Agenda — Roseville City Council, April 20, 2022 (part 7 of 9)

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning

EXTENSION OF PERMIT
You many request that the TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP be extended for a period up to a maximum of six (6) years. An application for an extension shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the expiration date indicated above. No notice will be sent to you prior to the date of permit expiration.

You many request that the TREE PERMIT and DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT be extended for a period up to a maximum of one (1) year. An application for an extension shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the expiration date indicated above. No notice will be sent to you prior to the date of permit expiration.

YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REQUESTING ANY EXTENSION.

FEE NOTIFICATION
Per Government Code Section 66000, et seq, this notice shall serve as notification that the 90 day appeal period has begun in which the applicant may protest the imposition of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed under the provisions of Government Code Section 66020 to the City Council. The appeal shall be filed in writing or on a form provided by the City stating the reasons for the appeal as provided for in Government Code Section 66020.

The appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk.

APPEAL PROCEDURE
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed. This decision must be appealed to the City Council by filing a written appeal and paying the required fee within ten (10) calendar days of March 24, 2022. The appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk.

You may be precluded from filing a lawsuit to challenge this decision unless you use this opportunity for administrative appeal and raise any issues you believe to be wrongly decided.

Persons wishing to commence a court case challenging this decision must do so within ninety (90) days of the final decision (after all administrative appeals are exhausted) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures Section I094.6. (See Roseville City Council Resolution No. 82-8I) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR 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)
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 3 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/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 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-foot-wide parking area plus a 5-foot-wide loading area) and a minimum of one (1) 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 4 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning 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 11B206 and 11B-208. (Building)

12. Signs and/or striping shall be provided on-site as required by the Planning Department to control on-site 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) 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)
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 5 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning 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 back-of-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)
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 6 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning

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)

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:

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 7 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning “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)

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)
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 8 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning

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 Pre-Construction meeting shall address the presence of the Preserve, the sensitive habitats present and minimization of disturbance to the Preserve. During grading and construction the preserve area shall be avoided and shall not be used for parking, storage, or project staging.

The contractor shall remove all trash blown into the preserve from adjacent construction on a daily basis. After construction is complete, the temporary fencing shall be removed from the preserve, along with all temporary erosion control measures (e.g., straw bales, straw waddles and stakes, silt fencing). (Engineering, Development Services Department, Planning) 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 9 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/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 profile-view 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.

Page 10 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning 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)

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 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 11 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning 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.
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) 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 12 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning

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)

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 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 13 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning 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 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 14 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning 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)

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) 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 15 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning

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 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:

Page 16 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning 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 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.

Page 17 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning 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 splitfaced 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) 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 18 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/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)

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) 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 19 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning

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

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:

Page 20 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning 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 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) 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 21 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning

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)
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 22 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning 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) 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 23 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/planning

8. The applicant shall install a minimum of a five-foot high chain link fence (or acceptable alternative) at the outermost edge of the Protected Zone of the oak tree. Where encroachment is permitted pursuant to Condition 4, above, the fencing for encroachments shall be installed at the limit of construction activity. The applicant shall install signs at two equidistant locations on the temporary fence that are clearly visible from the front of the lot and where construction activity will occur. The size of each sign shall be a minimum of two feet (2’) by two feet (2’) and must contain the following language: “WARNING THIS FENCE SHALL NOT BE

REMOVED OR RELOCATED WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE PLANNING DIVISION”. (Planning)

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

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

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

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) 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 24 of 24 ends

(916) 774-5276 • (916) 774-5129 Fax • (916) 774-5220 TDD • [email protected] • www.roseville.ca.us/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) NOTICE TO PROJECT APPLICANT: All materials introduced at a public hearing or included with the project’s staff report, including but not limited to exhibits, photographs, video or audio tapes, plan sets, architectural drawings, models, color and materials palettes, and maps must be retained by the Planning Division as a part of the public record for one year following the City’s final action on the project. Official project file materials will be kept in conformance with the Planning Division’s adopted retention schedule. Color renderings and material boards will be disposed of after the project is built and the project receives a certificate of occupancy or at the end of one year, whichever is later.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT–PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon St, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276
7th ADDENDUM TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2008032115, ADOPTED ON MAY 5, 2010)
Project Title/File Number: SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B- Estia; File #PL21-0256 Project Location: 6350 and 6400 Baseline Road, Roseville, Placer County, CA (APN 499-010-014-000)
Project Description: The proposed project will create 209 multi-family residential units within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP). The proposed project is a Tentative Parcel 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” and “Baybrook”) applicable to the property will be amended so that the property is covered under one Development Agreement (“Baseline P&R”). Approximately 7.5 acres of the site, which will be the resulting parcels KT-40B & KT-40C, will remain undeveloped and designated for future commercial uses.

Project Applicant: Vanessa Humphrey, REY Engineers
Property Owner: KV Sierra Vista, LLC
Lead Agency Contact: Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner; Phone (916) 746-1309 An Addendum to a previously certified and adopted negative declaration or environmental impact report may be prepared for a project if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred (California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines [CEQA] Section 15164). Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the below analysis has been prepared in order to demonstrate that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred and that only minor technical changes or additions are necessary in order to deem the adopted negative declaration adequate to describe the impacts of the proposed project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 also states that an addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can be included in or attached to the adopted negative declaration for consideration by the hearing body. This Addendum focuses only on those aspects of the project or its impacts which require additional discussion.

CC EXHIBIT A

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 2 of 44 ends

Table of Contents
Project Description …………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Purpose and Scope of Addendum ………………………………………………………………… 5 Initial Study Checklist
I. Aesthetics ……………………………………………. 9
II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources ………………….. 11
III. Air Quality ……………………………………………. 13
IV. Biological Resources ………………………………… 14
V. Cultural Resources ………………………………….. 16
VI. Energy ……………………………………………… 17
VII. Geology and Soils …………………………………... 17
VIII. Greenhouse Gases …………………………………... 21
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ………………….. 22
X. Hydrology and Water Quality ………………………… 24
XI. Land Use and Planning ………………………………. 26
XII. Mineral Resources ………………………………….. 28
XIII. Noise …………………………………………………. 29
XIV. Population and Housing ……………………………... 31
XV. Public Services ……………………………………….. 32
XVI. Recreation …………………………………………… 34
XVII. Transportation ……………………………….. 35
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ……………………………. 37
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ………………………… 39
XX. Wildfire ………………………………………………. 41
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ………………….. 43
Environmental Determination …………………………………………………………………….. 44 Attachments ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 3 of 44 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location
The 23-acre project site is located at 6350 Baseline Road (APN 499-010-014-000), on Parcel KT-40A and KT40B within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan area (see Figure 1). The site is a single parcel with two large lot numbers.

Figure 1: Project Location
Background
The SVSP was approved by the City Council on May 5, 2010 (file #2007PL-044). An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified on May 5, 2010 (SCH #2008032115) and a Mitigation Monitoring Program was adopted with the SVSP. The plan area includes 2,064 acres west of Fiddyment Road, north of Baseline Road.

The SVSP at a program level anticipated development of the plan area with a mix of residential, commercial, parks and open space land uses. Additionally, Development Agreements with the property owners of the SVSP parcels and the City were entered into to outline development obligations within the SVSP.

Parcels KT-40A and KT-40B are designated as Community Commercial/Commercial Mixed Use (CC/CMU) parcels in the SVSP with 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 minium density of 13 units per acre. The SVSP allocates a total of 209 residential units to the site.

Environmental Setting
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. A 25- foot-wide roadway and overhead power lines traverse the property in a north to south direction. Aerials of the site show evidence of previous ground disturbance due to construction of adjacent roadways. The parcel has frontage on Blue Oaks Boulevard to the south, and is adjacent to Curry Creek open space to the north and east, and an undeveloped Park and Recreation parcel to the west.

Project Site
Baseline Rd.

Santucci Bl.

Westbrook Bl.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 4 of 44 ends

Table 1: Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
Figure 2: Preliminary Site Plan
Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Actual Use of Property Site Commercial Mixed Use/Special
Area (CMU/SA)
Community Commercial
(CC-9)
Vacant
North Open Space (OS) Open Space (OS) Curry Creek Open Space South Unincorporated Placer County Unincorporated Placer County
Unincorporated Placer County
East OS OS Open Space
West Parks & Recreation (PR) Parks & Recreation (PR) Vacant

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 5 of 44 ends

Proposed Project
The preliminary site plan of the proposed project is shown in Figure 2 above. The proposed project is a Tentative Parcel 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” and “Baybrook”) applicable to the property will be amended so that the property is covered under one Development Agreement (“Baseline P&R”).

Approximately 7.5 acres of the site, which will be the resulting parcels KT-40B and KT-40C, will remain undeveloped and will be designated for future commercial uses. A separate Design Review Permit will be required prior to development of parcels KT-40B and KT-40C.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ADDENDUM
This Addendum has been prepared to identify and assess the anticipated environmental impacts of the abovedescribed project. The document relies on previous environmental documents and site-specific studies prepared to address in detail the effects or impacts associated with the project as well as updated technical analyses, prepared by qualified consultants. This document has been prepared to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). CEQA requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before acting on those projects.

Where, as here, an EIR addressing an earlier version of the project has been previously prepared and certified, the lead agency considers the relevance of that prior EIR in light of the current modified version of the project and changed circumstances since the time of the preparation of the prior EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162-15163, if the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence, that new information of substantial importance, or changes to the project or surrounding circumstances will require major revisions to the previous EIR due either to a new significant effect or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect on the environment, the lead agency is required to prepare a Subsequent EIR or an EIR Supplement to analyze the project at hand. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15164, if the agency finds no basis for requiring the preparation of either a Subsequent EIR or an EIR Supplement, but some changes or additions are necessary, an Addendum shall be prepared.

The Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR was adopted by City Council on May 5, 2010. The document analyzed the impacts that would occur as a result of development of the SVSP area. A copy of the SVSP EIR is available for review online at www.roseville.ca.us/planning under Specific Plans and then the Sierra Vista Specific Plan page.

The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when it certified the SVSP EIR. The EIR identified the following impacts associated with development of the SVSP area, including the buildout of the project area, as significant and unavoidable:
• Conversion of agricultural land to developed uses
• Inducement of substantial population growth
• Increased traffic on City of Roseville roadways
• Increased traffic on State Highways, including Interstate 80 • Increased traffic on Placer County roadways
• Increased emissions of fugitive dust and PM10 from grading and trenching activities (short term) • Increased emissions of ozone precursors during construction (short-term) • Increased emissions of air pollutants during operation • Loss of oak trees of greater than 6 inches diameter breast height (dbh) (short-term) • Removal of historically significant properties and/or loss of historic integrity of such resources

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 6 of 44 ends

• Increased demand for solid waste services at the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill • Increased demand for solid waste services at the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) • Construction debris demand for solid waste services
• Alteration of the visual character of the site and vicinity • New sources of light and glare
For build out of the SVSP project area, the SVSP EIR also identified the following cumulative impacts as significant and unavoidable:
• Agricultural land conversion
• Air pollutant emissions from construction
• Air pollutant emissions from operation
• Contribution to greenhouse gas emissions/global warming • On-site noise levels that exceed City standards
• Off-site noise levels that exceed City standards
• Traffic impacts to Roseville, Placer County, Sacramento County, Sutter County and State facilities • Increased demand for water
• Increased demand for recycled water distribution system • Increased generation of solid waste
• Change in visual character
The analyses below rely on the EIR analysis with minor supplements or technical updates where appropriate.

Most of the project impacts remain identical to the impacts of the SVSP EIR, because the proposed project is consistent with the land uses anticipated for the site and does not change the development footprint or anticipated grading for the site. Impacts to physical resources (such as agricultural land, biological resources, etc.) are based on the grading and development of an area, not on the land use designation of the property. For other types of impacts which are affected by land use type, the project uses reduce or maintain the same level of potential impacts.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR ADDENDUM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The purpose of this checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any “changed condition” (i.e. changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental result. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, but that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed in prior environmental documents.

EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION CATEGORIES
Where Impact was Analyzed
This column provides a cross-reference to the pages of the prior environmental documents where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic.

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

Any new Circumstances Involving New Impacts?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been changes to the project site or the vicinity (circumstances under which the project is undertaken) which have

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 7 of 44 ends

occurred subsequent to the certification or adoption of prior environmental documents, which would result in the current project having new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the prior environmental documents or that substantially increase the severity of a previously identified impact.

Any new Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3)(A–D) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental documents were certified or adopted is available requiring an update to the analysis of the previous environmental documents to verify that the environmental conclusions and mitigation measures remain valid. Either “yes” or “no” will be answered to indicate whether there is new information showing that: (A) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the prior environmental documents; (B) that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the prior environmental documents; (C) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the prior environmental documents would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. If “no,” then no additional environmental documentation (supplemental or subsequent EIR) is required.

Mitigation Measures Implemented or Addressing Impacts
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the prior environmental documents provide mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. In some cases, the mitigation measures have already been implemented. A “yes” response will be provided in any instance where mitigation was included, regardless of whether the mitigation has been completed at this time. If “none” is indicated, this environmental analysis concludes a significant impact does not occur with this project, no mitigation was previously included, and no mitigation is needed.

DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION SECTIONS
Discussion
A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue and the status of any mitigation that may be required or has already been implemented.

Mitigation Measures
Applicable mitigation measures from the prior environmental review that apply to the project are listed under each environmental category.

Conclusions
A discussion of the conclusion relating to the analysis contained in each section.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 8 of 44 ends

OHER CONSIDERATIONS
Since certification of the SVSP EIR, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has updated CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form), effective early 20191 . These updates address legislative changes
to CEQA, clarify language, and update language consistent with case law. None of the changes to the checklist require new analysis related to impacts which were not known or which could not have been known at the time the SVSP EIR was prepared. The majority of the checklist changes clarify language, reorganize existing language, or eliminate analysis requirements. For analysis requirements which have been eliminated, this is in response to case law affirming that analysis must focus on impacts caused by the project, not impacts to the project. An example of each of these types of changes is included below:
• Cultural Resources (a): Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource as defined in pursuant to Section 15064.5?
The replacement of “as defined in” with “pursuant to” is a phrasing change which has no impact on required analysis.
• Cultural Resources (c) has been moved to Geology and Soils (f).

Moving the topical section of this analysis requirement (which is related to paleontological resources) from Cultural Resources to Geology and Soils has no impact on required analysis. • Noise (b): Exposure of persons to or Generation of excessive ground borne vibration of ground borne noise levels?
The above changes redirect the analysis from considering overall exposure of persons to ground borne vibration, and focus the analysis on any ground borne vibration generated by a project. This same change is reflected in all other checklist questions related to noise. Therefore, the EIR included more analysis than is currently required, because they included analysis related to exposing neighboring areas to noise, but also analyzed the effect of noise on the proposed uses; the latter analysis is no longer required.

The updated CEQA Guidelines Appendix G also includes three new sections (Tribal Cultural Resources, Energy, and Wildfire) and includes new and modified requirements as part of the Transportation/Traffic section. Although the Tribal Cultural Resources section is new, the analysis of this impact area was included in the SVSP EIR as part of the Cultural Resources section. The new Energy section was formerly included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, but has been moved into the Appendix G, so while it is new to the checklist it is not new to the CEQA Guidelines. The changes to the Transportation/Traffic section—which is now called simply Transportation— refocuses the analysis on vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

As evaluated below, none of the modifications to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G require new analysis related to impacts which were not known or which could not have been known at the time the SVSP EIR was prepared.

Therefore, an Addendum is the appropriate environmental document to describe the impacts of the proposed project.
1 Although the older checklist could be used for this Addendum because of the date of publication of the original EIR, the updated checklist is used instead as part of a good-faith effort to provide the most up-to-date information to decision-makers and the public (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1(e); CEQA Guidelines Sections 15002(a)(1), 15003(c)).

CHECKLIST
I. Aesthetics
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? SVSP EIR
Section 4.14 No No No None
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
Same No No No None
c. In non-urbanized area, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Same No No No None
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.13-1
Discussion: Impacts to visual and aesthetic resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project, and were previously identified as significant and unavoidable. There is no significant change in the proposed project that would change the environmental impact for this section. The proposed land use change and subdivision map do not introduce development to properties not already planned for development. The proposed uses are substantially consistent with the build out assumptions and would not increase the severity of already identified significant impacts.

The project has been evaluated for compliance with the City’s Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and the design guidelines established in the SVSP. The CDG establishes common design elements and expectations for development within the City. The CDG includes provisions related to architectural design, site design and landscape design, to enhance the visual character of the urban environment. The CDG recommends preserving, to the extent feasible, visual resources such as native oak trees and creek or wetland resources. The site does not contain any creek or wetland resources; however, the project will require the removal of one native oak tree on the project site, and therefore requires a Tree Permit.

Consistent with the City’s Tree Preservation ordinance (RMC Ch. 19.66), the Tree Permit would contain conditions of approval that require

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 10 of 44 ends

compliance with mitigation measures. These measures include payment of in-lieu mitigation fees to compensate for oak tree removal. The project has been reviewed by City staff and was found to be consistent with the goals and policies of the CDG, the SVSP, and applicable zoning regulations.

As it relates to light and glare, Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.13-1 requires all light fixtures for commercial and office uses to have glare shields and all new buildings to be constructed with low-glare materials. While the project does not involve development of the commercial parcels at this time, MM 4.13-1 is still applicable. Given the project’s proximity to the Curry Creek open space to the north, SVSP MM 4.14-3 will also apply, which ensures lighting would not adversely affect wildlife in open space areas and along Curry Creek. In addition, lighting is conditioned to comply with City standards (i.e., CDG) to limit the height of light standards and also require cut-off lenses and glare shields to minimize light and glare impacts.

Based on the reasons listed in this section, there would be no new significant impacts not previously identified in the SVSP EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” relative to aesthetic resources.

Mitigation Measures: SVSP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.13-1 (use low-glare materials) and 4.14-3 (avoid light spill over into Curry Creek open space) remain applicable to the proposed project. These mitigation measures can be found in the table of applicable mitigation measures included with this Addendum (see Attachment 1).

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 11 of 44 ends

II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?

SVSP EIR
Section 4.1 No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.1-2
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract? Same No No No None
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
Same No No No None
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? Same No No No None
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
Same No No No None
Discussion: Agricultural resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project. There is no significant change in the proposed project that would change the environmental impact for this section. The SVSP EIR concluded development of the project area would convert fallow grazing land to urbanized development. The proposed project will result in the same impact, as it falls within the planned development footprint of the SVSP. The project site is not used for agricultural purposes, does not include agricultural zoning, is not within or adjacent to one of the areas of the City designated as a protected farmland category on the Placer County Important Farmland map, is not within

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 12 of 44 ends

or adjacent to land within a Williamson Act Contract, and is not considered forest land. For these reasons, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required for the project with respect to agricultural and forestry resources.

Mitigation Measures: SVSP EIR Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.1-2 required preservation of open space within Placer County in order to mitigate for the loss of open space in the SVSP. Though this measure remains applicable to the project, the measure has been completed via an established fee program that directs funds to the Placer Land Trust, which then sets aside land.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 13 of 44 ends

III. Air Quality
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

SVSP EIR
Section 4.4 No No No None
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.4-1, MM

4.5-1, and MM 4.5-2
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? Same No No No None
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number
of people?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The SVSP EIR concluded that standard dust control and other construction measures would be sufficient to avoid particulate matter and ozone precursor construction impacts, but that reactive organic gases would remain significant. Construction activity associated with the proposed project remains consistent with the scale of activity and resulting scope of impacts anticipated in the SVSP EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation for the site and evaluated in the SVSP EIR, and is substantially consistent with the build out assumptions.

Therefore, operational impacts of the proposed project remain consistent with the scope of impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR. Based on the foregoing, there would be no new significant impacts not previously identified in the SVSP EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” relative to air quality impacts.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 (construction emissions), 4.5-1 (operational emissions), 4.5-2 (greenhouse gas emissions) from the SVSP EIR remain applicable to the proposed project, and have been incorporated into the design of the project as appropriate. These mitigation measures can be found in the table of applicable mitigation measures included with this Addendum (see Attachment 1).

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 14 of 44 ends

IV. Biological Resources
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

4.8 No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.8-1 to 4.8-7
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies or regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.8-4 to 4.8-7
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.8-1 to 4.8-7
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.8-4 to 4.8-7
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Same No No No None

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 15 of 44 ends

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Same No No No None
Discussion: Biological Resources were adequately addressed in the SVSP EIR as it relates to the proposed project. Mitigation measures were adopted to reduce impacts to wetlands, vernal pool species, Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and other protected raptors nesting and foraging habitat to less-than-significant levels. There is no significant change in the proposed project that would change the environmental impact for this section and the proposed project is located on properties already anticipated for development.

An Arborist Report was prepared for the project by California Tree and Landscape Consulting, Inc. (see Attachment 2) that inventoried a total 41 trees on the site. The Tree Preservation Chapter (Chapter 19.66) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance identifies a protected tree as any native oak tree equal to or greater than six inches diameter at breast height (DBH), and requires a Tree Permit for the removal of a protected tree. All trees on the site will be removed, however, only two are considered protected trees—Tree #8511 (31” DBH interior live oak) and Tree #8513 (23” DBH interior live oak). The trees could potentially provide habitat for nesting birds and construction activities could also have the potential to disrupt offsite nesting species. The SVSP EIR adopted MM 4.8-3 which requires pre-construction nesting surveys to ensure that nesting birds are not harmed during construction. Compliance with this measure was found to render potential impacts to nesting birds as less than significant. In addition, the SVSP EIR concluded that compliance with the City’s Zoning Ordinance Tree Preservation Chapter 19.66 would ensure that removal of oak trees would be adequately replaced. Consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, the project includes a request for a Tree Permit to allow removal of the protected oak trees. The Tree Permit will have conditions of approval requiring compliance with the SVSP EIR mitigation measures. The SVSP EIR mitigation measures were found to render potential impacts less than significant.

The proposed project would not result in any new or modified impacts to biological resources beyond what was previously analyzed in the SVSP EIR. The project site is devoid of vernal pools and other water features. The site is primarily populated by non-native annual grasses and aerial photography shows evidence of previous ground disturbance on the site due to construction of the adjacent roadways. The mitigation measures adopted with certification of the SVSP EIR remain applicable and no additional impacts will occur. Impacts remain less than significant upon compliance with the applicable mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 (wetland permits and no net loss), 4.8-2 (relocate western spadefoot), 4.8-3 (protection for nesting birds), 4.8-4 (preservation of grassland habitat), 4.8-5 (wildlife movement protection), 4.8-6 (habitat restoration), 4.8-7 (off-site surveys for infrastructure), and 4.14-3 (avoid light spill over into Curry Creek open space) were identified to reduce the impacts to biological resources to less than significant. These measures also applicable to the proposed project.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 16 of 44 ends

V. Cultural Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

SVSP EIR
Section 4.9 No No No None
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.9-1 to 4.9-3
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.9-1 to 4.9-3 Discussion: The SVSP EIR discussed the potential for subsurface remains or deposits to be found on the site, and included a mitigation measure requiring a cessation of work should any item of cultural interest be found. The mitigation was found to render potential impacts less than significant.

The project will result in the same impact, and the mitigation remains applicable to the proposed project. Consistent with state law, notice of the proposed project was mailed on September 14, 2021 to tribes which had requested such notice pursuant to Assembly Bill 32 (AB32) and Senate Bill 18 (SB18). No request for consultation was received during the request for consultation period.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 (cease work and consult with archeologist), 4.9-2 (cease work and consult with paleontologist), and 4.9-3 (conduct appropriate studies) remain applicable to the proposed project.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 17 of 44 ends

VI. Energy
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

SVSP EIR
Section 4.12.5 No No No None
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy inefficiency?

SVSP EIR
Section 4.12.5 No No No None
Discussion: The SVSP EIR concluded that development and implementation of the SVSP would add land uses that would increase the demand for electrical services. However, Roseville Electric determined there were no constraints to providing a reliable energy source to serve the development proposed in the SVSP area. Electricity in the area is provided by Roseville Electric and natural gas is provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Impacts 4.12-5.1 and 4.12-5-2 in the SVSP EIR evaluated the potential for development of the SVSP to increase demands for electricity and natural gas and found these impacts to be less than significant.

The project would allow for the development of 209 multi-family residential units. The project would consume energy both during project construction and during project operation. During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. However, the energy consumed during construction would be temporary, and would not represent a significant demand on available resources. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment or methods that would be less energy-efficient or which would be wasteful.

The completed project would consume energy related to building operation, exterior lighting, landscape irrigation and maintenance, and vehicle trips to and from the use. In accordance with California Energy Code Title 24, the Project would be required to meet the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. This includes standards for water and space heating and cooling equipment; insulation for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings; and appliances, to name a few. The project would also be eligible for rebates and other financial incentives from both the electric and gas providers for the purchase of energy-efficient appliances and systems, which would further reduce the operational energy demand of the project. The project was distributed to both PG&E and Roseville Electric for comments, and was found to conform to the standards of both providers; energy supplies are available to serve the project.

The SVSP EIR included an assessment of energy impacts for the entire plan area. The analysis included consideration of transportation energy, and evaluated walkability, alternative transportation modes, and the degree to which the mix and location of uses would reduce vehicle miles

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 18 of 44 ends

traveled in the plan area. The EIR also included a citywide assessment of energy demand based on the existing and proposed land uses within the City and Specific Plan. Impacts related to energy consumption were found to be less than significant. The proposed project is consistent with the existing land use designation, and therefore is consistent with the current citywide assessment of energy demand, and will not result in substantial unplanned, inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy; impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 19 of 44 ends

VII. Geology and Soils
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

SVSP EIR
Section 4.7 No No No None
i) Ruptures of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.)
Same No No No None
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Same No No No None
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? Same No No No None
iv) Landslides? Same No No No None
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Same No No No None c) Be located in a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Same No No No None
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Same No No No None

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 20 of 44 ends

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Same No No No None
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?

SVSP EIR
Section 4.7 and
Section 4.9
No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.9-2 to
MM 4.9-3
Discussion: The project is not expected to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic shaking, ground failure or landslides. The project site is located in Roseville, which is in Placer County. The California Department of Mines and Geology classifies the South Placer area as a low severity earthquake zone. No active faults are known to exist within the County. The project site is considered to have low seismic risk with respect to faulting, ground shaking, seismically related ground failure and liquefaction.

The SVSP EIR indicated that compliance with existing regulations and permit requirements would be sufficient to avoid impacts related to these issues. This conclusion remains appropriate for the proposed project because there is no new information indicating that geologic conditions are different than previously understood. The SVSP EIR discussed the potential for paleontological resources to be found on the site, and included a mitigation measure requiring a cessation of work should any be found on site. The mitigation was found to render potential impacts less than significant. The project will result in the same impact, and the mitigation remains applicable to the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 (cease work and consult with paleontologist) and 4.9-3 (conduct appropriate studies) remain applicable to the proposed project.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 21 of 44 ends

VIII. Greenhouse Gases
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

SVSP EIR
Section 4.4 No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.4-1, 4.5-1
and 4.5-2
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The SVSP EIR concluded that buildout of the project area would cause significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce the project’s GHG emissions and resultant impacts.

Construction activity associated with the proposed project remains consistent with the scale of activity and resulting scope of impacts anticipated in the SVSP EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation for the site and evaluated in the SVSP EIR, and is substantially consistent with the build out assumptions. Greenhouse gas emissions, from both the construction and operational phases, will result in impacts consistent with those analyzed in the SVSP EIR. The project will comply with the required mitigation in the SVSP EIR. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” relative to GHG emissions.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 (construction emissions), 4.5-1 (operational emissions), and 4.5-2 (greenhouse gas emissions) from the SVSP EIR remain applicable to the proposed project, and have been incorporated into the design of the project as appropriate.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 22 of 44 ends

IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

4.10 No No No None
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment though reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.10-1
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
Same No No No None
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as
a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
Same No No No None
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
Same No No No None
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Same No No No None

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 23 of 44 ends

g) Expose people or structures either directly or
indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The SVSP EIR includes a brief overview for each impact topic, concluding that compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations regarding the use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure most impacts will be less than significant. The exception was for unknown soil contamination, as land which was used for agricultural purposes may include undiscovered, underground storage tanks or other contamination issues; mitigation for this was included. The project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The SVSP EIR analysis also found that there would be sufficient emergency services and facilities and that the area was not located within an airport land use plan or other aviation hazard area. These conclusions still fit for the proposed project, which is within the same development footprint.

Standard construction activities would require the use of hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, lubricants, glues, paints and paint thinners, soaps, bleach, and solvents. These are common household and commercial materials routinely used by both businesses and average members of the public. The materials only pose a hazard if they are improperly used, stored, or transported either through upset conditions (e.g. a vehicle accident) or mishandling. In addition to construction use, the operational project would result in the use of common hazardous materials as well, including bleach, solvents, and herbicides. Regulations pertaining to the transport of materials are codified in 49 Code of Federal Regulations 171–180, and transport regulations are enforced and monitored by the California Department of Transportation and by the California Highway Patrol.

Specifications for storage on a construction site are contained in various regulations and codes, including the California Code of Regulations, the Uniform Fire Code, and the California Health and Safety Code. These same codes require that all hazardous materials be used and stored in the manner specified on the material packaging. Existing regulations and programs are sufficient to ensure that potential impacts as a result of the use or storage of hazardous materials are reduced to less than significant levels.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is the state agency responsible for wildland fire protection and management.

As part of that task, CAL FIRE maintains maps designating Wildland Fire Hazard Severity zones. The City is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and is not in a CAL FIRE responsibility area; fire suppression is entirely within local responsibility. The project site is in an urban area, and therefore would not expose people to any risk from wildland fire.

The proposed uses are substantially consistent with the build out assumptions and would not increase the severity of already identified significant impacts; therefore, there would be no new significant impacts not previously identified in the SVSP EIR regarding hazardous materials. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” relative to hazards and hazardous materials.

Mitigation Measures: The SVSP EIR included a mitigation measure to address the low possibility that some contamination of soils still lingered due to past use of the land for agricultural purposes. The measure, Mitigation Measure 4.10-1, indicates that if evidence of contamination is observed (stained soils, unearthing of a tank, etc.) then proper testing and remediation is required, in coordination with the appropriate City Departments. This measure remains applicable to the project.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 24 of 44 ends

X. Hydrology and Water Quality
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

4.13 No No No None
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
Same No No No None
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:

Same No No No None
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on
or off-site; Same No No No None
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site; Same No No No None
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff; or
Same No No No None
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? Same No No No None

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 25 of 44 ends

d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Same No No No None
e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
Same No No No None
f) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiches zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation? Same No No No None Discussion: A Drainage and Storm water Master Plan was prepared and approved by the City as part of the SVSP EIR. As noted in the EIR, the Drainage and Storm water Master Plan demonstrated that the increases in impervious surfaces being caused by buildout of the SVSP would be offset by proposed drainage facilities and storm water improvements. The project would offset increases in peak flow, no development would occur within the 100-year floodplain area, and consistency with existing City regulations would ensure that all homes would be elevated at least two feet above the 100-year water surface elevation. With regard to storm water quality, the EIR notes that there are existing programs, regulations, and permits in place to ensure that the project would not have significant effects related to water pollution from construction or operation, though a mitigation measure is included to require compliance with this regulations.

The project is in an area of flat topography and is not near any large water bodies or dams/levees, so would not be subject to losses due to dam/levee failure, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The project falls within the development footprint of the SVSP, and does not result in any changes to the scope or scale of impacts, and the prior conclusions remain appropriate.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 4.13-1 was included to require compliance with the City’s stormwater quality standards, including preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). This measure remains applicable to the proposed project.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 26 of 44 ends

XI. Land Use and Planning
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental
Documents’ Mitigation
Measures Implemented or
Addressing Impacts.
a) Physically divide an established community? SVSP EIR Section 4.1 No No No None
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.1-3, 4.6-1
and 4.6-2
Discussion: The SVSP EIR concluded that there were some potential land use incompatibilities, but that these could be addressed by a mix of mitigation and compliance with the City Noise Ordinance and Grading Ordinance. Land use issues discussed and addressed included noise from McClellan overflights, agricultural uses in Placer County next to urban uses in the SVSP, construction noise, and commercial land use noise. The overflight noise is a potential nuisance discussion requiring disclosure to future purchasers within the Project area; noise volumes do not exceed standards. It was concluded that the project would not physically divide an established community and that the project did not conflict with any land use policies or regulations, or with a Habitat Conservation Plan (or similar). The EIR concluded that all impacts of the SVSP could be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation. The project involves the same use types within the same development footprint, and therefore the conclusions of SVSP EIR remain applicable to the proposed project. In addition, the project is consistent with the policies of the Zoning Ordinance, SVSP, and the General Plan which are adopted for the purpose of avoiding environmental effects.

The project area has been planned for development, including adequate roads, pedestrian paths, and bicycle paths to provide connections within the community. The project involves frontage improvements including new driveways, sidewalks, and pedestrian connections. As such, the project will not physically divide an established community.

As described above, changes introduced by the project and/or new circumstances relevant to the project would not, as compared to the SVSP EIR, result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than significant impacts previously disclosed.

Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” relative to land use and planning.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 4.1-3 (McClellan overflight disclosure), 4.6-1 (construction noise) and 4.6-2 (commercial noise controls). The measure regarding disclosure ensure that people purchasing property within the project area which could be affected by overflight noise are aware of this potential affects. The disclosure measure is implemented by including a Condition of Approval requiring that the deed

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 27 of 44 ends

disclosures are a component of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for all affected properties. The condition has been addressed in the Development Agreement for the project area, so the measures are already complete. The construction noise and commercial noise control measures are applied during construction, so remain applicable to the proposed project.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 28 of 44 ends

XII. Mineral Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

SVSP EIR
Section 4.7 No No No None
d) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The SVSP EIR indicated that there were no significant mineral resources in the area. Therefore, the project is not considered to have any impacts on mineral resources. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR have occurred” relative to mineral resources.

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 29 of 44 ends

XIII. Noise
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

SVSP EIR
Section 4.6 No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.1-3, 4.6-
1 and 4.6-4
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration
of ground borne noise levels? Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.6-1 and

4.6-4
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The SVSP EIR addressed construction noise, roadway noise, noise from non-residential land uses, and aircraft overflight noise.

Overflight noise has already been addressed in the Land Use section of this Addendum. Construction noise in general was discussed, and addressed via mitigation. Noise was determined to be an issue for all of the major roadways in the SVSP area, including Baseline Road.

Mitigation was found to reduce noise volumes to levels within General Plan standards, and so impacts were found to be less than significant.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 30 of 44 ends

The project will be subdividing the property into three lots—KT-40A, KT-40B, and KT-40C. The 209 units allocated to the property will be built on KT-40A, while the remaining KT-40B and KT-40C will be designated for commercial uses and developed in the future. Consistent with the SVSP noise reduction mitigation measures, a 6-foot tall masonry sound wall will be constructed along the shared property line between the residential and commercial uses. The sound wall will also help mitigate noise resulting from Baseline Road and ensure that noise volumes are consistent with City standards.

Based on the foregoing, the project would not result in new or more severe impacts than described in the SVSP EIR, and the impact conclusions of the EIR are unchanged. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR have occurred” relative to noise.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures 4.1-3 (McClellan overflight disclosure), 4.6-1 (construction noise), and 4.6-4 (traffic noise attenuation) were applied in the SVSP EIR. Construction noise controls in the mitigation includes located fixed equipment away from noise sensitive uses and having a construction disturbance coordinator to address noise concerns. Traffic noise attenuation also calls for the use of masonry walls along major roadways. These mitigation measures remain applicable to the proposed project.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 31 of 44 ends

XIV. Population and Housing
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

SVSP EIR
Section 4.2 No No No None
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The SVSP EIR indicated the SVSP would increase the number of housing units above those which had been anticipated in the General Plan, and analysis the effect on supporting services, infrastructure, and other issues related to environmental impacts. It was concluded that impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The project will construct 209 residential units, which is the total number of units allocated to the site. Given the project involves the same number of housing units as analyzed in the SVSP EIR, the project will result in the same previously identified impacts. No existing buildings or residents are present on the project site; therefore, no residences or communities would be displaced. The project would not result in new or more severe impacts than described in the SVSP EIR, and the impact conclusions of the EIR are unchanged. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR have occurred” relative to population and housing impacts.

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 32 of 44 ends

XV. Public Services
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any the public services:
a) Fire protection? SVSP EIR
Section 4.11 No No No None
b) Police protection? Same No No No None
c) Schools? Same No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.11-3
d) Parks? Same No No No None
e) Other public facilities? Same No No No None
Discussion: The SVSP EIR concluded that fire and police protection services, and other public services would not be negatively affected by the project. Existing City codes and regulations require adequate water pressure in the water lines, and construction must comply with the Uniform Fire and Building Codes used by the City of Roseville. Additionally, the applicant is required to pay a fire service construction tax, which is used for purchasing capital facilities for the Fire Department. Sales taxes and property taxes resulting from development will add revenue to the General Fund, which provides funding for police services. Existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure less than significant impacts.

An analysis of impacts to schools was included in the SVSP EIR, which concluded that two new elementary schools and one new intermediate school would be required in the project area. The high school students generated from the SVSP were assumed in the nearby high schools located outside the plan area. A portion of the SVSP is located within the Center School District and a portion is located within the Roseville City School District, though the current project area is entirely within the Center School District. The project will not change the overall number of housing units in the SVSP; therefore, the conclusions of SVSP EIR remain applicable to the proposed project.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 33 of 44 ends

The project was routed to the School District for review, and no issues were identified. The project will be required to pay per-unit school fees to mitigate any impacts. Under state law, such payments are deemed to constitute “full and complete mitigation” of impacts to school facilities (Gov. Code, § 65995, subd. (h)). In addition, the developer is required to work with the School District to identify a Safe Routes to School program. Impacts to public services were determined to be less than significant, with mitigation.

The developer will be required to pay fees into a Community Facilities District, which provides funding for park services. Future park and recreation sites and facilities have already been identified as part of the Specific Plan process. The City charges fees for end-users for other services, such as garbage and greenwaste collection, in order to fund those services. Existing codes, regulations, funding agreements, and facilities plans are sufficient to ensure less than significant impacts.

Based on the evaluation above, the project would not result in new or more severe impacts than described in the SVSP EIR, and the impact conclusions of the EIR are unchanged. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR have occurred” relative to public services.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 4.11-3 requires a Safe Routes to School program, which would be implemented at the time of school construction, and remains applicable to the proposed project.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 34 of 44 ends

XVI. Recreation
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

SVSP EIR
Section 4.11 No No No None
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The SVSP indicates that the required parkland dedication was met by dedication of parkland and through payment of park dedication in-lieu fees. As noted in the EIR, the payment of Citywide and neighborhood park fees will be required, and the payment of fees combined with the dedication of parkland will ensure that impacts to park services are less than significant. The project involves the construction of 209 units, which is consistent with the number of units allocated to the site by the General Plan and the SVSP. As such, the project will not increase the number of residents anticipated for the SVSP nor decrease the amount of area dedicated to park and recreation uses; therefore, this conclusion remains applicable to the proposed project. Given the foregoing, the project would not result in new or more severe impacts than described in the SVSP EIR, and the impact conclusions of the EIR are unchanged. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR have occurred” relative to recreation impacts.

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 35 of 44 ends

XVII. Transportation
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

SVSP EIR
Section 4.3 No No No SVSP EIR MM 4.3-1 to

4.3-5
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? n/a No No No None
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature(s) (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?

SVSP EIR
Section 4.3 No No No None
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Same No No No None Discussion: The SVSP EIR evaluated the traffic impacts to existing and future roadways from traffic being generated by the anticipated uses within the plan area. The EIR concluded that with mitigation, impacts to City roadways would be less than significant. Impacts to adjacent agency roadways was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact, and mitigation to lessen the impact was accepted. The proposed project is consistent with the Community Commercial/Commercial Mixed Use designation of the site and will be building the same number of units contemplated for the site. Therefore, the project would not cause new or more severe impacts than already described in the SVSP EIR.

Checklist item b) focuses on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). This was added to the checklist after publication of the SVSP EIR. However, the General Plan Update (GPU) EIR2 used the Roseville travel forecasting model to estimate VMT for the City. The VMT data was then normalized to residents as a “per capita” rate. As described in the GPU EIR, and consistent with the VMT reductions in OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, the City has adopted a VMT significance threshold of 12.8 VMT/capita. This threshold represents a 15 percent reduction to baseline per capita VMT. The GPU EIR concluded that buildout of the remaining undeveloped areas of the City, consistent with existing land use designations and existing development agreements, would exceed the City’s adopted threshold resulting in a 2 General Plan Update EIR: www.roseville.ca.us/GeneralPlan

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 36 of 44 ends

Significant Impact in both the constrained and unconstrained buildout scenarios; and that mitigation requiring land use changes was not feasible because of existing development agreements in place for the undeveloped areas of the City.

As stated in the GPU EIR and pursuant to the tiering provisions of CEQA, projects that are consistent with the General Plan do not require further VMT analysis. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use and will allow the development of 209 residential units, which is consistent with the number of units allocated to the site in the General Plan and in the SVSP. The project does not change the total number of units anticipated for buildout of the SVSP and analyzed in the GPU EIR; therefore, it can be concluded that the project is consistent with the GPU EIR analysis as it relates to VMT, and the project does not require further VMT analysis.

The proposed project has no impact on air traffic patterns, and does not present substantial safety risks. The project design does not introduce hazards such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections. The project has been reviewed by the City Engineering Division and City Fire Department staff, and has been found to be consistent with the City’s Design Standards. Furthermore, standard conditions of approval added to all City project require compliance with Fire Codes and other design standards. Compliance with existing regulations ensure that impacts are less than significant.

The proposed uses are substantially consistent with the build out assumptions and would not increase the severity of already identified significant impacts; therefore, there would be no new significant impacts not previously identified in the SVSP EIR relative to transportation. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR have occurred” relative to transportation.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation was included for each impacted facility (see SVSP EIR MM 4.3-1 to 4.3-5), but these measures have already been incorporated into the City’s Capital Improvement Program and fee programs. The measures are no longer necessary to impose on individual projects, as a mechanism for their funding and construction is already implemented.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 37 of 44 ends

XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural
Resource as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?

SVSP EIR
Section 4.9 No No No None
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1 the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Same No No No None

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 38 of 44 ends

Discussion: In addition to archeological resources, tribal cultural resources are also given particular treatment. Tribal cultural resources are defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074, as either 1) a site, feature, place, geographically-defined cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, that is listed or eligible for listing on the California Register or Historical Resources, or on a local register of historical resources or as 2) a resource determined by the lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according to the historical register criteria in Public Resources Code section 5024.1(c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe. This section was added to the CEQA Guidelines after the publication of the prior environmental document to which this Addendum is attached, but cultural resources were addressed in that document. The only item not completed was the required notice to tribes which have requested such notice pursuant to the Public Resources Code. As part of this Addendum, notice of the proposed project was mailed to tribes which had requested such notice, and no requests for consultation were received during the consultation period. Previously applied mitigation should be adequate to address potential impacts of the project, which require cessation of work should any item of cultural interest be found, to ensure the project will have a less than significant impact on cultural resources. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR have occurred” relative to Tribal Cultural Resources.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 (cease work and consult with archeologist) and 4.9-2 (cease work and consult with paleontologist) remain applicable to the proposed project.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 39 of 44 ends

XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

4.12.1 & 4.12.3 No No No None
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry, and
multiple dry years?
SVSP EIR Section

4.12.1 No No No None
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves the project
that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition of the
provider’s existing commitments?
SVSP EIR Section

4.12.3 No No No None
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
SVSP EIR Section

4.12.4 No No No None
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Same No No No None

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 40 of 44 ends

Discussion: The SVSP EIR addressed water demand for the plan area and determined there was adequate supply to meet the anticipated water demands from development of the plan area. Water demand and supply is based on existing land use designations and population projections. Because the project is consistent with the existing land use designations and will be building the same number of units allocated to the site, the project is consistent with the prior analysis.

Development of the project area will require the construction of water lines and sewer lines and facilities, but these were previously identified through the infrastructure master plans developed for the SVSP. Additionally, the project will have no effect on wastewater generation beyond that previously analyzed in the SVSP EIR. Given the project is consistent with the existing land use designations, Environmental Utilities determined that the project falls within the scope of the prior assessment. The SVSP EIR concluded that the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plan was sized to accommodate flow from the plan area and that impacts would be less than significant. This conclusion remains applicable to the proposed project.

The SVSP EIR indicated that the Western Placer Waste Management Authority facilities would be used to dispose of solid waste, and that there was sufficient capacity to accept solid waste from the SVSP. Solid waste generation is based on population, and as the project will not change the estimated population for the plan area, the project falls within the scope of the prior analysis, and does not result in any new or expanded impacts to this previously-identified significant and unavoidable impact.

Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred.” Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures 4.12.4-1 (expand the landfill) and 4.12.4-2 (diversion of construction debris) were included to require payment of fees to be used for landfill expansion and to require a 50% reduction in the construction waste stream. The landfill expansion measure has already been implemented, as fees are already in place that will apply to the proposed project. The remaining measure regarding diversion of construction debris remains applicable, as it is a project-level measure that applies during construction.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 41 of 44 ends

XX. Wildfire
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
n/a No No No None
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
n/a No No No None
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
n/a No No No None
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
n/a No No No None
Discussion: The Wildfire section was added to the CEQA Guidelines after the publication of the prior environmental document to which this Addendum is attached. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is the state agency responsible for wildland fire protection and management. As part of that task, CAL FIRE maintains maps designating Wildland Fire Hazard Severity zones. The City is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and is not in a CAL FIRE responsibility area; fire suppression is entirely within local

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 42 of 44 ends

responsibility. Checklist questions a—d above do not apply, because the project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is not in a CAL FIRE responsibility area. Therefore, there would be no impact to this criteria.

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

ADDENDUM
March 8, 2022
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia – 6350 & 6400 Baseline Rd.; File #PL21-0256

Page 43 of 44 ends

XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental
Documents Mitigation
Measures Implemented or
Addressing Impacts.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of an
endangered, threatened or rare species, or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
SVSP EIR No No No None
b) Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.)
SVSP EIR No No No None
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
SVSP EIR No No No None
Discussion: Long term environmental goals are not impacted by the proposed project. The cumulative impacts do not deviate beyond what was contemplated in the SVSP EIR, and mitigation measures have already been incorporated. With implementation of the City’s Mitigating Ordinances, Guidelines, and Standards and best management practices, mitigation measures described in this chapter, and permit conditions, the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the habitat of any plant or animal species. Based on the foregoing, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of any wildlife species, or create adverse effects on human beings. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR have occurred” relative to the mandatory findings of significance.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

In reviewing the site specific information provided for this project and acting as Lead Agency, the City of Roseville, Development Services Department, Planning Division has analyzed the potential environmental impacts created by this project and determined that the findings of CEQA Section 15162 concerning the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR or negative declaration and the findings of CEQA Section 15164 concerning the decision to prepare an Addendum can be made. As supported by substantial evidence within the Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR (2008032115, adopted on May 5, 2010), the Lead Agency makes the following findings:
[ X ] No substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the previous EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration.
[ X ] No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken.
[ X ] There is no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of due diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted.
[ X ] Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary in order to deem the adopted environmental document adequate.

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

1. SVSP Applicable Mitigation Measures

2. Arborist Report
SVSP PCL KT-40A & KT-40B – Estia, File #PL21-0256

TABLE OF APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Reviewing Party Documents to be Submitted to City
Staff Use Only
MM 4.4-1 Dust and Construction Control Measures
In accordance with the PCAPCD, the applicant shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations as listed above (e.g., Rule 202, 218 and 228). In addition, at the time of tentative map the applicant(s) shall implement a minimum of five (5) of the following measures unless superseded by state or other more stringent standards:

The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce short-term construction-related air quality impacts. In addition, dust control measures are required to be implemented by all projects in accordance with the City of Roseville Grading Ordinance, and the PCAPCD Fugitive Dust Rule 228. • Applicant shall submit to PCAPCD a Construction Emission / Dust Control Plan within 30 days prior to groundbreaking. If the PCAPCD does not respond within 20 days, the plan shall be considered approved. The plan must address the minimum requirements found in section 300 and 400 of District Rule 228, Fugitive Dust (www.placer.ca.gov/airpollution/airpolut.htm). The applicant shall keep a hard or electronic copy of Rule 228, Fugitive Dust on-site for reference. • The Construction Emission/Dust Control Plan shall include a comprehensive inventory (i.e. make, model, year, emission rating) of all heavy-duty off-road equipment (50 horsepower (HP) of greater) that will be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. If any new equipment is added after submission of the inventory, the prime contractor shall the prime contractor shall contact the APCD prior to the new equipment being utilized. The project representative shall provide PCAPCD with the anticipated construction timeline including start date, and name and phone number of the project manager and on-site foreman. The plan shall demonstrate that the heavy-duty (> 50 HP) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-average 20% NOX reduction and 45% particulate reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. PCAPCD shall be contacted for average fleet emission data. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, aftertreatment products, and/or other options as they become available. Contractors can access the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s web site to determine if their off-road fleet meets the requirements listed in this measure
(http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/Construction_Mitigation_Calculator.xls).

The following measures are also included to reduce construction-related ROG, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions:
• All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition. Contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per the manufacturer’s specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for verification. This measure will reduce combustion emissions of all criteria air pollutants. • Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, all applicants shall submit construction plans denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction will be used, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Low emission equipment is defined as meeting the California Air Resources Board’s Tier III standards. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the PCAPCD as well as City Planning Staff. This measure will primarily reduce ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 exhaust emissions.
• Paints and coating shall be applied either by hand or by high volume, low-pressure spray. This measure will reduce evaporative ROG emissions.
• All construction shall comply with the following measures to reduce fugitive dust related emissions of PM10 and PM2.5:
o Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard on soil haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means.
o Suspend grading operations during high winds (greater than 15 mph). o Sweep streets as necessary if silt is carried off-site to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.

The applicants shall submit
construction management plans as
part of the Grading Permit
application.

Engineering will review plans for
inclusion of these measures prior
to issuance of permits or approval
of plans.

Pre-Construction: Prior to
issuance of Grading Permits or
Improvement Plans.

Add as note on Improvement
Plans.

Engineering Dust Control Plan and
proof of submittal to
PCAPCD
ADDENDUM ATTACHMENT 1
o Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices.
o Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods.
o Phase grading into smaller areas to prevent the susceptibility of larger areas to erosion over extended periods of time.
o Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads.
o Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and water. o Clean earth moving construction equipment with water or sweep clean, once per day, or as necessary (e.g., when moving onsite), consistent with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Best Management Practices and the Roseville Grading Ordinance. Water shall be applied to control dust as needed to prevent dust impacts offsite. Operational water truck(s), shall be on-site, as required, to control fugitive dust. Construction vehicles leaving the site shall be cleaned, as needed, to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked offsite. o Spread soil binders on unpaved roads and employee/equipment parking areas. Soil binders shall be non-toxic in accordance with state and local regulations. Apply approved chemical soil stabilizers, or vegetated mats, etc. according to manufacturers’ specifications, to all-inactive construction areas (previously graded areas which remain inactive for 96 hours). o Minimize diesel idling time to a maximum of five minutes. o Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary diesel power generators, if feasible.
o An applicant representative, ARB-certified to perform Visible Emissions Evaluations (VEE), shall routinely (i.e., once per week) evaluate project related off-road and heavy-duty on-road equipment emissions for compliance with this requirement for projects grading more than 20 acres in size, regardless of how many acres are to be disturbed daily. o Construction equipment exhaust emissions shall not exceed the PCAPCD Visible Emissions Rule 202. Fugitive dust is not to exceed 40% opacity and not go beyond property boundary at any time. Operators of vehicles and equipment found to exceed opacity limits are to be immediately notified and the equipment must be repaired within 72 hours.

The following measures will be required:

1. Include the following standard note on the Improvement/Grading Plan: If required by the Public Works Department, the contractor shall hold a pre-construction meeting prior to grading activities. The contractor shall invite the Placer County APCD to the pre-construction meeting in order to discuss the construction emission/dust control plan with employees and/or contractors.

2. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall show, on the plans submitted to the Building Department, that electrical outlets shall be installed on the exterior walls of both the front and back of all residences or all commercial buildings to promote the use of electric landscape maintenance equipment.

3. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall show, on the plans submitted to the Building Department, provisions for construction of new residences, and where natural gas is available, the installation of a gas outlet for use with outdoor cooking appliances, such as a gas barbecue or outdoor recreational fire pits.

4. Prior to building permit approval, in accordance with District Rule 225, only U.S. EPA Phase II certified wood burning devices shall be allowed in single-family residences. The emission potential from each residence shall not exceed a cumulative total of 7.5 grams per hour for all devices. Masonry fireplaces shall have either an EPA certified Phase II wood burning device or shall be a U.L. Listed Decorative Gas Appliance. (Rule 225)

5. Wood burning or Pellet appliances shall not be permitted in multi-family developments. Only natural gas or propane fired fireplace appliances are permitted. These appliances shall be clearly delineated on the Floor Plans submitted in conjunction with the Building Permit application. (Rule 225 / section 302.2)

6. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall show that all flat roofs with parapets shall include a white or silver cap sheet to reduce energy demands.

7. Diesel trucks shall be prohibited from idling more than five minutes. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall show that all truck loading and unloading docks shall be equipped with one 110/208 volt power outlet for every two dock doors. Diesel Trucks idling for more than five minutes shall be required to connect to the 110/208 volt power to run any auxiliary equipment. 2’x3’ signage which indicates “Diesel engine Idling Limited to a Maximum of 5 Minutes” shall be shown on the building elevations and shall be submitted to the Placer County APCD prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the project.

8. Prior to approval of Improvement Plans, an enforcement plan shall be established, and submitted to the APCD for review, in order to evaluate project-related on-and-off- road heavy-duty vehicle engine emission opacities on a weekly basis, using standards as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2180 – 2194. An Environmental Coordinator, hired by the prime contractor or property owner, and who is CARB-certified to perform Visible Emissions Evaluations (VEE), shall routinely evaluate project related off-road and heavy duty on-road equipment emissions for compliance with this requirement.

Operators of vehicles and equipment found to exceed opacity limits will be notified by APCD and the equipment must be repaired within 72 hours. (California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2180 – 2194)
The project shall comply with all applicable Placer County Air Pollution Control District rules and regulations, and shall obtain applicable permits and/or clearances from the District prior to the start of construction.
• The contractor shall use CARB ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel for all diesel–powered equipment. In addition, low sulfur fuel shall be utilized for all stationary equipment. (California Standards for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel, title 13, article 4.8, chapter 9, California Code of Regulations). • Processes that discharge 2 pounds per day or more of air contaminants, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 39013, to the atmosphere may require a permit. Permits are required for both construction and operation. Developers/contractors should contact the District prior to construction and obtain any necessary permits prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. (Rule 501)
• Pursuant to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District Rule 501, General Permit Requirements, the proposed project may need a permit from the District prior to construction. In general, any engine greater than 50 brake horsepower or any boiler with heat greater than 1,000,000 Btu per hour shall require a permit issued by the District. (Rule 501) • All on-site stationary equipment which is classified as 50 hp or greater shall either obtain a state issued portable equipment permit or a Placer County APCD issued portable equipment permit. (California Portable Equipment Registration Program, Section 2452). • The contractor shall utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary diesel power generators if feasible. • During construction, the contractor shall minimize idling time to a maximum of 5 minutes for all diesel powered equipment.
• During construction, traffic speeds on all unpaved surfaces shall be limited to 15 miles per hour or less. (Rule 228 / section 401.2)
MM 4.6-2 & 4.4-1 Commercial Noise Controls
For all commercial uses within 150 feet of residential uses, the developer shall implement the following or equally effective measures:
• In general, where commercial land uses adjoin residential property lines, the following measures should be included in the design of the commercial use. If the primary noise sources are parking lot noise, HVAC equipment and light truck deliveries, then 6-7 foot tall masonry walls shall be constructed to provide adequate isolation of parking lot and delivery truck activities. HVAC equipment shall be located either at ground level, or when located on roof-tops the building facades shall include parapets for shielding.
• Where commercial uses adjoin common residential property lines, and loading docks or truck circulation routes face the residential areas, the following mitigation measures shall be included in the project design:
o Loading docks and truck delivery areas shall maintain a minimum distance of 30 feet from residential property lines;
o Property line barriers shall be 6 to 8 feet in height. Circulation routes for trucks should be located a minimum of 30-feet from residential property lines; Project plans will be reviewed for
compliance.

Pre-Construction: Prior to
issuance of Improvement
Plans and/or Building Permits
Add as note on Improvement
Plans and Building Plans
Engineering will
review Improvement
Plans for compliance
with wall
requirements.

Building will review
Building Plans for
compliance with
HVAC requirements.

Acoustical Study if
loading docks or truck
delivery routes are less
than 100 feet from
residential property lines
o All heating, cooling and ventilation equipment shall be located within mechanical rooms where possible;
o All heating, cooling and ventilation equipment shall be shielded from view with solid barriers; o Emergency generators shall comply with the local noise criteria at the nearest noisesensitive receivers; In cases where loading docks or truck delivery circulation routes are located less than 100 feet from residential property lines, an acoustical evaluation shall be submitted to verify compliance with the City of Roseville Noise Level Performance Standards.

MM 4.6- 4: Traffic Noise Attenuation
MM 4.6-4(a): Masonry walls and/or landscaped berms shall be constructed along the major projectarea roadways adjacent to proposed residential uses if acoustical studies warrant sound attenuation, otherwise standard wood fencing is acceptable. Draft EIR Table 4.6-10 data shall be consulted to determine appropriate barrier heights. If the assumptions shown in Table 4.6-10 vary considerably, a detailed analysis of exterior and interior mitigation measures should be conducted when tentative maps become available.

MM 4.6-4(b): In areas requiring sound attenuation, noise barrier walls shall be constructed of concrete panels, concrete masonry units, earthen berms, or any combination of these materials.

Wood is not recommended for construction due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance.

MM 4.6-4c: Tentative map applications for residential uses located along Fiddyment Road would be required to include an analysis of interior noise levels. The report shall be conducted by a qualified acoustical engineer and shall specify the measures required to achieve compliance with the City of Roseville 45 dB Ldn interior noise level standard.

The developer shall construct walls
in locations consistent with the
walls exhibit of the Specific Plan,
which shall be a minimum of six
feet tall per the Draft EIR. The
developer shall include wall and/or
landscaped berm details as part of
Improvement Plans which
demonstrate consistency with the
design requirements of the
measure.

Pre-Construction: Prior to
issuance of Improvement
Plans.

Add as note on Improvement
Plans and Building Plans
Engineering to review
plans for consistency
with measure.

An acoustical Study, if
conditions or plans
deviate from Specific Plan
or EIR.

WMM 4.7-13 Riparian Habitat Policies
To protect riparian vegetation within the SOI Amendment Area SVSP and Urban Reserve areas, the following policies shall be implemented:
a) The project applicant shall provide for temporary fencing along the top of the bank during construction of those areas of the proposed project adjacent to riparian habitat to discourage access to the riparian habitat by humans and pets.
b) The project applicant shall provide for permanent fencing and/or a landscape barrier to discourage access to the riparian habitat by humans and pets. The fencing and/or landscape barrier shall be placed at the top of the bank of the creeks along those portions of the site adjacent to riparian habitat. The proposed recreation trail shall be on the project site side of the fence/landscape barrier. The fencing and/or landscape barrier shall be constructed of wood or other natural materials and shall allow for the viewing of the riparian habitat while discouraging access.
c) Interpretive signs and displays shall be posted along the border of the riparian area to educate the public and route access away from sensitive areas. These informative signs will be posted at intervals determined appropriate by the City of Roseville Parks and Recreation Director along the border with information regarding the objectives of creek and riparian habitat protection. Signs should also include information regarding the importance of restricting access to the riparian area by household pets. Such signs will be made of wood or similar natural material, and be maintained by the Applicant.
d) Lighting adjacent to riparian buffers should be shielded away from the riparian areas.

The applicants shall design the
project to avoid and preserve
riparian vegetation.

Pre-Construction: Temporary
fencing shall be installed prior
to construction. Permanent
measures shall be shown on
Improvement Plans.

Add as note on Improvement
Plans.

Engineering and
Parks
None
Use Low-Glare Materials for New Development
In order to reduce the effects of daytime glare from development of commercial or office uses within the SVSP Area, building developers should make use, when feasible, of low-glare materials.

MM 4.14-3 Avoid Light Spill Over into Curry Creek and Open Space Areas Outdoor lighting shall be placed, designed and directed so as to avoid light spillover into the habitat of Curry Creek and the Open Space Preserve areas located immediately adjacent to the open space, as shown on the Land Use Map as parcels KT-1, KT-40, KT-30, KT-41, DF-1, DF-2, DF-40, CG-1, CG-82m JM-21, JM-3, and JM-4.

Comply with the measure Pre-Construction: Ensure
fixtures shown on
Improvement Plans and
Building Plans comply with the
measure.

Add as note on Improvement
Plans and Building Plans
Engineering and
Building
None
MM 4.6-1 Construction Noise Reduction
MM 4.6-1(a): Construction activities shall comply with the requirements of the City of Roseville Noise Ordinance.

MM4.6-1(b): Locate fixed construction equipment such as compressors and generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Shroud or shield all impact tools, and muffle or shield all in-take and exhaust ports on power construction equipment.

MM 4.6-1(c): Designate a construction disturbance coordinator and conspicuously post the Coordinator’s contact information around the project site and in adjacent public spaces. The disturbance coordinator will receive all public complaints about construction noise disturbances, and will be responsible for determining the cause of the complaint, and implementing any feasible measures to be taken to alleviate the problem.

MM 4.6-1(d): Well drilling shall occur prior to construction of the adjacent subdivision, to the extent feasible. If construction timing for the wells occurs after subdivision construction, then measures to reduce noise shall include; hanging flexible sound control curtains around the drilling apparatus, and the drill rig, to the degree feasible, as determined by the Environmental Utilities Director, if located within 1,000-feet of an occupied residence.

Discuss during pre-construction
meeting and comply with the
measure.

Pre-Construction and
Construction: During
construction for MM 4.6-1(d),
and prior to issuance of
Improvement Plans and/or
Building Permits for all others.

Add as note on Improvement
Plans and Building Plans
Engineering staff to
discuss this measure
during preconstruction meeting
and ensure posting
has occurred.

Environmental Utilities
to address well
drilling.

None
MM 4.8-3 Avoid Nesting Sites
To ensure that fully protected bird and raptor species are not injured or disturbed by construction in the vicinity of nesting habitat, the project applicant shall implement the following measures:

Raptors
a) When feasible, all tree removal shall occur between August 30th and February 15th to avoid the breeding season of any raptor species that could be using the area, and to discourage hawks from nesting in the vicinity of an upcoming construction area. b) For Swainson’s hawk, if avoidance of tree removal outside the breeding season is not feasible, and a nest is present, the applicants would be required to obtain a 2081 permit from CDFG to mitigate for potential “take” under CESA. If no nesting is occurring, a take permit would not be required.
c) Prior to the beginning of mass grading, including grading for major infrastructure improvements, during the period between February 15th and August 30th, all trees and potential burrowing owl habitat within 350 feet of any grading or earthmoving activity shall be surveyed for active raptor nests or burrows by a qualified biologist no more than 30-days prior to disturbance. If active raptor nests or burrows are found, and the site is within 350-feet of potential construction activity, a highly visible temporary fence shall be erected around the tree or burrow(s) at a distance of up to 350-feet, depending on the species, from the edge of the canopy to prevent construction disturbance and intrusions on the nest area.
d) Preconstruction and non-breeding season exclusion measures shall be developed in consultation with CDFG, and shall preclude burrowing owl occupation of the portions of the project site subject to disturbance such as grading. Burrowing owls may be passively excluded from burrows in construction areas by placing one-way doors in the burrows according to CDFG protocol. The one-way doors must be in place for a minimum of three days. All burrows that may be occupied by burrowing owls regardless of whether they exhibit signs of occupation must be cleared with the one way doors. Burrows that have been cleared through the use of the one-way doors shall then be closed or backfilled to prevent owls from entering the burrow. e) No construction vehicles shall be permitted within restricted areas (i.e., raptor protection zones) unless directly related to the management or protection of the legally protected species. f) If a legally protected species nest is located in a tree designated for removal, the removal shall be deferred until after August 30th or until the adults and young of the year are no longer dependent on the nest site as determined by a qualified biologist.

Black Rails and Tri-colored Blackbirds
Prior to earth moving that would disturb marsh habitat, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys to determine the presence of the California black rail. If either of these species is found, all earth moving within 250 feet shall stop and measures, including establishing nest protection buffers along both sides of Curry Creek during the nesting season (generally February 1 through August 31st) shall be implemented.

Rookeries
No heron rookeries are present within the plan area. Prior to earthmoving that would disturb marsh habitat or tree removal of the eucalyptus grove, pre-construction surveys should be conducted to verify Results of preconstruction surveys
shall be submitted prior to the
issuance of a grading permit or
Improvement Plans. Applicable
construction restrictions shall be
reflected within plans. The
applicants shall prepare annual
reports on the status and success
of mitigation and shall submit these
reports to USFWS and CDFG. The
applicants shall coordinate with
USFWS and CDFG to modify as
necessary any mitigation plans in
an effort to attain mitigation
success.

Pre-Construction and
Construction: Surveys required
prior to construction. If
surveys are positive for birds,
then remainder of mitigation
steps are required prior to
construction.

Add as note on Improvement
Plans.

Engineering Nesting bird surveys
that no rookeries have been established. If rookeries are present all earth moving within 250-feet shall stop, during the breeding season.

MM 4.13-1 Implementation of construction activity stormwater protection standards Prior to the issuance of a City grading permit and the commencement of construction activities, compliance with the State’s General Construction permit, the City of Roseville’s Construction Standards, and the City’s Stormwater BMP Guidance Manual will be met. This includes the creation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will identify the site, the location of sensitive habitats or watercourses, drainage areas, discharge locations, soil disturbance areas, and the locations of all runoff, erosion control, and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs). On-going monitoring and adjustments to the SWPPP will occur when needed to address changes in the field as construction activities evolve.

The developer shall create a
SWPPP, submit it to the City, and
comply with its provisions.

Pre-Construction and
Construction: Submit SWPPP
and ensure that BMPs remain
in place during construction.

Add as note on Improvement
Plans and Building Plans.

Engineering SWPPP
MM 4.9-1 Cease Work and Consult with Qualified Archaeologist Should any cultural resources, such as structural features, any amount of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains, be encountered during any subsurface development activities, work shall be suspended within 100-feet of the find. The City of Roseville Planning and Public Works Staff shall be immediately notified. At that time, the City of Roseville shall coordinate any necessary investigation of the site with qualified archaeologists as needed, to assess the resource (i.e., whether it is an “historical resource” or a “unique archaeological resource”) and provide proper management recommendations should potential impacts to the resources be found to be significant. Possible management recommendations for important resources could include resource avoidance or, where avoidance is infeasible in light of project design or layout or is unnecessary to avoid significant effects, data recovery excavations. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed feasible and necessary by City staff, in consultation with the archaeologists, to be to avoid or minimize significant effects to the cultural resources. In addition, pursuant to Section 5097.98 or the State Public Resources Code, and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code, in the event of the discovery of human remains, the County Coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, guidelines of the Native American Heritage Commission shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains.

This condition shall be reflected in
all construction and building plans,
and construction site workers shall
be advised by the site manager of
this measure.

Construction: Measure applies
if resources are discovered
during construction.

Add as note on Improvement
Plans and Building Plans.

Engineering and
Building
None
Mitigation Measure 4.9-3 Cease Work and Consult with Qualified Paleontologist Should any evidence of paleontological resources (e.g. fossils) be encountered during grading or excavation, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find, and the City of Roseville shall be immediately notified. At that time, the City shall coordinate any necessary investigation of the site with a qualified paleontologist to assess the resource and provide proper management recommendations. Possible management recommendations for important resources could include resource avoidance, if feasible in light of project design or layout, or data recovery excavations. The contractor shall implement any measures deemed feasible and necessary by City staff in consultation with the paleontologist for the protection of the paleontological resources.

This condition shall be reflected in
all construction and building plans,
and construction site workers shall
be advised by the site manager of
this measure.

Construction: Measure applies
if resources are discovered
during construction.

Add as note on Improvement
Plans and Building Plans.

Engineering and
Building
None
MM 4.10-1 Identify Potential Hazardous Materials (soil contamination, tank or well sites, lead based paint and/or asbestos)
Prior to site development in the SVSP, recommended testing and remediation, if needed shall occur.

Groundwater wells shall be properly closed.

If evidence of soil contamination, septic tanks, or other underground storage tanks are encountered in previously unidentified locations in the SVSP area, work shall cease until the area can be tested, and if necessary remediated and/or properly removed or closed. Remediation activities could include removal of contaminated soil, and/or onsite treatment. As part of the process, the City shall ensure that any necessary investigation and/or remediation activities are coordinated with the Roseville Fire Department, Placer County Division of Environmental Health, and if needed, other appropriate federal, state and local agencies. Once a site is remediated, construction can continue.

The applicants shall be responsible
for conducting soil testing and/or
recommendation of the Phase I
environmental site assessments, if
conditions are encountered which
warrant such studies.

Construction: Applies if
conditions found which warrant
assessment (e.g. stained soils,
underground tanks).

Add as note on Improvement
Plans.

Engineering and Fire Phase I environmental
assessment, if conditions
warrant
MM 4.12.4-2 Divert Construction Debris
The applicants shall ensure a 50% reduction in the construction waste stream generated from development within the SVSP. In Developer contracts with construction contractors and their subcontractors, the Developer shall require that construction waste be reduced by 50%. The Developer shall further require that contractors and sub-contractors submit records of diversion and disposal to the City’s Environmental Utilities Department in order to verify compliance with this requirement.

Comply with the measure Construction: Contractor to
ensure diversion occurs during
construction.

Add as note on Improvement
Plans and Building Plans.

Environmental Utilities Records of diversion
NOTE: This table is provided as a courtesy to the developer, to highlight the text of measures which are required to be placed on Improvement Plans and/or Building Plans. Refer to the applicable environmental document (e.g. Environmental Impact Report) for a full list of measures, and for context. Other measures may be applicable, but are not included here because they have already been completed or they are addressed via other mechanisms (e.g. development fees). 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.

ADDENDUM 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.

RESOLUTION NO. 22-107

AMENDING THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, a proposal has been submitted to amend the Special Area (SA) overlay description of the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) zone applicable to Parcels KT-40A, KT-40B, and KT-40C of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, as shown in Exhibit B, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the land use map and exhibits in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan will be amended to reflect the subdivision of the site, as shown in Exhibit B, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan and unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Specific Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan Amendment as proposed and revised is consistent with the adopted City of Roseville General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing at which time the proposed amendments were considered; and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2022, the City Council considered the 7th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010); and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Roseville has reviewed the findings of the Planning Commission recommending approval of the Specific Plan Amendment, and makes the following findings:

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
KT-40C CC

3.2 ac.

WB-30
HDR-29.3

8.1ac.

JM-61
P/QP
12ac.

FD-4
LDR-5

6.6ac.

JM-40
MDR-7.6

4.6ac.

FD-41
CC-7

5.7ac.

FD-33
HDR-20

8.6ac.

FD-53
PR

8.1ac.

JM-50 PR

7.94ac.

FD-82A OS

11.3ac.

FD-85
OS

20.8ac.

JM-84 OS
10ac.

DF-40
CC

12.6ac.

JM-81
OS

6.44ac.

FD-22A
LDR-6.3
12ac.

WB-23
MDR-7.2

9.9ac.

KT-80B OS

17.5ac.

WB-52 PR

1.5ac.

JM-72
OS

0.3ac.

JM-70
OS

0.3ac.

FD-77
OS

1.4ac.

FD-24
MDR-7.9

10.7ac.

FD-76
OS

0.2ac.

CO-70 OS

0.3ac.

JM-71
OS

0.7ac.

CO-71 OS

0.5ac.

FD-75 OS

1.1ac.

FD-73B
OS

0.5ac.

JM-73 OS

1.27ac.

FD-74 OS

0.6ac.

CO-20
MDR-8.9

9.4ac.

CO-21
MDR-7.9

7.8ac.

FD-52 PR
FD-80 5.5ac.

5.7ac.

FD-63
P/QP

2.8ac.

FD-64
P/QP

3.2ac. CO-40 CC

0.2ac.

JM-60
P/QP

0.36ac.

FD-82B
OS

0.1ac.

FD-87B OS

0.2ac.

CG-80 OS

1.9ac.

JM-82
OS

2.8ac.

CO-50 PR
1ac.

FD-87A OS

4.2ac.

CO-22
MDR-7.9

4.8ac.

FD-72A
OS

0.3ac.

FD-61
P/QP
1ac.

JM-80
OS

0.6ac.

FD-88A OS

13.2ac.

FD-70
OS

1.1ac.

FD-34
HDR-24.6
7ac.

FD-51 PR

1.1ac.

FD-83
OS

3.4ac.

FD-32
HDR-20.4

8.7ac.

FD-40
CC

7.5ac.

FD-86
OS

1.7ac.

CG-70 OS

0.7ac.

JM-51 PR

2.6ac.

JM-52
PR

1.5ac.

JM-83 OS

6.3ac.

WB-62
P/QP

0.8ac.

WB-32
HDR-25.1

5.1ac.

WB-51 PR

4.5ac.

WB-61
P/QP

0.3ac.

KT-81
OS

4.5ac.

KT-51
PR

4.4ac.

KT-60
P/QP

0.2ac.

DF-70
OS

0.5ac.

DF-71
OS
1ac.

DF-72
OS

0.4ac.

DF-2
LDR-4.7

3.2ac
DF-50
PR

2.1ac.

KT-40A
CC-12.2

17.1 ac.

FD-62
P/QP

0.5ac.

FD-81
OS

5.6ac.

FD-72B OS

0.3ac.

KT-82
OS

0.6ac.

FD-71B OS

0.8ac.

FD-20B
MDR-7.6

11.6ac.

FD-50
PR

1.71ac.

FD-71A
OS

0.7ac.

FD-73A
OS

0.5ac.

DF-81
OS

4.6ac.

CG-82
OS

0.8ac.

CO-80 OS

14.2ac.

KT-80A OS

17.7ac.

WB-20
MDR-7.9

8.4ac.

WB-41
MDR-7.2

8.8 ac.

WB-31
HDR-26.6

11.1ac.

WB-80 OS

36.6ac.

JM-20
MDR-8.1

39.7ac.

FD-8B
LDR-4.3
19ac.

CO-2B
LDR-5

14.6ac.

FD-5
LDR-5.2

17.4ac.

JM-1
MDR-7.8

17.2ac.

FD-3
LDR-5.1

9.1ac. CO-1
LDR-5

17.2ac.

CG-31
HDR-28.9

14.5ac.

CO-3
LDR-5

15.7ac.

JM-3
LDR-3.9

32.85ac.

FD-8A
LDR-4.5

16.5ac.

FD-65
P/QP

21.6ac.

CG-81 OS

6.7ac.

DF-42 CC

39.9ac.

JM-85 OS

14.8ac.

JM-21
LDR-4.3

18.8 ac.

FD-10
MDR-7

20.5ac.

FD-23
MDR-7.2

17.7ac.

FD-88B OS

20.9ac.

FD-21
MDR-7.7

24.4ac.

FD-20A
MDR-7.7

14.2ac.

FD-84 OS

25.2ac.

FD-2
LDR-5.7

17.1ac.

UR-92 UR

38.7ac.

DF-41 CC

29.1ac.

CG-20
MDR-8.3

5.3ac.

CO-81 OS

22.6ac.

FD-9
LDR-5.6

19.2ac.

CO-2A
LDR-5

14.3ac.

FD-1
LDR-4

18.6ac.

FD-7
LDR-6.3
9ac.

FD-6
LDR-6.6

14.5ac.

JM-2
LDR-6.3

29.7ac.

JM-41 CC

13.5ac.

JM-30
HDR-23.5

7.5ac.

JM-4
LDR-5

26.4ac.

WB-50 PR

8.7ac.

WB-60
P/QP
10ac.

WB-4
LDR-6.1

16.5ac.

WB-21
MDR-6.9

11.8ac.

WB-3B
LDR-6.3

11.2ac.

WB-3A
LDR-5.9

11.1ac. WB-1A
LDR-4.2

30.3ac.

WB-42 CC

14.6ac.

WB-22
MDR-6.7

4.8ac.

WB-2B
LDR-5.1

7.7ac.

WB-2A
LDR-4.9

11.8ac.

WB-5
LDR-5.1

30.5ac.

WB-24
MDR-7.1

7.5ac.

WB-6
LDR-4.6

21.7ac.

WB-7
LDR-5.8
WB-25 25.1ac.

MDR-7

14.3ac.

KT-30
HDR-23.1

7.4ac.

KT-5
LDR-5.8

23.9ac.

KT-20
MDR-6.8

24.6ac.

KT-52 PR

7.6ac.

KT-21B
MDR-7

21.7ac.

KT-50 PR

38.8ac.

KT-21A
MDR-7.2
KT-1B 18.7ac.

LDR-4.8

19.6ac.

KT-1A
LDR-4.2

14.4ac.

KT-61
P/QP

11.9ac.

KT-2
LDR-4.9

25.4ac.

KT-3A
LDR-5.3

20.6ac.

KT-4
LDR-5.2

15.88ac.

KT-3B
LDR-5.6

17.4ac.

KT-40B CC

2.8 ac.

KT-43 CC

11.9ac.

CG-1
LDR-4.8

23.9ac.

CG-50 PR

7.6ac.

CG-30
HDR-30

14.ac.

DF-20
MDR-7.9

14.5ac.

DF-80 OS

21.3ac.

DF-1
LDR-5

19.9ac.

KT-41A CC

25.5ac. KT-42 CC

8.5ac.

KT-41B CC

29.5ac.

WB-1B
LDR-6

22.2ac.

FD-22B
LDR-5.6

10.8ac.

PLEASANT GROVE BL

SUMMERFAIRE DR

SOLAIRE DR

FIDDYMENT RD

SIERRAGLEN DR

UPLAND DR

WESTBROOK BL

VISTA GRANDE BL

MARKET ST

SIERRA VILLAGE DR

VISTA PARK DR

FEDERICO DR

BASELINE RD

SILVER SPRUCE DR

SANTUCCI BL

SIERRA VISTA LAND USE PLAN
Figure 4-1
4-3
Last Updated: March 16, 2022 0 0.25 0.5 Miles ¹

CC EXHIBIT B
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 16.04 209 13.0
KT-40B CC (Commercial Mixed Use) CMU/SA 3.44
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) 411.55 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 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 below 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

ORDINANCE NO.

ADOPTING A FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND KV SIERRA VISTA, LLC (“BAYBROOK”)

RELATIVE TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

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

SECTION 2. Prior to considering the proposed First Amendment to Development Agreement, the City Council considered the 7
th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 4. The First Amendment to Development Agreement, by and between the City of Roseville and KV Sierra Vista, LLC, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's Department and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk is directed to record the executed Development Agreement Amendment within ten (10) days of the execution of the agreement by the City Manager with the County Recorder's Office of the County of Placer.
2 SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its adoption.

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
___________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________________
City Clerk

ORDINANCE NO.

ADOPTING A SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND KV SIERRA VISTA, LLC (“BASELINE P&R”)

RELATIVE TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

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

SECTION 2. Prior to considering the proposed Second Amendment to Development Agreement, the City Council considered the 7
th Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 4. The Second Amendment to Development Agreement, by and between the City of Roseville and KV Sierra Vista, LLC, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's Department and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
___________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________________
City Clerk

D. Sierra Vista Communities, LLC, a Ca]ifornia limited liability company and City entered into a First Amendment to the Development Agreement (the "First Amendment") which affects certain portions of the Property (the "First Amendment Property"), as described in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" attached thereto. The First Amendment was approved by the City Counci] of City on March 16, 2022 and has not been recorded as of the date of this amendment.

E. This Second Amendment to the Development Agreement (the "Second Amendment") affects certain portions of the Property (the "Second Amendment Property"), as described in Exhibit "A" attached to this Second Amendment and shall run with the land described in Exhibit "A" hereto. KV Sierra Vista and City intend for this Second Amendment to document certain unit transfers within the Plan Area, resolve allocation of fees, and to modify obligations under section 3.17.1.2(i) of the Development Agreement.

F. This Second Amendment is authorized by Section 1.4 of the Development Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
a. The subject of this Agreement is the development of those certain parcels of land, consisting of approximately 24.42 acres as described in Exhibit B (hereinafter the "Property"), attached thereto, which constitutes a portion of the larger area comprising 1,626 +/- acres commonly referred to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan area ("Specific Plan", "SVSP" or "Plan Area", or the "Project"). b. The land use designations, approximate acreages, and unit counts in Section 2.2 of the Development Agreement for the
Second Amendment Property are hereby revised as follows:

Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Community Commercial
Community
Commercia1/Commercia1
Mixed Use
Community
Commercial/Business
Professional
Park
Open Space (paseo)
620 units on 120.5 Net Acres;
536 units on 59.7 Net Acres;
150 units on 7.5 Net Acres;

64.0 acres;
209 units on 24.42 Net Acres;

12.2 Net acres;

11.8 Net Acres;

22.2 Net Acres;

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2021
File #: 0400-04-15 & 0400-04-15-02 & 0400-02
Title:

Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Addendum, General Plan Amendments, Specific Plan Amendments, Rezone, and Development Agreement Amendments
Contact: Shelby Maples 916-746-1347 [email protected] Meeting Date: 4/20/2022
Item #: 10.3.

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

1. Consider the Addendum to the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report;

2. Adopt a resolution approving the land use amendments to the General Plan;

3. Adopt a resolution approving text and land use amendments to the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan;

4. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance adopting the Rezone;

5. 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, Brookfield Sunset, LLC, and Jennifer M. Amoruso, Successor Trustee of the Amoruso Family Living Trust Dated March 14, 2005 relative to the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (525.7 acres); and

6. 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, Brookfield Sunset, LLC, and Jennifer M. Amoruso, Successor Trustee of the Amoruso Family Living Trust Dated March 14, 2005 relative to the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (148.7 acres).

BACKGROUND
The Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (ARSP) was approved by City Council in June 2016 to support the development of approximately 696 acres in the northwestern portion of the City, including 2,827 residential units, 51 acres of commercial, 17 acres of public/quasi-public, 22 acres of parks, 145 acres of open space, and 20 acres of urban reserve. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH# 2013102057) was certified at the time of Specific Plan adoption. Annexation of the ARSP area into the City of Roseville was approved by the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on December 18, 2018.

An initial Tentative Large Lot Map which reflected the ARSP land use parcels was approved by the Planning Commission on January 10, 2019. However, during the coordination with the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permitting, the USACE required additional avoidance of wetland features that necessitated a modification of the land use plan. A General Plan Amendment (GPA), Specific Plan Amendment (SPA), Rezone (RZ), two Development Agreement Amendments (DAA), and Tentative Large Lot Map Modification application (File #PL19-0312) was reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 27, 2020 and approved by City Council on April 1, 2020. No changes were made to the overall acreage of the ARSP or to the number of housing units.

The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, (GPA), Specific Plan Amendment (SPA), Rezone, Development Agreement Amendments (DAA) to change the land use designations of Parcels AR-21, AR-25, AR-32, and AR-37 from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) and reallocate units throughout the Specific Plan. Each entitlement is discussed in more detail below. Entitlements for a Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map Modification, Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Design Review for Residential Subdivisions (DRRS) to align the large lot parcels with the modified land uses and subdivide 17 large lot parcels into 481 single-family residential parcels, 14 open space parcels, three (3) park parcels, one (1) public/quasi-public parcel for city utilities, as well as landscape and right-of-way parcels, were approved by the Planning Commission on March 24, 2022. The Planning Commission also forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the GPA, SPA, Rezone, and DAAs.

Project Description
The proposed project includes the following entitlements:

General Plan Amendment (GPA) – The project includes a GPA to make minor adjustments to the acreage of large lot parcels, as well as modify the density of large lot parcels AR-21, AR-25, AR32, and AR-37 from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR).

These adjustments provide for a greater variety in housing types and require minor revisions to the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations.

Other modifications to the ARSP include updates to language regarding open space preserve management, consistent with the approved federal permits; as well as updates to maps, acreage calculations, and text throughout the ARSP to reflect project changes.

Rezone – All of the affected residential parcels have a zoning designation of RS/DS, which will remain unchanged. The Rezone is requested to adjust the acreages of zoning designations to be consistent with the proposed acreage adjustments of the large and small lot maps.

Development Agreement Amendments (DAA) – The project includes a second amendment to the ARSP Development Agreements to reflect the project modifications, as well as to update construction timing and responsibilities for a production well within the plan area.

Summary Evaluation
As described above and in the Planning Commission staff report, the project involves the reconfiguration of parcels and unit transfers among several large lot parcels within the ARSP area.

The amendments will not change the overall number of residential units within the ARSP. The General Plan land use map and associated table will be updated to reflect the land use changes.

Text, table, and figures of the ARSP document will be updated to reflect the land use changes and unit transfers. Additional amendments to the Specific Plan include updating the open space management discussion to reflect the completed federal permitting processes, as well as updates to the utilities and public facilities plans to show that the project will reduce water and sewer demand beyond what was previously anticipated. The proposed project was found to be substantially consistent with the General Plan and ARSP goals and policies.

The project also includes the second amendment of the two (2) Development Agreements within the ARSP. The DAs will be amended to reflect the project modifications, as well as to update the construction timing for a production well within the plan area. At present, the DA obligation requires that the production well be operational at occupancy of the 250th residential permit. The change would modify the timing from the 250th to the 1,250th building permit, allowing more flexibility in the timing. The modification also includes language to allow flexibility in the pipe sizing, to be determined by the Environmental Utilities Director. Finally, an amendment to section 3.8.8 adds language to ensure that building permits may move forward for the project even if the amendment of the service area boundaries is not yet complete. The Planning Commission found the proposed DAAs to be consistent with the General Plan, ARSP, and the Zoning Ordinance. The DAAs are in conformance with the public health, safety, and welfare, and will not affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values.

Public Outreach
Early notification of the project was provided to the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Association (RCONA) board. A notice of the Planning Commission hearing was sent to neighbors and property owners within 300 feet of the project parcels, as well as published in the newspaper and online. One comment was received from an adjacent neighbor to the west of the Specific Plan, inquiring about changes to the drainage plan for the project. She noted that extensive work had been done with the original Specific Plan evaluation to ensure that no negative flooding impacts would occur to her property, and wanted to make sure those impacts had been assessed with the project revisions. Staff spoke to the neighbor and addressed her question during the Planning Commission hearing, explaining that the Master Drainage Study for the project had been revised for the proposed project and that no net increase in peak flows would occur as a result of the development.

Summary of Planning Commission Meeting
The project was heard by the City’s Planning Commission on March 24, 2022. The applicant’s representative addressed the Commission, spoke in favor of the project, and requested that the Commission take the actions recommended by staff. One individual spoke on the project, questioning the livability of the reduced lot sizes as requested with the Design Review for Residential Subdivisions entitlement. Ultimately, the Planning Commission approved the Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map Modification, Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map, and Design Review for Residential Subdivision entitlements, which would allow the modification of the large lot map and subdivision of 17 large lot parcels into 481 single-family residential parcels, 14 open space parcels, three (3) park parcels, one (1) public/quasi-public parcel for city utilities, as well as landscape and right-of-way parcels. Additionally, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Development Agreement Amendments.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, a second Addendum to the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (ARSP EIR) (SCH # 2013102057 certified June 15, 2016) has been prepared to address the minor technical changes needed to describe the proposed project. The ARSP EIR Addendum is provided as Exhibit A. The proposed project does not change the area of disturbance beyond what was previously evaluated in the ARSP EIR, and no new or substantially more severe impacts will occur with the development of the proposed project; therefore, no additional analysis is required.

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

Description
Attachment 1 - March 24, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report andAttachments Exhibit A - Addendum toARSP EIR
Resolution 22-101
Resolution 22-102
Ordinance - Rezone
Exhibit B - General PlanAmendment, Specific PlanAmendment, Rezone Ord SecondAmenment to DA (525.7 ac)
Exhibit D- DAA
Ord SecondAmendment to DA (148.7 ac)
Exhibit E - DAA
Exhibit C- ARSP Change Pages
Planning Division Staff Report
Planning Commission Meeting March 24, 2022
Prepared by: Shelby Maples, Associate Planner
ITEM 6.2: General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, Development Agreement Amendment, Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map, Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map, Design Review Permit for Residential Subdivision – 3884 Westbrook Bl. – Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments – PL21-0184

REQUEST
The project includes a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (ARSP) to reallocate units throughout the Specific Plan, and modify the land use on Parcels AR-21, AR-25, AR-32, and AR-37 from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). No changes will be made to the overall unit count for the ARSP. The project proposes minor adjustments to the acreages of large lot parcels, which will require minor revisions to the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations. The project includes a Rezone to adjust the acreages of zoning designations consistent with the acreage adjustments proposed with the map modifications. Additionally, the project proposes the second Amendment to the two ARSP Development Agreements by and between the City of Roseville and Brookfield Sunset, LLC and Jennifer M. Amoruso to reflect the project modifications, as well as modify language regarding water facility construction requirements and timing. A Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map Modification is proposed for Phase A1 of the ARSP to align with the revised land use designations, and a Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map is proposed to create 481 single-family residential lots, 14 open space parcels, three (3) park parcels, one (1) public/quasi-public parcel for city utilities, as well as landscape and right-of-way parcels. A Design Review for Residential Subdivisions (DRRS) is requested to modify development standards for the Small Lot Residential with Development Standards (RS/DS) zone.

Applicant- John Norman, Brookfield Sunset, LLC
Owner – Angela Eisenpress, Amoruso Family Trust

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

1. Consider the second Addendum to the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report

2. Recommend that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment,

3. Recommend that the City Council approve the Specific Plan Amendment,

4. Recommend that the City Council adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the Rezone,

5. Recommend that the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the second amendments to the two (2) Development Agreement Amendments,

6. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map subject to five (5) conditions of approval.

7. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map subject to eighty-two (82) conditions of approval.

8. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the Design Review for Residential Subdivisions subject to seven (7) 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 the recommended conditions of approval.

BACKGROUND
The Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (ARSP) was approved by City Council in June 2016 to support the development of approximately 696 acres in the northwestern portion of the City, including 2,827 Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 2 of 27
residential units, 51 acres of commercial, 17 acres of public/quasi-public, 22 acres of parks, 145 acres of open space, and 20 acres of urban reserve. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#) was certified at the time of Specific Plan adoption. Annexation of the ARSP area into the City of Roseville was approved by the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on December 18, 2018.

An initial Tentative Large Lot Map which reflected the ARSP land use parcels was approved by the Planning Commission on January 10, 2019. However, during the coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permitting, the USACE required additional avoidance of wetland features that necessitated a modification of the land use plan. A General Plan Amendment (GPA), Specific Plan Amendment (SPA), Rezone (RZ), two Development Agreement Amendments (DAA), and Tentative Large Lot Map Modification application (File #PL19-0312) was reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 27, 2020 and approved by City Council on April 1, 2020. No changes were made to the overall acreage of the ARSP or to the number of housing units.

The proposed project includes a GPA, SPA, RZ, DAA, large and small lot Tentative Subdivision Maps, and a Design Review for Residential Subdivisions (DRRS) to modify the land use plan, as well as subdivide 17 large lot parcels into single-family residential parcels. A more detailed Project Description is provided below.

Figure 1 – Revised Land Use Plan
Approximate
location of
Phase A1
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 3 of 27

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
General Plan Amendment (GPA) – The project includes a GPA to make minor adjustments to the acreage of large lot parcels, as well as modify the density of large lot parcels AR-21, AR-25, AR-32, and AR-37 from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). These adjustment require minor revisions to the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations. The GPA exhibit is included in Exhibit B.

Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) – The project includes an Amendment to the ARSP, which includes the reallocation of units throughout the Specific Plan area, and modifying the land use for large lot parcels AR-21, AR-25, AR-32, and AR-37 from LDR to MDR. The overall unit count in the ARSP will remain the same, with 2,827 units for the overall plan and 1,334 units for Phase A1. Other modifications to the ARSP include updates to language regarding open space preserve management, consistent with the approved federal permits; as well as updates to maps, acreage calculations, and text throughout the ARSP to reflect project changes. The SPA exhibit is included in Exhibit B.

Development Agreement Amendment (DAA) – The project includes a second amendment to the ARSP Development Agreements to reflect the project modifications, as well as to update construction timing and responsibilities for construction of water facilities. The DAAs are included in Exhibits D and E.

Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map – The applicant proposes a new Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map (LLTSM) to align with the revised land use plan. The LLTSM is included as Exhibit F.

Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map – The project proposes to subdivide approximately 120.04 acres into 481 single-family residential lots, 14 open space parcels, three (3) park parcels, one (1) public/quasipublic parcel for city utilities, as well as landscape and right-of-way parcels. Table 2 of this report provides a summary of the number of parcels per large lot (villages), and the Tentative Subdivision Map is included as Exhibit G.

Design Review for Residential Subdivision (DRRS) – The project proposes a DRRS to allow modified development standards for the RS/DS zone within Phase A1 of the ARSP. These modified development standards will apply to the MDR villages within the phase.

SITE INFORMATION
Location: The ARSP is located along the northwestern edge of the City, adjacent to Placer County land to the north and east (Placer Ranch). The western boundary of the Plan area is adjacent to Placer County and the Al Johnson Wildlife area. The Creekview Specific Plan is located to the south of the ARSP, as shown in Figure 1.

Total Size: 696 acres
Topography and Setting: The ARSP is in early phases of development, with mass grading efforts underway. The site is generally characterized by gently rolling terrain and contains nonnative annual grasslands, some wetlands, and University Creek, which runs east to west through the southwest portion of the Plan area (FEIR, pp. 2-4 to 2-6). Land to the north of the ARSP is in unincorporated Placer County, and is comprised of rural subdivisions with multi-acre parcels and agricultural land (FEIR p. 4.1-2). Land to the south, southwest, and west of the ARSP is located within the City. These areas include the Creekview Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 4 of 27
Specific Plan, which is primarily slated for residential development; the Al Johnson Wildlife Area; and an approximately 191 acre parcel currently under entitlement review to be considered as a future industrial development, known as Roseville Industrial Park (City File #PL21-0193).

EVALUATION: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND REZONE The proposed land use (General Plan and ARSP) and zoning designation amendments are shown in Exhibit B. The proposed change pages to the ARSP are provided in Exhibit C.

Proposed amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plan are analyzed for consistency with the goals and policies of the respective plans. The Zoning Ordinance Section 19.86.050 specifies that recommendations for approval or denial of a rezone shall include consideration of the proposed amendment’s consistency with:

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

2. The General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.

Land Use and Zoning
The project proposes to reallocate units on 31 large lot parcels within the ARSP, as shown in Table 1 below. The zoning designation for all affected residential parcels is RS/DS, which will remain unchanged with the project. The General Plan and the ARSP will be amended to reflect the proposed reconfiguration of large lots and units. The Rezone is requested to adjust the acreages of zoning designations to be consistent with the proposed parcel adjustments, include modifications to residential, open space, park, and commercial parcels. A total of 83 large lot parcels will be adjusted with the proposed project.

The ARSP allow for residential units to be transferred between lots within the plan area. However, unit transfers which result in a change in land use or result in greater than a 20% difference when compared to the unit allocation established at the time of the original approval shall be evaluated with an amendment to the Specific Plan. In this case, large lot parcels AR-21, AR-25, AR-32, and AR-37 will change the land use from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR), and Parcels AR-4, AR5, AR-6, AR-30, AR-33, AR-34, and AR-39 proposed transfers which exceed 20% of the original number of units. All unit transfers and the percentage change proposed by the project are included in Table 1 below. The overall number of units will remain the same within the ARSP.

Table 1 – Unit Transfers
Parcel Current
Land Use
Proposed
Land Use
Current
Units
Proposed
Units
Difference
in Units
% Unit
Change
AR-1 LDR Unchanged 68 70 2 +2.9%
AR-2 LDR Unchanged 97 101 4 +4.1%
AR-3 LDR Unchanged 80 84 4 +5.0%
AR-4 LDR Unchanged 41 31 10 -24.4%
AR-5 LDR Unchanged 17 10 7 -41.2%
AR-6 LDR Unchanged 34 25 9 -26.5%
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 5 of 27
AR-7 LDR Unchanged 18 19 1 +5.5%
AR-8 LDR Unchanged 52 56 4 +7.7%
AR-9 LDR Unchanged 40 42 2 +5.0%
AR-11 LDR Unchanged 55 38 17 -30.9%
AR-12 LDR Unchanged 21 16 5 -23.8%
AR-13 LDR Unchanged 40 30 10 -25.0%
AR-14 LDR Unchanged 45 50 5 +11.1%
AR-15 LDR Unchanged 45 49 4 +8.9%
AR-16 LDR Unchanged 43 45 2 +4.7%
AR-18 LDR Unchanged 31 33 2 +6.4%
AR-21 LDR MDR 12 15 3 +25.0%
AR-22 LDR Unchanged 28 32 4 +14.3%
AR-24 LDR Unchanged 13 12 1 -7.7%
AR-25 LDR MDR 28 38 10 +35.7%
AR-26 LDR Unchanged 55 48 7 -12.7%
AR-30 LDR Unchanged 23 13 10 -43.5%
AR-32 LDR MDR 50 58 8 +16.0%
AR-33 MDR Unchanged 61 42 19 -31.1%
AR-34 LDR Unchanged 19 14 5 -26.3%
AR-35 LDR Unchanged 24 20 4 -16.7%
AR-37 LDR MDR 25 39 14 +56.0%
AR-39 MDR Unchanged 54 66 12 +22.2%
AR-40 LDR Unchanged 71 81 10 +14.1%
AR-42 MDR Unchanged 66 76 10 +15.2%
AR-43 LDR Unchanged 78 82 4 +5.1%
Total Units 1,334 1,334
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 6 of 27
While changes are occurring on a large number of parcels due to the shifting of lines and redistribution of lots, the proposed modification is minor. The number of units remains the same within the Specific Plan, though the number of medium density lots increases from 542 to 695, and the number of low density lots decreases from 1,252 to 1,099. Acreage adjustments are proposed on 83 large lot parcels throughout the plan, the proposed modifications are consistent with the original intent of the Specific Plan. The proposed modifications have been reviewed by the relevant City Departments, and the project was found to be consistent with the intent of the original plan.

Utilities and Public Facilities
The proposed project includes updates to ARSP Wastewater Master Plan to show that downsizing of sewer lines is appropriate for the revised development. A technical memorandum prepared by Wood Rodgers, Inc. is included as an attachment to Exhibit A (Addendum to the ARSP EIR). In conformance with the adopted sewer study, which was analyzed with the previously certified EIR, the force main for the sewer line will be placed within the future Westbrook Bl. and cross under Pleasant Grove Creek.

However, in developing the plans for the proposed large lot tentative map and refining the calculations, it was found that sewer demand is significantly lower than reported in the sewer study. The original demand calculations in the Sewer Study required a Central Pump Station sized for 4.18 mgd (million gallons per day), with 18-inch and 12-inch force mains. The Wood Rodgers Utility Study shows that based on the proposed land use plan, the demands on the pump station will be 2.83 mgd, and dual 12-inch force mains will be sufficient to reliably convey wastewater flows within the velocity criteria specified in the City’s current design standards. While some pipe resizing is recommended, the system configuration remains generally the same as the original Wastewater Master Plan, as evaluated the previously certified EIR.

In addition, the project provided an updated Water Demand calculation to accompany the proposed land use modification, as approximately 153 units will change from LDR to MDR lots throughout the Plan area.

According to the Water Master Plan evaluated with the previously certified EIR, the average daily demand with 2% gallon per minute (gpm) flow rate for the ARSP totals 931.9 gpm, with an average annual demand with 2% acre feet per year (AFY) of 1,503.2 AFY. Higher density land use categories have lower unit demand factors, so the increase in MDR properties results in a lower average daily demand for water, with 926.1 gpm for the Plan area. The average annual demand rate reduces to 1,493.9 AFY. Therefore, water demand will be reduced beyond what was previously evaluated.

Open Space
The project proposes to update the ARSP to reflect updates to Sections B.2 and B.3, which includes OffSite Resource Mitigation for wetland resources. Since the time of plan adoption, the ARSP has been approved for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit and Endangered Species Section 7 incidental take authorization, allowing them to move forward with the development process. The sections are being updated to reflect the completion of those permits. Per the permit approved by the USACE, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, off-site mitigation will occur via a payment of fees to the Placer County Authority (PCA).

The PCA is responsible for utilizing collected funds to acquire lands within Placer County for the purpose of open space protection and management, to be protected in perpetuity.

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:

Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 7 of 27

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

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

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

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

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

Development Agreements (DA) are binding contracts that set the terms, rules, conditions, regulations, entitlements, obligations, and other provisions relating to the development of the covered properties. The ARSP is subject to two (2) nearly identical DAs, one covering a 525.7 acres of the Specific Plan and one covering a 148.7 acre portion of the Specific Plan. The current project proposes a modification to both DAs.

The proposed DAAs include updates to reflect the proposed project, including acreage adjustments, as well as to modify timing for construction of City facilities within the Plan area. For examples, the original DAs required that City utilities, such as a production well to serve the Plan area, be operational by occupancy of the 250th residential unit. The DAA changes the timing trigger from the 250th to the 1,250th building permit. The modification also includes language to allow flexibility in the pipe sizing, to be determined by the Environmental Utilities Director. Finally, an amendment to section 3.8.8 adds language to ensure that building permits may move forward for the project even if the amendment of the service area boundaries is not yet complete. The Environmental Utilities Department reviewed the project and determined that the proposed amendments were acceptable and consistent with City policy.

In summary, City staff has found the proposed DAAs to be consistent with the General Plan, ARSP, and the Zoning Ordinance. The DAAs 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 DAA is consistent with items 1-5 above.

EVALUATION: LARGE LOT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP MODIFICATION The City of Roseville Subdivision Ordinance (Section 18.06.290) establishes the processes by which an approved Tentative Subdivision Map may be modified. There are two types of modifications established:
minor amendments and major amendments. A minor amendment involves changes that are substantially consistent with the intent of the original approval. They are generally limited to changes which make small modifications to parcel shapes and size or other small amendments to the subdivision layout. Any other type of modification is a major modification. Given the number of modifications required to accommodate the reallocation of units within the ARSP, the proposed project is considered a major modification.

Section 18.06.180 of the City of Roseville Subdivision Ordinance requires that three findings be made in order to approve or conditionally approve a Tentative Subdivision Map. The three findings are listed below in bold, italic 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 and the Community Design Guidelines, and the design standards of Title 18 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the Roseville Municipal Code.

Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 8 of 27

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.

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

As proposed, the Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map (LLTSM) is substantially consistent with the layout approved with the ARSP and subsequent modifications; however, the revised map is required to align with the proposed land use changes. The reconfiguration of the parcels will result in lots which can be used and built upon, and which are practical for improvement based on the existing topography. No conflicts with the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, or any wastewater discharge requirements have been identified.

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

The proposed project includes a tentative subdivision map for Phase A1 of the ARSP to divide approximately 120.04 acres into 481 single-family residential lots, 14 open space parcels, three (3) park parcels, one public/quasi-public parcel for city utilities, as well as landscape and right-of-way parcels.

Table 2 below provides a summary of each village within the proposed subdivision, as well as acreages for the other parcels within the phase. At least two entrance points will be provided into each subdivision, and all single-family lots are oriented with frontage on the public streets. The ARSP includes an open space and paseo system that provides pedestrian connections throughout the various villages within the subdivision. The subdivision layout and street design were reviewed by the City’s Engineering Division and the Fire Department to ensure there is adequate street widths for circulation and emergency response.

Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 9 of 27
Figure 2 – Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map, Phase A1 Table 2 – Tentative Subdivision Map Parcels
Parcel
Number
Land Use
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Dwelling
Units
Gross
Acreage
Density
(du/ac)
Residential Lots
AR-4 LDR RS/DS 31 7.21 4.3
AR-5 LDR RS/DS 10 2.39 4.2
AR-6 LDR RS/DS 25 5.37 4.7
AR-11 LDR RS/DS 38 8.24 4.6
AR-12 LDR RS/DS 16 3.13 5.1
AR-13 LDR RS/DS 30 5.39 5.6
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 10 of 27
AR-21 MDR RS/DS 15 2.05 7.3
AR-22 LDR RS/DS 32 6.05 5.3
AR-24 LDR RS/DS 12 2.50 4.8
AR-25 MDR RS/DS 38 5.29 7.2
AR-26 LDR RS/DS 48 9.26 5.2
AR-30 LDR RS/DS 13 2.89 4.5
AR-32 MDR RS/DS 58 7.78 7.5
AR-33 MDR RS/DS 42 5.14 8.2
AR-34 LDR RS/DS 14 3.21 4.4
AR-35 LDR RS/DS 20 4.82 4.1
AR-37 MDR RS/DS 39 4.96 7.7
Total 481 lots 85.67 acres
Landscape Lots
“A” LDR RS/DS 0.06
“B” MDR RS/DS 0.08
“C” MDR RS/DS 0.10
Total 0.24 acres
Public/Quasi Public Parcels
AR-57 P/QP P/QP 0.85
Total 0.85 acres
Park Parcels
AR-63 P/R P/R 1.71
AR-64A P/R P/R 0.74
AR-66 P/R P/R 2.86
Total 5.30 acres
Open Space Parcels
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 11 of 27
AR-71 OS OS 0.33
AR-72A OS OS 0.64
AR-75 OS OS 0.84
AR-79 OS OS 0.39
AR-80 OS OS 1.16
AR-81 OS OS 1.19
AR-93 OS OS 3.10
AR-98B OS OS 2.01
AR-106 OS OS 0.66
AR-107 OS OS 0.36
AR-108 OS OS 0.62
AR-109 OS OS 0.77
AR-111 OS OS 0.19
AR-112 OS OS 1.05
Total 13.31 acres
The Map Act and Subdivision Ordinance do not contain any maximum or minimum lot sizes. Instead, these standards are contained within the Zoning Ordinance and ARSP. All residential parcels included in the tentative subdivision map have a zoning designation of Small Lot Residential with Development Standards (RS/DS) overlay, though 12 of the villages have a Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation and five (5) of the villages have a Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use designation.

A developer may either use the RS/DS development standards established in the ARSP or may adopt adjusted standards through the Design Review Permit for Residential Subdivisions (DRRS) entitlement.

It is also noted that pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 19.10.045, a DRRS application is required for all single-family housing units on property with the MDR land use designation. The applicant proposes adjusted development standards for the MDR parcels within Phase A1, as discussed in the DRRS Evaluation section of this report. No home designs are evaluated with the current project; however, Condition #3 has been added to the tentative subdivision map requiring approval of a DRRS prior to issuance of any building permits for homes within Parcels AR-21, AR-25, AR-32, AR-33, and AR-37.

LDR Villages AR-4, AR-5, AR-6, AR-11, AR-12, AR-13, AR-22, AR-24, AR-26, AR-30, AR-34, AR-35- The LDR villages within Phase A1 of the ARSP will result in a total of 289 single-family residential lots.

As proposed, the LDR villages will conform to the RS/DS standards as provide in the Zoning Ordinance.

Proposed densities range from 4.1 to 5.6 dwelling units per acre in the LDR portion of the subdivision.

MDR Villages AR-21, AR-25, AR-32, AR-33, and AR-37- The MDR villages within Phase A1 of the ARSP will result in a total of 192 single-family residential lots. The applicant has proposed modified RS/DS Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 12 of 27
development standards for the subdivision, which has a typical lot size of approximately 40 feet by 80 feet. All lots conform to the proposed standards, which are further evaluated by the DRRS section of this report.

The proposed parcels are of sufficient size and shape to accommodate development that is consistent with the applicable zoning and design requirements. As mentioned above, the lots are consistent with the proposed development standards, or new development standards are proposed. The modified standards are consistent with other development standards that have been approved in adjacent Specific Plan areas. The RS/DS standards have been determined to be of adequate size and shape to support development consistent with the ARSP guidelines. The proposed parcel configurations preserve the location of watercourses and do not create a physical condition that would be impractical for the proposed improvements.

As part of the adoption for the ARSP, an assessment of wastewater demands was completed for the entire plan area. The proposed subdivision map is consistent with the total number of units anticipated within the Specific Plan, and therefore will not increase planned demands on sewage services. There will be no impacts to the existing requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

EVALUATION – DESIGN REVIEW FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS Section 19.10.045 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that a Design Review Permit is required for all compact residential development (attached or detached single-family units on land with a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential or higher) or for any residential projects of any density on a parcel or parcels zoned Small Lot Residential (RS) where modifications to the RS supplemental design standards are requested. Design Review gives staff the opportunity to examine the proposed design to determine compatibility with the surrounding community, and compliance with the intent of the Community Design Guidelines and other applicable design standards. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 19.78.060, the required findings for a Design Review Permit for a Residential Subdivision (DRRS) are as follows:

1. The residential design, including the height, bulk, size, and arrangement of buildings is harmonious with other buildings in the vicinity.

2. The residential design is consistent with the applicable design guidelines.

The project is subject to the development standards of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Community Design Guidelines (CDG), and the ARSP. The applicant is proposing modified RS/DS development standards to allow for a smaller lot size and reduced setbacks. The proposed standards are included in Exhibit H. No conceptual elevations are proposed at this time, and Condition #3 for the Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map requires that prior to issuance of building permits, an additional DRRS entitlement is required to evaluate the home designs for the MDR parcels.

Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 13 of 27
The project request includes modified development standards to deviate from the RS/DS standards.

Table 3 below provides a comparison to the RS/DS with attached sidewalks development standards that are provided in the Zoning Ordinance.

Table 3: Development Standard Comparison
Development Standard RS/DS with attached sidewalk
(Zoning Ordinance)
Proposed
Lot size – interior 4,500 square feet 3,200 square feet Lot size – corner 5,500 square feet 4,000 square feet
Lot width – interior 45’ 40’
Lot width – corner 55’ 50’
Lot depth -- 80’
Lot coverage maximum None- side and rear yards can
be used to meet open space
minimum requirements.

None
Building height 35’ 30’
Front setback – living area 15’ 10’
Front setback –
Garage/driveway depth
18’ 18’
Front setback – to porch 12.5’ 7.5’ (shall not encroach into PUE)
Side yard setback 5’ 4’
Side Street yard setback 12.5’ first floor, 15’ second floor 10’ Rear setback 10’, with minimum useable open
space of 700 square feet, or 500
square feet where a front porch
is provided.
10’
These reduced setbacks will help facilitate the higher density units proposed for the subdivision. Staff is supportive of the setback reductions as it helps provide flexibility and supports a broader range of unit types within the ARSP. Additionally, the setback reductions are consistent with other DRRS approvals within the City, such as in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan area. The architectural design will be evaluated to ensure consistency with the CDG with an additional DRRS, ensuring compliance with City standards.

Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 14 of 27

PUBLIC OUTREACH
The proposed project was distributed to the various agencies and departments which have requested notice of City applications, and all comments were considered and incorporated into the Conditions of Approval, as appropriate. Notice of the application was also distributed to the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations. No comments were received. A public notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published on March 11, 2022, and was distributed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no comments have been received.

CONCLUSION
As demonstrated by the analyses in the foregoing sections, the proposed Project is consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan and the ARSP. The project as proposed will not be detrimental to public health or safety, nor will it be detrimental to the public welfare. The findings for all requested entitlements can be made.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, a second Addendum to the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (ARSP EIR) (SCH # 2013102057 certified June 15, 2016) has been prepared to address the minor technical changes needed to describe the proposed project. The ARSP EIR Addendum is provided as Exhibit A. The proposed project does not change the area of disturbance beyond what was previously evaluated in the ARSP EIR, and no new or substantially more severe impacts will occur with the development of the proposed project; therefore, no additional analysis is required.

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

A. Consider the second Addendum to the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report;
B. Recommend that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment; C. Recommend that the City Council approve the Specific Plan Amendment; D. Recommend that the City Council adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the Rezone; E. Recommend that the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the second amendments to the two (2) Development Agreement Amendments; F. Adopt the findings of fact as stated in the staff report and approve the Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map Modification – 3884 Westbrook Bl. – Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments– PL21-0184 subject to five (5) conditions of approval; G. Adopt the findings of fact as stated in the staff report and approve the Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map – 3884 Westbrook Bl. – Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments– PL21-0184 subject to eighty-two (82) conditions of approval; and H. Adopt the findings of fact as stated in the staff report and approve the Design Review for Residential Subdivision – 3884 Westbrook Bl. – Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments– PL21-0184 subject to seven (7) conditions of approval.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LARGE LOT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FILE #PL21-0184

1. The Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map is approved as shown in Exhibit D and as conditioned or modified below. (Planning)
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 15 of 27

2. The Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from March 24, 2022 and shall expire on March 24, 2024. Prior to said expiration date, the applicant may apply for an extension of time, provided that the approval shall be extended for no more than five (5) from March 24, 2022.

3. The project shall comply with all required environmental mitigation identified in the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan EIR and MMRP, as modified by File #PL19-0312, and include all applicable mitigation measures as notes on the grading and improvement plans.

4. The map is subject to the previously approved conditions of approval for the ARSP Tentative Large Lot Map (File #PL18-0345 and PL19-0312), except as modified below.

5. The landowner shall pay, as its fair share on a City-wide basis for the update of the City’s Long Range Transit Master Plan, Short Range Transit Plan Update, and Bicycle Master Plan Update, the amounts of $4,166, $4,998, and $4,166, respectively, prior to the recordation of any Large Lot Final Map on the property. (Engineering and Alternative Transportation)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SMALL LOT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FILE #PL21-0184

1. The project is approved as shown in Exhibit G and as conditioned or modified below. (Planning)

2. The Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from March 24, 2022 and shall expire on March 24, 2024. Prior to said expiration date, the applicant may apply for an extension of time, provided that the approval shall be extended for no more than five (5) years from March 24, 2022.

3. Prior to issuance of building permits for home construction on MDR parcels, the home building shall be required to submit for a Design Review for Residential Subdivision (DRRS) approval to evaluate the proposed architecture. Detailed information (e.g. floor plans, additional architectural styles, materials, and color boards, etc.) shall be provided as part of the DRRS submittal. A separate Sign Permit is required for all project signs. (Planning)

4. The approval of a Tentative Map and/or tentative site plan does not constitute approval of proposed improvements as to size, design, materials, or location, unless specifically addressed in these conditions of approval. The Developer shall submit civil drawings to the Department of Development Services – Engineering Divisions for review and approval. (Engineering)

5. 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)

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

7. 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 the warranty or the Notice of Termination date for the SWPPP, whichever occurs later. (Engineering, Environmental Utilities, Finance)

8. The project shall comply with all required environmental mitigation identified in the Amoruso Ranch EIR, and shall include all applicable mitigation measures as notes on the grading plans. (All Departments) Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 16 of 27

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

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

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

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

11. The grading and improvement plans shall be designed in accordance with the City’s Improvement Standards and Construction Standards and shall reflect the following:
 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.
 Grading shall comply with the City grading ordinance. Erosion control devices (sediment traps, ditches, straw bales, etc.) shall be shown on the grading plans. All erosion control shall be installed prior to the onset of wet weather. Erosion control is installed to minimize silt discharge from the project site. It is incumbent upon the applicant to ensure that necessary measures are taken to minimize silt discharge from the site. Therefore, modification of the erosion control plan may be warranted during wet weather conditions.  A rough grading permit may be approved by the Engineering Department prior to approval of the improvement plans.
 Access to the floodplain as required by Engineering and the Streets Department.  Standard Accessible ramps shall be installed at all curb returns per City Standards. (Engineering)

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

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

14. Prior to 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)

15. The applicant shall provide a temporary emergency vehicle access (EVA) as part of Phase 1 (Subphases A1 and A2). The Subphase A1 EVA will consist of a 24’ wide paved roadway (min T.I. 5) from Westbrook Blvd./Road A to the northern property line of AR-52, continuing west to Road F. The Phase A1 EVA will be temporary and completely removed prior to the construction of Westbrook Boulevard. The Subphase A2 EVA will provide 2-way paved public access from Westbrook/Road A north to Road C, continuing west on Road C to Road F. See the Amoruso Infrastructure Phasing Plan as part of this entitlement.

Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 17 of 27

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

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

18. 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 one 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)

19. 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)

20. 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)

21. Traffic signals shall be constructed and reimbursed per Section 3.5.7 of the Development Agreement and the approved Amoruso Ranch Infrastructure Phasing Plan. This includes the following signals:
 Westbrook/Road “A” – install signal infrastructure including conduit, loops, and poles as part of the construction of Phase A1.

22. Landowner shall be responsible for the construction cost of the traffic signals, as shown on Exhibit “I” of the Brookfield Sunset, LLC Development Agreement and described in the Phasing Plan through the payment of the TMF. The developer shall receive fee credits for the completion of the traffic signals as part of the City’s TMF Set-Aside Fund. (Engineering)

23. Any backbone improvements not constructed adjacent to (or needed to serve) a proposed subdivision shall be completed by the applicant. (Engineering)
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 18 of 27

24. The phasing of infrastructure shall be consistent with Amoruso Ranch Infrastructure Phasing Plan, the Amoruso Specific Plan and as defined by the Development Agreement between the City of Roseville and Brookfield Sunset, LLC. (Engineering)

25. Per the Amoruso Specific Plan, pedestrian sidewalks along the open spaces shall be installed at the time of adjacent roadway construction. (Engineering, Alternative Transportation)

26. Per the Amoruso Specific Plan, standard bus shelter turnouts and pads shall be installed with adjoining roadway improvement at the following locations:
 Northbound Westbrook Boulevard, north of Road A, adjacent to Parcel AR-45 (Shelter #325),  Eastbound Road B, east of Westbrook Boulevard, adjacent to Parcel AR-44 (Shelter #326),  Westbound Road B, west of Road A, adjacent to AR-43 (Shelter #327),  Eastbound Road D, east of Westbrook Boulevard, adjacent to Parcel AR-39 (Shelter #329),  Northbound Westbrook Boulevard, north of Road D, adjacent to Parcel AR-53 (Shelter #330),  Southbound Westbrook Boulevard, south of Road D, adjacent to Parcel AR-28 (Shelter #331), and
 Southbound Westbrook Boulevard, south of Road A, at Parcel AR-95 (Shelter #334).

Per the Amoruso Specific Plan, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) bus shelter turnouts and pads shall be installed with adjoining roadway improvements at the following locations:
 Northbound Westbrook Boulevard, north of Road B, adjacent to AR-42 (Shelter #328), and  Southbound Westbrook Boulevard, south of Road B, adjacent to AR-52 (Shelter #332).

27. Developer shall be responsible for the installation of a bus shelter and related improvements conforming to the City’s current standards on the shelter pad located along southbound Westbrook Boulevard, south of Road A, in Parcel AR-95. Upon installation and final inspection by the City of Roseville, the bus shelter and related improvements shall become property of the City of Roseville. The Developer and City may enter into a construction fee agreement or other agreement based upon a construction cost of $10,000 per shelter for future construction of the Bus Shelter located along southbound Westbrook Boulevard, south of Road A, at Parcel AR-95 (Shelter number 334). (Engineering, Alternative Transportation)

28. The trail shall be constructed to meet City of Roseville Class 1 standards. Where the trail meets cul-dusacs and roads adjacent to AR-4 and AR-11, the developer shall be responsible for installing access control measures (i.e. fencing and bollards) and signage per City Standards. (Engineering, Alternative Transportation)

29. The applicant shall dedicate all necessary rights-of-way for the widening of any streets 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)

30. The applicant shall dedicate a separate drainage easement to the City of Roseville for the storm drain facility required to transfer public storm waters through the site. The easement document shall be drafted Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 19 of 27
for approval and acceptance by the City of Roseville, and recorded at the County Recorder’s Office. (Engineering)

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

32. 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 the area tributary to this site and all drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate the tributary flow. If located within a private subdivision that has privately maintained streets, the storm drain system and proposed BMP’s shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner or HOA, unless otherwise identified on the approved tentative map. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the owner shall provide a plan for the maintenance of the proposed BMP’s. (Engineering)

33. Prior to approval of improvement plans, drainage calculations must be submitted that are consistent with the Master Drainage Study for Amoruso Ranch 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)

34. Prior to approval of grading within the Open Space, the developer shall provide a plan that demonstrates that the proposed detention storage volume to mitigate the 100-year peak flows match the requirements as identified in the Drainage and Stormwater Master Plan. (Engineering)

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

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

37. 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)

38. 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)

39. Improvement plans shall show the Preserve boundary and label it as a protected area. The PreConstruction meeting shall address the presence of the Preserve, the sensitive habitats present and minimization of disturbance to the Preserve. During grading and construction the Preserve area shall be avoided and shall not be used for parking, storage, or project staging. The contractor shall remove all trash blown into the Preserve from adjacent construction on a daily basis. After construction is complete, the temporary fencing shall be removed from the Preserve, along with all temporary erosion control Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 20 of 27
measures (e.g. straw bales, straw wattles and stakes, silt fencing). (Engineering, Development Services, Planning)

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

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

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

43. Prior to the approval of the Improvement Plans, the project proponent shall provide proof of preparation and submittal of a Stormwater 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)

44. 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 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)

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

46. As part of the Phase A1 infrastructure, a 12” water main shall be constructed from future alignment of Westbrook Boulevard to Road F along the shared property line between AR-51 and AR-52. In addition, a 12’ wide access road consisting of 6” AB will be constructed adjacent to the 12” water main. (Environmental Utilities)
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 21 of 27

47. 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)

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

49. A note shall be added to the improvement plans stating that all water backflow devices shall be tested and approved by the Environmental Utilities Department prior to the Notice of Completion for the improvements. (Environmental Utilities)

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

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

52. 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)

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

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

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

56. 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)

57. 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
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 22 of 27

58. The following easements shall be provided and shown on the Final Map or by separate instrument, unless otherwise provided for in these conditions:
a) A 10-foot-wide minimum public utilities easement along all road frontages; b) The applicant shall dedicate a separate easement to the City of Roseville for future bus stops at the following locations:
 Northbound Westbrook Boulevard, north of Road A, adjacent to Parcel AR-45 (Shelter #325);
 Eastbound Road B, east of Westbrook Boulevard, adjacent to Parcel AR-44 (Shelter #326);
 Westbound Road B, west of Road A, adjacent to AR-43 (Shelter #327);  *Northbound Westbrook Boulevard, north of Road B, adjacent to AR-42 (Shelter #328);  Eastbound Road D, east of Westbrook Boulevard, adjacent to Parcel AR-39 (Shelter #329);
 Northbound Westbrook Boulevard, north of Road D, adjacent to Parcel AR-53 (Shelter #330);
 Southbound Westbrook Boulevard, south of Road D, adjacent to Parcel AR-28 (Shelter #331);
 *Southbound Westbrook Boulevard, south of Road B, adjacent to AR-52 (Shelter #332); and
 Southbound Westbrook Boulevard, south of Road A, at Parcel AR-95 (Shelter #334). *indicates a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stop. (Alternative Transportation) Easement widths shall comply with the City’s Improvement Standards and Construction Standards. The easement documents shall be drafted for approval and acceptance by the City of Roseville and recorded at the Placer County Recorder’s Office. (Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering, Alternative Transportation)

59. All existing easements shall be maintained, unless otherwise provided for in these conditions. (Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering)

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

61. 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 Map. The CC&Rs shall include the following items: (Attorney, Planning)
a) A clause prohibiting the amendment, revision or deletion of any sections in the CC&Rs required by these conditions of approval without the prior consent of the City Attorney.

Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 23 of 27
b) A clause excluding any property owned by the City from the terms of the CC&Rs. c) Residents in areas that do not allow for standard turning movements for refuse vehicles shall be required to bring their trash bins to a designated trash pickup area on the main street, because refuse trucks are not able to turn around in dead end streets. Designated pick-up areas shall be established to Environmental Utilities satisfaction, and shall be memorialized in the CC&Rs. (Environmental Utilities)
d) For units, other than single-family detached, that include a two-car garage, add a clause noting that the two required vehicle parking spaces within the garage must be kept clear and maintained for parking at all times. Storage of items which causes an inability to park within the required spaces is prohibited.
e) There shall be clear language regarding maintenance and common easements agreement for servicing all fire protection systems and gates used by first responders. A service company shall be obtained to maintain all on-site fire protection systems including all common interior adjoining fire sprinkler-piping penetrations and private fire hydrants. An agreement between owners and tenants shall be made to allow permission to enter the premises to inspect all apparatuses associated with fire protection. Draft documents shall be provided to the Fire Department for review. (Fire)

62. 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)

63. Any structures crossing lot/parcel lines created by the Final Map shall be removed. (Engineering)

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

65. The subject property shall be annexed into CFD 3, Municipal Services prior to approval of the Final Map.

This property is being added into this district in order to fulfill the Development Agreement requirement.

It is the applicant’s responsibility to prepare the appropriate documentation for the annexation of this property into the LLD. In order to allow the LLD to be in place at the beginning of the fiscal year, the documentation shall be provided to the Finance Department not later than March 15 of the year preceding the fiscal year in which this annexation will become effective. (Finance, Engineering)

66. A Community Facilities District (CFD) shall be formed for the subject property prior to approval of the Final Map. This district is being formed to cover the costs of maintenance in the district. It is the applicant’s responsibility to prepare the appropriate documentation for the creation of this CFD. In order to allow the CFD to be in place at the beginning of the fiscal year, the documentation shall be provided to the Finance Department not later than March 15 of the year preceding the fiscal year in which this annexation will become effective. (Finance, Engineering)

67. The Final Map shall include an irrevocable offer to dedicate public rights-of-way and public and/or private easements as required by the City. Lettered lot/parcels along major roads shall be dedicated as landscape/pedestrian/public utility easements and in fee to the City as open space. (Engineering) Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 24 of 27

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

69. The Final Map shall be permitted per “the Digital Submittal of Cadastral Surveys”. Submittal shall occur after Engineering approval but prior to Council approval. (Engineering)

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

71. 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)

72. 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 create lot/parcels. (Environmental Utilities)

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

OTHER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

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

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

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

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

77. 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)

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

79. 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 before the house 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.

Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 25 of 27
Provided, however, that all construction equipment shall be fitted with factory installed muffling devices and that all construction equipment shall be maintained in good working order. (Engineering)

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

81. All plant material shall be maintained under a 30 calendar day establishment period after initial planting.

Upon completion of the establishment period, all plant material shall remain under warranty for an additional 9 months at a minimum. Any plant material which does not survive during the establishment period shall be immediately replaced. Any trees or shrubs which do not survive during the warranty period shall be replaced one month prior to the end of the warranty period. Tree or shrub replacement made necessary due to acts of God, neglect, or vandalism shall be exempt from the warranty. (Parks, Recreation, and Libraries)

82. The Tentative Subdivision Map shall not be deemed approved until the actions to the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Development Agreement Amendment, and Rezone are approved and become effective. (Planning)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION FILE #PL21-0184

1. The development standards for ARSP Phase A1 are approved as described in Exhibit G except as modified by these conditions of approval. (Planning)

2. This permit shall expire on the same date as the Small Lot Tentative Map for the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment project, File # PL21-0184, which is 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. Effectuation of this DRRS shall occur with the first residential Building Permit. (Planning)

3. Prior to issuance of building permits for home construction on MDR parcels within ARSP Phase A1, the home building shall be required to submit for a Design Review for Residential Subdivision (DRRS) approval to evaluate the proposed architecture. Detailed information (e.g. floor plans, additional architectural styles, materials, and color boards, etc.) shall be provided as part of the DRRS submittal.

A separate Sign Permit is required for all project signs. (Planning)

4. The project shall comply with all required environmental mitigation identified in the ARSP EIR and shall include all applicable mitigation measures as notes on the grading plans. (All Departments)

5. The landscape plan shall comply with the Landscape Guidelines for the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan and the City of Roseville Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. (Planning)

6. Optional accessory structures (patio covers, gazebos, etc.) shall be consistent with the development standards outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 19.22.030 (C). This includes setback, height, and coverage restrictions for both enclosed and unenclosed structures. (Planning)

7. Fences and walls shall be consistent with the locations and treatments specified in the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Design Guidelines. (Planning)
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, 3884 Westbrook Bl.; PL21-0184 Planning Commission – March 24, 2022 – Page 26 of 27
Exhibits
A. Second Addendum to the ARSP EIR
B. General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Rezone Exhibits C. Amoruso Specific Plan Amendment Change Pages
D. Second Amendment of the ARSP Development Agreement (525.7 acres) E. Second Amendment of the ARSP Development Agreement (148.7 acres) F. Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map Modification
G. Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map
H. Modified RS/DS Development Standards
Note to Applicant and/or Developer: Please contact the Planning Division staff at (916) 774-5276 prior to the Commission meeting if you have any questions on any of the recommended conditions for your project. If you challenge the decision of the Commission in court, you 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.

PC EXHIBIT A
PC Exhibit A – Second Addendum to the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan EIR has been removed from CC ATTACHMENT 1 to be considered as CC EXHIBIT A.

MARSHALL
017-240-016
HOLDER
017-240-017
ADAIR
017-240-031

BALLARD
017-240-032 FORE 017-240-030 EISENPRESS 017-240-029 RAPOZO 017-240-028

FILATOV
017-240-022
WOODS
017-240-027

MERRITT
017-240-026

FEASTER
017-240-025

CARPENTER
017-240-024
POLING
017-240-023 017-020-020

ANTHEM UNITED
017-101-010 017-101-012

ANTHEM UNITED CREEKVIEW DEVELOPMENTS
017-101-009

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
017-101-008
7-020-009
7-020-0347-020-035

CREEKVIEW DEVELOPMENTS

ANTHEM UNITED

CREEKVIEW DEVELOPMENTS

CUMMINGS TRUST

SPOUSES
LOIS E. M. S. TRUST
90 95
95 90
90 90
95 95
95 90
90 90
90 90
90 95
95 95
95 95
95 95
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
105
105
105
110
85 85
90 80
80 75
80 85
97 24.9 ± AC.

LDR/R1
AR-2
68 19.9 ± AC.

LDR/R1
AR-1
80 27.2 ± AC.

LDR/R1
AR-3
40 6.2 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-9
24 3.6 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-17
31 5.1 ± AC

LDR/RS-DS
AR-18
AR-23
43 6.8 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-16
52 8.2 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-8
13 2.6 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-46
18 3.2 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-7
34 5.0 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-6
17 2.8 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-5
41 7.3 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-4
55 8.7 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-11
21 3.4 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-12
13 2.3 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-21
28 4.6 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-25 19 3.8 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-34
55 9.7 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-26
28 4.3 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-22
40 6.1 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-13
45 7.1 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-14
23 3.3 ± AC. LDR/RS-DS
AR-30
24 4.6 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-35
27 4.4 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-31
15 2.4 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-27
45 6.9 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-15
55 10.3 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-24
33 6.3 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-37
50 7.7 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-32
78 12.3 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-43
71 14.8 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-40
138

10.6 ± AC.

MDR/RS-DS
AR-10
129

10.3 ± AC.

MDR/RS-DS
AR-28 54

8.1 ± AC.

MDR/RS-DS
AR-39
66 7.6 ± AC.

MDR/RS-DS
AR-42
94 8.2 ± AC.

MDR/RS-DS
AR-45
61 5.3 ± AC.

MDR/RS-DS
AR-33
380

15.2 ± AC.

HDR/R3
AR-38
230

9.2 ± AC.

HDR/R3
(AFFORDABLE)
AR-19
113

7.6 ± AC.

HDR/R3
AR-36
150

6.0 ± AC.

HDR/R3
(AFFORDABLE)
AR-44
AR-56

0.3 ± AC.

P/QP

9.7 ± AC.

P/QP
(SCHOOL)
AR-50

0.8 ± AC.

P/QP
AR-57

3.0 ± AC.

P/QP
(FIRE)
AR-54

3.5 ± AC.

P/QP
AR-55

23.8 ± AC.

CC
AR-53

13.0 ± AC.

CMU/SA
AR-52

14.3 ± AC.

CMU/SA
AR-51

10.4 ± AC.

P/R
AR-62

1.9 ± AC.

P/R
AR-61

2.5 ± AC.

P/R
AR-64

3.0 ± AC.

P/R
AR-66

2.0 ± AC.

P/R
AR-67

1.7 ± AC.

P/R
AR-63
AR-104

0.9 ± AC.

OS
AR-100

1.2 ± AC.

4.2 ± AC.

OS
AR-91

3.8 ± AC.

OS
AR-90
AR-99

0.5 ± AC.

OS
AR-98A

6.2 ± AC.

OS
AR-94

2.3 ± AC.

OS
AR-101

0.9 ± AC.

OS
AR-102

0.6 ± AC.

OS
AR103

0.7 ± AC.

OS
AR-74

0.6 ± AC.

OS
AR-77

1.0 ± AC.

OS
AR-76

0.4 ± AC.

OS
AR-73

1.0 ± AC.

OS
AR-72

1.0 ± AC.

OS
AR-71

0.3 ± AC.

OS
AR-75

0.8 ± AC.

OS
AR-81

1.1 ± AC.

OS
AR-79

0.4 ± AC.

OS
AR-78

0.5 ± AC.

7.8 ± AC.

OS
AR-96

40.1 ± AC.

OS
AR-97
AR-95

2.8 ± AC.

28.8 ± AC.

OS
AR-105

28.7 ± AC.

OS
AR-92

2.8 ± AC.

OS
AR-93A

1.1 ± AC.

OS
AR-80

WESTBROOK BOULEVARD
FUTURE
PLACER

PARKWAY

EXISTINGAMORUSO WAY
ROAD "A"
ROAD "A"
ROAD "B"
ROAD "C"
ROAD "C"
ROAD "D"
ROAD "D"
ROAD "E"
ROAD "E"
ROAD "G"
ROAD "G"
ROAD "F"
ROAD "F"
ROAD "F"
ROAD "H"
R=5,500'
R=500'
R=1,000'
R=1,450'
R=4,000'
R=1,000'
R=715'
R=350'
R=1,200'
R=1,000'
R=1,000'
R=1,000'
R=1,000'
R=500' R=500'
R=445'
R=770'
R=200'
R=250'
R=2,000'
AR-60

1.3 ± AC.

P/R
AR-70

0.6 ± AC.

OS
N00°12'14"W 5253.11' S00°12'42"E 1322.33'
N89°33'01"E 1320.28'
N00°11'40"W 1322.36'
N89°33'06"E 1319.88' N89°38'09"E 2639.68'
N00°25'48"E 2639.82' N01°15'16"W 2595.15'

OFFSITE ACCESS

EASEMENT PER

CREEKVIEW LARGE LOT

TENTATIVE MAP
WEST SUNSET BOULEVARD N89°21'00"E 2649.51' N89°26'00"E 2648.39' 20'

TEMPORARY
ACCESS

EASEMENT
(SEE NOTE 10)
20'

TEMPORARY
ACCESS

EASEMENT
(SEE NOTE 10)
19 2.9 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
(NAPOTS #1)
FUTURE
PLACER

PARKWAY
(NAPOTS #2)
FUTURE PLACER PARKWAY (NAPOTS #3) (NAPOTS #4)
(NAPOTS #5)
(NAPOTS #6)

3.2 ± AC.

OS
AR-93B
AR-98B

1.7 ± AC.

OS 20' TEMPORARY
ACCESS

EASEMENT
(SEE NOTE 10)

PLACER COUNTY

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

PLACER COUNTY

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

PLACER COUNTY
J:\3000-s\3651_AmorusoRanch\AmorusoRanch-OA\Planning\Exhibits\EXH_AR_LLTSM_V3.dwg 7/28/2021 10:28 AM Nicholas Wilk

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT

AMORUSO RANCH
3884 WESTBROOK BOULEVARD

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA
JULY 28, 2021

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT - AMORUSO RANCH
SHEET 1 OF 2

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME
3301 C St, Bldg. 100-B Tel 916.341.7760Sacramento, CA 95816 Fax 916.341.7767 0 NORTH 300
600
120

EXISTING LAND USE

EXISTING

PC EXHIBIT B
IZ • ..
-' "' " - N
_,_ "'0 "' 9 D <'l <(9 w' -o "'9
�� D� <( .... <(D
ON -' .... O! N -'N -'"'
<( o"" <( r'. FORE EISEN PRESS r'. <( r'.
::,;;: D
- :r:_
D D
- "'
D
- 017-240-030 017-240·029
,J
RAPOZO!
017-240-028
N
> N
0� ........<(N -' '
cc�
D
"' " "'
o
"'
f'.= N
0� _9
a,D 0� "'� �
w,
"- ::,;;: �
D D
General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Rezone Exhibit

AMORUSO RANCH
3884 WESTBROOK BOULEVARD

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA
JULY 28, 2021

PROPOSED LAND USE
C-..J
I Lt) "'"' a< N wN ('.) N
w9 >-9
>-0 Zo z�
"' .... w...- -...- \ SPOUSES <(N 0.. N -'N \ W' "' 0, LOIS E. M. S. TRU u..� <(" "-" Uo - D D 0 l 7-020-020
\
"
\
-- --

PROPOSED

LAND USE SUMMARY
GENERAL PLAN G'<OSS
LOT ��O. ZO�..JING LAND LSE DESCRIPTIQ',J
DESIGt�ATIO'·J ACRE
( AR-I LDR Rl LO\,\/ DENSITY RESIDEUTIAL 20.2
AR-2 LDR RI LQ\,\f DENSITY RESIDE1'1TIAl 24.7
AR-3 LDR RI LQ\,\f DENSITY RESIDEHTIAL 27.3
AR·4 LDR RS/DS LOI•\/ DEt.t31TY RESIDENTIAL 7.2
AR·5 LDR RS/DS LQ\,\f DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2.4
AR·6 LDR RS/DS LO\I\' DENSITY RESIDEI..JTIAL 5.4
AA-7 LDR RS/DS LOIN DEMSITY RESIDEI..JTIAL 3.1
N89"26'00"E 2648.39
.,. __ .,. -------_., ____ ---...... -----------

FUTURE PLACER
AR·S LDR RS/DS LO\•\/ DENSITY RESIDEt.JTIAl 8.4
AR-O LDR RS/DS LO\•\' DENSITY RESIDE1'1TIAL 6.3
I
I
AR-1

20.2 ± A
E>R-/lf'
•
LOTA3
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)
(
I
AR-56

0.3 ± AC.

P/QP

2.2 ± AC.
1-ll":==�+==::::-
----:--"------------71µ_'-_..,,.,_-+r--:

AR-98A

4.6 ± AC.
\ ✓
OS
AR-90

3.8 ± AC.

OS
)
I
AR-°'B

2.off.c.
1 1,os
AR-71

0.4 ± AC.

OS
AR-4
.2 ± AC.

R/RS-DS
AR-3

27.3 ± AC.

LDR/Rl
?
I
AR-91

4.2 ± AC.

OS
0�/
�� £----
« / �
t'
'V
':t
3-
A-tii. '4
OS AR.-1()1
1j'=fc.
1 OS
/��LOT A 1-8
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)

0.9 ± AC.

AR-72B

0.4 ± AC.

OS AR-14

7.5 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-16

6.6 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-2

24.7 ± AC.

LDR/Rl
AR-64

0.7 ± AC.

P/R
I (
AR-106

0.7 ± AC.

AR-107

0.4 ±AC.

I
I
I
I
AR- \

3.1 ± AC.

OS
OS
AR-57

0.9 ± AC.

P/QP
AR-105

38.2 ± AC.

OS
OS
�
AR-108

0.6 ± AC.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
017-101-008
ANTHEM U ITED REEl\�W DEVELOPMtNTS
�\ \ \
(
\
\
0 0 600
NORTH 300
I
017-101-009
D
\
\ 't.
\
120
\ '
)
1 0
AR-10

10.5 ± AC.
,. MDR/RS-135
AR-6

10.3 ± AC.

P/R
'> LOT A5 ....,.,_-a,
J��tie�ii
AR-9

6.3 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-34

3.2 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-50

9.6 ± AC.

P/QP
(SCHOOL)
AR-78

0.5 ± AC.

OS
AR-79

0.4 ± AC.

OS
P/R
AR-80

1.2 ± AC.

OS
'
INTERIOR 11,0ADS)

3.9 ± )(C.
"'AR-19 'f3±AC.

HDR/R3
(AFFORDABLE)
LOT A2-A

WESTBROOK

OULEVARD&

TERIOR ROADS)

7.9±AC.

AR-28

10.2 ± AC.

MDR/RS-DS
LOT A9-B
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)

0.1 ± AC.
- ROJ;,D "C"
(WESTBROO

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)

1.1 ± AC.

13.0 ± AC.

CMU/SA
AR-51

14.3 ± AC.

CMU/SA
LOT A4-B
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)

1.6 ± AC.

I'
AR-37

5.0 ± AC.

MDR/RS-DS
ANTHEM LI {ED
CREEKVIEW �gPMENTS I
011-101.012 I
AR-95

2.7 ± AC.

OS
"''
�.
\ \ �--=z:,/
_j
�·:=:-;; ;;-· \
' Tt ./��)�
\
� I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pf.R'{JN-A
Y---------1
(NAPOTS #3)

7.7±AC
LOT Al 1
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)

2.0 ± AC.

AR-53

23.7 ± AC.
cc
LOT A9-A
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)

6.5 ± AC.
-
AR-39

7.8 ± AC.

MDR/RS-DS
I
I
I
AR-38 I

15.1 ± AC.

I HDR/R3
I
I
OT A 1 !!:-� 11
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)
� ,..
��

3.1 ± AC.

AR-40

14.4 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
� 0
0 u
"'I
"' � w
0 U
�•� u
;..

M �
(
AR-67 �

2.0 ± AC. 1--------""'1,:;
,9-/'·lv��---.. §
AR 42

7.5 :!! AC.

MDR/jRS-DS
ARAR-43

2.1 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
I
I

5.9 ± AC.

HDR/R3
(AFFORDABLE) AR-54
---2...t± AC.

PXQP
/
�IRE)
AR-45

8.0 ± AC.

MDR/RS-DS
LOT A4-C
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)

0.1 ± AC.

AR-55 :(

1.5 ± AC.

P/QP
AR-115

0.7 ± AC. I
OS I
AR-114

0.5 ± AC.

OS �,..,
LOT A7
\(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &
INTEjl(?R ROADS)
,p.4 ± AC.

I
LOl A4-A
(Wl;STBROOK

BOULEVARD &
NTEJIOR\ROADSJ

6.8 ± A'C.
/ AR-96

2.3 ±AC.

OS
<(
I
AR-97

41.7±AC.

I
I
OS
f
I
I
I.
ii
.�
I

AA-I LDR RS/DS
AR-12 LDP RS/OS
J\R 13 LDR RS/DS
J\R 14 LDR RS/DS
AR-I5 LDR RS/DS
.AR-16 LDR RS/DS
AR-I7 lr1R RS/,JS
AR-I8 LDR RS/DS
AR-22 LDR RS/DS
AR-23 LDR RS/DS
AR-24 LDR RS/DS
AR-26 LDR RS/DS
AR-27 LDR RS/DS
AR-30 LDR RS/DS
<'R·3 LDR RS/DS
AR-34 LDR RS/DS
.AR-35 LDR RS/DS
.AR-40 LDR RS/DS
.AR-43 LDR RS/DS
J\R 46 LDR RS/DS

SUBTOTAL
AR-I0 MDR RS/DS
AR-2· MDR RS/DS
AR-25 MOR RS/DS
AR-28 MDR RS/DS
AR-32 MDR RS/DS
AR-33 MDR RS/DS
.AR-37 MOR RS/DS
.AR-39 MDR RS/DS
.AR-42 MDR RS/DS
J\R 45 MOR RS/DS

SUBTOTAL
AR-I9 HDR R3
AR-36 HDR R3
AR-38 HDR R3
AR-44 HDR R3

SUBTOTAL
AR-50 P/QP P/QP
AR-54 P/QP P/QP
AR-55 P/QP P/QP
AR-56 P/QP P/QP
AR-37 P/QP P/QP
AR-::i8 P/QP P/QP
AR-59 P/QP P/QP

SUBTOTAL
AR-5 CC/1/C CMU/SA
AR-::i2 CC/VC CMU/S.A
.AR-53 cc cc

SUBTOTAL
AR-60 P/R P/R
AA-6 P/R P/R
AR-62 P/R P/R
AR-63 P/R P/R
,\R 64/\ P/R P/R
,\R 64b P/R P/R
AR-66 P/R P/R
.AR-67 r'/R r1R

SUBTOTAL
.AR-70 05 OS
.AR-7 OS OS
JIR-72A OS OS
JIR-7'.'.'I"\ OS OS
AR-7'.l 0,':; OS
.AR-74 OS OS
.AR-75 03 OS
.AR-76 03 OS
AR-77 05 OS
AR-78 OS OS
AR-79 OS OS
AR-80 05 OS
AR-8· OS OS
AR-90 OS OS
'"·' OS OS
AJ.i-'n 0� OS
AR-93 OS OS
AR-94 OS OS
AR-95 n., OS
AR-96 0,':; OS
.AR-97 05 OS
JI.R-�'8A 05 OS

1\.R 985 OS OS
AR-99 OS OS
JIR-100 OS OS
JI.R-I01 OS OS
JI.R-I02 OS OS
JI.R-I03 03 OS
JI.R-104 n., OS
JI.R-I05 05 OS
JI.R-106 OS OS
JI.R-707 OS OS
JI.R-108 OS OS
JIR-109 OS OS
JIR-l l l OS OS
JIR-112 OS OS
,\.R 113 OS OS
,\.R 114 OS OS
JI.R-115 OS OS
JIR-116 OS OS

SUBTOTAL
LOT Al-A RV\' RW
LOT Al-B RV\' RW
LOT A2-A RW RW
LOI A'.2-B l<V/ l<\'11
LOT )(l RW RW
LOT A4-A RW RW
LOT A4-B RW RW
LOT A4-C RV\' RW
LOT A5 RV\I RW

LDT M RW RW
LOT A7 RW RW
LOT ,18 RW RW
LOT A'r-A RW RW
LOT A9-B RV\' RW
LOT A9-C RW RW
L::)T ;.· 0 RI•\' RW
LOT P..." l RW RW

SUBTOTAL
RW RW

SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
LO\•\' DENSITY RESIDE1'1TIAL
LO\•\' DEN'ilTY RESIDEt-.JTIAL
LO\,\' DENSITY RESIDE ...JTI/\L
LO\,\' DENSITY RESIDE ...JTI/\L
LOI•\/ DENSITY RESIDEl'./TIAL
LO\,\/ DENSITY RESIDEl·1fIAl
I OW r)Ft--f:ITY RFSlr)Fl·.JTIAI
LO\,\/ DE�-tSITY RESIDEHTIAL
LOI•\' DEt-tSITY RESIDENTIAL
LOI•\' DEt-tSITY RESIDEHTIAL
LOI.I/ DEMSITY RESIDEl·.JTIAL
LOI.I/ DEMSITY RESIDEI.JTIAL
LOI.I/ DEMSITY RESIDEI.JTIAL
LOW DE�-tSITY RESIDEl.JTIAL
LOI•\' DE�-tSIH RESIDEt.JTIAL
LOI•\' DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
LOI•\' DENSITY RESIDE .JTIAL
LOI•\' DENSITY RESIDE .JTIAL
LOVV DENSITY RESIDE .JTIAL
LOI-I/ DENSITY RESIDEl"JTl/\l
.

MEDIUM DEhlSITY RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM DEhlSITY RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM DEhlSITY RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM DEI-..JSITY RESIDENTIAL

MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM DE�JSITY RESIC·ENTIAL
MEDIUM DE -..JSITY RESIDE�·JTIAL
MEDIUM DE -..JSITY RESIDE�..JTIAL
MEDIUM DE •lSITY RESIDEWIAL
MEDIUM DrnSITY RESICHJTl/\1..

HIGH DEI-..JSITY RESIDENTI.Al (faff.)
-HGH DEl,JSITY RESIDENTIAL
-HGH DEl,JSITY RESIDENTIAL
HIGH DEI-..JSITY RESIDENTl."-1. (!'.FF.)
SCf-OOL
FIRE STATIOl-..t
PUB.IC/ QUA)I-FUBLIC
PUB.IC/ QUASI-PUBLIC
PUB.IC/ QLI.ASI-FUBLIC
PUB.IC/ QLI.ASI-FUBLIC

PUB IC/ QUASI-PUBLIC
COMlv'.UN-Y COMMERCIA.

UJM�/.Ut,I-y UJMMERCIA...

COM�/.Ut-- -Y COMMERCIA...

PA�KS & RECREATION
PA'<KS & RECREATIOt--I
PA'<KS & RECREATIOt--I
PA'<KS & RECREATIOt--I
P/\'<KS & RECREJ\TIO�I
P/\'<KS & RECREJ\TIO�I
PA�KS & RECREATION
rA�KS & RECREATION
OP:�< SPACE/ PASEO
OP:�< SPACE/ PASEO
OP::N SPACE/ PASEO
OP-PJ :iPACT/ PA'ilO
OP-PJ :iPAC:I"/ PA'ilO
OP::N SPACE/ P.ASEO
OP:t,
I SPACE/ P.ASEO
OP:t,
I SPACE/ P.ASEO
OP::N SPACE/ P.ASEO
OP::N SPACE/ PA5EO
OP::N SPACE/ PA5EO
OP::N SPACE/ P.ASEO
OP::I,J SPACE/ P.ASEO
o:.rn SPACE/ PRESERVED OPEH SPACE
o:.EN SPACE/ PRESERVED OPEN SPACE
OJH! Sf-'ACI:/ HSl:Sl:1-/Vl:LJ Of-'l:�1 Sf-'ACI:

OP::N SPACE/ P.ASEO
o:.rn SPAC[/ FR[S[RV[D OPCH SPAC[
OP:PJ SPAC[/ PASCO
OP=N SPAC:F/ PA'iFO
o:.E -..J SPACE/ PRESERVED OPEI-..J SPACE
OP:�< SPACE/ P.ASEO
OP::N SPJ\CE/ Pt.SEO
OP::N SPACE/ P.ASEO
OP-PJ :iPAC:1/ PA'ilO
or::N srACE/ r . ....srn
OP::N SPACE/ P.ASEO
OP:t,
I SPACE/ P.ASEO
OP::N SPACE/ PA5EO
o:.rn SPACE/ PRESERVED OPEhl SPACE
OP::N SPACE/ P.ASEO
OP::N SPACE/ P.ASEO
OP::N SPACE/ P.ASEO
OP::N SPACE/ PASEO
OP::N SPACE/ PASEO
OP::N SPACE/ PASEO
o:.rn SPACE/ PRESERVED OPEl'J SPACE
OP::N SPJ\CE/ Pt.SEO
OP::N SPACE/ P.ASEO
or::N SPACE/ r.ASEO
WE::OTBROO< BLVD & INTERIOR ROADS
WESTBROO< BLVD & INTERIOR ROADS
WESTBROO< BLVD & INTERIOR ROADS
\'111:SIBI-/OO< BLVLJ & INll:1<I01< 1-/0ALJS
W[SH\ROO< CI VD & INTCRIOP ROADS
WESTBROO< BLVD & INTERIOR ROADS
WE::OTBROO< BLVD & INTERIOR ROADS
WESTBROO< B VD & INTERIOR ROADS

WESTBROO-( BLVD & INTERIOR ROADS
WESTBROO< BLVD & INTERIOR ROADS
W[SH\ROO< CI VD & INTCRIOP ROADS

WESTBROO-( BLVD & INTERIOR ROADS
WESTBROO< BLVD & INTERIOR ROADS
WESTBROO< B VD & INTERIOR ROADS

WESTBROO-( BLVD & INTERIOR ROADS
WESTBROO< BLVD & INTERIOR ROADS
WE::OTBROO< BLVD & INTERIOR ROADS
FUTU '<E FLAC::R PARKWAY

8.3 3.1

5.4 7.5

7.3 6.6

3.f,

5.1 6.0

2.8 2.S

9.3 2.5

2.9 4.4

3.2 1.8

14.4 12.1

2.4 219.0

10.5 2.0

5.3 10.2

7.8 5.1

5.0 7.8

7.5 8.0

69.J

9.3 7.5

15.l

5.9 37.9

9.6 2.9

1.5 0.3

0.9 1..3

0.7 17.1

14.3 13.0

23.7 51.0

1.3 l.9

10.3 1.7

0.7 1.8

2.9 2.0

22.6 0.6

0.4 0.6

0.4 1.0

0.6 0.8

0.3 0.9

0.5 0.4

1.2 1.2

3.8 4.2
'.c'l:l./

3.1 2.3

2.7 ?.3

41.7 4.6

2.0 0.5
I.?

1.0 0.6

0.7 0.9

38.2 0.7

0.4 0.6

0.8 0.2
I.I

1.8 0.5

0.7 0.3
154.3

6.3 0.9

7.9 I. I

2.2 6.8

1.6 0.1

3.9 2.0

0.4 6.4

6.S

0.1 0.1

3.1 2.0

51.3 51.9

51.'i'
674.4
;:!
�
�
g
;,
C
E
0 �
Q
WOOO -ROOuE:R:S
�
�

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME
3301 C St, Bldg. 100-B
Sacramento, CA 95816
Tel 916.341.7760 i
Fax 916.341.7767
SHEET 2 OF 2 �
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------�

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT - AMORUSO RANCH

PC EXHIBIT C
PC Exhibit C – ARSP Change Pages has been removed from CC ATTACHMENT 1 to be considered as CC EXHIBIT C.

PC EXHIBIT D
PC Exhibit D – Development Agreement Amendment (525.8
acres) has been removed from CC ATTACHMENT 1 to be
considered as CC EXHIBIT D.

PC EXHIBIT E
PC Exhibit E– Development Agreement Amendment (147.8
acres) has been removed from CC ATTACHMENT 1 to be
considered as CC EXHIBIT E.

NTS
WESTBROOK BOULEVARD - I.O.D. A1 100' STREET SECTION
R/W
3' 6' 11' 7'
CL
BIKE
LANE
11'
14'

LANDSCAPE
MEDIAN
STREET
TREES (TYP.)
12'
35' OR 50' LDSCP./PUE
SOUNDWALL @
RESIDENTIAL (TYP.)
LDSCP. C&G TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE
10'
CLASS 1A
SDWLK.
8'
R/W
7' 11' 6' 3'
100'
BIKE
LANE
12' 11'
35' OR 50' LDSCP./PUE
TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE C&G LDSCP.
10'
CLASS 1A
SDWLK.
8'
STREET
TREES (TYP.)
SOUNDWALL @
RESIDENTIAL (TYP.)
17'-32'
VARIES
17'-32'
VARIES
NTS
WESTBROOK BOULEVARD (SOUTH OF STREET 'A') - I.O.D. A2 92' STREET SECTION R/W
3' 5' 11' 4'
CL
BIKE
LANE
11'
8'

LANDSCAPE
MEDIAN
STREET
TREES (TYP.)
12'
10' LDSCP./PUE
LDSCP. C&G TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE
5'
R/W
11' 5' 3'
92'
BIKE
LANE
12' 11'
23' (MIN) LDSCP./PUE
TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE C&G LDSCP.
8'
CLASS 1
SDWLK.
10'
STREET
TREES (TYP.)
NTS
4' 5'
SDWLK.
5'
TBD
FC FC
60 KV POLE

LINE AT

ROAD 'A'

96.5' STREET SECTION
MODIFIED PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL ROAD 'D' - I.O.D.

NTS
B
CL

2.5'
RAISED
MEDIAN
STREET
TREES (TYP.)
R/W
12' 11' 3.25'

TURN LANE TRAVEL LANE C&G

3.25'

96.5'
11' 11'

C&G TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE
5'
SDWLK.
12'

TURN LANE
5'
BIKE
LANE
2' 11'

TRAVEL LANE
5'
BIKE
LANE
10'

TURN LANE
5'
LDSCP.
5'
SDWLK.
5'
LDSCP.

R/W
3' 2.5' 3'
76' STREET SECTION
MINOR ARTERIAL ROAD 'B' & 'D' - I.O.D.

NTS
C
CL
14'

LANDSCAPE
MEDIAN
STREET
TREES (TYP.)
SOUNDWALL @
RESIDENTIAL (TYP.)
R/W
7' 5' 3'
76'
BIKE
LANE
12' 11'
35' OR 50' LDSCP./PUE
TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE C&G LDSCP.
10'
CLASS 1A
SDWLK.
8'
STREET
TREES (TYP.)
SOUNDWALL @
RESIDENTIAL (TYP.)
R/W
3' 5' 7'
BIKE
LANE
11' 12'
35' OR 50' LDSCP./PUE
LDSCP. C&G TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE
10'
CLASS 1A
SDWLK.
17'-32' 8'
VARIES
17'-32'
VARIES
74' STREET SECTION
ROAD 'A' AT WESTBROOK BOULEVARD - I.O.D.

NTS
D

MODIFIED PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL

76.5'

R/W R/W
5'
C&G
8' 5' 3' 10' 13.5' 3' 5'

C&G RIGHT TURN TRAVEL LANE
LANE
CLASS 1A
SDWLK.

DETAIL 22 STRIPING

ON PAVEMENT
LDSCP. LDSCP. WALK PL
10'

PUE/LDSP LOT

SOUND WALL

AT RESIDENTIAL
10'
PUE
11'

TRAVEL LANE
13'

LEFT TURN LANE
55'
NTS
MODIFIED MINOR RESIDENTIAL ROAD 'G'&'H' - I.O.D.
55' STREET SECTION
3' 5'
R/W

14.5' 5'
TRAVEL LANE C&G LDSCP.SDWLK.

CL
H
10'
PUE
3'
R/W

14.5'

C&G TRAVEL LANE
35'
5' 5'
SDWLK.LDSCP.
10'
PUE

51.5'
R/W

51.5' STREET SECTION
MODIFIED PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL ROAD ROAD 'H' - I.O.D.

NTS
I
R/W
C&G
5' 7.5' 3' 16.5' 16.5' 3'
LDSCP. C&G TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE
CL
WALK
10'
PUE

PL PUE/LDSP LOT
NTS
MODIFIED PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL ROAD 'A', 'D', 'E' & 'F' - I.O.D.

K 47.5' STREET SECTION
CL

14.5'
R/W
3'

47.5'
STREET
TREES (TYP.)
10'
35' PASEO/PUE
TRAVEL LANE C&G LDSCP. CLASS 1A
SDWLK.

14.5' 10'
R/W

7.5' 3'
SDWLK. LDSCP. C&G TRAVEL LANE
5'
STREET
TREES (TYP.)
PUE
10' 15'
LDSCP.

NTS
65'
NTS
MODIFIED PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL ROAD 'G' - I.O.D.
65' STREET SECTION
3' 7.5'
R/W

14.5' 5'
TRAVEL LANE C&G LDSCP. SDWLK.

CL
E1
10'
PUE

7.5' 3'
R/W
10' 14.5'
LDSCP. C&G TRAVEL LANE
10'
PUE CLASS 1A
SDWLK. 35'
46'
NTS
RESIDENTIAL ROAD 'G' (UNDERCROSS) - I.O.D.
46' STREET SECTION
3'
R/W
12'

TRAVEL LANE C&G
CL
E2
3'
R/W
8' 12'
CLASS 1A C&G TRAVEL LANE
SDWLK. 30'
8'
CLASS 1A
SDWLK.

MODIFIED PRIMARY
FUTURE
PLACER

PARKWAY
FUTURE
PLACER

PARKWAY
62' R/W
62' STREET SECTION
ROAD 'E' AT WESTBROOK BOULEVARD - I.O.D.

NTS
F
R/W
5'
C&G
8' 5' 3' 16.5' 16.5' 3' 5'
CLASS 1A C&G TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE
SDWLK.

LDSCP. LDSCP. WALK
CL

MODIFIED PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL
10'
PUE
10'
PUE
59'
NTS
59' STREET SECTION
3' 5'
R/W

16.5' 5'
TRAVEL LANE C&G LDSCP.SDWLK.

CL
G
10'
PUE
39'
5' 3'
R/W
5' 16.5'
SDWLK.LDSCP.C&G TRAVEL LANE
10'
PUE
MODIFIED PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL ROAD 'C' - I.O.D.

NTS
NTS
MODIFIED COLLECTOR ROAD 'A' - I.O.D.

J 48' STREET SECTION
CL
10'
BIKE
LANE
R/W
5' 3'
48'
STREET
TREES (TYP.)

7.5'
23' LDSCP./PUE
TRAVEL LANE C&G LDSCP. CLASS 1A
SDWLK.
10' 10'
BIKE
LANE
R/W

7.5' 3' 5' 12'
25' LDSCP./PUE
SDWLK. LDSCP. C&G TRAVEL LANE
5'
TBD

CENTER LANE
SPACE
OPEN
60 KV POLE

LINE AT

ROAD 'A'
STREET
TREES (TYP.)
NTS

12.5' 5.5'
NTS
WEST SUNSET BOULEVARD L1 32' STREET SECTION
CL
SHLDR
R/W
4'
32'
12'

TRAVEL LANE
RANCH

AMORUSO
12'

SHLDR TRAVEL LANE
4'
R/W
8'
SWLK
5'
VARIES 25' 8'
±19' OR ±35' LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/ PUE
IN 1966 BY AMORUSO
42' GRANTED TO COUNTY

PROPOSED SUNSET BOULEVARD
VARIES (59' OR 75')
PER FIGURE 7.2N1 OF THE AMORUSO SPECIFIC PLAN
RANCHES #1

TOAD HILL

EXISTING SUNSET BOULEVARD
VARIES (92' OR 108')

P/L P/L
NTS
WEST SUNSET BOULEVARD L2 56' STREET SECTION
CL
SHLDR
R/W
4'
56'
12'

TRAVEL LANE
RANCH

AMORUSO
12'

RIGHT TURN
LANE
SHLDR
4'
R/W
15'
SWLK
5'
12' 15' 10'

LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/
IN 1966 BY AMORUSO
42' GRANTED TO COUNTY

PROPOSED SUNSET BOULEVARD
83'
PER FIGURE 7.2N2 OF THE AMORUSO SPECIFIC PLAN
RANCHES #1

TOAD HILL

EXISTING SUNSET BOULEVARD
92'
P/L
12'

STRIPED MEDIAN
12'

TRAVEL LANE
PUE
NTS
WEST SUNSET BOULEVARD L3 44' STREET SECTION
SHLDR
R/W
4'
44'
12'

TRAVEL LANE
RANCH

AMORUSO
12'

SHLDR TRAVEL LANE
4'
R/W
8'
SWLK
5'
14' 25' 17'

LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR
IN 1966 BY AMORUSO
42' GRANTED TO COUNTY

PROPOSED SUNSET BOULEVARD
66'
PER FIGURE 7.2N3 OF THE AMORUSO SPECIFIC PLAN
RANCHES #1

TOAD HILL

EXISTING SUNSET BOULEVARD
108'

P/L P/L
12'

LEFT TURN
LANE
CL
017-020-031
DEVELOPMENT CO.

WEST ROSEVILLE

MARSHALL
017-240-016
HOLDER
017-240-017
ADAIR
017-240-031

BALLARD
017-240-032 FORE 017-240-030 EISENPRESS 017-240-029 RAPOZO 017-240-028

FILATOV
017-240-022
WOODS
017-240-027

MERRITT
017-240-026

FEASTER
017-240-025

CARPENTER
017-240-024
POLING
017-240-023 017-020-020 017-020-021
PLACER
RANCH INC017-020-019
PLACER

RANCH INC
017-020-018

ANTHEM UNITED
017-101-010 017-101-012

ANTHEM UNITED CREEKVIEW DEVELOPMENTS
017-101-009

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
017-101-008

ROSEVILLE
017-020-009

GLEASON
017-020-034

ATC REALTY

ONE LLC

GLEASON
017-020-035

CREEKVIEW DEVELOPMENTS

CITY OF
492-012-085

ANTHEM UNITED

CREEKVIEW DEVELOPMENTS

CUMMINGS TRUST

SPOUSES
LOIS E. M. S. TRUST

24.7 ± AC.

LDR/R1
AR-2

20.2 ± AC.

LDR/R1
AR-1

27.3 ± AC.

LDR/R1AR-3

6.3 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-9

3.6 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-17

5.1 ± AC

LDR/RS-DS
AR-18
AR-23

6.6 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-16

8.4 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-8

2.4 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-46

3.1 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-7

5.4 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-6

2.4 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-5

7.2 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-4

8.2 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-11

3.1 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-12
AR-21
AR-25

3.2 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-34

9.3 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-26

6.0 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-22

5.4 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-13

7.5 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-14

2.9 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-30

4.8 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-35

4.4 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-31

2.4 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-27

7.4 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-15

2.5 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-24
AR-37
AR-32

12.1 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-43

14.4 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
AR-40

10.5 ± AC.

MDR/RS-DS
AR-10

10.2 ± AC.

MDR/RS-DS
AR-28

7.8 ± AC.

MDR/RS-DS
AR-39

7.5 ± AC.

MDR/RS-DS
AR-42

8.0 ± AC.

MDR/RS-DS

5.1 ± AC. AR-45

MDR/RS-DS
AR-33

15.1 ± AC.

HDR/R3
AR-38

9.3 ± AC.

HDR/R3
(AFFORDABLE)
AR-19

7.5 ± AC.

HDR/R3
AR-36

5.9 ± AC.

HDR/R3
(AFFORDABLE)
AR-44
AR-56

0.3 ± AC.

P/QP

9.6 ± AC.

P/QP
(SCHOOL)
AR-50

0.9 ± AC.

P/QP
AR-57

2.9 ± AC.

P/QP
(FIRE)
AR-54

1.3 ± AC.

P/QP
AR-58

23.7 ± AC.

CC
AR-53

13.0 ± AC.

CMU/SA
AR-52

14.2 ± AC.

CMU/SA
AR-51

10.3 ± AC.

P/R
AR-62

1.9 ± AC.

P/R
AR-61

1.8 ± AC.

P/R
AR-64B

2.9 ± AC.

P/R
AR-66

2.0 ± AC.

P/R
AR-67

1.7 ± AC.

P/R
AR-63
AR-104

0.9 ± AC.

OS
AR-100

1.2 ± AC.

4.2 ± AC.

OS
AR-91

3.8 ± AC.

OS
AR-90
AR-99

0.5 ± AC.

OS
AR-98A

6.2 ± AC.

OS
AR-94

2.3 ± AC.

OS
AR-101

1.0 ± AC.

OS
AR-102

0.6 ± AC.

OS
AR103

0.7 ± AC.

OS
AR-740.6 ± AC.

OS
AR-77

0.9 ± AC.

OS
AR-76

0.3 ± AC.

OS
AR-73

1.0 ± AC.

OS
AR-72A

0.6 ± AC.

OS
AR-71

0.3 ± AC.

OS
AR-75

0.8 ± AC.

OS
AR-81

1.2 ± AC.

OS
AR-79

0.4 ± AC.

OS
AR-78

0.5 ± AC.

1.8 ± AC.

OS
AR-113

41.7 ± AC.

OS
AR-97
AR-95

2.7 ± AC.

38.2 ± AC.

OS
AR-105

28.7 ± AC.

OS
AR-92

3.1 ± AC.

OS
AR-93

1.2 ± AC.

OS
AR-80

WESTBROOK BOULEVARD
FUTURE
PLACER

PARKWAY
ROAD "A"
ROAD "A"
ROAD "B"
ROAD "C"
ROAD "C"
ROAD "D"
ROAD "D"
ROAD "E"
ROAD "E"
ROAD "G"
ROAD "G"
ROAD "F"
ROAD "F"
ROAD "F"
ROAD "H"
AR-60

1.3 ± AC.

P/R
AR-70

0.6 ± AC.

OS
N00°12'14"W 5253.11' S00°12'42"E 1322.33'
N89°33'01"E 1320.28'
N00°11'40"W 1322.36'
N89°33'06"E 1319.88' N89°38'09"E 2639.68'
N00°25'48"E 2639.82' N01°15'16"W 2595.15' PLACER COUNTY CITY OF ROSEVILLE

PLACER COUNTY

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WEST SUNSET BOULEVARD N89°21'00"E 2649.51' N89°26'00"E 2648.39'

2.8 ± AC.

LDR/RS-DS
(NAPOTS #1)
FUTURE
PLACER

PARKWAY
(NAPOTS #2)
FUTURE PLACER PARKWAY (NAPOTS #3) (NAPOTS #4)
(NAPOTS #5)
(NAPOTS #6)
A2
A1
A1
C
C
B
D
E1
E1
E2
F
G
G
G
H
H
J
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
L1 L2 L3

0.7 ± AC.

OS
AR-106

PLACER COUNTY

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

PLACER COUNTY

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

PLACER COUNTY

0.4 ± AC.

OS
AR-107

0.6 ± AC.

OS
AR-108

0.8 ± AC.

OS
AR-109

0.2 ± AC.

OS
AR-111

1.1 ± AC.

OS
AR-112

0.5 ± AC.

OS
AR-114

0.7 ± AC.

OS
AR-115

1.5 ± AC.

P/QP
AR-55

0.7 ± AC.

P/QP
AR-59

2.3 ± AC.

OS
AR-96
LOT A9-A

0.3 ± AC.

OS
AR-116

6.5 ± AC.
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)
AR-98B

1.7 ± AC.

0.7 ± AC.

P/R
AR-64A
AR-72B

0.4 ± AC.

2.0 ± AC.

MDR/RS-DS

5.3 ± AC.

MDR/RS-DS

7.8 ± AC.

MDR/RS-DS

5.0 ± AC.

MDR/RS-DS

20.6 ± AC

14.4 ± AC

7.7 ± AC

0.8 ± AC

5.1 ± AC

2.0 ± AC
67'
718'
1235'
1213'
35' 22'
320'
184'
175'
93'
78'
128' 10'
704'
1236' 55'
618' 55'233' 233'
460' 405' 288'
341'
81'
275'
233'
29'
129'
31'
44' 50' 31'19'
49'
95'
68'
17'41' 54'
70'
53'
37'46'
63'
200'
102' 90'
88' 23' 68'
118'
170'
238'
118' 65' 38'
76'
78'
102'
196'
44'
30'32'
87'
1295'
221'
90'
40'
111'
54'
57'
42' 79'
84'
49'
97'
48' 59' 45' 126'
33' 128'
86'
53' 33'41' 59'
2013'
727' 168'
885'
67'
1294'
57'
1467'
2317'
368'
571'
60'
240'
317'
2093'
1912'
312'
420'
202'
277'
669'
262'
258'
436'
84' 25' 59'
273'
1155'
338'
1163'
591'
773'
454'
15' 550'
443'
392'
322' 312'
93'
615'
71'
283'
195'
378'
71'
350'
265'
290'
228'
55'
55' 12'
7'
12'
7'
312'
1662'
1662'
1401'
1401'
756'
976'
1203'
224'
33' 33'
75'
84'
220'
121'
317'
81' 66'
72'
220'
121'
170' 112' 115'
26'
222'
1463'
538'
130' 103' 93'
316' 692' 61' 120' 61' 70'
334'
543'
221'
63'
61'
120'
71' 214' 121' 192' 71' 213'
100'
338'
71' 620'
71' 620'
71' 132' 121' 222'
606'
71'
71'
474'
57'
466' 57'
501'
231'
361'
55'
290'
464'
35'
273'
365'
333'
35'
60' 146'
251'
58'
462'
71'
516' 71'
492'
75'
511'
74'
472'
636'
541'
224'
396'
107' 44' 98'
98' 14'
100'
950'
73'39'
59' 93'
29'
14'32' 46'
37'26'
73'
36' 58'
83'20'
60' 65'
51' 51' 57'
256'
3'
320'
81'
54'
77' 98' 41'
26' 95' 30'
41' 43'34'48'39'
35'
40'
123'
104' 56'
317'
258'
71'
36'
98' 46'
260'
52'
84'
46' 55'
252'
311'
557'
18'
409'
43' 12'
555'
18'
184' 17'
39' 18'
405'
53'
5'
58' 38' 18' 52' 146'
151'
17'42'18'
214'
115'
72'48'
222'
10' 28'
240'
1077'
130' 97' 72' 248'
54' 162' 43'
207'
180'
84'
58' 77'
152'
59' 100'
338'
260'
213'
71' 266' 61' 120' 61' 71' 220'
238'
266'
510'
24'
132' 140'
81'
86' 63'
46' 68'
136'
40' 55' 37' 55' 122'
81'
18' 44'24' 107'
167'
566'
68'
64'
51'
64'
94'
264' 80'
274'
61'
86' 123'
104' 355'
107' 117'
131'
120'
104'
114'129'
106'
289' 25'
159'
495'
342'
88'
1226'
1109'
1177' 2782'
89' 62'
99'
113' 34'
118'
60'
108'
141'
30'
30'
394' 372'
27'
19'
462'
30'
296'
313'
187'
167' 53'
13' 382'
410'
181' 195'
266'
295'
30' 166'
263'
68' 15' 34'
36' 43' 19'
123' 36'
130'
94' 293'
295'
90'
90' 210'
224'
87'
87'
181'
218'
109'
355' 308'
121' 54' 103' 42' 18'
92' 51' 63'53' 141'75' 61' 120'
1073'
61' 595' 796'
197' 42'
304'
25'
66' 51' 66'
181' 27'
399'
34'
986'
624'
679' 121' 167'
85'
53' 71'
404'
111'
128' 71'
99'
75'50'
17'
360'
125'
253'
133'
360'
120'
202'
2567'
1041'
34'100' 26' 81' 128'
157'
140'
79'
56' 32'
125'
151'
209' 216'
121'
170'
237'
69'
115'
99'
242'
187'
243'
260'
30'
68'
136'
190'
351'
433' 124'
117'
350' 61' 120' 61' 71' 94'
127'
112'
31'
344'
233'
556'
336'
164'
326'
68'
283'
215' 120' 220' 71'
61'
120' 61'
243'
601'
213' 216'
305' 61' 120' 61'
82'
86'
74'
106'
714'
421'
300'
141'
372'
261'
273'
88'
71'
220' 121' 252'
254'
166'
372'
213' 115'
34'
199'
472'
152'
119'
10'
280'
184'
42' 16' 212'
17'
15'
40'
216'
19'47'
20'
277'
19'47'
22' 226'
55'
260'
451'
451'
215'
444'
649'
71' 136' 120' 154'
71'
71'
31'
71'
554'
280' 120' 214'
61' 120' 158' 120'
650'
131'
70'
283'
173' 325' 35'
443'
525'
638'
35'
574'
231'
571'
232'
459'
35'
35'
368'
438'
211'
561'
404'
35'
434'
670'
30' 54'
389'
808'
35'
651'
527'
52'
441'
55'
51' 41'
229'
140'
22'
21'
49'
112'
201' 27'
110'
147'
240'
102'
320'
350'
298'
225'
188'
445'
298'
22'
116' 69' 22' 342' 35'
35'
484'
489' 20'
321'
103'
102'
312'
322'
281'
294'
604'
35'
20'
321'
190'
418'
18'
245'
18'
43' 207'
16'
17' 43'
385'
426'
426' 206'
18'
18'
43'
197'
228'
91' 153'
276'
352'
300'
384'
118' 21'
46' 19'
209' 237'
338'
179'
30'
563'
368'
541'
443'
486'
241'
571'
359'
240'
807'
128' 35'
21' 40'
383'
90'
18'
42'
248'
35'
978'
LOT A3

2.2 ± AC.
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)
LOT A2-A

7.9 ± AC.
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)
62'
48'
46'
88'
534'
704'
LOT A11

2.0 ± AC.
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)
78'
1373'
52'
LOT A4-B

1.6 ± AC.
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)
LOT A1-A

6.3 ± AC.
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)
48'
LOT A8

6.4 ± AC.
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)
LOT A6

2.0 ± AC.
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)
LOT A5

3.9 ± AC.
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)
LOT A7

0.4 ± AC.
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)
LOT A10

3.1 ± AC.
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)
110' 110'
797'
794'
792'
108' 112'
48'
1389'
98'
68'
120'
182'
134'
71'
88'
LOT A1-B

0.9 ± AC.
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)
LOT A2-B

1.1 ± AC.
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)
LOT A4-A

7.0 ± AC.
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)
LOT A4-C

0.1 ± AC.
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)
LOT A9-B

0.1 ± AC.
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)
LOT A9-C

0.1 ± AC.
(WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD &

INTERIOR ROADS)
53' 62'
85'
59'
59'
48'
30'
266' 216'
13'
10'
35'
23'
15'
18'
18'
23'
71'
392'
32'
32'
28'
27'
32'
65'
37'

26.5'
26'
16'
49'
32'
31' 80'
60'
8'
26'
548' 6'

PROPOSED TRANSITEASEMENT

PROPOSED TRANSIT

EASEMENT

PROPOSED

TRANSIT

EASEMENT

PROPOSED TRANSITEASEMENT

PROPOSED TRANSIT

EASEMENT PROPOSED TRANSIT

EASEMENT

PROPOSED

TRANSIT

EASEMENT

PROPOSED TRANSIT

EASEMENT

PROPOSED TRANSIT

EASEMENT
SUNSET BLVD.

SUTTER COUNTY

PLACER COUNTY

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

PLACER COUNTY

PLEASANT GROVE
ROAD
BLUE OAKS BLVD.

FIDDYMENT ROAD

FIDDYMENT ROAD
MOORE RD.

BASE LINE RD.

PROJECT
SITE
WATT AVE.

FOOTHILLS
BLVD.
65 65
80 LARGE LOT TENTATIVE MAP
3884 WESTBROOK BOULEVARD

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 17, 2022

AMORUSO RANCH

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME
3301 C St, Bldg. 100-B Tel 916.341.7760Sacramento, CA 95816 Fax 916.341.7767

LARGE LOT TENTATIVE MAP - AMORUSO RANCH
J:\3000-s\3651_AmorusoRanch\AmorusoRanch-OA\Planning\Exhibits\EXH_AR_LLTSM_V3.dwg 1/17/2022 6:06 PM Nicholas Wilk NOTE:
1) SUBDIVIDER(S) RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FILE MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS PURSUANT TO SECTION 66456.1 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. 2) A 10' P.U.E. SHALL BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO ALL PUBLIC STREETS UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THIS EXHIBIT.3) MASTER PARCEL NUMBERING IS FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT INDICATE PHASING ORDER OF DEVELOPMENT.4) ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED AND ALL EXISTING WELLS TO BE ABANDONED. 5) EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY OTHERS.
6) THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.7) THIS EXHIBIT IS FOR TENTATIVE MAP PURPOSES ONLY. ALL SITE CHARACTERISTICS ARE TO BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO FINAL MAP. 8) PURSUANT TO SECTION 66499.20.2 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, THE LAND SHOWN HEREON IS HEREBY TO BE MERGED AND RE-SUBDIVIDED. 9) MASTER PARCEL LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AS ACCESS, PUBLIC UTILITIES AND/OR PHASING REQUIREMENTS DICTATE. 10) TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENTS TO BE ABANDONED & RE-LOCATED ON SUBSEQUENT SMALL LOT TENTATIVE MAPS.11) FUTURE PUBLIC LANDS, INCLUDING THE WELL SITE, SEWER LIFT STATION, FIRE STATION, OPEN SPACE, DRAINAGE CHANNELS, PARKS AND THE FUTURE PLACER PARKWAY ALIGNMENT TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY AS AN IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION (IOD). SCHOOL SITE IS EXCLUDED. 12) OFF-SITE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED PER SPECIFIC PLAN DRAINAGE STUDY AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

RECORD OWNER
JENNIFER M. AMORUSO, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE
PO BOX 640
PLYMOUTH, CA 95669APPLICANTBROOKFIELD RESIDENTIAL2271 LAVA RIDGE CT, SUITE 220 ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
CONTACT: JOHN NORMAN
PHONE: (916) 783-1177ENGINEER/ PLANNER
WOOD RODGERS INC.3301 'C' STREET, BLDG. 100B
SACRAMENTO, CA 95816
CONTACT: PAUL KLEIN, PE #48367
PHONE: (916) 341-7760
AREA
674.4 ± ACRES

NUMBER OF PARCELS
101 LARGE LOT PARCELS

EXISTING USE
VACANT

PROPOSED USE

FUTURE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

EXISTING ZONINGF-B-XPROPOSED ZONINGSEE LAND USE SUMMARY BELOWPARK DISTRICT

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

FIRE PROTECTION

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

SCHOOL DISTRICT

ROSEVILLE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH

SEWERSTORM DRAIN

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WATER

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

ELECTRICITY

CITY OF ROSEVILLEGAS
PG&E

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

PROJECT NOTES

SCHOOL DISTRICT

STAN METTE

AMORUSO FAMILY LIVING TRUST

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS

VICINITY MAP
0 NORTH 300
600
1200

LAND USE SUMMARY
NOTE:

THE FOLLOWING PARCEL NUMBERS WERE OMITTED ON PURPOSE: AR-29, AR-41,AR-47, AR-48, AR-49, AR-82, AR-83, AR-84, AR-85, AR-86, AR-87, AR-88, AND AR-89. 017-470-001 THROUGH ...-046 &017-480-001 THROUGH ...-058

PC EXHIBIT F

76.5'
R/W
74' STREET SECTION
ROAD 'A' AT WESTBROOK BOULEVARD - I.O.D.

NTS
A
R/W
5'
C&G
65'
NTS
MODIFIED PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL ROAD 'D' - I.O.D.
65' STREET SECTION
3' 7.5'
R/W

14.5' 5'
TRAVEL LANE C&G LDSCP. SDWLK.

CL
B
10'
PUE

7.5' 3'
R/W
10' 14.5'
LDSCP. C&G TRAVEL LANE
10'
PUE CLASS 1A
SDWLK. 35'
59'
NTS
59' STREET SECTION
3' 5'
R/W

16.5' 5'
TRAVEL LANE C&G LDSCP.SDWLK.

CL
D
10'
PUE
39'
5' 3'
R/W
5' 16.5'
SDWLK.LDSCP.C&G TRAVEL LANE
10'
PUE
55'
NTS
MODIFIED MINOR RESIDENTIAL ROAD 'G'&'H' - I.O.D.
55' STREET SECTION
3' 5'
R/W

14.5' 5'
TRAVEL LANE C&G LDSCP.SDWLK.

CL
E
10'
PUE
3'
R/W

14.5'

C&G TRAVEL LANE
35'
5' 5'
SDWLK.LDSCP.
10'
PUE
NTS
MODIFIED PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL ROAD 'A', 'D', 'E' & 'F' - I.O.D.

C 47.5' STREET SECTION
CL

14.5'
R/W
3'

47.5'
STREET
TREES (TYP.)
10'
35' PASEO/PUE
TRAVEL LANE C&G LDSCP. CLASS 1A
SDWLK.

14.5' 10'
R/W

7.5' 3'
SDWLK. LDSCP. C&G TRAVEL LANE
5'
STREET
TREES (TYP.)
PUE
10'
MODIFIED PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL ROAD 'C' - I.O.D.
8' 5' 3' 10' 13.5' 3' 5'

C&G RIGHT TURN TRAVEL LANE
LANE
CLASS 1A
SDWLK.

DETAIL 22 STRIPING

ON PAVEMENT
LDSCP. LDSCP. WALK

MODIFIED PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL
PL
10'

PUE/LDSP LOT

SOUND WALL

AT RESIDENTIAL
10'
PUE
11'

TRAVEL LANE
13'

LEFT TURN LANE

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-025
STREET 1
STREET 1

ROAD 'H'

ROAD 'H'
STREET 2
STREET 3
STREET 4
STREET 5
STREET 6
STREET 7
STREET 4
STREET 8
STREET 9

CIRCLE 'H'

ROAD 'F'

ROAD 'F'
STREET 10
STREET 10
STREET 11
STREET 12
STREET 14
STREET 13
STREET 14
STREET 15
STREET 15
STREET 17
STREET 18
STREET 19
STREET 20
STREET 21
STREET 22
STREET 23

ROAD 'E'

ROAD 'A'

ROAD 'A' ROAD 'A'
STREET 20
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30
VILLAGE AR-37
(39) 40'x80' (TYP.) LOTS 1
2 3
4 5
6 7 8
9 10
12 AR-112

OPEN SPACE
AR-111

OPEN SPACE
AR-109

OPEN SPACE
AR-108

OPEN SPACE
AR-107

OPEN SPACE
AR-106

OPEN SPACE

3.10 ± AC (G)

3.10 ± AC (N)
AR-93

OPEN SPACE
VILLAGE AR-24
(12) 50'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
AR-57
P/QP
AR-63
PARK
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12
13 14
15 16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52 53
54 55 56
57 58
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 4 3 2 1
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34 35 36
37 38
1 2
3 45
6 7
8 9
1011
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 24 23 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35 36 37 38 48 47 46
45 44
43 42 41 40 39
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 24
23 22
21 20
19 18
17 7
6 5
4 3
2 1
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
23 22
21 20
19 18
17 16
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 10
9 11
12 13
14 15
16 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 25
24 23
22 21
20 2 19
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
8 7
6 5
4 3
2 1 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
25 29
30 31
28 27
26 38
37 36
35 34
33 32
30 31
29 28
27 26
25 24
23 22
21 20
19 18
17 16
1 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 5
4 3
2 VILLAGE AR-33
(42) 40'x80' (TYP.) LOTS
VILLAGE AR-32
(58) 40'x80' (TYP.) LOTS
AR-66
PARK

0.74 ± AC(G) 0.48 ± AC(N)
AR-64A
PARK
VILLAGE AR-35
(20) 60'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
VILLAGE AR-34
(14) 60'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
AR-79

OPEN SPACE
AR-81

OPEN SPACE
AR-75

OPEN SPACE
VILLAGE AR-25
(38) 40'x80' (TYP.) LOTS
E
VILLAGE AR-26
VILLAGE AR-30
VILLAGE AR-22
(32) 50'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
VILLAGE AR-21
(15) 40'x80' (TYP.) LOTS
VILLAGE AR-13
(30) 50'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
VILLAGE AR-12
(16) 50'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
VILLAGE AR-11
(38) 60'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
AR-98B

OPEN SPACE
AR-71

OPEN SPACE
VILLAGE AR-6
(25) 60'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
AR-72A

OPEN SPACE
VILLAGE AR-5(10) 60'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
12 11
10 9
VILLAGE AR-4
24 AR-80

OPEN SPACE
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 STREET 14
STREET 15
STREET 14

ROAD 'F'
STREET 21
STREET 21

ROAD 'C'

0.33 ± AC (G)

2.39 ± AC (G)

1.77 ± AC (N)

2.01 ± AC (G)

2.01 ± AC (N)

0.33 ± AC (N)

5.37 ± AC (G)

4.05 ± AC (N)

0.64 ± AC (G)

0.43 ± AC (N)

3.13 ± AC (G)

2.21 ± AC (N)

5.39 ± AC (G)

3.76 ± AC (N)

6.05 ± AC (G)

3.90 ± AC (N)

4.82 ± AC (G)

3.40 ± AC (N)

0.39 ± AC (G)

0.32 ± AC (N)

0.84 ± AC (G)

0.73 ± AC (N)

2.05 ± AC (G)

1.34 ± AC (N)

0.66 ± AC (G)

0.66 ± AC (N)

8.24 ± AC (G)

6.20 ± AC (N)

1.71 ± AC (G)

1.71 ± AC (N)

0.85 ± AC (G)

0.85 ± AC (N)0.36 ± AC (G)

0.36 ± AC (N)

2.86 ± AC (G)

2.86 ± AC (N)

3.21 ± AC (G)

2.42 ± AC (N)

1.19 ± AC (G)

1.01 ± AC (N)

5.14 ± AC (G)

3.97 ± AC (N)

5.29 ± AC (G)

3.58 ± AC (N)

1.16 ± AC (G)

1.16 ± AC (N)

0.62 ± AC (G)

0.62 ± AC (N)

7.78 ± AC (G)

5.57 ± AC (N)

2.50 ± AC (G)

2.10 ± AC (N)

4.96 ± AC (G)

3.55 ± AC (N)

1.05 ± AC (G)

1.05 ± AC (N)

0.19 ± AC (G)

0.19 ± AC (N)

0.77 ± AC (G)

0.77 ± AC (N)
11 1

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-025

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-044

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-043

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-042

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH APPROVED
017-470-027

AMORUSO RANCH
017-470-037

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-470-038

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-016

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-015

AMORUSO RANCH APPROVED
017-480-014

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-005

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-470-036

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-470-011

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-470-045

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-032

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
017-020-009
STREET 24
STREET 25

ROAD 'D'
STREET 16
STREET 16

ROAD 'D'
STREET 20
STREET 16
STREET 8
STREET 8
STREET 8
E
E
E
D
E
E
C
E
E
E
E
C
A
E
C
C
E
C
C
C
E
E
E
E
E
B
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
E
E E
E
E
E
AR-2
AR-1
AR-3
AR-9
AR-17
AR-18
AR-23
AR-16
AR-8
AR-46
AR-7
AR-14
AR-31
AR-27
AR-15
AR-43
AR-40
AR-10
AR-28
AR-39
AR-42
AR-45
AR-38
AR-19
AR-36
AR-44
AR-56
AR-50
AR-54
AR-58
AR-53
AR-52
AR-51
AR-62
AR-61
AR-64B
AR-67
AR-104
AR-100
AR-91
AR-90
AR-99
AR-98A
AR-94
AR-101
AR-102
AR-103
AR-74
AR-77
AR-76
AR-73
AR-78
AR-113
AR-97
AR-95
AR-92 AR-105
AR-60
AR-70
AR-114
AR-115
AR-55
AR-59
AR-96
LOT A10
AR-116
AR-72B
LOT A3
LOT A2-A
LOT A6
LOT A7
LOT A4-A

WESTBROOK BOULEVARD

WEST SUNSET BOULEVARD
FUTURE
PLACER

PARKWAY
FUTURE
PLACER

PARKWAY

WESTBROOK BOULEVARD
LOT A1-A
LOT A5
LOT A11
LOT A8
LOT A9-A
LOT A1-B
LOT A2-B
LOT A4-B
LOT A4-C
LOT A9-B
LOT A9-C
(13) 50'x100' (TYP.) LOTS

2.89 ± AC (G)

1.95 ± AC (N)
LOT A

LANDSCAPE

0.06 ± AC (N)
LOT B

LANDSCAPE

0.08 ± AC (N)
LOT C

LANDSCAPE

0.10 ± AC (N)
(31) 60'x100' (TYP.) LOTS

7.21 ± AC (G)

5.30 ± AC (N)
(48) 50'x100' (TYP.) LOTS

9.26 ± AC (G)

6.61 ± AC (N)
2 3
4 5
6 7

PROJECT NOTES STREET SECTIONS

LOCATION MAP

SHEET INDEX
LEGEND

SHEET INDEX DIAGRAM

EARTHWORK SUMMARY
NORTH
0 400
200

DEVELOPING INNOVATIVE DESIGN SOLUTIONS
3301 C St, Bldg. 100-B Tel 916.341.7760Sacramento, CA 95816 Fax 916.341.7767 1 COVER SHEET-NOTES -SECTIONS 1"=300'
2 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 1"=40'3 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 1"=40' 4 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 1"=40'
5 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 1"=40'
6 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 1"=40'
7 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 1"=40'

PROJECT BOUNDARY

VILLAGE LOT LINE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

STREET CENTERLINE

PROPOSED LOTSPUE (TYP)

VILLAGE BOUNDARY

TOP BACK OF CURBSIDEWALK

LIP OF CURB

SEWER MAINSEWER MANHOLE

DRAINAGE MAINDRAINAGE MANHOLEDRAIN INLET

WATER MAIN

GATE VALVE

FIRE HYDRANT
ESTIMATED RAW EXCAVATION: CUBIC YARDS
ESTIMATED RAW FILL: CUBIC YARDS ESTIMATED EXPORT: CUBIC YARDS SUNSET BLVD.

SUTTER COUNTY

PLACER COUNTY

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

PLACER COUNTY
PLEASANT GROVE ROAD BLUE OAKS BLVD.

FIDDYMENT ROAD

FIDDYMENT ROAD
BASE LINE RD.

PROJECT
SITE
WATT AVE.

FOOTHILLS
BLVD.
65 65
80 1
LAND USE SUMMARY ______________ 248,000
195,000
53,000 NOTE: NET ACREAGE EXCLUDES MINOR RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND LANDSCAPE LOTS.

AMORUSO RANCH - PHASE A1- TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
SHEET OF 7

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP

AMORUSO RANCH
PHASE 1 - SUBPHASE A1

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
NOTE:
1) SUBDIVIDER(S) RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FILE MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS PURSUANT TO SECTION 66456.1 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT.
2) A 10' P.U.E. SHALL BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO ALL PUBLIC STREETS UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THIS EXHIBIT. 3) MASTER PARCEL NUMBERING IS FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT INDICATE PHASING ORDER OF DEVELOPMENT.
4) ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED AND ALL EXISTING WELLS TO BE ABANDONED. 5) EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY OTHERS.
6) THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.7) THIS EXHIBIT IS FOR TENTATIVE MAP PURPOSES ONLY. ALL SITE CHARACTERISTICS ARE TO BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO FINAL MAP.
8) PURSUANT TO SECTION 66499.20.2 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, THE LAND SHOWN HEREON IS HEREBY TO BE MERGED AND RE-SUBDIVIDED.
9) MASTER PARCEL LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AS ACCESS, PUBLIC UTILITIES AND/OR PHASING REQUIREMENTS DICTATE.
10) FUTURE PUBLIC LANDS, INCLUDING THE SEWER PUMP STATION, OPEN SPACE, DRAINAGE CHANNELS, AND PARKS TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY AS AN IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION (IOD). 11) OFF-SITE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED PER AMORUSO RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN DRAINAGE STUDY AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

RECORD OWNER
JENNIFER M. AMORUSO, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE
PO BOX 640
PLYMOUTH, CA 95669

APPLICANT

BROOKFIELD RESIDENTIAL
2271 LAVA RIDGE CT, SUITE 220
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661
CONTACT: JOHN NORMAN
PHONE: (916) 783-1177ENGINEER/ PLANNER
WOOD RODGERS INC.3301 'C' STREET, BLDG. 100B
SACRAMENTO, CA 95816
CONTACT: PAUL KLEIN, PE #48367
PHONE: (916) 341-7760
AREA
120.0 ± ACRES

NUMBER OF PARCELS

EXISTING USE
VACANT

PROPOSED USE

FUTURE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

EXISTING ZONING
F-B-X

PROPOSED ZONING

SEE LAND USE SUMMARY BELOW

PARK DISTRICT

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

FIRE PROTECTION

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

SCHOOL DISTRICT

ROSEVILLE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH

SEWERSTORM DRAIN

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WATER

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

ELECTRICITY

CITY OF ROSEVILLEGAS
PG&E

CITY OF ROSEVILLE

SCHOOL DISTRICT

STAN METTE
AMORUSO FAMILY LIVING TRUSTASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS017-470-001 THROUGH ...-046 & 481 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS
1 P/QP PARCEL 3 PARK PARCELS
14 OPEN SPACE PARCELS
3 LANDSCAPE PARCELS
502 TOTAL PARCELS
017-480-001 THROUGH ...-058 ______________ ______________ PROPOSED TRANSIT EASEMENT

PC EXHIBIT G
STREET 14
STREET 15
STREET 18
STREET 19
STREET 20
STREET 20

ROAD 'E'

ROAD 'E'
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 24
23 22
21 20
19 18
17 7
6 5
4 3
2 1
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
23 22
21 20
19 18
17 16
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
10 9
11 15
16 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 25
24 23
22 21
20 2 19
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
8 7
6 5
3 2
1 13
8 10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
R=44'
L=181'

96.8°'

93.1°'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
65'
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
E
E
E
C
VILLAGE AR-13
(30) 50'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
VILLAGE AR-12
(16) 50'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
AR-98B

OPEN SPACE
AR-71

OPEN SPACE
VILLAGE AR-6
(25) 60'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
AR-72A

OPEN SPACE
VILLAGE AR-5
(10) 60'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
12 11
10 9
VILLAGE AR-4
(31) 60'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 STREET 16
STREET 14
STREET 15
STREET 14

ROAD 'F'
STREET 21
STREET 21

7.21 ± AC (G)

0.33 ± AC (G)

2.39 ± AC (G)

1.77 ± AC (N)

2.01 ± AC (G)

2.01 ± AC (N)

0.33 ± AC (N)

5.30 ± AC (N)

5.37 ± AC (G)

4.05 ± AC (N)

0.64 ± AC (G)

0.43 ± AC (N)

3.13 ± AC (G)

2.21 ± AC (N)

5.39 ± AC (G)

3.76 ± AC (N)
R=53'
R=53'
L=186'

47.5'

47.5'
L=154'
R=44'
85°'
R=53'
R=53'
1 APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-005

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-470-011

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-470-045
39'
100'
50'
100'
50'
100'
50'
100'
50'
50'
100'
50'
100'
50'
50'
50'
100'
50'
100'
50'
50'
100'
50'
100'
50'
50'
50'
100'
50'
100'
50'
50'
71'
85'
100'
100'
113'
61'
108'
64'
64'
69'
100'
60'
100'
60'
18'
144'
41'
5'
100'
60'
54'
18'
115'
112'
51'
5'
100'
60'
54'
110'
61'
98'
101'
107'
59'
61'
100'
61'
50'
100'
5'
100'
60'
54'
52'
144'
143'
59'
101'
5'
100'
60'
54'
59'
100'
17'
52'
59'
136'
70'
17'
43'
17'
20'
212'
5'
36'
151'
50'
84'
46'
30'
102'
60'
90'
60'
122'
64'
99'
99'
64'
105'
60'
100'
100'
64'
60'
107'
60'
72'
108'
60'
112'
90'
35'
42'
118'
17'
113'
43'
1622'
51'
100'
55'
101'
20'
150'
19'
78'
101'
100'
100'
59'
23'
41'
107'
52'
118'
20'
128'
20'
41'
52'
112'
43'
113'
76'
99'
19'
53'
109'
60'
109'
50'
50'
109'
50'
100'
50'
84'
63'
100'
100'
50'
20'
150'
20'
235'
100'
50'
52'
70'
99'
50'
100'
99'
50'
59'
50'
100'
50'
100'
99'
60'
99'
60'
100'
50'
100'
50'
84'
63'
100'
74'
50'
100'
100'
50'
50'
50'
100'
60'
109'
99'
50'
50'
100'
74'
50'
100'
50'
109'
99'
50'
50'
59'
100'
100'
50'
50'
60'
100'
142'
136'
100'
50'
50'
100'
50'
60'
50'
100'
50'
99'
50'
50'
100'
83'
50'
100'
50'
99'
50'
50'
100'
50'
100'
50'
99'
50'
100'
50'
100'
50'
99'
50'
50'
100'
50'
100'
50'
99'
50'
99'
55'
50'
100'
50'
100'
50'
99'
50'
100'
59'
23'
8'
28'
23'
8'
28'
9'
8'
42'
101'
26'
55'
23'
88'
63'
73'
26'
83'
54'
24'
85'
9' 24'
10'
23'
1'
58'
25'
84'
84'
25'
46'
5'
49'
35'
39'
41'
25'
74'
36'
32'
51'
12'
55'
25'
83'
76'
25'
56'
63'
13'
10'
24'
196'
40'
399'
55'
79'
25'
58'
54'
25'
79'
7'
57'
38'
20'
45'
9'
5'
25'
64'
25'
58'
43'
25'
93'
83'
25'
43'
93'
9' 24'
9'
25'
55'
25'
83'
85'
25'
56'
47'
25'
84'
25'
47'
44'
25'
85'
47'
25'
84'
84'
25'
43'
126'
25'
43'
43'
25'
92'
47'
25'
25'
44'
44'
25'
85'
84'
2'
6'
62'
26'
24'
13'
44'
14' 8'
27'
7'
24'
74'
58'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
50'
60'
50'
50'
50'
61'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'

47.5'
55'
55'
55'
55'

47.5'

47.5'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
2 3
4 5
6 7
SEE SHEET 4
SEE SHEET 3

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP SHEET INDEX DIAGRAM

AMORUSO RANCH
PHASE 1 - SUBPHASE A1

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
AMORUSO RANCH - PHASE A1- TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
SHEET OF 7
NORTH
0 160
80 40
'E9E/23,1* ,1129$T,9E 'ES,*1 S2/8T,21S
33 & SW %OGJ % THO
34SDFUDPHQWR &$
)D[
34
2 LEGEND

PROJECT BOUNDARY

VILLAGE LOT LINE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

STREET CENTERLINE

PROPOSED LOTS

PUE (TYP)

VILLAGE BOUNDARY

TOP BACK OF CURBSIDEWALK

LIP OF CURB

SEWER MAINSEWER MANHOLE

DRAINAGE MAINDRAINAGE MANHOLE

DRAIN INLET

WATER MAINGATE VALVE

FIRE HYDRANT
STREET 8
STREET 9

CIRCLE 'H'

ROAD 'F'
STREET 10
STREET 13
STREET 14
STREET 15

ROAD 'D'
4 3
2 1
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
1 2
3 14
1 2
3 4
5 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
24 23 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33 48
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 8
7 6
5 4
9 10
11 12
24 23

0.74 ± AC(G) 0.48 ± AC(N)
AR-64A
PARK
VILLAGE AR-35
(20) 60'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
AR-79

OPEN SPACE
R=375'
R=632'
E
E
E
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
R=44'
R=44'
L=136'
L=197'
R=887'
R=300'
R=1,000'
55'
55'
65'
65'
65'
E
E
E
E
B
VILLAGE AR-26
(48) 50'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
VILLAGE AR-30
VILLAGE AR-22 (13) 50'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
(32) 50'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
LAGE AR-13
) 50'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
25 ROAD 'C'
LOT A

LANDSCAPE

0.06 ± AC (N)

5.39 ± AC (G)

3.76 ± AC (N)

6.05 ± AC (G)

3.90 ± AC (N)

2.89 ± AC (G)

1.95 ± AC (N)

4.82 ± AC (G)

3.40 ± AC (N)

9.26 ± AC (G)

6.61 ± AC (N)

0.39 ± AC (G)

0.32 ± AC (N)
C
D
R=44'
L=144'
R=300'

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-042

APPROVED

AMORUSO
017-470-027 APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-470-037

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-470-038

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-016

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-015

AMORUSO RANCH APPROVED
017-480-014

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-470-036
RANCH

47.5'

47.5'
R=632'
AR-66
PARK

2.86 ± AC (G)

2.86 ± AC (N)
101'
99'
70'
99'
70'
58'
99'
100'
70'
99'
100'
50'
50'
70'
99'
100'
50'
50'
60'
103'
18'
108'
64'
72'
58'
99'
100'
62'
100'
100'
58'
99'
9'
101'
69'
102'
50'
100'
50'
99'
117'
100'
49'
100'
100'
42'
49'
99'
14'
101'
63'
50'
50'
99'
99'
58'
101'
63'
50'
50'
100'
100'
80'
100'
50'
100'
37'
49'
99'
19'
10'
50'
63'
101'
100'
58'
61'
101'
32'
49'
99'
24'
66'
133'
60'
100'
60'
99'
99'
58'
27'
49'
29'
70'
62'
47'
60'
60'
58'
100'
100'
22'
129'
21'
48'
104'
52'
74'
64'
126'
49'
86'
104'
71'
100'
103'
47' 62'
29'
91'
156'
51'
99'
20'
20'
14'
55'
71'
59'
101'
46'
53'
54'
129'
57'
78'
100'
21'
99'
28'
46'
112'
50'
100'
97'
50'
100'
50'
111'
27'
50'
100'
21'
49'
117'
50'
100'
48'
20'
112'
58'
42'
109'
50'
100'
50'
100'
50'
99'
59'
24' 9'
10'
64'
25'
68' 15'
80'
9'
24'
41'
32'
40'
40'
73'
4'
44'
25'
85'
83'
25'
44'
18'
53'
149'
111'
25'
51'
33'
19'
20'
40'
38'
16'
83'
25'
46'
25'
84'
84'
25'
46'
44'
25'
85'
58'
25'
84'
83'
25'
43'
84'
83'
24'
59'
43'
24'
54'
60'
75'
82'
30'
24'
21'
2' 5'
7'
30'
39'
47'
54'
18'
29'
17'
7'
4'
51'
21'
38'
36'
21'
2'
102'
42'
14'
45'
67' 1'
69' 1'
24'
58'
20'
41'
8'
36'
13'
50'
50'
50'
144'
50'
55'
50'
54'
50'
50'
48'
50'
26'
33'
45'
13'
51'
27'
31'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
65'
55'
55'
55'
65'
65'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
59'
59'
59'

47.5'

47.5'
2 3
4 5
6 7
SEE SHEET 5
SEE SHEET 2

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP

AMORUSO RANCH
PHASE 1 - SUBPHASE A1

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 14, 2022
AMORUSO RANCH - PHASE A1- TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
SHEET OF 7
NORTH
0 160
80 40
'E9E/23,1* ,1129$T,9E 'ES,*1 S2/8T,21S
& SW %OGJ % THO
SDFUDPHQWR &$
5 )D[

3 LEGEND SHEET INDEX DIAGRAM

PROJECT BOUNDARY

VILLAGE LOT LINE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

STREET CENTERLINE

PROPOSED LOTS

PUE (TYP)

VILLAGE BOUNDARY

TOP BACK OF CURBSIDEWALK

LIP OF CURB

SEWER MAINSEWER MANHOLE

DRAINAGE MAINDRAINAGE MANHOLE

DRAIN INLET

WATER MAINGATE VALVE

FIRE HYDRANT
FEBRUARY 14, 2022

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-025

ROAD 'F'
STRE
STREET 17
STREET 20
STREET 21
STREET 22
STREET 23
STREET 24
STREET 25 ROAD 'D' STREET 20
AR-107

OPEN SPACE
AR-106

OPEN SPACE

3.10 ± AC (G)

3.10 ± AC (N)
AR-93

OPEN SPACE
1 2
3 4
5 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
5 11
12 13
14 15
16 4
3 2
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 25
29 30
31 28
27 26
38 37
36 35
34 33
32 30
31 29
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 1
15 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP) 10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
R=44'
R=53'
L=186' R=272.5'
R=267.5'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
65'
65'
55'
E
B
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
VILLAGE AR-21
(15) 40'x80' (TYP.) LOTS
VILLAGE AR-11
(38) 60'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
24 25
26 STREET 21

2.05 ± AC (G)

1.34 ± AC (N)

0.66 ± AC (G)

0.66 ± AC (N)

8.24 ± AC (G)

6.20 ± AC (N)

0.36 ± AC (G)

0.36 ± AC (N)
R=44'
R=44'
R=44'
R=44'
L=136'
L=123'
L=182'
L=178'
R=53'
AM

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
017-020-009
AR-57

0.85 ± AC (G)

0.85 ± AC (N)
P/QP
AR-63

1.71 ± AC (G)

1.71 ± AC (N)
PARK

0.84 ± AC (G)

0.73 ± AC (N)

OPEN SPACE
AR-75
50'
127'
31'
22'
94'
45' 89'
22'
43' 106'
77'
30'
50'
41'
62'
9'
43'
67'
10'
134'
80'
56'
39'
38'
82'
118'
31'
80'
39'
50'
44'
100'
88'
107'
130'
116'
106'
354'
103'
123'
85'
60'
274'
79'
94'
63'
53'
67'
62'
33'
59'
72'
22'
51'
114'
116'
119'
25'
100'
167'
86'
338'
79'
81'
493'
159'
99'
112'
39' 80'
3' 107'
99'
87'
41'
40' 79'
40'
18'
132'
10'
72'
80'
40'
49' 62'
100'
99'
100'
63'
99'
50' 99'
99'
50' 100'
100'
62'
52'
144'
143'
62'
100'
63'
10'
100'
63'
86'
42' 77'
92'
54'
59'
10'
63'
100'
63'
109'
108'
40'
100'
62'
50'
69'
128'
80'
32'
73'
20'
100'
60'
100'
59'
67'
21'
132'
17'
35'
43' 93'
5'
43'
146'
118'
60'
100'
100'
100'
70'
100'
70'
42'
35'
17'
90'
59'
100'
23'
52' 118'
100'
19'
59'
60'
100'
60'
100'
60'
100'
60'
100'
60'
100'
100'
74'
60'
99'
61'
59'
100'
59'
60'
109'
59'
50' 109'
50'
99'
99'
99'
60'
99'
60'
60'
99'
60'
20'
418'
19'
99'
60'
99'
99'
74'
60'
60'
132'
59'
60'
60'
84'
100'
70'
100'
60'
50'
100'
60'
99'
50'
100'
99'
50'
59'
100'
109' 53'
126'
54'
45'
99'
53'
60'
117'
24'
52'
14'
62'
24'
289'
85'
23' 26'
107' 10'
8'
162'
25'
26'
53'
8'
49'
48'
399'
9' 24'
55'
2'6'
56'
11'
43'
24'
32'
25'
92'
14'
13'
52'
46'
21'
14'
69'
25'
54'
59'
25'
76'
7'
26'
43'
39'
17'
20'
83'
25'
13'
37'
80'
7'
63'
53'
25'
84'
84'
25'
54'
83'
25'
53' 84'
25'
54'
58'
25'
83'
25'
79' 54'
79'
25'
4'
58'
54'
25'
83'
79'
25'
54'
10'
24'
54'
93'
25'
33'
83'
25'
43' 84'
25'
59'
34'
25'
63'
63'
25'
33'
58'
25'
47'
143'
5'
24'
41'
34'
7'
34'
11'
1'
11'
28'
39'
7'
58'
65'
6'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
60'
40'
53'
50'
50'
60'
40'
40'
40'
40'
60'
60'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'

47.5'

47.5' 55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
65'
2 3
4 5
6 7
SEE SHEET 2
SEE SHEET 5

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP

AMORUSO RANCH
PHASE 1 - SUBPHASE A1

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
AMORUSO RANCH - PHASE A1- TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
SHEET OF 7
NORTH
0 160
80 40
'E9E/23,1* ,1129$T,9E 'ES,*1 S2/8T,21S
& SW %OGJ % THO
SDFUDPHQWR &$
5 )D[

4 SHEET INDEX DIAGRAM LEGEND

PROJECT BOUNDARY

VILLAGE LOT LINE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

STREET CENTERLINE

PROPOSED LOTS

PUE (TYP)

VILLAGE BOUNDARY

TOP BACK OF CURBSIDEWALK

LIP OF CURB

SEWER MAINSEWER MANHOLE

DRAINAGE MAINDRAINAGE MANHOLE

DRAIN INLET

WATER MAINGATE VALVE

FIRE HYDRANT

ROAD 'H'
STREET 5
STREET 6
STREET 7
STREET 4
STREET 8
STREET 8
STREET 8

ROAD 'F'
STREET 10
STREET 10
STREET 11
STREET 12
STREET 15
STREET 16

ROAD 'A'
STREET 16
AR-108

OPEN SPACE
AR-107

OPEN SPACE
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 47
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34 35 36
37 38
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
22 30
31 32
33 34
35 36 37 38
48 47
46 45
44 43
42 41 40 39
VILLAGE AR-33
(42) 40'x80' (TYP.) LOTS
AR-81

OPEN SPACE
VILLAGE AR-25
(38) 40'x80' (TYP.) LOTS
L=318'
R=300'
R=44'
L=267'
R=250'
R=44'
L=143'
R=300'
R=300'
R=770'
R=350'
R=1,000'
R=375'
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
E
E
E
E
E
C
E
C
E
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
R=44'
R=44'
R=44'
L=185'
L=166'
L=181'
R=887'
R=600'
R=300'
R=272.5'
55'
55'
55'
65'
65'
E
E
E
AR-80

OPEN SPACE
25 26

0.36 ± AC (G)

0.36 ± AC (N)

1.19 ± AC (G)

1.01 ± AC (N)

5.14 ± AC (G)

3.97 ± AC (N)

5.29 ± AC (G)

3.58 ± AC (N)

1.16 ± AC (G)

1.16 ± AC (N)

0.62 ± AC (G)

0.62 ± AC (N)

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-025

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-043
R=715'
R=300' AR-57

0.85 ± AC (G)

0.85 ± AC (N)
P/QP
VILLAGE AR-34

3.21 ± AC (G)

2.42 ± AC (N)
(14) 60'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
AR-66
PARK

2.86 ± AC (G)

2.86 ± AC (N)
22'
94'
45'
89'
22'
43'
106'
93'
26'
14'
92'
103'
100'
40'
80'
93'
43'
106'
80'
67'
80'
80'
42'
80'
56'
45'
33'
80'
42'
39'
80'
39'
80'
42'
80'
40'
80'
85'
81'
41'
45'
80'
15'
47'
104'
100'
40'
101'
55'
79'
40'
79'
39'
40'
80'
40'
19'
187'
20'
40'
82'
102'
100'
62'
12'
82'
27'
49'
50'
100'
40'
87'
49'
50'
100'
30'
37'
50'
100'
140'
107'
99'
113'
33'
30'
86'
50'
100'
41'
50'
100'
32'
49'
99'
24'
99'
58'
88'
84'
34'
84'
81'
7'
27'
49'
99'
29'
40'
79'
45'
83'
99'
58'
83'
45'
22'
49'
99'
34'
83'
42'
87'
44'
92'
48'
54'
99'
58'
17'
49'
99'
38'
87'
33'
37'
99'
65'
87'
92'
13'
41'
82'
61'
83'
39'
71'
101'
38'
110'
81'
15'
44'
38'
24'
44'
79'
40'
113'
35'
16'
44'
16'
44'
16'
18'
44'
20'
20'
97'
51'
74'
46'
64'
105'
16'
38'
41'
88'
39'
20'
104'
60'
28'
41'
98'
37'
49'
108'
21'
39'
82'
61'
17'
99'
63'
34'
50'
82'
41'
18'
54'
10'
119'
80'
49'
39'
79'
56'
77'
14'
105'
59'
34'
106'
77'
80'
40'
40'
56'
86'
82'
40'
80'
49'
110'
79'
44'
79'
44'
8'
60'
40'
71'
100'
103'
49'
79'
118'
49'
104'
40'
17'
11'
109'
29'
80'
40'
51'
19'
43'
17'
40'
54'
87'
90'
100'
71'
100'
60'
111'
71'
40'
18'
38'
95'
34'
114'
104'
35'
84'
39'
76'
100'
64'
40'
79'
40'
34'
79'
50'
71'
59'
40'
79'
113'
116'
57'
31'
39'
105'
79'
119'
33'
99'
13'
73'
46'
29'
40'
79'
10'
124'
58'
41'
80'
79'
39'
58'
30'
47'
125'
50'
112'
58'
120'
76'
29'
58'
85'
43'
90'
86'
89'
86'
40'
40'
79'
31'
103'
58'
58'
42'
109'
37'
106'
99'
87'
45'
40'
64'
25'
33'
33'
25'
35'
34'
25'
50'
70'
25'
32'
23'
59'
24'
33'
32'
59'
25'
45'
45'
24'
36'
64'
22'
19'
19'
25'
66'
33'
25'
57'
57'
25'
34'
40'
7' 24'
47'
93'
107'
260'
65'
65'
14'
48'
23'
33'
14'
4'
4'
26'
7'
7'
10'
5' 6'
53'
25'
40'
63'
25'
44'
25'
40'
40'
40'
40'
40'
40'
40'
40'
40'
40'
30'
24'
9'
24'
9'
44'
25'
43'
44'
24'
19'
65'
847'
393'
24'
373'
29'
22' 115'
65'
264'
55'
15'
60'
62'
83'
25'
43'
84'
25'
59'
25'
33'
58'
25'
47'
43'
24'
64'
64'
24'
35'
18'
143'
24'
35'
24'
67'
35'
24'
25'
63'
24'
83'
25'
60'
83'
83'
24'
61'
83'
24'
59'
5'
45'
2'
32'
10'
30'
10' 12'
28'
10'
15'
25'
20'
22'
3'
26'
17'
40'
20' 22'
38'
5'
84'
24'
49'
11'
31'
11'
29'
32'
4'
41'
7'
16'
20'
10'
47'
17'
28'
11'
23'
37'
24'
22'
39'
10'
39'
39'
39'
43'
37' 17'
1'
56'
1' 24'
9'
71'
1'
58'
20'
41'
8'
36'
13'
34'
21'
36'
5'
43'
3'
34' 11'
50'
54'
55'
55'
40'
40'
40'
24' 22'
41'
12'
69'
40'
40'
40'
40'
40'
40'
42'
46'
43'
43'
16'
19'
28'
16'
66'
39'
36'
40'
40'
40'
64'
50'
45'
36'
25'

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-044
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'

47.5'

47.5'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
65'
65'
55'
55'

47.5'
2 3
4 5
6 7
SEE SHEET 6
SEE SHEET 4

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP

AMORUSO RANCH
PHASE 1 - SUBPHASE A1

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 14, 2022
AMORUSO RANCH - PHASE A1- TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
SHEET OF 7
NORTH
0 160
80 40
'E9E/23,1* ,1129$T,9E 'ES,*1 S2/8T,21S
33 & SW %OGJ % THO
6346SDFUDPHQWR &$
6 )D[
6346
5 SEE SHEET 3

LEGEND SHEET INDEX DIAGRAM

PROJECT BOUNDARY

VILLAGE LOT LINE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

STREET CENTERLINE

PROPOSED LOTS

PUE (TYP)

VILLAGE BOUNDARYTOP BACK OF CURBSIDEWALK

LIP OF CURB

SEWER MAINSEWER MANHOLE

DRAINAGE MAINDRAINAGE MANHOLE

DRAIN INLET

WATER MAIN

GATE VALVE

FIRE HYDRANT
12" W CONTINUES ALONG PARCEL LINE AS SHOWN TO
COMPLETE LOOP. CONNECTS TO 24" W IN FUTURE
WESTBROOK BLVD. SEE WATER LOOP DETAIL ON SHEET 7.

FEBRUARY 14, 2022
STREET 1
STREET 1
ROAD 'H' STREET 2 STREET 3
STREET 4
STREET 5
STREET 4
STREET 8

ROAD 'A'

ROAD 'A'
10' PUE (TYP)
10' PUE (TYP)
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 39 38 37
VILLAGE AR-37
(39) 40'x80' (TYP.) LOTS
R=250'
R=500'
R=500'
R=44' E R=44'
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
12 R=250'
R=44'
L=277'
L=345' L=393'
10' PUE (TYP)
E
AR-112

OPEN SPACE
AR-111

OPEN SPACE
AR-109

OPEN SPACE
AR-108

OPEN SPACE
VILLAGE AR-24
(12) 50'x100' (TYP.) LOTS
13 14
15 16 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
3 4
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
VILLAGE AR-32
(58) 40'x80' (TYP.) LOTS
R=44'
L=165' R=44'
L=308'
R=44' R=300'
L=318'
R=300'
R=44'
R=300'
=300' R=770' R=770' 10' PUE (TYP) 10' PUE (TYP) 10' PUE (TYP) 10' PUE (TYP) 10' PUE (TYP) EE E E 10' PUE (TYP) 10' PUE (TYP)
C
C
A
LOT C

LANDSCAPE
LOT B

LANDSCAPE

0.62 ± AC (G)

0.62 ± AC (N)

7.78 ± AC (G)

5.57 ± AC (N)

2.50 ± AC (G)

2.10 ± AC (N)

0.08 ± AC (N)

0.10 ± AC (N)

4.96 ± AC (G)

3.55 ± AC (N)

1.05 ± AC (G)

1.05 ± AC (N)

0.19 ± AC (G)

0.19 ± AC (N)

0.77 ± AC (G)

0.77 ± AC (N)
11 APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-044
L=849'
40'
80'
54'
96'
24'
30'
89'
109'
95'
94'
40'
98'
58'
91'
38'
79'
40'
79'
39'
82'
40'
82'
40'
12'
82'
43'
27'
40'
87'
30'
37'
86'
86'
87'
41'
81'
27'
23'
88'
84'
40'
79'
83'
42'
87'
44'
48'
92'
48'
40'
83'
40'
85'
40'
81'
40'
87'
92'
80'
40'
41'
40'
80'
40'
53'
19'
45' 108'
104'
40'
87'
43'
71'
101' 38'
110'
84'
40'
100'
44'
31'
169' 19'
24'
44'
17' 44'
34'
112'
82'
40'
29' 11'
78'
113'
86'
63'
39'
18'
98'
87'
40'
40'
105'
16' 38'
41'
85'
15'
33'
57'
86'
40'
85'
40'
40' 6'
40'
33'
115' 85'
164'
48'
88'
40'
102'
80'
49'
119'
96'
65'
79'
44'
79'
127'
54'
21'
30'
115'
79'
126'
46'
80'
40'
58'
20'
43'
17'
49'
54'
120'
32'
128'
120'
80' 50'
60'
89'
30'
34'
11'
40'
34'
79'
50'
52'
65'
153'
97'
101'
111'
105'
96'
40'
138'
57' 9' 65'
85'
40'
6'
71'
33'
31'
30'
110'
12'
38'
40'
86'
1'
40'
109'
40'
79'
39'
108'
40'
50'
95'
76'
29'
94'
40'
20'
49'
90'
89'
93'
41'
93'
40'
115'
40'
40'
116'
40'
79'
40'
117'
40'
40'
118'
40'
81'
53'
37'
106'
40'
120'
40'
84'
40'
40'
39'
3'
89'
40'
84'
38'
117'
48'
48'
14'
116' 10'
90'
93'
40'
40'
64'
14'
42'
47'
92'
88'
40'
40'
218'
87'
210'
90'
129'
123'
30'
295'
39'
30'
264'
33'
296'
38'
7'
81'
39'
48'
38' 25'
52'
6'
87' 18' 85' 23' 150'
63'
20' 25'
52'
6'
18'
232' 121' 53' 40'
40'
40'
45'
38'
34'
90'
24'
38'
53'
24'
91'
30'
11'
14'
242'
915'
48'
37'
22'
13'
36'
53' 26'
62'
23'
33'
38'
23'
41'
64'
25'
33'
33'
25'
35'
34'
25'
50'
70'
25'
40'
46' 25'
36' 46'
260'
65'
40'
63'
25'
44'
25'
40'
40'
40'
40'
40'
40'
30'
65'
264'
34'
16'
52'
36'
3'
8'
32'
22'
22'
23'
32'
4'
41'
7' 16'
20' 10'
47'
17'
4'
4'
46' 12' 26'
26'
31'
34'
22'
26'
31'
18' 18'
22'
29'
13' 26'
30'
15'
37'
4'
29'
14' 11' 21' 13' 28'
26' 13' 22' 37' 2' 18'
39' 1'
38' 1'
29' 10'
50' 4'
3' 36'
168'
371'
58'
186'
20'
16'
18'
21'
23'
31'
15'
30'
37' 17'
58'
1'
43'
16'
19'
28'
16'
66'
39'
36'
40'
40'
40'
42'
41'
41'
67'
40'
33' 6'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'

54.0'
55'
55'
55'
55'
55'

47.5'

47.5'
2 3
4 5
6 7
SEE SHEET 5

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP

AMORUSO RANCH
PHASE 1 - SUBPHASE A1

PROJECT BOUNDARY

VILLAGE LOT LINE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

STREET CENTERLINE

PROPOSED LOTS

PUE (TYP)

VILLAGE BOUNDARY

TOP BACK OF CURBSIDEWALK

LIP OF CURB

SEWER MAINSEWER MANHOLE

DRAINAGE MAINDRAINAGE MANHOLE

DRAIN INLET

WATER MAINGATE VALVE

FIRE HYDRANT
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
6 STREET 1ROAD 'H'

ROAD 'A'
10' PUE (TYP)
1 17
18 19
20 2122
23 24
25 26
27 28
30 29
31 32
33 34
35 36
373839
VILLAGE AR-37
(39) 40'x80' (TYP.) LOTS
R=500' R=1,000' R=1,000'
55' E
L=404'
AR-112

OPEN SPACE
R=800'
56 57
58 47.5'
A
LOT C

LANDSCAPE

0.10 ± AC (N)

4.96 ± AC (G)

3.55 ± AC (N)

1.05 ± AC (G)

1.05 ± AC (N)

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-032

WESTBROOK BOULEVARD

86.5'
R=2,000'
R=2,000'

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-025

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-052

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-033

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-051

APPROVED

AMORUSO
RANCH 017-480-034
R=44'
40'
53'
104'
40'
87'
43'
84'
40'
100'
44'
82'
40'
11' 29'
86'
87'
40'
40'
86'
40'
85'
40'
40'
6'
40'
33'
40'
20'
101'
97'
96'
40'
85'
40'
6'71'
33'
30'
110'
12'
40'
109'
40'
108'
40'
95'
81'
53'
84'
40'
89'
40'
48'
48'
14'
116' 10'
93'
40'
40'
14'
42'
47'
92'
40'
40'
218'
87'
210'
90'
30'
295'
38'
6' 52' 25' 18'
20'
25'
6' 52' 18'
232'
121'
53'
40'
40'
40'
34'
36' 26'
37'
4'
29'
14'
13' 21' 11' 28'
13' 26'
22' 18' 37' 2'
39' 1'
38' 1'
29' 10'
33'
6'

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-044
2 3
4 5
6 7
SEE SHEET 6

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP

AMORUSO RANCH
PHASE 1 - SUBPHASE A1

PROJECT BOUNDARY

VILLAGE LOT LINE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

STREET CENTERLINE

PROPOSED LOTS

PUE (TYP)

VILLAGE BOUNDARYTOP BACK OF CURB

SIDEWALK

LIP OF CURB

SEWER MAINSEWER MANHOLE

DRAINAGE MAINDRAINAGE MANHOLE

DRAIN INLET

WATER MAINGATE VALVE

FIRE HYDRANT

WATER LOOP DETAIL
1"=100'
ROAD A
ROAD H

FUTURE WESTBROOK BLVD
ROAD F
24" WATER CONTINUES NORTH APPROXIMATELY 600'AND CONNECTS TO 12" TO COMPLETE LOOP (SEE SHEET %).

SEE WATER LOOP DETAIL, THIS SHEET.

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-044

APPROVED

AMORUSO RANCH
017-480-043
20'X20' BUS SHELTER EASEMENT
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
Max Block Length 600'
Lot Size Interior 40'x80' min. 3,200 SF
Corner 50'x80 min. 4,000 SF
Lot Width Interior 40' (min)
Corner 50' (min)
Lot Depth Interior 80' (Min)
Corner 80' (Min)
Lot Coverage (max) none
Bldg Height Max 30'
Bldg Setbacks
Front (To Living Area
or side wall of the
garage) 10' (Min)
Front (To Garage/
driveway depth) 18' (Min)
Front (To Porch) 7.5' (Min) (shall not encroach into the PUE) Side Yard 4' (Min)
Street Side Yard 10' (Min)
Rear 10' (Min)
RS/DS Zone (Development standards to be used in conjunction with street sections as approved in the Amoruso Ranch Specfic Plan)
Amoruso Ranch Phase 1A
Table A
Alternative Development Standards

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

ADDENDUM TO AMORUSO RANCH PROJECT SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH # 2013102057, CERTIFIED ON JUNE 15, 2016)
Project Title/File Number: Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments, File # PL21-0184 (Prior File # 2011PL-039 (ANN-000007, GPA-000061, SPA-000043, RZ000058, DA-000047) Project Location: Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 017-020-03, 017-020-036, 017-020- 037, 017-010-010, 017-010-011; United States Geological Survey, “Pleasant Grove, CA” 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle, Township 11 North Range 5 East, Sections 11 and 14, Mt. Diablo Baseline and Meridian.

Project Description: The Project as originally proposed and analyzed in the previously certified EIR includes the following components:
 Adoption of the ARSP, which establishes the land use and regulatory framework for approximately 695 acres of mixed-use development (residential, commercial, public/quasi-public, and open space);
 Approval of amendments to the City of Roseville (City) General Plan;
 Approval of pre-zoning designations;
 Approval of a large lot tentative subdivision map;
 Approval of development agreements by and between the City and the Applicant and landowners;
 Amendment of the City’s sphere of influence to include the Project site; and
 Annexation of the project site into the City.

Proposed modifications to the Project and previously adopted EIR include the following:
 Adoption of amended ARSP and General Plan land use
designations;
 Approval of amended zoning designations;
 Approval of a new large lot tentative subdivision map;  Approval of a small lot tentative subdivision map and modified development standards;
 Approval of amended development between the City and
Applicant.

See below for more detail.

Project Applicant: Brookfield Residential/Amoruso Family Trust Property Owner: Angela Eisenpress, Successor Trustee of the Amoruso Family Living Trust, Dated March 14, 2005

CC EXHIBIT A

ADDENDUM
March 2022
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendments – 3884 Westbrook Bl.; File #21-0184

Page 2 of 20 ends

Roseville City CouncilApril 20, 2022

Roseville City Council
April 20, 2022