposes of this analysis. Amount will vary annually, and by employee. Amount based on FY 21/22 position allocation, historical allocations for City of Roseville, and consultant experience working with similar municipalities.

Source: Expenditures are based on FY 21/22 adopted budget. Estimated citywide overhead based on Citywide overhead cost allocation plan for use in FY 22/23. Estimated labor and FTE information based on FY 21/22 position budgeting data.
[c] Includes budget unit (Center) 66021 - Contract Building Plan Review. [a] Allocation assumes 60% to Planning and Engineering and 40% to Building and Code Enforcement. Although Building has the highest permit volume, the most significant time required from personnel in the Administration division occurs in the project planning and land development stages. [b] Allocation assumes 80% of development services GIS and business services benefit to Building and Engineering. Remainder to Planning and Code Enforcement.

App. B: 14
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services Department - Cost Recovery Analysis Planning Fees
Description FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Average
Total Expense $1,889,887 $2,037,325 $2,115,120 $2,014,110 Total Revenue $1,409,156 $1,573,247 $1,174,200 $1,385,534 Cost Recovery 75% 77% 56% 69%
General Fund Subsidy $480,731 $464,078 $940,920 $628,576 Dev Svcs Engineering Fees
Description FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Average
Total Expense $3,383,379 $3,627,858 $4,083,230 $3,698,156 Total Revenue $2,847,589 $3,321,277 $3,013,037 $3,060,634 Cost Recovery 84% 92% 74% 83%
General Fund Subsidy $535,790 $306,581 $1,070,193 $637,521 Building Permit and Plan Check Fees
Description FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Average
Total Expense $5,095,394 $5,618,909 $6,006,702 $5,573,668 Total Revenue $4,475,003 $6,080,931 $4,771,900 $5,109,278 Cost Recovery 88% 108% 79% 92%
General Fund Subsidy $620,392 ($462,022) $1,234,802 $464,391 Total Fee-Related Services
Description FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Average
Total Expense $10,368,660 $11,284,092 $12,205,052 $11,285,934 Total Revenue $8,731,747 $10,975,455 $8,959,137 $9,555,446 Cost Recovery 84% 97% 73% 85%
General Fund Subsidy $1,636,912 $308,637 $3,245,915 $1,730,488 See individual cost recovery worksheeets for details.

App. B: 15
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services Department - Cost Recovery Analysis - FY 19/20 Cost Recovery Expenses
Project 66001 66010 66020 66021 66030 66040 66050
Description Dev Svcs Admin Business Services Building Inspection Contract
Bldg PC Code Enforcement Planning Dev Svcs Engineering Total 5000 - 5500 Accounts $554,546 $1,417,835 $3,213,511 $614,066 $609,879 $1,688,514 $3,409,383 $11,507,734 Allocated Citywide Overhead $130,320 $73,775 $241,972 $0 $39,402 $244,643 $241,478 $971,590 Adjust for Dev Svcs Alloc ($684,866) $205,459.80 $68,486.60 $205,460 $205,460 $0 Adjust for Business Services Alloc ($1,491,610) $820,385.50 $74,580.50 $223,742 $372,903 $0 Total $0 $0 $4,481,328 $614,066 $792,348 $2,362,358 $4,229,223 $12,479,324 Revenues and Expenditure Offsets
Project 66001 66010 66020 66021 66030 66040 66050
Description Dev Svcs Admin Business Services Building Inspection Contract
Bldg PC Code Enforcement Planning Dev Svcs Engineering Total 4151 - Permit Fees - Building Permits $2,628,521 $2,628,521 4201 - Permit Fees - Inspection $11,912 $11,912
4202 - Permit Fees - Plan Check $1,163,503 $542,530 $195,918 $10,303 $1,912,254 4204 - Permit Fees - Planning $261,476 $261,476
4205 - Permit Fees - Engineering $155,337 $155,337
4207 - Permit Fees - General Plan Update $199,760 $199,760 4273 - Franchise Fees $319,080 $319,080
4381 - Witness Fees $0 $0
4390 - Administrative Fees $0 $28,269 $2 $40 $28,311
4401 - Federal Grants $112 $719 $9 $840
4430 - SB 1186 - Disability Access $37,520 $37,520
4590 - Other Fines or Penalties $0 $3,588 $3,588
4790 - Other Revenue $6,791 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,791
Fixed Fee Revenue $6,903 $0 $3,870,444 $542,530 $3,588 $657,165 $484,760 $5,565,390 5911 - Reimbursed Cost - Charged $0 $0
5912 - Reimbursed Cost - Received ($186,000) ($186,000) 5980 - Internal Labor - Raw Cost Reimbursement ($12,889) -19361 ($5,555.00) ($254,381) ($715,195) ($1,007,381) 5981 - Internal Labor - Burden Reimbursement ($25,081) -36746 ($12,153.00) ($475,732) ($1,434,145) ($1,983,857) Secondary Labor Reimbursements ($37,970) ($56,107) ($17,708) $0 $0 ($730,113) ($2,335,340) ($3,177,238) Secondary Labor Adjusted $37,970 $56,107 $17,708 $0 $0 $730,113 $2,335,340 $3,177,238 Subtotal $44,873 $56,107 $3,888,152 $542,530 $3,588 $1,387,278 $2,820,100 $8,742,628 Adjust for Dev Svcs Alloc ($44,873) $13,461.90 $4,487.30 $13,462 $13,462 $0 Adjust for Business Services Alloc ($56,107) $30,858.85 $2,805.35 $8,416 $14,027 $0 Total $0 $0 $3,932,473 $542,530 $10,881 $1,409,156 $2,847,589 $8,742,628 Share of Division Dedicated to Private Dev (e.g., Fee Related Services) 95% 95% 100% 100% 0% 80% 80%
Total Expense $0 $0 $4,481,328 $614,066 $0 $1,889,887 $3,383,379 $10,368,660 Total Revenue $0 $0 $3,932,473 $542,530 $10,881 $1,409,156 $2,847,589 $8,742,628 Cost Recovery n/a n/a 88% 88% n/a 75% 84% 84%
General Fund Subsidy $0 $0 $548,856 $71,536 ($10,881) $480,731 $535,790 $1,626,032 Alloc to Direct Services
Dev Svcs
Admin Business Services
Building Inspection 30% 55%
Code Enforcement 10% 5%
Planning 30% 15%
Dev Svcs Engineering 30% 25%
Total 100% 100%
App. B: 16
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services Department - Cost Recovery Analysis - FY 20/21 Cost Recovery Expenses
Project 66001 66010 66020 66021 66030 66040 66050
Description Dev Svcs Admin Business Services Building Inspection Contract
Bldg PC Code Enforcement Planning Dev Svcs Engineering Total 5000 - 5500 Accounts $577,215 $1,664,429 $3,598,739 $482,436 $620,176 $1,741,348 $3,553,052 $12,237,395 Allocated Citywide Overhead $169,559 $108,258 $338,724 $0 $50,084 $315,372 $314,567 $1,296,564 Adjust for Dev Svcs Alloc ($746,774) $224,032 $74,677 $224,032 $224,032 $0 Adjust for Business Services Alloc ($1,772,687) $974,978 $88,634 $265,903 $443,172 $0 Total $0 $0 $5,136,473 $482,436 $833,572 $2,546,656 $4,534,823 $13,533,959 Revenues and Expenditure Offsets
Project 66001 66010 66020 66021 66030 66040 66050
Description Dev Svcs Admin Business Services Building Inspection Contract
Bldg PC Code Enforcement Planning Dev Svcs Engineering Total 4151 - Permit Fees - Building Permits $3,896,268 $3,896,268 4201 - Permit Fees - Inspection $7,662 $7,662
4202 - Permit Fees - Plan Check $1,508,993 $438,195 $249,610 $13,507 $2,210,305 4204 - Permit Fees - Planning $273,452 $273,452
4205 - Permit Fees - Engineering $184,948 $184,948
4207 - Permit Fees - General Plan Update $272,906 $272,906 4273 - Franchise Fees $307,385 $307,385
4381 - Witness Fees $682 $682
4390 - Administrative Fees $13,263 $12,488 $28,692 $4,697 $59,140 4401 - Federal Grants $0 $3,291 $3,291
4430 - SB 1186 - Disability Access $38,263 $38,263
4590 - Other Fines or Penalties $2,905 $2,905
4790 - Other Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Fixed Fee Revenue $682 $13,263 $5,466,965 $438,195 $2,905 $824,660 $510,537 $7,257,207 5911 - Reimbursed Cost - Charged $0 $0
5912 - Reimbursed Cost - Received ($154,851) ($154,851) 5980 - Internal Labor - Raw Cost Reimbursement ($25,821) -26509 ($39,372.00) ($321,231) ($883,674) ($1,296,607) 5981 - Internal Labor - Burden Reimbursement ($43,634) -40433 ($71,245.00) ($394,284) ($1,731,123) ($2,280,719) Secondary Labor Reimbursements ($69,455) ($66,942) ($110,617) $0 $0 ($715,515) ($2,769,648) ($3,732,177) Secondary Labor Adjusted $69,455 $66,942 $110,617 $0 $0 $715,515 $2,769,648 $3,732,177 Subtotal $70,137 $80,205 $5,577,582 $438,195 $2,905 $1,540,175 $3,280,185 $10,989,384 Adjust for Dev Svcs Alloc ($70,137) $21,041.10 $7,013.70 $21,041 $21,041 $0 Adjust for Business Services Alloc ($80,205) $44,112.75 $4,010.25 $12,031 $20,051 $0 Total $0 $0 $5,642,736 $438,195 $13,929 $1,573,247 $3,321,277 $10,989,384 Share of Division Dedicated to Private Dev (e.g., Fee Related Services) 95% 95% 100% 100% 0% 80% 80%
Total Expense $0 $0 $5,136,473 $482,436 $0 $2,037,325 $3,627,858 $11,284,092 Total Revenue $0 $0 $5,642,736 $438,195 $13,929 $1,573,247 $3,321,277 $10,989,384 Cost Recovery n/a n/a 110% 91% n/a 77% 92% 97%
General Fund Subsidy $0 $0 ($506,263) $44,241 ($13,929) $464,078 $306,581 $294,708 Alloc to Direct Services
Dev Svcs
Admin Business Services
Building Inspection 30% 55%
Code Enforcement 10% 5%
Planning 30% 15%
Dev Svcs Engineering 30% 25%
Total 100% 100%
App. B: 17
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services Department - Cost Recovery Analysis - FY 21/22 Cost Recovery Expenses
Project 66001 66010 66020 66021 66030 66040 66050
Description Dev Svcs Admin Business Services Building Inspection Contract
Bldg PC Code Enforcement Planning Dev Svcs Engineering Total 5000 - 5500 Accounts $565,260 $1,754,629 $3,858,284 $500,000 $939,835 $1,788,931 $4,026,214 $13,433,153 Allocated Citywide Overhead $179,331 $123,254 $392,205 $0 $81,971 $349,909 $384,975 $1,511,646 Adjust for Dev Svcs Alloc ($744,591) $223,377 $74,459 $223,377 $223,377 $0 Adjust for Business Services Alloc ($1,877,883) $1,032,836 $93,894 $281,683 $469,471 $0 Total $0 $0 $5,506,702 $500,000 $1,190,159 $2,643,900 $5,104,037 $14,944,799 Revenues and Expenditure Offsets
Project 66001 66010 66020 66021 66030 66040 66050
Description Dev Svcs Admin Business Services Building Inspection Contract
Bldg PC Code Enforcement Planning Dev Svcs Engineering Total 4151 - Permit Fees - Building Permits $2,700,000 $2,700,000 4201 - Permit Fees - Inspection $10,000 $10,000
4202 - Permit Fees - Plan Check $1,500,000 $500,000 $175,000 $24,500 $2,199,500 4204 - Permit Fees - Planning $225,000 $225,000
4205 - Permit Fees - Engineering $300,000 $300,000
4207 - Permit Fees - General Plan Update $200,000 $200,000 4273 - Franchise Fees $250,000 $250,000
4381 - Witness Fees $0 $0
4390 - Administrative Fees $13,000 $10,000 $6,500 $2,500 $32,000 4401 - Federal Grants $0 $0
4430 - SB 1186 - Disability Access $10,000 $10,000
4590 - Other Fines or Penalties $2,500 $250 $2,750
4790 - Other Revenue $0 $0
Fixed Fee Revenue $0 $13,000 $4,232,500 $500,000 $250 $606,500 $577,000 $5,929,250 5911 - Reimbursed Cost - Charged $4,000 $4,000
5912 - Reimbursed Cost - Received ($168,037) ($168,037) 5980 - Internal Labor - Raw Cost Reimbursement ($12,500) -10000 ($1,500.00) ($200,000) ($750,000) ($974,000) 5981 - Internal Labor - Burden Reimbursement ($25,000) -20000 ($3,000.00) ($350,000) ($1,500,000) ($1,898,000) Secondary Labor Reimbursements ($37,500) ($30,000) ($4,500) $0 $0 ($550,000) ($2,414,037) ($3,036,037) Secondary Labor Adjusted $37,500 $30,000 $4,500 $0 $0 $550,000 $2,414,037 $3,036,037 Subtotal $37,500 $43,000 $4,237,000 $500,000 $250 $1,156,500 $2,991,037 $8,965,287 Adjust for Dev Svcs Alloc ($37,500) $11,250.00 $3,750.00 $11,250 $11,250 $0 Adjust for Business Services Alloc ($43,000) $23,650.00 $2,150.00 $6,450 $10,750 $0 Total $0 $0 $4,271,900 $500,000 $6,150 $1,174,200 $3,013,037 $8,965,287 Share of Division Dedicated to Private Dev (e.g., Fee Related Services) 95% 95% 100% 100% 0% 80% 80%
Total Expense $0 $0 $5,506,702 $500,000 $0 $2,115,120 $4,083,230 $12,205,052 Total Revenue $0 $0 $4,271,900 $500,000 $6,150 $1,174,200 $3,013,037 $8,965,287 Cost Recovery n/a n/a 78% 100% n/a 56% 74% 73%
General Fund Subsidy $0 $0 $1,234,802 $0 ($6,150) $940,920 $1,070,193 $3,239,765 Alloc to Direct Services
Dev Svcs
Admin Business Services
Building Inspection 30% 55%
Code Enforcement 10% 5%
Planning 30% 15%
Dev Svcs Engineering 30% 25%
Total 100% 100%
App. B: 18
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Planning - 66040)
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Planning Rates Currently Used for Project Billing
A Core Svc Area Planning Police Fire Bldg Alt'rn Transportation Engineering Environmental Utilities Clerk Parks & Recreation B Job Title
Office
Asst
Plan
Sys
Tech
Plan
Sys
Anlyst
Assoc
Pl'nr
Proj
Pl'nr
Sr
Pl'nr
Prin
Pl'nr
Plan
Mgr
C'mnty
Rel.

Anlyst
Fire Insp
S'pvsr
Bldg Insp
S'pvsr
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Anlyst II
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Mgr
Admin
Tech
(DS)
City
Eng'r
Sr
Eng'r
(DS)
Eng'r
Mgr
Dev
Tech
Sr
Eng'r
Eng'r
Mgr
Assoc
Eng'r
City
Clerk
Tech
P&R
Plan &
Dev
S'pntd
P&R
Tech
P&R
D'rctr
C Base Hourly Wage Rate $25 $35 $49 $46 $46 $58 $67 $80 $51 $53 $54 $50 $78 $37 $74 $66 $83 $35 $66 $83 $55 $39 $64 $38 $104 D ICR Multiplier used for Project Billing 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 2.57 2.31 2.39 1.77 1.77 1.77 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 1.72 3.15 3.15 3.15 E Hourly Rate used for Project Billing $78 $110 $153 $145 $145 $182 $210 $251 $130 $123 $130 $88 $138 $66 $232 $206 $261 $110 $207 $262 $172 $67 $200 $119 $328 Planning Rates At Full Cost Recovery
A Core Svc Area Planning Police Fire Bldg Alt'rn Transportation Engineering Environmental Utilities Clerk Parks & Recreation B Job Title
Office
Asst
Plan
Sys
Tech
Plan
Sys
Anlyst
Assoc
Pl'nr
Proj
Pl'nr
Sr
Pl'nr
Prin
Pl'nr
Plan
Mgr
C'mnty
Rel.

Anlyst
Fire Insp
S'pvsr
Bldg Insp
S'pvsr
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Anlyst II
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Mgr
Admin
Tech
(DS)
City
Eng'r
Sr
Eng'r
(DS)
Eng'r
Mgr
Dev
Tech
Sr
Eng'r
Eng'r
Mgr
Assoc
Eng'r
City
Clerk
Tech
P&R
Plan &
Dev
S'pvsr
P&R
Tech
P&R
D'rctr
C Base Hourly Wage Rate $25 $35 $49 $46 $46 $58 $67 $80 $51 $53 $54 $50 $78 $37 $74 $66 $83 $35 $66 $83 $55 $39 $64 $38 $104 D ICR Multiplier at Full Cost Recovery 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 3.88 4.21 4.70 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.52 4.48 4.48 4.48 E
Hourly Rate used for Project Billing if the
City Targeted Full Cost Recovery $110 $155 $216 $204 $204 $258 $296 $355 $196 $225 $255 $156 $244 $117 $295 $263 $332 $110 $207 $262 $172 $137 $286 $170 $467 Planning Rates At Proposed Cost Recovery
A Core Svc Area Planning Police Fire Bldg Alt'rn Transportation Engineering Environmental Utilities Clerk Parks & Recreation B Job Title
Office
Asst
Plan
Sys
Tech
Plan
Sys
Anlyst
Assoc
Pl'nr
Proj
Pl'nr
Sr
Pl'nr
Prin
Pl'nr
Plan
Mgr
C'mnty
Rel.

Anlyst
Fire Insp
S'pvsr
Bldg Insp
S'pvsr
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Anlyst II
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Mgr
Admin
Tech
(DS)
City
Eng'r
Sr
Eng'r
(DS)
Eng'r
Mgr
Dev
Tech
Sr
Eng'r
Eng'r
Mgr
Assoc
Eng'r
City
Clerk
Tech
P&R
Plan &
Dev
S'pvsr
P&R
Tech
P&R
D'rctr
C Base Hourly Wage Rate $25 $35 $49 $46 $46 $58 $67 $80 $51 $53 $54 $50 $78 $37 $74 $66 $83 $35 $66 $83 $55 $39 $64 $38 $104 D ICR Multiplier at Proposed Cost Recovery 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 2.70 2.42 2.39 1.77 1.77 1.77 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 1.81 3.15 3.15 3.15 E
Hourly Rate used for Project Billing at
Proposed Cost Recovery $81 $115 $161 $152 $152 $192 $220 $264 $137 $129 $130 $88 $138 $66 $243 $216 $274 $110 $207 $262 $172 $71 $201 $120 $328 E Cost Recovery Target 74% 74% 74% 74% 74% 74% 74% 74% 70% 58% 51% 57% 57% 57% 82% 82% 82% 100% 100% 100% 100% 51% 70% 70% 70% Current Cost Recovery
A Core Svc Area Planning Police Fire Bldg Alt'rn Transportation Engineering Environmental Utilities Clerk Parks & Recreation B Job Title
Office
Asst
Plan
Sys
Tech
Plan
Sys
Anlyst
Assoc
Pl'nr
Proj
Pl'nr
Sr
Pl'nr
Prin
Pl'nr
Plan
Mgr
C'mnty
Rel.

Anlyst
Fire Insp
S'pvsr
Bldg Insp
S'pvsr
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Anlyst II
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Mgr
Admin
Tech
(DS)
City
Eng'r
Sr
Eng'r
(DS)
Eng'r
Mgr
Dev
Tech
Sr
Eng'r
Eng'r
Mgr
Assoc
Eng'r
City
Clerk
Tech
P&R
Plan &
Dev
S'pvsr
P&R
Tech
P&R
D'rctr
C
Hourly Rate Currently Used for Project
Billing $78 $110 $153 $145 $145 $182 $210 $251 $130 $123 $130 $88 $138 $66 $232 $206 $261 $110 $207 $262 $172 $67 $200 $119 $328 D Hourly Rates at Full Cost Recovery $110 $155 $216 $204 $204 $258 $296 $355 $196 $225 $255 $156 $244 $117 $295 $263 $332 $110 $207 $262 $172 $137 $286 $170 $467 E Current Cost Recovery for Project Billing 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 66% 55% 51% 57% 57% 57% 78% 78% 78% 100% 100% 100% 100% 49% 70% 70% 70% Base hourly wage rate based on most recently adopted salary schedule. January 2022.

App. B: 19
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Planning - 66040)
Cost of Service at Full Cost ICR Multiplier Rates
Planning Rates At Full Cost Recovery
A Core Svc Area Planning
B Job Title
Office
Asst
Plan
Sys
Tech
Plan
Sys
Anlyst
Assoc
Pl'nr
Proj
Pl'nr
Sr
Pl'nr
Prin
Pl'nr
Plan
Mgr
C Base Hourly Wage Rate $25 $35 $49 $46 $46 $58 $67 $80 D ICR Multiplier at Full Cost Recovery 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 E Hourly Rate used for Project Billing $110 $155 $216 $204 $204 $258 $296 $355 Estimated Costs for Required Meetings - At Full Cost Recovery Estimated Labor Hours Est Cost of Svc (Hourly Rate for Fee Setting * Est Labor Hrs) Discrete Costs Description
Office
Asst
Plan
Sys
Tech
Plan
Sys
Anlyst
Assoc
Pl'nr
Proj
Pl'nr
Sr
Pl'nr
Prin
Pl'nr
Plan
Mgr Total
Office
Asst
Plan
Sys
Tech
Plan
Sys
Anlyst
Assoc
Pl'nr
Proj
Pl'nr
Sr
Pl'nr
Prin
Pl'nr
Plan
Mgr Total +
Public
Notice
SIRE Sys
Cost Total =
Total Est
Cost of
Svc
PC Planning Comm, Design Comm, or
Subdivision Comm

8.25 1.00 1.50 0.50 11.25 $ 904 $ - $ 216 $ 307 $ - $ - $ 148 $ - $ 1,575 + $ 50 $ 15 $ 65 = $ 1,640 CC Additional Public Hearing at City Council
(legislative actions)

2.25 3.00 1.00 0.25 6.50 $ 246 $ - $ - $ 613 $ - $ - $ 296 $ 89 $ 1,245 + $ - $ - $ - = $ 1,245 AR Administrative Review (Public Hearing not
Required)

4.50 0.25 1.50 0.50 6.75 $ 493 $ - $ 54 $ 307 $ - $ - $ 148 $ - $ 1,002 + $ - $ 15 $ 15 = $ 1,017 NM Neighborhood Meeting 0.50 3.75 3.00 7.25 $ 55 $ - $ - $ 767 $ - $ 773 $ - $ - $ 1,595 + $ - $ - $ - = $ 1,595 PN Public Notice 0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - + $ 50 $ - $ 50 = $ 50 App. B: 20
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Planning - 66040)
Cost of Service at Full Cost ICR Multiplier Rates
A Core Svc Area Planning Police Fire Bldg Alt'rn Transportation Engineering Environmental Utilities Clerk Parks & Recreation B Job Title
Office
Asst
Plan
Sys
Tech
Plan
Sys
Anlyst
Assoc
Pl'nr
Proj
Pl'nr
Sr
Pl'nr
Prin
Pl'nr
Plan
Mgr
GIS
Analyst
C'mnty
Rel.

Anlyst
Fire Insp
S'pvsr
Bldg Insp
S'pvsr
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Anlyst II
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Mgr
Admin
Tech
(DS)
City
Eng'r
Sr
Eng'r
(DS)
Eng'r
Mgr
Dev
Tech
Sr
Eng'r
Eng'r
Mgr
Assoc
Eng'r
City
Clerk
Tech
P&R
Plan &
Dev
S'pvsr
P&R
Tech
P&R
D'rctr
C Base Hourly Wage Rate $25 $35 $49 $46 $46 $58 $67 $80 $46 $51 $53 $54 $50 $78 $37 $74 $66 $83 $35 $66 $83 $55 $39 $64 $38 $104 D ICR Multiplier at Full Cost Recovery 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 3.97 3.88 4.21 4.70 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.52 4.48 4.48 4.48 E Hourly Rate used for Project Billing $110 $155 $216 $204 $204 $258 $296 $355 $184 $196 $225 $255 $156 $244 $117 $295 $263 $332 $110 $207 $262 $172 $137 $286 $170 $467 Estimated Cost of Service at Full Cost Recovery
Fee Description
Office
Asst
Plan
Sys
Tech
Plan
Sys
Anlyst
Assoc
Pl'nr
Proj
Pl'nr
Sr
Pl'nr
Prin
Pl'nr
Plan
Mgr
Plan
Mgr
GIS
Analyst
Fire Insp
S'pvsr
Bldg Insp
S'pvsr
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Anlyst II
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Mgr
Admin
Tech
(DS)
City
Eng'r
Sr
Eng'r
(DS)
Eng'r
Mgr
Dev
Tech
Sr
Eng'r
Eng'r
Mgr
Assoc
Eng'r
City
Clerk
Tech
P&R
Plan &
Dev
S'pvsr
P&R
Tech
P&R
D'rctr Total
Appeals
1 Planning Director's Decision 9.5 4.5 1.0 15.0
2 PC/DC Decision to City Council 10.0 3.5 1.5 15.0
Annexations
1 Annex/PZ/Detach/SOI 30.0 34.5 6.5 0.5 71.5
Development Agreements (DA)
1 Adoption of DA 10.0 14.0 5.0 1.5 3.0 3.5 1.0 15.0 4.0 7.0 14.0 7.0 2.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 102.5 2 Amendment of DA 10.0 14.0 5.0 1.5 0.5 3.0 0.5 2.0 15.0 4.0 7.0 0.5 14.0 7.0 2.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 101.5 3 Associated with Affordable Housing 10.0 2.5 12.5
4 Associated with Single Topic Item 9.0 10.0 2.5 21.5
5 Development Agreement
Review/Compliance Fee
see separate worksheet
Environmental Review
1 Exemption Without Initial Study 0.5 2.0 2.5
2 Exemption With Initial Study 1.0 5.0 6.0
3 Negative Declaration with No Mitigation 2.0 8.0 10.0
4 Tiered Negative Declaration with
Mitigation

2.0 14.0 2.0 18.0
5 EIR Deposit 18.0 34.0 6.5 0.5 0.5 3.0 0.5 4.0 0.5 7.0 1.0 24.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 111.5 General Plan Amendment (GPA)
1 GPA 10 Acres or Less, Map/Text 18.0 26.0 5.0 0.5 0.5 3.0 0.5 10.0 4.0 0.5 5.0 4.0 8.0 2.0 6.5 7.0 7.0 107.5 2 GPA 10+ Acres, Map/Text 20.0 34.0 6.5 0.5 0.5 3.0 0.5 1.0 15.0 6.0 0.5 7.0 4.0 12.0 2.0 6.5 7.0 7.0 133.0 3 GPA - Text Policy Amend 18.0 34.0 6.5 0.5 0.5 3.0 0.5 10.0 4.0 0.5 5.0 1.0 8.0 2.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 103.5 Public Utility Easement Abandonment
1 Summary Vacation 4.0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.5 13.0 2 General Vacation 7.5 2.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 21.5 Signs
1 Standard Sign Permit 0.3 2.8 3.0
2 Planned Sign Permit Program 5.0 1.0 6.0
3 Sign Permit/Program - Public Hearing
Required

4.5 8.0 2.0 14.5
4 Administrative Permit for Sign Exception
(Variance)

7.0 0.5 0.5 8.0
5 PSP Minor Modification 2.0 2.0
Specific Plan Amendment (SPA)
1 SPA Adoption, Map/Text 22.0 34.0 6.5 0.5 0.5 3.0 0.5 2.0 15.0 20.0 5.0 0.5 20.0 7.0 2.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 170.5 2 SPA 10 Acres or Less, Map/Text 20.0 27.0 5.5 0.5 0.5 3.0 0.5 1.0 10.0 20.0 15.0 3.0 10.0 2.0 118.0 3 SPA 10+ Acres, Map/Text 26.0 34.0 7.0 0.5 0.5 3.0 0.5 4.0 1.5 10.0 28.0 3.0 20.0 3.0 15.0 2.0 6.5 7.0 7.0 178.5 4 SPA Text/Policy Deposit 22.0 34.5 8.0 0.5 0.5 3.0 0.5 5.0 15.0 2.0 0.5 5.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 6.5 7.0 7.0 131.0 Subdivisions/Condominiums
1 Grading Plan - Minor 5.0 5.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 21.5 2 Grading Plan - Major 22.0 0.5 4.0 1.0 0.5 2.0 0.5 7.0 0.5 2.0 1.0 5.0 46.0 3 Lot Line Adjustment 5.0 5.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 21.5 4 Extension to a Tentative Map 5.0 5.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 21.5 App. B: 21
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Planning - 66040)
Cost of Service at Full Cost ICR Multiplier Rates
A Core Svc Area Planning
B Job Title
C Base Hourly Wage Rate
D ICR Multiplier at Full Cost Recovery
E Hourly Rate used for Project Billing
Estimated Cost of Service at Full Cost Recovery
Fee Description
Appeals
1 Planning Director's Decision
2 PC/DC Decision to City Council
Annexations
1 Annex/PZ/Detach/SOI
Development Agreements (DA)
1 Adoption of DA
2 Amendment of DA
3 Associated with Affordable Housing
4 Associated with Single Topic Item
5 Development Agreement
Review/Compliance Fee Environmental Review
1 Exemption Without Initial Study
2 Exemption With Initial Study
3 Negative Declaration with No Mitigation
4 Tiered Negative Declaration with
Mitigation 5 EIR Deposit
General Plan Amendment (GPA)
1 GPA 10 Acres or Less, Map/Text
2 GPA 10+ Acres, Map/Text
3 GPA - Text Policy Amend
Public Utility Easement Abandonment
1 Summary Vacation
2 General Vacation
Signs
1 Standard Sign Permit
2 Planned Sign Permit Program
3 Sign Permit/Program - Public Hearing
Required 4 Administrative Permit for Sign Exception
(Variance)
5 PSP Minor Modification
Specific Plan Amendment (SPA)
1 SPA Adoption, Map/Text
2 SPA 10 Acres or Less, Map/Text
3 SPA 10+ Acres, Map/Text
4 SPA Text/Policy Deposit
Subdivisions/Condominiums
1 Grading Plan - Minor
2 Grading Plan - Major
3 Lot Line Adjustment
4 Extension to a Tentative Map
Planning

PC CC AR NM PN
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
App. B: 22
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Planning - 66040)
Cost of Service at Full Cost ICR Multiplier Rates
A Core Svc Area Planning
B Job Title
C Base Hourly Wage Rate
D ICR Multiplier at Full Cost Recovery
E Hourly Rate used for Project Billing
Estimated Cost of Service at Full Cost Recovery
Fee Description
Appeals
1 Planning Director's Decision
2 PC/DC Decision to City Council
Annexations
1 Annex/PZ/Detach/SOI
Development Agreements (DA)
1 Adoption of DA
2 Amendment of DA
3 Associated with Affordable Housing
4 Associated with Single Topic Item
5 Development Agreement
Review/Compliance Fee Environmental Review
1 Exemption Without Initial Study
2 Exemption With Initial Study
3 Negative Declaration with No Mitigation
4 Tiered Negative Declaration with
Mitigation 5 EIR Deposit
General Plan Amendment (GPA)
1 GPA 10 Acres or Less, Map/Text
2 GPA 10+ Acres, Map/Text
3 GPA - Text Policy Amend
Public Utility Easement Abandonment
1 Summary Vacation
2 General Vacation
Signs
1 Standard Sign Permit
2 Planned Sign Permit Program
3 Sign Permit/Program - Public Hearing
Required 4 Administrative Permit for Sign Exception
(Variance)
5 PSP Minor Modification
Specific Plan Amendment (SPA)
1 SPA Adoption, Map/Text
2 SPA 10 Acres or Less, Map/Text
3 SPA 10+ Acres, Map/Text
4 SPA Text/Policy Deposit
Subdivisions/Condominiums
1 Grading Plan - Minor
2 Grading Plan - Major
3 Lot Line Adjustment
4 Extension to a Tentative Map
Planning Police Fire Bldg Alt'rn Transportation Engineering Environmental Utilities Clerk Parks & Recreation Office
Asst
Plan
Sys
Tech
Plan
Sys
Anlyst
Assoc
Pl'nr
Proj
Pl'nr
Sr
Pl'nr
Prin
Pl'nr
Plan
Mgr
GIS
Analyst
C'mnty
Rel.

4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 3.97 3.88 4.21 4.70 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.52 4.48 4.48 4.48 $110 $155 $216 $204 $204 $258 $296 $355 $184 $196 $225 $255 $156 $244 $117 $295 $263 $332 $110 $207 $262 $172 $137 $286 $170 $467 Office
Asst
Plan
Sys
Tech
Plan
Sys
Anlyst
Assoc
Pl'nr
Proj
Pl'nr
Sr
Pl'nr
Prin
Pl'nr
Plan
Mgr
GIS
Analyst
C'mnty
Rel.

Anlyst
Fire Insp
S'pvsr
Bldg Insp
S'pvsr
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Anlyst II
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Mgr
Admin
Tech
(DS)
City
Eng'r
Sr
Eng'r
(DS)
Eng'r
Mgr
Dev
Tech
Sr
Eng'r
Eng'r
Mgr
Assoc
Eng'r
City
Clerk
Tech
P&R
Plan &
Dev
S'pvsr
P&R
Tech
P&R
D'rctr
Total
Labor Svcs
$ - $ - $ - $ 1,943 $ - $ - $ 1,334 $ 355 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,631 - - - 2,045 - - 1,037 532 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 3,614 - - 6,487 7,055 - - 1,927 177 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 15,646 - - 2,162 2,863 - - 1,482 532 - - 674 - 547 244 - 4,432 1,051 2,327 - 2,902 1,837 - 275 1,428 936 2,334 $ 26,026 - - 2,162 2,863 - - 1,482 532 - 98 674 127 313 - - 4,432 1,051 2,327 55 2,902 1,837 - 275 1,428 936 2,334 $ 25,828 - - - 2,045 - - 741 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 2,786 - - 1,946 2,045 - - 741 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 4,732 $ 2,357
55 - - 409 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 464 110 - - 1,022 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 1,132 219 - - 1,636 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 1,855 219 - - 2,863 - - 593 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 3,675 - - 3,892 6,953 - - 1,927 177 - 98 674 127 - - - - 1,051 - 55 1,451 262 4,120 275 857 596 1,634 $ 24,149 - - 3,892 5,317 - - 1,482 177 - 98 674 127 - - - - 2,627 1,330 55 1,037 1,049 1,373 275 1,856 1,191 3,268 $ 25,829 - - 4,325 6,953 - - 1,927 177 - 98 674 127 156 - - - 3,940 1,995 55 1,451 1,049 2,060 275 1,856 1,191 3,268 $ 31,578 - - 3,892 6,953 - - 1,927 177 - 98 674 127 - - - - 2,627 1,330 55 1,037 262 1,373 275 857 596 1,634 $ 23,893 - - - 818 - - 445 177 - 98 - 127 78 - 58 - - - 55 207 262 343 - - 85 - $ 2,755 - - - 1,534 - - 741 355 - 98 112 127 78 - 58 591 - - 55 207 262 343 - 286 85 - $ 4,933 27 427 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 455 - - - 1,022 - - 296 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 1,319 493 - - 1,636 - - 593 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 2,722 - - - 1,431 - - 148 177 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 1,757 - - 432 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 432 - - 4,757 6,953 - - 1,927 177 - 98 674 127 313 - - 4,432 5,254 1,662 55 4,146 1,837 - 275 2,856 1,872 5,136 $ 42,550 - - 4,325 5,521 - - 1,630 177 - 98 674 127 156 - - 2,955 5,254 - - 3,110 787 1,717 275 - - - $ 26,806 - - 5,622 6,953 - - 2,075 177 - 98 674 127 625 - 175 2,955 7,355 997 - 4,146 787 2,575 275 1,856 1,191 3,268 $ 41,933 - - 4,757 7,055 - - 2,371 177 - 98 674 127 - - - 1,477 3,940 665 55 1,037 525 1,717 275 1,856 1,191 3,268 $ 31,266 - - - 1,022 - - 1,630 177 - 98 112 127 78 - 58 591 - - 55 207 262 343 - 286 85 - $ 5,134 - - - 4,499 - 129 1,186 355 - 98 449 127 - - - 2,068 - - 55 415 262 858 - - - - $ 10,501 - - - 1,022 - - 1,630 177 - 98 112 127 78 - 58 591 - - 55 207 262 343 - 286 85 - $ 5,134 - - - 1,022 - - 1,630 177 - 98 112 127 78 - 58 591 - - 55 207 262 343 - 286 85 - $ 5,134 App. B: 23
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Planning - 66040)
Cost of Service at Full Cost ICR Multiplier Rates
A Core Svc Area Planning
B Job Title
C Base Hourly Wage Rate
D ICR Multiplier at Full Cost Recovery
E Hourly Rate used for Project Billing
Estimated Cost of Service at Full Cost Recovery
Fee Description
Appeals
1 Planning Director's Decision
2 PC/DC Decision to City Council
Annexations
1 Annex/PZ/Detach/SOI
Development Agreements (DA)
1 Adoption of DA
2 Amendment of DA
3 Associated with Affordable Housing
4 Associated with Single Topic Item
5 Development Agreement
Review/Compliance Fee Environmental Review
1 Exemption Without Initial Study
2 Exemption With Initial Study
3 Negative Declaration with No Mitigation
4 Tiered Negative Declaration with
Mitigation 5 EIR Deposit
General Plan Amendment (GPA)
1 GPA 10 Acres or Less, Map/Text
2 GPA 10+ Acres, Map/Text
3 GPA - Text Policy Amend
Public Utility Easement Abandonment
1 Summary Vacation
2 General Vacation
Signs
1 Standard Sign Permit
2 Planned Sign Permit Program
3 Sign Permit/Program - Public Hearing
Required 4 Administrative Permit for Sign Exception
(Variance)
5 PSP Minor Modification
Specific Plan Amendment (SPA)
1 SPA Adoption, Map/Text
2 SPA 10 Acres or Less, Map/Text
3 SPA 10+ Acres, Map/Text
4 SPA Text/Policy Deposit
Subdivisions/Condominiums
1 Grading Plan - Minor
2 Grading Plan - Major
3 Lot Line Adjustment
4 Extension to a Tentative Map
Total
Labor Svcs + PC CC AR NM PN
Total
Mtgs =
Total Est.

Cost of Svc
$ 3,631 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 5,271
$ 3,614 + $ - $ 1,245 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,245 = $ 4,859
$ 15,646 + $ 1,640 $ 1,245 $ - $ 1,595 $ - $ 4,480 = $ 20,126 $ 26,026 + $ 1,640 $ 1,245 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,885 = $ 28,911 $ 25,828 + $ 1,640 $ 1,245 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,885 = $ 28,713 $ 2,786 + $ 1,640 $ 1,245 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,885 = $ 5,671 $ 4,732 + $ 1,640 $ 1,245 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,885 = $ 7,617 $ 2,357 $ 2,357
$ 464 + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ 464
$ 1,132 + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ 1,132
$ 1,855 + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ 1,855
$ 3,675 + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ 3,675
$ 24,149 + $ 1,640 $ 1,245 $ - $ 1,595 $ - $ 4,480 = $ 28,628 $ 25,829 + $ 1,640 $ 1,245 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,885 = $ 28,714 $ 31,578 + $ 1,640 $ 1,245 $ - $ 1,595 $ - $ 4,480 = $ 36,058 $ 23,893 + $ 1,640 $ 1,245 $ - $ 1,595 $ - $ 4,480 = $ 28,373 $ 2,755 + $ - $ - $ 1,017 $ - $ - $ 1,017 = $ 3,772
$ 4,933 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 6,573
$ 455 + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ 455
$ 1,319 + $ - $ - $ 1,017 $ - $ - $ 1,017 = $ 2,336
$ 2,722 + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 50 $ 50 = $ 2,772
$ 1,757 + $ - $ - $ 1,017 $ - $ - $ 1,017 = $ 2,774
$ 432 + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ 432
$ 42,550 + $ 1,640 $ 1,245 $ - $ 1,595 $ - $ 4,480 = $ 47,029 $ 26,806 + $ 1,640 $ 1,245 $ - $ 1,595 $ - $ 4,480 = $ 31,285 $ 41,933 + $ 1,640 $ 1,245 $ - $ 1,595 $ - $ 4,480 = $ 46,412 $ 31,266 + $ 1,640 $ 1,245 $ - $ 1,595 $ - $ 4,480 = $ 35,746 $ 5,134 + $ - $ - $ 1,017 $ - $ - $ 1,017 = $ 6,151
$ 10,501 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 12,141
$ 5,134 + $ - $ - $ 1,017 $ - $ - $ 1,017 = $ 6,151
$ 5,134 + $ - $ - $ 1,017 $ - $ - $ 1,017 = $ 6,151
App. B: 24
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Planning - 66040)
Cost of Service at Full Cost ICR Multiplier Rates
A Core Svc Area Planning
B Job Title
C Base Hourly Wage Rate
D ICR Multiplier at Full Cost Recovery
E Hourly Rate used for Project Billing
Estimated Cost of Service at Full Cost Recovery
Fee Description
Appeals
1 Planning Director's Decision
2 PC/DC Decision to City Council
Annexations
1 Annex/PZ/Detach/SOI
Development Agreements (DA)
1 Adoption of DA
2 Amendment of DA
3 Associated with Affordable Housing
4 Associated with Single Topic Item
5 Development Agreement
Review/Compliance Fee Environmental Review
1 Exemption Without Initial Study
2 Exemption With Initial Study
3 Negative Declaration with No Mitigation
4 Tiered Negative Declaration with
Mitigation 5 EIR Deposit
General Plan Amendment (GPA)
1 GPA 10 Acres or Less, Map/Text
2 GPA 10+ Acres, Map/Text
3 GPA - Text Policy Amend
Public Utility Easement Abandonment
1 Summary Vacation
2 General Vacation
Signs
1 Standard Sign Permit
2 Planned Sign Permit Program
3 Sign Permit/Program - Public Hearing
Required 4 Administrative Permit for Sign Exception
(Variance)
5 PSP Minor Modification
Specific Plan Amendment (SPA)
1 SPA Adoption, Map/Text
2 SPA 10 Acres or Less, Map/Text
3 SPA 10+ Acres, Map/Text
4 SPA Text/Policy Deposit
Subdivisions/Condominiums
1 Grading Plan - Minor
2 Grading Plan - Major
3 Lot Line Adjustment
4 Extension to a Tentative Map
Current Fixed
Fee
Current
Deposit
Fixed Fee /
Deposit
Current Cost
Recovery at
Full ICRs
Final Cost
Recovery
Target
Proposed
Fixed Fee
Proposed
Deposit
Fixed Fee /
Deposit
Proposed
Cost Recovery
at Full ICRs
Final Cost
Recovery
Target
Fixed Fee
Change
$
Deposit
Change
$
Fixed Fee
Change
%
Deposit
Change
%
$1,570 Fixed 30% 30% $1,648 Fixed 31% 30% $78 5%
$1,470 Fixed 30% 30% $1,543 Fixed 32% 30% $73 5%
$20,000 Deposit 100% 100% $20,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $20,000 Deposit 100% 100% $20,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $20,000 Deposit 100% 100% $20,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $2,860 Fixed 50% 50% $3,003 Fixed 53% 50% $143 5%
$6,472 Fixed 85% 100% $6,796 Fixed 89% 100% $324 5%
$1,834 $1,925
$399 Fixed 86% 100% $419 Fixed 90% 100% $20 5%
$972 Fixed 86% 100% $1,021 Fixed 90% 100% $49 5%
$1,493 Fixed 80% 100% $1,567 Fixed 85% 100% $75 5%
$2,974 Fixed 81% 100% $3,122 Fixed 85% 100% $149 5%
$20,000 Deposit 100% 100% $20,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $10,000 Deposit 100% 100% $10,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $17,000 Deposit 100% 100% $17,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $15,000 Deposit 100% 100% $15,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $3,306 Fixed 88% 100% $3,472 Fixed 92% 100% $165 5%
$4,934 Fixed 75% 100% $5,181 Fixed 79% 100% $247 5%
$274 Fixed 60% 50% $288 Fixed 63% 50% $14 5%
$1,115 Fixed 48% 50% $1,171 Fixed 50% 50% $56 5%
$2,399 Fixed 87% 100% $2,519 Fixed 91% 100% $120 5%
$2,209 Fixed 80% 100% $2,320 Fixed 84% 100% $110 5%
$313 Fixed 72% 100% $329 Fixed 76% 100% $16 5%
$30,000 Deposit 100% 100% $30,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $10,000 Deposit 100% 100% $10,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $20,000 Deposit 100% 100% $20,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $15,000 Deposit 100% 100% $15,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $3,445 Fixed 56% 100% $3,617 Fixed 59% 100% $172 5%
$8,000 Deposit 100% 100% $8,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $3,445 Fixed 56% 100% $3,617 Fixed 59% 100% $172 5%
$3,445 Fixed 56% 100% $3,617 Fixed 59% 100% $172 5%
App. B: 25
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Planning - 66040)
Cost of Service at Full Cost ICR Multiplier Rates
A Core Svc Area Planning Police Fire Bldg Alt'rn Transportation Engineering Environmental Utilities Clerk Parks & Recreation B Job Title
Office
Asst
Plan
Sys
Tech
Plan
Sys
Anlyst
Assoc
Pl'nr
Proj
Pl'nr
Sr
Pl'nr
Prin
Pl'nr
Plan
Mgr
GIS
Analyst
C'mnty
Rel.

Anlyst
Fire Insp
S'pvsr
Bldg Insp
S'pvsr
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Anlyst II
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Mgr
Admin
Tech
(DS)
City
Eng'r
Sr
Eng'r
(DS)
Eng'r
Mgr
Dev
Tech
Sr
Eng'r
Eng'r
Mgr
Assoc
Eng'r
City
Clerk
Tech
P&R
Plan &
Dev
S'pvsr
P&R
Tech
P&R
D'rctr
C Base Hourly Wage Rate $25 $35 $49 $46 $46 $58 $67 $80 $46 $51 $53 $54 $50 $78 $37 $74 $66 $83 $35 $66 $83 $55 $39 $64 $38 $104 D ICR Multiplier at Full Cost Recovery 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 3.97 3.88 4.21 4.70 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.52 4.48 4.48 4.48 E Hourly Rate used for Project Billing $110 $155 $216 $204 $204 $258 $296 $355 $184 $196 $225 $255 $156 $244 $117 $295 $263 $332 $110 $207 $262 $172 $137 $286 $170 $467 Estimated Cost of Service at Full Cost Recovery
Fee Description
Office
Asst
Plan
Sys
Tech
Plan
Sys
Anlyst
Assoc
Pl'nr
Proj
Pl'nr
Sr
Pl'nr
Prin
Pl'nr
Plan
Mgr
Plan
Mgr
GIS
Analyst
Fire Insp
S'pvsr
Bldg Insp
S'pvsr
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Anlyst II
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Mgr
Admin
Tech
(DS)
City
Eng'r
Sr
Eng'r
(DS)
Eng'r
Mgr
Dev
Tech
Sr
Eng'r
Eng'r
Mgr
Assoc
Eng'r
City
Clerk
Tech
P&R
Plan &
Dev
S'pvsr
P&R
Tech
P&R
D'rctr Total
5 Voluntary Merger 5.0 5.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 21.5 6 Reversion to Acreage 10.5 2.0 0.3 0.5 3.0 0.5 6.0 0.5 4.0 1.0 10.0 38.3 7 Minor Modification to a Tentative Map 5.0 5.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 21.5 8 Major Modification to a Tentative Map 22.0 0.5 4.0 1.0 0.5 3.0 0.5 11.0 0.5 4.0 1.0 11.0 59.0 9 Tentative Parcel Map, 4 or Fewer Lots 10.5 2.0 0.3 0.5 3.0 0.5 7.0 0.5 2.0 1.0 5.0 32.3 10 Tentative Parcel Map, 5 - 99 Lots 22.0 0.5 4.0 1.0 0.5 3.0 0.5 15.0 0.5 4.0 1.0 10.0 62.0 11 Tentative Parcel Map, 100 - 499 Lots 33.5 1.0 7.0 1.0 0.5 3.0 0.5 20.0 0.5 7.0 1.0 19.0 94.0 12 Tentative Parcel Map, 500+ Lots 20.0 47.5 3.0 4.5 1.0 0.5 3.0 0.5 20.0 0.5 7.0 1.0 19.0 6.0 6.5 6.5 146.5 Zoning Ordinance Entitlements
1 Administrative Permit 7.0 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.5 8.8
2 Conditional Use Permit 26.0 6.0 1.5 0.5 3.0 0.5 5.0 5.0 0.5 4.0 1.0 5.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 63.5 3 CUP Modification 18.0 4.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 24.0
4 CUP Extension 18.0 4.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 24.0
5 Design Review Permit (DRP) 34.0 5.5 0.5 0.5 3.0 0.5 2.0 2.5 12.0 0.5 0.5 3.0 1.0 9.0 74.5 6 DRP - Modification 18.0 4.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 24.0
7 DRP - Extension 18.0 4.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 24.0
8 DRP - Minor 1.0 1.0 2.0
9 DRP - Additions or New Construction (DTSP
Only) 10 DRP - Façade Improvements (DTSP Only)
11 DRP - Predesign (DTSP Only)
12 DRP - Residential Subdivision with Other
Permit

18.0 4.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 24.0
13 Flood Encroachment Permit 22.0 6.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 2.0 8.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 50.5 14 MPP Stage 1 or Stages 1 & 2 18.0 59.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 3.0 0.5 4.0 1.5 10.0 25.0 0.5 10.0 3.0 20.0 2.0 6.5 7.0 7.0 183.5 15 MPP Modification 14.0 4.0 1.0 0.5 3.0 0.5 2.0 2.5 12.0 0.5 0.5 7.0 1.0 19.0 67.5 16 MPP Stage 2, Extend of Stage 1 and/or 2 14.0 4.0 1.0 0.5 3.0 0.5 2.0 2.5 12.0 0.5 0.5 7.0 1.0 19.0 67.5 17 MPP Administrative Modification 6.0 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 9.0 18 Planned Development Permit 34.0 6.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0 10.0 0.5 2.0 2.0 6.0 64.0 19 TP Admin - Approved at Public Counter 1.0 1.0 2.0
20 TP - Req. Public Hearing for SFD or 10
Trees or Less

10.0 2.5 1.0 13.5
21 TP - Req. Public Hearing for DRP/TM or 11+
Trees

22.0 3.0 1.0 26.0
22 Administrative Variance 8.0 1.0 1.0 10.0
23 Variance to Develop Standards - Req.

Public Hearing

12.0 3.0 1.0 16.0
24 Variance to Parking Standards 16.0 5.0 1.0 22.0
25 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Permit 26 Zoning Clearance 1.5 1.5
27 Zoning Interpretation - Hearing Required 8.0 2.0 1.0 11.0 28 Zoning Interpretation - Non Hearing Item 1.5 0.5 2.0 Zoning Ordinance Amendments
1 Ordinance Text Amend (Zoning,
Subdivision, Sign)

14.0 22.0 6.5 1.0 0.5 3.0 0.5 5.0 10.0 5.0 0.5 5.0 1.0 10.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 94.5 App. B: 26
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Planning - 66040)
Cost of Service at Full Cost ICR Multiplier Rates
A Core Svc Area Planning
B Job Title
C Base Hourly Wage Rate
D ICR Multiplier at Full Cost Recovery
E Hourly Rate used for Project Billing
Estimated Cost of Service at Full Cost Recovery
Fee Description
5 Voluntary Merger
6 Reversion to Acreage
7 Minor Modification to a Tentative Map
8 Major Modification to a Tentative Map
9 Tentative Parcel Map, 4 or Fewer Lots
10 Tentative Parcel Map, 5 - 99 Lots
11 Tentative Parcel Map, 100 - 499 Lots
12 Tentative Parcel Map, 500+ Lots
Zoning Ordinance Entitlements
1 Administrative Permit
2 Conditional Use Permit
3 CUP Modification
4 CUP Extension
5 Design Review Permit (DRP)
6 DRP - Modification
7 DRP - Extension
8 DRP - Minor
9 DRP - Additions or New Construction (DTSP
Only) 10 DRP - Façade Improvements (DTSP Only)
11 DRP - Predesign (DTSP Only)
12 DRP - Residential Subdivision with Other
Permit 13 Flood Encroachment Permit
14 MPP Stage 1 or Stages 1 & 2
15 MPP Modification
16 MPP Stage 2, Extend of Stage 1 and/or 2
17 MPP Administrative Modification
18 Planned Development Permit
19 TP Admin - Approved at Public Counter
20 TP - Req. Public Hearing for SFD or 10
Trees or Less 21 TP - Req. Public Hearing for DRP/TM or 11+ Trees 22 Administrative Variance
23 Variance to Develop Standards - Req.

PC CC AR NM PN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
App. B: 27
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Planning - 66040)
Cost of Service at Full Cost ICR Multiplier Rates
A Core Svc Area Planning
B Job Title
C Base Hourly Wage Rate
D ICR Multiplier at Full Cost Recovery
E Hourly Rate used for Project Billing
Estimated Cost of Service at Full Cost Recovery
Fee Description
5 Voluntary Merger
6 Reversion to Acreage
7 Minor Modification to a Tentative Map
8 Major Modification to a Tentative Map
9 Tentative Parcel Map, 4 or Fewer Lots
10 Tentative Parcel Map, 5 - 99 Lots
11 Tentative Parcel Map, 100 - 499 Lots
12 Tentative Parcel Map, 500+ Lots
Zoning Ordinance Entitlements
1 Administrative Permit
2 Conditional Use Permit
3 CUP Modification
4 CUP Extension
5 Design Review Permit (DRP)
6 DRP - Modification
7 DRP - Extension
8 DRP - Minor
9 DRP - Additions or New Construction (DTSP
Only) 10 DRP - Façade Improvements (DTSP Only)
11 DRP - Predesign (DTSP Only)
12 DRP - Residential Subdivision with Other
Permit 13 Flood Encroachment Permit
14 MPP Stage 1 or Stages 1 & 2
15 MPP Modification
16 MPP Stage 2, Extend of Stage 1 and/or 2
17 MPP Administrative Modification
18 Planned Development Permit
19 TP Admin - Approved at Public Counter
20 TP - Req. Public Hearing for SFD or 10
Trees or Less 21 TP - Req. Public Hearing for DRP/TM or 11+ Trees 22 Administrative Variance
23 Variance to Develop Standards - Req.

Anlyst
Fire Insp
S'pvsr
Bldg Insp
S'pvsr
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Anlyst II
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Mgr
Admin
Tech
(DS)
City
Eng'r
Sr
Eng'r
(DS)
Eng'r
Mgr
Dev
Tech
Sr
Eng'r
Eng'r
Mgr
Assoc
Eng'r
City
Clerk
Tech
P&R
Plan &
Dev
S'pvsr
P&R
Tech
P&R
D'rctr
Total
Labor Svcs
- - - 1,022 - - 1,630 177 - 98 112 127 78 - 58 591 - - 55 207 262 343 - 286 85 - $ 5,134 - - - 2,147 - - 593 89 - 98 674 127 - - - 1,773 - - 55 829 262 1,717 - - - - $ 8,364 - - - 1,022 - - 1,630 177 - 98 112 127 78 - 58 591 - - 55 207 262 343 - 286 85 - $ 5,134 - - - 4,499 - 129 1,186 355 - 98 674 127 - - - 3,250 - - 55 829 262 1,888 - - - - $ 13,353 - - - 2,147 - - 593 89 - 98 674 127 - - - 2,068 - - 55 415 262 858 - - - - $ 7,387 - - - 4,499 - 129 1,186 355 - 98 674 127 - - - 4,432 - - 55 829 262 1,717 - - - - $ 14,363 - - - 6,850 - 258 2,075 355 - 98 674 127 - - - 5,910 - - 55 1,451 262 3,262 - - - - $ 21,377 - - 4,325 9,713 - 773 1,334 355 - 98 674 127 - - - 5,910 - - 55 1,451 262 3,262 - 1,713 1,106 3,035 $ 34,193 - - - 1,431 - - 148 89 - 98 - 127 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 1,894 - - - 5,317 - - 1,778 532 - 98 674 127 - - - 1,477 1,313 - 55 829 262 858 - 428 340 934 $ 15,025 - - - 3,681 - - 1,186 355 - 98 - 127 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 5,447 - - - 3,681 - - 1,186 355 - 98 - 127 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 5,447 - - - 6,953 - - 1,630 177 - 98 674 127 313 - 292 3,546 131 - 55 622 262 1,545 - - - - $ 16,426 - - - 3,681 - - 1,186 355 - 98 - 127 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 5,447 - - - 3,681 - - 1,186 355 - 98 - 127 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 5,447 110 - - 204 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 314 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - 3,681 - - 1,186 355 - 98 - 127 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 5,447 - - - 4,499 - - 1,778 532 - 98 225 127 - - - 591 2,101 - 55 207 262 172 - 428 340 934 $ 12,351 - - 3,892 12,065 - - 1,482 355 - 98 674 127 625 - 175 2,955 6,567 - 55 2,073 787 3,434 275 1,856 1,191 3,268 $ 41,955 - - - 2,863 - - 1,186 355 - 98 674 127 313 - 292 3,546 131 - 55 1,451 262 3,262 - - - - $ 14,615 - - - 2,863 - - 1,186 355 - 98 674 127 313 - 292 3,546 131 - 55 1,451 262 3,262 - - - - $ 14,615 - - - 1,227 - - 445 177 - 98 - 127 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 2,074 - - - 6,953 - - 1,778 177 - 98 - 127 - - - 591 2,627 - 55 415 525 1,030 - - - - $ 14,376 110 155 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 265 - - - 2,045 - - 741 355 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 3,141 - - - 4,499 - - 889 355 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 5,743 - - - 1,636 - - 296 355 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 2,287 - - - 2,454 - - 889 355 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 3,698 - - - 3,272 - - 1,482 355 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 5,109 - 233 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 233 - - - 1,636 - - 593 355 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 2,584 - - - 307 - - 148 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 455 - - 3,027 4,499 - - 1,927 355 - 98 674 127 - - - 1,477 2,627 1,662 55 1,037 262 1,717 275 714 511 1,401 $ 22,444 App. B: 28
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Planning - 66040)
Cost of Service at Full Cost ICR Multiplier Rates
A Core Svc Area Planning
B Job Title
C Base Hourly Wage Rate
D ICR Multiplier at Full Cost Recovery
E Hourly Rate used for Project Billing
Estimated Cost of Service at Full Cost Recovery
Fee Description
5 Voluntary Merger
6 Reversion to Acreage
7 Minor Modification to a Tentative Map
8 Major Modification to a Tentative Map
9 Tentative Parcel Map, 4 or Fewer Lots
10 Tentative Parcel Map, 5 - 99 Lots
11 Tentative Parcel Map, 100 - 499 Lots
12 Tentative Parcel Map, 500+ Lots
Zoning Ordinance Entitlements
1 Administrative Permit
2 Conditional Use Permit
3 CUP Modification
4 CUP Extension
5 Design Review Permit (DRP)
6 DRP - Modification
7 DRP - Extension
8 DRP - Minor
9 DRP - Additions or New Construction (DTSP
Only) 10 DRP - Façade Improvements (DTSP Only)
11 DRP - Predesign (DTSP Only)
12 DRP - Residential Subdivision with Other
Permit 13 Flood Encroachment Permit
14 MPP Stage 1 or Stages 1 & 2
15 MPP Modification
16 MPP Stage 2, Extend of Stage 1 and/or 2
17 MPP Administrative Modification
18 Planned Development Permit
19 TP Admin - Approved at Public Counter
20 TP - Req. Public Hearing for SFD or 10
Trees or Less 21 TP - Req. Public Hearing for DRP/TM or 11+ Trees 22 Administrative Variance
23 Variance to Develop Standards - Req.

Cost of Svc
$ 5,134 + $ - $ - $ 1,017 $ - $ - $ 1,017 = $ 6,151
$ 8,364 + $ - $ - $ 1,017 $ - $ - $ 1,017 = $ 9,381
$ 5,134 + $ - $ - $ 1,017 $ - $ - $ 1,017 = $ 6,151
$ 13,353 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 14,992
$ 7,387 + $ - $ - $ 1,017 $ - $ - $ 1,017 = $ 8,403
$ 14,363 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 16,003
$ 21,377 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 23,017
$ 34,193 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 35,833
$ 1,894 + $ - $ - $ 1,017 $ - $ - $ 1,017 = $ 2,911
$ 15,025 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 16,664
$ 5,447 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 7,086
$ 5,447 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 7,086
$ 16,426 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 18,066
$ 5,447 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 7,086
$ 5,447 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 7,086
$ 314 + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ 314
+ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ -
+ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ -
+ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ -
$ 5,447 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 7,086
$ 12,351 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 13,990
$ 41,955 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 43,595
$ 14,615 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 16,254
$ 14,615 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 16,254
$ 2,074 + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ 2,074
$ 14,376 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 16,016
$ 265 + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ 265
$ 3,141 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 4,780
$ 5,743 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 7,383
$ 2,287 + $ - $ - $ 1,017 $ - $ - $ 1,017 = $ 3,304
$ 3,698 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 5,338
$ 5,109 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 6,748
$ 233 + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ 233
$ 2,584 + $ 1,640 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,640 = $ 4,223
$ 455 + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ 455
$ 22,444 + $ 1,640 $ 1,245 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,885 = $ 25,329 App. B: 29
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Planning - 66040)
Cost of Service at Full Cost ICR Multiplier Rates
A Core Svc Area Planning
B Job Title
C Base Hourly Wage Rate
D ICR Multiplier at Full Cost Recovery
E Hourly Rate used for Project Billing
Estimated Cost of Service at Full Cost Recovery
Fee Description
5 Voluntary Merger
6 Reversion to Acreage
7 Minor Modification to a Tentative Map
8 Major Modification to a Tentative Map
9 Tentative Parcel Map, 4 or Fewer Lots
10 Tentative Parcel Map, 5 - 99 Lots
11 Tentative Parcel Map, 100 - 499 Lots
12 Tentative Parcel Map, 500+ Lots
Zoning Ordinance Entitlements
1 Administrative Permit
2 Conditional Use Permit
3 CUP Modification
4 CUP Extension
5 Design Review Permit (DRP)
6 DRP - Modification
7 DRP - Extension
8 DRP - Minor
9 DRP - Additions or New Construction (DTSP
Only) 10 DRP - Façade Improvements (DTSP Only)
11 DRP - Predesign (DTSP Only)
12 DRP - Residential Subdivision with Other
Permit 13 Flood Encroachment Permit
14 MPP Stage 1 or Stages 1 & 2
15 MPP Modification
16 MPP Stage 2, Extend of Stage 1 and/or 2
17 MPP Administrative Modification
18 Planned Development Permit
19 TP Admin - Approved at Public Counter
20 TP - Req. Public Hearing for SFD or 10
Trees or Less 21 TP - Req. Public Hearing for DRP/TM or 11+ Trees 22 Administrative Variance
23 Variance to Develop Standards - Req.

Public Hearing 24 Variance to Parking Standards
25 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Permit 26 Zoning Clearance
27 Zoning Interpretation - Hearing Required
28 Zoning Interpretation - Non Hearing Item
Zoning Ordinance Amendments
1 Ordinance Text Amend (Zoning,
Subdivision, Sign)
Current Fixed
Fee
Current
Deposit
Fixed Fee /
Deposit
Current Cost
Recovery at
Full ICRs
Final Cost
Recovery
Target
Proposed
Fixed Fee
Proposed
Deposit
Fixed Fee /
Deposit
Proposed
Cost Recovery
at Full ICRs
Final Cost
Recovery
Target
Fixed Fee
Change
$
Deposit
Change
$
Fixed Fee
Change
%
Deposit
Change
%
$3,445 Fixed 56% 100% $3,617 Fixed 59% 100% $172 5%
$5,030 Fixed 54% 100% $5,282 Fixed 56% 100% $252 5%
$2,000 Deposit 100% 100% $2,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $10,000 Deposit 100% 100% $10,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $6,000 Deposit 100% 100% $6,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $11,000 Deposit 100% 100% $11,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $16,000 Deposit 100% 100% $16,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $24,000 Deposit 100% 100% $24,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $1,376 Fixed 47% 50% $1,445 Fixed 50% 50% $69 5%
$9,000 Deposit 100% 100% $9,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $5,000 Deposit 100% 100% $5,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $6,114 Fixed 86% 100% $6,419 Fixed 91% 100% $306 5%
$8,000 Deposit 100% 100% $8,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $5,000 Deposit 100% 100% $5,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $5,528 Fixed 78% 100% $5,804 Fixed 82% 100% $276 5%
$233 Fixed 74% 100% $244 Fixed 78% 100% $12 5%
$233 Fixed 100% $244 Fixed 100% $12 5%
$233 Fixed 100% $244 Fixed 100% $12 5%
$233 Fixed 100% $244 Fixed 100% $12 5%
$6,114 Fixed 86% 100% $6,419 Fixed 91% 100% $306 5%
$8,000 Deposit 100% 100% $8,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $20,000 Deposit 100% 100% $20,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $7,000 Deposit 100% 100% $7,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $7,000 Deposit 100% 100% $7,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $1,789 Fixed 86% 100% $1,879 Fixed 91% 100% $89 5%
$11,000 Deposit 100% 100% $11,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $229 Fixed 86% 100% $240 Fixed 91% 100% $11 5%
$4,127 Fixed 86% 100% $4,333 Fixed 91% 100% $206 5%
$6,354 Fixed 86% 100% $6,671 Fixed 90% 100% $318 5%
$1,375 Fixed 42% 50% $1,443 Fixed 44% 50% $69 5%
$4,604 Fixed 86% 100% $4,834 Fixed 91% 100% $230 5%
$5,791 Fixed 86% 100% $6,081 Fixed 90% 100% $290 5%
$1,200 $1,200
$157 Fixed 68% 50% $165 Fixed 71% 50% $8 5%
$3,650 Fixed 86% 100% $3,832 Fixed 91% 100% $182 5%
$143 Fixed 31% 50% $150 Fixed 33% 50% $7 5%
$10,000 Deposit 100% 100% $10,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% App. B: 30
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Planning - 66040)
Cost of Service at Full Cost ICR Multiplier Rates
A Core Svc Area Planning Police Fire Bldg Alt'rn Transportation Engineering Environmental Utilities Clerk Parks & Recreation B Job Title
Office
Asst
Plan
Sys
Tech
Plan
Sys
Anlyst
Assoc
Pl'nr
Proj
Pl'nr
Sr
Pl'nr
Prin
Pl'nr
Plan
Mgr
GIS
Analyst
C'mnty
Rel.

Anlyst
Fire Insp
S'pvsr
Bldg Insp
S'pvsr
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Anlyst II
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Mgr
Admin
Tech
(DS)
City
Eng'r
Sr
Eng'r
(DS)
Eng'r
Mgr
Dev
Tech
Sr
Eng'r
Eng'r
Mgr
Assoc
Eng'r
City
Clerk
Tech
P&R
Plan &
Dev
S'pvsr
P&R
Tech
P&R
D'rctr
C Base Hourly Wage Rate $25 $35 $49 $46 $46 $58 $67 $80 $46 $51 $53 $54 $50 $78 $37 $74 $66 $83 $35 $66 $83 $55 $39 $64 $38 $104 D ICR Multiplier at Full Cost Recovery 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 3.97 3.88 4.21 4.70 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.52 4.48 4.48 4.48 E Hourly Rate used for Project Billing $110 $155 $216 $204 $204 $258 $296 $355 $184 $196 $225 $255 $156 $244 $117 $295 $263 $332 $110 $207 $262 $172 $137 $286 $170 $467 Estimated Cost of Service at Full Cost Recovery
Fee Description
Office
Asst
Plan
Sys
Tech
Plan
Sys
Anlyst
Assoc
Pl'nr
Proj
Pl'nr
Sr
Pl'nr
Prin
Pl'nr
Plan
Mgr
Plan
Mgr
GIS
Analyst
Fire Insp
S'pvsr
Bldg Insp
S'pvsr
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Anlyst II
Alt'rn
Trnsp
Mgr
Admin
Tech
(DS)
City
Eng'r
Sr
Eng'r
(DS)
Eng'r
Mgr
Dev
Tech
Sr
Eng'r
Eng'r
Mgr
Assoc
Eng'r
City
Clerk
Tech
P&R
Plan &
Dev
S'pvsr
P&R
Tech
P&R
D'rctr Total
2 Zoning Map Change (RZ) 10 Acres or Less 14.0 26.5 6.5 0.5 0.5 3.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 5.0 10.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 78.0 3 Zoning Map Change (RZ) 10+ Acres 21.0 28.0 6.5 0.5 0.5 3.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 5.0 10.0 3.0 0.5 7.0 1.0 10.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 108.0 Other
1 Pre-Application Meetings
2 New Non-Residential Plan Check 0.3 8.0 0.5 1.0 9.8
3 Commercial Plan Check - TI
4 Change of Address Fee 2.5 2.5
5 Street Name Change Fee 4.5 4.5
6 Planning Department Plot Plan Review
(Bundles of 10)

1.5 1.5
7 Radius List Prep-Previously Developed Area 1.5 1.5
8 Preparation Undeveloped Area/Mailing 3.0 3.0
9 Farmer's Market Permit 3.5 0.5 4.0
10 Home Occupation Permit
11 Parking In-Lieu Fee (DTSP Only)
12 In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Fee (Per Inch)
13 CUP - Vernon St. and Historical District
Only 14 Technology Fee
App. B: 31
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Planning - 66040)
Cost of Service at Full Cost ICR Multiplier Rates
A Core Svc Area Planning
B Job Title
C Base Hourly Wage Rate
D ICR Multiplier at Full Cost Recovery
E Hourly Rate used for Project Billing
Estimated Cost of Service at Full Cost Recovery
Fee Description
2 Zoning Map Change (RZ) 10 Acres or Less
3 Zoning Map Change (RZ) 10+ Acres
Other
1 Pre-Application Meetings
2 New Non-Residential Plan Check
3 Commercial Plan Check - TI
4 Change of Address Fee
5 Street Name Change Fee
6 Planning Department Plot Plan Review
(Bundles of 10) 7 Radius List Prep-Previously Developed Area 8 Preparation Undeveloped Area/Mailing
9 Farmer's Market Permit
10 Home Occupation Permit
11 Parking In-Lieu Fee (DTSP Only)
12 In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Fee (Per Inch)
13 CUP - Vernon St. and Historical District
Only 14 Technology Fee
Planning

PC CC AR NM PN
Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes
App. B: 32
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Planning - 66040)
Cost of Service at Full Cost ICR Multiplier Rates
A Core Svc Area Planning
B Job Title
C Base Hourly Wage Rate
D ICR Multiplier at Full Cost Recovery
E Hourly Rate used for Project Billing
Estimated Cost of Service at Full Cost Recovery
Fee Description
2 Zoning Map Change (RZ) 10 Acres or Less
3 Zoning Map Change (RZ) 10+ Acres
Other
1 Pre-Application Meetings
2 New Non-Residential Plan Check
3 Commercial Plan Check - TI
4 Change of Address Fee
5 Street Name Change Fee
6 Planning Department Plot Plan Review
(Bundles of 10) 7 Radius List Prep-Previously Developed Area 8 Preparation Undeveloped Area/Mailing
9 Farmer's Market Permit
10 Home Occupation Permit
11 Parking In-Lieu Fee (DTSP Only)
12 In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Fee (Per Inch)
13 CUP - Vernon St. and Historical District
Only 14 Technology Fee
Planning Police Fire Bldg Alt'rn Transportation Engineering Environmental Utilities Clerk Parks & Recreation Office
Asst
Plan
Sys
Tech
Plan
Sys
Anlyst
Assoc
Pl'nr
Proj
Pl'nr
Sr
Pl'nr
Prin
Pl'nr
Plan
Mgr
GIS
Analyst
C'mnty
Rel.

Cost of Svc
$ 18,590 + $ 1,640 $ 1,245 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,885 = $ 21,475 $ 24,893 + $ 1,640 $ 1,245 $ - $ 1,595 $ - $ 4,480 = $ 29,373 + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ -
$ 1,979 + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ 1,979
+ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ -
$ 460 + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ 460
$ 828 + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ 828
$ 233 + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ 233
$ 233 + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ 233
$ 466 + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ 466
$ 864 + $ - $ - $ 1,017 $ - $ - $ 1,017 = $ 1,881
+ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ -
+ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ -
+ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ -
$ - + $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ -
+ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - = $ -
App. B: 34
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Planning - 66040)
Cost of Service at Full Cost ICR Multiplier Rates
A Core Svc Area Planning
B Job Title
C Base Hourly Wage Rate
D ICR Multiplier at Full Cost Recovery
E Hourly Rate used for Project Billing
Estimated Cost of Service at Full Cost Recovery
Fee Description
2 Zoning Map Change (RZ) 10 Acres or Less
3 Zoning Map Change (RZ) 10+ Acres
Other
1 Pre-Application Meetings
2 New Non-Residential Plan Check
3 Commercial Plan Check - TI
4 Change of Address Fee
5 Street Name Change Fee
6 Planning Department Plot Plan Review
(Bundles of 10) 7 Radius List Prep-Previously Developed Area 8 Preparation Undeveloped Area/Mailing
9 Farmer's Market Permit
10 Home Occupation Permit
11 Parking In-Lieu Fee (DTSP Only)
12 In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Fee (Per Inch)
13 CUP - Vernon St. and Historical District
Only 14 Technology Fee
Current Fixed
Fee
Current
Deposit
Fixed Fee /
Deposit
Current Cost
Recovery at
Full ICRs
Final Cost
Recovery
Target
Proposed
Fixed Fee
Proposed
Deposit
Fixed Fee /
Deposit
Proposed
Cost Recovery
at Full ICRs
Final Cost
Recovery
Target
Fixed Fee
Change
$
Deposit
Change
$
Fixed Fee
Change
%
Deposit
Change
%
$10,000 Deposit 100% 100% $10,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $17,000 Deposit 100% 100% $17,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% $4,000 Deposit 100% 100% $4,000 Deposit 100% 100% $0 0% 15% of Bldg PC Fixed 15% of Bldg PC Fixed
$175 Fixed 100% $184 Fixed 100% $9 5%
n/a Fixed $460 Fixed 100% 100%
n/a Fixed $828 Fixed 100% 100%
$175 Fixed 100% $184 Fixed 79% 100% $9 5%
$145 Fixed 100% $152 Fixed 65% 100% $7 5%
$373 Fixed 100% $392 Fixed 84% 100% $19 5%
$547 Fixed 29% 50% $575 Fixed 31% 50% $27 5%
$157 Fixed 50% $165 Fixed 50% $8 5%
$9,680 Fixed 100% $9,680 Fixed 100% $0 0%
$124 per inch $124 per inch $0 0%
$1,566 Fixed 100% $1,644 Fixed 100% $78 5%
3% Fixed 3% Fixed $0 0%
App. B: 35
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Trench Cut Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Asst
Eng'r
Assoc
Eng'r
Const
Insp'r Jr Eng'r
$203 $218 $171 $184
Est. Labor Hours Estimated Cost of Service
Fee Description
Asst
Eng'r
Assoc
Eng'r
Const
Insp'r Jr Eng'r Total
Asst
Eng'r
Assoc
Eng'r
Const
Insp'r Jr Eng'r Total
Est.

Pave'mt
Cost
Current
Permit Fee
Current
Trench Cut
Fee
Current
Recovery
Permit
Current
Recovery
Trench Cut
Trench Cuts Requiring Pmt. of Admin. Permit Fee
Only 1 Street scheduled for resurfacing within next fiscal year 0.50 0.25 1.50 0.50 2.75 x $101 $54 $256 $92 $504 + n/a $349 $0.00 69% 0% 2 Proposed excavation includes an overlay 0.50 0.25 1.50 0.50 2.75 x $101 $54 $256 $92 $504 + n/a $349 $0.00 69% 0% 3 Proposed excavation for a CIP 0.50 0.25 1.50 0.50 2.75 x $101 $54 $256 $92 $504 + n/a $349 $0.00 69% 0% 4 Street pavement quality index (PQI) 0-4 0.50 0.25 1.50 0.50 2.75 x $101 $54 $256 $92 $504 + n/a $349 $0.00 69% 0% All Other Trench Cuts
5 Longitudinal Cut
a) Cut within 3' of lane line
i) PQI: 4.1 - 6.5 0.50 0.25 1.50 0.50 2.75 x $101 $54 $256 $92 $504 + $29.87 $349 $15.08 69% 51% ii) PQI: 6.6 - 8.4 0.50 0.25 1.50 0.50 2.75 x $101 $54 $256 $92 $504 + $39.83 $349 $20.11 69% 51% iii) PQI: 8.5 or greater 0.50 0.25 1.50 0.50 2.75 x $101 $54 $256 $92 $504 + $49.79 $349 $25.14 69% 50% b) Cut within one lane width
i) PQI: 4.1 - 6.5 0.50 0.25 1.50 0.50 2.75 x $101 $54 $256 $92 $504 + $22.40 $349 $11.31 69% 51% ii) PQI: 6.6 - 8.4 0.50 0.25 1.50 0.50 2.75 x $101 $54 $256 $92 $504 + $29.87 $349 $15.08 69% 51% iii) PQI: 8.5 or greater (moratorium street) 0.50 0.25 1.50 0.50 2.75 x $101 $54 $256 $92 $504 + $37.34 $349 $18.86 69% 51% 6 Traverse Cut
i) PQI: 4.1 - 6.5 0.50 0.25 1.50 0.50 2.75 x $101 $54 $256 $92 $504 + $18.21 $349 $9.20 69% 51% ii) PQI: 6.6 - 8.4 0.50 0.25 1.50 0.50 2.75 x $101 $54 $256 $92 $504 + $24.27 $349 $12.26 69% 50% iii) PQI: 8.5 or greater (moratorium street) 0.50 0.25 1.50 0.50 2.75 x $101 $54 $256 $92 $504 + $30.32 $349 $15.31 69% 51% 7 Cut is a Patch
i) PQI: 4.1 - 6.5 0.50 0.25 1.50 0.50 2.75 x $101 $54 $256 $92 $504 + $20.16 $349 $10.18 69% 51% ii) PQI: 6.6 - 8.4 0.50 0.25 1.50 0.50 2.75 x $101 $54 $256 $92 $504 + $26.88 $349 $13.58 69% 50% iii) PQI: 8.5 or greater (moratorium street) 0.50 0.25 1.50 0.50 2.75 x $101 $54 $256 $92 $504 + $33.61 $349 $16.97 69% 50% Note: Estimated pavement cost intended to represent a reasonable estimate. Amount based on FY 17/18, inflated by change in regional CCI from Oct 2017 to Oct 2021. [a] Moratorium streets require director approval for trenching.

App. B: 36
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Trench Cut Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Est. Labor Hours
Fee Description
Trench Cuts Requiring Pmt. of Admin. Permit Fee
Only 1 Street scheduled for resurfacing within next fiscal year 2 Proposed excavation includes an overlay
3 Proposed excavation for a CIP
4 Street pavement quality index (PQI) 0-4
All Other Trench Cuts
5 Longitudinal Cut
a) Cut within 3' of lane line
i) PQI: 4.1 - 6.5
ii) PQI: 6.6 - 8.4
iii) PQI: 8.5 or greater
b) Cut within one lane width
i) PQI: 4.1 - 6.5
ii) PQI: 6.6 - 8.4
iii) PQI: 8.5 or greater (moratorium street)
6 Traverse Cut
i) PQI: 4.1 - 6.5
ii) PQI: 6.6 - 8.4
iii) PQI: 8.5 or greater (moratorium street)
7 Cut is a Patch
i) PQI: 4.1 - 6.5
ii) PQI: 6.6 - 8.4
iii) PQI: 8.5 or greater (moratorium street)
Note: Estimated pavement cost intended to represent a reasonable estimate. Amount based on FY 17/18, inflated by change in regional CCI from Oct 2017 to Oct 2021. [a] Moratorium streets require director approval for trenching.

Proposed
Fee Permit
Proposed
Fee Trench
Cut
Proposed
Recovery
Permit
Proposed
Recovery
Trench Cut
Proposed
Fee Change
Permit
Proposed
Fee Change
Trench Cut Note
$367 $0.00 73% 0% $17 $0.00
$367 $0.00 73% 0% $17 $0.00
$367 $0.00 73% 0% $17 $0.00
$367 $0.00 73% 0% $17 $0.00
$367 $15.84 73% 53% $17 $0.75
$367 $21.12 73% 53% $17 $1.01
$367 $26.40 73% 53% $17 $1.26
$367 $11.88 73% 53% $17 $0.57
$367 $15.84 73% 53% $17 $0.75
$367 $19.80 73% 53% $17 $0.94 [a]
$367 $9.66 73% 53% $17 $0.46
$367 $12.87 73% 53% $17 $0.61
$367 $16.08 73% 53% $17 $0.77 [a]
$367 $10.69 73% 53% $17 $0.51
$367 $14.25 73% 53% $17 $0.68
$367 $17.82 73% 53% $17 $0.85 [a]
App. B: 37
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services Fees
Cost of Service at Full ICR Multiplier Rates
A Core Svc Area
Develop
ment
Services Finance Finance Planning Housing Fire Bldg
Alt'rn
Trans
Engineer
ing
Engineer
ing C Mgr Electric PRL Electric Bldg Insp EU EU TI EU TI PRL B Job Title
Admin.

Analyst
Financial
Analyst
Admin.

Analyst
Senior
Planner
Housing
Analyst
Fire Insp.

Superv
Building
Insp.

Superv.

Admin.

Tech
Associat
e
Engineer
Engineer
ing
Manager
Enviro.

Coordian
tor
Eng.

Tech
Supervis
or
Park
Plan. &
Dev.

Super.

Eng.

Tech
Permit
Analyst
Devel.

Tech II
Construc
tion
Inspecto
r
Senior
Engineer
Office
Asst II
C Base Hourly Wage Rate $49 $49 $49 $58 $43 $53 $54 $37 $55 $83 $60 $74 $64 $62 $49 $35 $43 $66 $27 D Full Cost ICR Multiplier 4.45 1.72 1.72 4.45 1.72 4.21 4.45 3.12 3.99 3.99 1.72 2.13 4.48 2.13 4.45 3.15 3.13 3.13 4.48 E Hourly Rate used for Project Billing $216 $84 $84 $258 $75 $225 $241 $117 $218 $332 $104 $158 $286 $133 $216 $110 $134 $206 $121 Estimated Cost of Service at Targeted Hourly Billing Rates Fee Description
Admin.

Analyst
Financial
Analyst
Admin.

Analyst
Senior
Planner
Housing
Analyst
Fire Insp.

Superv
Building
Insp.

Superv.

Admin.

Tech
Associat
e
Engineer
Engineer
ing
Manager
Enviro.

Coordian
tor
Eng.

Tech
Supervis
or
Park
Plan. &
Dev.

Super.

Eng.

Tech
Permit
Analyst
Devel.

Tech II
Construc
tion
Inspecto
r
Senior
Engineer
Office
Asst II Total
1 Development Agreement Review/Compliance Fee 5.0 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.7 11.5 2 Tenant Improvement Environmental Utilities Review
a) Same Use 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 2.5
b) Change of Use 1.5 1.5 3.0 1.0 7.0
App. B: 38
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services Fees
Cost of Service at Full ICR Multiplier Rates
A Core Svc Area
B Job Title
C Base Hourly Wage Rate
D Full Cost ICR Multiplier
E Hourly Rate used for Project Billing
Estimated Cost of Service at Targeted Hourly Billing Rates Fee Description
1 Development Agreement Review/Compliance Fee
2 Tenant Improvement Environmental Utilities Review
a) Same Use
b) Change of Use
Develop
ment
Services Finance Finance Planning Housing Fire Bldg
Alt'rn
Trans
Engineer
ing
Engineer
ing C Mgr Electric PRL Electric Bldg Insp EU EU TI EU TI PRL Admin.

Analyst
Financial
Analyst
Admin.

Analyst
Senior
Planner
Housing
Analyst
Fire Insp.

Superv
Building
Insp.

Superv.

Admin.

Tech
Associat
e
Engineer
Engineer
ing
Manager
Enviro.

Coordian
tor
Eng.

Tech
Supervis
or
Park
Plan. &
Dev.

Super.

Eng.

Tech
Permit
Analyst
Devel.

Tech II
Construc
tion
Inspecto
r
Senior
Engineer
Office
Asst II
$49 $49 $49 $58 $43 $53 $54 $37 $55 $83 $60 $74 $64 $62 $49 $35 $43 $66 $27

4.45 1.72 1.72 4.45 1.72 4.21 4.45 3.12 3.99 3.99 1.72 2.13 4.48 2.13 4.45 3.15 3.13 3.13 4.48 $216 $84 $84 $258 $75 $225 $241 $117 $218 $332 $104 $158 $286 $133 $216 $110 $134 $206 $121 Admin.

Analyst
Financial
Analyst
Admin.

Analyst
Senior
Planner
Housing
Analyst
Fire Insp.

Superv
Building
Insp.

Superv.

Admin.

Tech
Associat
e
Engineer
Engineer
ing
Manager
Enviro.

Coordian
tor
Eng.

Tech
Supervis
or
Park
Plan. &
Dev.

Super.

Eng.

Tech
Permit
Analyst
Devel.

Tech II
Construc
tion
Inspecto
r
Senior
Engineer
Office
Asst II
Total Est.

Cost of
Svc
$ 1,081 $ 21 $ 23 $ 144 $ 43 $ 112 $ 188 $ 58 $ 239 $ 156 $ 48 $ 51 $ 191 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,357 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 109 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 55 $ 134 $ 103 $ - $ 401 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 326 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 165 $ 402 $ 206 $ - $ 1,100 App. B: 39
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services Fees
Cost of Service at Full ICR Multiplier Rates
A Core Svc Area
B Job Title
C Base Hourly Wage Rate
D Full Cost ICR Multiplier
E Hourly Rate used for Project Billing
Estimated Cost of Service at Targeted Hourly Billing Rates Fee Description
1 Development Agreement Review/Compliance Fee
2 Tenant Improvement Environmental Utilities Review
a) Same Use
b) Change of Use
Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery at
Full ICRs Proposed Fee
Proposed
Cost Recovery
at Target ICRs
Fixed Fee
Change
$
Fixed Fee
Change
%
$1,727 73% $1,814 77% $86 5%
$354 88% $372 93% $18 5%
$966 88% $1,014 92% $48 5%
App. B: 40
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Planning - 66040)
Fee-Related Cost Recovery
Current Hourly Rate Used for Fee Setting
A Job Title
Office
Asst
Planning
Sys Tech
Planning
Sys Analyst
Assoc
Planner
Proj
Planner
Sr
Planner
Prin
Planner
Planning
Mgr
B Hourly Rate $25 $35 $49 $46 $46 $58 $67 $80
C ICR Multiplier 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 D Hourly Rate for Fee Setting $78 $110 $153 $145 $145 $182 $210 $251 Hourly Rate at Full Cost Recovery
A Job Title
Office
Asst
Planning
Sys Tech
Planning
Sys Analyst
Assoc
Planner
Proj
Planner
Sr
Planner
Prin
Planner
Planning
Mgr
B Hourly Rate $25 $35 $49 $46 $46 $58 $67 $80
C ICR Multiplier 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 D Hourly Rate for Fee Setting $110 $155 $216 $204 $204 $258 $296 $355 Hourly Rate at Proposed Cost Recovery
A Job Title
Office
Asst
Planning
Sys Tech
Planning
Sys Analyst
Assoc
Planner
Proj
Planner
Sr
Planner
Prin
Planner
Planning
Mgr
B Hourly Rate $25 $35 $49 $46 $46 $58 $67 $80
C ICR Multiplier 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 3.31 D Hourly Rate for Fee Setting $81 $115 $161 $152 $152 $192 $220 $264 Current Cost Recovery
A Job Title
Office
Asst
Planning
Sys Tech
Planning
Sys Analyst
Assoc
Planner
Proj
Planner
Sr
Planner
Prin
Planner
Planning
Mgr
B Current Hourly Rate for Fee Setting $78 $110 $153 $145 $145 $182 $210 $251 C Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate $110 $155 $216 $204 $204 $258 $296 $355 D Estimated Cost Recovery 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% Proposed Cost Recovery
A Job Title
Office
Asst
Planning
Sys Tech
Planning
Sys Analyst
Assoc
Planner
Proj
Planner
Sr
Planner
Prin
Planner
Planning
Mgr
B Proposed Hourly Rate $81 $115 $161 $152 $152 $192 $220 $264 C Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate $110 $155 $216 $204 $204 $258 $296 $355 D Estimated Cost Recovery 74% 74% 74% 74% 74% 74% 74% 74% 85% of fee-related hours
App. B: 41
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Engineering - 66050)
Fee-Related Cost Recovery
Current Hourly Rate Used for Fee Setting
A Job Title
Eng'r
Mgr Prin Eng'r
Sr
Eng'r
Assoc
Eng'r Asst Eng'r
Const Insp
Super'vsr
Sr. Const
Insp
Const Insp
II Jr Eng'r
Const Insp
I
Finance
Tech II
Eng'r Tech
I
B Hourly Rate $83 $74 $66 $55 $51 $54 $47 $43 $46 $39 $35 $34 C ICR Multiplier 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 D Hourly Rate for Fee Setting $261 $232 $206 $171 $159 $170 $147 $134 $144 $122 $108 $105 Hourly Rate at Full Cost Recovery
A Job Title
Eng'r
Mgr Prin Eng'r
Sr
Eng'r
Assoc
Eng'r Asst Eng'r
Const Insp
Super'vsr
Sr. Const
Insp
Const Insp
II Jr Eng'r
Const Insp
I
Finance
Tech II
Eng'r Tech
I
B Hourly Rate $83 $74 $66 $55 $51 $54 $47 $43 $46 $39 $35 $34 C ICR Multiplier 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 D Hourly Rate for Fee Setting $332 $295 $263 $218 $203 $216 $188 $171 $184 $155 $138 $134 Hourly Rate at Proposed Cost Recovery
A Job Title
Eng'r
Mgr Prin Eng'r
Sr
Eng'r
Assoc
Eng'r Asst Eng'r
Const Insp
Super'vsr
Sr. Const
Insp
Const Insp
II Jr Eng'r
Const Insp
I
Finance
Tech II
Eng'r Tech
I
B Hourly Rate $83 $74 $66 $55 $51 $54 $47 $43 $46 $39 $35 $34 C ICR Multiplier 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29 D Hourly Rate for Fee Setting $274 $243 $216 $179 $167 $178 $155 $141 $152 $128 $114 $111 Current Cost Recovery
A Job Title
Eng'r
Mgr Prin Eng'r
Sr
Eng'r
Assoc
Eng'r Asst Eng'r
Const Insp
Super'vsr
Sr. Const
Insp
Const Insp
II Jr Eng'r
Const Insp
I
Finance
Tech II
Eng'r Tech
I
B Current Hourly Rate for Fee Setting $261 $232 $206 $171 $159 $170 $147 $134 $144 $122 $108 $105 C Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate $332 $295 $263 $218 $203 $216 $188 $171 $184 $155 $138 $134 D Estimated Cost Recovery 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% Proposed Cost Recovery
A Job Title
Eng'r
Mgr Prin Eng'r
Sr
Eng'r
Assoc
Eng'r Asst Eng'r
Const Insp
Super'vsr
Sr. Const
Insp
Const Insp
II Jr Eng'r
Const Insp
I
Finance
Tech II
Eng'r Tech
I
B Proposed Hourly Rate $274 $243 $216 $179 $167 $178 $155 $141 $152 $128 $114 $111 C Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate $332 $295 $263 $218 $203 $216 $188 $171 $184 $155 $138 $134 D Estimated Cost Recovery 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% App. B: 42
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Planning)
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort
Position

PLANNING
MGR
SENIOR

PLANNER
SENIOR

PLANNER
ASSOC

PLANNER
ASST

PLANNER
ENVIR
COORDIN Total
Calculation of Productive Hours
Annual Hours - Standard 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 20,800 Less: Annual Leave [a] 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 3,200 Productive Hours 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 17,600 Allocation of Productive Hours
Indirect 70% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 65%
Direct 30% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 35%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Indirect Activities and Services 1,232 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 1,144 4,488 Direct Activities 528 1,496 1,496 1,496 1,496 1,496 1,496 1,496 1,496 616 13,112 Total Productive Hours 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 17,600 Salary $ 161,005 $ 116,959 $ 116,959 $ 92,785 $ 92,785 $ 92,785 $ 92,785 $ 64,518 $ 64,518 $ 122,019 $ 1,017,118 Base Hourly Wage Rate $77.41 $56.23 $56.23 $44.61 $44.61 $44.61 $44.61 $31.02 $31.02 $58.66 $48.90 Weighted Allocation - Productive Hrs
Indirect Activities and Services 70% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 65% 30% Direct Activities 30% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 35% 70% [a] Annual leave assumes the following: Holiday - 12 days; Vacation - 14 days; Sick - 12 days; Mgmt/Jury/Other - 2 days App. B: 43
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Bldg & Techs)
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort
Position
BLDG

OFFICIAL

BLDG INSP

SUPRVSR

SR BLDG
PLAN

EXAMINER

BLDG PLAN

EXAMINER II

BLDG PLAN

EXAMINER II

BLDG PLAN

EXAMINER I

BLDG PLAN

EXAMINER I

SR BLDG

INSPECTOR
BLDG

INSPECTOR II
BLDG

INSPECTOR I
BLDG

INSPECTOR I
Calculation of Productive Hours
Annual Hours - Standard 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 Less: Annual Leave [a] 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 Productive Hours 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 Allocation of Productive Hours
Indirect 90% 80% 40% 15% 15% 15% 15% 40% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Direct 10% 20% 60% 85% 85% 85% 85% 60% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Indirect Activities and Services 1,584 1,408 704 264 264 264 264 704 264 264 264 264 264 264 264 Direct Activities 176 352 1,056 1,496 1,496 1,496 1,496 1,056 1,496 1,496 1,496 1,496 1,496 1,496 1,496 Total Productive Hours 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 Salary $ 153,103 $ 110,064 $ 100,687 $ 91,534 $ 91,534 $ 81,876 $ 81,876 $ 96,408 $ 87,644 $ 87,644 $ 87,644 $ 87,644 $ 87,644 $ 64,496 $ 64,496 Weighted Allocation - Productive Hrs
Indirect Activities and Services 90% 80% 40% 15% 15% 15% 15% 40% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Direct Activities 10% 20% 60% 85% 85% 85% 85% 60% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% [a] Annual leave assumes the following:

Holiday - 12 days;
Vacation - 14 days; Sick - 12 days;
Mgmt/Jury/Other - 2 days
App. B: 44
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Bldg & Techs)
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort
Position
Calculation of Productive Hours
Annual Hours - Standard
Less: Annual Leave [a]
Productive Hours
Allocation of Productive Hours
Indirect
Direct
Total
Indirect Activities and Services
Direct Activities
Total Productive Hours
Salary
Weighted Allocation - Productive Hrs
Indirect Activities and Services
Direct Activities
[a] Annual leave assumes the following:

Holiday - 12 days;
Vacation - 14 days; Sick - 12 days;
Mgmt/Jury/Other - 2 days
BLDG

INSPECTOR I
PERMIT

SUPRVSR

SR PERMIT
TECH

DEV TECH
II

DEV TECH
I
PERMIT

TECH II
PERMIT
TECH I
PERMIT
TECH I Total
2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 47,840
320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 7,360
1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 40,480
15% 50% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35%
85% 50% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
264 880 616 616 616 616 616 616 12,144
1,496 880 1,144 1,144 1,144 1,144 1,144 1,144 28,336
1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 40,480
$ 64,496 $ 103,997 $ 79,353 $ 65,275 $ 65,581 $ 57,860 $ 52,708 $ 52,708 $ 1,916,272 15% 50% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 33%
85% 50% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 67%
App. B: 45
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Dev Svcs Eng)
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort
Position
ENGINEER.

MGR.

PRINCPL
ENGINR
SR

ENGINEER
SR

ENGINEER
ASSOC

ENGINEER
ASST

ENGINEER
JUNIOR

ENGINEER

CONST INSP
SUPNTD

CONST INSP
SUPV

SR CONSTR
INSPE

SR CONSTR
INSPE
CONST

INSPEC II
FTE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.88 1.00 1.00 Calculation of Productive Hours
Annual Hours - Standard 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 1,820 1,820 2,080 2,080 2,080 1,820 1,820 1,820 2,080 2,080 Less: Annual Leave [a] 320 320 320 320 320 320 280 280 320 320 320 280 280 280 320 320 Productive Hours 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,540 1,540 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,760 1,760 Allocation of Productive Hours
Indirect 60% 60% 60% 60% 35% 35% 35% 35% 25% 25% 25% 50% 25% 25% 15% 15% Direct 40% 40% 40% 40% 65% 65% 65% 65% 75% 75% 75% 50% 75% 75% 85% 85% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Indirect Activities and Services 1,056 1,056 1,056 1,056 616 616 539 539 440 440 440 770 385 385 264 264 Direct Activities 704 704 704 704 1,144 1,144 1,001 1,001 1,320 1,320 1,320 770 1,155 1,155 1,496 1,496 Total Productive Hours 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,540 1,540 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,760 1,760 Salary $ 168,196 $ 149,503 $ 132,894 $ 132,894 $ 110,056 $ 110,056 $ 101,114 $ 101,114 $ 102,499 $ 102,499 $ 81,484 $ 110,115 $ 95,752 $ 83,263 $ 95,158 $ 86,507 Weighted Allocation - Productive Hrs
Indirect Activities and Services 60% 60% 60% 60% 35% 35% 35% 35% 25% 25% 25% 50% 25% 25% 15% 15% Direct Activities 40% 40% 40% 40% 65% 65% 65% 65% 75% 75% 75% 50% 75% 75% 85% 85% [a] Annual leave assumes the following:

Holiday - 12 days;
Vacation - 14 days; Sick - 12 days;
Mgmt/Jury/Other - 2 days
App. B: 46
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Dev Svcs Eng)
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort
Position
FTE
Calculation of Productive Hours
Annual Hours - Standard
Less: Annual Leave [a]
Productive Hours
Allocation of Productive Hours
Indirect
Direct
Total
Indirect Activities and Services
Direct Activities
Total Productive Hours
Salary
Weighted Allocation - Productive Hrs
Indirect Activities and Services
Direct Activities
[a] Annual leave assumes the following:

Holiday - 12 days;
Vacation - 14 days; Sick - 12 days;
Mgmt/Jury/Other - 2 days
CONST

INSPEC II
CONST

INSPEC I
DEVEL
TECH I Total

1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 21.25
2,080 2,080 1,820 2,080 2,080 2,080 44,200
320 320 280 320 320 320 6,800
1,760 1,760 1,540 1,760 1,760 1,760 37,400
15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 25%
85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 75%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
264 264 231 264 264 440 11,649
1,496 1,496 1,309 1,496 1,496 1,320 25,751
1,760 1,760 1,540 1,760 1,760 1,760 37,400
$ 86,507 $ 86,507 $ 75,693 $ 86,507 $ 73,544 $ 60,806 $ 2,232,669 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 25% 35%
85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 75% 65%
App. B: 47
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Services (Code Enforcement)
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort
Position
CODE

ENFOR SUPE

CODE ENF
INS II

CODE ENF
INS I Total
Calculation of Productive Hours
Annual Hours - Standard 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 10,400 Less: Annual Leave [a] 320 320 320 320 320 1,600
Productive Hours 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 8,800
Allocation of Productive Hours
Indirect 40% 20% 20% 20% 20%
Direct 60% 80% 80% 80% 80%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Indirect Activities and Services 704 352 352 352 352 2,112 Direct Activities 1,056 1,408 1,408 1,408 1,408 6,688
Total Productive Hours 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 8,800 Salary $ 115,195 $ 78,154 $ 78,154 $ 78,154 $ 78,154 $ 427,811 Base Hourly Wage Rate $55.38 $37.57 $37.57 $37.57 $37.57 $41.14 Weighted Allocation - Productive Hrs
Indirect Activities and Services 40% 20% 20% 20% 20% 25% Direct Activities 60% 80% 80% 80% 80% 75%
[a] Annual leave assumes the following: Holiday - 12 days; Vacation - 14 days; Sick - 12 days; Mgmt/Jury/Other - 2 days App. B: 48
Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis
- Development Impact Fee Deferral Fees -
App. B: 49
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost of Service for Development Impact Fee Deferral Statistical Information
Description Total Notes
Estimated Citywide Overhead as a Percent of Salaries for Fee-Related Services Hourly Rate Calculation 10% [a] Labor Allocation Statistics
Direct Service Units (functional units for fee-setting purposes) Est. FTE Notes Economic Development 3.50
Total 3.50
Calculation of Estimated Expenditures for Direct Services Units Direct Service Units (Functional Units)
Center
# Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages Est. Benefits
Est. Recurring
Non-Labor
Est. C'wide
Overhead
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses Adjustments
Adjusted Est.

Recurring
Expenses Notes
54001 Economic Dev 3.50 $ 481,150 $ 267,292 $ 305,727 $ 48,115 $ 1,102,284 $ (148,321) $ 953,963 [b] Total 3.50 $ 481,150 $ 267,292 $ 305,727 $ 48,115 $ 1,102,284 $ (148,321) $ 953,963 Calculation of Targeted Hourly Rate
Direct Services for Fee-Related Cost of Service (Functional Units) Center
# Description Est. FTE
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Est. Annual
Leave Hours
Per FTE [c]
Est. Productive
Hours Per FTE
Est % of Time
Spent on
Indirect
Activities [d]
Total Est.

Direct Svc
Hours
Total Est.

Direct Svc
Hours (All FTE)
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate Notes
54001 Economic Dev 3.50 $ 953,963 2,080 320 1,760 20% 1,408 4,928 $ 194 [c],[d] Total 3.50 $ 953,963 2,080 320 1,760 20% 1,408 4,928 $ 194 Calculation of Estimated ICR Multiplier
Center
# Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Total Est.

Annual Hours
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
Assuming 2,080
Hours
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate ICR Multiplier
Straight Hourly
Rate * ICR
Multiplier *
Direct Hours Notes
54001 Economic Dev 3.50 $ 481,150 2,080 7,280 $ 66 $ 194 2.93 $ 953,963 Source: Estimated labor and FTE information based on FY 21/22 position budgeting data. Estimated recurring non-labor expenditures based on FY 21/22 adopted budget. Estimated citywide overhead based on conservative estimates developed for purposes of this analysis only (see footnote [a] for additional details regarding estimates for citywide overhead. [a] Amount is intended to serve as a reasonable, conservative, estimate of central service support received by the Economic Development Department from other central service units, such as finance, attorney, city manager, etc. The City's existing overhead cost allocation plan allocates central service costs to direct service units. Consequently, there is no formal allocation of citywide overhead to the Economic Development Department. While, the Department primarily operates as a central service unit, for certain fee-related services the department provides direct services. The overhead allocation is intended to provide an estimate of support received by the Department that enables staff to perform direct services, when requested. [c] Annual leave assumes the following: Holiday - 12 days; Vacation - 14 days; Sick - 12 days; Mgmt/Jury/Other - 2 days. Actual amounts may vary based on employee length of service and job title.

Amounts shown are intended to serve as reasonable for purposes of estimation. [d] Indirect activities and services may include mandatory rest periods, meetings, training, and other administrative activities, public information and assistance, etc. [b] Adjustment to exclude budgeted expenditures for: Acct #5301 - Professional Services; Acct #5471 - Memberships. Adjustments were made to calculate a conservative estimate of expenditures typically associated with processing development impact fee deferrals (i.e. include labor costs and indirect labor support costs.).

App. B: 50
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Development Impact Fee Deferral
Cost of Service Calculation - At Targeted Hourly Rate
Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours x
FullyBurdened
Hourly =
Est. Cost of
Service Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change ($)
Proposed Fee
Change (%)
1 Development Impact Fee Deferral
a) Residential 2.50 x $194 = $484 $297 61% $312 64% $15 5% b) Non-Residential
i) Administrative Fee 7.00 x $194 = $1,355 $831 61% $873 64% $42 5% ii) Interest Charge on Deferred Fees = equal to
unearned
interest
based on
City's 10-yr
avg pooled
interest rate
equal to unearned
interest based on
City's 10-yr avg
pooled interest
rate
100% equal to unearned
interest based on
City's 10-yr avg
pooled interest
rate
100%
App. B: 51
Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis
- Electric Fees -
App. B: 52
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Electric Fees
Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Time x
Various
Positions =
Est. Labor
Cost +
Meter
Cost (Net
of Credit) =
Est. Cost
of Service Notes
Current
Fee
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change ($)
Proposed Fee
Change (%)
Solar Energy Program - Meter Upgrade Charges
1 Residential PV Net-Meter 3.00 x calculated by Electric using most current MOU $782.02 100% $856.54 100% $74.52 10% 2 Business PV Net-Meter (<10kW system size) 7.50 x calculated by Electric using most current MOU $1,659.21 100% $2,028.76 100% $369.55 22% 3 Business PV Net & PBI Meter (10-100kW system size,
up to 200amp PBI panel)

10.75 x calculated by Electric using most current MOU $2,715.88 100% $2,756.27 100% $40.39 1% 4 Business PV Net & PBI Meter (10-100kW system size,
>200amp PBI panel)

17.25 x calculated by Electric using most current MOU $4,419.92 100% $4,535.68 100% $115.76 3% 5 Variance Review Request 1.00 x calculated by Electric using most current MOU $203.66 100% $211.40 100% $7.74 4% 6 Plan Reviews or Field Meets Exceeding the Initial and Subsequent Submittal Limit

1.00 x calculated by Electric using most current MOU $203.66 100% $211.40 100% $7.74 4% Other Service Fees
7 Pedestal Meter Fee 2.00 x calculated by Electric using most current MOU $331.67 100% $584.35 100% $252.68 76% 8 Temporary Power Meter Set
a) Temp Power Meter Set Fee - Residential varies x calculated by Electric using most current MOU $269.90 varies $584.35 varies $314.45 117% b) Temp Power Meter Set Fee - Commercial varies x calculated by Electric using most current MOU Actual Cost 100% Actual Cost 100% $0.00 0% 9 Extension of Facilities varies x calculated by Electric using most current MOU Actual Cost 100% Actual Cost 100% $0.00 0% 10 Svc Connections and Facilities on Customer's
Premises
varies x calculated by Electric using most current MOU Actual Cost 100% Actual Cost 100% $0.00 0% 11 Meter Test
a) Test - More than six-months since prior test 1.00 x calculated by Electric using most current MOU $0.00 0% $0.00 0% $0.00 0% b) Test - Within six-months of meter install or
prior test

1.00 x calculated by Electric using most current MOU Actual Cost 100% Actual Cost 100% $0.00 0% 12 Overhead-to-Underground Conversion of Overhead
Utilities
varies x calculated by Electric using most current MOU Actual Cost 100% Actual Cost 100% $0.00 0% 13 Small Cell Plan Check Fee 4.00 x calculated by Electric using most current MOU $767.89 100% $782.12 100% $0.00 0% 14 Technology Fee 3% 3% $0.00 0%
App. B: 53
Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis
- Environmental Utilities Fees -
App. B: 54
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Environmental Utilities Fees
Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est.

Labor
Time x
Hrly
Rate =
Est.

Labor
Cost +
Meter
Cost (Net
of Credit) =
Est. Cost
of
Service Notes
Current
Fee
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee Change
($)
Proposed
Fee Change
(%)
Water
1 Construction Water
a) Fire Hydrant Application Fee $257 $267 $10 4%
b) Usage Rate Current rate per Ccf Current rate per Ccf c) Meter and Backflow Rental
i) Monthly Rental Charge $100 $104 $4 4%
ii) Initial Deposit $1,500 $2,518 n/a n/a
2 Meter Installation Actual Cost Actual Cost
3 Service Connections Actual Cost Actual Cost
4 Tap Actual Cost Actual Cost
5 Abandon Water Service Line Actual Cost Actual Cost
6 Installation of Facilities in Subdivisions/Other Dev'lpmts Actual Cost Actual Cost Water Conservation
7 Water - Water Efficient Landscape Review Actual Cost Actual Cost Backflow Prevention Inspection and Cross-Connection Control 8 Backflow Prevention Assembly - Installation, Repair, Replacement Actual Cost Actual Cost 9 Backflow Prevention Assembly - Reinspection Fee $69 $71 $3 4% Well Water
10 Well Permit
a) First Well $286 $296 $11 4%
b) Each Additional Well $143 $148 $5 4%
c) Soil Boring (no well) $286 $296 $11 4%
Sewer
11 Private Sewage Disposal System - Plan Review and Inspection Actual Cost Actual Cost 12 Building Sewers and Connections
a) Residential and Commercial Service Actual Cost Actual Cost b) Service Establishments Producing Industrial Waste Actual Cost Actual Cost 13 Review of Grease, Oil, and Grit Interceptors Actual Cost Actual Cost 14 Rate-of-Flow Controller Facility
a) Installation Actual Cost Actual Cost
b) Re-inspection Actual Cost Actual Cost
15 Industrial Waste Manhole - Plan Review and Inspection Actual Cost Actual Cost 16 Closed Circuit TV for Inspection and Warranty Service Actual Cost Actual Cost 17 Vactor Service for Cleaning of New Infrastructure for Final Acceptance
Actual Cost Actual Cost
Fees and billing rates established by
Environmental Utilities Department as part of a
separate analysis
App. B: 55
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Environmental Utilities Fees
Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est.

Labor
Time x
Hrly
Rate =
Est.

Labor
Cost +
Meter
Cost (Net
of Credit) =
Est. Cost
of
Service Notes
Current
Fee
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee Change
($)
Proposed
Fee Change
(%)
18 Fabrication of Special Fittings Actual Cost Actual Cost 19 Fats, Oils, and Grease Program (FOG) - Costs incurred by the City as a result of required on-site sampling and analysis
Actual Cost Actual Cost
20 FOG Program Violation Appeal Cost Reimbursement
a) Public Utilities Commission Actual Cost Actual Cost
b) City Council Actual Cost Actual Cost
Recycled Water
21 Recycled Water - Cost of Meter and Installation Actual Cost Actual Cost 22 Recycled Water for Construction
a) Fire Hydrant Application Fee $257 $267 $10 4%
b) Usage Rate Current rate per Ccf Current rate per Ccf c) Meter Rental
i) Monthly Rental Charge $100 $104 $4 4%
ii) Initial Deposit $1,500 $2,090 n/a n/a
23 Recycled Water - Plan Review and Inspection Actual Cost Actual Cost Industrial Wastewater
24 On-Site Sampling Actual Cost Actual Cost
Other Fees
25 Plan Review Actual Cost Actual Cost
26 On-site Inspections Actual Cost Actual Cost
27 Water Warranty Inspections Actual Cost Actual Cost
28 Wastewater Warranty Inspections Actual Cost Actual Cost 29 Cross Connection Testing Actual Cost Actual Cost
30 Cross Connection Testing for Backflows Actual Cost Actual Cost 31 Water Continuity Testing Actual Cost Actual Cost
32 Spark Testing Actual Cost Actual Cost
33 Mapping Actual Cost Actual Cost
34 Standby Actual Cost Actual Cost
35 Disposal of Chlorinated or Contaminated Water Actual Cost Actual Cost 36 Tee Installation Actual Cost Actual Cost
37 401 Transition Pipe Actual Cost Actual Cost
38 Pipe Coating Actual Cost Actual Cost
App. B: 56
Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis
- Fire & Life Safety Fees -
App. B: 57
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fire & Life Safety Fees - Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rates and Indirect Cost Rate Multipliers Calculation of Estimated Expenditures for Departmental Overhead and Direct Services Units Department Overhead
Org Key Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages Est. Benefits
Est. Recurring
Non-Labor
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses for
Hrly Rate Calc
Total OT; PT
Labor and
Contracts
Total Vacancy
Factor & Leave
Payoffs
Total
Reimbursed
Expenses Total
Est. C'wide
Overhead
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses Notes
48001 Fire - Administration 3.00 $ 396,537 $ 240,069 $ 260,228 $ 896,834 $ 1,003 $ (16,576) $ - $ 881,261 $ 1,161,088 $ 2,057,922 48050 Fire - Training 1.00 $ 141,670 $ 122,047 $ 238,607 $ 502,324 $ - $ (7,525) $ - $ 494,799 $ 59,618 $ 561,942 48040 Fire - Support Services 1.00 $ 85,839 $ 90,738 $ 2,359,048 $ 2,535,625 $ 25,197 $ (6,310) $ - $ 2,554,512 $ 202,709 $ 2,738,334 48020 PIO; Admin Tech 2.00 $ 207,756 $ 72,292 $ 42,237 $ 322,285 $ - $ - $ - $ 322,285 $ 25,075 $ 347,360 [a] Total 7.00 $ 831,802 $ 525,146 $ 2,900,120 $ 4,257,068 $ 26,200 $ (30,411) $ - $ 4,252,857 $ 1,448,490 $ 5,705,558 Direct Services for Fee-Related Cost of Service (Functional Units) Org Key Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages
[a] Est. Benefits
Est. Recurring
Non-Labor
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses for
Hrly Rate Calc
Total OT; PT
Labor and
Contracts
Total Vacancy
Factor & Leave
Payoffs
Total
Reimbursed
Expenses Total
Est. C'wide
Overhead
Est. Alloc. of
Dept.

Overhead
Based on FTE
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses for
Hrly Rate Notes
48020 Fire Prevention 8.00 $ 821,099 $ 574,525 $ 168,947 $ 1,564,571 $ 71,650 $ (60,645) $ (20,000) $ 1,555,576 $ 100,299 $ 380,371 $ 2,045,241 [a],[b],[c] 48030 Fire Operations 112.00 $ 17,182,131 $ 10,489,111 $ 2,505,465 $ 30,176,707 $ 731,896 $ 23,404 $ - $ 30,932,007 $ 2,333,912 $ 5,325,187 $ 37,835,806 [b] Total 120.00 $ 18,003,230 $ 11,063,636 $ 2,674,412 $ 31,741,278 $ 803,546 $ (37,241) $ (20,000) $ 32,487,583 $ 2,434,211 $ 5,705,558 $ 39,881,047 Org Key Description
Total Est.

Share of
Recurring
Expenses
Est Direct Svcs
Ratio
Est Hours
Available to
Recover Costs
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate Notes
48020 Fire Prevention $ 2,045,241 65% 9,856 $ 208 [d]
Calculation of Estimated ICR Multiplier
Org Key Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Total Est.

Annual Hours
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
Assuming Total
Annual Hours
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate ICR Multiplier
Straight Hourly
Rate * ICR
Multiplier *
Direct Hours Notes
48020 Fire Prevention 8.00 $ 821,099 2,080 16,640 $ 49 $ 208 4.21 $ 2,045,241 App. B: 58
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fire & Life Safety Fees - Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rates and Indirect Cost Rate Multipliers Cost Recovery Analysis and Potential Revenue Impact of Various Scenarios Revenue Impact of Charging Fees at Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Org Key Description
Current Hourly
Rate Used for
Fee Setting
Purposes
Calculated
Fully Burdened
Hourly Rate
Est Cost
Recovery Rate
for Fee
Services
Current
Revenue from
Fee-Related
Services
Est. Revenue
at FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Est Revenue
Increase
Assuming Full
Cost Recovery
% Increase
Required to
Achieve Target
Est Cost
Recovery
48020 Fire Prevention $ 172 $ 208 83% $ 721,515 $ 870,484 $ 148,969 21% 100% Fee Change Based on CPI Increase from Prior Change
Org Key Description
Proposed Fee
Change
Current Hourly
Rate Used for
Fee Setting
Purposes
Hourly Rate
Adjustment
Based on Est.

CPI Increase
Current
Revenue from
Fee-Related
Services
Targeted
Recovery from
Fees
Est Revenue
Increase
Assuming
Targeted
Recovery
% Increase
Required to
Achieve Target
Est Cost
Recovery
48020 Fire Prevention 4% $ 172 $ 179 $ 721,515 $ 750,879 $ 29,364 4% 86% Estimated Share of Divisional Expenditures Recovered from Fees - Current Org Key Description
Estimated
Share of
Recurring
Expenses
Current
Revenue from
Fee-Related
Services
Divisional Cost
Recovery from
Fees
48020 Fire Prevention $ 2,045,241 $ 721,515 35%
Estimated Share of Divisional Expenditures Recovered from Fees - Proposed Org Key Description
Estimated
Share of
Recurring
Expenses
Proposed
Revenue from
Fee-Related
Services
Divisional Cost
Recovery from
Fees
48020 Fire Prevention $ 2,045,241 $ 750,879 37%
[c] FY 21/22 positional budgeting included 10.0 FTE, 1.0 FTE was Safety Inspector II. This analysis assumes Inspector II will be reclassified to Inspector I. [b] Estimated departmental overhead allocated based on FTE count of functional units developed for this analysis.

Source: Estimated labor and FTE information based on FY 21/22 position budgeting data. Estimated recurring non-labor expenditures based on FY 21/22 adopted budget. Estimated citywide overhead based on citywide overhead cost allocation plan. [a] Public Information Officer, and Admin Tech positions are budgeted to Fire & Life Safety Division. However, for purposes of this analysis, the positions are considered departmental administration and allocated amongst Fire Prevention and Fire Operations divisions. Amounts have been separated for allocation purposes and to avoid double counting of expenditures. [d] See accompanying worksheet for estimate of direct service ratio and estimated direct service hours.

App. B: 59
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fire & Life Safety
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort
Position

FIRE DIV
CHIEF

FIRE INSP
SUP

FIRE & ENV

SAFETY INSP

FIRE & ENV

SAFETY INSP

FIRE & ENV

SAFETY INSP

FIRE & ENV

SAFETY INSP

FIRE & ENV

SAFETY INSP

OFFICE ASST
II Total
Calculation of Productive Hours
Annual Hours - Standard 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 2,080 16,640 Less: Annual Leave [a] 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 2,560 Productive Hours 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 14,080 Allocation of Productive Hours
Indirect 90% 25% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 50%
Direct 10% 75% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 50%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Indirect Activities and Services 1,584 440 264 264 264 264 264 880 4,224 Direct Activities 176 1,320 1,496 1,496 1,496 1,496 1,496 880 9,856 Total Productive Hours 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 1,760 14,080 Salary $ 178,667 $ 125,729 $ 90,140 $ 70,997 $ 97,449 $ 81,102 $ 111,012 $ 53,623 $ 808,721 Weighted Allocation - Productive Hrs
Indirect Activities and Services 90% 25% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 50% 35% Direct Activities 10% 75% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 50% 65%
[a] Annual leave assumes the following: Holiday - 12 days; Vacation - 14 days; Sick - 12 days; Mgmt/Jury/Other - 2 days App. B: 60
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fire & Life Safety Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours x
FullyBurdened
Hourly =
Est. Cost of
Service Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change ($)
Proposed Fee
Change (%)
Permits to Operate (Type of Permit Activity)
1 Amusement Building 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% 2 Carnivals and Fairs 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% 3 Combustible Dust Operations 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% 4 Covered Mall Buildings 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% 5 Exhibits and Trade Shows 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% 6 Explosives or Blasting Agents 5.00 x $208 = $1,040 $856 82% $890 86% $34 4% 7 Mobile Fueling 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% 8 Recreational or Bon Fire 1.00 x $208 = $208 $172 83% $180 87% $8 5% 9 Theatrical Fire Performance 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% 10 High Pile Storage 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% 11 Hot Work Operations 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% 12 Industrial Ovens 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% 13 Lumber Yards 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% 14 Misc. Combustible Storage 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% 15 Places of Assembly
a) Less than 300 occupant load 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% b) 300 - 999 occupant load 3.00 x $208 = $624 $514 82% $534 86% $20 4% c) 1,000 or more occupant load 4.00 x $208 = $832 $684 82% $710 85% $26 4% 16 Commercial Day Care Facility
a) 7 - 49 persons 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% b) 50 - 149 persons 3.00 x $208 = $624 $514 82% $534 86% $20 4% c) 150 or more persons 4.00 x $208 = $832 $684 82% $710 85% $26 4% 17 Institutional
a) Less than 6 patients 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% b) 6 or more patients 3.00 x $208 = $624 $514 82% $534 86% $20 4% c) Detention facilities 4.00 x $208 = $832 $684 82% $710 85% $26 4% 18 Apartments/Hotels/Motels
a) 3 - 16 units 1.50 x $208 = $312 $260 83% $270 87% $10 4% b) 17 - 32 units 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% c) 33 or more units 3.00 x $208 = $624 $514 82% $534 86% $20 4% 19 Large Family Day Care
a) Pre-inspection (at hourly rate) 1.00 x $208 = $208 $172 83% $180 87% $8 5% 20 850 Inspections
a) 850 Inspection (at hourly rate) 1.00 x $208 = $208 $172 $180 87% $8 5% 21 Residential Care Facilities
a) 7 or more residents 3.00 x $208 = $624 $514 82% $534 86% $20 4% b) Pre-inspection (at hourly rate) 1.00 x $208 = $208 $172 83% $180 87% $8 5% 22 Temporary Membrane Structures (Tents/Canopies)
a) 401 - 1,499 SF 1.50 x $208 = $312 $260 83% $270 87% $10 4% b) 1,500 - 2,999 SF 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% c) 3,000 - 5,999 SF 3.00 x $208 = $624 $514 82% $534 86% $20 4% d) 6,000 or more SF 4.00 x $208 = $832 $684 82% $710 85% $26 4% App. B: 61
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fire & Life Safety Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours x
FullyBurdened
Hourly =
Est. Cost of
Service Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change ($)
Proposed Fee
Change (%)
Plan Review
● Including Inspection Service
● Plan Review Conducted by City Staff
23 Fire Alarm System
a) New Installation 9.00 x $208 = $1,872 $1,536 82% $1,596 85% $60 4% b) New installation with Two Way Communication 9.00 x $208 = $1,872 $1,536 82% $1,596 85% $60 4% c) Tenant Improvement 4.00 x $208 = $832 $684 82% $710 85% $26 4% d) Tenant Improvement: One Device Only 1.00 x $208 = $208 $172 83% $180 87% $8 5% e) Large Project > 50 Notification Devices 24.00 x $208 = $4,992 $4,090 82% $4,246 85% $156 4% f) High Rise 36.00 x $208 = $7,488 $6,132 82% $6,366 85% $234 4% 24 Fire Sprinkler System - New Installation
a) 1 - 99 heads 12.00 x $208 = $2,496 $2,048 82% $2,126 85% $78 4% b) 100 - 199 heads 15.00 x $208 = $3,120 $2,556 82% $2,654 85% $98 4% c) 200 or more heads 20.00 x $208 = $4,160 $3,410 82% $3,540 85% $130 4% 25 Fire Sprinkler System - Tenant Improvement
a) < 5 Sprinkler Heads Only 1.00 x $208 = $208 $172 83% $180 87% $8 5% b) 6 - 50 heads 4.00 x $208 = $832 $684 82% $710 85% $26 4% c) 51 or more heads 8.00 x $208 = $1,664 $1,366 82% $1,418 85% $52 4% 26 Fire Stand Pipe System 8.00 x $208 = $1,664 $1,366 82% $1,418 85% $52 4% 27 Fire Pump System 15.00 x $208 = $3,120 $2,556 82% $2,654 85% $98 4% 28 Hood and Duct System
a) New System 7.00 x $208 = $1,456 $1,194 82% $1,240 85% $46 4% b) Tenant Improvement 2.00 x $208 = $416 $344 83% $358 86% $14 4% 29 Special Suppression System (Clean agent, Co2, etc.) 10.00 x $208 = $2,080 $1,706 82% $1,772 85% $66 4% 30 Compressed Gas System
a) Hazardous Material 4.00 x $208 = $832 $684 82% $710 85% $26 4% b) Medical Gas 4.00 x $208 = $832 $684 82% $710 85% $26 4% 31 Smoke Management Systems 24.00 x $208 = $4,992 $4,090 82% $4,246 85% $156 4% 32 Spray Booths (Includes fire protection system) 8.00 x $208 = $1,664 $1,366 82% $1,418 85% $52 4% 33 Radio Amplification System 24.00 x $208 = $4,992 $4,090 82% $4,246 85% $156 4% Plan Review
● Including Inspection Service
● Plan Review Conducted by City Approved Consultant
34 Third Party Plan Review (fee is in addition to fees shown below in this section)
passthrough of
consultant
fee
pass-through of
consultant fee
n/a pass-through of
consultant fee
100% n/a n/a
35 Fire Alarm System
a) New Installation 6.08 x $208 = $1,264 $1,036 82% $1,076 85% $40 4% b) New Installation with Two Way Communication 6.08 x $208 = $1,264 $1,036 82% $1,076 85% $40 4% c) Tenant Improvement 2.70 x $208 = $562 $460 82% $478 85% $18 4% d) Large Project > 50 Notification Devices 16.20 x $208 = $3,370 $2,762 82% $2,868 85% $106 4% e) High Rise 24.30 x $208 = $5,054 $4,138 82% $4,296 85% $158 4% 36 Fire Sprinkler System - New Installation
a) 1 - 99 heads 8.10 x $208 = $1,685 $1,380 82% $1,434 85% $54 4% b) 100 - 199 heads 10.13 x $208 = $2,106 $1,726 82% $1,792 85% $66 4% c) 200 or more heads 13.50 x $208 = $2,808 $2,300 82% $2,388 85% $88 4% App. B: 62
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fire & Life Safety Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours x
FullyBurdened
Hourly =
Est. Cost of
Service Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change ($)
Proposed Fee
Change (%)
37 Fire Sprinkler System - Tenant Improvement
a) 6 - 50 heads 2.70 x $208 = $562 $460 82% $478 85% $18 4% b) 51 or more heads 5.40 x $208 = $1,123 $922 82% $958 85% $36 4% 38 Fire Stand Pipe System 5.40 x $208 = $1,123 $922 82% $958 85% $36 4% 39 Fire Pump System 10.13 x $208 = $2,106 $1,726 82% $1,792 85% $66 4% 40 Hood and Duct System
a) New System 4.73 x $208 = $983 $806 82% $838 85% $32 4% b) Tenant Improvement 1.35 x $208 = $281 $232 83% $242 86% $10 4% 41 Special Suppression System (Clean agent, Co2, etc.) 6.75 x $208 = $1,404 $1,152 82% $1,196 85% $44 4% 42 Compressed Gas System
a) Hazardous Material 2.70 x $208 = $562 $460 82% $478 85% $18 4% b) Medical Gas 2.70 x $208 = $562 $460 82% $478 85% $18 4% 43 Smoke Management Systems 16.20 x $208 = $3,370 $2,762 82% $2,868 85% $106 4% 44 Spray Booths (Includes fire protection system) 5.40 x $208 = $1,123 $922 82% $958 85% $36 4% 45 Radio Amplification System 16.20 x $208 = $3,370 $2,762 82% $2,868 85% $106 4% Fireworks
46 Fireworks - Public Display (High/Low Level & Ground Devices) a) 200 or less devices 6.00 x $208 = $1,248 $1,026 82% $1,066 85% $40 4% b) 201 or more devices 7.00 x $208 = $1,456 $1,194 82% $1,240 85% $46 4% 47 Fireworks - Retail Stand 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% 48 Fireworks - Special Pyrotechnic Effects 4.00 x $208 = $832 $684 82% $710 85% $26 4% Hazardous Materials
49 Flammable or Combustible Liquids/Solids
a) Class I > 5 gal, II or IIIA > 25 gal (inside storage) 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% b) ≥ 100 lbs 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% 50 Hazardous Materials Storage, Use, or Handling (55 Gallons Liquid, 200 Cu Ft Gas, 500 Lbs. Solid)
a) Carbon Dioxide System 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% b) 1 - 10 chemicals 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% c) 11 - 20 chemicals 4.00 x $208 = $832 $684 82% $710 85% $26 4% d) 21 or more chemicals 6.00 x $208 = $1,248 $1,026 82% $1,066 85% $40 4% 51 Hazardous Waste Generator
a) Hazardous Waste Generator Fee < 55 gal 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% b) Hazardous Waste Generator Fee 55 - 500 gal 3.00 x $208 = $624 $514 82% $534 86% $20 4% c) Hazardous Waste Generator Fee 501 - 2,500 gal 4.00 x $208 = $832 $684 82% $710 85% $26 4% d) Hazardous Waste Generator Fee > 2,500 gal 6.00 x $208 = $1,248 $1,026 82% $1,066 85% $40 4% 52 Tiered Permitting
a) Permit by Rule (PBR) 6.00 x $208 = $1,248 $1,026 82% $1,066 85% $40 4% b) Conditionally Authorized 3.00 x $208 = $624 $514 82% $534 86% $20 4% c) Conditionally Exempt 3.00 x $208 = $624 $514 82% $534 86% $20 4% 53 Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)
a) Annual tank ≥ 499 gal 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% b) Tank installation (plan review and inspection)
i) Commercial 4.00 x $208 = $832 $684 82% $710 85% $26 4% ii) Residential 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 n/a $356 86% n/a n/a 54 State of California Surcharge CALARP n/a x n/a = n/a $270 n/a $270 n/a $0 0% App. B: 63
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fire & Life Safety Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours x
FullyBurdened
Hourly =
Est. Cost of
Service Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change ($)
Proposed Fee
Change (%)
55 State of California Surcharge Hazardous Materials n/a x n/a = n/a $84 n/a $84 n/a $0 0% 56 Review of Hazardous Materials Risk Management Plans 1.00 x $208 = $208 $172 83% $180 87% $8 5% 57 Review of Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plans 1.00 x $208 = $208 $172 83% $180 87% $8 5% 58 Hazardous Materials Emergency Spill Response varies x varies = varies Actual Cost 100% Actual Cost 100% 59 Hazardous Materials Oversight of Remediation 1.00 x $208 = $208 $172 83% $180 87% $8 5% Underground Storage Tanks
60 Annual Permit 10.00 x $208 = $2,080 $1,706 82% $1,772 85% $66 4% 61 Tank Installation (plan review and inspection)
a) First tank 20.00 x $208 = $4,160 $3,410 82% $3,540 85% $130 4% b) Each additional tank 3.00 x $208 = $624 $514 82% $534 86% $20 4% 62 Transfer of Ownership 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% 63 Tank Removal or Abandonment 10.00 x $208 = $2,080 $1,706 82% $1,772 85% $66 4% 64 System Modification 4.00 x $208 = $832 $684 82% $710 85% $26 4% 65 UST System Cold Start 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 n/a $356 86% $14 4% 66 UST Piping Upgrade 8.00 x $208 = $1,664 $1,366 82% $1,418 85% $52 4% 67 State of California UST Surcharge (per tank) n/a x n/a = n/a $20 n/a $20 n/a $0 0% Aboveground Storage Tanks
68 Annual Permit
a) Annual Permit: 1,320 to 10,000 gallons 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% b) Annual Permit: 10,000 to 100,000 gallons 3.00 x $208 = $624 $514 82% $534 86% $20 4% c) Annual Permit: 100,000 to 1,000,000 gallons 4.00 x $208 = $832 $684 82% $710 85% $26 4% d) Annual Permit ≥ 1,000,000 gallons 6.00 x $208 = $1,248 $1,026 82% $1,066 85% $40 4% 69 Tank Installation (plan review and inspection)
a) First tank 4.00 x $208 = $832 $684 82% $710 85% $26 4% b) Each additional tank 1.00 x $208 = $208 $172 83% $180 87% $8 5% 70 Transfer of Ownership 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% 71 Tank Removal or Abandonment 4.00 x $208 = $832 $684 82% $710 85% $26 4% 72 System Modification 3.00 x $208 = $624 $514 82% $534 86% $20 4% 73 State of California APSA Surcharge n/a x n/a = n/a $26 n/a $26 n/a $0 0% Administrative Fees
74 Copy of Incident Report (per incident) varies x varies = varies $16 $18 $2 13% 75 Media Reproduction (audio, video, photographic) varies x varies = varies Actual Cost Actual Cost 76 Emergency Response Caused by DUI varies x varies = varies Actual Cost Actual Cost 77 Weed Abatement Administrative Parcel Fee 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% 78 Code Appeal (per hour) 1.00 x $208 = $208 $172 n/a $180 87% $8 5% 79 Fire Flow / Hydrant Test 3.00 x $208 = $624 $514 82% $534 86% $20 4% 80 Fire & Life Safety Division Hourly Rate 1.00 x $208 = $208 $172 83% $180 87% $8 5% 81 Minimum Intake Fee 1.00 x $208 = $208 $172 83% $180 87% $8 5% 82 Voluntary Inspection 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% 83 Technical Report (alternate material or method request) 4.00 x $208 = $832 $684 82% $710 85% $26 4% 84 Inspection Requests (after normal business hours) 3.00 x $208 = $624 $514 82% $534 86% $20 4% 85 Administrative Fee (excessive resubmittals and inspections) 2.50 x $208 = $520 $430 83% $448 86% $18 4% 86 Expedited Plan Review Fee (per hour) 1.25 x $208 = $260 $194 75% $202 78% $8 4% 87 Re-inspection Fee 2.00 x $208 = $416 $342 82% $356 86% $14 4% 88 Administrative Fee (work without a permit) 3.00 x $208 = $624 $514 82% $534 86% $20 4% App. B: 64
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fire & Life Safety Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours x
FullyBurdened
Hourly =
Est. Cost of
Service Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change ($)
Proposed Fee
Change (%)
89 Code Review or Design Consultation (per hour) 1.00 x $208 = $208 $172 83% $180 87% $8 5% 90 False Alarm Fee 2.50 x $208 = $520 $430 83% $448 86% $18 4% 91 Fire Extinguisher Training 3.00 x $208 = $624 $514 82% $534 86% $20 4% 92 Late Payment Penalty for Permits
a) 30 days past due n/a x n/a = n/a $50 n/a $50 n/a $0 0% b) 60 days past due n/a x n/a = n/a $100 n/a $100 n/a $0 0% c) 90 days past due n/a x n/a = n/a $200 n/a $200 n/a $0 0% [a] Hazardous Materials Storage, Use, or Handling fee includes Hazardous Waste Generator < 55 gal.

App. B: 65
Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis
- Police Fees -
App. B: 66
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Police Department - Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rates and Indirect Cost Rate Multipliers Calculation of Estimated Expenditures for Departmental Overhead and Direct Services Units Department Overhead
Org Key Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages
[a] Est. Benefits
Est. Recurring
Non-Labor
Adjust to Est.

Recurring NonLabor
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses for
Hrly Rate Calc
Total OT; PT
Labor and
Contracts
Total Vacancy
Factor & Leave
Payoffs
Total
Reimbursed
Expenses Total
Est. C'wide
Overhead
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses Notes
44001 Police Admin n/a $ 1,805,636 $ 1,280,444 $ 4,690,011 $ - $ 7,776,091 $ 64,996 $ (97,206) $ (9,978) $ 7,733,903 $ 1,319,308 $ 9,095,399 44020 Police Comm see c'wide OH see c'wide OH see c'wide OH see c'wide OH see c'wide OH see c'wide OH see c'wide OH see c'wide OH see c'wide OH see c'wide OH see c'wide OH [b] Total - $ 1,805,636 $ 1,280,444 $ 4,690,011 $ - $ 7,776,091 $ 64,996 $ (97,206) $ (9,978) $ 7,733,903 $ 1,319,308 $ 9,095,399 Org Key Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages
[a] Est. Benefits
Est. Recurring
Non-Labor
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses for
Hrly Rate Calc
Est. C'wide
Overhead
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses Notes
44080 Police - Vehicles - $ - $ - $ 2,368,241 $ 2,368,241 $ 49,902 $ 2,418,143 Total - $ - $ - $ 2,368,241 $ 2,368,241 $ 49,902 $ 2,418,143 Direct Services for Fee-Related Cost of Service (Functional Units) Org Key Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages
[a] Est. Benefits
Est. Recurring
Non-Labor
Adjust to Est.

Recurring NonLabor
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses for
Hrly Rate Calc
Total OT; PT
Labor and
Contracts
Total Vacancy
Factor & Leave
Payoffs
Total
Reimbursed
Expenses Total
Est. C'wide
Overhead
Est. Alloc. of
Dept. Overhead
Based on FTE
Est. Alloc. of
Police Vehicles
Budget (05540)
Based on FTE of
Units Using
Vehicles
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses Notes
44010 Records - Property 24.00 $ 1,612,028 $ 1,049,608 $ 203,674 $ - $ 2,865,310 $ 114,737 $ (80,012) $ - $ 2,900,035 $ 252,319 $ 1,240,282 n/a $ 4,392,636 44025 Social Services Unit 12.00 $ 1,401,390 $ 1,100,610 $ 139,925 $ - $ 2,641,925 $ 94,827 $ (83,324) $ (213,454) $ 2,439,974 $ 144,333 $ 620,141 $ 190,906 $ 3,395,354 44040 Patrol 103.00 $ 10,601,158 $ 8,231,549 $ 1,906,365 $ - $ 20,739,072 $ 1,148,023 $ (587,167) $ (381,620) $ 20,918,308 $ 5,033,381 $ 5,322,876 $ 1,638,610 $ 32,913,175 44050 Investigations 25.00 $ 2,884,057 $ 1,975,932 $ 212,336 $ - $ 5,072,325 $ 309,954 $ (156,364) $ - $ 5,225,915 $ 318,194 $ 1,291,960 $ 397,721 $ 7,233,790 44070 Animal Control 3.00 $ 236,187 $ 153,817 $ 971,442 $ (957,000) $ 404,446 $ 3,677 $ (11,102) $ - $ 397,021 $ 55,492 $ 155,035 $ 47,727 $ 655,275 [c] 44060 Police Traffic 9.00 $ 1,138,602 $ 803,199 $ 57,540 $ - $ 1,999,341 $ 84,311 $ (59,076) $ - $ 2,024,576 $ 116,729 $ 465,106 $ 143,180 $ 2,749,590 Total 176.00 $ 17,873,422 $ 13,314,715 $ 3,491,282 $ (957,000) $ 33,722,419 $ 1,755,529 $ (977,045) $ (595,074) $ 33,905,829 $ 5,920,448 $ 9,095,399 $ 2,418,143 $ 51,339,819 Calculation of Estimated Fully-Burdened Hourly Rates
Direct Services for Fee-Related Cost of Service (Functional Units) Org Key Description Est. FTE
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Est. Annual
Leave Hours
Per FTE [d]
Est. Productive
Hours Per FTE
Est % of Time
Spent on
Indirect
Activities [e][f]
Total Est.

Direct Svc
Hours
Total Est.

Direct Svc
Hours (All FTE)
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate Notes
44010 Records - Property 24.00 $ 4,392,636 2,080 320 1,760 13% 1,540 36,960 $ 119 44025 Social Services Unit 12.00 $ 3,395,354 2,080 320 1,760 13% 1,540 18,480 $ 184 44040 Patrol 103.00 $ 32,913,175 2,080 320 1,760 13% 1,540 158,620 $ 207 44050 Investigations 25.00 $ 7,233,790 2,080 320 1,760 13% 1,540 38,500 $ 188 44070 Animal Control 3.00 $ 655,275 2,080 320 1,760 13% 1,540 4,620 $ 142 44060 Police Traffic 9.00 $ 2,749,590 2,080 320 1,760 13% 1,540 13,860 $ 198 Total 176.00 $ 51,339,819 2,080 320 1,760 13% 1,540 271,040 $ 189 App. B: 67
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Police Department - Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rates and Indirect Cost Rate Multipliers Calculation of Estimated ICR Multiplier
Org Key Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Total Est.

Annual Hours
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
Assuming
2,080 Hours
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate ICR Multiplier
Straight
Hourly Rate *
ICR Multiplier *
Direct Hours Notes
44010 Records - Property 24.00 $ 1,612,028 2,080 49,920 $ 32 $ 119 3.68 $ 4,392,636 44025 Social Services Unit 12.00 $ 1,401,390 2,080 24,960 $ 56 $ 184 3.27 $ 3,395,354 44040 Patrol 103.00 $ 10,601,158 2,080 214,240 $ 49 $ 207 4.19 $ 32,913,175 44050 Investigations 25.00 $ 2,884,057 2,080 52,000 $ 55 $ 188 3.39 $ 7,233,790 44070 Animal Control 3.00 $ 236,187 2,080 6,240 $ 38 $ 142 3.75 $ 655,275 44060 Police Traffic 9.00 $ 1,138,602 2,080 18,720 $ 61 $ 198 3.26 $ 2,749,590 Total 176.00 $ 17,873,422 2,080 366,080 $ 49 $ 189 3.88 $ 51,339,819 Calculation of Estimated Fully-Burdened Hourly Rates for Various Staff Positions Org Key Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Total Est.

Annual Hours
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
Assuming
2,080 Hours ICR Multiplier
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate Notes
CSO II 1.00 $ 69,012 2,080 2,080 $ 33 3.39 $ 112
Officer 1.00 $ 118,746 2,080 2,080 $ 57 3.39 $ 193
Sergeant 1.00 $ 144,585 2,080 2,080 $ 70 3.39 $ 235
Lieutenant 1.00 $ 167,082 2,080 2,080 $ 80 3.39 $ 272
[f] Indirect ratio assumes roughly 1 hour out of every eight hour day spent on indirect activities.

Source: Estimated labor and FTE information based on FY 21/22 position budgeting data. Estimated recurring non-labor expenditures based on FY 21/22 adopted budget. Estimated citywide overhead based on Citywide overhead cost allocation plan. [d] Annual leave assumes the following: Holiday - 12 days; Vacation - 14 days; Sick - 12 days; Mgmt/Jury/Other - 2 days. Actual amounts may vary based on employee length of service and job title. Amounts shown are intended to serve as reasonable for purposes of estimation. [e] Amounts shown are intended to serve as conservative estimates. Indirect activities and services may include mandatory rest periods, meetings, training, public information and assistance, and other administrative activities.
[c] Estimated recurring expenditures for Animal Control exclude $957,000 in FY 21/22 budgeted contract/professional services expenditures for contract animal control services. [a] Amounts exclude estimated overtime and temporary help wages. [b] Police Communications expenditures are allocated to direct service units via the citywide overhead cost allocation plan.

App. B: 68
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Police Department Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
CSO Officer Ltnt Total
$ 112 $ 193 $ 272 n/a
Est. Labor Hours Estimated Cost of Service
Fee Description
Clerk /
CSO Officer Ltnt Total
Clerk /
CSO Officer Ltnt Total Current Fee Current Recovery Proposed Fee Proposed
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change
1 Alarm Permit Application
a) Initial permit application $35 $35 $0
b) Renewal permit application $15 $15 $0
c) Late Filing Fees
i) Less than 30 days late $5 $5 $0
ii) 30 Days $20 $20 $0
iii) 60 Days $40 $40 $0
iv) 90 Days $80 $80 $0
v) 91+ Days
a) Base Fee $80 $80 $0
b) Administrative Citation TBD TBD $0
c) Fine $100 $100 $0
2 Excessive False Alarms:
a) First false alarm
i) Burglary $0 $0 $0
ii) Duress/robbery $0 $0 $0
b) Second false alarm
i) Burglary $60 $60 $0
ii) Duress/robbery $60 $60 $0
c) Third false alarm
i) Burglary $85 $85 $0
ii) Duress/robbery $85 $85 $0
d) Fourth false alarm
i) Burglary $100 $100 $0
ii) Duress/robbery $150 $150 $0
e) Fifth and subsequent false alarms
i) Burglary $150 $150 $0
ii) Duress/robbery $200 $200 $0
3 Appeal of Decision to Deny, Suspend, or
Revoke an Alarm Permit
$75 $75 $0
4 Citation Sign-Off (Non-Roseville Issued
Citations)

0.17 0.00 0.00 0.17 x $19 $0 $0 $19 n/a $10 53%
5 Traffic Collision Report 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.13 x $14 $0 $0 $14 $10 72% $10 71% ($0) 6 Traffic Camera Footage & Photos
a) Footage and Photos 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 x $37 $0 $0 $37 $25 $25 67% ($0) b) Digital Storage Device $8 $8 $8 100% ($0)
7 Digital Media Storage Device
a) CD / DVD $2 $2 100% $2 100% $0
b) Flash Drive $8 $8 100% $8 100% $0
8 Impounded Vehicle Release Fee 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.50 x $112 $97 $0 $209 $175 84% $185 88% $10 9 Vehicle Tow Hearing 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 x $0 $0 $136 $136 $89 65% $90 66% $1 Alarm permit fees not
examined in this study
Alarm permit fees not
examined in this study
App. B: 69
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Police Department Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
CSO Officer Ltnt Total
$ 112 $ 193 $ 272 n/a
Est. Labor Hours Estimated Cost of Service
Fee Description
Clerk /
CSO Officer Ltnt Total
Clerk /
CSO Officer Ltnt Total Current Fee Current Recovery Proposed Fee Proposed
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change
10 Criminal Background / Good Conduct
Letter

0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 x $56 $0 $0 $56 $20 36% $20 36% $0
11 Commercial Indoor Firing Range Permit 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.75 x $56 $0 $68 $124 $113 91% $118 95% $6 12 Retail Firearms Dealer License
a) Initial permit application 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.75 x $56 $0 $68 $124 $113 91% $118 95% $6 b) Renewal permit application 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.75 x $56 $0 $68 $124 $113 91% $118 95% $6 13 Adult-oriented Business
a) Initial permit application
i) Permit fee 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 x $112 $0 $272 $385 $294 76% $308 80% $15 ii) Dept of Justice fee $32 $32 $0
iii) LiveScan fingerprint rolling fee actual cost actual cost iv) Additional FBI fingerprinting fee, if
applicable
$17 $17 $0
b) Renewal permit application
i) Permit fee 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 x $112 $0 $272 $385 $294 76% $308 80% $15 14 Entertainment Permit
a) Initial permit application
i) Permit fee 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.50 x $112 $0 $136 $248 $225 91% $236 95% $11 ii) Dept of Justice fee $32 $32 $0
iii) LiveScan fingerprint rolling fee actual cost actual cost iv) Additional FBI fingerprinting fee, if
applicable
$17 $17 $0
b) Renewal permit application
i) Permit fee 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.50 x $112 $0 $136 $248 $225 91% $236 95% $11 15 Ice Cream Vendor Permit Application
a) Initial permit application
i) Permit fee 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.75 x $56 $0 $68 $124 $44 36% $47 37% $2 ii) Dept of Justice fee $32 $32 $0
iii) LiveScan fingerprint rolling fee actual cost actual cost iv) Additional FBI fingerprinting fee, if
applicable
$17 $17 $0
b) Renewal permit application
i) Permit fee 0.25 0.00 0.17 0.42 x $28 $0 $45 $73 $44 60% $47 63% $2 16 Massage Business Permit Application
a) Initial permit application
i) Permit fee 2.00 0.00 0.33 2.33 x $225 $0 $91 $316 $138 44% $145 46% $7 ii) Dept of Justice fee $32 $32
iii) LiveScan fingerprint rolling fee actual cost actual cost iv) Additional FBI fingerprinting fee, if
applicable
$17 $17
b) Renewal permit application
i) Permit fee 0.25 0.00 0.17 0.42 x $28 $0 $45 $73 $33 45% $35 48% $2 pass-through
of third party fee
pass-through
of third party fee
pass-through
of third party fee
pass-through
of third party fee
pass-through
of third party fee
pass-through
of third party fee
pass-through
of third party fee
pass-through
of third party fee
App. B: 70
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Police Department Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
CSO Officer Ltnt Total
$ 112 $ 193 $ 272 n/a
Est. Labor Hours Estimated Cost of Service
Fee Description
Clerk /
CSO Officer Ltnt Total
Clerk /
CSO Officer Ltnt Total Current Fee Current Recovery Proposed Fee Proposed
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change
17 Pawnbroker/Secondhand Dealer
a) Initial permit application
i) Permit fee 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.75 x $56 $0 $68 $124 $113 91% $118 95% $6 ii) Dept of Justice fee $32 $32 $0
iii) LiveScan fingerprint rolling fee actual cost actual cost iv) Additional FBI fingerprinting fee, if
applicable
$17 $17 $0
b) Renewal permit application
i) Permit fee 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.75 x $56 $0 $68 $124 $72 58% $76 61% $4 18 Taxicab Driver Permit Application
a) Initial permit application
i) Permit fee 0.50 0.00 0.25 0.75 x $56 $0 $68 $124 $50 40% $50 40% $0 ii) Dept of Justice fee $32 $32 $0
iii) LiveScan fingerprint rolling fee actual cost actual cost iv) Additional FBI fingerprinting fee, if
applicable
$17 $17 $0
b) Renewal permit application
i) Permit fee 0.25 0.00 0.17 0.42 x $28 $0 $45 $73 $50 68% $50 68% $0 19 Range Rental
a) 4 hour rental n/a $202 $212 n/a $10
b) 8 hour rental n/a $404 $425 n/a $20
20 Noise Violation varies actual cost of
enforcement
100% actual cost of
enforcement
100% $0
21 Extraordinary Law Enforcement Services
(multiple responses to disturbance w/in 12-
varies actual cost of
enforcement
100% actual cost of
enforcement
100% $0
22 Supplemental Law Enforcement Services
a) Hourly Rates for Police Dept
Personnel i) Community Service Officers x $50 $49 99% $50 100% $0 ii) Police Officers x $86 $83 97% $86 100% $3
iii) Sergeants x $104 $101 97% $104 100% $3
iv) Dispatchers x $67 $65 97% $67 100% $2
b) Hourly Rates for Marked Vehicles
i) Base Rate $25 $25 $0
ii) Per mile rate, for each mile over 50 $0.58 $0.585 $0 23 Concealed Weapon License n/a - issued by
Placer County
Sheriff
n/a - issued by
Placer County
Sheriff
See Placer Co. See Placer Co.

Overtime at top step
Overtime at top step
Overtime at top step
Overtime at top step
Overtime at top step
Overtime at top step
Overtime at top step
Overtime at top step
pass-through
of third party fee
pass-through
of third party fee
pass-through
of third party fee
pass-through
of third party fee
App. B: 71
Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis
- Animal Licensing Fees -
App. B: 72
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Animal Control Division of Police Department - Divisional Cost Recovery Estimated Share of Divisional Expenditures Recovered from Fees and Licensing Description Total Notes
Revenues
Animal Licenses $ 125,000 [a]
Subtotal $ 125,000
Expenditures
Labor $ 390,004
Recurring Non-Labor (Including Contract Svcs) $ 971,442 [b] Citywide Overhead $ 55,492
Departmental Overhead $ 202,762
Subtotal $ 1,619,700
Est. Divisional Cost Recovery 8%
[b] Includes contract with Placer County SPCA.
[a] Estimate based on FY 21/22 adopted budget.

App. B: 73
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Animal Control Division of Police Department
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours x
FullyBurdened
Hourly =
Est. Cost of
Service Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change ($)
Proposed Fee
Change (%)
1 Animal License (Dog or Cat)
a) 1 Year
i) Certified altered animal n/a $23 8% $24 8% $1 3%
ii) Non-altered animal n/a $47 8% $48 8% $1 3%
iii) Senior Discount $5 off standard
fee
$5 off standard
fee
$0 0%
b) 2 Years
i) Certified altered animal n/a $46 8% $47 8% $1 3%
ii) Non-altered animal n/a $91 8% $95 8% $4 4%
iii) Senior Discount $10 off standard
fee
$10 off standard
fee
$0 0%
c) 3 Years
i) Certified altered animal n/a $68 8% $70 8% $2 3%
ii) Non-altered animal n/a $136 8% $142 8% $6 5%
iii) Senior Discount $15 off standard
fee
$15 off standard
fee
$0 0%
d) Transfer of active license from other jurisdiction n/a $0 $0 $0 2 Delinquent Penalty for Failure to Renew License within 15 days of Expiration a) Altered dog n/a $5 n/a $5 n/a $0 0%
b) Unaltered dog n/a $10 n/a $10 n/a $0 0%
3 Lost License or Tag $5 $5 $0 0%
4 Rabies Test Pass-through of
actual cost
Pass-through of
actual cost
100%
5 Kennel License
a) Initial 2.00 x $142 $284 $121 43% $127 45% $6 5%
b) Renewal 0.50 x $142 $71 $60 85% $63 89% $3 5%
6 Special Animal Permit
a) Initial 2.00 x $142 $284 $60 21% $63 22% $3 5%
b) Renewal 0.50 x $142 $71 $60 85% $63 89% $3 5%
7 Voluntary Disposal Fee
a) Dogs and Other Animals Commonly Considered Pets 0.50 x $142 $71 $40 57% $42 60% $2 n/a b) Wild Animals 0.50 x $142 $71 $40 57% $42 60% $2 n/a
8 Appeal of Decision to Destroy Vicious Animal 1.50 x $142 $213 $100 varies $100 varies $0 0% see accompanying worksheet
for cost recovery
App. B: 74
Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis
- Parking Permits and Other Vehicle/Moving Permits (e.g. Oversize Loads) - App. B: 75
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost of Service for Parking Permit Issuance Labor Allocation Statistics
Direct Service Units (functional units for fee-setting purposes) Est. FTE Notes Permit Center 11.00
Total 11.00
Calculation of Estimated Expenditures for Direct Services Units Direct Service Units (Functional Units)
Org Key Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages Est. Benefits
Est. Recurring
Non-Labor
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses for
Hrly Rate Calc
Total OT; PT
Labor and
Contracts
Total Vacancy
Factor & Leave
Payoffs
Total
Reimbursed
Expense Total
Est. C'wide
Overhead
Total Dept
Costs for Hrly
Rate Calc Notes
66010 Dev Svcs - Business Svcs 11.00 $ 969,022 $ 610,395 $ 215,222 $ 1,794,639 $ - $ (40,010) $ (134,000) $ 1,620,629 $ 136,871 $ 1,931,510 Total 11.00 $ 969,022 $ 610,395 $ 215,222 $ 1,794,639 $ - $ (40,010) $ (134,000) $ 1,620,629 $ 136,871 $ 1,931,510 Calculation of Targeted Hourly Rate
Direct Services for Fee-Related Cost of Service (Functional Units) Org Key Description Est. FTE
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Est. Annual
Leave Hours
Per FTE [b]
Est. Productive
Hours Per FTE
Est % of Time
Spent on
Indirect
Activities [c]
Total Est.

Direct Svc
Hours
Total Est.

Direct Svc
Hours (All FTE)
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate Notes
66010 Dev Svcs - Business Svcs 11.00 $ 1,931,510 2,080 320 1,760 15% 1,496 16,456 $ 117 [b],[c] Total 11.00 $ 1,931,510 2,080 320 1,760 15% 1,496 16,456 $ 117 Calculation of Estimated ICR Multiplier
Org Key Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Total Est.

Annual Hours
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
Assuming 2,080
Hours
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate ICR Multiplier
Straight Hourly
Rate * ICR
Multiplier *
Direct Hours Notes
66010 Dev Svcs - Business Svcs 11.00 $ 969,022 2,080 22,880 $ 42 $ 117 2.77 $ 1,931,510 Source: Estimated labor and FTE information based on FY 21/22 position budgeting data. Estimated recurring non-labor expenditures based on FY 21/22 adopted budget. Estimated citywide overhead based on citywide overhead cost allocation plan.
[a] Although the Permit Center primarily acts in a support function to development services departments, it also provides a limited number of parking permits per year. This worksheet calculates a conservative estimate of the costs of providing parking permits. This worksheet is not intended to be used for any fees other than parking permit fees. [b] Annual leave assumes the following: Holiday - 12 days; Vacation - 14 days; Sick - 12 days; Mgmt/Jury/Other - 2 days. Actual amounts may vary based on employee length of service and job title.

App. B: 76
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Parking Permit Fees
Calculation of the Estimated Costs of Providing Fee Related Services Cost of Service
Fee Description
Estimated
Labor Cost +
Use / Rental of
City Property =
Est. Cost of
Service Notes
Current
Fee
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee Change
($)
Proposed
Fee Change
(%)
1 Residential Parking Permit $29.34 + not COS-based = n/a [a],[b] $0 n/a $0 n/a $0 2 Merchant Parking Permit
a) January 1st through December 31st $29.34 + not COS-based = n/a [a],[b] $20 n/a $20 n/a $0 0% b) July 1st through December 31st $29.34 + not COS-based = n/a [a],[b] $10 n/a $10 n/a $0 0% [a] Fee for use of City property is not limited to the cost of permit issuance, since the permit also provides limited, exclusive, access to public facilities. [b] Estimated labor time assumes 15 minutes permit processing time.

App. B: 77
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Oversize Vehicle Permit Fees and Building Moving Permit Fees Cost of Service Calculation - At Targeted Hourly Rate
Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours x
FullyBurdened
Hourly =
Est. Cost of
Service Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee Change
($)
Proposed
Fee Change
(%)
1 Oversize Vehicle Permit
a) Single trip permit n/a - fee mirrors CalTrans = $16 n/a $16 n/a $0 0% b) Annual permit n/a - fee mirrors CalTrans = $90 n/a $90 n/a $0 0% 2 Building Moving Permit
a) Base Fee varies x $117 = varies $29 varies $30 varies $1 5% b) Costs of plan review, utility and street light moving, tree trimming, traffic directing, etc.
varies x varies = varies actual costs actual costs $0 0% App. B: 78
Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis
- Special Event, Film, and Banner Permit Fees -
App. B: 79
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Special Event, Film, and Banner Permit Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours x
FullyBurdened
Hourly =
Est. Cost of
Service Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Change ($)
Proposed Fee
Change (%)
1 Special Event Permit
a) Application Fee
i) Event that requires limited site/plan review, no
closures, etc. (i.e. park rentals/activities, misc. events, etc.)

2.00 x $216 = $432 $135 31% $160 37% $25 18.5%
ii) Event that requires, but not limited to, street/parking lot closures, site/plan review, trail use, etc. (i.e. fun runs, festivals, parking garage, etc.)

8.00 x $216 = $1,728 $275 16% $300 17% $25 9.1%
b) Service Charges varies x varies = varies actual costs actual costs $0 0.0% c) Park/facility rental fee varies x varies = varies varies by location varies by location $0 0.0% 2 Photography and Filming Permit
a) Application Fee
i) Cast and Crew Totaling One to Three Persons 1.00 x $216 = $216 $135 63% $160 74% $25 18.5% ii) Cast and Crew Totaling Four or More Persons; or with Street Closure

6.00 x $216 = $1,296 $275 21% $300 23% $25 9.1%
b) Service Charges varies x varies = varies actual costs actual costs $0 0.0% 3 Banner Permit 2.00 x $216 = $432 $65 15% $70 16% $5 7.7% [a] Application fees are non-refundable.
[b] Non-commercial photography and photography/film not requiring exclusivity does not need a permit. The Department Director may waive fees for bona fide student film/photography projects and non-profit projects. The permitting process for filming/photography is still applicable for these projects (i.e. permit is required). Service charges are still applicable.

App. B: 80
Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis
- Parks, Recreation, & Libraries Department Fees -
App. B: 81
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Parks, Recreation, and Libraries Department - Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rates and Indirect Cost Rate Multipliers Statistical Information
Description Total Notes
Estimated Recurring Dept. Non-Labor as a Percent of Salaries for Fee-Related Services Hourly Rate Calculation 10% [a] Calculation of Estimated Expenditures for Departmental Overhead and Direct Services Units Labor Allocation Statistics
Department Overhead Est. FTE Notes
58001 Parks & Rec Admin 12.39
Total 12.39
Direct Service Units (Assigned for this Analysis Only) Est. FTE Share Notes 58130 Park Development 5.00 4% [a]
58250 Community Special Events 2.83 2% [a]
58xxx All Other Functional Units & Library 106.13 93% [a] Total 113.96 100%
Entire Department Est. FTE Notes
Total 126.35
Department Overhead
Org Key Description Est. FTE
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses Notes
58001 Parks & Rec Admin 12.39 $ 3,842,027 [b]
Total 12.39 $ 3,842,027
Direct Services for Fee-Related Cost of Service (Functional Units) Org Key Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages Est. Benefits
Est. Recurring
Non-Labor
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses for
Hrly Rate Calc
Total OT; PT
Labor and
Contracts
Total Vacancy
Factor & Leave
Payoffs
Total
Reimbursed
Expense
Est. C'wide
Overhead
Est. Alloc. of
Dept.

Overhead
Based on
Direct Svc Unit
FTE
Total Dept Costs
for Hrly Rate Calc Notes
58130 Park Development 5.00 $ 517,769 $ 281,207 $ 55,771 $ 854,747 $ - $ (20,283) $ (335,000) $ 617,907 see c'wide OH $ 1,472,654 [c] 58250 Community Special Events 2.83 $ 212,777 $ 137,122 $ - $ 349,899 $ - $ - $ - $ 591,275 see c'wide OH $ 941,174 [c],[a] Total 7.83 $ 730,546 $ 418,329 $ 55,771 $ 1,204,646 $ - $ (20,283) $ (335,000) $ 1,209,182 see c'wide OH $ 2,413,828 Calculation of Estimated Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Direct Services for Fee-Related Cost of Service (Functional Units) Org Key Description Est. FTE
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Est. Annual
Leave Hours
Per FTE [d]
Est. Productive
Hours Per FTE
Est % of Time
Spent on
Indirect
Activities [e]
Total Est.

Direct Svc
Hours
Total Est.

Direct Svc
Hours (All FTE)
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate Notes
58130 Park Development 5.00 $ 1,472,654 2,080 320 1,760 25% 1,320 6,600 $ 223 58250 Community Special Events 2.83 $ 941,174 2,080 320 1,760 13% 1,540 4,358 $ 216 App. B: 82
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Parks, Recreation, and Libraries Department - Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rates and Indirect Cost Rate Multipliers Calculation of Estimated ICR Multiplier
Org Key Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Total Est.

Annual Hours
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
Assuming 2,080
Hours
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate ICR Multiplier
Straight Hourly
Rate * ICR
Multiplier *
Direct Hours Current ICR Proposed ICR
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Notes
58130 Park Development 5.00 $ 517,769 2,080 10,400 $ 50 $ 223 4.48 $ 1,472,654 3.15 3.15 70% 70% 58250 Community Special Events 2.83 $ 212,777 2,080 5,886 $ 36 $ 216 5.97 $ 941,174 3.15 3.15 53% 53% Source: Estimated labor and FTE information based on FY 21/22 position budgeting data. Estimated recurring non-labor expenditures based on FY 21/22 adopted budget adjusted to err on the side of conservative (e.g. recurring, direct labor related expenditures). Estimated citywide overhead based on Citywide overhead cost allocation plan. [a] Estimates developed for this fee analysis only. For operational purposes, City staff may view allocation of resources differently. [b] This analysis assumes that any citywide overhead costs allocable to the Parks Administration Division have been allocated to the direct service units of the department (i.e. the citywide overhead assigned to Parks Development includes a share of any overhead allocated to the Parks Administration Division and re-allocated to the Parks direct service units). [d] Annual leave assumes the following: Holiday - 12 days; Vacation - 14 days; Sick - 12 days; Mgmt/Jury/Other - 2 days. Actual amounts may vary based on employee length of service and job title.

Amounts shown are intended to serve as reasonable for purposes of estimation. [e] Amounts shown are intended to serve as conservative estimates. Indirect activities and services may include mandatory rest periods, meetings, training, public information and assistance, and other administrative activities.
[c] Parks Department Administration distributed via the citywide overhead cost allocation plan.

App. B: 83
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Capital Replacement Fee
Cost of Service Calculation
Description Total Notes
1 Annual Need $1,500,000 [a]
2 Fee-related Revenues Eligible for Surcharge $9,000,000 [b] 3 Target Annual Revenue from Capital Replacement Fee $200,000 [c] 4 Surcharge Required if Applied to All Eligible Programs 2% [d] 5 Share of Total Annual Need Funded by Surcharge 13% [e] [a] Source: Parks CIP Rehab Summary (Draft document). The annual need amount is intended to represent a conservative estimate of the annual rehabilitation needs for the next ten years. The amount has been rounded for illustrative purposes. The amount excludes turf conversions and several new programs that could add an average of $200,000 per year in required rehabilitation over the next five years.

This amount should be used for estimation purposes only. The actual amount changes annually as amounts are continued to be deferred or other rehabilitation needs are identifed. [b] Source: Parks, Recreation, & Libraries Department initial analysis of annual revenues and program areas potentially eligible for application of capital replacement fee (e.g. amount excludes donations/gifts, grants and other amounts received from other agencies). [c] Conservative estimate that assumes the fee will not exceed 10% of any program fees and will not be applied to all programs (e.g. if the additional fee is anticipated to have a negative effect on consumer demand or if the City already collects program fees at the upper end of the spectrum of fees collected by other agencies, the fee may not be applied). [d] This is an estimate that assumes targeted recovery amount was collected from all eligible programs, in practice the fee may fluctuate between 0% and 10% depending on the program area. [e] The remaining need would require alternative funding sources, such as unobligated General Fund revenues, grant funding, donations, etc.

App. B: 84
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Parks, Recreation, & Libraries Department
Program Cost Recovery Analysis
FY 18/19 Actual Expenditures
Revenue Category / Description
Total Expenses
Assigned to
Dept Budget
Total
Revenues
Assigned to
Division
Cost Recovery
w/out
Allocation of
C'wide OH
Total Expenses
Assigned to
Dept Budget
Total Allocated
C'wide OH
Total
Revenues
Assigned to
Division
Cost Recovery
with
Allocation of
C'wide OH
Admin & Parks
1 58001 Parks & Rec - Administration $ 3,574,792 $ 83,466 2% $ 3,574,792 $ (3,574,792) $ 83,466 2 58130 Park Development $ 530,377 $ 42,550 8% $ 530,377 $ 457,946 $ 42,550 4% 3 - Park Operations - Admin $ 782,124 $ 367,039 47% $ 782,124 $ 250,274 $ 367,039 36% 4 58120 Open Space $ 1,305,078 $ 98,958 8% $ 1,305,078 $ 381,088 $ 98,958 6% 5 58110 Parks - Maintenance $ 5,722,271 $ 343,067 6% $ 5,722,271 $ 785,093 $ 343,067 5% Subtotal $ 11,914,642 $ 935,080 8% $ 11,914,642 $ (1,700,391) $ 935,080 9% Recreation
1 58201 Adult Sports $ 329,068 $ 304,430 93% $ 329,068 $ 125,090 $ 304,430 67% 2 58210 Adult & Senior $ 196,586 $ 53,722 27% $ 196,586 $ 117,625 $ 53,722 17% 3 58240 Cultural Arts & Entertainment $ 21,055 $ - 0% $ 21,055 $ 72,124 $ - 0% 4 58220 Youth & Teen $ 334,460 $ 244,528 73% $ 334,460 $ 120,656 $ 244,528 54% 5 58230 Day Camps $ 556,274 $ 506,704 91% $ 556,274 $ 132,553 $ 506,704 74% 6 58250 Community Events $ 213,619 $ 101,127 47% $ 213,619 $ 156,049 $ 101,127 27% 7 58280 Maidu Community Center $ 385,262 $ 210,811 55% $ 385,262 $ 376,922 $ 210,811 28% 8 58270 Roseville Sports Center $ 671,399 $ 607,916 91% $ 671,399 $ 144,081 $ 607,916 75% 9 - Town Square $ 284,075 $ 70,232 25% $ 284,075 $ 308,202 $ 70,232 12% 10 58260 Aquatics $ 2,289,765 $ 1,436,640 63% $ 2,289,765 $ 285,321 $ 1,436,640 56% Subtotal $ 5,281,563 $ 3,536,110 67% $ 5,281,563 $ 1,838,623 $ 3,536,110 50% Total - Parks & Recreation $ 17,196,205 $ 4,471,190 26% $ 17,196,205 $ 138,232 $ 4,471,190 26% Library
1 58301 Library $ 4,763,951 $ 232,399 5% $ 4,763,951 $ 1,003,136 $ 232,399 4% 2 58310 Maidu Museum $ 279,086 $ 124,262 45% $ 279,086 $ 118,967 $ 124,262 31% Total - Library $ 5,043,037 $ 356,661 7% $ 5,043,037 $ 1,122,103 $ 356,661 6% Total - General Fund $ 22,239,242 $ 4,827,851 22% $ 22,239,242 $ 1,260,335 $ 4,827,851 21% App. B: 85
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Parks, Recreation, & Libraries Department
Program Cost Recovery Analysis
FY 18/19 Actual Expenditures
Revenue Category / Description
Total Expenses
Assigned to
Dept Budget
Total
Revenues
Assigned to
Division
Cost Recovery
w/out
Allocation of
C'wide OH
Total Expenses
Assigned to
Dept Budget
Total Allocated
C'wide OH
Total
Revenues
Assigned to
Division
Cost Recovery
with
Allocation of
C'wide OH
Child Care
1 58401 Adventure Clubs $ 4,396,753 $ 5,433,845 124% $ 4,396,753 $ 175,387 $ 5,433,845 119% 2 58410 Preschool Education $ 471,814 $ 639,360 136% $ 471,814 $ - $ 639,360 136% 3 58420 After School Education - Safety $ 411,975 $ 235,700 57% $ 411,975 $ 2,360 $ 235,700 57% 4 58430 CDE-Child Development Program $ 947,658 $ 1,180,144 125% $ 947,658 $ 4,356 $ 1,180,144 124% Subtotal $ 6,228,200 $ 7,489,049 120% $ 6,228,200 $ 224,984 $ 7,489,049 116% Golf
1 58501 Diamond Oaks $ 970,792 $ 936,527 96% $ 970,792 $ 46,659 $ 936,527 92% 2 58510 Woodcreek Golf Club $ 1,012,453 $ 936,527 93% $ 1,012,453 $ 13,409 $ 936,527 91% Subtotal $ 1,983,245 $ 1,873,054 94% $ 1,983,245 $ 127,744 $ 1,873,054 89% Total - Parks, Recreation, & Libraries Department $ 30,450,687 $ 14,189,954 47% $ 30,450,687 $ 1,613,063 $ 14,189,954 44% *Using FY 18/19 information because statistical information is distorted due to COVID-19 protocols.

App. B: 86
Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis
- Transportation Divisions -
App. B: 87
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Transportation Divisions (for Development Review Activities) - Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rates and Indirect Cost Rate Multipliers Statistical Information
Description Total Notes
Estimated Recurring Dept. Non-Labor as a Percent of Salaries for Fee-Related Services Hourly Rate Calculation 15% [a] Estimated Citywide Overhead as a Percent of Salaries for Fee-Related Services Hourly Rate Calculation 10% [a] Calculation of Estimated Expenditures for Direct Services Units Direct Service Units (Functional Units) - Alternative Transportation Center # Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages Est. Benefits
Est. Recurring
Non-Labor
Est. C'wide
Overhead
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses Notes
T Admin Asst. Engineer 1.00 $ 102,499 $ 61,500 $ 15,375 $ 10,250 $ 189,624 T Admin Alt Transit Analyst 1.00 $ 106,103 $ 63,662 $ 15,915 $ 10,610 $ 196,290 Total 2.00 $ 208,602 $ 125,161 $ 31,290 $ 20,860 $ 385,914 Calculation of Estimated Fully-Burdened Hourly Rates
Direct Services for Fee-Related Cost of Service (Functional Units) Alternative Transportation
Center # Description Est. FTE
Total Est.

Recurring
Expenses
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Est. Annual
Leave Hours
Per FTE [b]
Est. Productive
Hours Per FTE
Est % of Time
Spent on
Indirect
Activities [c]
Total Est.

Direct Svc
Hours
Total Est.

Direct Svc
Hours (All FTE)
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate Notes
T Admin Asst. Engineer 1.00 $ 189,624 2,080 320 1,760 30% 1,232 1,232 $ 154 T Admin Alt Transit Analyst 1.00 $ 196,290 2,080 320 1,760 30% 1,232 1,232 $ 159 Total 2.00 $ 385,914 4,160 640 3,520 30% 2,464 2,464 $ 157 Calculation of Estimated ICR Multiplier
Center # Description Est. FTE
Est. Salaries
and Wages
Total Annual
Hours Per FTE
Total Est.

Annual Hours
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
Assuming 2,080
Hours
Est. FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate ICR Multiplier
Straight Hourly
Rate * ICR
Multiplier *
Direct Hours Notes
T Admin Asst. Engineer 1.00 $ 102,499 2,080 2,080 $ 49 $ 154 3.12 $ 189,624 T Admin Alt Transit Analyst 1.00 $ 106,103 2,080 2,080 $ 51 $ 159 3.12 $ 196,290 Source: Estimated labor and FTE information based on FY 21/22 position budgeting data. Estimated recurring non-labor expenditures and estimated citywide overhead based on conservative estimates developed for purposes of this analysis only (see footnote [a] for additional details regarding estimates for recurring non-labor and citywide overhead expenditures). Department non-labor includes an estimate for Department Administration.
[a] Amounts are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. It is difficult to capture only fee-related non-labor expenditures and citywide overhead since many of these expenditures are linked to significant vehicle repair, fuel, and contract services expenditures. [b] Annual leave assumes the following: Holiday - 12 days; Vacation - 14 days; Sick - 12 days; Mgmt/Jury/Other - 2 days. Actual amounts may vary based on employee length of service and job title. Amounts shown are intended to serve as reasonable for purposes of estimation. [c] Amounts shown are intended to serve as reasonable for purposes of estimation. Indirect activities and services may include mandatory rest periods, meetings, training, and other administrative activities.

Hourly rates and ICR calculated using Assistant Engineer and Alternative Transportation Analyst as representative positions for assistance with development review activities.

App. B: 88
Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis
- Fiscal Impact of Proposed Fee Modifications -
App. B: 89
City of Roseville
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fiscal Impact Analysis of Proposed Fee Changes
Revenue Impact FY 22/23
Revenue Category / Description Center Center Desc
FY 21/22
Original Budget
Anticipated
Increase in
Revenues from
Fee Changes
Revenue After
Fee Changes
Revenue
Impact
Fees
1 Animal Licenses 44070 Animal Control $ 125,000 3% $ 128,750 $ 3,750 2 Permit Fees - Building Permits 66020 Building Inspection $ 2,700,000 5% $ 2,835,000 $ 135,000 3 Highway Moving Permits 62301 Streets $ 25,000 0% $ 25,000 $ - 4 Alarm Permits 44010 Records Property $ 90,000 0% $ 90,000 $ - 5 Fire Occupancy Permits 48020 Fire Prevention $ 180,405 4% $ 187,260 $ 6,855 6 Permit Fees - Hazmat 48020 Fire Prevention $ 259,788 4% $ 269,660 $ 9,872 7 Other Licenses or Permits 10001 Non-Classified $ 4,000 4% $ 4,152 $ 152 8 Other Licenses or Permits 44050 Investigations $ 11,000 4% $ 11,418 $ 418 9 Permit Fees - Inspection 48020 Fire Prevention $ 23,000 4% $ 23,874 $ 874 10 Permit Fees - Inspection 66020 Building Inspection $ 10,000 5% $ 10,500 $ 500 11 Permit Fees - Plan Check 48020 Fire Prevention $ 249,822 4% $ 259,315 $ 9,493 12 Permit Fees - Plan Check 48021 Contracted Fire Plan Review $ 150,000 4% $ 155,700 $ 5,700 13 Permit Fees - Plan Check 62101 Public Works Engineering $ 7,000 5% $ 7,350 $ 350 14 Permit Fees - Plan Check 66020 Building Inspection $ 1,500,000 5% $ 1,575,000 $ 75,000 15 Permit Fees - Plan Check 66021 Contracted Building Plan Review $ 500,000 5% $ 525,000 $ 25,000 16 Permit Fees - Plan Check 66040 Planning $ 175,000 5% $ 183,750 $ 8,750 17 Permit Fees - Plan Check 66050 Development Services Engineering $ 24,500 5% $ 25,725 $ 1,225 18 Permit Fees - Planning 66040 Planning $ 225,000 5% $ 236,250 $ 11,250 19 Permit Fees - Engineering 66050 Development Services Engineering $ 300,000 5% $ 315,000 $ 15,000 20 Permit Fees - General Plan Update 66040 Planning $ 200,000 5% $ 210,000 $ 10,000 21 Special Police Fees 44010 Records Property $ 18,100 5% $ 19,005 $ 905 22 Special Police Fees 44025 Social Services $ 9,000 5% $ 9,450 $ 450 23 Special Police Fees 44040 Patrol $ 150,112 5% $ 157,618 $ 7,506 24 Special Police Fees 44050 Investigations $ 2,500 5% $ 2,625 $ 125 25 Special Police Fees 44060 Police Traffic $ 2,000 5% $ 2,100 $ 100 26 Special Police Fees 44080 Police Vehicles $ 250 5% $ 263 $ 13 27 False Alarm Charges 44010 Records Property $ 90,000 0% $ 90,000 $ - 28 Passport Photo Fees 36020 Passport Center $ 90,000 0% $ 90,000 $ - 29 Administrative Fees 66020 Building Inspection $ 10,000 5% $ 10,500 $ 500 30 Administrative Fees 66040 Planning $ 6,500 5% $ 6,825 $ 325 31 Administrative Fees 66050 Development Services Engineering $ 2,500 5% $ 2,625 $ 125 32 Returned Check Service Charge 24101 General Accounting $ 25,000 0% $ 25,000 $ - Expenditure Offsets from T&M Billings
33 Building 66020 Building Inspection $ 4,500 5% $ 4,725 $ 225 34 Planning 66040 Planning $ 550,000 5% $ 577,500 $ 27,500 35 Engineering 66050 Development Services Engineering $ 2,250,000 5% $ 2,362,500 $ 112,500 Total Revenues Impacted by Fee Study $ 9,969,977 $ 10,439,440 $ 469,463 App. B: 90
Appendix C – Parks, Recreation, & Libraries Department Pricing Policy

PARKS, RECREATION & LIBRARIES

DEPARTMENT
Pricing Policy
March 2013
1 Table of Contents
Why set a pricing policy 2
Statement of Philosophy 2
Pricing Policy 2
Pricing Objective 2
Pricing Strategy 3
Core Services 3
Type of Use 3
Cost Recovery 6
Facilities 8
Capital Expenditures 9
Direct/Indirect Costs 9
Pricing Methods 9
Types of Fees 11
Setting the Price 12
Scholarships 13
Discounts 13
Partnerships 14
Summary 14
Attachment A: Pre-Program Analysis 16
Attachment B: Post Program Analysis 17
2 Why set a pricing policy
Setting a pricing policy serves as a tool for evaluating services and establishing appropriate fees.

Standardizing how we set prices ensures that the resulting price meets Department goals and provides the framework to ensure consistency for all Roseville residents for the value received. A pricing policy creates transparency and consistency in fees and charges for programs and services.

Establishing a pricing policy yields lasting benefits including:
- Stretching taxpayer investment to realize the optimal return - Allowing prices to reflect users’ investment in themselves based on individual benefit - Promoting program respect or ownership
- Developing deeper commitment to the programs users help support The dollars customers invest in their parks, recreation and libraries experiences will come back to them in better quality services and facilities.

Statement of Philosophy
The City of Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department is dedicated to fostering healthy lifestyles and helping the community thrive. Our Mission is to enhance lives and the community by providing exceptional experiences. As the City continues to grow and facilities age, the Department must be prepared to maintain this high level of service and develop a financial system to continue this community investment.

The Department offers a variety of programs, which benefit the residents and visitors of Roseville.

While the community as a whole benefits, different levels of community investment are appropriate based on level of benefit. The goal of this policy is to create a balance between user fees and taxpayer investment for our programs, services and facilities, ensuring that all citizens have equal access and choice in participation.

Pricing Policy
The Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department strives to efficiently offer the most diversified services ensuring that all have equal access and ability to participate in a wide variety of programs and services.

The Department prices programs, services and facilities in a manner that balances user fees and taxpayer investment. Pricing takes into consideration the public benefit, users’ ability to pay, level of benefit and exclusivity the user receives above what a general taxpayer receives. Pricing ensures equity; those who benefit the most should pay the most. Pricing ensures that users pay appropriate fees and available taxpayer funds are used to achieve the optimal return on investment and ensure access to parks and programs.

Pricing Objectives
This formal pricing policy establishes a comprehensive long-term strategy to address current and future needs of the Roseville community. The objectives of effective pricing are:

Equity – Those who benefit from the service should pay for it. Those who benefit the most should pay the most.

Value – Provide the customer with a benefit in relation to or exceeding the relative monetary worth. 3 Revenue Production – Producing revenue assists in the overall operations of the Department. It provides flexibility to offer programs which may not otherwise be possible if they are not funded through tax dollars.

Efficiency – Expenditures are made with the most efficient use of our resources so the right mix of programs, facilities and events are offered. Priorities are made to enhance the customer’s experience.

Revenue Distribution – Revenues are distributed to the cost center providing expenditures. This pays for direct costs, indirect costs and in some situations future improvement and/or equipment replacement.

Assistance – Not all customers have the same ability to pay and opportunities must exist to waive, reduce or provide scholarship opportunities where appropriate.

Pricing Strategy
To successfully determine price, the Department takes the following steps:
- Identify/classify programs/services/facilities
- Identify core services
- Identify direct and indirect costs
- Establish cost recovery goals/recovery range
- Identify pricing methods
- Determine price
- Determine market value/benchmarking
Core Services
Core services are those which are central and vital to fulfilling our mission. The Department has identified the following core services:
- Access to recreation and cultural experiences for all ages, abilities and demographics - Existing facilities open, programmed and maintained
- Existing parks maintained and available for community use - Youth beginning skill development
- Community problem solving
- Community wellness and fitness
- Safe and healthy community
- Access to information
- Literacy
- Parks and facility development
- Preservation of natural resources/open space
The Department concentrates on providing and growing core services and continually evaluates the need for non-core services.

Type of Use
Parks, Recreation & Library services are classified into five different categories. The type of service directly determines the cost recovery strategy or pricing methods to be used in the pricing of services and products. The five categories are listed in the pyramid figure that follows. 4 5
Conceptually, the base level of the pyramid represents the mainstay of public parks, recreation and library programs. Programs appropriate to higher levels of the pyramid should only be offered when the preceding levels below are full enough to provide a foundation for the next level. This foundation and upward progression is intended to represent the parks, recreation and library’s core services, while also reflecting the growth and maturity of an organization as it enhances its program and facility offerings.

Parks, recreation and library programs are built with a broad supporting base of core service, enhanced with more specialized services as resources allow.

COMMUNITY Benefit
The foundational level of the pyramid is the largest and includes those programs, facilities and services that benefit the COMMUNITY as a whole. These programs, facilities and services may increase property values, provide safety, address social needs, and enhance quality of life for residents. The community generally expects the City to offer these services and supports paying for these services and facilities through taxes. These services are offered to residents at a minimal fee or no fee and support the core services of the Department. A large percentage of the tax support of the agency would fund this level of the pyramid.

COMMUNITY/Individual Benefit
The second and a smaller level of the pyramid represents programs, facilities and services which promote individual physical and mental well-being, and provide recreation skill development. They may have a community benefit but to a smaller group of the community. They are generally the more traditional, expected services and beginner instructional levels. These programs, services and facilities are typically assigned fees based on a specific percentage of direct and indirect costs. Costs are partially offset by both a tax subsidy to account for the COMMUNITY benefit and participant fees to account for the INDIVIDUAL benefit.

INDIVIDUAL/Community Benefit
The third and even smaller level of the pyramid represents services with less of a community benefit which promote individual, physical and mental well-being and provide an intermediate level of recreational skill development. This level provides more INDIVIDUAL benefit and less COMMUNITY benefit and is priced to reflect this. The individual fee recovers more costs or has a higher cost recovery goal than programs and services that fall within the lower levels of the pyramid.

Mostly INDIVIDUAL Benefit
The fourth level of the pyramid represents specialized services generally for specific groups and may have a competitive focus. In this level, programs and services may be priced to recover full cost including all direct and department indirect costs.

Highly INDIVIDUAL Benefit
The top level of the pyramid represents activities that are highly individualized and may even fall outside our core services. In this level, programs and services should be priced to recover full cost including all direct and department and city-wide indirect costs.
6 Cost Recovery
The Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department sets revenue and expenditure goals annually using criteria set forth in this policy through the budget process approved by the City Council. Programs and services are assigned a cost recovery percentage based on the characteristics outlined below. Programs are evaluated to ensure they fall within the appropriate cost recovery goals.

The Department has identified five cost recovery ranges – Very Low, Low, Medium, High and High+ and each service provided by the Department is assigned to one of these ranges based on type of use. It is important to note the cost recovery percentages assigned to each service represents what the Department would expect to recover under optimal conditions. However, the Department’s ability to realize these cost recovery percentages may be constrained by a variety of internal and external factors.

These include:
- Market rates and/or competition with other service providers - Equity in opportunity and the ability to pay
- Community sentiment and expectations
- Political and social will
- Negotiations with external parties
- Program/service viability with decreased participation - Time and demand of facilities and programs
- Sponsorships/partnerships
The difference between the cost and the revenue recovered represents the public investment in providing the service.

COMMUNITY Benefit (0%-10%) Very Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities Services in this range have one or more of the following characteristics:
- Community generally and reasonably expects and supports the City to provide these services - Engage the community as a whole to help the community thrive - Primarily benefit the community as a whole, though individuals may also benefit - High levels of resident participation are desirable, regardless of finance status - Engage children and teens in safe, constructive activities - Solve a community problem
- Engage seniors in enjoyable, life enhancing activities - Celebrate the City’s history and cultural diversity
- Have offsetting revenue sources to offer program at little or no cost Services in this range include, but are not limited to:
- Ability to visit and enjoy facilities on an informal basis - Parks and facility planning and design
- Parks maintenance
- Senior activities/games (cards, chess, knitting, crafts) - Senior support groups
- Community special events (holidays, tree lighting)
- Veterans Ceremonies
- Free family night swim at Johnson Pool
- Storytime
- Literacy programs for all ages
- Lending library materials/access to online resources
- Homework help
- Public Art
7 COMMUNITY/Individual Benefit (10%-40%) Low-Range Cost Recovery Activities Services in this range have one or more of the following characteristics:
- Both individuals (or private parties) and the community as a whole receive benefits from the service
- Primarily for youth, but some alternative opportunities are available - For youth at-risk or senior services
- Cost recovery is of secondary importance to high participation levels, particularly in the case of core services
- Provided for special populations, which would not, or are unable to, participate in other services Services in this range include, but are not limited to:
- City sponsored special events
- Adaptive programs
- Neighborhood park program
- Nature centers/interpretive centers/museums
- Public swim
- Youth arts programs
INDIVIDUAL/Community Benefit (40%-70%) Medium-Range Cost Recovery Services Services in this range have one or more of the following characteristics:
- Individuals (or private parties) are the primary beneficiaries of the service, but the community as a whole receives some benefits
- Comparable “market” rates for similar services affect ability to recover a greater percentage of the costs
- Services are for youth, but are highly specialized and/or similar to those in the private sector - Services are for adults addressing a need or problem, but full-cost recovery would adversely impact participation rates
- Contribute to improved health & wellness or other overarching Council goals Services in this range include, but are not limited to:
- Cultural arts programs
- Entry level instructional programs
- Lifeguard training
- Group swim lessons
- Adaptive pool party
- Tot read, take & make
Mostly INDIVIDUAL Benefit (70% to 100%) High-Range Cost Recovery Services Services in this range have one or more of the following characteristics:
- Individuals (or private parties) benefit significantly more than the community as a whole - Similar services are offered by the private sector or other public agencies - Adults are the primary beneficiaries
- Demand for service, facility or program exceeds capacity - Need to recover most of direct and indirect costs
Services in this range include, but are not limited to:
- Day Camps
- Youth sports (flag football, soccer, basketball)
- Youth special interest programs (babysitting, dance, Lego, chef, math) - Adult/Senior classes (trips, cooking, Spanish)
- Birthday Parties
8 - Semiprivate swim lessons – stroke development
- Competitive swim teams
- Fitness memberships
Highly INDIVIDUAL Benefit (100%+) High+ Range Cost Recovery Services Services in this range have one or more of the following characteristics:
- High individual benefit
- Similar services are offered by the private sector or other public agencies - Adults are the primary beneficiaries
- Services have a commercial nature
- Demand for service, facility or program exceeds capacity - Enterprise funds – services operated as a business where no taxpayer support is provided - Need to recover direct and indirect costs
Services in this range include, but are not limited to:
- Adventure Club
- Preschool
- Golf
- Adult sports (basketball, volleyball, softball)
- Facility rentals
- Commercial recreation
- Personal Training
- Private swim lessons
Facilities
The City maintains a significant inventory of buildings, parks, fields and other facilities. Basic services such as the maintenance of safe, clean, attractive parks and buildings, the provision of recreation and library services for the general public, and the preservation and promotion of physical and mental wellbeing will continue to be supported by taxpayer resources. However, the Department shall prepare and maintain a schedule of fees and charges for special use of facilities, those where revenues are necessary to support continued use and individuals pay a fee for the privilege of using the facility to the exclusion of others and without interference.

Basic facilities and services for informal/self-directed recreation include but are not limited to:
- Unscheduled, unlighted, unmarked outdoor athletic facilities and sports courts - Unreserved picnic tables and shelters
- Parks, playgrounds & town squares
- Parking lots for general facility use
- Trails, paths and restrooms
- Open space
Special uses of facilities include:
- Scheduled/reserved use of indoor or enclosed facilities (gyms, meeting rooms, all weather fields, batting cages, courts, etc.)
- Scheduled use of tennis courts
- Formal, directed, or lighted baseball, soccer, softball, football or other sports specific facilities - Golf courses
- Maintenance necessary for sports programs
- Swimming pools with lifeguards
9 - Outdoor theater facilities
- Use of parks for special events
- Reserved picnic tables and shelters
The City has a variety of facilities available for rent including picnic areas, athletic fields, meeting rooms, pools and community centers. Differential pricing is established for these rentals based on the facility and type of use (i.e. resident, non-profit, non-resident, commercial).

Capital Expenditures
Capital expenditures are those costs incurred in constructing a facility and in its later modification, renovation or improvement. For example, a swimming pool may be built, resurfaced, or striped to delineate lanes. Investments in this type of capital have historically been recognized as a benefit to the community as a whole and are borne by the general tax base. In some cases, a portion of fees may be reinvested back into facilities.

Direct/Indirect Costs
Direct costs are those costs which are easily and clearly identifiable to the cost objective (program, service or facility). Indirect costs benefit more than one cost objective and must be allocated proportionally. For example the instructor fee for a class is a direct cost but the electricity for the building benefits all classes and is an indirect cost. (e.g. it must be allocated among the classes proportionately)
Each department operational division records the total costs of operations including both direct and indirect costs. In general, these costs can be identified as follows:

Direct Indirect
Instructor salaries & benefits Indirect staffing (administration/supervision) Part-time employees salaries & benefits Maintenance
Service contracts Capital replacement
Materials/supplies/equipment Facility use
Field lighting Marketing – advertising & promotion
Utilities
The specific direct costs and estimates of indirect costs are recorded on evaluation sheets for each program and service.

In addition to the department indirect costs listed above, citywide indirect costs (such as human resources, finance and IT) are recovered from enterprise fund operations.

Pricing Methods
The Department recognizes that not all cases are “one price fits all” and the pricing policy must be built to recognize the Department’s priorities and provide the highest amount of flexibility. Use of differential pricing accomplishes these goals by permitting the price to fluctuate based on predetermined factors such as optimal conditions or target user group. By incorporating differential pricing methods when appropriate, the policy also allows users to choose what level of service quality or quantity they want and pay accordingly. The Department implements differential pricing by utilizing the following pricing methods:
10 Primetime & non-primetime – Pricing premiums for primetime versus non-primetime use assists in allocating the high demand primetime usage and optimizing the non-primetime usage.

Full-time & part-time – Pricing based on amount of time a participant is committed to the use of the program while recognizing priority of full-time.

Season & off-season – Pricing based on season versus off-season permits the usage of service yearround while recognizing priority in specific time periods.

Location – Pricing based on one location versus another provides flexibility in recognizing that not all fields/facilities are the same size nor provide identical amenities.

Age segment – Pricing based on target age segment (i.e. adult, senior, teen, youth) provides flexibility to recognize service priorities and permits variable recovery percentages.

Economic gain – Pricing based on economic gain ensures that when Department property is used by private or closed membership groups for private economic gain, user fees charged are comparable to commercial rates. (Commercial rates for commercial purposes) Exclusive use – Pricing based on private exclusive use of public property.

Incentives – Pricing which provides incentives for such preferences as early trip registration, season passes, group admissions, annual passes/memberships or frequent use encourages enrollment and return customers.

Move demand – Pricing based on the desire to move participants to another location, time or program.

Resident status – The Department’s services historically attract and are open to residents of neighboring communities. While the Department welcomes these customers, we must also be mindful of the impact to our Roseville residents. Although non-resident customers may pay some sales taxes in the City, they do not pay property taxes or neighborhood or community park fees. In an attempt to mitigate this disparity, the Department includes a non-resident surcharge in its pricing strategy. The rate of surcharge varies between zero and 50% based on market demand which considers the following factors:
- The demand from City residents for the program
- The supply/availability of program openings
- The degree of subsidy from the taxpayer for the particular program - The demand from non-residents for the program
- The viability of the program without non-resident participation - Recovery goals
These factors directly influence the surcharge. For instance, when there is a demand from City residents for the program and/or low supply or availability of program openings, the surcharge is higher.

Additionally, the greater the taxpayer support for the program, the higher non-resident surcharge.

When a market condition exists where a high supply of program offerings exist and/or a lower demand by residents, the Department may elect to charge the same fee for residents and non-residents alike or assess a low non-resident surcharge. If non-resident participation was essential or the program would be marginally successful without additional participation, a no or low non-resident surcharge would be appropriate.
11 There are a number of program areas that the City does not assess a non-resident surcharge. The City does not charge a non-resident surcharge at our golf courses or at Adventure Clubs. Both of these programs are enterprise funds that do not receive taxpayer support. Additionally, the City does not charge a different non-resident fee for fitness memberships or admission at our pools, batting cages and other facilities where it would be impractical to collect such a fee.

This pricing method is communicated to our customers as a resident discount rather that a non-resident surcharge.

Types of Fees
Admission Fees (public swim, drop in fitness & soccer, climbing wall, etc.) Admission fees are described as one-time (single entry) charges made to enter a facility, structure or special program. Access is controlled and attendance is regulated. Objectives include:

1. To generate funds for the operation and maintenance

2. To produce revenue to offset the cost of programs
User Fees (classes, programs, fitness, etc.)
These fees shall be charged for use of a facility, program or access to a controlled area to recover program costs. Objectives include:

1. To pay for or augment the operation and maintenance of a program or facility

2. To recover cost for material fees such as books, supplies, entrance fees

3. To control use of the facility

4. To assess a portion of the costs to users who may not be taxpayers

5. To enable the Department to provide facilities or programs which might not otherwise be available
Security Deposit (rentals, etc.)
Security deposit fees are charged to secure contracted use of a facility. The objective for this fee is to secure a funding source for unanticipated repair for damages, cleanup or extended time for rental.

Rental Fees (facility, picnic or field rental, etc.)
Rental fees are incurred for the privilege of exclusive use of the facility. This fee gives the user the right to enjoy the advantages of the facility, program or equipment. Rental fees should be sufficient to pay for the replacement of the equipment and the cost of operating the rental service which includes direct staff costs plus a portion of indirect costs. These fees may also be referred to as extra fees. Objectives include:

1. To establish the benefit of exclusive use and secure use for a specific time

2. To provide for the equipment which visitors may not have supplied Sales Fees (gift shop, concession, etc.)
Payment may be obtained from operation of gift shops and concessions which includes the sale of merchandise. Objectives include:

1. To provide needed supplies

2. To provide merchandise that adds to the visitor’s enjoyment of the area

3. To provide revenue to offset indirect costs
12 Permit Fees (metal detector, model airplanes, commercial use of facility, etc.) These fees are charged for any permit (written permission) issued by or under the authority of the Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department. Objectives include:

1. To control the conduct of the activity

2. To grant special privilege to the applicant

3. To provide revenue to offset costs of control and operations as well as indirect costs Additional Service Fees (extra staff, trash removal, road closures, etc.) Fees may be charged for supplying extraordinary activities or services as an accommodation to the user.

These fees may also be referred to as extra fees. Objectives include:

1. To enable special services to be rendered by the Department

2. To provide revenue to offset costs of the special service (additional staff, overtime for staff or contracting for services)

3. To improve the quality of the recreation program by adding value, service or variety

4. Surcharge for enhanced maintenance or fee for marketing programs Advertising Fees & Sponsorships
Fees may be charged for brochures, signs, banners or other forms of advertising or promotion. Funding may also be paid for support of special events or programs.

Administration Fees (Non-Sufficient Fund fee, returned payment, pay arrangements, etc.) Fees may be charged for direct and indirect costs associated with administration and oversight of a program or service.

Registration Fees
Registration fees are a type of administrative fee charged specifically in the area of child care and preschool. Such fees cover administrative costs, facility repairs, materials fees and annual child care licensing fees.

Library Materials Fees
Fees are charged to borrowers who do not return library materials by the designated due date. These fees vary depending on the item type and length of time overdue. Additional fees may be charged for lost or damaged items and processing fees.

Reinvestment Fees
Fees may be charged to set aside funds for replacement of existing facilities, amenities or technology.

Setting the Price
While not quite as simple as determining the costs and applying the recovery goal, this is the basic concept behind determining the price. The pricing pyramid assists us in establishing the base level of cost recovery and where the program fits. We then look at our revenue goals and other pricing factors to establish the price for the program. This can be done with the use of a multiplier for each program or through individual analysis. Just as the expenditures and recovery goals vary for each program/service/facility, so does the pricing methods and actual determination of the price. A pricing model is developed for each program/service/facility and assists staff in determining the price. 13 Pricing model development:

Step 1: Identify the program, service or facility.

Is this a core service? Do any special circumstances exist? Step 2: Determine the actual cost and include direct and indirect costs.

Step 3: Review the cost recovery range and cost recovery goals to identify the percentage recovery.

Step 4: Multiply the recover percentage by the total cost to arrive at the recovery amount.

Step 5: Divide the recovery amount by the minimum number of people required to hold the class or activity.

Step 6: Adjust the price in accordance with the appropriate pricing methods to establish differential pricing.

Step 7: Review the price against industry standards, customer expectations and previous experiences.

Step 8: Set final price.

The pricing of services is a very conscious procedure that requires continual investigation and review by staff. Fees may be adjusted for market conditions and targeted customers as described in the policy.

Services may be provided at a discount to stimulate demand or may be waived to accommodate the disadvantaged or non-profit organizations.

Note: Our Child Care programs are required to give 30 calendar days prior written notice of any basic rate change per State of California, Child Care Center General Licensing Requirements Regulation #101219(4).

Staff use the Pre-Program Analysis worksheet (Attachment A) to assist with fee development.

Seasonally the Post-Program Analysis worksheet (Attachment B) is used to evaluate the financial aspects of a program. This analysis helps determine the program success and if it should be continued.

Scholarships
The City of Roseville wants every resident youth to have an opportunity to participate in parks, recreation and library programs. The Department recognizes that not all customers possess the same ability to pay for our programs, services and facilities. The community benefits from the active participation of targeted demographic groups (youth & seniors) as we foster healthy lifestyles. The Department offers a variety of fee and free programs and services to help meet this need.

The Department has several scholarship/grant opportunities available to encourage program participation by reducing, waiving or subsiding fees. Examples of these program include Youth Program Passport, Sparks program assistance, Child Care subsidies, Operation Swim swim lessons, RPAL, teen and senior fitness membership discounts.

Discounts
The Department recognizes discounts encourage participation in fee-based programs and are a valuable marketing tool. Discounts may be used to:
- Increase program/event enrollment or rentals
- Reward continuing/frequent customers and partners
- Encourage customers to try something new
- Facilitate early registration
- Promote registration for multiple sessions of a whole program - Promote memberships or multiple visit passes
14 - Provide reduced rates for residents
All discounts are tracked and evaluated for their success. New discounts must be approved by the Parks, Recreation & Libraries Director.

Partnerships
Partnerships bring together at least two entities to jointly develop, operate or maintain parks, recreation and library programs, events and facilities and share risk, operational costs, responsibilities and asset management based on the strengths and weaknesses of each partner. The Department may partner with an organization, individual or business to provide a community benefit, create social interaction, raise awareness or raise money to support a core service. The Department evaluates each partnership opportunity in terms of potential benefits, challenges and drawbacks. When new partnerships are developed, the functions and services of the partnering organizations are recognized and the Department’s and the partner’s vision, mission and activities are communicated. Additionally, the level of equity commitment required by each partner is identified and agreed to and measureable outcomes for both partners are tracked annually.

The Department has numerous partnerships with local school districts, governmental agencies and both not-for-profit organizations and commercial businesses and will continue to explore new opportunities to create partnerships. Examples of some of these partnerships are outlined below.

Providing high quality athletic facilities for youth compliments the City’s overarching goal of creating a safe and healthy community. A component of this effort is to work with not-for-profit organizations within the City to reach this goal while balancing the needs for informal self-directed recreation.

Youth league organizations partner with the City to provide athletic opportunities for the community.

Organizations must recognize that sports fields require significantly more attention and maintenance and therefore, significantly more resources than basic park facilities. Organizations must invest in this teamwork approach by partnering with the City to ensure our youth have ample opportunity to participate in athletics at various ability levels and to ensure our fields remain safe and of high quality.

City personnel allocate fields between these partnering organizations based on resident requirements and the specific seasons. Field allocation policies specifically address this program. Opportunity exists to strengthen these partnerships and invite other organizations to become partners with us. The goal is to be more than a provider of fields but a true partner in the provision of youth athletics in a safe and healthy environment.

Placer Valley Tourism partners with the City to attract tournaments and events that require overnight stays in local hotels. These types of sporting and social events benefit the City overall with tax dollars received from hotel stays, restaurant visits and time spent at Roseville entertainment establishments such as water parks and movie theaters. In these cases, the Parks, Recreation and Libraries Department’s goal is to receive 100% of direct costs and a negotiated portion of the indirect costs.

Library materials, programming and technology support are provided by non-profit organizations and help to supplement needed services. For example, the Friends of the Roseville Public Library fund some library programming through book sales, and the Library Foundation helps support mobile library technology.
15 Summary
The City of Roseville Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department is dedicated to fostering healthy lifestyles and helping the community thrive. The Department strives to maintain its reputation for providing exceptional parks, places, programs and services at a good value to our taxpayers and customers and for preserving and protecting our City’s natural resources. Our community size and population is expected to double over the next twenty years and our Department must be prepared to grow accordingly. The formalization of our pricing policy provides us with a comprehensive long-term strategy to address current and future needs of the Roseville community and demands upon the Department. 16 Attachment A
Class Name: Session/Season:

Instructor Name: Budget Org Key:

Number Meetings: Hours Per Meeting:

Minimum enrollment:

Location: Park/School 0
Proposed cost per nonresident Signature Facility 0
0 Contractor's Facility 0
@ Max @ Min @ Max @ Min
Per participant: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Instructor pay per hour: #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Percentage: 0.0% 0.00 0.00 City cost per hour per person: #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Per class: 0.00 0.00 0.00
Per hour: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Res Non
$0.00 $0.00 Participant cost per hour: #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
@ Max @ Min @ Max @ Min
Gross Revenue: $0.00 $0.00 Differential NR Revenue 0 0
@ Max @ Minimum

0.00 0.00 Include employee pmts by % or per hour

0.00 0.00 Include materials, books, t-shirts

0.00 0.00 Include mailers & activity guide ($650 pp summer used for est) Indirect Costs:

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.1
$0.00 $0.00
115%
#DIV/0! Net revenue @ max & 23% Non Res $0.00
#DIV/0! Net revenue @ min & 23% Non Res $0.00
#DIV/0!
Enrollment needed for 100% recovery aka "Break Even Point" - - - - Based on 23% Nonresidents
Enrollment needed for recovery goal aka "Meets Goal"
- - - - Based on 23% Nonresidents
revised 2/09
Parks & Recreation Department
Pre-Program Analysis
Nonresident differential
Maximum class capacity:

Proposed cost per resident:

Information Available
Other Considerations
Indirect Staffing
Total Costs
Financial Analysis
Recovery goal
Comments
Recovery % @ max & 23% Non Res
Recovery % @ min & 23% Non Res
Revenue
Proposed Instructor Costs Overview of Proposed Fees
Instructors
Expenses
Direct Costs:

Additional Costs
Facility
Marketing
17 Attachment B
Class Name:

Budget:

Hours per course:

Hours of experience: 0
#DIV/0! Class held vs. offered goal: 80%
Residents
Nonresidents
Total
Boys Comments
Girls
Total Revenue Info from CLASS Differential NR Revenue $0 Instructor pay rate: indicate if per person, per hour, per course or percentage Include pmts by %, per hour or per course Prep hrs
Include materials, books, t-shirts
Include mailers & activity guide ($650 pp summer; $425 pp all other) Subtotal Direct Costs: $0.00
Indirect Costs:

Park/Library $5/hr; Facility $20/hr
$0.00 .15
$0.00
Instructor pay per hour #DIV/0!
Direct recovery percentage #DIV/0! City cost per person/hour: #DIV/0! Total recovery percentage #DIV/0! Program capacity realized: #DIV/0! Net Revenue: Program capacity goal: 85%
Cost/
Revenue Attendance
Customer
Satisfaction Core Value
Level of
Simplicity
Average
score Weighted score
Weight 20% 15% 15% 30% 20%
Rating 1 to 5 #DIV/0! 0
Rating from 1 to 5 where 1 is substandard, 3 is standard, and 5 is exceptional.

Location:

Program offering: Customer satisfaction goal: 95%
How was data gathered? Recommendation
Program curriculum required: Provided?
Updated January 2010
Expenses
Number classes offered:

Number classes cancelled:

Capacity
0 Direct Costs:

Wait List
0 Other Considerations
Comments
$0.00
Participation
Instructors/Staff
Revenue
Participants
Additional Costs
Facility
Marketing
$0
$0
Percentage of Classes Held:

Indirect Staffing
Total Costs
Financial Analysis
Administrative Analysis
Recovery goal (compared to direct recovery)
Session/Season:

Customer satisfaction:

Parks & Recreation Department - Post Program Analysis
Rates
Nurture/Grow Kill It!
New Spinoff Seasonal
Grouped/Avg Excruciating Detail
Annually Seasonally Daily Yes No
Year Round

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2028
File #: 0400-04-12-1 & 0400-04
Title:

Sierra Vista Specific Plan Parcels KT-40A & KT-40B - Specific Plan Amendment and Development Agreement Amendments
Contact: Kinarik Shallow 916-746-1309 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 10.2.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
At the March 24, 2022, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council take the following actions on the project:

1. Consider the 7th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR);

2. Adopt a resolution approving text and land use map amendments to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan;

3. Adopt the five (5) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the First Amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and KV Sierra Vista, LLC (“Baybrook DA”); and

4. Adopt the five (5) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the Second Amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and KV Sierra Vista, LLC (“Baseline P&R DA”).

BACKGROUND
This Council Communication provides a summary evaluation of the project and a summary of the March 24, 2022, Planning Commission hearing. More detailed background and evaluation are provided in the Planning Commission staff report, included in Attachment 1.

Background/Project Description
The project site is approximately 24 acres and is located on Parcels KT-40A and KT-40B of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP), near the northwestern intersection of Santucci Boulevard and Baseline Road. The site is a single parcel with two large lot numbers. The property has a land use designation of Community Commercial/Commercial Mixed Use (CC/CMU) and a zoning designation of Commercial Mixed Use/Special Area (CMU/SA). The CMU/SA zone is described in the SVSP as intended for mixed-use centers that allow for a combination of commercial, office, and residential uses at a minimum density of 13 units per acre. The SVSP allocates a total of 209 residential units to the site. The site is currently undeveloped but consists of abandoned structures in the northwestern portion of the property. The site has frontage on Baseline Road to the south, adjacent to the Curry Creek open space preserve to the north and east, and an undeveloped Park and Recreation parcel to the west planned for a Citywide park.

The City Council approved the SVSP on May 5, 2010. Development Agreements (DAs) with the property owners of the SVSP parcels and the City were entered into to outline development obligations within the Plan area. The project site is currently covered under two different DAs— the “Baybrook DA” and the “Baseline P&R DA.”
The requested entitlements will facilitate the development of a multi-family residential project consisting of 209 rental dwelling units, consistent with the site's specific plan unit allocation. The project is designed with “duet style homes,” which are attached single-family homes for rent. The applicant is requesting a Specific Plan Amendment to reflect the subdivision of the site into three parcels and to modify the applicable CMU/SA description in the SVSP. The two Development Agreements (Baseline P&R DA and Baybrook DA) applicable to the property will be amended so that the property is covered under one Development Agreement (Baseline P&R DA).

Associated with this request was a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the parcel into three lots (KT-40A, KT-40B, and KT-40C); a Design Review Permit to allow construction of 209 multifamily residential units on Parcel KT-40A; and a Tree Permit to allow the removal of two (2) native oak trees on the site. The Planning Commission unanimously approved these entitlements at the March 24, 2022 meeting. Further discussion and exhibits for these entitlements are included in the Planning Commission staff report (see Attachment 1).

Summary Evaluation
The proposed project was found to be substantially consistent with the SVSP goals and policies.

The project will maintain the allocated number of units designated in the SVSP. As such, there will be no impacts on planned infrastructure, roadways, or other public facilities. The land use table, land use map, and all applicable exhibits in the SVSP document will be amended to reflect the subdivision of the project site into three parcels. The SVSP change pages are included as Exhibit B. Parcel KT-40A will be 16.49 gross acres and will have 209 units allocated to the site, resulting in a density of approximately 13 units per net acre. Parcel KT-40B will be 3.44 gross acres, and Parcel KT-40C will be 3.94 gross acres. No changes to the land use or zoning designation are proposed. Parcels KT-40B and KT-40C are not proposed to be developed at this time and will therefore require approval of future Design Review Permits.

Presently, the CMU/SA zone is intended for a mixed-use center with an assumed development allocation of 60% commercial/office and 40% high-density residential with a minimum density of 13 units per acre. Given the 209 allocated units to the site will be developed only on Parcel KT40A, the applicant is proposing to modify the description of the overlay zone to specify that Parcel KT-40A will be allocated the 209 residential units while Parcels KT-40B and KT-40C will be anticipated for future commercial uses. The permitted uses on KT-40B and KT-40C will be modified with a revised SA overlay to ensure compatibility with the adjacent residential use. The table of permitted uses is included with the SVSP change pages in Exhibit B.

The project includes a first amendment of the Baybrook DA (included as Exhibit C) and a second amendment of the Baseline P&R DA (included as Exhibit D). Each DA in the SVSP consists of a cost-sharing agreement between the landowners, which includes fees that are required to be paid per unit or per commercial building square footage. These fees differ between the DAs because they have different obligations related to infrastructure/land dedication and Citywide parkland dedication. The portion of the project site subject to the Baybrook DA is 5.2 net acres with an allocation of 46 of the units. The remaining 18.3 net acres have an allocation of 136 units and are subject to the Baseline P&R DA. As a result, there is an inconsistency in the applicable development fees for the project. The applicant proposes to rectify this by amending the Baybrook DA to exclude the portion of the project site and including it with the Baseline P&R DA.

This necessitates amendments to the legal description of the covered properties in each DA and changes to Section 2.2 to update the land use acreages. In addition, Section 4.8.2.1 is added to the Baseline P&R DA, which outlines the infrastructure fee allocations for Parcels KT-40A, KT40B, and KT-40C. Lastly, Section 3.17.1.2(i) of the Baseline P&R DA, relating to the SVSP fee program, will be amended to remove the previous fee deferrals, except for the deferrals of the South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA) Tier II Traffic Fee and the City-wide Park fee. This is consistent with the fee deferrals removed with prior DA Amendments in the SVSP area.

Items that are not addressed in the amendments are subject to the terms of the original DAs and prior Amendment. In summary, the Planning Commission has found the proposed DA Amendments to be consistent with the General Plan, SVSP, and the Zoning Ordinance. The DA Amendments are 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.

Summary of Planning Commission Meeting
The City's Planning Commission heard the project on March 24, 2022. The Commission asked questions regarding the enforcement of the condition to prevent garages from being used for storage, the orientation of the units relative to parking areas, specifically related to vehicle lights shining into units, and for examples of this product type in other locations. Staff and the applicant provided the following answers; keeping the garages clear for cars is a condition of approval which will be enforced through code enforcement, the applicant uses landscaping and window design to prevent vehicle lighting from shining into the units, and the applicant is constructing similar developments in Bradenton, Florida and the greater Phoenix area.

During the public comment period, one member of the public asked whether staff considered the commute and traffic and stated he thinks the project is modern and attractive. Staff indicated that traffic was analyzed for the site, and there was a reduction in trips from what was originally anticipated.

The Commission was supportive of this unique housing option and suggested this product type meets a need of the community. The Commission indicated support for various housing types in Roseville with varying densities and price points for residents with different income levels and at varying stages of life.

After deliberating on the item, the Planning Commission considered the 7th Addendum to the SVSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR), approved the Tentative Subdivision Map, Design Review Permit, and Tree Permit, and recommended the City Council approve the Specific Plan Amendment and Development Agreement Amendments, with a vote of 6 aye, 0 nay, 1 absent.

Public Outreach
The proposed project was distributed to all internal and external agencies and departments who have requested such notice, and all comments or recommended conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project as appropriate. Early notification of the project was posted on the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA)’s website. Notice of both the Planning Commission hearing and the City Council hearing was published in the Roseville Press Tribune and on the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations website and mailed to all property owners and residents within a 300-foot radius of the project site. As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any public comments regarding the project.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project is not anticipated to result in any negative impacts to the City’s General Fund. The project will generate construction jobs.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, regarding previously certified and adopted Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), a 7th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010) has been prepared to cover the minor technical changes and additions necessary to describe the impacts of the proposed project (see Exhibit A).

The 7th Addendum did not identify any new environmental impacts from the project. The project is conditioned to comply with the applicable SVSP EIR mitigation measures.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner
Mike Isom, Development Services Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Attachment 1 March 24, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report and Exhibits Attachment 2 Conditions ofApproval
Exhibit A SeventhAddendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR Resolution 22-107
Exhibit B SVSP Change Pages
Ordinance for First Amendment of Baybrook DA
Exhibit C First Amendment of the Baybrook DA
Ordinance for SecondAmendment of Baseline P&R DA
Exhibit D SecondAmendment of the Baseline P&R DA
Planning Division Staff Report
Planning Commission Meeting March 24, 2022
Prepared by: Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner
ITEM 6.3: Specific Plan Amendment, Development Agreement Amendment, Design Review Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Tree Permit – 6350 Baseline Road – SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – File #PL21-0256

REQUEST
The proposed project is a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the 23-acre property into three parcels (KT-40A, KT-40B, and KT-40C), a Tree Permit to remove two native oak trees, and a Design Review Permit to allow construction of 209 multi-family residential units on parcel KT-40A. In addition, a Specific Plan Amendment is requested to reflect the subdivision of the site and to modify the applicable Commercial Mixed Use/Special Area (CMU/SA) description in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan. The two Development Agreements (“Baseline P&R DA” and “Baybrook DA”) applicable to the property will be amended so that the property is covered under one Development Agreement (Baseline P&R DA).

Applicant – Jeff Pemstein, Towne Development of Sacramento Property Owner – KV Sierra Vista, LLC

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

1. Consider the 7th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report;

2. Recommend the City Council approve the Specific Plan Amendment;

3. Recommend the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the Development Agreement Amendment (“Baseline P&R DA”);

4. Recommend City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the Development Agreement Amendment (“Baybrook DA”);

5. Adopt the four (4) findings of fact and approve the Design Review Permit subject to ninety-three (93) conditions of approval;

6. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the Tentative Subdivision Map subject to forty-seven (47) conditions of approval; and

7. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the Tree Permit subject to twenty (20) conditions of approval.

SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES
There are no outstanding issues associated with this request. The applicant has reviewed and is in agreement with all recommended conditions of approval.

BACKGROUND
The 23-acre project site is located at 6350 Baseline Road (APN 499-010-014-000), on Parcel KT-40A and KT-40B within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) area (see Figure 1 below). The site is a single parcel with two large lot numbers. The property has a land use designation of Community Commercial/Commercial Mixed Use (CC/CMU) and a zoning designation of Commercial Mixed Use/Special Area (CMU/SA). The CMU/SA zone is described in the SVSP as intended for mixed-use centers that allow for a combination of commercial, office, and residential uses at a minimum density of 13 units per acre. The SVSP allocates a total of 209 residential units to the site. The site is currently CC ATTACHMENT 1
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 2 of 29 undeveloped but consists of abandoned structures in the northwestern portion of the property. The site has frontage on Baseline Road to the south, and is adjacent to the Curry Creek open space preserve to the north and east, and an undeveloped Park and Recreation parcel to the west that is planned for a Citywide park.

Figure 1: Project Location
The SVSP was approved by the City Council on May 5, 2010 (file #2007PL-044). Development Agreements (DAs) with the property owners of the SVSP parcels and the City were entered into to outline development obligations within the Plan area. In January 2014, a lot line adjustment (file #PL13-0236) was approved administratively by the Planning Manager to modify the boundaries of four (4) fee parcels that encompassed approximately 450 acres of the SVSP (see Figure 2 below). The property boundaries were adjusted to conform to the lot lines as configured on the approved SVSP Phased Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map and the SVSP Land Use Plan. Originally, Parcel KT-40A was located on Parcel 1 and Parcel KT-40B was located on Parcel 2. In addition, these parcels were covered under two different DAs—Parcel 1 was covered under the “Baybrook DA” and Parcel 2 was covered under the “Baseline P&R DA”. The lot line adjustment resulted in both Parcels KT-40A and KT-40B being located on Parcel 2, however the parcels remain subject to two different DAs.

Figure 2: Approved Lot Line Adjustment
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 3 of 29 Proposed Project The proposed project includes a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the 23-acre property into three parcels (KT-40A, KT-40B, and KT-40C), a Design Review Permit to allow construction of 209 multi-family residential units on the resulting Parcel KT-40A, and a Tree Permit to allow removal of two (2) native oak trees. Approximately 7.5 acres of the site, which will be the resulting parcels KT-40B and KT-40C fronting on Baseline Road, will remain undeveloped and designated for future commercial uses. A separate Design Review Permit will be required prior to development of parcels KT-40B and KT-40C. The project requires a Specific Plan Amendment to reflect the subdivision of the site and to modify the applicable CMU/SA description in the SVSP. Lastly, the two Development Agreements (Baseline P&R DA and Baybrook DA) applicable to the property will be amended so that the property is covered under one Development Agreement (Baseline P&R DA).

The proposed multi-family residential development, Estia, will consist of 209 rental dwelling units. The project is designed as a “duet” style, which consists of attached single-family homes. There will be a mix of single-story, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units ranging from 709 to 1,083 square feet, with three (3) total plan types. The community will be gated and the units will have private entries, limited shared walls, covered porches, and private fenced backyards with covered patios. The project includes a clubhouse building with a fitness center, a maintenance building, and site amenities such as an outdoor swimming pool, a courtyard with bocce ball and cornhole, a dog park, paseos, and landscaping. A portion of the parking spaces provided will be located in rentable garages that will have separate storage units for residents.

Figure 3: Preliminary Site Plan
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 4 of 29 EVALUATION – SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Specific Plan Amendments (SPA) are analyzed for consistency with the goals and policies of the affected plan. The project will allow development of 209 multi-family residential units, which is the same number of units allocated to Parcels KT-40A and KT-40B in the SVSP. The land use table, land use map, and all applicable exhibits in the SVSP will be amended to reflect the subdivision of the site into three parcels (KT-40A, KT-40B, and KT-40C). Parcel KT-40A will be 16.49 gross acres and will have 209 units allocated to the site. Parcel KT-40B will be 3.44 gross acres and Parcel KT-40C will be 3.94 gross acres.

No changes to the land use or zoning designation are proposed. The project will maintain the same number of units in the SVSP. As such, there will be no impacts to planned infrastructure, roadways, or other public facilities.

The SPA also consists of amending the Special Area (SA) overlay description of the CMU zone.

Presently, the CMU/SA zone is intended to be a mixed-use center with an assumed development allocation of 60% commercial/office and 40% high-density residential with a minimum density of 13 units per acre. Given the 209 allocated units to the site will be developed only on Parcel KT-40A, the applicant is proposing to modify the description to specify Parcel KT-40A will be allocated the 209 residential units while Parcels KT-40B and KT-40C will be anticipated for commercial uses. The permitted uses on KT40B and KT-40C will be modified with the SA overlay to ensure compatibility with the adjacent residential use. The table of permitted uses is included with the SVSP change pages in Exhibit A.

EVALUATION – DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
Section 19.84.040 of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance specifies that recommendations for approval or denial of a Development Agreement (DA), including Amendments, shall include consideration of the following:

1. Consistency with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and the Sierra Vista Specific Plan;

2. Consistency with the provisions of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance;

3. Conformity with the public health, safety and general welfare;

4. The effect on the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values; and

5. Whether the provisions of the Agreement shall provide sufficient benefit to the City to justify entering into the Agreement.

The project includes a first amendment of the Development Agreement (DA) by and between the City of Roseville and Baybrook Limited Partnership relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (or the Baybrook DA) and a second amendment of the DA by and between the City of Roseville and Baseline P&R, LLC relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (or the Baseline P&R DA). The DA Amendments are included as Exhibits B and C.

Development Agreements are binding contracts that set the terms, rules, conditions, regulations, entitlements, responsibilities, and other provisions relating to the development of the covered properties.

Each DA in the SVSP includes a cost sharing agreement between the landowners, which includes fees that are required to be paid per unit or per commercial building square footage. These fees differ between the DAs because they have different obligations related to infrastructure/land dedication and Citywide park land dedication. The portion of the project site subject to the Baybrook DA is 5.2 net acres and 46 of the units. The remaining 18.3 net acres and 136 units are subject to the Baseline P&R DA. As a result, there is an inconsistency in the applicable development fees for the project. The applicant proposes to rectify this by amending the Baybrook DA to exclude the portion of the project site and SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 5 of 29 including it with the Baseline P&R DA. This necessitates amendments to the legal description of the covered properties in each DA and changes to Section 2.2 to update the land use acreages. In addition, Section 4.8.2.1 is added to the Baseline P&R DA, which discusses the infrastructure fee allocations for Parcels KT-40A, KT-40B, and KT-40C. Lastly, Section 3.17.1.2(i) of the Baseline P&R DA, relating to the SVSP fee program, will be amended to remove the previous fee deferrals, except for the deferrals of the South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA) Tier II Traffic Fee and the City-wide Park fee.

Items that are not addressed in the amendments are subject to the terms of the original DAs and prior Amendment. In summary, City staff has found the proposed DA Amendments to be consistent with the General Plan, SVSP, and the Zoning Ordinance. The DA Amendments are in conformance with the public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values. Therefore, the proposed DA Amendments are consistent with items 1-5 above.

EVALUATION – DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
The evaluation of the Design Review Permit has been based on the applicable development and design standards within the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the City’s Community Design Guidelines (CDG), and the SVSP. Section 19.78.060(B) of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance requires four findings of fact be made in order to approve a Design Review Permit. The four findings for approval of the Design Review Permit are listed below in italicized, bold text and are followed by an evaluation of the project in relation to each finding.

1. The project as approved preserves and accentuates the natural features of the property, such as open space, topography, trees, wetlands and water courses; provides adequate drainage for the project; and allows beneficial use to be made of the site for development.

The project site is currently undeveloped and is comprised mostly of annual grasslands. The northwestern corner of the parcel consists of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees as well as abandoned structures. Two of the existing trees are considered protected oak trees and will require approval of a Tree Permit. Further discussion is provided in the Tree Permit evaluation section of this report. No other biological resources exist on the site. Aerials of the site show evidence of previous ground disturbance due to construction of adjacent roadways. A bioretention basin is proposed on the northwestern corner of the site. The project has been reviewed by the City’s Engineering Division and has been designed consistent with City standards related to drainage improvements and stormwater quality facilities. The proposed project will allow a beneficial use to be made of the site.

2. The project site design as approved provides open space; access; vehicle parking; vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle circulation; pedestrian walks and links to alternative modes of transportation; loading areas; landscaping; irrigation; and lighting which results in a safe, efficient, and harmonious development and which is consistent with the applicable goals, policies and objectives set forth in the General Plan, the Community Design Guidelines and the applicable specific plan and/or applicable design guidelines.

Multi-family residential development guidelines are included within the City’s Community Design Guidelines (CDG). The guidelines include recommendations for site planning, circulation, architecture, and other aspects of development. The following discussion provides an evaluation with respect to the applicable design guidelines in the CDG.

Site Planning
The Estia project will be constructed on Parcel KT-40A, which will be setback ±220 feet north of Baseline Road. Access to the community will be gated. The site plan is designed with the clubhouse building situated at the entry to the development with the outdoor area facing internal to the site. The residential units are primarily arranged in clusters of four with fenced backyards facing each other. The design of the fence will SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 6 of 29 be determined at the time of building permit submittal. The setbacks between the rear of the buildings range from approximately 22 feet to 25 feet. Some units will side on to the proposed roadway on the west and will be setback 25 feet from the back of sidewalk. The units siding on to the adjacent commercial parcels will be setback 10 feet from the property line. A 6-foot-tall masonry wall will be constructed along the southern and western boundary of Parcel KT-40A to provide sound attenuation from the future commercial parcels and adjacent roadways. Consistent with the SVSP design guidelines, a 6-foot-tall wrought-iron fence will be constructed adjacent to the open space along the northeastern boundary.

Vehicle Access and Circulation
The existing access road that runs through the property will be removed. A 42-foot-wide roadway (“Entry Street A”) will be constructed in between Parcels KT-40B and KT-40C that will provide a connection to the Estia Development from Baseline Road to the south. Baseline Road will ultimately have six lanes, however the project will provide interim improvements that will provide for four lanes with an auxiliary lane, a 6-footwide bike lane, and 8-foot-wide sidewalks. A 46-foot-wide access road (“Access Road”) will also be constructed along the western boundary of the project site between the future Citywide park parcel. As required by the SVSP, infrastructure will be installed for a traffic signal at the intersection of Baseline Road and Access Drive. The Estia project will have a 34-foot-wide driveway located on Access Road that will provide for a secondary gated entry/exit for residents.

The project consists of several internal drive aisles aisle that will provide access to the parking areas. The project was reviewed by the City Engineering and City Fire Department staff and was found to comply with refuse service standards and with emergency circulation requirements.

Pedestrian Access and Circulation
Pedestrian connections will be provided throughout the project site.

Five-foot wide sidewalks will connect the parking lot areas to the residential units. These sidewalks will also connect to the perimeter sidewalks on Baseline Road and Access Road. Per SVSP Figure 6-21, which is shown in Figure 4 on the right, a Class I bikeway is planned along a portion of the open space adjacent to the site (represented by the red dashed line) with a trail crossing connecting to the northern side.

The project will provide a gated pedestrian connection to the bike path consistent with the SVSP requirements. A second connection to the bike path will be provided via the sidewalk along the access road on the west.

Parking
Parking for the site is based on the Zoning Ordinance parking requirement for multi-family residential uses, which requires 1.5 spaces per 1-bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 2+ bedroom units. In addition, projects with 10 or more dwelling units must provide one (1) additional space for every 10 dwelling units or portion thereof. The project consists of 209 units, which will require 20 guest parking spaces. The project consists of 96 one-bedroom units and 113 two-bedroom units. Based on this, the project requires a total of 390 parking spaces (which includes guest parking). The site plan indicates 357 parking spaces and 36 garage spaces will be provided for a total of 393 spaces, exceeding the parking requirement. The parking spaces are evenly distributed throughout the site. A condition of approval has been placed on the project requiring the CC&Rs to include a clause prohibiting storage in the garages that displaces vehicle parking (see Condition 27d of the Tentative Subdivision Map).

Landscaping and Open Space
CDG Policy MF-44 recommends using landscaping throughout the site, placing trees to provide shading for sidewalks and public spaces, using native or drought-tolerant plants where possible, and providing a Figure 4: Portion of SVSP Figure 6-21
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 7 of 29 minimum of 50% shading (based on 15-year maturity) over the parking spaces. The proposed landscape plan is included in Exhibit J. Landscaping will be provided around the perimeter of the site, at project entries, within the parking lot areas, in front of the units, and around the clubhouse building. The trees used within the parking lot areas provide 51% shade coverage of the uncovered parking spaces, which meets the CDG requirement. The project includes a 15-foot wide landscape setback along Access Road. Primary street trees proposed within the setback consist of a mix of shade and accent trees consistent with the SVSP recommended plant palette. Landscaping adjacent to the preserve is conditioned to consist of California native, drought-tolerant groundcover, shrubs, plants, and trees. Overall, the landscape design is consistent with the SVSP design guidelines, the CDG and the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Because development of the commercial parcels is not proposed at this time, landscaping along Baseline Road will be reviewed as part of the Design Review Permit required for Parcels KT-40B and KT-40C.

As encouraged by the CDG, the project includes open space areas and other recreational amenities. Each unit will consist of a covered porch and fenced backyard with a covered patio. The Unit 1 patio areas will be 70 square feet and the Unit 2 patio areas will be 80 square feet. The clubhouse will have an outdoor area enclosed with a 6-foot-tall wrought-iron fence. The outdoor area will feature a pool, an outdoor fire pit and BBQ grills, and recreational amenities such as bocce ball and cornhole. A gated dog park will also be provided in the northern portion of the site as an additional amenity for residents.

Lighting
The project will consist of building-mounted light fixtures that complement the architectural style of the buildings. The project is conditioned to comply with the City’s minimum lighting level requirements (0.5 footcandles in pedestrian areas and 1.0 foot-candles in vehicle areas). In addition, pole mounted lighting shall be no taller than twenty-five (25) feet and lighting sources shall have cut off lenses and be located to avoid light spillage and glare on adjacent properties.

3. The building design, including the materials, colors, height, bulk, size and relief, and the arrangement of the structures on the site, as approved is harmonious with other development and buildings in the vicinity and which is consistent with the applicable goals, policies and objectives set forth in the General Plan, the Community Design Guidelines and the applicable specific plan and/or applicable design guidelines.

Key guidelines related to architectural design within the CDG for multi-family residential projects include direction to define development character through the use of a consistent design concept (MF-26), to use variation in wall planes and building form to create visually engaging designs (MF-28), to use a variation of colors and materials (MF-32), and to apply architectural treatment to all elevations of a building (MF33).

Unit Designs
Figure 5 below includes the front building elevations for the three plan types offered (Unit 1 Duplex, Unit 2, and Unit 2 Duplex), which are all single-story with an overall height of approximately 16 feet. The Unit 1 Duplex will consist of two attached units that are 709 square feet each. Unit 2 is 1,083 square feet and will be offered as either a detached or attached unit. Of the 209 units, 96 units will be one-bedroom units and 113 units will be two-bedroom units. The units are designed to resemble single-family homes with a craftsman style, utilizing a mix of stucco and board and batten siding, stacked stone veneer, low pitched gable roofs with composition asphalt shingles, and decorative wood corbels. Five (5) color schemes consisting of complimentary neutral and earth tones will be used throughout the project. Consistent with CDG Policy MF-33, architectural treatment is applied to all elevations of the buildings and all windows and doors are trimmed.

SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 8 of 29 Figure 5: Front Building Elevations 9 Clubhouse Building
The clubhouse building is a 3,551-square-foot single-story building that will consist of a leasing office, fitness center, club room, and an outdoor area enclosed with a 6-foot tall wrought iron fence. The front building elevation is shown in Figure 6 below. The building will utilize one of the color schemes applied for the residential units and is designed consistent with the craftsman theme of the project. Similar to the residential units, the building primarily consists of stucco and utilizes stacked stone veneer and board and batten siding in accent areas to add decorative detail. The variation in building height and wall planes combined with the mix in colors and materials creates a visually engaging design consistent with the CDG.

Figure 6: Clubhouse Building
Garages and Maintenance Buildings
The garage and maintenance buildings are shown in Figure 7 below. There will be six (6) garage buildings that will consist of six (6) parking spaces each. The garages will be approximately 1,500 square feet and will be distributed throughout the parking lot. As shown in Exhibit H, the left elevation of the garages will consist of four (4) storage spaces that will be available for rent. Each storage space will be approximately 100 square feet. There will be one 794-square-foot maintenance building in the southeastern portion of the site. The garage and maintenance buildings are designed consistent with the residential units and clubhouse building.

Unit 1 Duplex Unit 2
Unit 2 Duplex
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 9 of 29 Figure 7: Garage/Storage & Maintenance Buildings Overall, the elevations are designed to include variation in colors, materials, wall planes, and rooflines to create a visually interesting design that is compatible with neighborhoods in the vicinity of the project and the CDG.

4. The design of the public services, as approved, including, but not limited to, trash enclosures and service equipment are located so as not to detract from the appearance of the site, and are screened appropriately and effectively using construction materials, colors and landscaping that are harmonious with the site and the building designs.

All trash containers will be screened within a trash enclosure. The project will provide a total of three trash enclosures that will match the color and materials of the residential buildings. The enclosures will surround the three non-accessible sides of the trash containers, and will also be screened with landscaping. All other service equipment will be screened from public view, consistent with the conditions of approval.

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

1. The size, design, character, grading, location, orientation and configuration of lots, roads and all improvements for the tentative subdivision map are consistent with the density, uses, circulation and open space systems, applicable policies and standards of the general plan or any applicable specific plan for the area, whichever is more restrictive, and the design standards of Title 18 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the Roseville Municipal Code.

Parcel size, design, character, location, orientation and configuration: The proposed subdivision will result in the creation of three development parcels—KT-40A, KT-40B, and KT-40C. Parcel KT-40A will be 16.49 gross acres, Parcel KT-40B will be 3.44 gross acres, and Parcel KT-40C will be 3.94 gross acres. A 0.55-acre parcel (Parcel A) will also be created and dedicated to the City as open space and will be located along the existing open space parcel to the north. Parcels KT-40B and KT-40C will have frontage on Blue Oaks Boulevard to the south and Parcel KT-40A will be located to the north of these parcels. The Map Act and Subdivision Ordinance do not contain any maximum or minimum lot sizes.

Garage
Maintenance
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 10 of 29 Based on the Design Review Permit evaluation section, the lots are large enough to adequately allow for the proposed development on the parcels.

Grading and Drainage: Grading and drainage required for development of the parcels have been reviewed with the Design Review Permit and have been determined to comply with City standards as shown in the grading and drainage plan, and as conditioned.

Access & Circulation: The project is conditioned to ensure the access roads and driveways are constructed to comply with the City’s design standards. On-site circulation has been reviewed with the Design Review Permit and found to be adequate. Access and circulation is consistent with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance and the City’s Improvement Standards.

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

The proposed parcels are of sufficient size and shape to accommodate the proposed development and are consistent with the applicable zoning and design requirements, as discussed in the Design Review Permit evaluation section of the staff report. There are no watercourses or other natural features on the site that would impede development.

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

Anticipated water quality impacts and discharge of waste are not affected by the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map. The design of the sewer lines in the project area and treatment capacity at the City’s sewage treatment plant have adequate conveyance and capacity to accommodate development on the proposed parcels created by the Tentative Subdivision Map.

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

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

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

An arborist report including a tree inventory summary was provided by California Tree and Landscape Consulting, Inc., dated February 20, 2020 (see Exhibit K). All of the trees present on the property, which are located in the northwestern portion of the site, will be removed to facilitate development of the site. Two (2) of these trees were identified as protected oak trees with a total aggregate diameter of 54 inches (see Table 1 below).

SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 11 of 29 Table 1: Protected Oak Tree Removals Tree # Common Name Botanical Name Diameter at
Breast Height
(DBH)
Tree Condition
8511 Interior Live Oak Quercus wislizeni 31” Fair – Minor Problems
8513 Interior Live Oak Quercus wislizeni 23” Extreme Structure or Health
Problems
The applicant has proposed to comply with the compensation requirements of the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. The total number of mitigation inches for this project is 54. Mitigation will be completed with a combination of on-site planting and payment into the City’s in-lieu fee program. The funds in the City’s in-lieu fee program are used for the replanting and preservation of trees throughout the City and are calculated at a rate of $118 per inch of tree removed when measured at the tree’s diameter at breast height (DBH). The tree mitigation fees are required to be paid prior to the removal of the trees.

The Tree Permit contains all of the standard conditions of approval, which includes a requirement to follow all of the recommendations of the Arborist Report. The arborist’s recommendations include monitoring any excavation for the retaining wall footings for the trees to remain on the site. The removal of these trees will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, and measures have been incorporated to mitigate impacts.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
The proposed project was distributed to all internal and external agencies and departments who have requested such notice, and all comments or recommended conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project, as appropriate. Early notification of the project was posted on the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA)’s website. A notice of the public hearing was published in the Roseville Press Tribune on March 11, 2022 and a notice of the hearing was also distributed to all property owners within 300 feet of the site and posted on the RCONA website. No comments have been received as of publication of the staff report.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, regarding a previously certified and adopted Environmental Impact Report (EIR), an Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010) has been prepared to cover the minor technical changes and additions necessary to describe the impacts of the proposed project (see Attachment 1). The Addendum did not identify any new environmental impacts from the project. The project is conditioned to comply with the applicable SVSP EIR mitigation measures.

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

1. Consider the 7th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report;

2. Recommend the City Council approve the SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – 6350 BASELINE ROAD – SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – ESTIA – FILE #PL21-0256; SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 12 of 29 3. Recommend the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (“BASELINE P&R DA”) – 6350 BASELINE ROAD – SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – ESTIA – FILE #PL21-0256;

4. Recommend the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (“BAYBROOK DA”) – 6350 BASELINE ROAD – SVSP PCL KT40A & KT-40B – ESTIA – FILE #PL21-0256;

5. Adopt the four (4) findings of fact and approve the DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT – 6350 BASELINE ROAD – SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – ESTIA – FILE #PL21-0256 subject to ninety-three (93) conditions of approval;

6. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP – 6350 BASELINE ROAD – SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – ESTIA – FILE #PL21-0256 subject to fortyseven (47) conditions of approval; and

7. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the TREE PERMIT – 6350 BASELINE ROAD – SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – ESTIA – FILE #PL21-0256 subject to twenty (20) conditions of approval.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT – FILE #PL21-0256

1. This Design Review Permit approval shall be effectuated within a period of two (2) years from March 24, 2022 and if not effectuated shall expire on March 24, 2024. Prior to said expiration date, the applicant may apply for an extension of time, provided this approval does not extend the expiration beyond March 24, 2025. (Planning)

2. The project is approved as shown in Exhibit A—L and as conditioned or modified below. (Planning)

3. The project shall comply with all required environmental mitigation identified in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) EIR and the 7th Addendum to the SVSP EIR (Attachment 1), and shall include all applicable mitigation measures as notes on the grading plans. (All Departments)

4. A Design Review Permit shall be required prior to issuance of building permits for the development of Parcels KT-40B and KT-40C. (Planning)

5. The project shall be addressed as 6350 Baseline Rd. All projects with multi-tenants or buildings must submit a site plan with building footprint(s), upon initial building permit submittal, to the Development Services Department (Business Services – Addressing) for building/unit addressing review. (Business Services)

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

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

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

8. The developer shall not commence with any on-site improvements until such time as grading and/or improvement plans have been submitted for review and are approved and grading and/or encroachment permits are issued by the Development Services- Engineering (Engineering)

9. The approval of a Tentative Map and/or tentative site plan does not constitute approval of proposed improvements as to size, design, materials, or location, unless specifically addressed in these conditions SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 13 of 29 of approval. The Developer shall submit civil drawings to the Department of Development Services – Engineering Division for review and approval. (Engineering)

10. Garage spaces shall not be utilized for storage that displaces vehicle parking. (Planning) PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:

11. Parking lot design shall conform to the City’s design standards, including the following minimum standards for parking stalls:
a. All parking stalls shall be double-striped. Parking stalls adjacent to sidewalks, landscaped areas or light fixtures, and all Accessible stalls shall abut a 6-inch raised curb or concrete bumper. (Planning)
b. Standard – 9 feet x 18 feet; Compact – 9 feet x 16 feet; Accessible – 14 feet x 18 feet (a 9-footwide parking area plus a 5-foot-wide loading area) and a minimum of one (1) parking space shall be Accessible van accessible – 17 feet x 18 feet (9-foot-wide parking area plus an 8-foot-wide loading area). (Planning)
c. An 'exterior routes of travel' site accessibility plan incorporating slope, cross-slope, width, pedestrian ramps, curb ramps, handrails, signage, detectable warnings or speed limit signs or equivalent means shall comprise part of the site improvement plans submitted to City for review, prior to building plan check approvals. This site accessibility plan shall also include:
i. Accessible parking stalls shall be dispersed and located closest to accessible entrances. The total number of accessible parking spaces shall be established by Table 11B-208.2 of the CBC.
ii. Accessible Parking spaces and crosswalks shall be signed, marked and maintained as required by Chapter 11 of the CBC.
iii. Accessible parking and exterior route of travel shall comply with CBC, Sections 11B-206 and 11B-208. (Building)

12. Signs and/or striping shall be provided on-site as required by the Planning Department to control onsite traffic movements. Parking lot striping and signage shall be maintained in a visible and legible manner. (Planning)

13. The plans submitted to the Building Division for permits shall indicate all approved revisions/alterations as approved by the Commission including all conditions of approval. (Planning)

14. The project Landscape Plans shall comply with the following:
a. The Landscape Plan shall indicate the location of, and be designed to avoid conflicts with, all pole-mounted light fixtures and utility equipment including (but not limited to) electric transformers, switchgear, and overhead lines; backflow preventers; fire department connections; and public water, sewer, and storm drain facilities. (Planning, Fire, Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering)
b. The tree plantings in the parking lot shall be designed to provide a minimum of 50% shade coverage after 15 years. (Planning)
c. At a minimum, landscaped areas not covered with live material shall be covered with a rock, (3") bark (no shredded bark) or (3") mulch covering. (Planning) SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 14 of 29 d. The landscape plan shall comply with the Landscape Guidelines for Sierra Vista Specific Plan and the City of Roseville Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. (Planning, Environmental Utilities) e. Landscaping adjacent to preserve areas shall consist of California native, drought-tolerant groundcover, shrubs, plants, and trees. (Open Space, Planning) f. All landscaping in areas containing electrical service equipment shall conform to the Electric Department's Landscape Requirements and Work Clearances as outlined in Section 10.00 of the Departments "Specification for Commercial Construction." (Electric) g. Slopes within landscape planters shall be no more than 3:1. A two-foot flat bench located at backof-walk shall be included in the landscape area to slow or allow absorption of nuisance run-off from the planters. (Parks, Recreation, and Libraries)
h. All landscaping shall conform to the standards of crime prevention through environmental design with the intent to create natural surveillance, controlling access, and territorial reinforcement to property boundaries. (Police)

15. Any roof-mounted equipment and satellite dishes proposed shall be shown on the building plans.

The equipment shall be fully screened from public streets and the surrounding properties. (Planning)

16. At the time of building permit application and plan submittal, the project applicant shall submit a proposed plan which shows the proposed addressing for the building and dwelling unit numbers. The Building Official, or the designee, shall approve said plan prior to building permit approval. Refer to the City of Roseville Addressing Guidelines. (Building)

17. A separate Architectural Site Accessibility Plan which details the project's site accessibility information as required by California Title 24, Part 2 shall be submitted as part of the project Building Permit Plans for the Clubhouse. (Building)

18. For Multiple Building Complexes: As part of the required Architectural Site Accessibility Plan, the developer shall delineate the extent of the site accessibility improvements being installed as part of the initial improvements for the project, and those that are planned to be developed as part of subsequent phases (i.e. around future pad buildings). (Building)

19. Building permit plans shall comply with all applicable code requirements (California Building Code – CBC – based on the International Building Code, California Green Building Standards Code–CGBSC, California Mechanical Code – CMC – based on the Uniform Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code – CPC – based on the Uniform Plumbing Code, California Fire Code – CFC – based on the International Fire Code – with City of Roseville Amendments – RFC, California Electrical Code – CEC – based on the National Electrical Code, and California Energy Standards – CEC T-24 Part 6), California Title 24 and the American with Disabilities Act - ADA requirements, and all State and Federally mandated requirements in effect at the time of submittal for building permits (contact the Building Division for applicable Code editions). (Building)

20. For restaurants, other food services, or commercial swimming pools: The developer shall obtain all required approvals and permits from the Placer County Health Department and the City of Roseville Industrial Waste Division. (Building, Environmental Utilities)

21. Maintenance of copy of building plans: Health and Safety Code section 19850 requires the building department of every city or county to maintain an official copy of the building plans for the life of the building. As such, each individual building shall be submitted as a separate submittal package.

Building plan review, permit issuance and archiving is based on each individual building address. (Building)
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 15 of 29 22. For all work to be performed off-site, permission to enter and construct shall be obtained from the property owner, in the form of a notarized right-of-entry. Said notarized right-of-entry shall be provided to Public Works prior to approval of any plans. (Engineering)

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

24. Baseline Road/Access Drive – install signal infrastructure including conduit, loops and poles as part of the Estia project improvements per the Development Agreement. Provide 40’ minimum width of pavement for the Access Drive to accommodate a city standard southbound right turn lane. (Engineering)

25. Landowner shall be responsible for the costs of construction of the traffic signals as shown on Exhibit “K” of the Baybrook LP and Baseline P & R LLC Development Agreement. The developer shall receive fee credits for the completion of the traffic signals as part of the City’s TMF Set-Aside Fund. (Engineering)

26. The entry drive for the project shall consist of 36’ width of pavement to allow for an eventual striped center turn lane. The applicant to provide city standard 3’ vertical curb-gutter and 5’ sidewalk on both sides of the street. See Sheet 1, Section B of the Tentative Parcel Map. (Engineering).

27. Any backbone improvements, not constructed adjacent to (or needed to serve) a proposed project shall be completed by the applicant. (Engineering)

28. Baseline Road improvements shall be constructed to a four lane arterial with auxiliary lane. The roadway section shall include providing an additional paving (from the existing pavement as shown, as part of the Baseline Road & Watt Avenue Infrastructure Plans- EN20-0362) and 3’ vertical curb and gutter and 8’ separated sidewalk. The roadway section will include two (2) 11’ travel lanes, a 6’ bike lane, a 10’ auxiliary lane and the aforementioned 3’ curb and gutter. The dimension from the ultimate centerline of Baseline Road to back curb will be 60’. (Engineering)

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

30. The site shall include a designated Dial-a-Ride drop off and pick up area with an accessible path of travel to the main entrance of the building. Applicant shall install a pole for Dial-A-Ride sign (sign provided by Alternative Transportation). A covered seating area for our Dial-a-Ride passengers shall be located at the main entrance and it will be visible from the drive aisle of the drop-off and pick-up area. (Alternative Transportation, Planning, and Engineering)

31. If not constructed prior to the project, per the Development Agreement, the developer shall be responsible for preliminary design, permitting and rough grading of the trail. In this case, developer may request reimbursement for this work by obtaining a reimbursement agreement prior to approval of improvement plans. (Engineering, Alternative Transportation)

32. If not constructed prior to the project, per the Development Agreement, if the City has sufficient funds to reimburse Landowner, Landowner shall prepare the final design and construct Class I bike trail improvements where adjacent to residential subdivisions. The developer shall provide an estimate for trail construction prior to or concurrent to the first submittal of improvement plans. (Alternative Transportation)
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 16 of 29 33. The design of the trail shall be consistent with City standards and shall incorporate the following:
a. Where an overland release crosses a bike trail, the trail design shall accommodate the potential drainage through grading, concrete paving and scour control while meeting trail design standards as determined necessary by Development Services/Engineering. (Engineering, Alternative Transportation)

34. Per the Sierra Vista Specific plan, pedestrian sidewalks along the open spaces will be installed at the time of adjacent roadway construction. (Engineering, Alternative Transportation)

35. The design of the on-site connection to the bike trail shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services/Engineering and Alternative Transportation. (Engineering, Alternative Transportation)

36. The applicant shall dedicate all necessary rights-of-way or Public Utility Easement for the widening of any streets or transfer of public utilities across and over any portion of the property as required with this entitlement. A separate document shall be drafted for approval and acceptance by the City of Roseville, and recorded at the County Recorder’s Office. (Engineering)

37. All storm drainage, including roof drains, shall be collected on site and treated with Best Management Practices (BMP’s) per the City’s Stormwater Quality Design Manual. All storm water shall be routed to the nearest existing storm drain system or natural drainage facility. Drain outfalls shall extend down to the receiving water and shall be constructed with adequate velocity attenuation devices. The grading/improvement plans for the site shall be accompanied with a shed map that defines that area tributary to this site and all drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate the tributary flow. The storm drain system and proposed BMP’s shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner.

Prior to the issuance of any permits, the owner shall provide a plan for the maintenance of the proposed BMP’s. (Engineering)

38. Prior to approval of improvement plans, drainage calculations must be submitted that are consistent with the Master Drainage Study for Sierra Vista or the Master Drainage Study shall be amended as necessary to accommodate any change in sheds. Detention and drainage swales shall also be consistent with the Master Drainage Study or the Master Drainage Study amended to reflect any proposed changes. (Engineering)

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

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

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

42. Improvement plans shall show the Preserve boundary and label it as a protected area. The PreConstruction meeting shall address the presence of the Preserve, the sensitive habitats present and minimization of disturbance to the Preserve. During grading and construction the preserve area shall be avoided and shall not be used for parking, storage, or project staging. The contractor shall remove SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 17 of 29 all trash blown into the preserve from adjacent construction on a daily basis. After construction is complete, the temporary fencing shall be removed from the preserve, along with all temporary erosion control measures (e.g., straw bales, straw waddles and stakes, silt fencing). (Engineering, Development Services Department, Planning)

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

44. With the exception of access required for maintenance and/or emergency vehicles, the project shall be designed to prevent vehicle access into the Preserve. Post and cable fencing or other improvements shall be utilized to meet this requirement. (Public Works, Development Services Department, Planning)

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

46. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall pay into the following fee programs:

Citywide Drainage Fee, Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee (TMF), Highway 65 Joint Partners Association (JPA), South Placer Regional Transportation Authority (SPRTA), and City/County Fee. (Engineering)

47. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or approval of Improvement Plans, the grading plans shall clearly identify all existing water, sewer and recycled water utilities within the boundaries of the project (including adjoining public right of way). Existing utilities shall be identified in plan-view and in profileview where grading activities will modify existing site elevations over top of or within 15 feet of the utility. Any utilities that could potentially be impacted by the project shall be clearly identified along with the proposed protection measures. The developer shall be responsible for taking measures and incurring costs associated with protecting the existing water, sewer and recycled water utilities to the satisfaction of the Environmental Utilities Director. (Environmental Utilities)

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

49. Water and sewer infrastructure shall be designed pursuant to the adopted City of Roseville Improvement Standards and the City of Roseville Construction Standards and shall include:
a. Utilities or permanent structures shall not be located within the area which would be disturbed by an open trench needed to expose sewer trunk mains deeper than 12 feet unless approved by Environmental Utilities in these conditions. The area needed to construct the trench is a sloped cone above the sewer main. The cone shall have 1:1 side slopes. b. Water, sewer and recycled mains shall not exceed a depth of 12 feet below finished grade, unless authorized in these conditions of approval.
c. All sewer manholes shall have all-weather, 10-ton vehicle access unless otherwise authorized by these conditions of approval. (Environmental Utilities)

50. Recycled water infrastructure shall be designed pursuant to the adopted City of Roseville Improvement Standards and the City of Roseville Construction Standards. The applicant shall pay all applicable recycled water fees. Easements shall be provided as necessary for recycled water infrastructure. (Environmental Utilities)

51. This project will require some units to be served by sewer mains installed through landscaping. Sewer mains outside of the paved areas shall be privately owned and maintained. (Environmental Utilities) SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 18 of 29 52. Trash enclosures, recycling areas, and enclosure approaches shall be designed to current Refuse Division specifications, the materials and colors shall match the building, and the location of such facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the Refuse Division, Planning and the Fire Department.

The enclosure must have inside dimensions of 12 feet wide and 9 feet deep and be built to the specifications of the Solid Waste Department's Enclosure Description. (Refuse, Planning, Fire)

53. Access to trash enclosures shall have an inside turning radius of 25 feet and an outside turning radius of 45 feet must be maintained to allow the refuse truck access to and from the enclosure. Enclosures must have a clear approach of 65 feet in front of the enclosure to allow servicing bins. (Refuse)

54. A trash enclosure and recycling enclosure is required for each building and each tenant, otherwise, the building owner is responsible for the trash service. (Refuse)

55. The design and installation of all fire protection equipment shall conform to the California Fire Code and the amendments adopted by the City of Roseville, along with all standards and policies implemented by the Roseville Fire Department. (Fire)

56. The applicable codes and standards adopted by the City shall be enforced at the time construction plans have been submitted to the City for permitting. (Fire)

57. The Electric Department requires the submittal of the following information in order to complete the final electric design for the project:
a. one (1) set of improvement plans
b. load calculations
c. electrical panel one-line drawings

58. No new drainage/run off into the open space shall occur, all landscaping adjacent to the open space shall be native and non-invasive and all irrigation shall avoid run-off or over-spray into the open space.

Lot A shall have a non-living finish to deter weed growth and to minimize long-term maintenance. (Parks)

59. All on-site external lighting shall be installed and directed to have no off-site glare. Lighting within the parking areas and pedestrian walkways shall provide a maintained minimum of one (1) foot-candle, and 0.5 foot-candle of light, respectively. All exterior light fixtures shall be vandal resistant. (Planning, Police)

60. The parking lot shall have properly posted signs that state the use of the parking area is for the exclusive use of employees and customers of this project. (See California Vehicle Code Sections 22507.8, 22511.5, 22511.8, 22658(a), and the City of Roseville Municipal Code Section 11.20.110).

The location of the signs shall be shown on the approved site plan. (Planning, Police)

61. It is the developer's responsibility to notify PG&E of any work required on PG&E facilities. (PG&E) DURING CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:

62. Any backflow preventers visible from the street shall be painted green to blend in with the surrounding landscaping. The backflow preventers shall be screened with landscaping and shall comply with the following criteria:
a. There shall be a minimum clearance of four feet (4'), on all sides, from the backflow preventer to the landscaping.

SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 19 of 29 b. For maintenance purposes, the landscaping shall only be installed on three sides and the plant material shall not have thorns.
c. The control valves and the water meter shall be physically unobstructed. d. The backflow preventer shall be covered with a green cover that will provide insulation. (Planning, Environmental Utilities)

63. The following easements shall be provided by separate instrument and shown on the site plan, unless otherwise provided for in these conditions:
a. A 12.5’-foot-wide public utilities easement along all public road frontages. b. Water, sewer, and reclaimed water easements.
c. Additional internal easements will be required to cover primary electrical facilities to the project when the final electrical design is completed. (Electric)

64. Prior to releasing building permits, the existing 25’ PG&E Roadway & Utility easement shall be abandoned or a quitclaim process completed. (Engineering)

65. Easement widths shall comply with the City's Improvement Standards and Construction Standards.

Separate document easements required by the City shall be prepared in accordance with the City's "Policy for Dedication of Easements to the City of Roseville". All legal descriptions shall be prepared by a licensed land Surveyor. All existing public utility, electric, water, sewer and reclaimed water easements shall be maintained unless otherwise authorized by these conditions of approval. (Engineering, Environmental Utilities, Electric)

66. Inspection of the potable water supply system on new commercial/industrial/office projects shall be as follows:
a. The Environmental Utilities Inspector will inspect all potable water supply up to the downstream side of the backflow preventer.
b. The property owner/applicant shall be responsible for that portion of the water supply system from the backflow preventer to the building. The builder/contractor shall engage a qualified inspector to approve the installation of this portion of the water supply. The Building Division will require from the builder/contractor, a written document certifying that this portion of the potable water supply has been installed per improvement plans and in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code. This certificate of compliance shall be submitted to the Building Division before a temporary occupancy or a building final is approved.
c. The building inspectors will exclusively inspect all potable water supply systems for the building from the shutoff valve at the building and downstream within the building. (Building, Environmental Utilities)

67. All improvements being constructed in accordance with the approved grading and improvement plans shall be accepted as complete by the City. (Engineering)

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

69. Water, sewer and reclaimed water shall be constructed pursuant to the adopted City of Roseville Improvement Standards and the City of Roseville Construction Standards. (Environmental Utilities) SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 20 of 29 70. All water backflow devices shall be tested and approved by the Environmental Utilities Department. (Environmental Utilities)

71. Restaurants or other Food Service Establishment (FSE). The applicant shall design for installation and/or install an exterior grease interceptor if the proposed business could potentially discharge substances containing fats, oils and grease (FOG) into the sewer system. The grease interceptor shall be adequate to separate and remove FOG contained in the wastewater from FSE’s prior to discharge to the public sewer. (Environmental Utilities)

72. In the event an exterior grease interceptor cannot be installed due to space limitation, the developer shall install a grease trap, per City Standards, that will mechanically separate the FOG contained in the wastewater from the FSE prior to discharge to the public sewer. (Environmental Utilities)

73. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a FOG waste discharge permit (FOG WDP) from the Environmental Utilities Industrial Waste Division prior to occupancy or prior to discharging waste to the public sewer. The applicant shall submit information required by the Environmental Utilities Department for evaluation, including but not limited to: site plans, floor plans, mechanical and plumbing plans, and details to show all sewers, FOG control device, grease interceptor or other pretreatment equipment and appurtenances by size, location and elevation.

Additional information related to the applicant’s business operations and potential discharge may be requested to properly evaluate the FOG WDP application. (Environmental Utilities)

74. All Electric Department facilities, including streetlights where applicable, shall be designed and built to the "City of Roseville Specifications for Commercial Construction." (Electric)

75. The City of Roseville Electric Department has electrical construction charges which are to be paid by the developer and which are explained in the City of Roseville "Specification for Commercial and Residential Construction." These charges will be determined upon completion of the final electrical design. (Electric)

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

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

78. All electric metering shall be directly outside accessible. This can be accomplished in any of the following ways:
a. Locate the metered service panel on the outside of the building. b. Locate the metered service panel in a service room with a door that opens directly to the outside.

The developer will be required to provide a key to the door for placement in a lock box to be installed on the outside of the door. Any doors leading from the service room to other areas of the building shall be secured to prohibit unauthorized entry. (Electric)

79. One ¾-inch conduit with a 2-pair phone line shall be installed from the building’s telephone service panel to the meter section of the customer's electrical switchgear or panel. (Electric)

80. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that all existing electric facilities remain free and clear of any obstruction during construction and when the project is complete. (Electric) SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 21 of 29 81. The Developer will be responsible for extending mainline infrastructure on the north side of baseline from Santucci Boulevard west to the project site. These improvements shall be installed in the ultimate Public Utility Easement location along Baseline Road. These improvements shall include point of connections for parcels 40B and 40C. (Electric)
OTHER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

82. Signs shown on the elevations are not approved as part of the Design Review Permit. A Sign Permit is required for all project signs. (Planning)

83. Following the installation of the landscaping, all landscape material shall be maintained in a healthy and weed-free condition; dead plant material shall be replaced immediately. All trees shall be maintained and pruned in accordance with the accepted practices of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). (Planning)

84. The City reserves the right to restrict vehicle turning movements within the public right-of-way in the future if deemed necessary by the City Engineer. (Engineering)

85. The required width of fire apparatus access roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including the parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and vertical clearances established by the Fire Code shall be maintained at all times during construction. Closure of accesses for fire apparatus by gates, barricades and other devices shall be prohibited unless approved by the Fire Chief. (Fire)

86. Temporary aboveground storage tanks may be used at construction sites for diesel fuel only and shall not exceed 1,000 gallon capacity. Tanks shall comply with all provisions found within the Fire Code.

A Fire Department Permit shall be obtained prior to tank installation. The permit shall expire after 90 days from the date of issuance, unless extended by the Fire Chief. (Fire)

87. If site survey or earth moving work results in the discovery of hazardous materials in containers or what appears to be hazardous wastes released into the ground, the contractor or person responsible for the building permit must notify the Roseville Fire Department immediately. A representative from the Fire Department will make a determination as to whether the incident is reportable of not and if site remediation is required. (Fire)

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

89. All residential units must install a Seasonal Energy Efficiency Rating ("SEER") of 2 points above the minimum, as defined by the State of California in the current Title 24 of the Code of California regulations, up to a total maximum of 16 points including the 2 point premium, an Energy Efficiency Ratio ("EER") of 12 or greater, and a thermal expansion valve "TXV"). The SEER rating of 2 points above the minimum, as defined by the current Title 24, up to a maximum of 16 points, and an EER rating of 12 or greater along with a TXV will be specified on building plans and Title 24 compliance certificates at the time building permits are requested. If Title 24 of the Code of California Regulations in effect at the time of request for building permits requires higher SEER or EER ratings, residential units in the Plan Area shall comply with such State requirements. The SEER and EER ratings will be verified with appropriate documentation. These requirements shall be utilized in the overall energy compliance calculations required for issuance of a building permit for any residential unit. Any variances must be approved by the Electric Department’s Retail Energy Services Department. (Building, Electric)

90. The project is subject to the noise standards established in the City's Noise Ordinance. In accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance, project construction is exempt between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m. Saturday and SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 22 of 29 Sunday, provided that all construction equipment shall be fitted with factory installed muffling devices and be maintained in good working order. (Building)

91. The developer (or designated consultant) shall certify that the building foundation location has been placed according to all approved setback requirements shown on the approved site plan. The developer shall prepare a written statement confirming building placement and provide an original copy to the City Building Division Field Inspector at the time of or prior to the foundation inspection. (Building)

92. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant may apply for a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) of the building. If a TCO is desired, the applicant must submit a written request to the Building Division a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to the expected temporary occupancy date and shall include a schedule for occupancy and a description of the purpose for the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. (Building)

93. Concurrent with submittal for plan check and prior to a request for final building inspection, the applicant may request City approval of an occupancy phasing plan to allow individual or multiple building occupancies. This request shall be made in writing to the Building Division and shall include the following:
a. A description of measures that will be undertaken to minimize conflict between residents/building occupants and construction traffic (e.g. fencing, etc.); b. A phasing plan showing the proposed buildings, internal roads and access routes, landscaping, trash enclosure locations, and any other improvements planned for each phase; and c. An estimated time frame for each phase and a specific date for the first phase. (Planning, Building)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP – FILE #PL21-0256

1. The project shall comply with all required environmental mitigation identified in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) EIR and 7th Addendum to the SVSP EIR, and shall include all applicable mitigation measures as notes on the plans. (Planning)

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

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

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

4. The grading and improvement plans shall be designed in accordance with the City's Improvement Standards and Construction Standards and shall reflect the following:
a) Street improvements including, but not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, drainage systems, traffic striping, signing, medians and markings, etc. along all existing and proposed City streets, as required by Engineering.
b) Grading shall comply with the City grading ordinance. There shall be no cut and/or fill slopes steeper than a 4:1 ratio. Erosion control devices (sediment traps, ditches, straw bales, etc.) shall be shown on the grading plans and all erosion control shall be installed prior to the onset of wet weather. Erosion control is installed to minimize silt discharge from the project site; it SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 23 of 29 is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that necessary measures are taken to minimize silt discharge from the site. Modification of the erosion control plan may be warranted during wet weather conditions.
c) A rough grading permit may be approved by the Engineering Department prior to approval of the improvement plans.
d) Access to the floodplain shall be provided as required by Engineering and the Streets Department.
e) Standard accessible ramps shall be installed at all curb returns per City Standards. (Engineering)

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

6. All drainage facilities shall conform to natural drainage sheds. (Engineering)

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

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

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

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

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

11. Prior to the approval of the improvement plans, it will be the project proponent’s responsibility to pay the standard City Trench Cut Recovery Fee for any cuts within the City streets that are required for the installation of underground utilities. (Engineering)
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 24 of 29 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT OR IMPROVEMENT PLANS

12. Prior to the approval of Improvement Plans, the applicant shall submit to the Development Services Engineering Division a paper copy and an electronic copy of the final set of Improvement Plans per the Division’s “Digital Submission of Utility Composites” standards. Additionally, the applicant shall submit approved/proposed street names for the approved subdivision map. Final street names for the subdivision shall be approved by the Engineering Division prior to the approval of the Improvement Plans. The approved street names shall be included on the final set of Improvement Plans. (Engineering)

13. Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the Fire Department. The maximum distance between fire hydrants shall not exceed 1,000 feet on center. (Fire)

14. Minimum fire flow is 1,500 gallons per minute with 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure. A change in any of the conditions may increase the required fire flow. (Fire)

15. There shall be two points of access for all phasing plans. (Fire)

16. Testing of all fire systems shall be performed prior to the sales office being opened for business. (Fire)

17. Framing construction cannot commerce until access roads and public fire hydrants are approved by the Fire Department. (Fire)

18. If this project will be phased, the fire department requirements for access and circulation throughout shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. Access roads shall comply with the California Fire Code and the City of Roseville’s Amendments. (Fire)

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

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

21. All landscaping in areas containing electrical service equipment shall conform to the “Electric Department Landscape Design Requirements” as outlined in Section 10.00 of the Electric Department’s “Specifications for Commercial Construction.” (Electric)

22. The Electric Department requires the submittal of the following information in order to complete the final electric design for the project:
a) one (1) set of improvement plans
b) load calculations
c) electrical panel one-line drawings

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

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

PRIOR TO OR UPON RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 25 of 29 25. All existing easements shall be maintained, unless otherwise provided for in these conditions. (Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering)

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

27. A declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs), in a form approved by the City Attorney, shall be recorded on the entire property concurrently with the Final/Parcel Map. The CC&Rs shall include the following item(s):
a) A clause stating that the property owners within this subdivision shall agree to participate in a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Plan and shall agree to enter into a Transportation Management Agreement with the City of Roseville. (Attorney) b) A clause prohibiting the amendment, revision or deletion of any sections in the CC&Rs required by these conditions of approval without the prior written consent of the City Attorney. (Attorney)
c) A clause excluding any property owned by the City from the terms of the CC&Rs. (Attorney) d) A clause prohibiting storage in the garages that displaces vehicle parking. (Planning)

28. The City shall not approve the Final Map for recordation until either:
a) A subdivision agreement is entered into along with the necessary bonds and insurance as required by the City. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

OR
b) The improvement plans are approved, and the improvements are constructed and accepted as complete. In this case, the subdivider shall enter into a one-year maintenance agreement concurrent with the recordation of the Final Map. (Engineering)

29. Any structures crossing Lot/Parcel lines created by the Final/Parcel map shall be removed. (Engineering)

30. Lot/Parcel A shall be dedicated as an easement (or in fee) to the City for the purposes of open space. (Engineering)

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

32. In the event that the Final (Parcel) Map will record prior to the completion of on-site construction, all utility and access easements shall be placed on the face of the Map to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If all on-site improvements are complete prior to the recordation of the map, then a separate agreement allowing all parcels/lots the rights of reciprocal access, rights to construct, and parking shall be submitted to the City as a part of final/parcel map submittal. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and referenced on the face of the recorded map. (Engineering)

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

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

35. The Final/Parcel Map shall be submitted per “The Digital Submittal of Cadastral Surveys.” A plot or print of the submittal shall accompany the electronic copy. The complete submittal shall occur after the SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 26 of 29 Engineering Department approval but prior to City Council approval of the Final/Parcel Map. (Engineering)

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

37. Electric construction costs incurred by the City of Roseville Electric Department for this project shall be paid for by the developer per the applicable policy. (Electric)

38. Additional internal easements will be required to cover primary electrical facilities to the project when the final electrical design is completed. (Electric)

39. All Electric Department facilities, including streetlights where applicable, shall be designed and built to the “City of Roseville Specifications for Commercial Construction.” (Electric)

40. The City of Roseville Electric Department has electrical construction charges which are to be paid by the developer and which are explained in the City of Roseville “Specification for Commercial Construction.” These charges will be determined upon completion of the final electrical design. (Electric)

41. The Environmental Utilities Department shall make a determination that there is adequate conveyance and treatment capacity in the City sewer system to handle the newly created Lot/Parcels. (Environmental Utilities)

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

OTHER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

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

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

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

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

47. The Tentative Subdivision Map shall not be deemed approved until the actions on the Development Agreement Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment are approved and become effective. (Planning) SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 27 of 29 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE TREE PERMIT – FILE #PL21-0256

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

1. All recommendations contained in the Arborist Report(s) (Attachment 2) are incorporated by reference into these conditions, except as modified herein. (Planning)

2. Trees #8511 and #8513 (or as listed in Attachment 2 and identified on Exhibit D) are approved for removal with this tree permit. All other native oak trees shall remain in place. Trees to be removed shall be clearly marked in the field and inspected by Planning Staff prior to removal. Removal of the trees shall be performed by or under the supervision of a certified arborist. (Planning)

3. The developer shall be responsible for the replacement of the total number of inches proposed for removal prior to any tree removal. The total number of inches for this project is 54. Mitigation must be provided prior to tree removal in the form of payment of in-lieu fees ($118 per inch) and/or combination of native and non-native tree plantings, unless otherwise approved in the tree replacement plan or in these conditions. (Planning)

4. No activity shall be permitted within the protected zone of any native oak tree beyond those identified by this report. (Planning)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. The applicant shall arrange with the arborist to perform, and certify in writing, the completion of deadwooding, fertilization, and all other work recommended for completion prior to the approval of SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 28 of 29 improvement plans. Pruning shall be done by an Arborist or under the direct supervision of a Certified Arborist, in conformance with International Society of Arboriculture (I.S.A.) standards. Any watering and deep root fertilization which the arborist deems necessary to protect the health of the trees as noted in the arborist report or as otherwise required by the arborist shall be completed by the applicant. (Planning)

11. A utility trenching pathway plan shall be submitted depicting all of the following systems: storm drains, sewers, water mains, and underground utilities. The trenching pathway plan shall show the proposed locations of all lateral lines. (Planning)

12. A Site Planning Meeting shall be held with the applicant, the applicant's primary contractor, the Planning Division and the Engineering Division to review this permit, the approved grading or improvement plans, and the tree fencing prior to any grading on-site. The Developer shall call the Planning Division and Engineering Division two weeks prior to the start of grading work to schedule the meeting and fencing inspection. (Planning)

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF FINAL

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

20. The approval of this Tree Permit shall expire on March 24, 2024. (Planning) SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia; 6350 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 29 of 29 ATTACHMENTS

1. Addendum to the SVSP EIR

2. Arborist Report

EXHIBITS
A. SVSP Change Pages Redlines
B. Draft First Amendment of the Baybrook DA
C. Draft Second Amendment of the Baseline P&R DA
D. Site Plan
E. Tentative Subdivision Map
F. Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan
G. Preliminary Utility Plan
H. Elevations
I. Floor Plans
J. Colors & Materials
K. Preliminary Landscape Plan
L. Site Details
Note to Applicant and/or Developer: Please contact Planning Division staff at (916) 774-5276 prior to the Commission meeting if you have any questions on any of the recommended conditions for your project. If you challenge the decision of the Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you or someone else raised at the public hearing held for this project, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Manager at, or prior to, the public hearing.

NOTE: Attachment 1 and Exhibits B-C are not
included with the Planning Commission Staff
Report because they are already included as
attachments to the Council Communication.
1243 High Street, Auburn, CA 95603 Office: 530.745.4086 Direct: 916.801.8059 California Tree and Landscape Consulting, Inc.

June 4, 2021
Laura Zuckerman
TCS Planning
11060 White Rock Road, Suite 150
Rancho Cordova, California 95670
Via Email: [email protected]

PRELIMINARY ARBORIST REPORT & TREE INVENTORY
RE: Sierra Vista, 6400 Baseline Road, APN 499-010-014, City of Roseville Jurisdiction Executive Summary
Towne Development of Sacramento contacted California Tree and Landscape Consulting, Inc. to inventory and evaluate the trees on the site for purposes of providing preliminary tree information for planning for development of the parcel.

The property is located at 6400 Baseline Road, in the City of Roseville, California, and is subject to the jurisdiction of Roseville. See Supporting Information Appendix 1 – Tree Inventory Map.

Edwin E. Stirtz, ISA Certified Arborist #WE-0510A, and Thomas M. Stein, ISA Certified Arborist WE-12854A, were on the site on May 5, 2021, to provide species identification, measurements of diameter and canopy, field condition notes, and arborist ratings. A total of 41 trees were included in the inventory, 9 of which are protected by the City of Roseville Tree Preservation Municipal Code 19.66.

Tree Species
Trees
Invento
ried
Trees
on
the
Site1
Protected
Trees
Trees Proposed
for Removal
Trees impacted by the
proposed development and
requiring special protection
measures
Predicted
Impact
Diameter Inches
Proposed for
Removal or
Impact
Interior Live Oak 2 2 2 1 n/a n/a n/a
Non-Protected:

Aleppo Pine, Almond,
American Elm, Arizona
Cypress, Black Locust, Black
Walnut, Casuarina,
Eucalyptus, European Olive,
Honey Locust, Interior Live
Oak, Mulberry, Oregon Ash,
Unknown
39 39 0 13 n/a n/a n/a
Totals 41 41 2 14 n/a n/a n/a
See Appendices for specific information on each tree and preservation requirements and/or restrictions. 1 CalTLC is not a licensed land surveyor. Tree locations are approximate and we do not determine tree ownership. Trees which appear to be on another parcel are listed as off-site and treated as the property of that parcel.

PC ATTACHMENT 2
Towne Development of Sacramento, 6400 Baseline Road, City of Roseville June 4, 2021 Consulting Arborists Page 2 of 14
Methods
Appendix 2 in this report is the detailed inventory of the trees. The following terms will further explain our methods and findings.

The protected trees evaluated as part of this report have a numbered tag that was placed on each one that is 1-1/8” x 1-3/8", green anodized aluminum, “acorn” shaped, and labeled: CalTLC, Auburn, CA with 1/4” pre-stamped tree number and Tree Tag. They are attached with a natural-colored aluminum 10d nail, installed at approximately 6 feet above ground level on the approximate north side of the tree. The tag should last ~10-20+ years depending on the species, before it is enveloped by the trees’ normal growth cycle.

A Level 2 – Basic Visual Assessment was performed in accordance with the International Society of Arboriculture’s best management practices. This assessment level is limited to the observation of conditions and defects which are readily visible. Additional limiting factors, such as blackberries, poison oak, and/or debris piled at the base of a tree can inhibit the visual assessment.

Tree Location: The GPS location of each tree was collected using the ESRI’s ArcGIS collector application on an Apple iPhone or Samsung. The data was then processed in ESRI’s ArcMap by Julie McNamara, M.S. GISci, to produce the Tree Location Map.

Tree Measurements: DBH (diameter breast high) is normally measured at 4’6” (above the average ground height for “Urban Forestry”), but if that varies then the location where it is measured is noted. A steel diameter tape was used to measure the diameter. A Stanley laser distance meter was used to measure distances. Canopy radius measurements may also have been estimated due to obstructions, such as steep slopes, fences, or other trees.

Terms
Field Tag # The pre-stamped tree number on the tag which is installed at approximately 6 feet above ground level on the north side of the tree.

Old Tag # If additional field tags are found on the trees and are legible, they are listed here.

Species The species of a tree is listed by our local and correct common name and botanical name by genus (capitalized) and species (lower case). Oaks frequently cross-pollinate and hybridize, but the identification is towards the strongest characteristics.

DBH Diameter breast high' is normally measured at 4’6” (above the average ground height for “Urban Forestry”), but if that varies then the location where it is measured is noted in the next column “measured at” Measured
at
Height above average ground level where the measurement of DBH was taken.

Canopy
Radius
The farthest extent of the crown composed of leaves and small twigs. Most trees are not evenly balanced.

This measurement represents the longest extension from the trunk to the outer canopy. The dripline measurement is from the center point of the tree and is shown on the Tree Location Map as a circle. This measurement further defines the protection zone if specified in the local ordinance as such or can indicate if pruning may be required for development
Protected
Root Zone
The radius of the protected root zone is a circle equal to the trunk diameter inches converted to feet and factored by tree age, condition and health pursuant to the industry standard. Best Management Practices:

Managing Trees During Construction, the companion publication to the Approved American National Standard, provides guidance regarding minimum tree root protection zones for long term survival. In instances where a tree is multi-stemmed, the protected root zone is equal to the extrapolated diameter (sum of the area of each stem converted to a single stem) factored by tree age, condition and health.

Towne Development of Sacramento, 6400 Baseline Road, City of Roseville June 4, 2021 Consulting Arborists Page 3 of 14
Arborist
Rating
Subjective to condition and is based on both the health and structure of the tree. All of the trees were rated for condition, per the recognized national standard as set up by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers and the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) on a numeric scale of 5 (being the highest) to 0 (the worst condition, dead) as in Chart A. The rating was done in the field at the time of the measuring and inspection.

No problem(s) Excellent 5 No problems found from a visual ground inspection.

Structurally, these trees have properly spaced branches and near perfect
No apparent
problem(s)
Good or Fair to
Good
4 The tree is in good condition and there are no apparent problems that a Certified Arborist can see from a visual ground inspection. If potential structural or health
problems are tended to at this stage future hazard can be reduced and more serious health problems can be averted.

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

Major or
uncorrectable
problems (2)
Fair to Poor 2 The tree has major problems. If the option is taken to preserve the tree, additional evaluation to identify if health or structure can be improved with correct arboricultural work including, but not limited to: pruning, cabling, bracing, bolting, guying, spraying, mistletoe removal, vertical
mulching, fertilization, etc. Additionally, risk should be evaluated as a tree rated 2 may have structural conditions which indicate there is a high likelihood of some type of failure. Tree rated 2 should be removed if these additional evaluations will not be performed.

Extreme problem(s) Poor 1 The problems are extreme. This rating is assigned to a tree that has structural and/or health problems that no amount of work or effort can change. The issues may or may not be considered a dangerous situation.

Dead Dead 0 This indicates the tree has no significant sign of life.

Notes: Provide notable details about each tree which are factors considered in the determination of the tree rating including: (a) condition of root crown and/or roots; (b) condition of trunk; (c) condition of limbs and structure; (d) growth history and twig condition; (e) leaf appearance; and (f) dripline environment.

Notes also indicate if the standard tree evaluation procedure was not followed (for example - why DBH may have been measured at a location other than the standard 54”). Additionally, notes will list any evaluation limiting factors such as debris at the base of a tree.

Actions Recommended actions to increase health and longevity.

Development
Impacts
Projected development impacts are based solely on distance relationships between tree location and grading. Field inspections and findings during the project at the time of grading and trenching can change relative impacts. Closely followed guidelines and requirements can result in a higher chance of survival, while requirements that are overlooked can result in a dramatically lower chance of survival.

Impacts are measured as follows:

Towne Development of Sacramento, 6400 Baseline Road, City of Roseville June 4, 2021 Consulting Arborists Page 4 of 14
Impact Term: Long Term Result of Impact:

Negligible Tree is unlikely to show any symptoms. Chance of survival post development is excellent. Impacts to the Protected Root Zone are less than 5%.

Minor Tree is likely to show minor symptoms. Chance of survival post development is good.

Impacts to the Protected Root Zone are less than 15% and species tolerance is good.

Moderate Tree is likely to show moderate symptoms. Chance of survival post development is fair.

Impacts to the Protected Root Zone are less than 35% and species tolerance is good or moderate.

Severe Tree is likely to show moderate symptoms annually and a pattern of decline. Chance of long-term survival post development is low. Impacts to the Protected Root Zone are up to 50% and species tolerance is moderate to poor.

Critical Tree is likely to show moderate to severe symptoms annually and a pattern of decline.

Chance of long-term survival post development is negligible. Impacts to the Protected Root Zone are up to 80%.

Discussion
Trees need to be protected from normal construction practices if they are to remain on the site and are expected to survive long term. While construction damage in the root zone is often the death of a tree, the time from when the damage occurs to when the symptoms begin and/or the tree dies can be years. Our recommendations are based on experience and the local ordinance requirements to enhance tree longevity. It requires the calculated root zone must remain intact as an underground ecosystem despite the use of heavy equipment to install foundations, driveways, underground utilities, and landscape irrigation systems. Simply walking and driving on soil can have serious consequences to tree health. The Tree Preservation Requirements and General Development Guidelines should be incorporated into the site plans and enforced onsite. The project arborist should be included in the development team during construction to provide expertise and make additional recommendations if additional impacts occur or tree response is poor.

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

The reality of where roots are generally located
Pruning Mature Trees for Risk Reduction and/or Development Clearance Towne Development of Sacramento, 6400 Baseline Road, City of Roseville June 4, 2021 Consulting Arborists Page 5 of 14
There are few good reasons to prune mature trees. Removal of deadwood, directional pruning, removal of decayed or damaged wood, and end-weight reduction as a method of mitigation for structural faults are the only reasons a mature tree should be pruned. Live wood over 3” should not be pruned unless absolutely necessary. Pruning cuts should be clean and correctly placed. Pruning should be done in accordance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 standards.

Pruning causes an open wound in the tree. Trees do not “heal” they compartmentalize. It is far better to use more small cuts than a few large cuts as small pruning wounds reduce risk while large wounds increase risk. Any wound made today will always remain, but a healthy tree, in the absence of decay in the wound, will ‘cover it’ with callus tissue. Large, old pruning wounds which did not close with callous tissue often have advanced decay. These wounds are a likely failure point. Mature trees with large wounds have a high risk of failure.

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

Arborist Classifications
There are different types of Arborists:

Tree Removal and/or Pruning Companies: These companies may be licensed by the State of California to do business as a tree removal company, but they do not necessarily know anything about trees biology.

Arborists: Arborist is a broad term intended to mean someone with specialized knowledge of trees, but it is often used to imply knowledge that is not there.

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

Consulting Arborist: An American Society of Consulting Arborists Registered Consulting Arborist is someone who has been trained and then tested to have specialized knowledge of trees; and trained and tested to provide high quality reports and documentation. You can look up registered consulting arborists at the American Society of Consulting Arborists website: ASCA-consultants.org.

Decay in Trees
Decay (in General): Fungi cause all decay of living trees. Decay is considered a disease because cell walls are altered, wood strength is affected, and living sapwood cells may be killed. Fungi decay wood by secreting enzymes. Different types of fungi cause different types of decay through the secretion of different chemical enzymes. Some decays, such as white rot, cause less wood strength loss than others because they first attack the lignin (causes cell walls to thicken and reduces susceptibility to decay and pest damage) secondarily the cellulose (another structural component in a cell walls). Others, such as soft rot, attack the cellulose chain and cause substantial losses in wood strength even in the initial stages of decay. Brown rot causes wood to become brittle and fractures easily with tension. Identification of internal decay in a tree is difficult because visible evidence may not be present.

Towne Development of Sacramento, 6400 Baseline Road, City of Roseville June 4, 2021 Consulting Arborists Page 6 of 14
According to Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas (Matheny, 1994) decay is a critical factor in the stability of the tree. As decay progresses in the trunk, the stem becomes a hollow tube or cylinder rather than a solid rod. This change is not readily apparent to the casual observer. Trees require only a small amount of bark and wood to transport water, minerals and sugars.

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

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

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

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

RECOMMENDATIONS: Summary of Tree Protection Measures
The Owner and/or Developer should ensure the project arborist’s protection measures are incorporated into the site plans and followed. Tree specific protection measures can be found in Appendix 2 – Tree Data. • The project arborist should inspect the fencing prior to grading and/or grubbing for compliance with the recommended protection zones.
• All stumps within the root zone of trees to be preserved shall be ground out using a stump router or left in place. No trunk within the root zone of other trees shall be removed using a backhoe or other piece of grading equipment.
• Prior to any grading, or other work on the site that will come within 50’ of any tree to be preserved, irrigation will be required from April through September and placement of a 4-6” layer of chip mulch over the protected root zone of all trees that will be impacted. Chips should be obtained from onsite materials and trees to be removed.
• Clearance pruning should include removal of all the lower foliage that may interfere with equipment PRIOR to having grading or other equipment on site. The Project Arborist should approve the extent of foliage elevation and oversee the pruning to be performed by a contractor who is an ISA Certified Arborist.

Towne Development of Sacramento, 6400 Baseline Road, City of Roseville June 4, 2021 Consulting Arborists Page 7 of 14
• Clearly designate an area on the site outside the drip line of all trees where construction materials may be stored, and parking can take place. No materials or parking shall take place within the root zones of protected trees.
• Any and all work to be performed inside the protected root zone fencing shall be supervised by the project arborist.
• Trenching inside the protected root zone shall be by a hydraulic or air spade, placing pipes underneath the roots, or boring deeper trenches underneath the roots.
• Follow all of the General Development Guidelines, Appendix 3, for all trees.

Report Prepared by:

Edwin E. Stirtz, Consulting Arborist
International Society of Arboriculture
Certified Arborist WE-0510A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists
Enc.: Appendix 1 – Tree Inventory Map
Appendix 2 – Tree Data
Appendix 3 – General Development Guidelines
Bibliography
International Society of Arboriculture. (2015). Glossary of Arboricultural Terms. Champaign: International Society of Arboriculture.

L.R., C. (2003). Reducing Infrastructure Damage by Tree Roots. Porterville: International Society of Arboriculture.

Matheny, J. C. (1994). Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas, Second Edition. Champaign: International Society of Arboriculture.

Menzer, K. (2008). Consulting Arborist Report.

Smiley. (2008). Managing Trees During Construction, Best Management Practices. Champaign: International Society of Arboriculture.

Stamen, R. (1997). California Arboriculture Law. Riverside: Law Offices of Randall S. Stamen.

Tree Care Industry Association. (2017). Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management - Standard Practices (Pruning).

Londonderry: Tree Care Industry Association.

Urban, J. (2008). Up by the Roots. Champaign: International Society of Arboriculture.

Towne Development of Sacramento, 6400 Baseline Road, City of Roseville June 4, 2021 Consulting Arborists Page 8 of 14
APPENDIX 1 – TREE INVENTORY MAP
Towne Development of Sacramento, 6400 Baseline Road, City of Roseville June 4, 2021 Consulting Arborists Page 9 of 14
APPENDIX 2 – TREE DATA
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName
Botanical
Name
MultiStems DBH Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
Non-Protected Trees*
1 No No Interior Live
Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 5 54 6
3 Fair - Minor
Problems
Substandard size tree
adjacent to the gravel road.
3" Live Oak 3' south.

None at this time.
2 No No Eucalyptus Eucalyptus
globulus 45 54 35
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
Large Eucalyptus forks 4.5'
above grade with weak
attachments.

None at this time.
3 No No Eucalyptus Eucalyptus
globulus 14,17 31 54 28
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
Forks 1' above grade with
weak attachments. Above
average amount of dead
branches.

None at this time.
4 No No Eucalyptus Eucalyptus
globulus 16 54 28
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
None at this time.
5 No No Eucalyptus Eucalyptus
globulus 29,33 62 54 33
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
Two smaller Eucalyptus
trees directly north of this
tree.

None at this time.
6 No No Eucalyptus Eucalyptus
globulus 12,12 24 54 19
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
Forks at grade. One 12"
Eucalyptus to the north. Two
trees to the south (one 13"
and one 10,11,12").

None at this time.
7 No No Eucalyptus Eucalyptus
globulus 24 54 24
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
Growing adjacent to old
barn. Reaction growth over
concrete slab.

None at this time.
8 No No Black Locust Robinia
pseudoacacia 15 54 18
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
Single stem. Poor condition.

Excessive deadwood and
sparse foliage.

None at this time.
9 No No Unknown Unknown 10 54 9
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
None at this time.
10 No No Eucalyptus Eucalyptus
globulus 12,13,28 53 54 28
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
One-sided south. Smaller
Eucalyptus directly north
with stems 12,14".

None at this time.
11 No No Honey
Locust
Gleditsia
triacanthos 8 54 14
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
One stem surrounded by 4
volunteers, 4-5" each. Poor
condition.

None at this time.
12 No No Eucalyptus Eucalyptus
globulus 47 54 32
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
Forks 4.5' above grade into 2
large stems, both leaning
northwest.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of defects.

Towne Development of Sacramento, 6400 Baseline Road, City of Roseville June 4, 2021 Consulting Arborists Page 10 of 14
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName
Botanical
Name
MultiStems DBH Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
13 No No Almond Prunus dulcis 12 54 11
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
Tree is 95% dead. None at this time.
14 No No Eucalyptus Eucalyptus
globulus 25 54 0 Dead Tree is dead
Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of defects.
15 No No Arizona
Cypress
Cupressus
arizonica 12 54 8
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
None at this time.
16 No No Eucalyptus Eucalyptus
globulus 25 54 30
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
Dead branches, leans. None at this time.
17 No No Arizona
Cypress
Cupressus
arizonica 7 54 5
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
None at this time.
18 No No Aleppo Pine Pinus
halepensis 23 54 21
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
Trunk leans south and bends
east.

None at this time.
19 No No Casuarina Casuarina
equisetifolia 17 54 22
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
None at this time.
20 No No Eucalyptus Eucalyptus
globulus 25 36 19
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
None at this time.
21 No No Eucalyptus Eucalyptus
globulus 15 54 17
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
None at this time.
22 No No Eucalyptus Eucalyptus
globulus 17 54 28
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
None at this time.
23 No No American
Elm
Ulmus
americana 26 54 17
1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems
Poor condition. Forks into
codominant stems 5' above
grade. Northerly stem
broken 9' above grade. Tree
is 90% dead.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of defects.
24 No No Almond Prunus dulcis 5,6,8,12 31 54 10
1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems
Above average dead
branches.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of defects.
25 No No Almond Prunus dulcis 8,8 16 54 9
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
None at this time.

Towne Development of Sacramento, 6400 Baseline Road, City of Roseville June 4, 2021 Consulting Arborists Page 11 of 14
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName
Botanical
Name
MultiStems DBH Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
26 No No Almond Prunus dulcis 5,6 11 54 3 0 Dead Tree is dead.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of defects.
27 No No Almond Prunus dulcis 4,4,5,5,5 23 54 8
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
Poor condition. None at this time.
28 No No Mulberry Morus 16 36 2
1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems
Tree is 90% dead.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of defects.
29 No No Eucalyptus Eucalyptus
globulus 30 54 32
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
None at this time.
30 No No Eucalyptus Eucalyptus
globulus 34 54 30
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
5 small Eucalyptus 3-4"
beneath this tree and the
previous tree.

None at this time.
31 No No European
Olive
Olea
europaea
3,4,5,7 19 54 12
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
Poor structure. None at this time.
32 No No Eucalyptus Eucalyptus
globulus 13 54 14
2 Major
Structure or
Health Problems
None at this time.
8509 1509 Yes No Black Walnut Juglans nigra 10,11,13,19 53 54 30 1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems
Branches 1' above grade.

Large basal cavity. Moderate
decay. Canopy ~50% dead.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of defects.
8510 Yes No Oregon Ash Fraxinus
latifolia 8 54 9
1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems
Trunk split from grade to 12'
above grade. Half missing
with extreme decay.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of defects.
8512 1589 Yes No Black Walnut Juglans nigra 17 54 17
1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems
Trunk leans slightly south.

Codominant branching at 5'
above grade with included
bark. Canopy is 70% dead.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of defects.
8514 Yes No Black Walnut Juglans nigra 18 12 16
1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems
Branches 2-3' above grade.

Canopy ~50% dead.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of defects.
8515 1579 Yes No Black Walnut Juglans nigra 18 54 22
1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems
Codominant branching 6'
above grade with included
bark. Canopy ~30% dead.

Moderate lean north.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of defects.

Towne Development of Sacramento, 6400 Baseline Road, City of Roseville June 4, 2021 Consulting Arborists Page 12 of 14
Tag
#
Old
Tag
#
Protected
By Code Offsite CommonName
Botanical
Name
MultiStems DBH Measured
At
Measured
Canopy
Radius
Arborist
Rating Notes Recommendations
8516 1581 Yes No Black Walnut Juglans nigra 4,5,6 15 54 19 1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems
Branches at grade. Canopy
~50% dead. Broken
branches throughout.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of defects.
8517 1582 Yes No Black Walnut Juglans nigra 6,6 12 54 14 1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems
Branches 1' above grade.

Canopy ~45% dead.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of defects.

Protected Trees**
8511 1587 Yes No Interior Live
Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 31 54 32 3 Fair - Minor Problems
Moderate lean west from
grade to 8' above grade.

One-sided east.

Canopy raise on
east side.
8513 1586 Yes No Interior Live
Oak
Quercus
wislizeni 23 54 17
1 Extreme
Structure or
Health Problems
Mechanical wound south
side from grade to 7' above
grade. Partially callused.

Extreme decay. Fruiting
bodies. Extremely sparse
canopy.

Recommend
removal due to
nature and extent
of defects.

TOTAL INVENTORIED TREES = 41 trees (932 aggregate diameter inches) TOTAL RECOMMENDED REMOVALS = 14 trees (320 aggregate diameter inches) Rating (0-5, where 0 is Dead) = 0=2 trees; 1=11 trees; 2=26 trees; 3=2 trees Total Non-Protected Trees = 39 trees (878 aggregate diameter inches) Total Protected Trees = 2 trees (54 aggregate diameter inches) *Non-Protected Trees for identification purposes, not numbered in the field. **Protected Trees tagged in the field.

Towne Development of Sacramento, 6400 Baseline Road, City of Roseville June 4, 2021 Consulting Arborists Page 13 of 14
APPENDIX 3 – GENERAL PRACTICES FOR TREE PROTECTION
Definitions
Root zone: The roots of trees grow fairly close to the surface of the soil, and spread out in a radial direction from the trunk of tree. A general rule of thumb is that they spread 2 to 3 times the radius of the canopy, or 1 to 1 ½ times the height of the tree. It is generally accepted that disturbance to root zones should be kept as far as possible from the trunk of a tree.

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

Methods Used in Tree Protection:

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

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

Irrigate, Fertilize, Mulch: Prior to grading on the site near any tree, the area within the Tree Protection fence should be fertilized with 4 pounds of nitrogen per 1000 square feet, and the fertilizer irrigated in. The irrigation should percolate at least 24 inches into the soil. This should be done no less than 2 weeks prior to grading or other root disturbing activities.

After irrigating, cover the RPZ with at least 12” of leaf and twig mulch. Such mulch can be obtained from chipping or grinding the limbs of any trees removed on the site. Acceptable mulches can be obtained from nurseries or other commercial sources. Fibrous or shredded redwood or cedar bark mulch shall not be used anywhere on site.

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

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

The fence should be highly visible, and stout enough to keep vehicles and other equipment out. I recommend the fence be made of orange plastic protective fencing, kept in place by t-posts set no farther apart than 6’.

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

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

Towne Development of Sacramento, 6400 Baseline Road, City of Roseville June 4, 2021 Consulting Arborists Page 14 of 14
Where tree trunks are within 3’ of the construction area, place 2” by 4” boards vertically against the tree trunks, even if fenced off. Hold the boards in place with wire. Do not nail them directly to the tree. The purpose of the boards is to protect the trunk, should any equipment stray into the RPZ.

Elevate Foliage: Where indicated, remove lower foliage from a tree to prevent limb breakage by equipment. Low foliage can usually be removed without harming the tree, unless more than 25% of the foliage is removed. Branches need to be removed at the anatomically correct location in order to prevent decay organisms from entering the trunk. For this reason, a contractor who is an ISA Certified Arborist should perform all pruning on protected trees.2 Expose and Cut Roots: Breaking roots with a backhoe, or crushing them with a grader, causes significant injury, which may subject the roots to decay. Ripping roots may cause them to splinter toward the base of the tree, creating much more injury than a clean cut would make. At any location where the root zone of a tree will be impacted by a trench or a cut (including a cut required for a fill and compaction), the roots shall be exposed with either a backhoe digging radially to the trunk, by hand digging, or by a hydraulic air spade, and then cut cleanly with a sharp instrument, such as chainsaw with a carbide chain. Once the roots are severed, the area behind the cut should be moistened and mulched. A root protection fence should also be erected to protect the remaining roots, if it is not already in place. Further grading or backhoe work required outside the established RPZ can then continue without further protection measures.

Protect Roots in Deeper Trenches: The location of utilities on the site can be very detrimental to trees. Design the project to use as few trenches as possible, and to keep them away from the major trees to be protected. Wherever possible, in areas where trenches will be very deep, consider boring under the roots of the trees, rather than digging the trench through the roots. This technique can be quite useful for utility trenches and pipelines.

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

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

Monitoring Tree Health During and After Construction: The Project Arborist should visit the site at least twice a month during construction to be certain the tree protection measures are being followed, to monitor the health of impacted trees, and make recommendations as to irrigation or other needs. After construction is complete, the arborist should monitor the site monthly for one year and make recommendations for care where needed.

Chemical Treatments: The owner or developer shall be responsible to contact an arborist with a pesticide applicators license to arrange for an application of a root enhancing hormone, such as Paclobutrazol, to mitigate the stress produced by the development prior to grading. Additionally, at the discretion of the project arborist, an insect infestation preventative for both boring insects and leaf feeding insects and/or fungal preventative for leaf surfaces may be required. Roots pruned during the course of performing a cut may be required to be treated with a biofungicide such as Bio-Tam.
2 International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), maintains a program of Certifying individuals. Each Certified Arborist has a number and must maintain continuing education credits to remain Certified.

City of Roseville 4-3LAND USE PLAN
Figure 4-1: Land Use Map

PC EXHIBIT A
4-6 City of Roseville
Table 4-2: Land Use, Zoning, & Acreage by Parcel (cont.)

PARCEL GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
(Specific Plan Land Use) ZONING ACRES ALLOCATED UNITS DENSITY JM-1 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 17.16 135 7.9
JM-2 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 29.70 187 6.3
JM-3 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 30.20 127 4.2
JM-4 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 26.40 132 5.0
JM-20 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 39.70 322 8.1
JM-21 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 18.80 80 4.3
JM-30 HDR (Residential) R3 7.51 176 23.5
JM-40 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 4.57 35 7.6
JM-41 CC (Commercial/Business Professional) CC/SA 13.50 JM-50 PR (Park) PR 7.94
JM-51 PR (Park) PR 2.59
JM-52 PR (Park) PR 1.50
JM-60 Public/Quasi-Public (Well) P/QP 0.36
JM-61 Public/Quasi-Public (Elementary School) P/QP 12.00 JM-70 OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 0.26
JM-71 OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 0.7
JM-72 OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 0.25
JM-73 OS (Open Space/Paseo) OS 1.27
JM-80 OS (Open Space) OS 0.63
JM-81 OS (Open Space) OS 6.44
JM-82 OS (Open Space) OS 2.80
JM-83 OS (Open Space) OS 6.27
JM-84 OS (Open Space) OS 10.40
JM-85 OS (Open Space) OS 14.80
Sub-totals (Mourier Investments LLC) 255.75 1,194
KT-1A LDR (Residential) RS/DS 14.35 60 4.2
KT-1B LDR (Residential) RS/DS 19.60 95 4.8
KT-2 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 25.37 125 4.9
KT-3A LDR (Residential) RS/DS 20.60 110 5.3
KT-3B LDR (Residential) RS/DS 17.40 97 5.6
KT-4 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 15.89 82 5.2
KT-5 LDR (Residential) RS/DS 23.93 140 5.8
KT-20 MDR (Residential) RS/DS 24.62 167 6.8
KT-21A MDR (Residential) RS/DS 18.68 135 7.2
KT-21B MDR (Residential) RS/DS 21.66 152 7.0
KT-30 HDR (Residential) R3 7.40 171 23.1
KT-40A CC (Commercial Mixed Use) CMU/SA 5.3916.04 46209 8.513.0 KT-40B CC (Commercial Mixed Use) CMU/SA 18.103.44 163 8.8 KT-40C CC (Commercial Mixed Use) CMU/SA 3.94
KT-41A CC (Commercial) GC 25.52
KT-41B CC (Commercial) GC 29.52
KT-42 CC (Commercial) GC 8.45
KT-43 Commercial/Business Professional CC/SA 11.91
KT-50 PR (Park) PR 38.80
KT-51 PR (Park) PR 4.36
KT-52 PR (Park) PR 7.61
KT-60 Public/Quasi-Public (Sewer Lift Station) P/QP 0.22 KT-61 Public/Quasi-Public (Elementary School) P/QP 11.94 KT-80A OS (Open Space) OS 17.68
KT-80B OS (Open Space) OS 17.47
KT-81 OS (Open Space) OS 4.54
KT-82 OS (Open Space) OS 0.61
Sub-totals (KT Development) 411.62411
.55 1,543
City of Roseville 4-13LAND USE PLAN
Community Commercial (CC) – Mixed Use
FAR & Density: Commercial/Office: Up to 3.0 FAR
Residential: 13.0 dwelling units per acre and higher
Applied Zoning
Districts: CMU/SA – Commercial Mixed Use/Special Area overlay Description: Sites with a Community Commercial (CC) – Mixed Use designation are intended to develop as mixed-use centers that allow for a combination of commercial, office, and residential uses. To foster this type of development pattern, these sites have a Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) zoning
district, which is combined with a Special Area (SA) overlay.

These sites are intended to promote a variety of commercial use types and the flexible citing of other uses that are typically considered to be compatible with commercial
development.

The permitted uses on these parcels could be mixed in either a horizontal or vertical manner. This means that a
commercial/office component could be co-located on the
same site with a residential component, or that a
commercial/office component could be located on the
ground floor of a multi-story residential component. This allows flexibility for future market conditions while
maintaining sites for local neighborhood services.

At full buildout of the Plan Area, these CMU parcels can accommodate approximately 366,000 sq. ft. of
commercial/office uses (assuming FAR of 0.4 for the portion of each site assumed to be non-residential) and 255 249 residential units.

The development allocation is assumed to be 60%
commercial/office and 40% high-density residential. While the intent is that each CMU site develops with a mixture of uses, it could develop solely as a commercial use, or with a different mixture of commercial/residential uses, provided some non-residential use is provided. Therefore, the final development plan for each site may ultimately deviate from the square footage/ dwelling unit assumptions listed in Table 4-2. See Figure B-23 for an illustrative concept plan.

Parcel KT-40A is designated for 209 multi-family residential units and Parcels KT-40B and KT-40C are designated for
commercial uses. See Table 4-3 on the following page for a list of permitted uses for Parcels KT-40B and KT-40C.

Permitted Uses &
Development
Standards
As specified in the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance.

Table 4-3: CMU/SA Permitted Use Types for Parcel KT-40B and KT-40C

AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE USE TYPES CMU/SA
Resource Protection & Restoration -
Resource Related Restoration -

CIVIC USE TYPES CMU/SA
Community Assembly -
Community Services -
Essential Services P
Hospital Services
General Hospital Services -
Psychiatric Hospital Services -
Libraries & Museums, Private -
Public Parking Services -
Schools
College & University CUP
Public/Private Elementary & Secondary -
Social Services
Food Distribution -
Food Service -
Temporary Resident Shelter -
Power Generating Facilities
Emergency -
Supplemental/Individual Use -
Passive Power -

RESIDENTIAL USE TYPES CMU/SA
Caretaker/Employee Housing -
Dwelling
Multi-Family P
Single-Family -
Two-Family -
Family Day Care Home, Small -
Family Day Care Home, Large -
Single Room Occupant -

COMMERCIAL USE TYPES CMU/SA
Adult Business Establishments -
Animal Sales & Services
Grooming & Pet Stores P
Kennels -
Veterinary Clinics P
Veterinary Hospital -
Automotive & Equipment
Automotive Rentals -
Automotive Repairs -
Automotive Sales -
Car Wash and Detailing -
Commercial Parking -
Heavy Equipment Rental, Repair and
Sales
-
Equipment Repair -
4-14 City of Roseville
Gasoline Sales -
Banks & Financial Services (1) P
Bars & Drinking Places P
Broadcasting and Recording Studios -
Building Materials Stores -
Business Support Services P
Commercial Recreation
Amusement Center P
Indoor Entertainment P
Indoor Sports and Recreation P
Outdoor Entertainment -
Outdoor Sports and Recreation -
Large Amusement Complexes -
Community Care Facility P
Day Care Center P
Eating and Drinking Establishment
Fast Food with Drive Through -
Convenience P
Full Service P
Food & Beverage Retail Sales P
Funeral & Internment Services -
Lodging Services -
Long Term Care Facility -
Maintenance and Repair -
Medical Services, General P
Neighborhood Commercial P
Nightclubs -
Nursery, Retail -
Offices, Professional (1) P
Personal Services (2) P
Retail Sales and Services (1) (3) P
Specialized Education & Training
Vocational Schools CUP
Specialty Schools CUP
Storage, Personal Storage Facility -

INDUSTRIAL USE TYPES CMU/SA
Laundries, Commercial -
Printing & Publishing -
Research Services -
Wholesale & Distribution, Light -

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION USE TYPES CMU/SA
Antennas & Communications Facilities
Developed Lot -
Undeveloped Lot -
Heliport -
Intermodal Facilities -
City of Roseville 4-15LAND USE PLAN
All highlighted uses have been modified by the SVSP SA Overlay. (P) Principally Permitted
(CUP) Permitted through approval of a Conditional Use Permit (A) Administratively Permitted
(-) Not Permitted
Notes:
(1) Cash advance and bail bonds are not permitted uses within the Banks and Financial Services, Professional Office and Retail Sales and Services use types. (2) Tattoo shops and body piercing shops are not permitted uses within the Personal Services use type.
(3) Smoke shops, hookah lounges and smoking lounges are not permitted uses within the Retail Sales and Services use type.
4-16 City of Roseville
City of Roseville 6-5
CIR
C
U
L
A
T IO
N
P
L
A
N
Figure 6-1: Roadway System MDR
City of Roseville 6-9
CIR
C
U
L
A
T IO
N
P
L
A
N
Figure 6-6: Arterial Roadway Traffic Signals and Median Breaks MDR City of Roseville 6-23
CIR
C
U
L
A
T IO
N
P
L
A
N
Notes:

Decomposed granite/gravel shoulders not includ
Creek crossings are subject to approvals from the appropriate federal and state agencies. ed for Class I bikeways along Santucci Blvd.

Figure 6-21: Class I and II Bikeways
City of Roseville 6-27
CIR
C
U
L
A
T IO
N
P
L
A
N
Figure 6-24: Bus Pull-Out and Shelter Locations MDR
City of Roseville 6-29
CIR
C
U
L
A
T IO
N
P
L
A
N
Figure 6-25: Park & Ride Facilities
City of Roseville 7-3
P
U
B
L IC
S
E
R
VIC
E
S
Figure 7-1: Parks and Open Space Plan
City of Roseville 7-23
P
U
B
L IC
S
E
R
VIC
E
S
Figure 7-2: School Sites and District Boundaries
City of Roseville 8-5
U

T IL I T IE
S
P
L
A
N
Figure 8-1: Water Distribution System, Storage Tank, and Well Locations City of Roseville 8-7
U

T IL I T IE
S
P
L
A
N
Figure 8-2: Recycled Water Distribution System
City of Roseville 8-9
U

T IL I T IE
S
P
L
A
N
Figure 8-3: Wastewater Collection System
City of Roseville 8-11
U

T IL I T IE
S
P
L
A
N
Figure 8-4: Drainage Improvements
NOTE: This is a graphic representation. Refer to the Sierra Vista Engineering Solutions, Inc.,
Specific Plan Drainage and Stormwater Master Plan, prepared by Civil for additional details.

City of Roseville 8-19
U

T IL I T IE
S
P
L
A
N
Figure 8-6: Electrical Substation and Power Line Alignments City of Roseville B-11
D
E
SIG
N
G
UID
E
L IN
E
S
Figure B-2: Entry Feature Locations MDR
City of Roseville B-15
D
E
SIG
N
G
UID
E
L IN
E
S
Figure B-3: Wall and Fence Locations MDR
City of Roseville B-23
D
E
SIG
N
G
UID
E
L IN
E
S
Note: Bikeway alignments in open space areas are conceptual and may be refined as detention facilities are designed.

Figure B-5: Paseo Plan MDR
City of Roseville B-41
D
E
SIG
N
G
UID
E
L IN
E
S
Figure B-22: Village Node District
Figure B-25: Neighborhood Connectivity and Gated Subdivisions - updated April 2021 City of Roseville B-47
G
G G
MDR
883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896

FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO
888+xx.xx ANG PT 888+xx.xx ANG PT
24"SD D D
D
D
11'
6'
11'11'
12'

12.5'

12.5'
6'
11'
12'
11'
12'

ENTRY STREET A
AISLE 5
AISLE 5
AISLE 4
AISLE 3 AISLE 3
AISLE 3
AISLE 2
AISLE 1
AISLE 6
AISLE 7

ACCESS ROAD
FL 83.01
FL 82.90
HP 83.50
S=0.0030
s=0.0036
S=0.0036
S=1.0%
FL 82.06
FL=82.0
FL=82.12
PROPOSED 6' SOUND WALL

RIGHT OF WAY

GATED PROPERTY

ENTRY/EXIT

PROPERTY ENTRY/ EXIT
6' WROUGHT IRON FENCE
6' WROUGHT IRON FENCE

EXISTING ABANDONED

STRUCTURE

EXISTING ROAD

TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED 6' SOUND WALL

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
6' WROUGHT IRON FENCE

ADA PARKING ADA PARKING

ADA PARKING

VAN ACCESS

PARKING

PROPOSED DOG PARK, WITH
DECORATIVE 6' CHAIN LINK
FENCE

BIKE PATH/UTILITY

ACCESS ROAD TO BE

CONSTRUCTED WITH

SIERRA VISTA VILLAGE
KT-20B (BY OTHERS)

EXISTING ABANDONED

STRUCTURE

LOT A OPEN SPACE

LOT A OPEN SPACE
PROPOSED 6' SOUND WALL

GATED ENTRY/EXIT

GATED CONNECTION TO

UTILITY ACCESS ROAD

CONNECTION TO BIKE PATH AND

UTILITY ACCESS ROAD

BASELINE ROAD

GATED CONNECTION

TO BIKE PATH

GATE ACCESS

FOR BIO-RETENTION

GATE ACCESS

TO DOG PARK
9' STANDARD
9' COMPACT
4" STRIPE WIDTH
20" BETWEEN

OUTSIDE EDGE

OF STRIPES
18' STANDARD
16' COMPACT

PARKING STALL DOUBLE
STRIPED DETAIL N.T.S.

SIERRA VISTA ESTIA
SITE

NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND

PROPOSED BUILDINGPROPOSED GARAGE

PROJECT SUMMARY

PROPOSED ZONINGPROPOSED ACREAGEPROPOSED UNIT PER ACRE

TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS

REQUIRED PARKING

PROPOSEDPARKING

16.04 ACRE

SITE PLAN

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, COUNTY OF PLACER, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY, 2022
(916) 366-3040 Fax (916) 366-3303
905 Sutter Street Suite 200 Folsom CA 95630
Civil Engineers | Land Surveyors | LiDAR
R. E. Y. ENGINEERS, Inc.
36 GARAGE SPACES357 PARKING SPACES
CMU/SA
13 UNITS PER ACRE
209
390

ABBREVIATIONS

TYPICAL

PLANTING AREA
(TYP)
PA

ACCESSIBLE PARKING

STALL ADA

CHAIN LINK DECORATIVE FENCING FOR DOG PARK

BUILDING LIGHTING

DRIVE AISLE AND ENTRY LIGHTING

OPEN SPACE /
DRAINAGE - LOT A 0.55 ACRE
TOTAL ACREAGE 16.49 ACRE

UTILITY EASEMENT

TO BE ABANDONED

ACCESSIBLE PARKING
REQUIRED 1 VAN ACCESSIBLE
7 STANDARD ACCESSIBLE
20'

SCALE IN FEET
0 40' 80'
1- BEDROOM UNITS 96
2- BEDROOM UNITS 113
3&(;+,%,7'
B
A1A2
110' R/W
(BOC TO BOC)
40' LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR

PUE/LE/PE
8'
WALK
14'
MEDIAN
12'
TRAVEL
LANE
11'
TRAVEL
LANE
11'
TRAVEL
LANE
6'
BIKE
LANE
7' 7'
3'
3' C&G
C&G
CL

R/W R/W
110' ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY
SCALE: N.T.S.

BASELINE ROAD
60' 50'
5'
BIKE
LANE
11'
TRAVEL
LANE
11'
TRAVEL
LANE
12'
TRAVEL
LANE

TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS
TYPE 2 CURB &
GUTTER
11'
TRAVEL
LANE
3' C&G
42' RIGHT-OF-WAY
SCALE: N.T.S.
3' C&G
CL
TYPE 2 VERTICAL

CURB & GUTTER

R/W R/W
19'
16' 16'
42'
23'
4' SIDEWALK
25'
15'
A1

INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS
SCALE: N.T.S.

BASELINE ROAD
(PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS)
11'
TRAVEL
LANE
11'

TWO-WAY

LEFT TURN
11'
TRAVEL
LANE
CL
EP
FC

FUTURE ROAD

WIDENING (BY OTHERS)
FUTURE
R/W
±2% ±2%
11'
TRAVEL
5' LANE
BIKE
11'
TRAVEL
LANE

67.5' BY OTHERS
4'
2' SHOULDER

32.5'
40' PUE/LE/PE
8'
WALK
TYPE 2 CURB &
GUTTER
60' R/W
EP
50' R/W
10'
TRAVEL
LANE
3' C&G
3' C&G
42' RIGHT-OF-WAY
SCALE: N.T.S.
3' C&G
CL
TYPE 2 VERTICAL

CURB & GUTTER

R/W R/W
21'
18' 18'
42'
21'
5' SIDEWALK
B
3' C&G
46' RIGHT-OF-WAY
SCALE: N.T.S.
3' C&G
CL
TYPE 2 VERTICAL

CURB & GUTTER

R/W R/W
27'
24' 16'
46'
19'
4' SIDEWALK
A2
Civil Engineers / Land Surveyors
(916) 366-3040 Fax (916) 366-3303
905 Sutter St. Ste 200 Folsom CA 95630
R. E. Y. ENGINEERS, Inc.
3&(;+,%,7(
FL 81.50
FL 79.90
S=
FL 80.73
S=0.0049
s=0.0050
S=0.0036
S=1.0%
FL 82.06
FL=80.0
FL=82.0
FL=80.29
FL=82.12
HP 80.30
S=0.0048
FL 82.0
S=0.0048
D D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
FL 83.01
FL 82.90
S=0.0030
HP 83.50
S=0.0030
s=0.0036
S=0.0036
S=1.0%
FL 82.06
FL=80.0
FL=82.0
FL=80.29
FL=82.12
S=1.51%
S=4.77%
S=1.28%
FL 81.98 Fg 83.5
Fg 83.5
Fg 83.5
Fg 83.5
Fg 84.0
Fg 89.25
Fg 89.0
Fg 88.0
Fg 87.0
Fg 85.0
Fg 86.0
Fg 84.0
Fg 89.45
Fg 88.0
Fg 87.0
Fg 86.0
Fg 89.0
Fg 86.0
Fg 86.3
14 19
20 17
18 114 115
112 113
118 119
116 117
96 97
88 89
90 91
94 92 93
95 110 111
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
56 57
54 55
50 51
52 53
49 46
39 38 40
41 43
42 44
45 30
29 36
35 3231 34
33 166 167
164 165
152 153
154 155
124 125
126 127
120 121
122 123
128 129
48 47
27 28
158 159
156 157
142
141 143
140
162 163
160 161
144 146
138
137 139
136
37 15
16 188
189
175
174 176
177
186
187 185
184
179
178
181
180 182
183
170 171
172 173
168 169
195
194 196
197 207
206 208
209 203
202 204
205 199
198 200
201 71
70 68 69
66 67
73 72 74
75 81
80 82
83 85
84 86
87 77
76 78
79 190
191 193
192
98 99
106 107
104 105
100 101
102 103
108 109
60 61
58 59
65 62 63
130 131
132 133
134 135
149
148
145
150
151
147
64 23
25 26
TBC 94.28 LP
TBC 94.47
TBC 93.61
TBC 93.73 HP
TBC 95.40
TBC 94.43
TBC 94.205
TBC 94.16
TBC 92.

TBC 93.39 LP TBC 92.67
TBC 95.36 TBC 94.93 TBC 94.70 TBC 94.39 LP TBC 94.73
TBC 94.78 HP TBC 94.47
TBC 94.28 LP
FL 93.81 FL 92.93
FL 92.99
FL 93.57
FL 92.61
FL 92.18
FL 91.11
FL 91.07
FL 91.55 FL 91.06 FL 90.67
FL 91.04
FL 90.13
FL 90.60
FL 90.93
FL 91.47
FL 93.23
FL 90.83
FL 90.56
FL 92.85
FL 93.21
FL 93.35
FL 92.24
FL 93.62
FL 91.97
FL 92.51
FL 90.85
GB 90.29
GB 91.52
GB 90.26 GB 90.60
GB 91.16
GB 90.80 GB 91.18
EP 93.60 HP 94.23
GB 93.41
HP 92.54
GB 92.01 GB 91.50
GB 91.00
EP 91.34
GB 93.39
FG 92.97 CL
GB 91.20
GB 90.68
GB 92.54
FG 92.78
FG 91.39
FG 91.15
FG 91.87
FG 91.11
FG 91.14
FG 92.31
FG 92.79
FG 92.73FG 94.00
FG 94.12
FG 92.56
FG 93.58
FG 93.55 FG 92.98 FG 93.00 FG 93.72 FG 93.55 FG 93.95 FG 94.03 FG 94.47 FG 94.08 FG 95.38 FG 93.20
FG 92.80
FG 93.11
FG 94.26 FG 94.76 FG 93.30 FG 93.76 FG 92.77 EP 93.45
HP 94.37
EP 93.66
EP 92.43
EP 92.34
EP 91.93
EP 94.04
EP 91.51
EP 90.95
EP 90.92
EP 90.56
EP 91.19
EP 91.67 EP 91.71
EP 92.94 EP 93.85
EP 93.56 EP 93.32 EP 93.17
FG 93.14 FG 92.33 FG 92.93 FG 93.83
FG 93.35
FG 93.66
FG 93.58
FG 93.11 FG 92.31
FG 91.82
FG 92.23 FG 92.73
FG 92.88
FG 92.92
FG 93.80
FG 91.93
FG 91.70 FG 91.85
FG 91.42
FG 92.83
FG 93.20
FG 93.19
FG 93.18
FG 93.25
FG 91.85
FG 92.96
FG 91.90
FG 92.10
FG 91.51
FG 91.47
FG 92.64
FG 91.75
FG 92.29
FG 92.84
FG 94.26
FG 93.78
FG 93.46
FG 93.19 FG 93.91
FG 92.14
FG 92.07
EP 93.15
EP 92.74
EP 92.32
EP 92.80
EP 92.36
EP 91.47
EP 91.97
EP 92.20
EP 91.31
EP 91.67
FG 92.14
FG 91.81
EP 91.20
EP 91.21
EP 91.04
FG 93.25
FG 92.58
FG 92.63
FG 92.10
FG 91.61 FG 91.65
FG 91.31
FG 91.57
FG 92.29
FG 92.05
FG 92.66
FG 92.96
FG 93.06
EP 92.36
EP 92.47
FG 92.45
FG 92.89
GB 92.73 GB 92.96
GB 93.21 GB 93.13
FG 91.00
FG 91.74
FG 93.74
FG 92.92
FG 93.45
FG 93.90
FG 94.10
FG 94.00
FG 93.11
FG 92.66
GB 91.67
FG 94.47 CL
GB 90.84
P 89.50
FL 89.95
FL 89.94
FL 90.10
FL 90.20
TBC 90.45
TBC 90.70
TBC 90.60
TBC 90.44
FL 90.25
EP 91.08
EP 91.28
EP 91.13
EP 91.08
EP 91.53
EP 92.42
EP 93.05
EP 92.06
EP 92.47
EP 92.40
EP 92.00
EP 91.07
EP 91.58
EP 91.61
EP 91.92
EP 91.89
EP 91.98
EP 90.87 EP 91.85
EP 91.61
EP 91.57 EP 91.40
EP 90.72 FG 91.61
EP 91.73
EP 93.38
EP 93.49
EP 93.88
EP 93.90
EP 93.72
EP 91.73
EP 91.27
EP 91.31
EP 90.68
EP 93.19
EP 94.09
EP 94.05
EP 93.98 EP 94.02
EP 93.62

0.38%

1.00%

1.00% 1.00%

1.00%

0.64%

1.00%

1.00% 1.00%

1.00%

0.48%

1.00%

0.51% 0.52%

0.52% 0.48%

0.50% 0.50%

0.50%

0.67%

0.50%

0.49%

0.37%

0.50%

0.53% 0.65%

0.31%

2.00% 2.00%

2.00%2.00%

0.38% 0.38%

1.25%

0.28%

1.04%

0.22%

1.79%

1.11%

0.50%

0.85%

0.94%

0.51%

2.35%

0.51%

0.50%

2.14%

0.50%

0.53%

0.50%

0.51%

0.50%

0.52%

0.48%

0.70%

0.49%

0.28%

0.50%

0.52% 0.53%

1.10%

0.30%

0.02%

0.01%

0.58%

1.30%

2.73%

0.52%

0.99%

0.50%

0.51% 0.44% 0.50% 0.49%

0.25%

1.38%

0.59%

0.21%

0.26%

0.48%

0.57%

0.49%

1.09%

0.50%

0.39%

2.59%

2.18%2.00%

0.50%

0.52% 0.52%

0.50% 0.84% 0.50%

0.50%

0.84%

0.00%

0.84%

0.66%

0.31%

1.69%
P=94.9
P=94.9
P=94.4
P=94.4
P=94.0
P=94.0
P=93.8
P=93.8
P=93.4
P=93.4
P=93.3
P=93.3
P=93.3
P=93.3
P=93.0
P=93.0
P=93.0
P=93.0
P=93.2
P=93.2
P=93.2
P=93.2
P=93.0
P=93.0
P=93.1
P=93.1
P=93.2
P=93.2
P=93.0
P=93.0
P=92.8P=92.8
P=93.2
P=93.2
P=92.9
P=94.0
P=92.9
P=94.0 P=93.8
P=93.8
P=92.6
P=92.7
P=92.6
P=92.7
P=92.1
P=92.6
P=92.1
P=92.6
P=91.0
P=92.1
P=91.0
P=92.1
P=90.9
P=91.0
P=90.9
P=91.0
P=92.4
P=93.1
P=92.4
P=93.1
P=92.4
P=92.4
P=92.4
P=92.4
P=91.4
P=92.4
P=91.4
P=92.4
P=90.9
P=91.4
P=90.9 P=91.4 P=91.4
P=92.0
P=92.2
P=92.0
P=92.2
P=92.2 P=92.2
P=93.2 P=93.2
P=91.5
P=91.8
P=91.5
P=91.8
P=91.1
P=91.5
P=91.1
P=91.5
P=92.4 P=92.4
P=93.4
P=93.1
P=93.4
P=93.1
P=91.4
P=91.5
P=91.4
P=91.5
P=91.1
P=91.9
P=91.1
P=91.9
P=91.9
P=92.3
P=91.9
P=92.3
P=92.2
P=92.4
P=92.2
P=92.4
P=90.8
P=90.7
P=92.7 P=92.7
P=90.7
P=91.3
P=92.4
P=92.4
P=93.0
P=93.0
P=92.8
P=92.8
P=92.6
P=92.6
P=92.1
P=92.1
P=92.0
P=92.0
P=91.4
P=92.4
P=91.4
P=92.4
P=91.8
P=91.8
P=91.4
P=91.4
P=93.1
P=93.1
P=92.6
P=92.6
P=93.8
P=93.8
P=93.2
P=93.2
P=93.2
P=93.2
P=93.0
P=93.0
P=92.1
P=92.1
P=92.1
P=92.1
P=92.5
P=92.5
P=92.5
P=92.5
P=92.4
P=92.4
P=91.5
P=91.1
P=91.2 P=91.2
P=92.5
P=92.5
P=92.0
P=92.0
P=92.1
P=92.1
P=92.2
P=92.2
P=92.2
P=92.2 P=92.4
P=92.4
P=91.6
P=91.6
P=91.4
P=91.4
P=91.4
P=91.4
P=91.9
P=91.9
P=92.3
P=92.2
P=92.2
P=93.2
P=93.2
P=92.6
P=93.1
P=93.2
P=93.2
FF=91.6
FF=91.5
FF=91.5
FF=92.1
FF=92.9
FF=91.8
FF=91.7
FF=91.8
FF=91.9
FF=92.13
FF=93.2 FF=92.4
FF=92.7
FF=93.3
FF=93.3
FF=92.9 FF=92.9
FF=91.9
FF=92.2
FF=93.5
FF=92.8 FF=92.9
FF=92.8
FF=92.6
FF=92.2 FF=92.6
FF=93.4
FF=93.0
FF=92.7
FF=93.3
FF=93.8
FF=93.4 FF=93.9
FF=94.6
FF=93.2
FF=93.6
FF=92.0
FF=94.0 FF=94.1 FF=95.2 FF=95.7 FF=94.6 FF=94.8 FF=94.1 FF=94.2 FF=94.8 FF=94.6 FF=93.6 FF=93.8 FF=94.0 FF=94.0 FF=94.0 FF=94.0 FF=93.8 FF=94.0 FF=93.8 FF=93.8 FF=94.0
FF=93.4
FF=92.9
FF=93.4
FF=93.9
FF=93.8
FF=93.8
FF=93.2
FF=93.5
FF=94.0 FF=94.1 FF=94.8 FF=95.2 FF=95.7 FF=94.1 FF=94.2 FF=93.8 FF=93.8 FF=94.6 FF=94.0 FF=94.0 FF=94.0 FF=94.0 FF=93.8 FF=94.0 FF=94.8
FF=93.7 FF=93.7 FF=94.6
FF=93.4
FF=93.4
FF=93.5
FF=92.9
FF=91.8
FF=91.7
FF=91.8
P=90.8
P=90.7
P=90.7
P=91.3
FF=91.6
FF=91.5
FF=91.5
FF=92.1
FF=93.6 FF=93.8
FF=92.9
FF=94.0
FF=94.0 FF=94.6
FF=94.0
FF=94.0
FF=94.0
FF=94.0
FF=93.3 FF=93.4 FF=93.9
FF=93.2
FF=93.6
FF=92.0
FF=92.2 FF=92.2
FF=92.2
FF=93.2 FF=92.4
FF=92.7
FF=92.9
FF=93.3
FF=93.3
FF=92.8
FF=92.7
FF=92.9
FF=92.9
FF=92.8
FF=93.0
FF=93.0
FF=93.0
FF=93.1
FF=93.0
FF=93.0
FF=93.5
FF=93.2
FF=93.6
FF=93.6
FF=93.9
FF=93.9 FF=93.9
FF=93.9 FF=93.9
FF=93.9 FF=93.9
P=91.4
FF=93.9 FF=93.9
FF=92.2 FF=92.2
FF=92.2 FF=92.2
FF=91.7 FF=91.7
FF=93.4
FF=93.4
FF=92.9
FF=92.2 FF=92.6
FF=92.3 FF=92.3
FF=92.6
FF=92.3 FF=92.3
FF=91.9 FF=91.9 FF=91.9
FF=92.7 FF=92.7
FF=92.7 FF=92.7
FF=93.1 FF=93.1
FF=94.0
FF=93.2 FF=93.2
FF=93.1 FF=93.1
FF=93.0 FF=93.0
FF=93.0 FF=93.0
FF=92.8 FF=92.8
FF=92.2 FF=92.2 FF=92.2 FF=92.2
FF=92.3 FF=92.3
FF=93.9 FF=93.9
FF=94.2 FF=94.2
FF=93.4 FF=93.4
FF=93.2 FF=93.2
FF=93.2
FF=92.2
FF=93.2
FF=92.2
FF=93.8
24 P=92.3
FF=93.1
22 P=92.4
FF=93.2
21 P=92.4
FF=93.2
9 10
P=92.4 P=92.4
FF=93.2 FF=93.2
11 12
13 1.00%

1.00%

0.50%
FF=92.8 0.50%

0.50%

0.30%

0.52%

0.41%

0.42%

0.50%

7.00%
FG 92.72
EP 92.00
EP 92.81 EP 92.92
FL 92.07
P=92.6 P=92.6 P=92.3 P=92.3
P=92.4 P=92.4
P=91.6
FF=92.8
P=91.6
FF=92.8
PROPOSED 6' SOUND WALL

PROPOSED ACCESS

ROAD RIGHT OF WAY

RIGHT OF WAY

PROPERTY ENTRY/ EXIT
6' WROUGHT IRON FENCE
PROPOSED 6' SOUND WALL

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

LOT A OPEN SPACE
6' WROUGHT

IRON FENCE
EXISTING 100 YR

FLOODPLAIN PER

SIERRA VISTA

MASTER DRAINAGE

STUDY BYCIVIL SOLUTIONS
EXIST ELEVATION 85.91'
EXISTING 100 YRFLOODPLAIN PER

SIERRA VISTA

MASTER DRAINAGE

STUDY BY

CIVIL SOLUTIONS

BIKE PATH ANDPEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

TO BE CONSTRUCTED

WITH SIERRA VISTA
VILLAGE KT-20B (BY

OTHERS)

BIKE PATH TO BE

CONSTRUCTED WITHSIERRA VISTA VILLAGE
KT-20B (BY OTHERS)
6' WROUGHT IRON FENCE

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
-
-

DIAL A RIDE

LOCATION
EXIST ELEVATION 83.79'
EXISTING 100 YRFLOODPLAIN PER

SIERRA VISTA

MASTER DRAINAGE

STUDY BY

CIVIL SOLUTIONS
EXIST ELEVATION 83.77'

4.20'
30"SD
36"SD
48"SD 48"SD
18"SD
30"SD 30"SD 18"SD
24"SD
15"SD
48"SD
15"SD
36"SD
30"SD
48"SD
B
A1A2

TYPICAL AISLE SECTION
N.T.S.
1% 1%
VARIES
24' - 62'
L
C
6"

VERTICAL
CURB
6"

VERTICAL

CURB VALLEY
GUTTER

BOUNDARY GRADING NORTH
N.T.S.

PAD 1%
2:1 MAX
VARIES
BNDY
10'
EG

BOUNDARY GRADING SOUTH
N.T.S.
2:1 MAX
2'
BNDY
VARIES
EG

PROPOSED
6' SOUNDALL
10'

SETBACK

PROPOSED

BUILDING
3' C&G
42' RIGHT-OF-WAY
SCALE: N.T.S.
3' C&G
CL
TYPE 2 VERTICAL

CURB & GUTTER

R/W R/W
19'
16' 16'
42'
23'
4' SIDEWALK
25'
15'
A1
3' C&G
46' RIGHT-OF-WAY
SCALE: N.T.S.
3' C&G
CL
TYPE 2 VERTICAL

CURB & GUTTER

R/W R/W
27'
24' 16'
46'
19'
4' SIDEWALK
A2

INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS
SCALE: N.T.S.

BASELINE ROAD
(PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS)
11'
TRAVEL
LANE
11'

TWO-WAY

LEFT TURN
11'
TRAVEL
LANE
CL
EP
FC

FUTURE ROAD

WIDENING (BY OTHERS)
FUTURE
R/W
±2% ±2%
11'
TRAVEL
5' LANE
BIKE
11'
TRAVEL
LANE

67.5' BY OTHERS
4'
2' SHOULDER

32.5'
40' PUE/LE/PE
8'
WALK
TYPE 2 CURB &
GUTTER
60' R/W
EP
50' R/W
10'
TRAVEL
LANE
3' C&G
SECTION 1 - BASIN / ACCESS ROAD & OVERLAND RELEASE
SCALE: N.T.S.

ELEV = 81
VARIES

PER PLAN
VARIES

PER PLAN
14'

BIKE TRAIL /
ACCESS
ROAD
3:1 MAX 3:1 MAX

NOTEDIMENSIONS SHOWN

ARE PER CROSS

SECTION - DIMENSION

VARY REFER TO PLANS

PER PLAN
3'
3'

1.5'
10'
3'

1.5'

OVERLAND RELEASE
ELEV = 83.5
3'
VARIES

PER PLAN
VARIES (1' Min)

PER PLAN
14'

BIKE TRAIL /
ACCESS
ROAD
BASIN
ELEV =

83.5 ELEV = 86 3:1 MAX ELEV = 86
FL
VARIES
PAD
14'

BIKE TRAIL /
ACCESS
ROAD
PL
SECTION 2 - PROPERTY LINE / ACCESS ROAD
SCALE: N.T.S.
2:1 MAX
VARIES (1' MIN)

PER PLAN
VARIES

PER PLAN
3:1 MAX 3' C&G
42' RIGHT-OF-WAY
SCALE: N.T.S.
3' C&G
CL
TYPE 2 VERTICAL

CURB & GUTTER

R/W R/W
21'
18' 18'
42'
21'
5' SIDEWALK
B
20 SCALE IN FEET
0 40' 80'
24"SD
SITE

SIERRA VISTA ESTIA

NOT TO SCALE

GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN

PRELIMINARY EARTHWORK

PROPERTY
KT-40B

PROPERTY
KT-40C

BASELINE ROAD

CLUBHOUSE
SITE
PG&E

EASEMENT
PUE

PROPERTY

EASEMENT

UTILITY EASEMENT

TO BE ABANDONED

UTILITY EASEMENT

TO BE ABANDONED
GATED
ENTRY/
EXIT

PROPOSED

BIO-RETENTION
BASIN
OPEN
SPACE
OPEN
SPACE

EXISTING ABANDONED

STRUCTURE

EXISTING ROAD

TO BE REMOVED

PROPOSED DOG PARK, WITH
DECORATIVE 6' CHAIN LINK
FENCE

EXISTING ABANDONED

STRUCTURE
CUT 15,630 CY
FILL 42,500 CY
NET FILL 26,870 CY
DISTURBED AREA 17.13± ACRES
LEGEND

STORM DRAIN LINE AND SIZE

STORM DRAIN MANHOLE

NOT TO SCALE FOR CLARITY

PROPOSED

CONNECTION

TO BIKE TRAIL

EXISTING OAK TREE
#8511 TO BE REMOVED

PROPOSED

ACCESS TO

UTILITY ROAD

EXISTING OAK TREE
#8513 TO BE REMOVED

PROPOSED

CONNECTION

TO BIKE TRAIL
3&(;+,%,7)
P=95.7
P=95.9
FL 80.96
100 YR HGL 85.79
FL 81.50
FL 79.90
S=
FL 80.73
S=0.0049
s=0.0050
S=0.0036
S=1.0%
FL 82.06
FL=80.0
S=1.51%
FL=82.0
FL @ BRIDGE 81.1
10 YR HGL 85.27
FG 90.0
FG 90.21
FG 90.0
FG 90.21
FG 90.0
FG 90.21
FG 90.0
FG 90.24
EG 85.62
FC86.72
FG 90.11
FG 89.31
FG 90.35
FG 88.42
FG 88.93
FG 87.55
FG 89.66
FG 89.77
FG 89.18
FG 88.87
FG 87.94
FG 89.42
FG 89.55
FG 86.62
FG 86.62
FG 87.44
FG 88.35
FG 85.6
FG 89.31
FG 87.83
FG 90.45
FG 90.58
FG 90.80
FG 94.00
FG 93.0
FG 92.00
FG 91.00
S=1.31%
FG 94.58

94.45 FG 93.79
FG 94.00
FG 93.00
FG 92.00
FG 91.00
FL=80.29 S=4.77%
Fg 83.5
FL 81.98
Fg 83.5
Fg 83.5
Fg 83.5
Fg 84.0
Fg 85.0
Fg 86.0
Fg 87.0 .0
S=1.28%
Fg 84.0
Fg 84.0
Fg 86.0
FL=82.12
Fg 86.0
Fg 87.0
Fg 87.0
Fg 87.6
Fg 86.0
Fg 86.97
Fg 85.0
EG 85.62
Fg 87.18
Fg 87.56
Fg 88.9
Fg 88.69
Fg 87.77
Fg 87.00
Fg 86.79
Fg 86.62
Fg 86.79
Fg 86.21
Fg 86.79
Fg 86.0
Fg 86.3
Fg 85.79
Fg 86.0
Fg 85.79
Fg 85.5
Fg 85.29
Fg 86.29
Fg 86.5
Fg 85.0
Fg 84.5

0.39%

94.90 HP
HP 80.30
S=0.0048
FL 82.0
S=0.0048
12"RW
12"RW
12"RW
12"WM
12"WM
12"WM
12"RW
12"WM
12"WM
12"WM
12"RW
12"RW
12"WM
12"RW
12"WM
12"WM
S
S
S
S
S S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
8"SS
8"SS 8"SS
8"SS
8"SS
8"SS
8"SS
8"W 8"W
12"W
12"W
12"W
8"W
8"W 8"W
12"W 12"W
8"W
8"W 12"W
8"W 8"W
12"W
8"SS
8"SS
8"SS
8"SS
8"SS
8"SS
8"SS
12"W
FL 83.01
FL 82.90
S=0.0030
HP 83.50
S=0.0030
s=0.0036
S=0.0036
S=1.0%
FL 82.06
FL=80.0
FL=82.0
FL=80.29
FL=82.12
14 19
20 17
18 114 115
112 113
118 119
116 117
96 97
88 89
90 91
94 92 93
95 110 111
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
56 57
54 55
50 51
52 53
49 46
39 38 40
41 43
42 44
45 30
29 36
35 3231 34
33 166 167
164 165
152 153
154 155
124 125
126 127
120 121
122 123
128 129
48 47
27 28
158 159
156 157
142
141 143
140
162 163
160 161
144 146
138
137 139
136
37 15
16 MAINTENANCE
188
189
175
174 176
177
186
187 185
184
179
178
181
180 182
183
170 171
172 173
168 169
195
194 196
197 207
206 208
209 203
202 204
205 199
198 200
201 71
70 68 69
66 67
73 72 74
75 81
80 82
83 85
84 86
87 77
76 78
79 190
191 193
192
98 99
106 107
104 105
100 101
102 103
108 109
60 61
58 59
65 62 63
130 131
132 133
134 135
149
148
145
150
151
147
64 23
25 26

CLUB HOUSE
TBC 94.28 LP
TBC 94.47
TBC 93.61
TBC 93.73 HP
TBC 95.40
TBC 94.43
TBC 94.205
TBC 94.16
TBC 92.38
TBC 93.39 LP TBC 92.67
TBC 95.36 TBC 94.93 TBC 94.70 TBC 94.39 LP TBC 94.73
TBC 94.78 HP TBC 94.47
TBC 94.28 LP
24 22
21 9 10
11 12
13 8"SS
8"SS
PROPOSED 6' SOUND WALL

PROPOSED ACCESS

ROAD RIGHT OF WAY

RIGHT OF WAY

PROPERTY ENTRY/ EXIT
6' WROUGHT IRON FENCE
PROPOSED 6' SOUND WALL

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

LOT A OPEN SPACE
6' WROUGHT

IRON FENCE
EXISTING 100 YRFLOODPLAIN PER

SIERRA VISTA

MASTER DRAINAGE

STUDY BYCIVIL SOLUTIONS
EXIST ELEVATION 85.91'
EXISTING 100 YRFLOODPLAIN PER

SIERRA VISTA

MASTER DRAINAGE

STUDY BY

CIVIL SOLUTIONS

BIKE PATH ANDPEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

TO BE CONSTRUCTED

WITH SIERRA VISTA
VILLAGE KT-20B (BY

OTHERS)

BIKE PATH TO BE

CONSTRUCTED WITHSIERRA VISTA VILLAGE
KT-20B (BY OTHERS)
6' WROUGHT IRON FENCE

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

DIAL A RIDE

LOCATION
8"SS 8"SS
8"R
8"SS 8"SS
8"SS
8"SS
8"SS
8"SS 8"SS 8"SS
12"W 12"W
8"SS
EXIST ELEVATION 83.79'
EXISTING 100 YRFLOODPLAIN PER

SIERRA VISTA

MASTER DRAINAGE

STUDY BY

CIVIL SOLUTIONS
EXIST ELEVATION 83.77'

4.20'
B
A1A2
8"W
8"W
8"R
8"R
8"W
8"W
8"W
SITE

NOT TO SCALE

SIERRA VISTA ESTIA

UTILITY PLAN

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, COUNTY OF PLACER, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY, 2022
20 SCALE IN FEET
0 40' 80'
(916) 366-3040 Fax (916) 366-3303
905 Sutter Street Suite 200 Folsom CA 95630
Civil Engineers | Land Surveyors | LiDAR
R. E. Y. ENGINEERS, Inc.

LEGEND

SEWER LINE AND SIZE

WATER LINE AND SIZE

S SEWER MANHOLE

NOT TO SCALE FOR CLARITY
8"SS

RECYCLED WATER LINE AND SIZE

EXISTING SEWER

CONNECT TO EXISTING

POTABLE WATER

CONNECT TO EXISTING

RECYCLED WATER

CONNECT TO

EXISTING SEWER

PROPERTY
KT-40B

PROPERTY
KT-40C

BASELINE ROAD

EXISTING UTILITIES

PER SIERRA VISTA
VILLAGE KT-20B

CLUBHOUSE
SITE
PG&E

EASEMENT
PUE

PROPERTY

EASEMENT

UTILITY

EASEMENT TO
BE

ABANDONED

UTILITY EASEMENT

TO BE ABANDONED

CONNECT TO

EXISTING RW

CONNECT TO EXISTING
WATER
AISLE 5 AISLE 5
AISLE 4
AISLE 3 AISLE 3
AISLE 3
AISLE 2
AISLE 1 AISLE 6
AISLE 7

ENTRY STREET A

ACCESS ROAD

APPROX LOCATION OF DDC & METER

FOR PRIVATE / PUBLIC POTABLE

WATER TO BE INSTALLED WITH

IMPROVEMENT PLANS

APPROX LOCATION OF METER FOR

PRIVATE / PUBLIC RECYCLED WATER

TO BE INSTALLED WITH IMPROVEMENT
PLANS

APPROX LOCATION OF DDC & METER

FOR PRIVATE / PUBLIC POTABLE

WATER TO BE INSTALLED WITH

IMPROVEMENT PLANS

APPROX LOCATION OF METER FOR

PRIVATE / PUBLIC RECYCLED WATER

TO BE INSTALLED WITH IMPROVEMENT
PLANS

APPROX LOCATION OF DDC & METER

FOR PRIVATE / PUBLIC POTABLE

WATER TO BE INSTALLED WITH

IMPROVEMENT PLANS

APPROX LOCATION OF METER FOR

PRIVATE / PUBLIC RECYCLED WATER

TO BE INSTALLED WITH IMPROVEMENT
PLANS

DDC DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK

PRIVATE WATERLINE
INSTALL 2" BLOW OFF VALVE WITH

IMPROVEMENT PLANS

PRIVATE RECYCELD WATERLINE
INSTALL 2" BLOW OFF VALVE WITH

IMPROVEMENT PLANS

WATER SERVICES ARE SHOWN STACKEDWITH METER BANK(METER NOT SHOWN) 6" SEWER SERVICES TO BUILDING ARE
SHOWN CONNECT TO 8" SEWER MAIN
3&(;+,%,7*
&20081,7<&(17(5
67$1',1*6($00(7$/522) '(&25$7,9(&832/$ &21&5(7(7,/(522) 648$5(678&&2&2/8016 :22')$6&,$ :22'325&+5$,/
'(&25$7,9()$8;&25%(/
0$6215<9(1((552:/2&.
0$6215<9(1((5 678&&275,0

%2$5' %$77(1
5($5(/(9$7,21

)5217(/(9$7,21

/()7(/(9$7,21

5,*+7(/(9$7,21

$
&RORU6FKHPH

),1)/5723/$7(
29(5$//+(,*+7

72325&+3/$7(
5DQFKR&RUGRYD&$
7KHGUDZLQJVSUHVHQWHGDUHLOOXVWUDWLYHRIFKDUDFWHUDQGGHVLJQLQWHQWRQO\DQGDUHVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHEDVHGXSRQILQDOGHVLJQFRQVLGHUDWLRQV LHDSSOLFDEOHFRGHVVWUXFWXUDODQG0(3GHVLJQUHTXLUHPHQWVXQLWSODQIORRUSODQFKDQJHVHWF %6%'HVLJQ,QF
(67,$6,(55$9,67$
5RVHYLOOH&$
2FWREHU_6) %6%'(6,*1&20
3&(;+,%,7+
81,7'83/(;

),1)/5723/$7(29(5$//+(,*+7
%2$5' %$77(1
'(&25$7,9()$8;&25%(/&20326,7(522)678&&2:,1'2:75,06721(9(1((5:22')$6&,$:22''22575,0678&&2 5($5(/(9$7,21

)5217(/(9$7,21

/()7(/(9$7,21

5,*+7(/(9$7,21

$
&RORU6FKHPH
5DQFKR&RUGRYD&$
7KHGUDZLQJVSUHVHQWHGDUHLOOXVWUDWLYHRIFKDUDFWHUDQGGHVLJQLQWHQWRQO\DQGDUHVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHEDVHGXSRQILQDOGHVLJQFRQVLGHUDWLRQV LHDSSOLFDEOHFRGHVVWUXFWXUDODQG0(3GHVLJQUHTXLUHPHQWVXQLWSODQIORRUSODQFKDQJHVHWF %6%'HVLJQ,QF
(67,$6,(55$9,67$
5RVHYLOOH &$
'HFHPEHU_65
%6%'(6,*1&20
81,7

5($5(/(9$7,21

)5217(/(9$7,21

/()7(/(9$7,21

5,*+7(/(9$7,21

$
&RORU6FKHPH
),1)/5723/$7(29(5$//+(,*+7
%2$5' %$77(1
'(&25$7,9()$8;&25%(/&20326,7(522)678&&2:,1'2:75,06721(9(1((5:22')$6&,$:22''22575,0678&&2 5DQFKR&RUGRYD&$
7KHGUDZLQJVSUHVHQWHGDUHLOOXVWUDWLYHRIFKDUDFWHUDQGGHVLJQLQWHQWRQO\DQGDUHVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHEDVHGXSRQILQDOGHVLJQFRQVLGHUDWLRQV LHDSSOLFDEOHFRGHVVWUXFWXUDODQG0(3GHVLJQUHTXLUHPHQWVXQLWSODQIORRUSODQFKDQJHVHWF %6%'HVLJQ,QF
(67,$6,(55$9,67$
5RVHYLOOH &$
'HFHPEHU_65
%6%'(6,*1&20
81,7'83/(;
5($5(/(9$7,21

)5217(/(9$7,21

/()7(/(9$7,21

5,*+7(/(9$7,21

$
&RORU6FKHPH

),1 )/5723/$7(29(5$//+(,*+7
%2$5' %$77(1
'(&25$7,9()$8;&25%(/&20326,7(522)678&&2:,1'2:75,06721(9(1((5:22')$6&,$:22''22575,0678&&2 5DQFKR&RUGRYD&$
7KHGUDZLQJVSUHVHQWHGDUHLOOXVWUDWLYHRIFKDUDFWHUDQGGHVLJQLQWHQWRQO\DQGDUHVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHEDVHGXSRQILQDOGHVLJQFRQVLGHUDWLRQV LHDSSOLFDEOHFRGHVVWUXFWXUDODQG0(3GHVLJQUHTXLUHPHQWVXQLWSODQIORRUSODQFKDQJHVHWF %6%'HVLJQ,QF
(67,$6,(55$9,67$
5RVHYLOOH &$
'HFHPEHU_65
%6%'(6,*1&20
0$,17(1$1&(%8,/',1*
),1)/5723/$7(
29(5$//+(,*+7

648$5(678&&2&2/801:22')$6&,$
&21&5(7(522)7,/( '(&25$7,9()$8;&25%(/
%2$5' %$77(1678&&275,0

678&&275,0

3$1(/'225:22''22575,0
678&&2/$&(),1,6+
678&&275,0
6$1'),1,6+

0(7$/*$5$*('225

5($5(/(9$7,21

)5217(/(9$7,21

/()7(/(9$7,21

5,*+7(/(9$7,21

$
&RORU6FKHPH
5DQFKR&RUGRYD&$
7KHGUDZLQJVSUHVHQWHGDUHLOOXVWUDWLYHRIFKDUDFWHUDQGGHVLJQLQWHQWRQO\DQGDUHVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHEDVHGXSRQILQDOGHVLJQFRQVLGHUDWLRQV LHDSSOLFDEOHFRGHVVWUXFWXUDODQG0(3GHVLJQUHTXLUHPHQWVXQLWSODQIORRUSODQFKDQJHVHWF %6%'HVLJQ,QF
(67,$6,(55$9,67$
5RVHYLOOH &$
2FWREHU_65
%6%'(6,*1&20
*$5$*($:,7+6725$*(
),1)/5723/$7(
29(5$//+(,*+7

0(7$/*$5$*('225
678&&275,0

%2$5' %$77(1

72+((/
'(&25$7,9()$8;&25%(/
&21&5(7(7,/(522)
678&&275,06$1'),1,6+

%2$5' %$77(1

72+((/
'(&25$7,9()$8;&25%(/
&21&5(7(7,/(522)
678&&275,06$1'),1,6+

:22')$6&,$
678&&275,06$1'),1,6+
678&&2/$&(),1,6+678&&275,06$1'),1,6+

678&&275,06$1'),1,6+
678&&2/$&(),1,6+
5($5(/(9$7,21

)5217(/(9$7,21

/()7(/(9$7,21

5,*+7(/(9$7,21

&RORU6FKHPH
$
5DQFKR&RUGRYD&$
7KHGUDZLQJVSUHVHQWHGDUHLOOXVWUDWLYHRIFKDUDFWHUDQGGHVLJQLQWHQWRQO\DQGDUHVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHEDVHGXSRQILQDOGHVLJQFRQVLGHUDWLRQV LHDSSOLFDEOHFRGHVVWUXFWXUDODQG0(3GHVLJQUHTXLUHPHQWVXQLWSODQIORRUSODQFKDQJHVHWF %6%'HVLJQ,QF
(67,$6,(55$9,67$
5RVHYLOOH &$
2FWREHU_65
%6%'(6,*1&20
&20081,7<&(17(5 &20081,7<&(17(5
6FDOH
$
5DQFKR&RUGRYD&$
7KHGUDZLQJVSUHVHQWHGDUHLOOXVWUDWLYHRIFKDUDFWHUDQGGHVLJQLQWHQWRQO\DQGDUHVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHEDVHGXSRQILQDOGHVLJQFRQVLGHUDWLRQV LHDSSOLFDEOHFRGHVVWUXFWXUDODQG0(3GHVLJQUHTXLUHPHQWVXQLWSODQIORRUSODQFKDQJHVHWF %6%'HVLJQ,QF
(67,$6,(55$9,67$
5RVHYLOOH&$
2FWREHU_6) %6%'(6,*1&20
3&(;+,%,7,
6FDOH

$
5DQFKR&RUGRYD&$
7KHGUDZLQJVSUHVHQWHGDUHLOOXVWUDWLYHRIFKDUDFWHUDQGGHVLJQLQWHQWRQO\DQGDUHVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHEDVHGXSRQILQDOGHVLJQFRQVLGHUDWLRQV LHDSSOLFDEOHFRGHVVWUXFWXUDODQG0(3GHVLJQUHTXLUHPHQWVXQLWSODQIORRUSODQFKDQJHVHWF %6%'HVLJQ,QF
(67,$6,(55$9,67$
5RVHYLOOH &$
'HFHPEHU_65
%6%'(6,*1&20
6FDOH

$
5DQFKR&RUGRYD&$
7KHGUDZLQJVSUHVHQWHGDUHLOOXVWUDWLYHRIFKDUDFWHUDQGGHVLJQLQWHQWRQO\DQGDUHVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHEDVHGXSRQILQDOGHVLJQFRQVLGHUDWLRQV LHDSSOLFDEOHFRGHVVWUXFWXUDODQG0(3GHVLJQUHTXLUHPHQWVXQLWSODQIORRUSODQFKDQJHVHWF %6%'HVLJQ,QF
(67,$6,(55$9,67$
5RVHYLOOH &$
'HFHPEHU_65
%6%'(6,*1&20
6FDOH

$
5DQFKR&RUGRYD&$
7KHGUDZLQJVSUHVHQWHGDUHLOOXVWUDWLYHRIFKDUDFWHUDQGGHVLJQLQWHQWRQO\DQGDUHVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHEDVHGXSRQILQDOGHVLJQFRQVLGHUDWLRQV LHDSSOLFDEOHFRGHVVWUXFWXUDODQG0(3GHVLJQUHTXLUHPHQWVXQLWSODQIORRUSODQFKDQJHVHWF %6%'HVLJQ,QF
(67,$6,(55$9,67$
5RVHYLOOH &$
'HFHPEHU_65
%6%'(6,*1&20
6FDOH
6FDOH

$
5DQFKR&RUGRYD&$
7KHGUDZLQJVSUHVHQWHGDUHLOOXVWUDWLYHRIFKDUDFWHUDQGGHVLJQLQWHQWRQO\DQGDUHVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHEDVHGXSRQILQDOGHVLJQFRQVLGHUDWLRQV LHDSSOLFDEOHFRGHVVWUXFWXUDODQG0(3GHVLJQUHTXLUHPHQWVXQLWSODQIORRUSODQFKDQJHVHWF %6%'HVLJQ,QF
(67,$6,(55$9,67$
5RVHYLOOH &$
2FWREHU_65
%6%'(6,*1&20
6FDOH

$
5DQFKR&RUGRYD&$
7KHGUDZLQJVSUHVHQWHGDUHLOOXVWUDWLYHRIFKDUDFWHUDQGGHVLJQLQWHQWRQO\DQGDUHVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHEDVHGXSRQILQDOGHVLJQFRQVLGHUDWLRQV LHDSSOLFDEOHFRGHVVWUXFWXUDODQG0(3GHVLJQUHTXLUHPHQWVXQLWSODQIORRUSODQFKDQJHVHWF %6%'HVLJQ,QF
(67,$6,(55$9,67$
5RVHYLOOH &$
2FWREHU_65
%6%'(6,*1&20
5DQFKR&RUGRYD&$ (;7(5,253$,17$1'0$7(5,$/6 (67,$6,(55$9,67$ 5RVHYLOOH&$ -DQXDU\_65
%6%'(6,*1&20 7KHGUDZLQJVSUHVHQWHGDUHLOOXVWUDWLYHRIFKDUDFWHUDQGGHVLJQLQWHQWRQO\DQGDUHVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHEDVHGXSRQILQDOGHVLJQFRQVLGHUDWLRQV LHDSSOLFDEOHFRGHVVWUXFWXUDODQG0(3GHVLJQUHTXLUHPHQWVXQLWSODQIORRUSODQFKDQJHVHWF %6%'HVLJQ,QF
$
3&(;+,%,7-
6 )/
6

6 6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

6
6
6
6
6
6
6

6

6

6
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7XUQ$URXQG
*
7 5(7$,/
)8785(
2SHQ7XUI
&OXEKRXVH
3RRO
3DWLR 3DWLR
G
)
5(7$,/
)8785(
(67,$6,(55$9,67$
/DQGVFDSH&RQFHSW3ODQ
5RVHYLOOH&$
1RUWK
)HEUXDU\
2ULJLQDO6KHHW6L]HRIµ;µ 6FDOH

%$6(/,1(52$'
)8785(3$5.
6SDFH
2SHQ
3UHVHUYH
*DWH
&855<&5((.
3ODQ
SHU6LHUUD9LVWD6SHFLÀF
&ODVV7UDLODV
6SHFLÀF3ODQ
SHU6LHUUD9LVWD
&ODVV7UDLODV
)8785(52$'
$FFHVV
3DUN
'RJ
:DWHU 0DQDJHPHQW
:DVWH0DQDJHPHQW
0DLQWHQDQFH
$FFHQW
,QWHULRU
(GJH
3HULPHWHU
7UHHV
/HJHQG

6KUXEV*URXQGFRYHUV
(GJH6KDGH7UHHV
$FFHQW7UHH
6PDOO6KDGH7UHH
$FFHQW6KDGH7UHH
6KDGH7UHH
+DUGVFDSH
5HFUHDWLRQ
(QWU\$FFHQW7UHH
6KDGH&DOFXODWLRQV
$VXJJHVWHGSODQWSDOOHWWHLVSURYLGHGEHORZ:DWHUXVHKDVEHHQGHULYHGIURPDUHYLHZRIWKH8QLYHUVLW\RI&DOLIRUQLD:8&2/6,9 =HONRYDVHUUDWD
'
(OP¶6XPPHU6SULWH· 0RG 6PDOO6KDGH7UHH
$FHUUXEUXP
'
5HG0DSOH 0RG 6KDGH7UHH(GJH JDO
3LVWDFLDFKLQHQVLV
'
&KLQHVH3LVWDFKH /RZ 6KDGH7UHH JDO
75((6
%RWDQLFDO1DPH &RPPRQ1DPH :DWHU8VH 3RWHQWLDO8VH 6L]H LVRQO\LQWHQGHGWRVKRZWKHLQWHQWRIWKHSODQWRPHHW&LW\RI5RVHYLOOHJXLGHOLQHVIRUGHVLJQDQGZDWHUXVH DOOLQFOXVLYHDQGZLOOEHXVHGPRGLÀHGDQGUHÀQHGGXULQJWKHSUHSDUDWLRQRIGHWDLOHGSODQVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKEXLOGLQJSHUPLWV7KHOLVW GDWDEDVHZKHUHDVWKHSRWHQWLDOXVHRIHDFKSODQWFRUUHVSRQGVZLWKWKH/HJHQGIRXQGRQWKHULJKWVLGHRIWKLVSODQ7KLVOLVWLVQRW JDO
*OHGLWVLDWULDFDQWKRV
'

*LQJNRELORED
'
0DLGHQKDLU7UHH 0RG $FFHQW6KDGH7UHH(GJH JDO +RQH\ORFXVW /RZ $FFHQW6KDGH7UHH JDO $FDFLDPHODQR[\ORQ
(
%ODFNZRRG$FDFLD /RZ $FFHQW6KDGH7UHH JDO 4XHUFXVOREDWD
(
9DOOH\2DN /RZ (GJH6KDGH7UHH JDO
6FKLQXVPROOH
(
&DOLIRUQLD3HSSHU /RZ (GJH6KDGH7UHHV JDO :DVKLQJWRQLDUREXVWD (
0H[LFDQ)DQ3DOP /RZ (QWU\$FFHQW JDO
0DJQROLDJUDQGLÁRUD'UDZI
(
6RXWKHUQ0DJQROLD /RZ 6PDOO6KDGH7UHH JDO
3RGRFDUSXVJUDFLOLRU
(
)HUQ3LQH /RZ 6PDOO6KDGH7UHH JDO
&HGUXVGHRGDUD
(
'HRGDU /RZ (GJH6KDGH7UHH JDO
3UXQXVFHULFLIHUD
'
&KHUU\3OXP /RZ 6PDOO6KDGH7UHH$FFHQW JDO
3UXQXVFDUROLQLDQD
(

6+58%6
&DUROLQD&KHUU\/DXUHO /RZ 3HULPHWHU6FUHHQ JDO &HDQRWKXV¶&RQFKDµ
(
¶&RQFKD·&HDQRWKXV /RZ 3HULPHWHU,QWHULRU)RXQGDWLRQ JDO 3LWWRVSRUXPFUDVVLIROLXP (
(YHUJUHHQ3LWWRVSRUXP 0RG ,QWHULRU)RXQGDWLRQ JDO 5KDSKLROHSLVXPEHOODWD
(
<HGGR+DZWKRUQ /RZ ,QWHULRU)RXQGDWLRQ)HDWXUHG JDO 3\UDFDQWKDVSS
(
)LUHWKRUQ /RZ ,QWHULRU)HDWXUHG JDO
1DQGLQDGRPHVWLFD
(
+HDYHQO\%DPERR /RZ ,QWHULRU)HDWXUHG JDO
0\UWXVFRPPXQLV
(
7UXH0\UWOH /RZ 3HULPHWHU,QWHULRU)RXQGDWLRQ JDO /LJXVWUXPRYDOLIROLXP '
&DOLIRUQLD3ULYHW /RZ 3HULPHWHU,QWHULRU)RXQGDWLRQ JDO /DYDQGXODVSS
(
/DYHQGHU /RZ ,QWHULRU)HDWXUHG JDO
.HFNLHOODDQWLUUKLQRLGHV
(
<HOORZ3HQVWHPRQ /RZ ,QWHULRU)HDWXUHG JDO
*UHYLOOHDVSS
(
*UHYLOOHD /RZ ,QWHULRU)HDWXUHG JDO
%HUEHULVDTXLIROLXP
(
2UHJRQ*UDSH /RZ ,QWHULRU)HDWXUHG JDO 5RVD¶5DGFRQ· (
3LQN.QRFN2XW5RVH /RZ ,QWHULRU)HDWXUHG JDO &RWRQHDVWHUVSS
(
&RWRQHDVWHU /RZ ,QWHULRU)HDWXUHG JDO
(XRQ\PXVMDSRQLFXV
(
-DSDQHVH(XRQ\PXV /RZ 3HULPHWHU JDO
5RVPDULQXVRIÀFLQDOLV
(
5RVHPDU\ /RZ ,QWHULRU)RXQGDWLRQ)HDWXUHG JDO 3HURYVNLDVSS
3 5XVVLDQ6DJH /RZ ,QWHULRU)HDWXUHG JDO
&RSURVPD[NLUNLL
(

*5281'&29(56
&UHHSLQJ&RSURVPD /RZ ,QWHULRU$FFHQW JDO
7HXFULXPFKDPDHGU\V
(
*HUPDQGHU /RZ ,QWHULRU$FFHQW JDO
$UFWRVWDSK\ORVKRRNHUL
(
:D\VLGH0DQ]DQLWD /RZ ,QWHULRU6FUHHQ JDO 5RVPDULQXVFYV (
7UDLOLQJ5RVHPDU\ /RZ ,QWHULRU$FFHQW JDO
6DOYLDOHXFRSK\OOD
(
3XUSOH6DJH /RZ ,QWHULRU$FFHQW JDO
5RPQH\DFRXOWHUL
3 0DWLOLMD3RSS\ 9HU\/RZ ,QWHULRU$FFHQW JDO
/XSLQXVH[FXELWXV
3 *UDSH6RGD/XSLQH 9HU\/RZ ,QWHULRU$FFHQW JDO 0LPXOXVDXUDQWLDFXV
3 6WLFN\0RQNH\)ORZHU /RZ ,QWHULRU6FUHHQ JDO $FDFLDUHGROHQV (
3URVWUDWH$FDFLD 9HU\/RZ ,QWHULRU6FUHHQ JDO
%RXJDLQYLOOHDVSS
(
%RXJDLQYLOOHD /RZ ,QWHULRU$FFHQW JDO
&HDQRWKXVWK\VLÁRUXV
(
+LJKOLJKW&HDQRWKXV /RZ ,QWHULRU6FUHHQ JDO %UDFWHDQWKDFYV 3 6WUDZÁRZHU /RZ ,QWHULRU$FFHQW JDO
6DSRQDULD[OHPSHUJL
3 +\EULG6RDSZRUW /RZ ,QWHULRU$FFHQW JDO 9LQFDPDMRU (
3HULZLQNOH /RZ ,QWHULRU$FFHQW JDO
$MXJDUHSWDQV
(
&DUSHW%XJOH /RZ ,QWHULRU$FFHQW(QWU\ JDO %RXWHORXDJUDFLOLV 8&9HUGH%XIIDOR*UDVV /RZ 'RJ3DUN6HOHFWHG 6RG &RQFHSW3ODQW3DOOHWWH
3ULYDWH5RDG
6SDFH
2SHQ
3UHVHUYH
&855<&5((.
&RPPHUFLDOWREH'HWHUPLQHG
(DVWHUQ3HULPHWHU,QWHUIDFHZLWK)XWXUH
3UHVHUYHDQG)XWXUH3DUNRQ
$ORQJ&XUU\&UHHN2SHQ6SDFH
·%ODFN7XEH6WHHO3HULPHWHU)HQFH
6WRU\$SDUWPHQW
2QH%HGURRP6LQJOH
6WRU\$SDUWPHQW
7ZR%HGURRP6LQJOH
3RWHQWLDO)XWXUH&RQQHFWLRQ 3RWHQWLDO)XWXUH&RQQHFWLRQ :DVWH0DQDJHPHQW
3ULYDWH5RDG
:DVWH0DQDJHPHQW *DWH *DWH
3RWHQWLDO7HQDQW3DUNLQJ
6SDFH
2SHQ
3UHVHUYH
(QWU\$FFHQW

6KDGH
6KDGH
6KDGH
6KDGH

7\SH &RXQW 6KDGH $UHD 7RWDO
7UHH 7UHH 3HUFHQWDJH6KDGHG

KDOIFRYHUDJH
+
DQGTXDUWHUFRYHUDJH
4
V\PEROVDUHVSHFLÀHGDVIXOOFRYHUDJH
)
WKUHHTXDUWHUFRYHUDJH
$UHDFDOFXODWLRQVDUHUHSUHVHQWHGLQVTXDUHIHHW&DOFXODWLRQ 7RWDO3HUFHQW6KDGH3URYLGHG
7RWDO6KDGH3URYLGHG
6)

7RWDO6KDGH5HTXLUHG

7RWDO3DYHG$UHD
6)

3&(;+,%,7.
2 1
2"X2" WELDED STEEL TUBE

FRAME WITH METAL PANEL
INFILL. PROVIDE STEEL
LATCH W/ PAD LOCK; BALLBEARING HINGES & BOTTOMLIFT ANCHOR T.O. CONCRETET.O. WALL
4" GALV. STEEL PIPE COLUMNS

CONCRETE FILLED, EACH SIDECONCRETE PIER FOOTING

NO PARKING AT ANY TIME

SIGN EACH GATE
8" ROCKFACE
CMU
T.O. CONCRETE
 

$
5DQFKR&RUGRYD&$ 75$6+(1&/2685(
7KHGUDZLQJVSUHVHQWHGDUHLOOXVWUDWLYHRIFKDUDFWHUDQGGHVLJQLQWHQWRQO\DQGDUHVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHEDVHGXSRQILQDOGHVLJQFRQVLGHUDWLRQV LHDSSOLFDEOHFRGHVVWUXFWXUDODQG0(3GHVLJQUHTXLUHPHQWVXQLWSODQIORRUSODQFKDQJHVHWF %6%'HVLJQ,QF
(67,$6,(55$9,67$
5RVHYLOOH&$
2FWREHU_65
%6%'(6,*1&20
3&(;+,%,7/

PEDESTRIAN GATE (LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON PLAN), ALL PEDESTRIAN GATES TO OPEN OUTWARD. GATE SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH ACCESSIBLE

EXIT HARDWARE AT INSIDE, OPERABLE AT ALL TIMES WITH NO GREATER THAN 5 LBS OF EFFORT. KEYPAD ENTRY LOCATED ON OUTSIDE OF GATE

WITH SELF-CLOSING HINGE

MUTUAL-AID KNOX BOX KEY BOX
(INSTALL AT LEAST 48" ABOVE FINISH

GRADE, W/ KEY TO OPEN GATE)

PROVIDE SECURITY SCREENING (TO MATCH VEHICLE
GATE) AS SHOWN WITHIN 2' OF EXIT BAR.

COMMUNITY ENTRY GATES
1/4" = 1'-0" ELEVATION
A. ELEVATION SHOWS DESIGN INTENT FOR COMMUNITY ENTRY GATES.

DESIGN INCLUDING MATERIALS AND FINISHES MAY BE MODIFIED ASREQUIRED TO MATCH SITE CONDITIONS AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN.

NOTES
GRID: 1/8" x 1-1/2" STEEL STRAP, 1-1/2" X 3" TUBULAR STEEL FRAME

ALTERNATE OVERLAPS
HEAVY-DUTY GREASABLE HINGE, 3 PER LEAF
7" SQ. X 1/4" TUBULAR STEEL POST W/ WELDED PLATECAP, ADJACENT CMU PILASTER. WRAP STONE AT ALLSIDES, TERMINATE W/ 3/4" EXPANSION JOINT AND ELASTOMERIC SEALANT AT POST.
1-1/2" X 4" TUBULAR STEEL AT HINGE

SIDE AND BOTTOM OF FRAME
TUBULAR STEEL BRACE, 3" X 1"TYP.

ROADWAY SHOWN W/ 2% CROWN
(VIF, FINAL DESIGN PENDING)
1" X 1" WWM PANEL
(AS REQ'D) STEEL STRAP BEHIND

WWM FOR REINFORCEMENT

KNOX BOX KEY-SWITCH LOCATION
(RIGHT-HAND SIDE, 48" ABOVE FINISH GRADE)

ENTRY PILASTER WITH STONE VENEER
TO MATCH COMMUNITY BUILDING.

BLACK METAL FENCE
4'-0" CLR.

SIDEWALK PER CIVIL

DRAWINGS
24'-0" CLR. (AT GATE)

PLANTED MEDIAN WITH KEYPADPEDESTAL

ACCENT TREES

SHADE TREES

GATE OPERATOR
(EACH SIDE, TYP.)
A. ELEVATION SHOWS DESIGN INTENT FOR COMMUNITY ENTRY GATES.

DESIGN INCLUDING MATERIALS AND FINISHES MAY BE MODIFIED ASREQUIRED TO MATCH SITE CONDITIONS AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN.

NOTES
GRID: 1/8" x 1-1/2" STEEL STRAP, 1-1/2" X 3" TUBULAR STEEL FRAME

SIDE AND BOTTOM OF FRAME
TUBULAR STEEL BRACE, 3" X 1"TYP.

ROADWAY SHOWN W/ 2% CROWN
(VIF, FINAL DESIGN PENDING)
1" X 1" WWM PANEL
(AS REQ'D) STEEL STRAP BEHIND

WWM FOR REINFORCEMENT

KNOX BOX KEY-SWITCH LOCATION
(RIGHT-HAND SIDE, 48" ABOVE FINISH GRADE)

ENTRY PILASTER WITH STONE VENEER
TO MATCH COMMUNITY BUILDING.

BLACK METAL FENCE

SHADE TREES

GATE OPERATOR
(EACH SIDE, TYP.)
34'-0" CLR. (AT GATE)

SECONDARY ENTRY GATES
1/4" = 1'-0" ELEVATION
¶
6+((7

352-1R
35'$7(
'5$:1
&$'
&+(&.('
7(0
'(6&5,37,21 5(9 '$7(
352-(&7

7,7/(

7+,6'2&80(17,67+(62/(3523(57<2)5,052&.(1*,1((5,1*//&$1'0$<127%(5(352'8&(',1:+2/(25,13$57:,7+287(;35(66:5,77(13(50,66,21$//5,*+76$5(5(6(59(' 6($/

6,(55$9,67$
&,7<2)526(9,//(&$
%$6(/,1(52$'
35272,,:$//6<67(060$<21/<%(,167$//('%<$33529('$1'&(57,),(',167$//(56 RIMROCKENGINEERING 9080 W. Cheyenne Ave., SUITE 120 LAS VEGAS, NV, 89129
Phone: (702) 838-5311
Fax: (702) 838-5339
/21*%($&+&$

ZZZSURWRFRP
&$/,)251,$$9(
$771
0$5,26$/$=$5
3+

35272,,70:$//
6<67(06
863$7(17(' 863$7(17('
863$7(17(' 863$7(17('
863$7(17('

863$7(17('

PVDOD]DU#SURWRLLFRP *61 7<3'(7$,/6
6
(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning March 28, 2022
Jeff Pemstein
Towne Development of Sacramento
11060 White Rock Rd, Suite 110
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
[email protected]
Donald Kuemmeler
KV Sierra Vista, LLC
601 University Avenue, Suite 125
Sacramento, CA 95825
[email protected]
SUBJECT: SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia
File # PL21-0256
Citywide Job # 190748
On MARCH 24, 2022, the Planning Commission CONSIDERED the 7th ADDENDUM TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; RECOMMENDED APPROVAL of a request for SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (“BASELINE P&R DA”), and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (“BAYBROOK DA”); and, APPROVED the request for a TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP to subdivide the 23-acre property into three parcels (KT-40A, KT-40B, and KT-40C), a TREE PERMIT to remove two native oak trees, and a DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT to allow construction of 209 multi-family residential units on parcel KT-40A, located at 6350 BASELINE RD.

ADVISORY ACTION
The Planning Commission action on the SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (“BASELINE P&R DA”), and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (“BAYBROOK DA”) is a recommendation and does not grant the applicant any entitlements. These items require action by the City Council. The City Council will consider these items at a later date.

EXPIRATION DATE
You have two (2) years from the date of the Planning Commission’s approval in which to effectuate the permit, or else the TENTATIVE SUBDIVISON MAP, TREE PERMIT and DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT approval becomes null and void.

The expiration date of this request is MARCH 24, 2024.

Development Services Department
Planning Division
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, California 95678-2649
CC ATTACHMENT 2
Development Services – Planning Division
Planning Commission - Notice to Applicant
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 Baseline Rd
File # PL21-0256; Project Type: DRP, SUBD, SPA, TP, & DAA Meeting Date: 3/24/22

Page 2 of 24 ends

Roseville City CouncilApril 20, 2022

Roseville City Council
April 20, 2022