Agenda — Roseville City Council, April 20, 2022 (part 8 of 9)

Brookfield Sacramento Holdings, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
Lead Agency Contact: Shelby Maples, Associate Planner
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 certified EIR for consideration by the hearing body. This Addendum focuses only on those aspects of the project or its impacts which require additional discussion.

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

Page 3 of 20 ends

Table of Contents
Project Description …………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Purpose and Scope of Addendum ………………………………………………………………… 6 Initial Study Checklist
Land Use and Planning…………………………………………………...……………………………….

Utilities and Service Systems………………………………………………………..………………………… Mandatory Findings of Significance………………………………………………………..………………….. 12 15
18 Environmental Determination …………………………………………………………………….. 20 Attachments ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20

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

Page 4 of 20 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location
For a detailed description of the project location, refer to Chapter 2 of the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (ARSP) and Chapter 2 of the environmental impact report (EIR), included here as Attachment 1. The project site is located along the northern edge of the City of Roseville, approximately 6.5 miles west of Interstate 80 and State Route 65 and 5 miles northwest of downtown Roseville on approximately 695 acres. The Project site consists of APNs 017-020-030, 017-020-036, 017-020-037, 017-010-010, 017-010-011, and is found on the United States Geological Survey in the “Pleasant Grove, CA” 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle, Township 11 North Range 5 East, Sections 11 and 14, Mt. Diablo Baseline and Meridian. See Figure 2-1 of the EIR and Figure 2.2 of the ARSP.

Background
For detailed Project background information, refer to Section 2.2 of the EIR. The ARSP was developed to comport with the City’s growth vision and create a “comprehensively planned, residential-based community with a mix of land uses” to provide “employment opportunities” and “housing choices” to help the City meet “its obligation to accommodate…future population growth in the region” (Final EIR [FEIR] p. 2-9). In May 2011, a formal project application was submitted to the City, and in 2013 the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released.

The EIR was prepared to analyze potential environmental effects associated with adoption of the ARSP and affiliated Project components and entitlements. The Draft EIR (DEIR) was distributed for public review on March 1, 2016. Several public workshops and hearings were held from March 10 to April 11, 2016, after which the FEIR was prepared. On April 14, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt and approval all Project components and affiliated entitlements of the ARSP and certify the EIR, and on June 15, 2016, the City Council did so (Resolution No, 16-271).

Thereafter, the Applicant began coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for a federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit as required for development of land featuring jurisdictional wetlands (FEIR, p. 2-63). During this process, the USACE required additional avoidance of wetland features above what was initially proposed and analyzed in the EIR. To meet this requirement and effectuate other minor Project changes, the ARSP was amended by the first Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment project (City File #PL19-0312).

The Amendment included land use modifications to the General Plan and Specific Plan, rezones, tentative large lot maps, and amendments to development agreements to modify approved layouts and increase the open space to meet USACE requirements. The project was evaluated by a first Addendum to the Amoruso Ranch EIR. The Planning Commission and City Council considered the first Addendum prior to taking action on the Project in April of 2020.

The current Project requests additional changes to the Specific Plan, including land use changes and modifications to the lot layout. The changes, which are discussed in more detail below and analyzed throughout this addendum, are minor; however, additional entitlements to make the modifications are required. As no new or substantially more severe impacts are anticipated due to the proposed changes, a second Addendum to the EIR has been prepared.

Environmental Setting
For a detailed description of the environmental setting of the project site and its surrounds, refer to the “Environmental Setting” subsections within Section 4.1 through 4.15 in Chapter 4 of the EIR; see also Section

2.3 and Figure 2-6 of the EIR. The project site’s land uses have been re-designated and rezoned as detailed in Chapter 4 of the ARSP and Chapter 2 of the EIR (and discussed below) and at present are in early stages of development. Prior land use designations for the project site and existing land use designations of its surrounds can be found in Sections 2.3 and 4.1.2 of the EIR (see FEIR, Figure 4.1-2). Generally, the site is characterized

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

Page 5 of 20 ends

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 site (FEIR, pp.2-4 to 2-6). Land to the north, east, and west of the northern portion of the site is in unincorporated Placer County and is comprised of rural subdivision with multi-acre parcels and agricultural land (FEIR, p. 4.1-2). Land to the south, southwest, and west of the southern portion of the project site is in the City, a portion of which to the southeast will remain open space as the planned Al Johnson Wildlife Area; another portion of which to the south is slated to be developed as a 501- acres residential development (Id., p.4.1-4). This development is currently in construction. Additionally, a Notice of Preparation for a project known as the Roseville Industrial Park (SCH# 2021070186, City File # PL21-0193) was released on July 12, 2021, for a land use modifications, rezone, design review, and other associated entitlements to allow the development of an industrial park on approximately 191 acres to the southwest of the ARSP.

Proposed Project
Originally Proposed Project
For a detailed description of the originally proposed Project, refer to Chapter 4 of the ARSP and Chapter 2 of the EIR. A brief summary is included below.

Primary components of the originally proposed Project include:
 Adoption of the ARSP: The ASRP established the land use and regulatory framework for an approximate 695-acre mixed-use development that included 2,827 residential units (1,302 low density, 542 medium density, and 873 high density); 51 acres of commercial; 17 acres of public and quasi-public; 22 acres of parks; 145 acres of open space; and 20 acres for urban reserve uses. Development would occur over 30 years and three phases (FEIR, p. 2-58). The City Council adopted the ARSP and EIR on June 15, 2016.  Approval of Amendments to the City General Plan: The project site was designated Agricultural/80-acre minimum in the Placer County General Plan (1994) and, as part of the Project, was annexed into the City and re-designated as indicated in Table 2-1 of the FEIR for future development as prescribed in Chapter 4 of the ARSP and Chapter 2 of the EIR. The General Plan amendments were approved by City Council on June 15, 2016.
 Approval of Pre-zoning Designations: The project site was zoned Building Site, 80 acres minimum (F-B- X 80 acre) by Placer County and, as part of the Project, was annexed into the City and rezoned as indicated in Table 2-1 of the FEIR for future development as prescribed in Chapter 4 of the ARSP and Chapter 2 of the EIR. The zoning designations were approved by City Council on June 15, 2016.  Approval of Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map: The large lot tentative subdivision map was approved by City Council on January 10, 2019; large lot final map recorded May 3, 2019, in Book EE of Maps, at Page 51, Official Records of Placer County.
 Approval of Development Agreements between City and the Applicant and Landowners: The development agreements are binding contracts through which the ARSP would be implemented. They were approved by City Council on June 15, 2016.
 Amendment of the City’s Sphere of Influence: The City’s sphere of influence would be amended to include the project site. The sphere of influence was approved for amendment by City Council on June 15, 2016.  Annexation of Project site into City: The project site would be annexed into the City from the County upon request to LAFCO for annexation was approved by City Council on June 15, 2016. LAFCO approved annexation on December 18, 2018.

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

Page 6 of 20 ends

Proposed Project Modifications
Modifications to the proposed Project are described below and analyzed for their potential environmental effects throughout this Addendum.
 Adoption of Amended ARSP and General Plan land use: The ARSP and General Plan land use designations will be modified for several large lot parcels. Large lot parcels AR-21, AR-25, AR-32, and AR-37 will change land use from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). Units will be reallocated between 31 large lot parcels; however, the total number of units for Phase A1 of ARSP development, 1,334 units, will remain the same. Minor modifications to landscape, open space/paseo, right-of-way, and parks parcels will also be included to align with the tentative subdivision maps.  Amended zoning designations: 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.  Large and small lot tentative subdivision maps: 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/quasi-public parcel for city utilities, as well as landscape and right-of-way parcels. Modified development standards for the medium density RS/DS lots are proposed to allow smaller lot configurations.

A large lot tentative subdivision map is also proposed to align with the land use designations.  Amended Development Agreement between the City and the Applicant: The project includes the second Amendment to Development Agreement for the ARSP, to reflect project changes as well as to modify construction timing for water utilities.

CEQA Checklist Update
Since certification of the previous EIR, the Appendix G Checklist in the CEQA Guidelines has been updated, effective early 2019. Although not required, the updated checklist is included in this second Addendum along with the prior version, as applicable as part of a good-faith effort to provide the most up-to-date information to decision makers and the public. This was also included with the first Addendum to the EIR. (PRC §§ 21002.1€, 210065; see CEQA Guidelines §§ 150020(a)(1), 15003(c).) The updated checklist is presented in strike

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

Page 7 of 20 ends

out/underline to clearly show changes, which are discussed in the analysis where appropriate. This revised checklist material is not considered “new information” as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a)(3). (See Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, 808; Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 426.) The EIR to which this addendum is being attached was certified by the City Council on June 15, 2016. It is currently available for review at the City of Roseville, Development Service Department, Planning Division, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA, 95678, and online at https://www.roseville.ca.us under Government/Departments & Divisions/Planning/Specific Plans, Planning Areas & Development Agreements/Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan.

See Background section above for more details.

Impact Conclusions in Previous EIR
The EIR to which this addendum is being attached was certified by the City Council on June 15, 2016. It is currently available for review at the City of Roseville, Development Services Department, Planning Division, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678, and online at https://www.roseville.ca.us under Government/Departments & Divisions/Planning/Specific Plans, Planning Areas & Development Agreements/Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan.

See Background section above for more details.

The EIR identified the following impacts as significant and unavoidable:
 4.1-3: Potential Incompatibility with Existing Agricultural and Other Land Uses in Placer County and the City of Roseville
 4.1-8: Cumulative Impacts From Agricultural Resources Conversion  4.3-5: Increased Traffic Volumes at Intersections within Placer County, Sutter County, Sacramento County, or City of Lincoln Under Existing Conditions
 4.3-6: Increased Traffic Volumes on Roadways Within Placer County, Sutter County, Sacramento County, or City of Rocklin Under Existing Conditions
 4.3-8: Increased Traffic Volumes on State Highways Under Existing Conditions  4.3-9: Increased Traffic at City of Roseville Intersections Under 2035 CIP Conditions  4.3-11: Increased Traffic on Placer County, Sutter County, Sacramento County, City of Rocklin, or City of Lincoln Intersections Under 2035 CIP Conditions
 4.3-12: Increased Traffic Volumes on Roadways within Placer County, Sutter County, Sacramento County, or City of Rocklin Under 2035 CIP Conditions
 4.4-1: Generate Short-Term Construction Related Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants  4.4-2: Generate Long-Term Operational Related (Regional) Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants  4.4-5: Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Odors
 4.4-6: Consistency with Plans and Policies
 4.5-1: Generate a Substantial Contribution To GHG Emissions that Conflicts with an Applicable Plan or Policy
 4.6-1: Short-Term Noise Generated by Construction Activity  4.6-5: Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels as a Result of the Existing Plus Project Increase in Traffic Noise
 4.6-7: Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels as a Result of the 2035 CIP Plus Project Increase in Traffic Noise Outside the Project Site
 4.12.3-3: Construction or Expansion of Wastewater Treatment Facilities  4.13-6: Construction of Off-Site Stormwater Retention Facilities  4.14-1: Alteration of the Visual Character of the Site and Vicinity  4.14-2: New Sources of Light and Glare
 4.14-3: Degradation of Scenic Resources and Scenic Vistas

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

Page 8 of 20 ends

The EIR also identified the following cumulative impacts as significant and unavoidable:
 4.3-15: Increased Traffic on City of Roseville Intersections Under 2035 Cumulative Conditions  4.3-17: Increased Traffic on Placer County, Sutter County, Sacramento County, or City of Lincoln Intersections Under 2035 Cumulative Conditions
 4.3-20: Increased Traffic Volumes on State Highways Under 2035 Cumulative Conditions  4.4-7: Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase in Criteria Pollutants  4.6-9: Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels as a Result of the 2035 Cumulative Plus Project Increase in Traffic Noise Outside the Project Site  4.8-18: Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources
 4.12.1-4: Capacity of Water Treatment System to Meet Potable Water Demand  4.12.1-8: Cumulative Water Supply and Water Treatment Impacts  4.12.3-5: Cumulative Wastewater Impacts
 4.12.4-5: Cumulative Solid Waste Impacts
 4.14-4: Cumulative Aesthetic Impacts
No new impacts, including significant or unavoidable ones, occur as a result of proposed Project modifications, and none of the previously identified impacts are made substantially more severe (discussed in more detail below).

Issue Areas Removed from Additional Evaluation
Proposed Project modifications would not require additional construction or development on undeveloped land beyond what was previously analyzed in the certified EIR because there would be no increase in residential units and no other planned development where it was previously unplanned (see EIR, Figure 2-3, Section 2.11, and Section 4 compared with ARSP Amendment, Figure 4.1). The proposed Project modifications do not have the potential to change the regulatory framework, impact discussion, mitigation measures, or significance conclusions for the following issue areas: aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. These areas are not analyzed further in the checklist but are discussed briefly below. CEQA only requires that environmental documents give decision makers sufficient detail on environmental consequences and does not purport to merely “generate paper” by excessively explaining consequences that are “so simple they are almost self-explanatory.” (Save our Residential Environment v. City of West Hollywood (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1754; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 393; Save Our Residential Environment v. City of West Hollywood (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1745, 1754).

Revisions made to the ARSP would not change the overall aesthetic nature of the planned development, and the revisions made by the prior Amendment (File #PL19-0312), such as open fencing and home placement restrictions that allow more open space to be viewed by visual receptors, are maintained. Therefore, aesthetics need not be further analyzed. Similarly, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, recreation, and tribal cultural resources do not require additional analysis. These issue areas require disturbance of previously undisturbed land to incur environmental effects, and the proposed Project modifications will not disturb additional land beyond what was previously analyzed in the certified EIR. Further, no increase in “construction and/or operation” mean no additional or more severe impacts to, or from, energy, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public services, and recreation because there can be no physical environmental change to these issue areas without the impetus of such project action (FEIR p. 1-9; see CEQA Guidelines §§ 15358 (b), 15378(a)). And, changes to the water transmission and drainage systems are so minor that the systems remain “largely unchanged,” with water and drainage flows remaining “the same,” thereby precluding environmental impacts to issue areas as a result (see Utility Systems Updates Technical Memorandum.)

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

Page 9 of 20 ends

Impacts to transportation systems also would not increase because proposed Project modifications would not generate any significant amount of new vehicle trips beyond what was previously analyzed in the certified EIR (FEIR, pp. 4.3-43 to 4.3-44). Trip generation rates are based on development of structures and their respective land uses (e.g. high-density residential, low-density residential, commercial) FEIR, Appendix M [p.64]). No additional development will occur under proposed Project modifications, and the only relevant land-use shift will be a rezone that allows four large lot parcels to change from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). Units will be reallocated throughout the Specific Plan, and there is no overall increase in the number of units. Vehicle trips are not expected to change because the Project was analyzed with one external point of entry/egress only, which does not change with proposed modifications (see FEIR, Figure 4.3-5). No significant increase in vehicle trips, construction, or development means no increase in air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions because these are the only relevant sources of project-related air pollutants (FEIR, p. 4.4-22 to 4.4-26, 4.5-20). Therefore, no additional environmental impacts to air quality and from greenhouse gas emissions would occur that could warrant further checklist evaluation. Lastly, wildfire need not be further addressed because the project site is not within a State Responsibility Area, which is a checklist threshold for wildfire analysis; upon annexation it received fire protection from the Roseville Fire Department and not CAL FIRE (FEIR, pp. 4.11-5, 4.11-8).

A full discussion of how these issue areas may be impacted by the Project can be found in Chapter 4 of the EIR.

See also “No New Circumstances or New Information” below.

Issue Areas Receiving Additional Evaluation
Some proposed ARSP amendments and EIR revisions, however, are so closely tied to certain issue areas that, although no impacts are anticipated, were evaluated out of an abundance of caution, specifically: land use and planning, and utilities (water supply). See also “No New Circumstances or New Information” below.

No New Circumstances or New Information
Since certification of the previous EIR on June 15, 2016, circumstances surrounding the formerly proposed project and its location have not substantially changed nor has any new information of substantial importance come to light that indicates the Project would create new significant impacts or increase the severity of existing significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)). No new projects beyond those discussed in the previously certified EIR have been approved or proposed within the vicinity of the project site that could impact or increase the Project’s environmental effects, and the City is not aware of any other new information that might bear relevance on the Project’s CEQA analysis. There is no new information of substantial importance showing that (i) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found to be infeasible would actually now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (ii) mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the previously certified CEQA documents would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Therefore, there is no evidence on the record, or otherwise reasonably discoverable, indicating that any new circumstances or new information that would (a) create new significant impacts; (b) substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts; (c) or require additional analysis or verification. As a result, all boxes in the “New Circumstances” and “New Information” columns in the checklist below are marked “No”.

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.

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

Page 10 of 20 ends

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 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.

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

Page 11 of 20 ends

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

CHECKLIST
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? No Impact (FEIR, p. 4.1-
31)
No No No None
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact 4.1-1
Impact 4.1-2
Impact 4.1-3
Impact 4.1-4
No No No
MM 4.6-1a-d
MM 4.6-2
MM 4.4-1
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan? Impact 4.8-14 No No No None 2018 CEQA Checklist Update:
b) Conflict Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact 4.1-1
Impact 4.1-2
Impact 4.1-3
Impact 4.1-4
No No No
MM 4.6-1a-d
MM 4.6-2
MM 4.4-1
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
Question deleted; see updated Land Use item b.

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

Page 13 of 20 ends

Discussion: Land use and planning is discussed in Section 4.1 of the EIR. Impacts to land use and planning as a result of Project implementation are discussed in Section 4.1.4 of the EIR. The EIR addresses four impacts to land use and planning, three of which were found to be less than significant with mitigation. However, the EIR concluded that the Project would contribute to the significant and unavoidable impact of incompatibility with existing land uses.

The first Addendum to the ARSP EIR evaluated the increase of approximately 10 acres in land designated and zoned as Open Space, with an equivalent reduction in Low Density Residential (LDR) land, with assorted smaller acreage transfers from land designated/zoned residential to open space. It was found that those proposed amendments to zoning and land use did not change the overall nature of the Project, nor were any land uses introduced that dramatically changed those previously analyzed in the ARSP EIR. No new or substantially more severe impacts were introduced. Please refer to the first Addendum for a more thorough analysis and project description.

The current project includes land use modifications for four large lot parcels, AR-21, AR-25, AR-32, and AR-37. With the proposal, the land use for these four large lots will change from LDR to Medium Density Residential (MDR). The project also includes a modification of the existing large lots, resulting in unit transfers between 31 of the large lots within the Specific Plan area. The overall number of units will remain the same. Minor acreage shifts are also proposed to some paseo, landscape, and park parcels.

These proposed amendments to zoning and land use do not change the overall nature of the Project and proposed development, nor do they introduce any land uses that dramatically differ from those already analyzed in the previously certified EIR and approved by the City. These amendments would not physically divide an established community because, as stated in the EIR, “no community would be divided by the Proposed Project, as the project site is comprised of vacant land” (FEIR, p.4.1-31). Further, like the originally proposed Project, the proposed amendments to land use and zoning would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations including: the City Blueprint Implementation Strategies, the City General Plan (Community Design Goals, Community Form, Growth Management), some City Zoning Ordinances (allowed uses), CALTRANS Airport Land Use Handbook, and the McClellan Land Use Compatibility Plan (FEIR, pp. 4.1-31, 4.1-34,

4.1-37, 4.1-39, 4.1-43). There is no significant environmental effect as there is no conflict. Likewise with internal land uses within the proposed development and as outlined in the specific plan, the proposed changes would not conflict with the following applicable guidelines, and not cause a significant environmental effect as a result: the City Community Design Guidelines, City General Plan (Community Design Goals and Policies, Community Forum Goals and Policies) and City Zoning Ordinance (allowed uses), with implementation of mitigation for noise and construction emission reductions (FEIR, pp. 4.1-35 to 4.1-38).

Also, similar to the originally proposed Project, the proposed amendments have the potential to conflict with the City General Plan (Community Form – Relationship of New Development) and the Placer County General Plan (agricultural policies) in a way that causes a significant and unavoidable impact (FEIR pp. 4.1-39 to 4.1-43). There are no mitigation measures presented or available to reduce this impact. However, this impact would not be made substantially more severe by the proposed amendments because, as stated above, the proposed amendments do not change the overall nature of the Project and proposed development nor do they introduce any land uses that dramatically differ from those already analyzed. Therefore, no substantially new or more severe impacts to land use and planning as a result of the proposed Project modifications will occur.

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

Page 14 of 20 ends

Mitigation Measures: Proposed Project modifications will not increase the potential for new or more severe significant impacts. No additional mitigation measures are required for the Project.

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

Page 15 of 20 ends

Utilities and Service Systems
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) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Not Applicable
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Not Applicable
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
Not Applicable
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Impact 4.12.1-1
Impact 4.12.1-2
Impact 4.12.1-3
Impact 4.12 1-4
Impact 4.12 1-5
Impact 4.12 1-6
Impact 4.12 1-7
Impact 4.12 1-8
No No No MM 4.12.1-1
e) 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?
Not Applicable
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
Not Applicable
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? Not Applicable
2018 CEQA Checklist Update:

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

Page 16 of 20 ends

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Question deleted; see Utilities and Services Systems question c. a) b) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water, or
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Not Applicable
c) Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
Question deleted; see updated Utilities and Service Systems question a. b) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry, and
multiple dry years from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Impact 4.12.1-1
Impact 4.12.1-2
Impact 4.12.1-3
Impact 4.12 1-4
Impact 4.12 1-5
Impact 4.12 1-6
Impact 4.12 1-7
Impact 4.12 1-8
No No No MM 4.12 1-1
c) e) 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?
Not Applicable
d) f) 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? Be
served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
Not Applicable
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Not Applicable

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

Page 17 of 20 ends

Discussion: Proposed Utilities and service systems are discussed in Section 4.12 of the EIR. Impacts to utilities and service systems as a result of Project implementation are discussed in Sections 4.12.1.4, 4.12.2.4, 4.12.3.4, 4.12.4.4, and 4.12.5.4 of the EIR, and mitigation measures to reduce these impacts are included in Sections 4.12.1.5, 4.12.2.5, 4.12.3.5, and 4.12.5.5. The EIR addresses 25 impacts to utilities and service systems, most of which will be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation. However, the EIR concluded that the project would contribute to five significant and unavoidable impacts to utilities and services systems, one of which occurs only in the cumulative scenario.

The proposed project includes updates to ARSP Wastewater Master Plan to show that downsizing of sewer lines is appropriate for the development. A technical memorandum prepared by Wood Rodgers, Inc. is included with this Addendum as Attachment 4. 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; therefore, the force mains for the wastewater system can be reduced in size. 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 in Section 4.12.3 of the previously certified EIR. Impacts will be reduced beyond what was previously evaluated; therefore the Project modifications will not result in new or more severe significant impacts to the sewer system.

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. 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; therefore the Project modifications will not result in new or more severe significant impacts to water demand.

Mitigation Measures: Proposed Project modifications will not increase the potential for new or more severe significant impacts to utilities and service systems. No new mitigation is required for the Project.

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

Page 18 of 20 ends

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

4.8 (Vegetation
and Wildlife),
and 4.12.1
(Public
Utilities
Water)
No No No
See EIR Sections 4.1
(Land Use and
Agriculture), 4.8
(Vegetation and Wildlife),
and 4.12.1 (Public Utilities
Water)
See also “Purpose and
Scope of Addendum”
above

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

Page 19 of 20 ends

c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
See EIR
Section 4.12.1
(Public
Utilities
Water)
See also
“Utilities and
Service
Systems” and
“Purpose and
Scope of
Addendum”
above.

No No No
See also “Utilities and
Service Systems” and
“Purpose and Scope of
Addendum” above
2018 CEQA Checklist Update
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of an
endangered, threatened, or rare species, or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
See above.

Discussion: This section makes mandatory findings of significance only for those issue areas potentially impacted by proposed Project modifications, as described above and analyzed throughout this Addendum. The previously certified EIR discloses all potential environmental impacts, their level of significance, and mitigation measures to reduce significance for the originally proposed Project; mandatory findings of significance for which can be found in Appendix B of the FEIR.

As discussed above in this Addendum, no significant new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur as a result of proposed Project modifications, and no new circumstance or information exist that would create significant impacts or require additional analysis.

Therefore, there would be no additional and/or substantial adverse effect on, or additional and/or substantial degradation of, biological resources (habitat, species, and range of species) or human beings (directly or indirectly), or any new or more severe cumulatively considerable significant impacts. With implementation of applicable mitigation measures identified in the previously certified EIR and listed above under each issue area, proposed Project modifications would create no significant new or substantially more severe significant impacts to the relevant areas within these mandatory findings of significance categories.

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 AMORUSO RANCH PROJECT SPECIFIC PLAN Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2013102057, certified on June 15, 2016), 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.
[ 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. [ X ] Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary in order to deem the adopted environmental document adequate.

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

1. Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan EIR (available online at https://www.roseville.ca.us under Government/Departments & Divisions/Planning/Specific Plans, Planning Areas, & Development Agreements/Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan

2. First Addendum to the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan EIR

3. Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment – Modified Land Use Table

4. Utility Systems Updates Technical Memorandum

5. Revised Water Demand Calculations

6. Amended Development Agreement
Shelby Maples
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 (ARSP) / 2011PL-039 (ANN000007, GPA-000061, SPA-000043, RZ-000058 & DA000047) Project Location: Accessor 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 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;
• Approval of amended zoning designations;
• Approval of amended large lot tentative subdivision map; • Approval of amended development agreement between the City and Applicant
• Adoption of Amended Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (to Eliminate Mitigation Measure 4.12.1-1)
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
Addendum Attachment 2

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 2 of 24 ends

An Addendum to a previously certified and adopted environmental impact report (EIR) 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 certified EIR 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 certified EIR for consideration by the hearing body. This Addendum focuses only on those aspects of the project or its impacts that require additional discussion. • Brookfield Sacramento Holdings, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
Lead Agency Contact: Gina McColl, Associate Planner

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 3 of 24 ends

Table of Contents
Project Description …………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Purpose and Scope of Addendum ………………………………………………………………… 7 Environmental Checklist for
Addendum Environmental Review ………………………………………………………………… 10 Environmental Determination …………………………………………………………………….. 24 Attachments ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 4 of 24 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location
For a detailed description of the project location, refer to Chapter 2 of the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (ARSP) and Chapter 2 of the environmental impact report (EIR), included here as Attachment 1. The project site is located along the northern edge of the City of Roseville, approximately 6.5 miles west of Interstate 80 and State Route 65 and 5 miles northwest of downtown Roseville on approximately 695 acres. The Project site consists of APNs 017-020-016-510, 017-020-017-510, 017-010-054-000, 017-010-010-000 and is found on the United States Geological Survey in the “Pleasant Grove, CA” 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle, Township 11 North Range 5 East, Sections 11 and 14, Mt. Diablo Baseline and Meridian. See Figure 2-1 of the EIR and Figure 2.2 of the ARSP.

Background
For detailed Project background information, refer to Section 2.2 of the EIR. The ARSP was developed to comport with the City’s growth vision and create a “comprehensively planned, residential-based community with a mix of land uses” to provide “employment opportunities” and “housing choices” to help the City meet “its obligation to accommodate…future population growth in the region” (Final EIR [FEIR], p. 2-9). In May 2011, a formal project application was submitted to the City, and in 2013 the notice of preparation (NOP) was released.

The EIR was prepared to analyze potential environment effects associated with adoption of the ARSP and affiliated Project components and entitlements. The Draft EIR (DEIR) was distributed for public review on March 1, 2016. Several public workshops and hearings were held from March 10 to April 11, 2016, after which the FEIR was prepared. On April 14, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt and approve all Project components and affiliated entitlements of the ARSP and certify the EIR, and on June 15, 2016, the City Council did so (Resolution No. 16-271).

Thereafter, the Applicant began coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for a federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit as required for development of land featuring jurisdictional wetlands (FEIR, p. 2-63). During this process, the USACE required additional avoidance of wetland features above what was initially proposed and analyzed in the EIR. To meet this requirement and effectuate other minor Project changes, the ARSP has been amended, which in turn causes amendments to zoning designations, the large lot tentative subdivision map, and the development agreement between the City and Applicant, which are discussed in more detail below and analyzed throughout this addendum.

Environmental Setting
For a detailed description of the environmental setting of the project site and its surrounds, refer to the “Environmental Setting” subsections within Sections 4.1 through 4.15 in Chapter 4 of the EIR; see also Section

2.3 and Figure 2-6 of the EIR. The project site’s land uses have been re-designated and rezoned as detailed in Chapter 4 of the ARSP and Chapter 2 of the EIR (and discussed below) and currently remains undeveloped.

Prior land use designations for the project site and existing land use designations of its surrounds can be found in Sections 2.3 and 4.1.2 of the EIR (see FEIR, Figure 4.1-2). Generally, the site is 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 site (FEIR, pp. 2-4 to 2-6). Land to the north, east, and west of the northern portion of the site is in unincorporated Placer County and is comprised of rural subdivision with multi-acre parcels and agricultural land (FEIR, p. 4.1-2). Land to the south, southwest, and west of the southern portion of the project site is in the City, a portion of which to the southeast will remain open space as the planned Al Johnson Wildlife Area; another portion of which to the south is slated to be developed as a 501-acre residential development (Id., p. 4.1-4).

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 5 of 24 ends

Proposed Project
Originally Proposed Project
For a detailed description of the originally proposed Project, refer to Chapter 4 of the ARSP and Chapter 2 of the EIR. A brief summary is included below.

Primary components of the originally proposed Project include:
• Adoption of the ARSP: The ASRP established the land use and regulatory framework for an approximate 695-acre mixed-use development that included 2,827 residential units (1,302 low density, 542 medium density, and 873 high density); 51 acres of commercial; 17 acres of public and quasi-public; 22 acres of parks; 145 acres of open space; and 20 acres for urban reserve uses. Development would occur over 30 years and three phases (FEIR, p. 2-58). The City Council adopted the ARSP and EIR on June 15, 2016. • Approval of Amendments to the City General Plan: The project site was designated Agricultural/80-acre minimum in the Placer County General Plan (1994) and, as part of the Project, was annexed into the City and re-designated as indicated in Table 2-1 of the FEIR for future development as prescribed in Chapter 4 of the ARSP and Chapter 2 of the EIR. The General Plan amendments were approved by City Council on June 15, 2016.
• Approval of Pre-zoning Designations: The project site was zoned Building Site, 80 acres minimum (F-BX 80 acre) by Placer County and, as part of the Project, was annexed into the City and rezoned as indicated in Table 2-1 of the FEIR for future development as prescribed in Chapter 4 of the ARSP and Chapter 2 of the EIR. The zoning designations were approved by City Council on June 15, 2016. • Approval of Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map: The large lot tentative subdivision map was approved by City Council on January 10, 2019; large lot final map recorded May 3, 2019, in Book EE of Maps, at

Page 51 ends

• Approval of Development Agreements between City and the Applicant and Landowners: The development agreements are binding contracts through which the ARSP would be implemented. They were approved by City Council on June 15, 2016.
• Amendment of the City’s Sphere of Influence: The City’s sphere of influence would be amended to include the project site. The sphere of influence was approved for amendment by City Council on June 15, 2016. • Annexation of Project site into City: The project site would be annexed into the City from the County upon approval by Placer County LAFCO. A request to LAFCO for annexation was approved by City Council on June 15, 2016. LAFCO approved annexation on December 18, 2018.

Proposed Project Modifications
Modifications to the proposed Project are described below and analyzed for their potential environmental effects throughout this addendum.
• Adoption of Amended ARSP: The ARSP will be amended to include additional avoidance of wetland features and implement other minor Project changes. Amendments listed below are discussed in revised Sections 4.1 through 4.3 of the ARSP Amendment, included here as Attachment 2, and reflected in revised Figure 4.1 and Tables 4.1 and 4.2. The Amended ARSP will require adoption by City Council.

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 6 of 24 ends

o Increase of approximately 10-acres of land designated as Open Space and zoned Open Space (OS) in parcels AR-97 and AR-105 along the southern border of the project site, to accommodate USACE’s requirement for additional wetland avoidance in order to obtain a CWA Section 404 permit;
 To accommodate this increase in open space, the following would occur:
− A reduction of approximately 10-acres of land designated as Low Density Residential and zoned Small Lot Residential (RS) in parcels AR-24 and AR-37, which abut the increased open space area at the southern border of the project site − A corresponding transfer of 50 Low Density Residential (LDR) units from these parcels to 50 Community Commercial – Village Center (CC-VC) residential units to be located within the inner core of the project site on AR-52;
o Assorted smaller acreage transfers from parcels designated and zoned for residential to those designated and zoned for open space to accommodate an increase in buffers between developed and undeveloped portions of the Project;
o Amended zoning designation for parcels AR-1, AR-2, and AR-3 from Single-Family Residential (R1) to Small Lot Residential (RS), to accommodate changing demographics and market trends; o Division of parcel AR-55 into three separate parcels (AR-55, AR-58, and AR-59) to better match comparable specific plans within the City’s sphere of influence that have created separate parcels for separate Public/Quasi Public land uses (ARSP Amendment, pp. 9-2, B-17), with AR-58 remaining reserved for water facilities (included the potential well site), AR-59 remaining reserved for recycled water and wastewater, and AR-55 remaining reserved for other undetermined community purposes. All three parcels will be dedicated to the City in fee. o Removal of the planned 60 kilovolt (kV) electrical line along Westbrook Boulevard and Road A, to accommodate changes with the neighboring planned development Placer Ranch that will remain under Placer County jurisdiction instead of being annexed in to the City as previously planned (ARSP Amendment, pp. 9-13 to 9-14; see FEIR, p. 4.12-5-3); and o Additional restrictions on fencing and housing placement along open space boundaries that require fencing to remain visually open no more than 50 percent of open space to have homes backing onto it (see ARSP Amendment, Appendix A, pp. A-4 to A-5). o Minor changes to the water transmission and drainage systems in the southeastern portion of the project site to accommodate the above-described changes (see ARSP Amendment, pp. 9-4, 9- 10; see also Utility Systems Updates Technical Memorandum, included here as Attachment 3). • Approval of Amended Zoning Designations: The amended zoning designations described above will require City Council approval.
• Approval of Amended Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map: The large lot tentative map has been amended to reflect the ARSP amendments described above and will require Planning Commission approval.
• Approval of Amended Development Agreement between City and Applicant: Amendments to the development agreement between the City and Applicant have been made to reflect the ARSP amendments described above and will require City Council approval. The amended development agreement is included here as Attachment 4.

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 7 of 24 ends

• Re-adoption of Amended Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (to Eliminate Mitigation Measure

4.12.1-1): Mitigation Measures (MM) 4.12.1-2 will be eliminated because it has been determined that the City is responsible for securing and ensuring a water supply to the project site—not the Applicant (FEIR, p. 4.12.1-67). In lieu, the Applicant shall pay the City water connection fees. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted on June 15, 2016 (see Resolution No. 16-271) will be amended to exclude this measure and requires re-adoption by City Council.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ADDENDUM
Basis for Addendum
This addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and legislative directives (CEQA Guidelines § 15164; Public Resources Code [PRC] §§ 21083, 21166). An addendum is an appropriate subsequent document to a previously certified EIR when some changes to a project are necessary, but those changes do not create new or increased significant environmental impacts that warrant major revisions to the previous document (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162(a), 15164(a); see Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 656, 668). Also, an addendum is appropriate when circumstances surrounding a project have not substantially changed and when no new information of substantial importance has been uncovered that indicates the project would create new significant impacts or increase the severity of the previously identified significant impacts (Ibid). Substantial evidence presented in this addendum demonstrates that the proposed Project modifications, described above and analyzed below, do not create any new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts, nor are there any new circumstances or new information that would create such impacts or require more robust analysis (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)). Therefore, an addendum is the appropriate CEQA document, and a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not warranted (Id., § 15164(e)).
2018 CEQA Checklist Update
Since certification of the previous EIR, the Appendix G Checklist in the CEQA Guidelines has been updated, effective early 2019. Although not required, the updated checklist is included in this Addendum along with the prior version, as applicable as part of a good-faith effort to provide the most up-to-date information to decision makers and the public. (PRC §§ 21002.1(e), 210065; see CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(a)(1), 15003(c).) The updated checklist is presented in strike out/underline to clearly show changes, which are discussed in the analysis where appropriate. This revised checklist material is not considered “new information” as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a)(3). (See Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, 808; Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 426.)
Impact Conclusions in Previous EIR
The EIR to which this addendum is being attached was certified by the City Council on June 15, 2016. It is currently available for review at the City of Roseville, Development Service Department, Planning Division, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA, 95678, and online at https://www.roseville.ca.us under Government/Departments & Divisions/Planning/Specific Plans, Planning Areas & Development Agreements/Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan. See Background section above for more details.

The EIR identified the following impacts as significant and unavoidable:
• 4.1-3: Potential Incompatibility with Existing Agricultural and Other Land Uses in Placer County and the City of Roseville

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 8 of 24 ends

• 4.1-8: Cumulative Impacts From Agricultural Resources Conversion • 4.3-5: Increased Traffic Volumes at Intersections within Placer County, Sutter County, Sacramento County, or City of Lincoln Under Existing Conditions
• 4.3-6: Increased Traffic Volumes on Roadways Within Placer County, Sutter County, Sacramento County, or City of Rocklin Under Existing Conditions
• 4.3-8: Increased Traffic Volumes on State Highways Under Existing Conditions • 4.3-9: Increased Traffic at City of Roseville Intersections Under 2035 CIP Conditions • 4.3-11: Increased Traffic on Placer County, Sutter County, Sacramento County, City of Rocklin, or City of Lincoln Intersections Under 2035 CIP Conditions
• 4.3-12: Increased Traffic Volumes on Roadways within Placer County, Sutter County, Sacramento County, or City of Rocklin Under 2035 CIP Conditions
• 4.4-1: Generate Short-Term Construction Related Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants • 4.4-2: Generate Long-Term Operational Related (Regional) Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants • 4.4-5: Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Odors
• 4.4-6: Consistency with Plans and Policies
• 4.5-1: Generate a Substantial Contribution To GHG Emissions that Conflicts with an Applicable Plan or Policy
• 4.6-1: Short-Term Noise Generated by Construction Activity • 4.6-5: Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels as a Result of the Existing Plus Project Increase in Traffic Noise
• 4.6-7: Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels as a Result of the 2035 CIP Plus Project Increase in Traffic Noise Outside the Project Site
• 4.12.3-3: Construction or Expansion of Wastewater Treatment Facilities • 4.13-6: Construction of Off-Site Stormwater Retention Facilities • 4.14-1: Alteration of the Visual Character of the Site and Vicinity • 4.14-2: New Sources of Light and Glare
• 4.14-3: Degradation of Scenic Resources and Scenic Vistas The EIR also identified the following cumulative impacts as significant and unavoidable:
• 4.3-15: Increased Traffic on City of Roseville Intersections Under 2035 Cumulative Conditions • 4.3-17: Increased Traffic on Placer County, Sutter County, Sacramento County, or City of Lincoln Intersections Under 2035 Cumulative Conditions
• 4.3-20: Increased Traffic Volumes on State Highways Under 2035 Cumulative Conditions • 4.4-7: Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase in Criteria Pollutants • 4.6-9: Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels as a Result of the 2035 Cumulative Plus Project Increase in Traffic Noise Outside the Project Site • 4.8-18: Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources
• 4.12.1-4: Capacity of Water Treatment System to Meet Potable Water Demand • 4.12.1-8: Cumulative Water Supply and Water Treatment Impacts • 4.12.3-5: Cumulative Wastewater Impacts
• 4.12.4-5: Cumulative Solid Waste Impacts
• 4.14-4: Cumulative Aesthetic Impacts
No new impacts, including significant or unavoidable ones, occur as a result of proposed Project modifications, and none of the previously identified impacts are made substantially more severe (discussed in more detail below).

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 9 of 24 ends

Issue Areas Removed from Additional Evaluation
Proposed Project modifications would not require additional construction or development on undeveloped land beyond what was previously analyzed in the certified EIR because there would be no increase in residential units and no other planned development where it was previously unplanned (see EIR, Figure 2-3, Section 2.11, and Section 4, compared with to ARSP Amendment, Figure 4.1). In fact, the increase in open space and decrease in development of undeveloped acreage from the original ARSP would slightly reduce environmental impacts overall. As a result, proposed Project modifications do not have the potential to change the regulatory framework, impact discussion, mitigation measures, or significance conclusions for the following issue areas: aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. These areas are not analyzed further in the checklist but are discussed briefly below. CEQA only requires that environmental documents give decisionmakers sufficient detail on environmental consequences and does not purport to merely “generate paper” by excessively explaining consequences that are “so simple they are almost self-explanatory.” (Save Our Residential Environment v. City of West Hollywood (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1745, 1754; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 393; Save Our Residential Environment v. City of West Hollywood (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1745, 1754).

Revisions made to the ARSP would not change the overall aesthetic nature of the planned development, and some serve to reduce visual impacts—specifically the new open fencing and home placement restrictions that allow more open space to be viewed by visual receptors. Therefore, aesthetics need not be further analyzed.

Similarly, agriculture and forestry resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, recreation, and tribal cultural resources do not require additional analysis. These issue areas require disturbance of previously undisturbed land to incur environmental effects, and the proposed Project modifications will not disturb more undisturbed land than previously analyzed in the certified EIR because it does not include new construction or development. Further, no increase in “construction and/or operation” means no additional or more severe impacts to, or from, energy, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public services, and recreation because there can be no physical environmental change to these issue areas without the impetus of such project action (FEIR, p. 1-9; see CEQA Guidelines §§ 15358(b), 15378(a)).

And, changes to the water transmission and drainage systems that will occur in the southeastern portion of the project site are so minor that the systems remain “largely unchanged,” with water and drainage flows remaining “the same,” thereby precluding environmental impacts to issue areas as a result (see Utility Systems Updates Technical Memorandum, pp. 5, 10).

Further, projected area distribution of vehicle trips will not change because the Project was analyzed with one external point of entry/egress only, which does not change with proposed modifications (see FEIR, Figure 4.3- 5). No significant increase in vehicle trips, construction, or development means no increase in air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions because these are only relevant sources of project-related air pollutants (FEIR, p.

4.4-22 to 4.4-26, 4.5-20). Therefore, no additional environmental impacts to air quality and from greenhouse gas emissions would occur that could warrant further checklist evaluation. Lastly, wildfire need not be further addressed because the project site is not within a State Responsibility Area, which is a checklist threshold for

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 10 of 24 ends

wildfire analysis; upon annexation it received fire protection from the Roseville Fire Department and not CAL FIRE (FEIR, pp. 4.11-5, 4.11-8).

A full discussion of how these issue areas may be impacted by the Project can be found in Chapter 4 of the EIR.

See also “No New Circumstances or New Information” below.

Issue Areas Receiving Additional Evaluation
Some proposed ARSP amendments and EIR revisions, however, are so closely tied to certain issue areas that, although no impacts are anticipated, were evaluated out of an abundance of caution, specifically: biological resources, land use and planning, and utilities (water supply). See also “No New Circumstances or New Information” below.

No New Circumstances or New Information
Since certification of the previous EIR on June 15, 2016, circumstances surrounding the formerly proposed project and its location have not substantially changed nor has any new information of substantial importance come to light that indicates the Project would create new significant impacts or increase the severity of existing significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)). No new projects beyond those discussed in the previously certified EIR have been approved or proposed within the vicinity of the project site that could impact or increase the Project’s environmental effects, and the City is not aware of any other new information that might bear relevance on the Project’s CEQA analysis. Nor is there new information of substantial importance showing that:
(i) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found to be infeasible would actually now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the proposed project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (ii) mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the previously certified CEQA documents would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Therefore, there is no evidence on the record, or otherwise reasonably discoverable, indicating that any new circumstances or new information exist that that would: (a) create new significant impacts; (b) substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts; (c) or require additional analysis or verification. As a result, all boxes in the “New Circumstances” and “New Information” columns in the checklist below are marked “No.” Note that USACE’s requirement for additional wetland avoidance, discussed above in the “Background” section and below in Biological Resources,” is a not a result of newly discovered wetlands or inadequate EIR analysis or mitigation measures but a product of unanticipated requirements by the agency.

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 11 of 24 ends

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 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.

The discussion below relies on analysis conducted for the EIR with minor supplements were appropriate.

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.

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

4.8-15, Impact 4.8-
16, Impact 4.8-18)
No No No
MM 4.8-3
MM 4.8-4
MM 4.8-5
MM 4.8-6
MM 4.8-7
MM 4.8-9
MM 4.8-10
(MM 4.8-1 (a) , MM 4.8-1 (b), MM

4.8-2, MM 4.8-3, MM 4.8-4, MM

4.8-5, MM 4.8-6, MM 4.8-7, MM

4.8-9, MM 4.8-10, MM 4.8-11, MM

4.8-12)
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?
Impact 4.8-7
Impact 4.8-10
Impact 4.8-13 No No No
MM 4.8-7
MM 4.8-8
MM 4.14-3
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Impact 4.8-2 No No No
MM 4.8-1 (a)
MM 4.8-1 (b)
MM 4.8-2
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife Impact 4.8-8 No No No MM 4.8-8 MM 4.14-3

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 13 of 24 ends

species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Impact 4.8-9 No No No None
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?
Impact 4.8-14 No No No None
2018 CEQA Checklist Update:
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
See item c above
Discussion: Biological resources are discussed in Section 4.8 of EIR. Impacts to biological resources as a result of Project implementation are discussed in Section 4.8.4 of the EIR, and mitigation measures to reduce these impacts are included in Section 4.8.5. The EIR addressed 18 impacts to biological resources, most of which were determined to be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation. However, the EIR concluded that the Project would contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to regional biological resources in conjunction with other regional development.

Relevant proposed Project modifications include an amendment to the ARSP to add 10 acres of open space by expanding parcels that are already approved and designated/zoned for open space and reducing parcels already approved and designated/zoned for residential development and, to a lesser degree, assorted other smaller acreage transfers from land designated/zoned residential to open space (see “Project Description” above). The purpose of this 10-acre increase in open space is for additional avoidance of federally protected wetlands that occur on the project site, at the behest of the USACE—the federal permitting agency with jurisdiction over the required Section 404 permit (FEIR, p. 4.8-36). As part of the Section 404 permitting process, the USACE requested that the Applicant develop an alternative that would result in reduced adverse impacts to the aquatic environment, specifically to wetland resources within the southern portion of the Project site. This request for additional wetland avoidance was not known or anticipated at the time the original ARSP and EIR were prepared and adopted/certified. The Applicant and City have undertaken extensive consultation with the USACE during Project and document planning and preparation between June 2011 and November 2013, which resulted in the wetland protection and mitigation outlined in the EIR (see FEIR, p. 4.8-35). However, after preparation and release of the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for issuance of a Section 404 permit for the Project (USACE Action ID: SPK-2004-00888), the Applicant and the USACE continued to examine potential ways that the Project could be further modified to avoid wetlands, particularly in the southern portion of the Project site. As a result, the

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 14 of 24 ends

proposed Project modifications include a revised land use plan that enlarges the southwestern open space area and reduces wetland impacts.

Parcels affected by this 10-acre transfer and other smaller acreage transfers are located on or near the southern/southwestern border of the project site and were found to contain terrestrial habitat (annual grassland) and aquatic habitat (vernal pools, seasonal wetland, seasonal wetland swale, intermittent drainage, seasonal creek/stream) along with vernal pool fairy shrimp, a federally protected special-status specie (see ARSP Amendment, Figure 4.1; FEIR, Figures 4.8-1 and 4.8-2, pp. 4.8-3 to 4.8-9 and 4.8-25 to 4.8-26). However, none of these, or any other, biological resources will be impacted by proposed Project modifications because no new or increased construction or development would occur that could impact habitat and species. In fact, the increase in open space will provide additional protection for habitat and species, specifically wetlands and fairy shrimp, essentially decreasing impacts and creating a beneficial effect that comports with, and does not conflict with, local policies/ordinances or conservation plans designed to protect species. Therefore, no substantially new or more severe significant impacts to biological resources as a result of proposed Project modifications will occur.

Mitigation Measures: Proposed Project modifications will not increase the potential for new significant or more severe significant impacts to biological resources, therefore no previous mitigation measures apply, and no new mitigation is warranted.

Conclusion: Proposed Project modifications will not create any significant new or substantially more severe significant impacts to biological resources; no mitigation is required.

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 15 of 24 ends

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? No Impact (FEIR, p. 4.1-
31)
No No No None
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact 4.1-1
Impact 4.1-2
Impact 4.1-3
Impact 4.1-4
No No No
MM 4.6-1a–d
MM 4.6-2
MM 4.4-1
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan? Impact 4.8-14 No No No None 2018 CEQA Checklist Update:
b) Conflict Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Impact 4.1-1
Impact 4.1-2
Impact 4.1-3
Impact 4.1-4
No No No
MM 4.6-1a–d
MM 4.6-2
MM 4.4-1
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan? Question deleted; see updated Land Use item b and Biological Resources item f Discussion: Land use and planning is discussed in Section 4.1 of EIR. Impacts to land use and planning as a result of Project implementation are discussed in Section 4.1.4 of the EIR. The EIR addressed four impacts to land use and planning, three of which were less than significant level with mitigation. However, the EIR concluded that the Project would contribute to the significant and unavoidable impact of incompatibility with existing land uses.

Relevant proposed Project modifications include a 10-acre increase in land designated as Open Space and zoned Open Space (OS) and a commensurate 10-acre decrease in land designated as Low Density Residential and zoned Small Lot Residential (RS), along with assorted smaller acreage transfers from land designated/zoned residential to open space (see “Project Description” above). As a result of this acreage

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 16 of 24 ends

shift, 50 proposed residential units would be transferred from parcels AR-24 and AR-37 to parcel AR-52 as higher density residential units (within the inner core of the project site). Additionally, amendments to zoning designations are proposed for parcels AR-1, AR-2, and AR-3 to rezone them from Single-Family Residential (R1) to Small Lot Residential (RS), to accommodate changing demographics and market trends.

Further, a division of parcel AR-55 is proposed to create three separate parcels (AR-55, AR-58, and AR-59) in order to better match comparable specific plans within the City's sphere of influence that have created separate parcels for separate Public/Quasi Public land uses.

After division, AR-58 will be reserved for water facilities, included a potential well site, AR-59 will be reserved for recycled water and wastewater facilities, and AR-55 will be reserved for other undetermined community purposes—all of these facilities were previously analyzed in the EIR (FEIR, pp. 2-12, 2-18, 4.12.1-36 to 4.12.1-67, 4.12.2-5 to 4.12.5-10). All three parcels will be dedicated to the City in fee.

These proposed amendments to zoning and land use do not change the overall nature of the Project and proposed development nor do they introduce any land uses that dramatically differ from those already analyzed in the previously certified EIR and approved by the City. These amendments would not physically divide an established community because, as stated in the EIR, “no community would be divided by the Proposed Project, as the project site is comprised of vacant land” (FEIR, p. 4.1-31). Further, like the originally proposed Project, the proposed amendments to land use and zoning would not conflict with (i.e., would be “consistent with”) applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, including: the City Blueprint Implementation Strategies, the City General Plan (Community Design Goals, Community Form, Growth Management), some City Zoning Ordinances (allowed uses), CALTRANS Airport Land use Handbook, and the McClellan Land Use Compatibility Plan (FEIR, pp. 4.1-31, 4.1-34, 4.1-37, 4.1-39, 4.1-43). Because there would be no conflict, there would be no significant environmental effect as a result of a conflict. Likewise with internal land uses within the proposed development and as outlined in the specific plan, the proposed changes would not conflict with the following applicable guidelines, and not cause a significant environmental effect as a result: the City Community Design Guidelines, City General Plan (Community Design Goals and Policies, Community Forum Goals and Policies) and City Zoning Ordinance (allowed uses), with implementation of mitigation for noise and construction emission reductions (FEIR, pp. 4.1-35 to 4.1-38).

Also, similar to the originally proposed Project, the proposed amendments have the potential to conflict with the City General Plan (Community Form-Relationship of New Development) and the Placer County General Plan (agricultural policies) in a way that causes a significant and unavoidable impact (FEIR, pp. 4.1-39 to 4.1-43). Any conflicts with the City Zoning Ordinance discussed in the EIR under Impact 4.1-3 are not applicable here as the project site as already been zoned for development as prescribed in the original ARSP (see Resolution No. 16-271) (FEIR, pp. 4.1-42 to 4.1-43). There are no mitigation measures presented or available to reduce this impact. However, this impact would not be made substantially more severe by the proposed amendments because, as stated above, the proposed amendments do not change the overall nature of the Project and proposed development nor do they introduce any land uses that dramatically differ from those already analyzed. Further, there are no conflicts with applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans; see “Biological Resources” above. Therefore, no substantially new or more severe significant impacts to land use and planning as a result of proposed Project modifications will occur.

Mitigation Measures: To lessen Impact 4.1-2, the following mitigation measure prescribed in the EIR are applicable to proposed Project modifications: MM 4.6-1a–d, MM 4.6-2, MM 4.4-1.

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 17 of 24 ends

Conclusion: With implementation of applicable mitigation measures identified in the previously certified EIR and listed above, proposed Project modifications will not create any significant new or substantially more severe significant impacts to land use and planning.

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

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 18 of 24 ends

e) 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?
Not Applicable
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Not Applicable
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? Not Applicable
2018 CEQA Checklist Update:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
Question deleted; see Utilities and Service Systems question c. a b)Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water, or
wastewater treatment or stormwater,
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
Not Applicable
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Question deleted; see updated Utilities and Service Systems question a. b d)Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years from
existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
Impact 4.12.1-1
Impact 4.12.1-2
Impact 4.12.1-3
Impact 4.12.1-4
Impact 4.12.1-5
Impact 4.12.1-6
Impact 4.12.1-7
Impact 4.12.1-8
No No No MM 4.12.1-1

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 19 of 24 ends

c e)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?
Not Applicable
d f) 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? Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Not Applicable
e g)Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Not Applicable
Discussion: Proposed Utilities and service systems are discussed in Section 4.12 of the EIR. Impacts to utilities and services systems as a result of Project implementation are discussed in Sections 4.12.1.4, 4.12.2.4, 4.12.3.4, 4.12.4.4, and 4.12.5.4 of the EIR, and mitigation measures to reduce these impacts are included in Sections 4.12.1.5, 4.12.2.5, 4.12.3.5, 4.12.4.5, and 4.12.5.5. The EIR addressed 25 impacts to utilities and services systems, most of which will be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation. However, the EIR concluded that the Project would contribute to five significant and unavoidable impacts to utilities and services systems, one of which occurs only in the cumulative scenario.

The proposed Project modifications have limited interplay with utilities and services systems, which are, therefore, by and large not applicable for analysis here. The division of parcel AR-55 that establishes separate parcels for separate utility facilities does not change the proposed location or function of these facilities. The change is in name only (as re-parceling) and is proposed to better match other comparable specific plans within the City’s sphere of influence that have created separate parcels for separate Public/Quasi Public land uses. These facilities and their locations were previously analyzed in the EIR (FEIR, pp. 2-12, 2-18, 4.12.1-36 to 4.12.1-67, 4.12.2-5 to 4.12.2-10). Removal of the planned 60 kV electrical line along the Westbrook Boulevard and Road A from the ARSP will not impact utilities for the Project because that line was intended to service the planned neighboring community of Placer Ranch at a time when it was assumed that the City would annex that land and be the lead agency (FEIR, p. 4.12-5-3). However, Placer Ranch will remain in Placer County and obtain its electrical service in another manner (see Final EIR for Sunset Area Plan/Placer Ranch Specific Plan, SCH # #2016112012; specific plan adopted by Placer County Board of Supervisors on December 10, 2019 [Resolution 2019-241]). And, changes to the water transmission and drainage systems that will occur in the southeastern portion of the project site are so minor that the systems remain “largely unchanged,” with water and drainage flows remaining “the same,” thereby precluding environmental impacts to utilities and service systems as a result and actually lowering “water use factors and lower wastewater generation rates for the project” overall (see Utility Systems Updates Technical Memorandum, pp. 5, 10).

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 20 of 24 ends

The one proposed Project modification that could impact utilities and service systems is the elimination of MM 4.12.1-1 and subsequent amendment of the MMRP—the original version of which was adopted by the City on June 15, 2016 (see Resolution No. 16-271).

Consequently, only water supply is substantively discussed here because the measure being eliminated purported to mitigate impacts to water supply.

Impacts to water supply as a result of Project implementation are discussed in Section 4.12.1.4 of the EIR; MM 4.12.1-1 was adopted to reduce these impacts. (See Section 4.12.1.5.) The EIR addressed eight impacts to water supply, one of which was considered potentially significant (Impact 4.12.1-1) and two of which were considered significant and unavoidable in the cumulative scenario (Impact 4.12.1-4 and Impact 4.12.1-8). MM 4.12.1-1 was included to reduce Impact 4.12.1-1 to a less-than-significant level.

MM 4.12.1-1 requires that the Applicant provide a “proportionate share of required funding to the City” for water supply, with the City entering into an agreement with Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) to secure water supply for the Project. Constraints were put on the water source in that it need be: (1) “legally available and sufficient” to meet Project demands, (2) consistent with applicable regulations, (3) subject to environmental review, (4) approved by the agency with jurisdiction over the water, and (5) funded (FEIR, p. 4.12.1-67). In lieu of this mitigation established in 2016, the Applicant shall instead pay the City water connection fees that are required pursuant to a recent update of the City Municipal Code section 14.08.025 - Water connection fees (see Ord. 6100 § 2, 2019). Section 14.08.025 calculates water connection fees based on a “dwelling unit equivalent” (DUE) wherein the fee amount depends on whether the DUE is designated Low Density Residential or High Density Residential; connection fees are adjusted annually.

To determine if an effect would be significant under CEQA, a lead agency develops or adopts thresholds of significance, either generally or on a case-by-case basis, compliance with which means the impact would be less than significant (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064(b)(2), 15064.7(a)– (b)). Here, the City adopts its water connection fee as the threshold of significance for impacts to water supply (i.e., for “determining whether a project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years”) because it creates a consistent standard by which usage, preservation, and maintenance of the local raw water supply can be measured and controlled to ensure sufficient water supplies are available to serve the Project and the remainder of the City during normal and dry years while not depleting supplies (see Municipal Code § 14.08.025(a); CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7(d); FEIR, p.

4.12.1-39; see also Municipal Code § 14.09.020). Thus, compliance with section 14.08.025 ensures less-than-significant impacts to water supply. Compliance with regulatory programs, such as municipal codes, generally provide sufficient evidence under CEQA that an impact will not have an effect on the environment and therefore does not require mitigation (see Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160). Here, the Applicant must pay the water connection fee before the City will issue building permits for the planned development, therefore, compliance is ensured and impacts to water supply are less than significant—i.e., Impact 4.12.1-1 is reduced to less than significant without mitigation (see Municipal Code § 14.08.025(D); FEIR, p. 4.12.1-40). Further, as stated above, proposed modifications will result in “lower water use” overall (see Utility Systems Updates Technical Memorandum, p. 5).

Mitigation Measures: Proposed Project modifications will not increase the potential for new or more severe significant impacts to utilities and service systems, specifically water supply, because payment of the City water connection fee will ensure potential impacts (Impact 4.12.1-1) remain at a less-than-significant level; therefore no previous mitigation measures apply and no new mitigation is warranted.

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 21 of 24 ends

Conclusion: Proposed Project modifications will not create any significant new or substantially more severe significant impacts to utilities and service systems, specifically water supply; no mitigation is required.

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, 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?
See EIR Section 4.8
(Vegetation and
Wildlife)
See also “Biological
Resources” and
“Purpose and Scope of
Addendum” above
No No No
See EIR Section 4.8
(Vegetation and Wildlife)
See also “Biological
Resources” and “Purpose and
Scope of Addendum” above
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.)
See EIR Sections 4.1
Land Use and
Agriculture), 4.8
(Vegetation and
Wildlife), and 4.12.1
(Public Utilities Water)
See also “Biological
Resources,” “Land Use
and Planning,” “Utilities
and Service Systems,”
and “Purpose and
No No No
See EIR Sections 4.1 Land Use
and Agriculture), 4.8
(Vegetation and Wildlife), and

4.12.1 (Public Utilities Water)
See also “Biological
Resources,” “Land Use and
Planning,” “Utilities and Service
Systems,” and “Purpose and
Scope of Addendum” above

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 22 of 24 ends

Scope of Addendum”
above
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
See EIR Section 4.12.1
(Public Utilities Water)
See also “Utilities and
Service Systems” and
“Purpose and Scope of
Addendum” above
No No No
See also “Utilities and Service
Systems” and “Purpose and
Scope of Addendum” above
2018 CEQA Checklist Update:
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of
an endangered, threatened or rare species,
or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
See above.

Discussion:

This section makes mandatory findings of significance only for those issue areas potentially impacted by proposed Project modifications, as described above and analyzed throughout this addendum. The previously certified EIR discloses all potential environmental impacts, their level of significance, and mitigation measures to reduce significance for the originally proposed Project; mandatory findings of significance for which can be found in Appendix B of the FEIR.

As discussed above in this addendum, no significant new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur as a result of proposed Project modifications, and no new circumstance or information exist that would create significant impacts or require additional analysis.

ADDENDUM
February 2020
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan – North Roseville; 2011PL-039

Page 23 of 24 ends

Mitigation Measures: See measures listed in each issue area discussion for those applicable to proposed Project modifications.

Conclusion: With implementation of applicable mitigation measures identified in the previously certified EIR and listed above under each issue area, proposed Project modifications would create no significant new or substantially more severe significant impacts to the relevant areas within these mandatory findings of significance categories.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Based on analysis conducted in this addendum and in the previously certified EIR, it is determined that implementation of proposed Project modifications, as described in this addendum, would not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts, either directly or as a result of new circumstances or information. The City may take the following actions in compliance with CEQA:
• Adopt the amended ARSP
• Approve the amended land use designations
• Approve the amended zoning designations
• Approve the amended large lot tentative subdivision map • Approve the amended development agreement between City and Applicant • Re-adopt the amended MMRP
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 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 AMORUSO RANCH PROJECT SPECIFIC PLAN Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2013102057, certified on June 15, 2016), 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.
[ 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. [ X ] Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary in order to deem the certified environmental document adequate.

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

1. Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan EIR (available online at https://www.roseville.ca.us under Government/Departments & Divisions/Planning/Specific Plans, Planning Areas & Development Agreements/Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan)

2. Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (Amendment - Change Pages)

3. Utility Systems Updates Technical Memorandum

4. Amended Development Agreement

LAND USE PLAN
4 - 2 | AMORUSO RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
January 2022 March 2020

4.2 Land Use Plan
The land use designations identified in the ARSP are summarized below (Table 4.1), with an accompanying Land Use Map (Figure 4.1) and breakdown by parcel (Table 4.2) on the following pages.

Table 4.1
Land Use Summary
General Plan Land
Use
Applied Zoning
District
Acres % of Total
Acres
Allocated
Units
% of Total
Units
LDR
(Low Density
Residential)
RS 239.34219.0
5 34.4731.55% 12521099
1136
4438.88.29
%
MDR
(Medium Density
Residential)
RS 50.2769.24 7.249.97% 542695 19.1724.58
%
HDR
(High Density
Residential)
R3 3837.1386 5.459% 873 30.88%
Community
Commercial - Village
District
CMU-SA
(Commercial MixedUse - Special Area)

27.2712 3.9391% 159 5.62%
Community
Commercial
CC (Community
Commercial)

23.85 71 3.4341%
Open Space OS 144.19144.5
9 20.7683%
Open Space
(Paseos)
OS 1010.7495 1.5558%
Parks & Recreation PR 22.1419 3.1920%
Public / Quasi Public P/QP (Fire Station) 3.022.95 0.4342% P/QP (Water
Facilities)

1.35 0.1921%
P/QP (Lift Station A) 0.28 0.04%
P/QP (Lift Station B) 0.85 0.12%
P/QP (School) 9.6259 1.3938%
P/QP (Community
Facility)

1.46 0.21%
P/QP (Recycling
Center)

0.65 0.09%
Urban Reserve UR 20.00 2.88% 1 0.04%
Misc. Roads 101.24102.5
7 14.5877%
Total 694.40 100% 2827 100%
Addendum Attachment 3

LAND USE PLAN
4 - 4 | AMORUSO RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
January 2022 March 2020
Table 4.2
Land Use by Parcel Number
Parcel GP Land
Use
Zoning Acres Allocated
Units
Density
AR-1 LDR RS 19.8720.16 6870 3.4247
AR-2 LDR RS 24.9671 97101 3.894.09
AR-3 LDR RS 27.2526 8084 2.943.08
AR-4 LDR RS 7.2119 4131 5.704.30
AR-5 LDR RS 2.7639 1710 6.164.19
AR-6 LDR RS 4.985.37 3425 6.834.66
AR-7 LDR RS 3.1712 1819 5.686.09
AR-8 LDR RS 8.1944 5256 6.356.63
AR-9 LDR RS 6.2226 4042 6.436.70
AR-10 MDR RS 10.6953 138 12.9113.10
AR-11 LDR RS 8.4024 55 38 6.554.61
AR-12 LDR RS 3.3813 2116 6.215.11
AR-13 LDR RS 6.085.39 4030 6.585.57
AR-14 LDR RS 7.0544 4550 6.386.72
AR-15 LDR RS 6.947.43 4549 6.486.59
AR-16 LDR RS 6.8456 4345 6.5586
AR-17 LDR RS 3.5662 2424 6.7462
AR-18 LDR RS 5.0511 3133 6.146.45
AR-19 HDR R3 9.3433 230 24.6364
AR-21 LDRMDR RS 2.3505 1315 5537.33
AR-22 LDR RS 4.346.05 2832 6.455.29
AR-23 LDR RS 2.9375 19 6.4891
AR-24 LDR RS 2.50 1312 5.204.79
AR-25 LDRMDR RS 4.625.29 2838 6.067.18
AR-26 LDR RS 9.7026 5548 5.67.18
AR-27 LDR RS 2.4040 15 6.256.25
AR-28 MDR RS 10.3217 129 12.5069
AR-30 LDR RS 3.332.89 2313 6.914.50
AR-31 LDR RS 4.40 27 6.1413
AR-32 LDRMDR RS 7.7278 5058 6.487.45
AR-33 MDR RS 5.3014 6142 11.518.17
AR-34 LDR RS 3.8221 1914 4.974.37
AR-35 LDR RS 4.5882 2420 5.244.15
AR-36 HDR R3 7.5554 113 14.98
AR-37 LDRMDR RS 5.054.96 2539 5.007.86
AR-38 HDR R3 15.2107 380 24.9825.21
AR-39 MDR RS 7.3581 5466 7.358.45
AR-40 LDR RS 13.5114.42 7181 5.265.62
AR-42 MDR RS 8.377.53 6676 7.8910.10
AR-43 LDR RS 13.6412.12 7882 5.726.76
AR-44 HDR R3 6.035.91 150 24.8825.37
AR-45 MDR RS 8.247.98 94 11.4111.78
AR-46 LDR RS 2.562.38 13 5.085.47
AR-50 P/QP P/QP 9.6259
AR-51 CC-VC CMU-SA 14.2115 91
AR-52 CC-VC CMU-SA 13.0612.97 68
AR-53 CC CC 23.8571
AR-54 P/QP P/QP 3.022.95

LAND USE PLAN
4 - 5 | AMORUSO RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
March 2020January 2022 January 2022
Table 4.2 (continued)
Land Use by Parcel Number
Parcel GP Land
Use
Zoning Acres Allocated
Units
Density
AR-55 P/QP P/QP 1.46
AR-56 P/QP P/QP 0.28
AR-57 P/QP P/QP 0.85
AR-58 P/QP P/QP 1.35
AR-59 P/QP P/QP 0.65
AR-60 P/R P/R 1.28
AR-61 P/R P/R 1.87
AR-62 P/R P/R 10.1134
AR-63 P/R P/R 1.7271
AR-64* P/R P/R 2.1256
AR-66 P/R P/R 3.042.86
AR-67 P/R P/R 2.02
AR70 OS(Paseos) OS 0.5857
AR-71 OS(Paseos) OS 0.335
AR-72 OS(Paseos) OS 0.9898
AR-73 OS(Paseos) OS 0.9897
AR-74 OS(Paseos) OS 0.6059
AR-75 OS(Paseos) OS 0.7684
AR-76 OS(Paseos) OS 0.3633
AR-77 OS(Paseos) OS 0.8594
AR-78 OS(Paseos) OS 0.4649
AR-79 OS(Paseos) OS 0.39
AR-80 OS(Paseos) OS 1.1016
AR-81 OS(Paseos) OS 1.1519
AR-90 OS OS 3.81
AR-91 OS OS 4.1516
AR-92 OS OS 28.70
AR-93 OS OS 2.763.10
AR-94 OS OS 2.30
AR-95 OS OS 2.713
AR-96 OS OS 2.3629
AR-97 OS OS 41.9268
AR-98 OS OS 7.8894
AR-99 OS OS 0.4950
AR-100 OS OS 1.22
AR-101 OS OS 0.9596
AR-102 OS(Paseos) OS 0.6564
AR-103 OS(Paseos) OS 0.6568
AR-104 OS(Paseos) OS 0.8885
AR-105 OS OS 37.9238.19
AR-106 OS OS 0.667
AR-107 OS OS 0.36
AR-108 OS OS 0.6162
AR-109 OS OS 0.77
AR-111 OS OS 0.19
AR-112 OS OS 1.053
AR-113 OS OS 1.8384
AR-114 OS OS 0.55
AR-115 OS OS 0.7273
AR-116 OS OS 0.26

LAND USE PLAN
4 - 6 | AMORUSO RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
January 2022 March 2020
Westbrook
Boulevard

17.9819.54
NAPOTS 49.1650.58
Roads 34.1132.01
Subtotal 674.40 2826
AR-110
Wagner
Parcel
UR UR 20.00 1
Total 694.40 2827
* AR- 64 includes 2.12 ac of dedicated parkland and 0.44 ac of road

4.3 Land Use Designations
Land uses within the ARSP are implemented through the zoning designation assigned to each parcel.

This includes the application of the Development Standards (DS) and Special Area (SA) overlay zones to provide customized Development Standards and permitted uses as allowed by the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Development Standards and Permitted Uses applicable to the Plan Area are provided in Appendix A. Where Appendix A is silent, the permitted uses and development standards established by the City of Roseville’s Zoning Ordinance and Community Design Guidelines shall apply.

The following summarizes the ARSP Land Use designations with descriptions for each Land Use related density and applied zoning districts:

A. Residential Land Uses
The ARSP utilizes three residential land use designations: Low Density Residential (LDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR), and High Density Residential (HDR). This mix of residential land uses and their corresponding range of density support the vision of a community that includes a wide variety of housing types and options. Home types and lot sizes are intended to mix seamlessly together on almost a block by block development pattern.

The mix of housing types addresses future growth anticipated in the City of Roseville and neighboring regions. Approximately 70 percent of ARSP units are designated for low and medium densities and the remaining units, approximately 30 percent are planned as high density units.

The densities and supporting development standards as detailed in Appendix A, provide for the various housing options including conventional detached single family homes on large and small lots, alley loaded homes facing streets, parks or paseos, clusters, duets, townhomes, and apartments. This Specific Plan encourages innovative and unique lot configurations and home types that support the overall vision of the community as an urban village.

Custom Homes
Custom homes may be designated for construction in the northwest area of the ARSP located between Placer Parkway and West Sunset Boulevard. Custom homes are single-family residential units with unique exterior styling and individualized interior floor plans, and each home’s architectural design is distinct from others in the subdivision. Typically, custom homes have detailed architectural features and upscale amenities which give them an appearance and character similar to, or qualitatively exceeding individually designed homes found in the City’s other custom and/or executive housing neighborhoods. If proposed, custom home subdivisions maybe approved through the City’s tentative subdivision map process.
1 of 3
Memorandum
To: City of Roseville Planning, Public Works and Environmental Utilities Attn: Greg Bitter, Planning Manager
Marc Stout, City Engineer
George Hanson, P.E., Principal Engineer
From: Paul Klein, Principal
Jim Fletter, Associate Engineer
Date: February 14, 2022
Subject: Technical Memorandum
Wastewater Master Plan Amendment #3, Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Area

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Amoruso Ranch is a subdivision approved by the City of Roseville (City). A Sewer Master Plan entitled: “Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Area Wastewater Master Plan dated February 2016” (Sewer Study) was prepared as part of the Specific Plan process and approved by the City. The Sewer Study identified size and location of major sewer infrastructure including sewer trunks, manholes, some collectors, and pump station. Subsequently, the City approved the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment dated March 2020 (SPA). This amendment addressed land use changes and relocation of the sewer collection system and trunks over the entire Master Plan area.

Through a technical memo dated June 3, 2021 and subsequently approved by the City, Wood Rodgers recalculated the peak wet weather flow (PWWF) demand throughout the Master Plan area using Roseville sewer design standards and showed that the original master plan overstated the PWWF. This memo is provided in Appendix A.

A subsequent technical memo dated August 17, 2021 amended the sewer layout of the system by relocating trunk segments due to final design of Phase 1 improvement plans.

The City requested that the Sewer Master Plan provide pipe conditions based on minimum slopes identified in the City’s 2020 Design and Construction Manual. The Original approved master plan calculated gravity pipe performance based on slopes exceeding minimums. This technical memo reanalyzes sewer system based on minimum slopes, the most recent land use plan and the Large Lot Tentative Map (LLTM) date September 10, 2021.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
The sewer system layout prepared for the Master Plan provided in Appendix A was not used to develop the sewer layout provided in this Sewer Master Plan Amendment. The entire system was laid out based on the most recent LLTM and land use information. Utilizing the new layout, demand through the system was recalculated. The layout in Appendix B showsthe new demands and pipe sizes. Comparing the demand calculations from the August 17, 2021 tech memo, the new calculations show that the total peak wet weather flow is reduced from 2.818 million gallons per minute (mgd) to 2.725 mgd. Though there were a few pipe size changes, generally the system is configured similarly to original Sewer Master Plan.

Addendum Attachment 4

APPENDIX A

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Amoruso Ranch Central Pump Station and Force Main Sizing J:\3000-S\3651_Amorusoranch\Amorusoranch-Westbrook-Swrfm\Civil\Docs\Memo's\Force Main TM 2021-06-03.Docx1 of 3 Memorandum
To: City of Roseville Planning, Public Works and Environmental Utilities Attn: Greg Bitter, Planning Manager
Marc Stout, City Engineer
Dale Olson, Assistant Environmental Utilities Director
From: Paul Klein, Principal
Jim Fletter, Associate Engineer
Date: June 3, 2021
Subject: Technical Memorandum
Amoruso Ranch Central Pump Station and Force Main Sizing

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Amoruso Ranch is a subdivision approved by the City of Roseville (City). A Sewer Master Plan entitled: “Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Area Wastewater Master Plan dated February 2016” (Sewer Study) was prepared as part of the Specific Plan process and approved by the City. The Sewer Study identified the “Central Sewer Pump Station” needed to serve the subdivision. It also identified dual force mains to convey the pump station flows south along Westbrook Boulevard, through the Creekview Specific Plan Area, and terminating at a junction structure just north of Blue Oaks Boulevard.

Subsequently, the City approved the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment dated March 2020 (SPA). Utilizing this new information, Wood Rodgers identified that the Sewer Study had oversized the pump station and force main when considering the original Specific Plan land use information and the City’s design standards. Upon reevaluating the sewer demand from Amoruso Ranch based on the SPA, we confirmed that the pump station and force mains could be downsized. The original buildout sewer generation was identified as 4.18 million gallonsper-day (mgd) with a force main size of 18-inches; while the updated calculations show a correctsewer generation of 2.83 mgd with an acceptable conveyance force main of 12 inches in diameter.

At this time, Wood Rodgers is preparing improvement plans to construct a portion or the force main in Westbrook Boulevard including the crossing of Pleasant Grove Creek. Due to the potential modification in the sewer generation factor, this Technical Memo has been prepared by Wood Rodgers to present our findings and recommendations for design.

ANALYSIS
Wood Rodgers is preparing improvement plans for the future sewer force main that will serve the Amoruso Ranch Central Sewer Pump Station (pump station). In conformance with the adopted Sewer Study, the force main will be placed within the future Westbrook Boulevard and cross under Pleasant Grove Creek. The Sewer Study identified the ultimate location and size of the pump station and dual force main as shown in the attached Exhibit A.

Wood Rodgers’ reviewed the SPA and prepared calculations for this memo for the wastewater generation project based on the current City standards for calculating sewer demands. These new calculations show that the sewer demand is significantly lower than reported in the Sewer Study; therefore, the Central Pump Station and its force mains can be reduced in size. The Sewer Study determined that buildout sewer demand on the pump station to be 4.18 mgd. Consequently, the proposed force main to convey the wastewater to the downstream gravity discharge point was sized to 18-inch to provide a velocity of 3.2 feet per second (fps). The Sewer Study also proposed a second 12-inch force main to provide sufficient velocities during lower flows prior to buildout and to provide redundancy.

Our reanalysis of that demand, shown in both Table 1 and provided in more detail in Appendix B, concludes that the peak wet weather flow (PWWF) demand using the SPA information will be 2.83 mgd. Along with the SPA land use information, our calculations are based on Section 9 (Sanitary Sewer Design) of the City’s Design Standards dated January 2019.

Table 1: Land Use Data and Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) Land Use Area
(acres)
Dwelling
Units (DU)
Flow Factor1 ADWF
(mgd)
Residential (LDR & MDR) 289.61 1,794 190 per DU 0.341
Residential (HDR) 38.13 873 130 per DU 0.113
Commercial 23.85 850 per acre 0.020
Commercial - Mixed Use 27.27 159 2300 per acre 0.063
Public/Quasi-Public 17.23 660 per acre 0.011
Park 22.14 10 per acre 0.000
Open Space & Paseos 154.93 0 0
Backbone Roads 101.24 0 0
Urban Reserve 20.00 0 0
Toad Hill Estates (LDR)* 316.8 274 190 per DU 0.052
TOTAL 694.4 2,826 0.600
* Toad Hill Estates acreage estimated from record maps and the dwelling units obtained from the Sewer Study.

Calculations: Pump Station/Force Main Demand
A PWWF of 2.83 mgd requires a force main with 12-inch inner diameter to convey flows with a velocity of 5.6 fps.

A secondary 12-inch inner diameter force main can provide redundancy.

CONCLUSION
The original demand calculations in the Sewer Study required a Central Pump Station sized for 4.18 mgd with 18- inch and 12-inch force mains. Based on current information, Wood Rodgers recalculated the demands on the pump station to be 2.83 mgd with dual 12-inch force mains sufficient to reliably convey the wastewater flows within the velocity criteria specified in the City’s current design standards. With concurrence and approval from the City, Wood Rodgers will prepare and submit improvement plans to construct the force main within Westbrook Blvd. and under Pleasant Grove Creek utilizing parallel 12-inch ductile iron force mains, maintaining PWWF velocities of 5.6 fps through a single force main or 2.8 fps through both force mains. In addition, we will prepare a Preliminary Design Report for the Central Lift Station based on a PWWF of 2.83 mgd.

ADWF = 0.600 mgd (see ADWF total from Table 1)
Factored Flow (FF) = 0.600 mgd x 2.0 = 1.200 mgd (ADWF x 2.0 per Design Standards Section 9 Attachment A) Peaking Factor (PF) = 2.36 (per Design Standards Section 9 Figure SS-1) PWWF = 1.200 mgd x 2.36 = 2.83 mgd (FF x PF)
Figure 6: Amoruso Ranch (Wastewater System Pipe Network) Toad Hill
Ranches
Toad Hill
Ranches
6" Sanitary Sewer Pipe
8" Sanitary Sewer Pipe
10" Sanitary Sewer Pipe
12" Sanitary Sewer Pipe
16" Sanitary Sewer Pipe
18" Sanitary Sewer Pipe
24” Sanitary Sewer Pipe
Force Main
LEGEND Connection to Creekview
Force Main continues into
Creekview to node 350
on Westbrook Blvd. as
shown in the Creekview
Specific Plan Sanitary
Sewer Master Plan
Central Pump Station
North Pump Station
Toad Hill Ranch
Connection

EXHIBIT A

APPENDIX A

SEWER DEMAND CALCULATION
Based on Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment dated March 2020

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME
3301 C St, Bldg. 100-B Tel 916.341.7760Sacramento, CA 95816 Fax 916.341.7767 Wood Rodgers, Inc.
6/3/2021
Updated:

QAVG QPWWF
(acres) (DU)2(acres) (DU)2(acres) (acres)3(acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (DU)2(acres) (DU) (mgd) (mgd) Toad Hill B2 316.8 274 316.8 274 316.8 274 0.052 1 0.052 3.42 0.178 B2 B1 72.2 245 0.3 1.3 73.8 245 390.6 519 0.099 2 0.198 2.93 0.578 B1 A0 21.8 134 1.9 23.7 134 414.3 653 0.124 2 0.249 2.80 0.696 A6 A5 15.2 380 23.9 39.0 380 39.0 380 0.070 2 0.139 3.10 0.432 A5 A2.2 10.3 129 9.4 230 10.1 29.8 359 68.8 739 0.124 2 0.248 2.80 0.696 A4 A2.2 42.1 269 2.0 44.1 269 44.1 269 0.051 2 0.102 3.22 0.329 A3 A2.1 8.1 94 5.9 150 6.5 20.5 244 20.5 244 0.042 2 0.083 3.29 0.274 A2.2 A2.1 0 0 112.9 1008 0.175 2 0.351 2.61 0.915
A2.1 A2 0 0 133.4 1252 0.217 2 0.434 2.51 1.087
A2 A1 98.7 678 9.6 5.2 113.5 678 246.9 1930 0.347 2 0.695 2.38 1.650 A1 A0 20.6 149 7.6 113 27.3 55.5 262 302.4 2192 0.454 2 0.908 2.36 2.142 A0 LS 15.8 96 0.8 1.7 18.4 96 735.0 2941 0.597 2 1.194 2.36 2.818 Total 606.4 2068.0 38.1 873.0 23.9 27.3 7.6 9.6 22.1 735.0 2941.0 0.597 2.818 Footnotes:

1. Land use area included in sewer demand calculations exclude major backbone roadways and open space areas.

2. Actual residential and multi-family units as shown on Land Use Map, Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (Amendment), March 2020.

3. Flows from Community Commercial - Village District 159 Allocated Units are accounted for with 2,300 gpd/acre calculation.

4. Toad Hill acreage and dwelling units obtained from approved Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Area Wastewater Master Plan, February 2016.

Total Shed Culmulative
Sheds
LDR & MDR HDR Commercial
Development
Community
Commercial -
Village District
US
Node #
DS
Node #
Amoruso Ranch
Preliminary Sewer Study - Demand
6/3/2021
Parks
Peaking
Factor
School Public /
Quasi Public
Safety
Factor
Factored
Flow
Average Flows, Q Peak Flows, QP
J:\3000-s\3651_AmorusoRanch\AmorusoRanch-OA\Civil\Studies\Sewer\Prelim-OA\Worksheets\Amoruso Prelim OA Sewer Study 2021-06-03.xlsm

APPENDIX B

REVISED SEWER LAYOUT & DEMAND CALCULATIONS

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME
3301 C St, Bldg. 100-B Tel 916.341.7760Sacramento, CA 95816 Fax 916.341.7767 Wood Rodgers, Inc.
10/28/2021
Updated:

QAVG QPWWF Diameter Slope Velocity d/D
(acres) (DU)2(acres) (DU)2(acres) (acres)3(acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (DU)2(acres) (DU) (mgd) (mgd) (inch) (ft/ft) (fps) Toad Hill B2 316.8 274 316.8 274 316.8 274 0.052 1 0.052 3.42 0.178 B2 A2 72.2 245 0.3 1.3 73.8 245 390.6 519 0.099 2 0.198 2.93 0.578 10'' 0.0025 2.24 0.69 B1 A0.5 21.8 134 1.9 23.7 134 23.7 134 0.025 2 0.051 3.42 0.174 8'' 0.0043 2.05 0.40 A6 A5 15.2 380 23.9 39.0 380 39.0 380 0.070 2 0.139 3.10 0.432 10'' 0.0025 2.11 0.56 A5 A2.2 10.3 129 9.4 230 10.1 29.8 359 68.8 739 0.124 2 0.248 2.80 0.696 12'' 0.0020 2.18 0.60 A4 A2.2 42.1 269 2.0 44.1 269 44.1 269 0.051 2 0.102 3.22 0.329 8'' 0.0035 2.23 0.62 A3 A2.1 8.1 94 5.9 150 6.5 20.5 244 20.5 244 0.042 2 0.083 3.29 0.274 8'' 0.0035 2.13 0.56 A2.2 A2.1 112.9 1008 0.175 2 0.351 2.61 0.915 15'' 0.0030 2.72 0.44 A2.1 A1 133.4 1252 0.217 2 0.434 2.51 1.087 15'' 0.0032 2.92 0.48 A2 A0.5 98.7 678 9.6 5.2 113.5 678 504.1 1197 0.229 2 0.458 2.48 1.138 12'' 0.0047 3.39 0.63 A0.5 A0 15.8 96 0.8 1.7 18.4 96 546.1 1427 0.274 3 0.821 2.37 1.942 15'' 0.0043 3.75 0.62 A1 A0 20.6 149 7.6 113 27.3 55.5 262 188.9 1514 0.324 2 0.647 2.38 1.543 15'' 0.0098 4.83 0.42 A0 LS 735.0 2941 0.597 2 1.194 2.36 2.818 12'' 0.0200 6.34 0.48 Total 606.4 2068.0 38.1 873.0 23.9 27.3 7.6 9.6 22.1 735.0 2941.0 0.597 2.818 Footnotes:

1. Land use area included in sewer demand calculations exclude major backbone roadways and open space areas.

2. Actual residential and multi-family units as shown on Land Use Map, Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (Amendment), March 2020.

3. Flows from Community Commercial - Village District 159 Allocated Units are accounted for with 2,300 gpd/acre calculation.

4. Toad Hill acreage and dwelling units obtained from approved Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Area Wastewater Master Plan, February 2016.

Amoruso Ranch
Revise Sewer Layout - Demand
US
Node #
DS
Node #
8/17/2021
Parks
Pipe Data & Performance
(@ QPWWF & Min Slope)
Peaking
Factor
School Public /
Quasi Public
Safety
Factor
Factored
Flow
Average Flows, Q Peak Flows, QP
Total Shed Culmulative
Sheds
LDR & MDR HDR Commercial
Development
Community
Commercial -
Village District
J:\3000-s\3651_AmorusoRanch\AmorusoRanch-OA\Civil\Studies\Sewer\Sewer MP Amendment\Worksheet\Amoruso Prelim OA Sewer Study 2021-10-26.xlsm

APPENDIX B

REVISED SEWER LAYOUT & DEMAND CALCULATIONS

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME
3301 C St, Bldg. 100-B Tel 916.341.7760Sacramento, CA 95816 Fax 916.341.7767 Wood Rodgers, Inc.
2/14/2022
Updated:

QAVG QPWWF Diameter Slope Velocity d/D Rim Depth
(acres) (DU)2(acres) (DU)2(acres) (DU)2(acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (DU)2(acres) (DU) (mgd) (mgd) (inch) (ft/ft) (fps) (Elev.) (feet) TH D1 316.8 274.0 316.8 274.0 316.8 274 0.052 2 0.104 3.22 0.335 8'' 0.0035 2.24 0.63 93.19 23.58 69.61 67.33 D1-1 D1 24.7 108.0 0.9 35.2 108.0 35.2 108 0.021 2 0.041 3.46 0.143 6'' 0.0050 2.07 0.53 100.13 18.66 81.47 72.50 D1-2 D1 20.2 83.0 1.1 21.7 83.0 21.7 83 0.016 2 0.032 3.50 0.112 6'' 0.0050 1.95 0.46 88.62 9.72 78.90 72.50 D1-3 D1 27.3 134.0 0.3 15.0 53.7 134.0 53.7 134 0.028 2 0.057 3.40 0.192 6'' 0.0050 2.22 0.65 88.60 8.00 80.60 72.50 D1 THPS 427.4 599 0.117 2 0.234 2.83 0.663 12'' 0.0020 2.16 0.58 92.20 24.97 67.23 66.00 THPS A5 427.4 599 0.117 2 0.234 2.83 0.663 FORCE MAIN 92.59 8.09 84.50 84.84 A5-1 A5 16.8 189.1 0.7 21.4 189.1 21.4 189 0.036 2 0.072 3.34 0.240 8'' 0.0035 2.07 0.51 98.58 21.96 76.62 72.03 A5 A4 448.8 788 0.153 2 0.306 2.68 0.822 12'' 0.0020 2.26 0.67 94.63 22.93 71.70 70.69 A4-1 A4 8.7 49.0 1.5 11.6 49.0 11.6 49 0.010 2 0.019 3.56 0.068 6'' 0.0050 1.71 0.35 99.98 25.17 74.81 70.65 A4-2 A4 9.3 42.0 0.9 11.4 42.0 11.4 42 0.008 2 0.016 3.57 0.058 6'' 0.0050 1.63 0.32 93.76 18.82 74.94 70.65 A4 A3 471.8 879 0.171 2 0.342 2.62 0.896 12'' 0.0020 2.29 0.72 98.09 27.94 70.15 69.16 A3-1 A3 6.2 32.9 0.8 7.5 32.9 7.5 33 0.006 2 0.013 3.58 0.046 6'' 0.0050 1.53 0.29 99.98 26.84 73.14 69.56 A3-2 A3 11.1 46.8 0.5 11.7 46.8 11.7 47 0.009 2 0.018 3.56 0.064 6'' 0.0050 1.68 0.34 90.98 18.26 72.72 69.56 A3 A2 491.0 959 0.186 2 0.372 2.58 0.960 12'' 0.0020 2.31 0.76 98.88 29.82 69.06 68.28 A2-1 A2 4.8 22.9 0.8 5.6 22.9 5.6 23 0.004 2 0.009 3.60 0.032 6'' 0.0050 1.38 0.24 98.34 27.43 70.91 68.02 A2-2 A2 6.9 38.2 0.3 7.4 38.2 7.4 38 0.007 2 0.015 3.58 0.052 6'' 0.0050 1.59 0.31 90.09 19.02 71.07 68.02 A2 A1.5 504.0 1020 0.198 2 0.396 2.55 1.009 12'' 0.0020 2.32 0.80 95.88 28.36 67.52 66.99 A1.5-1 A1.5 3.6 18.8 3.6 18.8 3.6 19 0.004 2 0.007 3.61 0.026 6'' 0.0050 1.30 0.21 97.62 27.23 70.39 67.39 A1.5-2 A1.5 5.4 29.5 0.2 5.7 29.5 5.7 30 0.006 2 0.011 3.59 0.041 6'' 0.0050 1.47 0.27 89.80 17.92 71.88 67.39 A1.5 A1 513.4 1068 0.207 2 0.414 2.53 1.047 12'' 0.0020 See Note 5 1.00 95.81 28.92 66.89 66.38 A1-1 A1 5.2 33.2 0.5 5.9 33.2 5.9 33 0.006 2 0.013 3.58 0.046 6'' 0.0050 1.53 0.29 94.23 24.40 69.83 66.78 A1-2 A1 3.9 25.4 0.4 4.5 25.4 4.5 25 0.005 2 0.010 3.60 0.035 6'' 0.0050 1.41 0.25 91.28 22.35 68.93 66.78 A1 A0.5 523.7 1127 0.218 2 0.437 2.50 1.093 12'' 0.0020 See Note 5 1.00 93.51 27.23 66.28 65.69 A0.5-1 A0.5 0.9 1.7 3.1 3.1 0.001 2 0.002 3.64 0.006 6'' 0.0050 0.84 0.11 86.28 18.19 68.09 66.19 B3-1 B3 10.8 48.0 2.5 19.4 48.0 19.4 48 0.010 2 0.019 3.56 0.068 6'' 0.0050 1.70 0.35 92.58 9.38 83.20 78.57 B3 B2 19.4 48 0.010 2 0.019 3.56 0.068 6'' 0.0050 1.70 0.35 91.32 12.85 78.47 76.37 B2-1 B2 3.4 18.3 3.6 10.0 18.3 10.0 18 0.004 2 0.008 3.61 0.030 6'' 0.0050 1.34 0.23 88.10 11.15 76.95 74.13 B2 B1 29.3 66 0.014 2 0.027 3.52 0.096 6'' 0.0050 1.87 0.42 88.04 14.01 74.03 72.79 B1-1 B1 15.4 68.9 1.2 18.6 68.9 18.6 69 0.013 2 0.027 3.52 0.094 6'' 0.0050 1.86 0.42 83.59 9.94 73.65 69.84 B1-2 B1 7.5 33.7 1.1 12.0 33.7 12.0 34 0.007 2 0.013 3.58 0.047 6'' 0.0050 1.53 0.29 87.86 13.88 73.98 69.84 B1 B0.5 59.9 169 0.034 2 0.067 3.36 0.225 8'' 0.0035 2.04 0.49 85.72 16.05 69.67 67.96 B0.5-1 B0.5 4.4 23.3 0.8 5.6 23.3 5.6 23 0.005 2 0.009 3.60 0.033 6'' 0.0050 1.38 0.24 88.35 16.73 71.62 69.49 B0.5 A0.5 65.6 192 0.038 2 0.076 3.32 0.253 8'' 0.0035 2.09 0.53 87.34 19.48 67.86 66.02 C8.5-1 C8.5 15.1 380.0 0.0 19.1 380.0 19.1 380 0.049 2 0.099 3.24 0.320 8'' 0.0035 2.21 0.61 102.74 20.57 82.17 77.78 C8.5 C8.3 19.1 380 0.049 2 0.099 3.24 0.320 8'' 0.0035 2.21 0.61 106.60 28.92 77.68 75.30 C8.3-1 C8.3 23.7 34.8 34.8 0.020 2 0.040 3.46 0.140 6'' 0.0050 2.06 0.53 101.24 19.34 81.90 75.47 C8.3 C8 53.9 380 0.070 2 0.139 3.10 0.432 10'' 0.0025 2.11 0.56 100.53 25.39 75.14 73.14 C8-1 C8 10.3 22.9 22.9 0.002 2 0.004 3.63 0.014 6'' 0.0050 1.06 0.16 102.06 24.10 77.96 73.38 C8 C7 76.9 380 0.072 2 0.143 3.09 0.442 10'' 0.0025 2.12 0.57 98.77 25.73 73.04 71.42 C7.5-1 C7.5 14.4 82.0 15.5 82.0 15.5 82 0.016 2 0.031 3.50 0.109 6'' 0.0050 1.94 0.46 102.36 15.49 86.87 81.58 C7.5 C7.3 15.5 82 0.016 2 0.031 3.50 0.109 6'' 0.0050 1.94 0.46 105.44 23.96 81.48 76.34 C7.3-1 C7.3 7.8 66.0 1.0 10.5 66.0 10.5 66 0.013 2 0.025 3.53 0.090 6'' 0.0050 1.84 0.41 102.19 21.93 80.26 76.34 US
Invert
DS
Invert
Pipe Data & Performance
(@ QPWWF & Min Slope)
Upstream
Total Shed Manhole Data Culmulative
Sheds
Average Flows, Q Peak Flows, QP
School
Amoruso Ranch
Revise Sewer Layout - Demand
11/4/2021
US
Node #
DS
Node #
LDR & MDR HDR Commercial &
Community
Commercial
Public /
Quasi Public
Safety
Factor
Factored
Flow
Peaking
Factor
Parks &
Open
Space
J:\3000-s\3651_AmorusoRanch\AmorusoRanch-OA\Civil\Studies\Sewer\Sewer MP Amendment\Worksheet\Amoruso Prelim OA Sewer Study 2021-02-14.xlsm Wood Rodgers, Inc.
2/14/2022
QAVG QPWWF Diameter Slope Velocity d/D Rim Depth
(acres) (DU)2(acres) (DU)2(acres) (DU)2(acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (DU)2(acres) (DU) (mgd) (mgd) (inch) (ft/ft) (fps) (Elev.) (feet) US
Invert
DS
Invert
Pipe Data & Performance
(@ QPWWF & Min Slope)
Upstream
Total Shed Manhole Data Culmulative
Sheds
Average Flows, Q Peak Flows, QP
US School
Node #
DS
Node #
LDR & MDR HDR Commercial &
Community
Commercial
Public /
Quasi Public
Safety
Factor
Factored
Flow
Peaking
Factor
Parks &
Open
Space
C7.3 C7 25.9 148 0.028 2 0.057 3.40 0.192 6'' 0.0050 2.22 0.65 103.25 27.01 76.24 71.75 C7-1 C7 9.3 230.1 11.9 230.1 11.9 230 0.030 2 0.060 3.38 0.202 6'' 0.0050 2.24 0.67 101.13 24.61 76.52 71.75 C7-2 C7 9.6 0.5 11.8 11.8 0.002 2 0.003 3.63 0.012 6'' 0.0050 1.04 0.15 98.60 22.49 76.11 71.75 C7 C6 126.5 758 0.131 2 0.263 2.77 0.728 12'' 0.0020 2.20 0.62 100.11 28.86 71.25 69.84 C6-1 C6 10.2 84.0 12.9 84.0 12.9 84 0.016 2 0.032 3.50 0.112 6'' 0.0050 1.95 0.46 105.21 30.04 75.17 70.29 C6 C5 139.4 842 0.147 2 0.295 2.71 0.798 12'' 0.0020 2.24 0.66 99.14 29.35 69.79 68.84 C5.7-1 C5.7 12.1 68.0 13.0 68.0 13.0 68 0.013 2 0.026 3.53 0.091 6'' 0.0050 1.85 0.41 99.42 16.36 83.06 78.27 C5.7-2 C5.7 3.6 2.0 6.7 6.7 0.003 2 0.005 3.62 0.020 6'' 0.0050 1.19 0.19 94.78 14.32 80.46 78.27 C5-2 C5 1.5 6.1 1.9 3.6 6.1 3.6 6 0.001 2 0.003 3.63 0.011 6'' 0.0050 0.99 0.14 96.43 24.89 71.54 69.34 C5.7 C5.5 19.7 68 0.016 2 0.031 3.50 0.110 6'' 0.0050 1.94 0.46 92.52 14.35 78.17 76.78 C5.5-1 C5.5 7.5 61.0 1.0 10.1 61.0 10.1 61 0.012 2 0.024 3.54 0.083 6'' 0.0050 1.80 0.39 100.96 25.31 75.65 72.14 C5.5 C5 38.7 242 0.043 2 0.086 3.28 0.281 8'' 0.0035 2.15 0.56 99.95 27.98 71.97 69.18 C5-1 C5.5 7.5 113.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 113.0 9.0 113 0.015 2 0.031 3.50 0.108 6'' 0.0050 1.94 0.45 99.72 23.70 76.02 72.14 C5 C4 181.7 1090 0.192 2 0.383 2.56 0.983 15'' 0.0015 2.14 0.56 96.56 27.97 68.59 67.98 C4.7-1 C4.7 2.8 1.8 5.6 5.6 0.002 2 0.004 3.62 0.016 6'' 0.0050 1.12 0.17 93.02 14.27 78.75 76.51 C4.7 C4.5 5.6 0.002 2 0.004 3.62 0.016 6'' 0.0050 1.12 0.17 92.24 15.83 76.41 72.68 C4.5-1 C4.5 5.9 150.0 7.3 150.0 7.3 150 0.020 2 0.039 3.47 0.135 6'' 0.0050 2.05 0.52 97.84 21.80 76.04 72.68 C4.5-2 C4.5 8.0 94.0 9.6 94.0 9.6 94 0.018 2 0.036 3.48 0.124 6'' 0.0050 2.00 0.49 92.79 16.71 76.08 72.68 C4.5 C4.3 22.5 244 0.040 2 0.079 3.31 0.262 8'' 0.0035 2.11 0.54 96.38 23.86 72.52 70.83 C4.3-1 C4.3 14.3 135.4 16.7 16.7 0.030 2 0.059 3.39 0.201 6'' 0.0050 2.23 0.67 96.11 21.80 74.31 70.90 C4.3 C4 39.2 244 0.069 2 0.139 3.10 0.429 8'' 0.0035 2.33 0.76 97.30 26.57 70.73 68.52 C4-1 C4 13.0 61.8 14.4 14.4 0.019 2 0.038 3.47 0.132 6'' 0.0050 2.03 0.51 101.89 28.64 73.25 68.68 C4 C3 235.3 1334 0.280 2 0.560 2.41 1.351 15'' 0.0015 2.29 0.70 93.12 25.19 67.93 67.45 C3-1 C3 1.5 6.7 1.6 3.3 6.7 3.3 7 0.002 2 0.003 3.63 0.011 6'' 0.0050 1.00 0.14 95.04 25.16 69.88 68.15 C3-2 C3 3.4 28.1 4.2 28.1 4.2 28 0.005 2 0.011 3.59 0.038 6'' 0.0050 1.45 0.26 92.96 20.64 72.32 68.15 C3 C2 242.9 1369 0.287 2 0.574 2.41 1.381 15'' 0.0015 2.29 0.71 90.46 23.06 67.40 66.94 C2-1 C2 9.4 47.5 1.3 11.3 47.5 11.3 48 0.009 2 0.019 3.56 0.066 6'' 0.0050 1.69 0.35 99.21 25.98 73.23 67.64 C2-2 C2 9.1 69.2 1.1 11.0 69.2 11.0 69 0.013 2 0.027 3.52 0.094 6'' 0.0050 1.86 0.42 92.55 20.46 72.09 67.64 C2 C1 265.2 1486 0.309 2 0.619 2.39 1.480 15'' 0.0015 2.32 0.75 88.89 22.00 66.89 66.40 C1.5-1 C1.5 5.4 41.7 1.1 7.4 41.7 7.4 42 0.008 2 0.016 3.57 0.058 6'' 0.0050 1.63 0.32 94.93 17.99 76.94 74.81 C1.5 C1.3 7.4 42 0.008 2 0.016 3.57 0.058 6'' 0.0050 1.63 0.32 92.44 17.73 74.71 70.54 C1.3-1 C1.3 2.5 12.0 0.8 3.5 12.0 3.5 12 0.002 2 0.005 3.62 0.017 6'' 0.0050 1.14 0.18 90.40 18.40 72.00 70.59 C1.3 C1 10.9 54 0.011 2 0.021 3.55 0.075 6'' 0.0050 1.75 0.37 88.18 17.69 70.49 68.08 C1 A0 276.1 1539 0.320 2 0.640 2.39 1.527 15'' 0.0015 2.32 0.77 87.35 21.00 66.35 65.31 A0.5 A0 592.4 1319 0.257 2 0.515 2.44 1.255 15'' 0.0015 2.26 0.66 87.33 21.89 65.44 65.31 A0 PS 868.5 2859 0.577 2 1.155 2.36 2.725 24'' 0.0010 2.37 0.55 86.85 86.85 64.47 PS FM 868.5 2859 0.577 2 1.155 2.36 2.725 FORCE MAIN 88.30 32.90 55.40 Total 605.2 1985.5 37.9 873.2 51.0 197.2 7.5 9.6 176.9 991.1 2858.7 0.577 2.725 Footnotes:

1. Land use area included in sewer demand calculations exclude major backbone roadways and open space areas.

2. Actual residential and multi-family units as shown on Amoruso Ranch Lotting Study, August 17, 2020.

3. Flows from Commercial & Community Commercial Allocated Units are accounted for with 2,300 gpd/acre and 130 gpd/DU calculation.

4. Toad Hill acreage and dwelling units obtained from approved Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Area Wastewater Master Plan, February 2016.

5. d/D exceeds 1.0 at minimum slope. See subdivision improvement plans for actual slope (S=0.0043, max d/D=0.63, velocity=3.24 fps).

J:\3000-s\3651_AmorusoRanch\AmorusoRanch-OA\Civil\Studies\Sewer\Sewer MP Amendment\Worksheet\Amoruso Prelim OA Sewer Study 2021-02-14.xlsm Wood Rodgers, Inc.

K. Wrightson
6/22/2021
Land Use Planning Land Use1
Abbreviation/ Zoning
Total
Area
(Acres)
Dwelling
Unit
Count
Average
Daily
Demand
with 2%
(gpm)
Average
Annual
Demand
with 2%
(AFY)
Total
Area
(Acres)
Dwelling
Unit
Count
Average
Daily
Demand
with 2%
(gpm)
Average
Annual
Demand
with 2%
(AFY)
LDR1: < 3.5 DU's/Acre LDR 47.12 148 728 gpd/DU 76.3 123.1 47.42 154 728 gpd/DU 79.4 128.1 LDR2: >3.5 to 5.0 DU's/Acre LDR 28.82 116 600 gpd/DU 49.3 79.5 61.28 263 600 gpd/DU 111.8 180.3 LMDR1: > 5.0 to 6.0 Du's/Acre LDR 73.31 401 521 gpd/DU 148.0 238.7 43.1 235 521 gpd/DU 86.7 139.9 LMDR2: > 6.0 to 8.0 DU's/Acre2
LDR 99.52 637 430 gpd/DU 194.0 313.0 67.22 447 430 gpd/DU 136.1 219.6 LMDR2: > 6.0 to 8.0 DU's/Acre2 MDR 15.72 120 430 gpd/DU 36.6 59.0 20.13 150 430 gpd/DU 45.7 73.7 MDR: > 8.0 to 12.0 DU's/Acre MDR 13.54 155 323 gpd/DU 35.5 57.2 28.45 278 323 gpd/DU 63.6 102.6 HDR1: > 12.0 to 16.0 DU's/Acre2 MDR 21.01 267 288 gpd/DU 54.5 87.9 20.7 267 288 gpd/DU 54.5 87.9 HDR1: > 12.0 to 16.0 DU's/Acre2
HDR 7.55 113 288 gpd/DU 23.1 37.2 7.54 113 288 gpd/DU 23.1 37.2 HDR2: > 16.0 DU's/Acre HDR 30.58 760 177 gpd/DU 95.3 153.7 30.31 760 177 gpd/DU 95.3 153.7 Commercial / Retail (Commercial) CMU/CC 51.12 0 2,598 gpd/acre 94.1 151.7 50.95 2,598 gpd/acre 93.8 151.2 Commercial / Retail (Residential) CMU-SA - 109 288 gpd/DU 22.2 35.9 - 159 288 gpd/DU 32.4 52.3 Elementary Schools P/QP 9.62 0 3,454 gpd/acre 23.5 38.0 9.59 3,454 gpd/acre 23.5 37.8 Public (Fire Station, Utility, etc.) P/QP 7.61 0 1,780 gpd/acre 9.6 15.5 7.54 1,780 gpd/acre 9.5 15.3 Park/Recreation PR 22.14 0 2,988 gpd/acre 46.9 75.6 22.21 2,988 gpd/acre 47.0 75.8 Open Space (General) OS 37.24 0 - gpd/acre 0.0 0.0 24.02 - gpd/acre 0.0 0.0 Open Space (Paseos) OS 10.71 0 2,988 gpd/acre 22.7 36.6 11 2,988 gpd/acre 23.3 37.6 Open Space (Preserve) OS 97.58 0 0 gpd/acre 0.0 0.0 120.68 0 gpd/acre 0.0 0.0 Rights-of-Way ROW 52.04 0 0 gpd/acre 0.0 0.0 51.64 0 gpd/acre 0.0 0.0 Not a Part of this Subdivision NAPOTS 49.16 0 0 gpd/acre 0.0 0.0 50.59 0 gpd/acre 0.0 0.0 Urban Reserve UR 20 1 728 gpd/DU 0.5 0.8 20 1 728 gpd/DU 0.5 0.8 694.4 2,827.0 - 931.9 1,503.2 694.4 2,827.0 - 926.1 1,493.9

1. City of Roseville Planning Department land use designations for residential are as follows:

Low Density Residential (LDR): 0.5 - 6.9 DU's / Acre
Medium Density Residential (MDR): 7.0 - 12.9 DU's / Acre High Density Residential (HDR): 13.0 DU's / Acre and above

2. This water land use category includes two City planning land use categories.

Water Master Plan, February 2016
Totals
Unit Demand
Factor
Specific Plan Amendment, June 2021
Unit Demand
Factor
J:\3000-s\3651_AmorusoRanch\AmorusoRanch-OA\Civil\Studies\Water\Worksheets\2021_SPA_Table-2 1 of 1 Addendum Attachment 5
RESOLUTION NO. 22-101

AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ON

CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
WHEREAS, a proposal has been submitted to amend the General Plan 2035 – Land Use Map and tables of the City of Roseville for that portion of certain real property within the City of Roseville known as Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (ARSP) 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 reconfigure parcels throughout the ARSP, as shown in Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the General Plan on March 24, 2022; 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 second Addendum to the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2013102057, certified June 15, 2016); and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Roseville desires to approve said amendments to the Roseville General Plan as conducive to public interest, health, safety and welfare, and consistent with the land use practices of the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville that the amendments changing the Land Use Map and the text within the Land Use Element (attached as Exhibit B) are hereby adopted.

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 22-102

AMENDING THE AMORUSO RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, a proposal has been submitted to amend the land use designations of certain parcels of the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan to: change the land use for Parcels AR-21, AR-25, AR-32, and AR-37 from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR); adjust the acreage, unit allocation, density, and configuration of LDR Parcels AR-1 through AR-9, AR-11 through AR-18, AR-22, AR-24, AR-26, AR-27, AR-30, AR-34, AR-35, AR-40, and AR-43; adjust the acreage, unit allocation, density, and configuration of MDR Parcels AR-10, AR-28, AR-33, AR-39, and AR-42; adjust the acreage, density, and configuration for High Density Residential (HDR) Parcel AR-19, AR-36, AR-38, and AR-44; adjust the acreage and configuration for Public/Quasi Public Parcels AR-50 and AR-54; adjust the acreage and configuration for Commercial Parcels AR-51 through AR-53, adjust the acreage and configuration of Parks and Recreation Parcels AR-62 through AR-64, AR-66, and AR-67; adjust the acreage and configuration of Open Space Parcels AR-70 through AR-78, AR-80, AR81, AR-91, AR-93, AR-95 through AR-99, AR-101 through AR-106, AR-108, AR-112, AR-113, AR-115, and adjust the acreage for Westbrook Boulevard right-of-way and roads throughout the Specific Plan, as shown in Exhibit B, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, a proposal for a Specific Plan Amendment has been submitted to modify the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan figures and text based on the land use changes, and to update the text and figures regarding on and off-site wetland resource preservation, public utilities, and other minor adjustments, as shown in Exhibit C, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan on March 24, 2022; and WHEREAS, on April 20, 2022, the City Council considered an Addendum to the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2013102057, certified June 15, 2016); and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the adopted City of Roseville General Plan, as proposed and revised; 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 Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville that the amendments changing the specific plan land use designations and specific plan text within the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (attached as Exhibits B and C) are hereby adopted.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
City Clerk
2 ORDINANCE NO.

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

CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED

WITHIN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

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

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

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

SECTION 2. Section 19.06.020 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roseville, Ordinance No. 5428, is amended to change the zoning of that portion of certain real property within the City of Roseville known as the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (ARSP), as shown and so designated in Exhibit “B”, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, to adjust the acreage and configuration of zoning boundaries for Small Lot Residential (RS) Parcels AR-1 through AR-9, AR-11 through AR-16, AR-18, AR-21, AR-22, AR-24 through AR-26, AR-30, AR32 through AR-35, AR-37, AR-39, AR-40, AR-42 and AR-43; adjust the acreage and configuration for Multifamily Residential (R3) Parcels AR-19, AR-36, AR-38, and AR-44; adjust the acreage and configuration for Public/Quasi Public Parcels (P/QP) AR-50 and AR-54; adjust the acreage and configuration for Commercial Parcels (CMU-SA and CC) AR-51 through AR-53, adjust the acreage and configuration of Parks and Recreation (P/R) Parcels AR-62 through AR-64, AR-66, and AR-67; adjust the acreage and configuration of Open Space (OS) Parcels AR-70 through AR-78, AR-80, AR-81, AR-91, AR-93, AR-95 through AR-99, AR-101 through AR-106, AR-108, AR-112, AR113, AR-115, and adjust the acreage for Westbrook Boulevard right-of-way and roads throughout the Specific Plan.

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

SECTION 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause this ordinance to be published in full at least once within fourteen (14) days after it is adopted in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, or shall within fourteen (14) days after its adoption cause this ordinance to be posted in full in at least three (3) public places in the City and enter in the Ordinance Book a certificate stating the time and place of said publication 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:
[C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\A0F167F6-E346-45F1-A803-F7EC9D7330CA\Roseville.29445.1.Ordinance_-_Rezone.doc: 3/31/22] 2 NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
___________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________________
City Clerk

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

CC 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
ORDINANCE NO.

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

ADOPTING A 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 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, Brookfield Sunset, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Brookfield”), and Jennifer M. Amoruso, Successor Trustee of the Amoruso Family Living Trust Dated March 14, 2005 (“Amoruso”)(collectively, “Landowner”), pertaining to the property located within the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan area (525.7 acres).

SECTION 2. Prior to considering the proposed Second Amendment to Development Agreement, the City Council considered the Addendum to the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified on June 15, 2016, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.

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

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

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

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

4. The Second Amendment to 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 Development Agreement will provide sufficient benefit to the City to justify entering into said Amendment; [C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\CECAF2A5-E8B6-4162-B4B8-4CDFC71B6A04\Roseville.29502.1.Ordinance_- _Second_Amendment_to_Development_Agreement_(525.7_acres).doc: 4/5/22] 2 SECTION 4. The Second Amendment to Development Agreement, by and between the City of Roseville, Brookfield Sunset, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Brookfield”), and Jennifer M. Amoruso, Successor Trustee of the Amoruso Family Living Trust, Dated March 14, 2005, pertaining to the property located within the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan area (525.7 acres), 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.

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
1 SECOND AMENDMENT OF 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
This Second Amendment of Development Agreement (“Second Amendment”) is entered into this ____ day of __________, 2022, by and between the CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a municipal corporation (“City”), BROOKFIELD SUNSET, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Brookfield”), BROOKFIELD SACRAMENTO HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, (“Brookfield Sacramento”), and ANGELA EISENPRESS, Successor Trustee of the Amoruso Family Living Trust Dated March 14, 2005 (“Amoruso”)(collectively, “Landowner”), pursuant to Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the Government Code of the State of California.

RECITALS
A. Landowner and City entered into a Development Agreement (the “Development Agreement”) which was approved by the City Council of City on July 6, 2016, and recorded on August 24, 2016, in the Official Records of Placer County as Document No. 2016-0070351-00. City and Landowner entered into the Development Agreement relative to development within a portion of the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”, “ARSP”, or “Plan Area”), as such is more precisely described in Exhibits “A” and “B” of the Development Agreement (the “Property”), as those exhibits are amended by Exhibits “A” and “B” attached hereto. Except as otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Development Agreement.

B. Landowner and City entered into a First Amendment to the Development Agreement (the “First Amendment”) which was approved by the City Council of City on April 1, 2020, and recorded on January 28, 2021, in the Official Records of Placer County as Document No. 2021-0012079-00.

C. Since approval of the Development Agreement, Brookfield Sacramento has become the fee title owner of a portion of the Property, as shown in Exhibit “D”

CC EXHIBIT D
2 attached to the First Amendment, and Brookfield remains under contract to purchase the balance of the Property from Amoruso, with all persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property being bound by the Development Agreement and this Second Amendment.

D. Concurrent with its consideration of this Second Amendment, City is processing a General Plan Amendment (Resolution No. ______), a Specific Plan Amendment (Resolution No. _______), a Rezone (Ordinance No. ________), and a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM ______) for purposes of revising land use entitlements on the Property. City and Landowner wish to enter into this Second Amendment in order to provide consistency with these land use approvals.

E. 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. The following section and exhibits of the Development Agreement are hereby amended as follows:
a. REVISED SECTION 2.2. Section 2.2 of the Development Agreement is revised in its entirety to read as follows:
“2.2 Vested Entitlements. Subject to the provisions and conditions of this Agreement, City agrees that City is granting, and grants herewith, a fully vested entitlement and right to develop the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Entitlements, including, but not limited to, allocation of residential units to residentially designated parcels in the Specific Plan, minimum lot sizes, street locations and configurations in any approved tentative subdivision maps, and allocation of building square footage to commercially designated parcels in the Specific Plan. City acknowledges that the Entitlements include the following Specific Plan land use designations and approximate gross acreages for all land uses for the Property as shown in the Specific Plan Land Plan in Exhibit "E", attached hereto and summarized below:

Low Density Residential 1,099 units on 219.1 Gross Acres; Medium Density Residential 695 units on 69.3 Gross Acres; High Density Residential 873 units on 37.9 Gross Acres; Community Commercial 23.7 Gross Acres;
Community Commercial/Village District 159 units on 27.2 Gross Acres; 3 Park 22.2 Gross Acres;
Open Space 144.6 Gross Acres;
Open Space (Paseos) 11.0 Gross Acres;
School 9.6 Gross Acres;
Public/Quasi Public 7.5 Gross Acres;
Right of Way 51.7 Gross Acres;
NAPOTS (Placer Parkway) 50.6 Gross Acres.

TOTAL 674.4 Gross Acres
Such uses shall be developed in accordance with the Entitlements, as such Entitlements provide on the Effective Date of this Agreement. Landowner’s vested right to proceed with the development of the Property shall be subject to subsequent approvals, provided that any conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for such subsequent approvals shall not prevent development of the Property for the uses set forth in the Entitlements, and as more fully set forth in Section 2.4.1 below.”
b. REVISED SECTION 3.7.3. Section 3.7.3 of the Development Agreement is revised in its entirety to read as follows:
“3.7.3 Groundwater Well.

3.7.3.1 Parcel Dedication. Landowner shall dedicate to City Parcel AR-58 for City facilities, including a groundwater well, at the approximate location shown on Exhibit "L". Landowner shall construct frontage improvements for Parcel AR-58, including water, recycled water, wastewater, storm drainage, electric and communication fiber conduit.

3.7.3.2 Well Construction Requirements. As shown in Exhibits “L” and “N”, the water facilities site shall be constructed adjacent to the 24” water line to be constructed in Road B, and be connected to that 24” water line with a 16” water line within Road A, or other pipe sizes as may be approved by City’s Environmental Utilities Director pursuant to updated water studies. Landowner shall install a test well in a location mutually agreed upon by Landowner and City to determine if the well location utilized meets desired capacity and water quality. If the desired capacity and water quality are confirmed by the test well, Landowner shall be responsible for drilling and completing the production well (but not above ground well improvements such as pumping and treatment facilities) as further described below (the “Well Construction Requirements”).

City shall be responsible for the construction and costs of above ground production well (topside) improvements such as pumping and treatment facilities. It is the intent of this section (and the Parties) that the groundwater well location identified within the Project shall be capable of achieving a yield of 4 approximately 1,800 gallons per minute, be designed for Aquifer Storage and Recovery, and the groundwater water is of such quality that only disinfection will be required to meet California Drinking Water Quality Standards. Should the City determine the available capacity or water quality does not achieve these objectives, Landowner shall, at its own cost, work with the City to relocate the well site within the Project to an alternative site mutually agreed to by City and Landowner until these objectives are satisfied.

Landowner shall contact the City Environmental Utilities Department prior to design and construction of the production well. The production well shall be in operation at the time of occupancy of the 1,250th residential unit in the Project. Landowner shall receive approval from the City of the well design and drilling method prior to commencement of this work. In addition, notwithstanding the foregoing, the well shall be drilled prior to the time of occupancy of any residential units within 500 feet of the well site. Landowner shall include noise curtains for the well if at the time of construction of the well homes are occupied between 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the well.

If City determines that the production well is required prior to the occupancy of the 1,250th residential unit in the Project, City has the right to construct the test well and the production well. Landowner shall reimburse City for the actual cost of the below ground improvements for the test well and production well, as set forth above, including annual CCI adjustments of such costs, upon occupancy of the 1,250th residential unit in the Project. If City constructs the test well and production well prior to the occupancy of the 1,250th residential unit in the Project, Landowner agrees to construct an all weather access roadway within either the Road A or Road B RoW and all associated infrastructure necessary to serve Parcel AR-58 as specified in this Section 3.7.3 within one (1) year of notification from City if Road B has not otherwise already been constructed by Landowner.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the City adopts a revised water connection fee which encompasses the cost of the Well Construction Requirements, Landowner shall be relieved of the Well Construction Requirements set forth in this Section 3.7.3.2.

Landowner shall, prior to the issuance of the first building permit in the Project phase where an existing well is located, destroy the well or wells in that particular Project phase from among the two existing agriculture irrigation wells and one domestic well in the Project Area. Landowner shall obtain from City a Well Permit and follow the California Well Standards for the destruction of the wells on the Property. All construction plans shall be designed pursuant to City’s then current Standards and mutually agreed to by Landowner and the 5 Environmental Utilities Director, and subject to City plan review, construction inspection and final approval. Landowner shall pay the then current plan check, mapping and inspection costs as incurred by City for review, mapping, and inspection of the destruction of the wells.”
c. REVISED SECTION 3.8.8. Section 3.8.8 of the Development Agreement is revised in its entirety to read as follows:
“3.8.8. Water Service Area Boundary Modification. Landowner shall reimburse City for all costs associated with modifying City’s service area boundary to include the Project with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. There shall be no delay or refusal to issue building permits in the Project by City while City is modifying the service area boundary to include the Project.”
d. REVISED SECTION 3.9.2. The third and fourth paragraphs of Section 3.9.2 of the Development Agreement are revised in their entirety to read as follows:
“Landowner shall likewise be required to contribute its pro-rata share of the cost of expansion of the WRSP recycled water tank and pump station located north of the Pleasant Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant that is required to serve the WRSP, as set forth in Section 3.27 and 3.28 of this Agreement, and as set forth in Exhibits “Q-1” and “Q-2”. Landowner’s pro-rata share of the cost of expansion of the WRSP recycled water tank and pump station referenced herein, estimated at $2.287 million, shall be paid though the CFD for the Project, with payment from the CFD not required until after the 1,250th building permit is issued in the Project.

If City institutes a recycled water connection fee, or such fee is embedded into City’s revised water connection fee (which encompasses the estimated $2.287 million for expansion of the WRSP recycled water tank and pump station described in the preceding paragraph), prior to the issuance of any building permits in the Project, Landowner shall not be responsible for the payment of the estimated $2.287 million pro-rata share of the cost of the expansion of the WRSP recycled water tank and pump station except through the payment of the City recycled water connection fee, or City’s revised water connection fee if a recycled water connection fee is embedded into City’s revised water connection fee, or any special benefit fees as may be applicable to the Project to fund the expansion of the WRSP recycled water tank and pump station.” e. REVISED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits attached to the Development Agreement are replaced by new exhibits attached to this Second Amendment as follows:

Exhibit A Property Legal Description
6 Exhibit B Property Map
Exhibit C Annexation Area and Plan Area
Exhibit D Specific Plan Property Ownership
Exhibit E Land Use Plan
Exhibit F Affordable Housing Sites
Exhibit G Phasing Plan
Exhibit H Road Improvements
Exhibit H-1 Offsite Road Facilities for Reimbursement
Exhibit I Traffic Signals
Exhibit J-1 Wastewater Facilities
Exhibit J-2 Wastewater Facilities
Exhibit K-1 Offsite Wastewater Facilities for Reimbursement Exhibit L Groundwater Well
Exhibit M Water Conservation Plan
Exhibit N Water Facilities
Exhibit O-1 Water Facilities for Reimbursement
Exhibit O-2 Offsite Water Facilities for Reimbursement
Exhibit P Recycled Water Facilities
Exhibit Q-1 Offsite Recycled Water Facilities for Reimbursement Exhibit R Drainage Facilities
Exhibit S Post Development 100 Year Floodplain
Exhibit T Fiber Optic Improvements
Exhibit V Parks and Open Space
Exhibit W Parks Financing Plan
Exhibit Y Open Space Areas
Exhibit AA DUE Allocation to Specific Plan Parcels for CSP Reimbursements

2. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN. The City Council has found and determined that this Second Amendment of the Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan.

3. AMENDMENT. This Second Amendment amends, but does not replace or supersede, the Development Agreement, except as specified herein. As amended hereby, the Development Agreement remains in full force and effect.

4. FORM OF AMENDMENT. This Second Amendment is executed in two duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original.

EXHIBIT “A”

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

Page 1 of 1 ends

PARCEL 1

ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF PLACER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 11 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

LOT 1 AS SAID LOT IS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN FINAL MAP ENTITLED “FINAL MAP OF AMORUSO RANCH PHASE 1”, FILED FOR RECORD MAY 3, 2019, IN BOOK EE OF MAPS, AT PAGE 51, PLACER COUNTY RECORDS.

CONTAINING 164.42 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.

PARCEL 2

ALL OF THE DESIGNATED REMAINDER SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN FINAL MAP ENTITLED “FINAL MAP OF AMORUSO RANCH PHASE 1”, FILED FOR RECORD MAY 3, 2019, IN BOOK EE OF MAPS, AT PAGE 51, PLACER COUNTY RECORDS.

CONTAINING 361.28 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.

FUTURE

POTENTIAL

PLACER RANCH

SPECIFIC PLAN
FUTURE

POTENTIAL

PLACER RANCH

SPECIFIC PLAN
TOAD
HILL

RANCHES
#1

CREEKVIEW

SPECIFIC
PLAN
AL

JOHNSON

WILDLIFE
AREA
017-100-037
WEST

ROSEVILLE

SPECIFIC PLAN
SUNSET

INDUSTRIAL
AREA
TOAD
HILL

MITIGATION
BANK
AL

JOHNSON

WILDLIFE
AREA

WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD

SUNSET BOULEVARD WEST

GLEASON
RANCH
017-020-033
PARCEL 1
017-020-036
PARCEL 2
017-020-037
017-101-011
Exhibit B
Property Map
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
1200

PROPERTY SUBJECT TO

POTENTIAL

PLACER RANCH

SPECIFIC PLAN
FUTURE

POTENTIAL

PLACER RANCH

SPECIFIC PLAN
TOAD
HILL

RANCHES
#1

CREEKVIEW

SPECIFIC
PLAN
AL

JOHNSON

WILDLIFE
AREA
017-100-037
WEST

ROSEVILLE

SPECIFIC PLAN
SUNSET

INDUSTRIAL
AREA
TOAD
HILL

MITIGATION
BANK
AL

JOHNSON

WILDLIFE
AREA

WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD

SUNSET BOULEVARD WEST

GLEASON
RANCH
PARCEL 1
017-020-033
017-020-036
017-020-037
017-101-011
Exhibit B
Property Map
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
1200

PROPERTY SUBJECT TO

POTENTIAL

PLACER RANCH

SPECIFIC PLAN
FUTURE

POTENTIAL

PLACER RANCH

SPECIFIC PLAN
TOAD
HILL

RANCHES
#1

CREEKVIEW

SPECIFIC
PLAN
AL

JOHNSON

WILDLIFE
AREA
017-100-037
WEST

ROSEVILLE

SPECIFIC PLAN
SUNSET

INDUSTRIAL
AREA
TOAD
HILL

MITIGATION
BANK
AL

JOHNSON

WILDLIFE
AREA

WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD

SUNSET BOULEVARD WEST

GLEASON
RANCH
017-020-036
017-020-033
017-020-037
017-101-011
Exhibit C
Annexation Area and Plan Area
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
1200

PROPERTY SUBJECT TO

POTENTIAL

PLACER RANCH

SPECIFIC PLAN
FUTURE

POTENTIAL

PLACER RANCH

SPECIFIC PLAN
TOAD
HILL

RANCHES
#1

CREEKVIEW

SPECIFIC
PLAN
AL

JOHNSON

WILDLIFE
AREA
017-100-037
WAGNER
WEST

ROSEVILLE

SPECIFIC PLAN
SUNSET

INDUSTRIAL
AREA
TOAD
HILL

MITIGATION
BANK
AL

JOHNSON

WILDLIFE
AREA

WESTBROOK

BOULEVARD

SUNSET BOULEVARD WEST

GLEASON
RANCH
017-020-033

AMORUSO
017-020-036

BROOKFIELD SACRAMENTO
HOLDINGS, LLC.
017-020-037

AMORUSO
017-101-011

AMORUSO
Exhibit D
Specific Plan Property Ownership
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
1200

PROPERTY SUBJECT TO

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
LEGEND
NOTE: If any portion of this Exhibit is unclear,
the complete original document is available
at the Roseville City Clerk Department, 311
Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678
Exhibit E
Land Use Plan
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
800
NOTE: If any portion of this Exhibit is unclear,
the complete original document is available
at the Roseville City Clerk Department, 311
Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678
Exhibit F
Affordable Housing Sites

AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITES
LEGEND
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
800
NOTE: If any portion of this Exhibit is unclear,
the complete original document is available
at the Roseville City Clerk Department, 311
Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678
Exhibit G
Phasing Plan
Major Phases
Phasing Boundaries
LEGEND
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
800
NOTE: If any portion of this Exhibit is unclear,
the complete original document is available
at the Roseville City Clerk Department, 311
Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678

CREEKVIEW SPECIFIC

PLAN AREA
Exhibit H
Road Improvements
Westbrook Boulevard
Minor Arterial "B"
Modified Collector
Modified Primary Residential Street
Connections
Modified Primary Residential Street
(Village Street)
Modified Primary Residential Street
with Street Side Paseo
Modified Primary Residential Street
Modified Minor Residential Street
Modified Primary Residential Street - A
Park and Ride Location
LEGEND
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
800
NOTE: If any portion of this Exhibit is
unclear, the complete original
document is available at the Roseville
City Clerk Department, 311 Vernon
Street, Roseville, CA 95678
(R1)

CREEKVIEW SPECIFIC

PLAN AREA
Exhibit H-1
Offsite Road Facilities For Reimbursement
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
800
6 Lane Arterial
Reimbursed by City CIP
LEGEND
NOTE: If any portion of this Exhibit is unclear,
the complete original document is available
at the Roseville City Clerk Department, 311
Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678
Exhibit I
Traffic Signals
Traffic Signal
LEGEND
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
800
NOTE: If any portion of this Exhibit is unclear,
the complete original document is available
at the Roseville City Clerk Department, 311
Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678

CREEKVIEW SPECIFIC

PLAN AREA
Exhibit J - 1
Wastewater Facilities
North Pump Station
LEGEND
Central Pump Station
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
800
Sanitary Sewer Force Main Pipeline
(with size)
Sanitary Sewer Pipeline (with size)
SEE EXHIBIT J-2 FOR CONTINUATION
This exhibit is for illustrative purposes only.

Sizes and locations of all utilities will be finalized in improvement plans submitted to the City of Roseville.

NOTE: If any portion of this Exhibit is
unclear, the complete original
document is available at the Roseville
City Clerk Department, 311 Vernon
Street, Roseville, CA 95678
POC

CREEKVIEW SPECIFIC

PLAN AREA
Exhibit J - 2
Wastewater Facilities
LEGEND
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
800
Sanitary Sewer Force Main Pipeline (with size)
Sanitary Sewer Pipeline (with size)
POC Point of Connection
This exhibit is for illustrative purposes only.

Sizes and locations of all utilities will be finalized in improvement plans submitted to the City of Roseville.

NOTE: If any portion
of this Exhibit is
unclear, the complete
original document is
available at the
Roseville City Clerk
Department, 311
Vernon Street,
Roseville, CA 95678
POC
21" SS
(WW1)
21" SS
(WW1)
24" SS (WW2)

CREEKVIEW SPECIFIC

PLAN AREA

WEST ROSEVILLE

SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Exhibit K-1
Offsite Wastewater Facilities For Reimbursement
POC
Sewer Truck Line
Point of Connection
LEGEND
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
800
This exhibit is for illustrative purposes only.

Sizes and locations of all utilities will be finalized in improvement plans submitted to the City of Roseville.

NOTE: If any portion
of this Exhibit is
unclear, the complete
original document is
available at the
Roseville City Clerk
Department, 311
Vernon Street,
Roseville, CA 95678
Exhibit L
Groundwater Well
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
800
NOTE: If any portion of this Exhibit is unclear,
the complete original document is available
at the Roseville City Clerk Department, 311
Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678
Groundwater Well Site
LEGEND
Exhibit M
Water Conservation Plan
Note: Refer to the City of Roseville for the Original Version with Color Exhibits and Figures Brookfield Residential
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Area
April 2016
Water Conservation Plan
Prepared By:

April 2016 Brookfield Residential – Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Area Water Conservation Brookfield Residential
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Area
Water Conservation Plan
Prepared By:

Page i Brookfield Residential Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Area Water Conservation Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 Water Conservation Plan Purpose .................................................................................... 1 ARSP Area Location and Description ............................................................................... 1 Project Vicinity............................................................................................................... 1 Pre-Development Conditions ......................................................................................... 3 ARSP Area Development Opportunities and Constraints .............................................. 5 ARSP Area Land Use Plan ........................................................................................... 7 BASELINE WATER USE ESTIMATION ............................................................................... 9 Table 1: City of Roseville Demand Factors ...................................................................10 Table 2: Water Use Estimation LDR, MDR and HDR ...............................................11 Table 3: Water Use Factors and Demands ...................................................................12 Single Family Residential Water Use Distribution ............................................................13 Table 4: Single Family Residential Water Usage ..........................................................13 Table 5: Residential Irrigation Water Demands ............................................................14 WATER USE REDUCTION STRATEGIES .........................................................................15 Reduction of Residential Turf Areas ................................................................................15 Table 6: Reduced Landscape Turf Area .......................................................................17 Table 7: Front Yard Irrigated Area Water Efficiencies ...................................................17 Reduction of Park and Recreation and Common Area Turf (Non-Residential) .................19 Table 8: Non-Residential Irrigated Area Water Efficiencies ..........................................20 Irrigation Management .....................................................................................................21 Table 9: Smart Irrigation Controller Water Efficiencies .................................................22 Water Conservation Methods ..........................................................................................22 Table 10: Recirculating Hot Water System Water Efficiencies ......................................23 SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................23 Table 11: Summary of Water Efficiencies .....................................................................24 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................25 Page ii Brookfield Residential Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Area Water Conservation

FIGURES
Figure 1: ARSP Area Project Vicinity
Figure 2: ARSP Area Pre- .4
Figure 5: Front Yard Water Conservation Comparison .. 16

Page 1 ends

INTRODUCTION
The Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (ARSP) Area Water Conservation Plan (Plan) has been prepared at the request of Brookfield Residential Properties, Inc. (Brookfield) to meet the ARSP process.

WATER CONSERVATION PLAN PURPOSE
In February 2008, then California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger introduced a seven-part comprehensive plan for improving the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. As part of this effort, the Governor directed state agencies to develop a plan to reduce statewide per capita urban water use by 20 percent by the year 2020. In February 2010, the State Water Resources Control Board issued the 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan.

As part of the response to the 20x2020 Plan, the City has a requirement that all new specific plan projects incorporate water conservation measures into the overall project design such that the overall water demands (both potable and recycled) are reduced. The City has an overall conservation goal of 20% for potable and irrigation water usage throughout the City.

This Plan presents potentially feasible measures and guidance that can result in a reduction of the projected overall water usage within the ARSP Area, which will contribute towards the City-wide conservation goal. The projected reduction in water use will be established as part of this Plan through a process of: estimating the baseline water demands without conservation measures; identification of potentially feasible conservation measures; and estimation of the resultant water demands with application of the identified conservation measures. This Plan has been developed in conformance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) as a minimum.

ARSP AREA LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Project Vicinity
The ARSP Area consists of approximately 694.4 acres located in the northwest edge for the the plan area was recognized as a
logical growth extension for the City. The Specific Plan Area is bounded on the southwest by the Al Johnson Wildlife Area, to the west by the Gleason property, to the south by the Creekview Specific Plan Area, to the east by the future proposed Placer Ranch Specific Plan Area and to the north by the existing Toad Hills Ranches #1 area and unincorporated Placer County. The project vicinity is shown on Figure 1.

Page 2 ends

Figure 1 – ARSP Area Project Vicinity

Page 3 ends

Pre-Development Conditions
The pre-development conditions of the ARSP Area were as a cattle ranch and for irrigated crops. The primary use was open grazing land, but included a small ranch house and out buildings. The land is gently rolling terrain generally trending to the west and south. Minor drainages flow in a radial pattern from a slight rise in the northeast quadrant of the property.

The elevation changes from approximately 115 feet to 71 feet gently from the northeast down to the southwest.

The site vegetation is generally limited to short, seasonal grasses. There are several oak trees located along University Creek and a number of non-native trees located around the former ranch house. Wetland conditions and their associated flora and fauna are located in small areas typically along the drainage corridors and in flats along the southern boundary.

Figure 2 highlights the ARSP Area pre-development conditions.

Page 4 ends

Figure 2 – ARSP Area Pre-Development Conditions

Page 5 ends

ARSP Area Development Opportunities and Constraints
The proposed ARSP Area land use plan is influenced by several factors, including the physical setting, land use and circulation conditions, and public policies. Two significant aspects that influence the development of the land plan are described below and depicted on Figure 3.

Placer Parkway
The proposed Placer Parkway will be a dominant feature that sweeps through the ARSP Area. Interchanges at Fiddyment Road and Santucci Boulevard will provide access to the ARSP Area.

Open Space and Resources Preservation
The ARSP Area will support open space and resource preservation by providing permanent open space. In combination with the 1,700-acre open space afforded by the City of Roseville Al Johnson Wildlife Area, this open space provides connectivity with open space within the Creekview Specific Plan Area, and lands to the east of the ARSP Area.

The Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan will provide an open space corridor that includes a regional trail system. In addition, the corridor will provide a permanent preservation area for wetland resources.

Page 6 ends

Figure 3 – ARSP Area Opportunities and Constraints

Page 7 ends

ARSP Area Land Use Plan
The ARSP Area provides for a mix of land uses to achieve the desired community form and objectives. These land use designations include low-, medium- and high density residential uses; commercial and office uses; which in some cases are sited with one another and/or with residential uses, public and quasi-public uses for the schools and civic activities such as a fire station, parks and open space uses, and an urban reserve.

At buildout, the ARSP Area will provide for 2,827 dwelling units, it adds approximately 51 acres of commercial retail and office land uses, and provides approximately 22-acres of parks and 146-acres of open space. The ARSP Area Land Use Plan is shown in Figure 4.

Page 9 ends

BASELINE WATER USE ESTIMATION
The calculation of the baseline water use estimation was established based on the land use designations developed as part of the ARSP Area Land Use Plan shown on Figure 4.

The baseline wa
factors, as developed for the City by MWH in 2006. The City of Roseville employs standard demand factors for residential land uses of varying densities, as well as standard demand factors for commercial/other land uses. The residential demands are presented as gallons per day (GPD) per dwelling unit (DU), and the commercial/other demands are presented as factors are listed in Table 1.

Page 10 ends

Table 1
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Water Conservation Plan
City of Roseville Demand Factors
General Plan Land Use Category Average Day
Demand
Residential GPD/DU
LDR1: < 3.5 DU / Acre 728 GPD/DU
LDR2: > 3.5 to 5 DU / Acre 600 GPD/DU
LMDR1: > 5 to 6 DU / Acre 521 GPD/DU
LMDR2: > 6 to 8 DU / Acre 430 GPD/DU
MDR: > 8 to 12 DU / Acre 323 GPD/DU
HDR1: > 12 to 16 DU / Acre 288 GPD/DU
HDR2: > 16 DU / Acre 177 GPD/DU
Non-Residential GPD/Acre
Commercial / Retail 2598 GPD/Acre
Business Professional 2598 GPD/Acre
Light Industrial 2598 GPD/Acre
Industrial 2562 GPD/Acre
Railroad Yard 109 GPD/Acre
Elementary School 3454 GPD/Acre
High School 4068 GPD/Acre
Public (Fire Station, etc) 1780 GPD/Acre
Park / Recreation 2988 GPD/Acre
Open Space / ROW 0 GPD/Acre
Vacant 0 GPD/Acre
Low-, Mediumand High-Density Residential units proposed within the ARSP Area have been calculated.

The basis of the Low-, Medium- and High-Density Residential water use is presented within Table 2.

Page 11 ends

Table 2
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Water Conservation Plan
Water Use Estimation LDR, MDR and HDR
Land Use Category
Density
Number
of Units
Average Day
Demand
(GPD/DU)
Total
Average Day
Demand
(GPD)
Total
Average Day
Demand
(AFY)
Total
Average Day
Demand
with 2%
(AFY)1
LDR1: < 3.5 DU / Acre 148 728 107,744 120.7 123.1
LDR2: > 3.5 to 5 DU / Acre 116 600 69,600 78.0 79.5
LMDR1: > 5 to 6 DU / Acre 401 521 208,921 234.0 238.7
LMDR2: > 6 to 8 DU / Acre 757 430 325,510 364.6 371.9
MDR: > 8 to 12 DU / Acre 155 323 50,065 56.1 57.2
HDR1: > 12 to 16 DU / Acre 380 288 109,440 122.6 125.0
HDR2: > 16 DU / Acre 760 177 134,520 150.7 153.7
Community Commercial -
Village Center Residential 109 288 31,392 35.2 35.9
Urban Reserve 1 728 728 0.8 0.8
Total 2,827 - 1,037,920 1,162.6 1,185.9
The water use estimation, as established by the City for purposes of water conservation does not distinguish between potable water and recycled water. Table 3 includes a summary of the estimated baseline water demands. Consistent with previous similar analyses completed by the City, a factor for water system losses has not been included in the water conservation calculations. It has, however, been included for informational purposes in both Tables 2 and 3.
1 Demand accounts for 2% system losses.

Page 12 ends

Table 3
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Water Conservation Plan
Water Use Factors and Demands
Land Use Land Use Abbreviation/ Zoning Total Area (Acres) Dwelling Unit Count Water Use Factor Daily Demand (GPD) Annual Demand (AFY) Annual Demand with 2% (AFY)1 Low Density Residential LDR 248.77 1,302 Varies 660,175 739.5 754.3Medium Density Residential MDR 50.27 542 Varies 178,561 200.0 204.0High Density Residential HDR 38.13 873 Varies 167,064 187.1 190.9Community Commercial - VillageCenter - Residential CMU-SA (Commercial
Mixed-Use - Special Area)
Included On
Next Line 109 288 31,392 35.2 35.9
Community Commercial - VillageCenter Non-Residential
CMU-SA (Commercial
Mixed-Use - Special Area) 27.27 - 2,598 70,847 79.4 80.9 Community Commercial CC (Community Commercial) 23.85 - 2,598 61,962 69.4 70.8Open Space (Paseos) OS 10.71 - 2,988 32,001 35.8 36.6Open Space (General) OS 37.24 - 0 0 0 0Open Space (Preserve) OS 97.58 - 0 0 0 0Parks & Recreation PR 22.14 - 2,988 66,154 74.1 75.6Public / Quasi Public (school) P/QP (School) 9.62 - 3,454 33,227 37.2 38.0Public / Quasi Public (Fire Station &Utility Site) P/QP 7.61 - 1,780 13,546 15.2 15.5Urban Reserve UR 20.00 1 728 728 0.8 0.8Rights-of-Way ROW 52.04 - 0 0 0 0Not a Part of This Subdivision NAPOTS 49.16 - 0 0 0 0 Total 694.4 2,827 - 1,315,659 1,473.7 1,503.2
1 Demand accounts for 2% system losses.

Page 13 ends

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WATER USE DISTRIBUTION
Single family residential water use for land use designations for Low-, Medium- and HighDensity (LDR, MDR and HDR) parcels can be further divided by the use within the home and the landscape irrigation demands outside of the home.

Table 4 represents the typical single family residential water usage that would be attributable to residential units within the land use designation of LDR and MDR. The percentage of total use will have a different distribution for HDR primarily attributable to the reduction in irrigated landscaped area.

Table 4
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Water Conservation Plan
Single Family Residential Water Usage
Residential Use Percentage of
Total1
Landscaping 51%
Toilets 13%
Faucets, Cooking, Cleaning 10%
Showers 9%
Clothes Washing 8%
Bath 6%
Toilet Leaks 2%
Dishwasher 1%
Based on historic data the typical split between backyard and front yard irrigation of typical LDR and MDR parcels is approximately sixty-forty, with 60% of the landscape irrigation demand attributable to the backyard and 40% of the landscape irrigation attributable to the front yard. This is the result of typically smaller front yards than backyards along with less 1 Percentage of total water use was derived from information obtained from the City of Roseville Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on the subject of water conservation.

Page 14 ends

landscape area in the front yard due to driveways and walks. Utilizing this ratio of front yard to backyard irrigation use, results in a further breakdown of the 51% total water use to

20.4% for the front yards and 30.6% for the backyards. The separation of front yard and backyard irrigation demands for LDR and MDR parcels allows analysis and application of different conservation measures between the two distinct areas.

The HDR units typically do not have front yard and backyard irrigation demand; however, there are common area irrigation demands that are attributable to HDR units. Average planning numbers for irrigation demands for HDR units is 20% of the estimated overall water usage. This value is expressed as 20% of the annual irrigation demand and not based on designation of demands split between front and back yard area designations. Table 5 presents a summary of demands based on the assumptions listed above.

Table 5
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Water Conservation Plan
Residential Irrigation Water Demands
Land Use Annual
Demand (AFY)
Annual
Demand Front
Yard (AFY)
Annual
Demand
Backyard
(AFY)
Annual Total
Irrigation
Demand
(AFY)
Low Density Residential 739.5 150.86 226.29 377.15
Medium Density
Residential 200.0 40.80 61.20 102.00
High Density Residential1 187.1 N/A N/A 37.42
Urban Reserve 0.8 0.16 0.24 0.40
Total 1,127.4 191.82 287.73 516.97
1 Demand for HDR parcels was calculated differently from LDR and MDR parcels, as described above. Demand for HDR parcels was not separated into front yard and backyard demand since traditional front and back yards are not present on HDR parcels.

Page 15 ends

WATER USE REDUCTION STRATEGIES
A series of implementable water use reduction strategies have been identified for the ARSP Area. These strategies are discussed in more detail in the following subsections of this document, including the estimated percentage of water use reduction.

The water use reduction strategies identified for the ARSP Area include:

Reduction of Residential Turf Areas
Reduction of Park and Recreation and Common Area Turf (Non-Residential) Irrigation Management
Water Conservation Methods

REDUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL TURF AREAS
As represented in the previous sections and tables, turf areas account for a significant portion of the water demand of the residential development. In turn, this correlates to one of the greatest opportunities to reduce the projected water demands. The ARSP project will adopt a strategy to encourage the new residential developments to reduce the magnitude of front yard turf areas and plant these areas with vegetation that uses far less water.

The City of Roseville estimates that for a same sized area of turf, in comparison to utilization of low-water consumption vegetation, could result in a savings of up to 70% in the amount of water required. Therefore, 30% of the amount of water would be required for the low Low water consumption vegetation, benefits not only from the reduced requirement for uptake by the plants, it also benefits from more efficient landscape irrigation systems. Low water consumption vegetation is typically irrigated by drip systems, as opposed to overhead spray systems for lawn and turf areas.

Typical front yard landscaping generally ranges between 75% and 85% irrigated area. For purposes of this analysis, the low-point of 75% irrigated area has been selected with 70% being lawn area and the remaining irrigated area being lower water using plants and planters.

It is reasonable to reduce irrigated lawn areas from 70% of the typical front yard for LDR and MDR, as well as reduce the common area lawns on HDR, to 42%. This results in an increase of low water consumption vegetation from 5% to 33%. An example of the potential reductions in turf area is shown in Figure 5. The comparisons of water demands for irrigation are shown in Table 6.

Page 16 ends

Figure 5 – Front Yard Water Conservation Comparison

Page 17 ends

Table 6
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Water Conservation Plan
Reduced Landscape Turf Area
Land Use
Front Yard
Irrigated
Area1
Base Condition Base Condition with
Water Conservation
Turf Area Low Water
Use Area Turf Area Low WaterUse Area2
LDR, MDR and HDR3 75% 70% 5% 42% 33%
Table 7 is a comparison of the water use efficiencies that result from reduction in front yard turf areas. Since assumptions are based on similar reductions in turf areas for LDR, MDR and HDR product types, the water demands have been combined for presentation.

Table 7
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Water Conservation Plan
Front Yard Irrigated Area Water Efficiencies
Land Use
Annual
Demand
Front Yard
(AFY)4
New Front
Yard
Demand
(AFY)
Annual
Demand
Savings
(AFY)
Annual
Demand
Savings (%)
Water
System
Savings
Residential Properties
LDR and MDR 191.82 139.24 52.58 27.4% Potable
HDR 37.42 27.16 10.26 27.4% Recycled
Total 229.24 166.40 62.84 27.4%
As an example of how these values were calculated, the calculation for the annual front yard turf demand and the reduced annual front yard demand is presented below.

For the annual front yard turf demand, as calculated for low and medium density residential land uses, 75% of the front yard is landscaped with 70% turf and 5% low water use plantings. Since low water use plantings use 30% of the water required for turf, this 5% 1 As a percentage of the front yard.
2 Includes 5% existing low water use plantings plus 28% new low water use plantings. 3 Represents the percentage of the entire exterior area for HDR. 4 Front yard demand from Table 5. HDR is total since there is not a distinction between front and back yards.

Page 18 ends

area is equal to 1.5% turf area water demand. This results in the following annual front yard demands:

Turf (LDR & MDR):

Low Water Use (LDR & MDR):

For the reduced annual front yard demand, as calculated for low and medium density residential uses, reducing the base turf area in the front yards from 70% to 42% and replacing that (equivalent to 28%) with low water use plantings resulted in the following annual demands:

Reduced Demand Equation (LDR & MDR):

The same equations were generated for the HDR parcels as follows:

Turf (HDR):

Low Water Use (HDR):

Reduced Demand Equation (HDR):

Page 19 ends

REDUCTION OF PARK AND RECREATION AND COMMON AREA

TURF (NON-RESIDENTIAL)
In addition to the turf areas for residential properties there are additional and significant turf areas throughout a typical development. These areas include the parks, irrigated paseos, commercial centers and school play fields. The estimated turf irrigation demand at each of these uses is as follows:

It is estimated that parks utilize approximately 98% of their water demand for irrigation and 80% of their irrigated area for turf. This area is assumed to be reduced to 60% with the conversion of turf area (20%) to low water consumption vegetation or other uses.

For the Roseville area, low water plantings were assumed to use 30% of the water used on turf (a 70% water savings).

Low water use areas will utilize low volume irrigation systems like a drip or spray system (such as Netafim) designed to achieve a uniformity of 90% rather than an overhead spray irrigation system.

Paseos are estimated to utilize 100% of their water demand for landscape irrigation. 80% of the paseo area is irrigated turf area. This area is assumed to be reduced to 60% with the conversion of turf area (20%) to low water consumption vegetation or other uses.

Based on these assumptions the water use efficiencies for the parks and paseos have been calculated and are presented in Table 8.

Page 20 ends

Table 8
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Water Conservation Plan
Non-Residential Irrigated Area Water Efficiencies
Land
Use
Annual
Water
Demand
(AFY)1
Annual
Irrigation
Demand
(AFY)
Base
Turf
Area
New
Turf
Area
Low
Water
Use
Area
New
Irrigation
Demand
(AFY)
Annual
Demand
Savings
(AFY)
Annual
Demand
Savings
(%)
Water
System
Savings
Park 4.3 4.21 80% 60% 20% 3.48 0.73 17.3% Potable
Parks 69.8 68.40 80% 60% 20% 56.43 11.97 17.5% Recycled Paseos 4.8 4.80 80% 60% 20% 3.96 0.84 17.5% Potable
Paseos 31.0 31.00 80% 60% 20% 25.58 5.42 17.5% Recycled Total 109.9 108.41 89.45 18.96 17.5%
The new irrigation demand for the Parks is calculated as follows:

Demand remaining after turf reduction:

Low water plants use 30% of turf demand:

New irrigation demand:

Similarly the new irrigation demand for the Paseos is calculated as follows:
1Annual water demand derived from Table 3.

Page 21 ends

Demand remaining after turf reduction:

Low water plants use 30% of turf demand:

New irrigation demand:

IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT
Smart and centrally located irrigation controllers restrict irrigation to times and rates necessary to maintain landscaping. They account for changes in the demand for water, which varies with weather patterns, seasonal influences and soil moisture content. In the ARSP, smart irrigation controllers, as defined in WELO, will be required for residential, commercial, and quasi-public parcels subject to turf reduction measures, and centrally controlled irrigation controllers for larger commercial and publicly maintained parcels.

As referenced in previous studies for the City of Roseville, a number of studies have been completed specifically on the conversion to smart irrigation controllers and the resultant water savings. Those studies suggest that water use reductions can be expected between 7% and 41%. This is a wide range of variability. Since ARSP is an entirely new development all significant irrigation applications will employ the use of smart irrigation controllers (per WELO). Therefore, a water use reduction value of 20% has been estimated for purposes of this analysis, consistent with previous analyses completed for similar developments within the City of Roseville. The sample calculation is presented below and the values are summarized in Table 9.

Smart Irrigation Equation:

Page 22 ends

Table 9
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Water Conservation Plan
Smart Irrigation Controller Water Efficiencies
Land Use
Annual
Irrigation
Demand
(AFY)
New
Irrigation
Demand
w/Controller
(AFY)
Annual
Demand
Savings
(AFY)
Annual
Demand
Savings (%)
Water
System
Savings
Residential Properties
(Front)1
139.24 111.39 27.85 20% Potable
Residential Properties
(Back)2
287.73 230.18 57.55 20% Potable
Residential Properties
(HDR)3

27.16 21.73 5.43 20% Recycled
Parks4 3.48 2.78 0.70 20% Potable
Parks5 56.43 45.14 11.29 20% Recycled
Paseos6 3.96 3.17 0.79 20% Potable
Paseos7 25.58 20.46 5.12 20% Recycled
Total 543.58 434.85 108.73 20%

WATER CONSERVATION METHODS
There are many water conservation measures that can be implemented throughout the ARSP project. The reality is that a majority of the typical water conservation measures are already required or anticipated to be included in any new projects. These include low flow toilets, low flow shower heads, faucet aerators, etc.

One additional water conservation measure that will be considered for the ARSP project is the inclusion of recirculating hot water systems. Recirculating hot water systems feature a pump on a residential hot water line system which reduces the time necessary to receive hot water at any hot water faucet throughout the home. They provide hot water at the tap 1 Annual irrigation demand derived from Table 7.
2 Annual irrigation demand derived from Table 5.
3 Annual irrigation demand derived from Table 7.
4 Annual irrigation demand derived from Table 8.
5 Annual irrigation demand derived from Table 8.
6 Annual irrigation demand derived from Table 8.
7 Annual irrigation demand derived from Table 8.

Page 23 ends

immediately upon engaging the hot water faucet, eliminating the waste of water as you wait for the water to transition from the cold water in the pipes to hot water. This type of system can be included on all residential units to generate additional water conservation. The amount of water savings with these systems varies based on the number of times hot water is utilized throughout the day. A typical conservative estimate indicates a water savings of approximately 1.25 gallons per
recirculation system. We have estimated that on average this would occur six times per day per residential unit, consistent with previous studies for the City of Roseville.

Re-Circulating Hot Water Equation:

The estimated savings based on the installation of recirculating hot water systems is shown in Table 10.

Table 10
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Water Conservation Plan
Recirculating Hot Water System Water Efficiencies
Land Use Dwelling
Unit Count
Savings per
Dwelling
Unit (Gal)
Annual
Demand
Savings
(AFY)
Annual
Demand
Savings (%)
Water
System
Savings
Residential Units 2,827 7.5 23.75 1.6% Potable

SUMMARY
A series of water conservation methods have been proposed for implementation as part of the ARSP project. These methods are readily implemented and are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan and the City of Roseville.

Table 11 provides a summary of the water conservation measures and their estimated savings in water use. As shown on Table 11, with implementation of all of the measures an estimated conservation of 14.5% of the projected water use would be realized within the ARSP Area.

Page 24 ends

Table 11
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Water Conservation Plan
Summary of Water Efficiencies
Water Conservation
Opportunity
Total Water
Demand
(AFY)
Potable
Water
Savings
(AFY)
Recycled
Water
Savings
(AFY)
Annual
Demand
Savings
(AFY)
Annual
Demand
Savings (%)
Residential Properties
Irrigation Front1
1,473.7

52.58 10.26 62.84 4.3%
Non-Residential (Parks,
ROW, School)2

1.57 17.39 18.96 1.3%
Smart Irrigation
Controllers3

86.89 21.84 108.73 7.4%
Recirculating Hot Water
System4

23.75 0 23.75 1.6%
Total 164.79 49.49 214.28 14.5%
The actual water conservation savings will be dependent on a number of factors including the participation and adherence by the actual homeowners. Constructing the residential units with a number of these measures already integrated (such as the hot water recirculation systems) will be beneficial to achieving the objective.

For the single family residential land uses there is anticipated to be ongoing outreach by the City to remind and reinforce the need for water conservation. This can include attachments to the water bill, water audits that can be made available to homeowners, the promotion of conservation website, and the availability of City water conservation staff to respond to specific questions. In addition, outreach can include educating homeowners on how to use and set up smart irrigation controllers along with including the installation and integration into their backyard irrigation system.

Guidance and education for the homeowners with regards to the landscaping of front and backyards will also be part of the overall plan including education in conformance with WELO.
1 Annual demand savings derived from Table 7.
2 Annual demand savings derived from Table 8.
3 Annual demand savings derived from Table 9.
4 Annual demand savings derived from Table 10.

Page 25 ends

References
WMH. 2006. TM 1 - Unit Water Demand Factor Verification and Water Demand Evaluation and Update. September.

Prepared By:
555 Capital Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95816
Roseville Office: 231 Vernon Street • Roseville, CA 95678 • Tel: 916.341.7760 • Fax: 916.341.7767 www.woodrodgers.com
Attachment to Exhibit M

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: City of Roseville
Date: January 27, 2020
Subject: Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment
Amendment to Water Conservation Plan to Accommodate Revised Land Use Plan

INTRODUCTION
The Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (ARSP) Amendment has been prepared at the direction of Brookfield Residential Properties, Inc. (Brookfield) to meet the City of Roseville’s (City) planning requirements to address proposed land use changes resulting from the State and Federal Environmental Permitting Processes. The ARSP Amendment modifies the original approved plan dated June 2016.

The ARSP Area consists of approximately 694.4-acres located in the northwest edge of the City of Roseville. The Specific Plan Area is bounded on the west by the Al Johnson Wildlife Area, to the south by the Creekview Specific Plan Area, to the east by the future proposed Placer Ranch Specific Plan Area and to the north by the existing Toad Hill Ranches #1 area/Sunset Boulevard West.

The ARSP Area provides for a mix of land uses to achieve the desired community form and objectives.

These land use designations include low-, medium- and high-density residential uses; commercial and office uses; which in some cases are sited with one another and/or with residential uses; public and quasipublic uses for the schools and civic activities such as a fire station; parks and open space uses; and an urban reserve.

At buildout, as originally proposed, the ARSP Area will provide for 2,827 dwelling units, adds approximately 51 acres of commercial retail and office land uses, and provide approximately 22-acres of parks and 146-acres of open space.

With the changes in the land use plan, resulting from the environmental permitting processes, the project parameters are identical in terms of the number of units, acres of commercial, and acres of parks.

However, the acres of open space have increased from approximately 146-acres to approximately 155- acres with a corresponding reduction in residential land use acreage.

As part of the original Specific Plan, the “Brookfield Residential, Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Area, Water Conservation Plan”, dated April 2016, was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates. While the number of units proposed for the Specific Plan Area has not changed, the density of some of the units has been modified, which affects the calculations presented in the referenced Water Conservation Plan. This Technical Memorandum amends the referenced Water Conservation Plan to accommodate the changes in the land use plan.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment – Amendment to the Water Conservation Plan January 27, 2020 - Page 2 of 14
Figure TM-1 – 2016 Approved Land Use Plan

LAND USE PLAN UPDATE
As noted in the Introduction, the major change in the Land Use Plan occurs with the expansion of the open space and the coinciding reduction in the developable acres. The change represents approximately 9- acres that will be added to the open space, transitioning from developable land use. Figure TM-1 depicts the existing approved Land Use Plan that was adopted as part of the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan in June 2016 by the City of Roseville. It depicts the area that was modified through the environmental permitting processes. The proposed and modified Land Use Plan is shown on Figure TM-2.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment – Amendment to the Water Conservation Plan January 27, 2020 - Page 3 of 14
The required modifications in the Land Use Plan occur along the southern edge of development, both to the east and west of Westbrook Boulevard, in locations where the development abuts the open space.

The changes are depicted on Figure TM-2.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment – Amendment to the Water Conservation Plan January 27, 2020 - Page 4 of 14
While the land plan has a reduced number of developable acres, the total unit count has remained the same, with the displaced units reallocated to an existing developable parcel that can support the units, while conforming to the density ranges for the given product types.

Table TM-1 is a comparison of the unit allocation changes throughout the plan area.

Table TM-1
Unit Allocation Comparison
Parcel Land Use
Acres Units
2016 2019 Net
Change 2016 2019 Net Change
AR-24 LDR 10.3 2.5 <7.8> 55 13 <42>
AR-37 LDR 6.28 5.05 <1.23> 33 25 <8>
AR-52 CC-VC 13.06 13.06 0 18 68 50
TOTAL <9.03> 0
As noted in Table TM-1, the reallocated units are all located in the Community Commercial/Village Center (AR-52). This places the units very close to their original location. This also modifies the units from LDR to be CC/VC where the use factors for these units are consistent with HDR. This is important as it results in lower water use factors and lower wastewater generation rates.

The location of the affected land use parcels is shown on Figure TM-3 and indicated with a “blue circle”.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment – Amendment to the Water Conservation Plan January 27, 2020 - Page 5 of 14
Figure TM-3 – Affected Land Use Parcels (Unit Transfer) (2019 Land Plan)

WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
As noted above, the calculations related to water conservation for the development change as a result in the shift in density of some of the units. Provided below are the revised Water Conservation Plan Tables that have been updated based on the new land plan.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment – Amendment to the Water Conservation Plan January 27, 2020 - Page 6 of 14
Water Conservation Plan Table 2 - Amended
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment
Water Use Estimation – LDR, MDR and HDR
Land Use Category
Density
Number
of Units
Average Day
Demand
(GPD/DU)
Total
Average Day
Demand
(GPD)
Total
Average Day
Demand
(AFY)
Total
Average Day
Demand
with 2%
(AFY)1
LDR1: < 3.5 DU / Acre 148 728 107,744 120.7 123.1
LDR2: > 3.5 to 5 DU / Acre 116 600 69,600 78.0 79.5
LMDR1: > 5 to 6 DU / Acre 351 521 182,871 204.8 208.9
LMDR2: > 6 to 8 DU / Acre 757 430 325,510 364.6 371.9
MDR: > 8 to 12 DU / Acre 155 323 50,065 56.1 57.2
HDR1: > 12 to 16 DU / Acre 380 288 109,440 122.6 125.0
HDR2: > 16 DU / Acre 760 177 134,520 150.7 153.7
Community Commercial -
Village Center – Residential 159 288 45,792 51.3 52.3
Urban Reserve 1 728 728 0.8 0.8
Total 2,827 - 1,037,920 1,162.60 1,185.90
1 Demand accounts for 2% system losses.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment – Amendment to the Water Conservation Plan January 27, 2020 - Page 7 of 14
Water Conservation Plan Table 3 - Amended
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Water Use Factors and Demands
Land Use
Land Use
Abbreviation/
Zoning
Total
Area
(Acres)
Dwelling
Unit
Count
Water
Use
Factor
Daily
Demand
(GPD)
Annual
Demand
(AFY)
Annual
Demand
with 2%
(AFY)2
Low Density Residential LDR 239.34 1,252 Varies 634,125 710.3 724.5 Medium Density
Residential MDR 50.27 542 Varies 178,561 200.0 204.0
High Density Residential HDR 38.13 873 Varies 167,064 187.1 190.9 Community Commercial -
Village Center - Residential
CMU-SA
(Commercial
Mixed-Use -
Special Area)
Included
On Next
Line
159 288 45,792 51.3 52.3
Community Commercial -
Village Center – NonResidential
CMU-SA
(Commercial
Mixed-Use -
Special Area)

27.27 - 2,598 70,847 79.4 80.9
Community Commercial CC (Community
Commercial) 23.85 - 2,598 61,962 69.4 70.8
Open Space (Paseos) OS 10.74 - 2,988 32,091 35.9 36.7
Open Space (General) OS 37.24 - 0 0 0.0 0.0
Open Space (Preserve) OS 106.97 - 0 0 0.0 0.0
Parks & Recreation PR 22.14 - 2,988 66,154 74.1 75.6
Public / Quasi Public
(school) P/QP (School) 9.62 - 3,454 33,227 37.2 38.0
Public / Quasi Public (Fire
Station & Utility Site) P/QP 7.61 - 1,780 13,546 15.2 15.5 Urban Reserve UR 20 1 728 728 0.8 0.8
Rights-of-Way ROW 52.06 - 0 0 0.0 0.0
Not a Part of This
Subdivision NAPOTS 49.16 - 0 0 0.0 0.0
Total 694.4 2,827 - 1,304,098 1,460.78 1,489.99
2 Demand accounts for 2% system losses.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment – Amendment to the Water Conservation Plan January 27, 2020 - Page 8 of 14
Water Conservation Plan Table 4 - Amended
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Single Family Residential Water Usage
Residential Use Percentage of
Total3
Landscaping 51%
Toilets 13%
Faucets, Cooking, Cleaning 10%
Showers 9%
Clothes Washing 8%
Bath 6%
Toilet Leaks 2%
Dishwasher 1%
3 Percentage of total water use was derived from information obtained from the City of Roseville Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on the subject of water conservation.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment – Amendment to the Water Conservation Plan January 27, 2020 - Page 9 of 14
Water Conservation Plan Table 5 - Amended
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Residential Irrigation Water Demands
Land Use Annual
Demand (AFY)
Annual Demand
Front Yard
(AFY)
Annual
Demand
Backyard
(AFY)
Annual Total
Irrigation
Demand (AFY)
Low Density Residential 710.3 144.90 217.35 362.25
Medium Density Residential 200.0 40.80 61.20 102.00
High Density Residential4 187.1 N/A N/A 37.42
Urban Reserve 0.8 0.16 0.24 0.40
Total 1098.2 185.86 278.79 502.07

4 Demand for HDR parcels was calculated differently from LDR and MDR parcels, as described above. Demand for HDR parcels was not separated into front yard and backyard demand since traditional front and back yards are not present on HDR parcels.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment – Amendment to the Water Conservation Plan January 27, 2020 - Page 10 of 14
Water Conservation Plan Table 7 - Amended
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Front Yard Irrigated Area Water Efficiencies
Land Use
Annual
Demand
Front Yard
(AFY)5
New Front
Yard
Demand
(AFY)
Annual
Demand
Savings
(AFY)
Annual
Demand
Savings (%)
Water
System
Savings
Residential Properties
LDR and MDR 185.70 134.8 50.90 30.0% Potable
HDR 37.42 27.16 10.26 27.4% Recycled
Total 223.12 161.96 61.16 27.4%

5 Front yard demand from Table 5. HDR is total since there is not a distinction between front and back yards.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment – Amendment to the Water Conservation Plan January 27, 2020 - Page 11 of 14
Water Conservation Plan Table 8 - Amended
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Non-Residential Irrigated Area Water Efficiencies
Land
Use
Annual
Water
Demand
(AFY)6
Annual
Irrigation
Demand
(AFY)
Base
Turf
Area
New
Turf
Area
Low
Water
Use
Area
New
Irrigation
Demand
(AFY)
Annual
Demand
Savings
(AFY)
Annual
Demand
Savings
(%)
Water
System
Savings
Park 4.3 4.21 80% 60% 20% 3.48 0.73 17.3% Potable
Parks 69.8 68.40 80% 60% 20% 56.43 11.97 17.5% Recycled Paseos 4.8 4.80 80% 60% 20% 3.96 0.84 17.5% Potable
Paseos 31.0 31.00 80% 60% 20% 25.58 5.42 17.5% Recycled Total 109.9 108.41 89.45 18.96 17.5%
6 Annual water demand derived from Table 3.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment – Amendment to the Water Conservation Plan January 27, 2020 - Page 12 of 14
Water Conservation Plan Table 9 - Amended
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Smart Irrigation Controller Water Efficiencies
Land Use
Annual
Irrigation
Demand
(AFY)
New
Irrigation
Demand
w/Controller
(AFY)
Annual
Demand
Savings
(AFY)
Annual
Demand
Savings (%)
Water
System
Savings
Residential Properties
(Front)7 134.80 107.84 26.96 20% Potable
Residential Properties
(Back)8 278.79 223.03 55.76 20% Potable
Residential Properties
(HDR)9 27.16 21.73 5.43 20% Recycled
Parks10 3.48 2.78 0.7 20% Potable
Parks11 56.43 45.14 11.29 20% Recycled
Paseos12 3.96 3.17 0.79 20% Potable
Paseos13 25.58 20.46 5.12 20% Recycled
Total 530.20 424.15 106.05 20%
7 Annual irrigation demand derived from Table 7.
8 Annual irrigation demand derived from Table 5.
9 Annual irrigation demand derived from Table 7.
10 Annual irrigation demand derived from Table 8.
11 Annual irrigation demand derived from Table 8.
12 Annual irrigation demand derived from Table 8.
13 Annual irrigation demand derived from Table 8.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment – Amendment to the Water Conservation Plan January 27, 2020 - Page 13 of 14
Water Conservation Plan Table 10 - Amended
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Recirculating Hot Water System Water Efficiencies
Land Use Dwelling
Unit Count
Savings per
Dwelling
Unit (Gal)
Annual
Demand
Savings
(AFY)
Annual
Demand
Savings (%)
Water
System
Savings
Residential Units 2,827 7.5 23.75 1.6% Potable

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Amendment – Amendment to the Water Conservation Plan January 27, 2020 - Page 14 of 14
Water Conservation Plan Table 11 - Amended
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Summary of Water Efficiencies
Water Conservation
Opportunity
Total Water
Demand
(AFY)
Potable
Water
Savings
(AFY)
Recycled
Water
Savings
(AFY)
Annual
Demand
Savings (AFY)
Annual
Demand
Savings (%)
Residential Properties
Irrigation – Front14
1,460.78

50.90 10.26 61.16 4.2%
Non-Residential (Parks,
ROW, School)15 1.57 17.39 18.96 1.3%
Smart Irrigation
Controllers16 84.21 21.84 106.05 7.3%
Recirculating Hot Water
System17 23.75 0 23.75 1.6%
Total 160.43 49.49 209.92 14.4%
14 Annual demand savings derived from Table 7.
15 Annual demand savings derived from Table 8.
16 Annual demand savings derived from Table 9.
17 Annual demand savings derived from Table 10.

POC

CREEKVIEW SPECIFIC

PLAN AREA
POC
Exhibit N
Water Facilities
Water Pipeline (with size)
LEGEND
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
800
Point of Connection
NOTE: If any portion of this Exhibit is unclear,
the complete original document is available
at the Roseville City Clerk Department, 311
Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678
24" W
(DW 1)
24" W (DW 6)
24" W (DW 5)

CREEKVIEW SPECIFIC

PLAN AREA
Exhibit O-1
Water Facilities For Reimbursement
Water Pipeline
(with size)
LEGEND
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
800
SEE EXHIBIT O-2 FOR CONTINUATION
This exhibit is for illustrative purposes
only. Sizes and locations of all utilities
will be finalized in improvement plans
submitted to the City of Roseville.

NOTE: If any portion of this Exhibit is unclear,
the complete original document is available
at the Roseville City Clerk Department, 311
Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678
No Water Segment Size Approx. Length
Average Day
Demand
ARSP Flow
(gpm)
Average Day
Demand
Total Flow
(gpm)4
Reimbursable
Party
Overall
Reimbursement
Cost
% Reimbursement Reimbursement
Owed
1 DW1 24" 1,210' 932 1,603 CSP $ 318,240 58.14% $185,028 2 DW2 24" 2,790' 932 1,675 CSP $ 815,040 55.64% $453,503 3 DW3 24" 2,390' 1,328 3,039 CSP $ 630,000 43.70% $275,301 4 DW4 24" Per CSP DA7 78 180 CSP $ 389,000 43.33% $168,567 No Water Segment Size Approx. Length
Average Day
Demand
ARSP Flow
(gpm)
Average Day
Demand
Capacity
Total Flow
(gpm)5
Reimbursable
From
Overall
Reimbursement
Cost
%
Reimbursement6
Reimbursement
Owed to ARSP
1 DW5 24" 1,610' 106 TBD Other 3rd Party $ 192,480 TBD TBD 2 DW6 24" 1,280' 37 TBD Other 3rd Party $ 160,250 TBD TBD

1. Improvements are subject to annual adjustments for CCI.

2. Reimbursement estimate is based on the Creekview Specific Plan Development Agreement.

3. No water conservation measures were factored into the analysis.

4. Total flow includes Creekview SP and may include other third parties. See Creekview DA Exhibit U and Exhibit V.

5. Based on the ability to provide water to the potential future Placer Ranch with the 24" water line. Flows to be determined at time of development application for future Placer Ranch.

6. % Reimbursement to be determined at time of development processing for Placer Ranch.

7. Flowrates from Table 5 CSP Exhibit V - Scenario 2.

Reimbursements From ARSP
Reimbursements to ARSP
EXHIBIT O-3

WATER REIMBURSEMENT SCHEDULE

WATER REIMBURSEMENTS
POC

CREEKVIEW SPECIFIC

PLAN AREA
POC
Exhibit P
Recycled Water Facilities
Recycled Water Pipeline (with size)
Point of Connection
LEGEND
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
800
NOTE: If any portion of this Exhibit is unclear,
the complete original document is available
at the Roseville City Clerk Department, 311
Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678
12" RW (RW1)
16" RW (RW 2)
24" RW (RW 3)
24" RW
(RW 4)

CREEKVIEW SPECIFIC

PLAN AREA
WEST

ROSEVILLE

SPECIFIC

PLAN AREA

ADDITIONAL

RW FLOW
Exhibit Q-1
Offsite Recycled Water Facilities For Reimbursement
Recycled Water
Pipeline
(with size)
LEGEND
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
800
This exhibit is for illustrative purposes only.

Sizes and locations of all utilities will be finalized in improvement plans submitted to the City of Roseville.

NOTE: If any
portion of this
Exhibit is
unclear, the
complete
original
document is
available at the
Roseville City
Clerk
Department,
311 Vernon
Street,
Roseville, CA
95678

DISCHARGES INTO

UNIVERSITY CREEK

DISCHARGES INTO

UNIVERSITY CREEK
36" SD
48" SD
48" SD
36" SD 30" SD
30" SD
30" SD
24" SD
72" SD 72" SD
72" SD
72" SD
72" SD
30" SD
36" SD
30" SD
24" SD
36" SD
30" SD
54" SD
30" SD
42" SD
48" SD 54" SD42" SD
54" SD
18" SD
24" SD
24" SD
24" SD
24" SD
24" SD
30" SD
36" SD
24" SD
30" SD
18" SD
30" SD
42" SD
24" SD
30" SD
36" SD
36" SD
36" SD
36" SD
54" SD
72" SD
24" SD
54" SD
24" SD
30" SD
36" SD
Exhibit R
Drainage Facilities
Major Storm Drain Pipeline (with size)
Open Space
Stormwater Open Channel
Storm Drain Outfall
Storm Drain Pump Station (Road G)
Bioswale (Conceptual Locations)
LEGEND
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
800
NOTE: If any portion of this Exhibit is unclear, the complete original document is available at the Roseville City Clerk Department, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678

CREEKVIEW SPECIFIC

PLAN AREA
Exhibit S
Post Development 100 Year Floodplain
Post Development
100 Year Floodplain
LEGEND
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
800
Note:

The floodplain limits within the Creekview
Specific Plan Area are per the Creekview
Specific Plan Development Agreement
and are provided for reference only.

NOTE: If any portion of this Exhibit is unclear,
the complete original document is available
at the Roseville City Clerk Department, 311
Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678
Exhibit T
Fiber Optic Improvements
LEGEND
Parks that Require
Fiber Optics
Public Parcels that
Require Fiber Optics
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
800
NOTE: If any portion of this Exhibit is unclear,
the complete original document is available
at the Roseville City Clerk Department, 311
Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678
Exhibit V
Parks and Open Space
Parks
Open Space Paseo
Open Space
LEGEND
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
800
NOTE: If any portion of this Exhibit is unclear,
the complete original document is available
at the Roseville City Clerk Department, 311
Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678
Exhibit W
Parks Financing Plan
Amoruso Ranch
Parks Financing Plan
May 5, 2016
Prepared for:

Brookfield Residential
Prepared By:
4380 AUBURN BOULEVARD
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95841
May, 2016 Amoruso Ranch Parks Financing Plan
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
I. Introduction................................................................................................................................1 Purpose of Report.........................................................................................................................1 II. Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan .................................................................................................1 Parks and Open Space .................................................................................................................1 Bike Trails and Paseos..................................................................................................................1 III. Neighborhood Park Improvements .......................................................................................2 Facility Costs.................................................................................................................................2 Phasing ..........................................................................................................................................2 Funding Strategy – Existing Fee Program.................................................................................2 IV. Citywide Park Improvements ................................................................................................2 Facility Costs.................................................................................................................................2 Funding Strategy – Existing Fee Program.................................................................................3 V. Bike Trail Improvements .........................................................................................................3 Phasing ..........................................................................................................................................3 Funding Strategy – Developer Built ...........................................................................................3 VI. Paseo Improvements ...............................................................................................................4 Phasing ..........................................................................................................................................4 Funding Strategy – Developer Built ...........................................................................................4 VII. CFD for Maintenance............................................................................................................4 May, 2016 Amoruso Ranch Parks Financing Plan
Table of Contents
Maps
Map 1: Parks, Paseos, and Open Space
Map 2: Bike Trails
Tables
Table 1: Amoruso Ranch Parks Acreage
Table 2: Neighborhood Park Costs
Table 3: Neighborhood Park Cost Allocation
Table 4: Park Fee Revenues by Phase (Neighborhood Park Component) Table 5: Citywide Park Construction & In-Lieu Costs
Table 6: Citywide Park Cost Allocation
Table 7: Park Fee Revenues by Phase (Citywide Park Component) Table 8: Ongoing Maintenance and Landscape Costs
Table 9: Allocation of Ongoing Maintenance and Landscape Costs Appendices
Appendix A: Cost Estimates: The Collaborative West
April, 2016 Amoruso Ranch Parks Financing Plan

Page 1 of 4 ends

I. Introduction
Purpose of Report
This Parks Financing Plan was prepared for the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (“Project”) by Development Planning and Financing Group, Inc. (“DPFG”) as a strategy to fund and maintain the parks, bike trails, and paseos that are proposed in the Project. This document is an expansion of the Amoruso Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan, and provides additional details regarding the costs and funding of neighborhood parks, citywide parks, bike trails, and paseos. The findings will provide a clear understanding of how the parks plan is feasible, the funding structure, and overall costs associated with the Project.

II. Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan
Parks and Open Space
The City of Roseville’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan requires a ratio of 9 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The 9 acres of parkland includes; 3 acres/1,000 residents for neighborhood parks, 3 acres/1,000 residents for citywide parks, and 3 acres/1,000 residents for open space.

The parks program developed for Amoruso Ranch includes 157 acres of parkland on-site, including open space. The Project meets the neighborhood park and open space dedication requirement with at least 22.14 acres of each, but does not provide a citywide park. The project will pay a Citywide Park Fee which includes funding for park improvements and land (through an in-lieu calculation). Through the Citywide Park Fee, Amoruso Ranch will contribute its fair share to the creation of other planned facilities in the City. Table 1 shows the required park acreage under the City’s current Master Plan and project population assumptions. The developer is responsible for the budgeted park costs and the developer or City will be responsible for the construction of all the parks.

Seven neighborhood parks have been distributed throughout the Project. Map 1 shows the location of all the neighborhood parks in the Amoruso Ranch project.

Bike Trails and Paseos
The bike trails and paseos planned within the Project are mainly located along roadways. Bike trails take the form of Class 1, Class 1A, Class 2, and Class 3. Only the Class 1 bike trails are located away from a roadway, and this bike trail class occurs on the south western portion of the Project and along Westbrook Boulevard through the southern open space. The paseos are expanded areas in addition to the normal landscaping along roadways. Map 1 illustrates the paseos, while Map 2 shows the bike trails.

May, 2016 Amoruso Ranch Parks Financing Plan

Page 2 of 4 ends

III. Neighborhood Park Improvements
Facility Costs
Table 2 shows the total estimated neighborhood park facility costs. The parks program costs are estimated at roughly $7.1 million. The cost of the parks and recreation facilities include, but are not limited to, the following types of facilities:

Landscaping
Restrooms
Parking
Detailed park improvements and costs are provided by The Collaborative West, and are attached as Appendix A.

Phasing
The development of Phase 1 would have park improvements that correspond to the amount of initial residential development. These improvements include five neighborhood parks at a size of 1.72 acres, 1.87 acres, 2.12 acres, 2.0 acres, and 3.04 acres, for a total of 10.75 acres. The estimated facilities cost for the park improvements for Phase 1 is approximately $3.9 million.

Funding Strategy – Existing Fee Programs
The neighborhood park impact fee funds the neighborhood park improvements in Amoruso Ranch. Table 3 creates an updated fee for the Project by allocating the total neighborhood park improvement costs on a per residential unit basis. The costs were spread to the different residential land uses based on the persons per household that vary by unit size, using the same methodology as previous specific plans. This was done to create a tiered rate so that an HDR unit is not paying the same amount as an LDR unit.

Table 4 shows the neighborhood park impact fee revenues for Phase 1 and Build out.

IV. Citywide Park Improvements
The Citywide Park Improvement Fee funds the Project’s fair share of the construction costs of a citywide park and the Citywide Park Land In-Lieu Fee will provide funding for the purchase of land that was not provided on site for a citywide park.

Facility Costs
Table 5 shows the total facility improvement costs and estimated in-lieu land costs. The Project’s share of the citywide facilities costs are calculated by using the current Citywide Park Fee. The base fee for citywide park development is $2,111. A credit of $657 has been applied making the citywide park fee for ARSP $1,454 per unit.

May, 2016 Amoruso Ranch Parks Financing Plan

Page 3 of 4 ends

Land Component
The Citywide Park land in-lieu was calculated using the acreage requirement determined in Table 1, multiplied by the land appraisal value of $135,000 per acre. This is the same value used in previous specific plans. A total in-lieu estimate of $2,988,900 was calculated for the ARSP. The land in-lieu fee per unit for citywide is $1,058 per unit.

Summary
The total citywide park improvement fee for facility costs and land in-lieu is $2,512 per unit.

The Citywide Park funds will be used to purchase land and/or build citywide park facilities in other locations throughout the City. Amoruso Ranch is currently not planned for citywide facilities to be built within the plan area.

Funding Strategy - Existing Fee Programs
The Citywide Park fee will fund the citywide park facilities throughout the City, and the in-lieu component will fund future land acquisitions or additional construction. Table 6 creates the Citywide Park fee for the Amoruso Ranch project by allocating the total costs (construction and in-lieu) on a per residential unit. The costs were spread to the different residential land uses based on the persons per household that vary by unit size, using the same methodology as previous specific plans. This was done to create a tiered rate so that an HDR unit is not paying the same amount as an LDR unit.

Table 7 shows the citywide park fee revenues for Phase 1 and Build out.

V. Bike Trail Improvements
In the Amoruso Ranch project the Class 1 bike trail system is integrated with open space along the south west corner of the development and along Westbrook Boulevard in the open space on the south end of the development. Map 2 illustrates the proposed bike trails in the project. The Class 1 bike trail system along with the other bike trails incorporated with the roadways (Class 1A, 2, and 3) are all included in the roadway backbone infrastructure costs outlined in the Amoruso Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan. The developer will build these improvements as required, and as development progresses.

Phasing
The development of the Class 1 bike trail will occur entirely with the Phase 1 development.

Funding Strategy – Developer Built
The bike trail facilities will be built by the developer, without the formation of a fee program.

These improvements will be an eligible facility to be funded and/or reimbursed by the project CFD when formed.

May, 2016 Amoruso Ranch Parks Financing Plan

Page 4 of 4 ends

VI. Paseo Improvements
The paseos in Amoruso Ranch run along some segments of collector roadways. Paseos are expanded areas, in addition to landscape corridors with grass, trees, landscaping, and contain no facilities. Map 1 illustrates the proposed layout of the paseos in the project. All of the paseo costs are included in the roadway backbone infrastructure costs outlined in the Amoruso Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan. The developer will build these improvements as required, and as development progresses.

Phasing
The development of Phase 1 includes paseo improvements within the residential area on Road “E”, “F”, and Road “A”, while the remaining improvements will be built in Phase 2 and 3 along Roads “F”, “G”, “E”, and “D”.

Funding Strategy – Developer Built
The paseo facilities will be built by the developer, without the formation of a fee program.

These improvements will be an eligible facility to be funded and/or reimbursed by the project CFD when formed.

VII. Community Facilities District for Maintenance
The Developer will form a CFD for maintenance to finance the cost of operating and maintaining streets, landscaping, open space, parks, trails, paseos and storm water in the Project. A Rate and Method of Apportionment will be required in establishing a method of tax, a maximum special tax amount, and any escalation factors that will be implemented to allow the annual special tax to keep pace with inflation. Table 8 details the quantities and cost assumptions to be used in the formation of the CFD with the exception of open space related items, while Table 9 allocates the costs across the various product types to estimate the special tax amount. An updated Property Analysis Record (“PAR”) will be required prior to CFD formation and based on 404 permit conditions, an inventory of all environmentally sensitive/protected areas within the open space, approved improvements, any mitigation requirements, final drainage channel design, vehicular access for maintenance, ultimate width of transition area, all ARSP specific permits, and other requirements/improvements outlined in the Overarching Open Space Management Plan and consistent with state/federal permits.

The maintenance CFD does not include the 645.5 acres of off-site open space. These parcels will be either conveyed to the City, pending agreed upon parameters for acceptance or deeded to a third party entity. If the City accepts these parcels, landowner shall annex these sites into the CFD for maintenance prior to formation. A PAR analysis for the cost of service shall be prepared prior to annexation.

Map 1 - Phasing

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME
3301 C St, Bldg. 100-B Tel 916.341.7760
Sacramento, CA 95816 Fax 916.341.7767
Acres Acres Surplus/
Park Type Assumption Required Provided (Deficit)
Population(2.61/pph) 7,376
Neighborhood Park 3 acres/1,000 pop. 22.14 22.14 0.00
Citywide Park 3 acres/1,000 pop. 22.14 0.00 22.14
Open Space2
3 acres/1,000 pop. 22.14 134.81 112.67
Total Park Land 66.30 156.95
Footnotes:
1 Persons per household per Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan. 2 See detailed breakdown of open space acres on Table 8. Credit provided for preserve area and avoidance area only.

Table 1
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Park Financing Plan
Amoruso Ranch Parks Acreage
Prepared by DPFG 4/29/2016
Item Acres Amount Acres Amount
Neighborhood Park
AR 60 1.28 $374,677.00
Contingency (15%) $56,201.55
Soft Costs (13%) $56,014.21
Subtotal $486,892.76
AR 61 1.87 $411,755.50 1.87 $411,755.50
Contingency (15%) $61,763.33 $61,763.33
Soft Costs (13%) $61,557.45 $61,557.45
Subtotal $535,076.27 $535,076.27
AR 62 10.11 $2,064,735.00
Contingency (15%) $309,710.25
Soft Costs (13%) $308,677.88
Subtotal $2,683,123.13
AR 63 1.72 $520,878.00 1.72 $520,878.00
Contingency (15%) $78,131.70 $78,131.70
Soft Costs (13%) $77,871.26 $77,871.26
Subtotal $676,880.96 $676,880.96
AR 64 2.12 $746,150.50 2.12 $746,150.50
Contingency (15%) $111,922.58 $111,922.58
Soft Costs (13%) $111,549.50 $111,549.50
Subtotal $969,622.57 $969,622.57
AR 66 3.04 $893,350.00 3.04 $893,350.00
Contingency (15%) $134,002.50 $134,002.50
Soft Costs (13%) $133,555.83 $133,555.83
Subtotal $1,160,908.33 $1,160,908.33
AR 67 2.00 $480,750.00 2.00 $480,750.00
Contingency (15%) $72,112.50 $72,112.50
Soft Costs (13%) $71,872.13 $71,872.13
Subtotal $624,734.63 $624,734.63
Total 10.75 $3,967,222.76 22.1 $7,137,238.65
Source: The Collaborative West Opinion of Probable Costs 3/23/2016, & Kimley Horn.

Table 2
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Park Financing Plan
Neighborhood Park Costs (2016$)
Phase 1 Buildout
Prepared by DPFG 4/29/2016
Source Total LDR MDR HDR CMU CC CMU
Acres 388.3 248.8 50.3 38.2 5.5 23.9 21.8
Units 2,826 1,302 542 873 109
Square Feet 476,524 238,948 237,576
Neighborhood Parks Table 2 $7,137,239
Use Factor1 2.61 2.23 1.85 1.85
Total Use 6,423.09 3,398.22 1,208.55 1,614.71 201.61Percentage of Total Use 100% 53% 19% 25% 3%Cost Allocated to Use $3,776,051.65 $1,342,926.51 $1,794,237.69 $224,022.80Neighborhood Parks Allocation per Unit/Sq.Ft. $2,900.19 $2,477.72 $2,055.26 $2,055.26 Footnotes:1The persons per household ("PPH") use factor assumed here, matches the average PPH of the City with an LDR unit. To create a tiered fee, the assumed PPH for theMDR and HDR land uses are then shown at a reduced amount. This methodology is consistent with what was done in the prior SVSP and CSP. The prior specificplans used an average PPH of 2.54, and thus land uses were assinged a PPH of 2.54 (LDR), 2.17 (MDR), and 1.8 (HDR). The updated factors asume the same percentageallocation of costs by land use as the prior specific plans, by using a PPH of 2.61 (LDR), 2.23 (MDR), and 1.85 (HDR).

PPH PPH
Table 3
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Park Financing Plan
Neighborhood Park Cost Allocation
Residential Non Residential
Prepared by DPFG 4/29/2016
Prepared by DPFG 5/5/2016
Item Units Rate1Total1Units Rate1Total1
Residential
Low Density 848 $2,900.19 $2,459,363.90 1,302 $2,900.19 $3,776,051.65 Medium Density 275 $2,477.72 $681,374.15 542 $2,477.72 $1,342,926.51 High Density 372 $2,055.26 $764,554.89 982 $2,055.26 $2,018,260.49 Subtotal Residential $3,905,292.94 $7,137,238.65
Nonresidential
Community Commercial $0.00 $0.00
Commercial/Mixed Use $0.00 $0.00
Subtotal Nonresidential $0.00 $0.00
Total Fee Program Revenue (Neighborhood Park) $3,905,292.94 $7,137,238.65 Total Neighborhood Park Costs (Table 2) $3,967,222.76 $7,137,238.65 Footnotes:
1 This park significantly serves Phase 2. Early in the absorption of Phase 2 (approximatly 21 units), combined with funding from Phase 1, sufficient funding will be available to construct AR-61.

Phase 1 Revenues Build Out Revenues
Table 4
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan - Park Financing Plan
Park Fee Revenue by Phase (Neighborhood/Community Park Component) Rate
Citywide Park Fee Base Rate $2,111
Land Fee Portion1$657
Construction Fee Portion $1,454
Amoruso Ranch Citywide Park Construction
ARSP units 2,826
Construction Fee Portion per Unit $1,454
Total Citywide Construction Amount $4,109,004
Amoruso Ranch In Lieu of Park Acreage
ARSP Citywide Acres Required (per Table 1) 22.14
Land Value per Acre2
$135,000
Total In Lieu Amount $2,988,900
Total Citywide Park Funding $7,097,904
Footnotes:
1 This portion of the base fee is excluded to avoid double charging, as the ARSP will calculate the in lieu portion of the fee based on $135,000/acre. 2 Per adopted in lieu fee for both SVSP and CSP.

Table 5
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Park Financing Plan
Citywide Park Construction & In Lieu Costs
Prepared by DPFG 4/29/2016
Source Total LDR MDR HDR CMU CC CMU
Acres 388.3 248.8 50.3 38.2 5.5 23.9 21.8Units 2,826 1,302 542 873 109 Square Feet 476,524 238,948 237,576Citywide Parks (Construction) Table 5 $4,109,004 Use Factor1 2.61 2.23 1.85 1.85Total Use 6,423.09 3,398.22 1,208.55 1,614.71 201.61Percentage of Total Use 100% 53% 19% 25% 3%Cost Allocated to Use $2,173,923.57 $773,140.80 $1,032,966.70 $128,972.93Citywide Parks Construciton Allocation per Unit/Sq.Ft. $1,669.68 $1,426.46 $1,183.24 $1,183.24 Citywide Parks (In Lieu) Table 5 $2,988,900
Use Factor1 2.61 2.23 1.85 1.85Total Use 6,423.09 3,398.22 1,208.55 1,614.71 201.61Percentage of Total Use 100% 53% 19% 25% 3%Cost Allocated to Use $1,581,317.56 $562,384.59 $751,382.61 $93,815.24Citywide Parks In Lieu Allocation per Unit/Sq.Ft. $1,214.53 $1,037.61 $860.69 $860.69 Total Citywide Park $7,097,904 $2,884.21 $2,464.07 $2,043.93 $2,043.93 Footnotes:1The persons per household ("PPH") use factor assumed here, matches the average PPH of the City with an LDR unit. To create a tiered fee, the assumed PPH for theMDR and HDR land uses are then shown at a reduced amount. This methodology is consistent with what was done in the prior SVSP and CSP. The prior specificplans used an average PPH of 2.54, and thus land uses were assinged a PPH of 2.54 (LDR), 2.17 (MDR), and 1.8 (HDR). The updated factors asume the same percentageallocation of costs by land use as the prior specific plans, by using a PPH of 2.61 (LDR), 2.23 (MDR), and 1.85 (HDR).

Table 6
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Park Financing Plan
Citywide Park Cost (Construction and In Lieu) Allocation Residential Non Residential

PPH PPHPPH PPH
Prepared by DPFG 4/29/2016
Item Units Rate1
Total1
Units Rate1
Total1
Residential
Low Density 848 $2,884.21 $2,445,809.89 1,302 $2,884.21 $3,755,241.13 Medium Density 275 $2,464.07 $677,618.97 542 $2,464.07 $1,335,525.39 High Density 372 $2,043.93 $760,341.29 982 $2,043.93 $2,007,137.48 Subtotal Residential $3,883,770.15 $7,097,904.00
Nonresidential
Community Commercial $0.00 $0.00
Commercial/Mixed Use $0.00 $0.00
Subtotal Nonresidential $0.00 $0.00
Total Fee Program Revenue (Citywide Park) $3,883,770.15 $7,097,904.00 Total Citywide Cost N/A N/A
Footnotes:
1 Per unit rates have been rounded to the nearest dollar. Totals for each land use may seem incorrect, but total fee program revenue matches cost estimates.

Table 7
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Park Financing Plan
Park Fee Revenue by Phase (Citywide Park Component)
Phase 1 Revenues Build Out Revenues
Prepared by DPFG 4/29/2016
Cost Total Annual
per Unit1Cost
Residential/Nonresidential Cost Allocation
Landscape Corridor/Median 17.0 acres $10,325.00 $175,879.34 Paseos 10.7 acres $10,325.00 $110,580.75
Bike Trail Maintenance 4,412 linear feet $1.06 $4,676.72 Leaf Pick Up28.4 miles $61.31 $512.87
Streetsweeping 25.1 miles $28.62 $718.23
Open Space
NAPOTS349.2 acres TBD
Preserve397.6 acres TBD
Avoidance310.3 acres TBD
Transition/Channel327.0 acres TBD
Subtotal Open Space (Placeholder)3184.0 acres $575.00 $105,782.75 Subtotal Costs $398,150.65
Repair/Replacement (sinking fund) (5%) $19,907.53
City Administration
Finance Department (3%) $12,541.75
Parks Department (10%) $41,805.82
Subtotal City Administration $54,347.56
County Administration (1%) $4,724.06
Total Costs (Residential/Nonresidential Shared) $477,129.81 Residential Only Cost Allocation
Neighborhood Parks422.1 acres $10,300.00 $228,042.00
Stormwater Management 2,826 units $25.00 $70,650.00
Subtotal Costs $298,692.00
Repair/Replacement (sinking fund) (5%) $14,934.60
City Administration
Finance Department (3%) $9,408.80
Parks Department (10%) $31,362.66
Subtotal City Administration $40,771.46
County Administration (1%) $3,543.98
Total Costs (Residential Only) $357,942.04
Total Costs $835,071.85
Source: City of Roseville, ECORP, and Kimley Horn.

Footnotes:
1 Cost estimates derived from indepth analysis of City costs done for SVSP. Those costs have then been applied to all specific plans since. 2 1/3 of streetsweeping miles.
4 Includes developed and undeveloped.
3 The Cost per Unit for Open Space placeholder of $575 per year was derived by simply averaging the Citys proposed annual open space cost per acre of $1,000 and the Developer proposed annual open space cost per acre of $150. The actual annual open space cost per acre will be determined at the time of the formation of the maintenance CFD for this project as outlined in the Development Agreement. The ultimate cost per acre could be above or below the aforementioned range, depending upon the 404 permit conditions, an inventory of all environmentally sensitive/protected areas within the open space, approved improvements, any mitigation requirements, vehicular access for maintenance, final drainage channel design, ultimate width of transition area, all ARSP specific permits, other improvements outlined in the Overarching Open Space Management Plan, state and federal permits, and established city maintenance standards.

Table 8
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Park Financing Plan
Ongoing Maintenance and Landscape Costs
Quantity
Prepared by DPFG 5/5/2016
Source Total LDR MDR HDR CMU CC CMU
Acres 388.3 248.8 50.3 38.2 5.5 23.9 21.8
Units 2,826 1,302 542 873 109
Square Feet 476,524 238,948 237,576Operations/Maintenance (Residential & Nonresidential) Table 8 $477,129.81 Use Factor 1.00 1.00 0.62 0.62 1,500 1,800
Total Use 2,744.13 1,302.00 542.00 541.26 67.58 159.30 131.99 Percentage of Total Use 100% 47% 20% 20% 2% 6% 5%Cost Allocated to Use $226,382.89 $94,239.27 $94,110.60 $11,750.35 $27,697.77 $22,948.94 O/M Res. & Nonres. Allocation per Unit/Sq.Ft. $173.87 $173.87 $107.80 $107.80 $0.12 $0.10 Operations/Maintenance (Residential Only) Table 8 $357,942.04 Use Factor 1.00 1.00 0.62 0.62
Total Use 2,452.84 1,302.00 542.00 541.26 67.58Percentage of Total Use 100% 53% 22% 22% 3% Cost Allocated to Use $190,000.38 $79,093.86 $78,985.87 $9,861.92 O/M Res. Only Allocation per Unit/Sq.Ft. $145.93 $145.93 $90.48 $90.48 Cost Allocation Per Unit/Sq.Ft. $835,071.85 $319.80 $319.80 $198.28 $198.28 $0.12 $0.10 Note: Costs will require adjustment upon completion of PAR for open space. See Table 8.

EDU Factor per Unit EDU Factor per SQFT
Table 9
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Park Financing Plan
Approximate Allocation of Ongoing Operations and Maintenance Costs Residential Non Residential
EDU Factor per Unit EDU Factor per SQFT
Prepared by DPFG 4/29/2016
Appendix A:

Amoruso Ranch Parks
Option of Costs (TheCollaborative West)
Amoruso Ranch Parks
Brookfield Homes 100 Avenida Miramar
Prepared: CF Date: 21-Apr-16 San Clemente, CA 92672
Revised: 949-366-6624

SUMMARY
1 1.28 AC Construction 244,860.00
Landscape 129,817.00
Construction & Landscape 374,677.00
Estimated Total with Contingency and Soft Cost 486,892.76 2 AR-61

1.87 AC Construction 214,080.00
Landscape 197,675.50
Construction & Landscape 411,755.50
Estimated Total with Contingency and Soft Cost 535,076.27 3 AR-62

10.11 AC Construction 1,243,260.00
Landscape 821,475.00
Construction & Landscape 2,064,735.00
Estimated Total with Contingency and Soft Cost 2,683,123.13 4 AR-63

1.72 AC Construction 397,265.00
Landscape 123,613.00
Construction & Landscape 520,878.00
Estimated Total with Contingency and Soft Cost 676,880.96 5 AR-64

2.12 AC Construction 538,920.00
Landscape 207,230.50
Construction & Landscape 746,150.50
Estimated Total with Contingency and Soft Cost 969,622.57 6 AR-66

3.04 AC Construction 664,950.00
Landscape 228,400.00
Construction & Landscape 893,350.00
Estimated Total with Contingency and Soft Cost 1,160,908.33 7 AR-67

2.0 AC Construction 303,200.00
Landscape 177,550.00
Construction & Landscape 480,750.00
Estimated Total with Contingency and Soft Cost 624,734.63 Grand Total $7,137,238.65
Cost Per Acre $322,368.50
Cost Per Square Foot $7.40
Opinion of Probable Costs
AR-60
TCW has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or market conditions. TCW makes no warranty or representation that the actual cost will not vary from the Owner's budget or from this opinion of probable costs.

AR-60 (1.28 AC)
Item/Description Qty. Unit Unit Price Total
Construction
Hardscape
5' Walkways at Park (concrete) 6,945 sf 8.00 55,560.00
Half-court Basketball 1 ea 35,000.00 35,000.00
Masonry
Entry Sign Wall 1 allow 8,000.00 8,000.00
Park Site Features
Playground Structures 1 allow 80,000.00 80,000.00
Shade Structure 1 ea 30,000.00 30,000.00
Trash Receptacles 2 ea 800.00 1,600.00
Bench 10 ea 1,000.00 10,000.00
Picnic Tables 1 ea 2,200.00 2,200.00
Drinking Fountain 1 ea 5,000.00 5,000.00
Lighting
Security Lighting 4 ea 3,000.00 12,000.00
Utilities
Sanitary Sewer Service Stub 1 allow 2,000.00 2,000.00
Domestic Water Service Stub 1 allow 1,500.00 1,500.00
Storm Drain Service Stub 1 allow 2,000.00 2,000.00
Construction Total $244,860.00
Landscape
Shrubs 21,411 sf 1.00 21,410.80
Turf (seed) 27,400 sf 0.35 9,590.00
Automatic Irrigation 48,811 sf 1.50 73,216.20
General SiteDrainage (HDPE Pipe w/ inlets) 1.28 ac 20,000.00 25,600.00 Landscape Total $129,817.00
Construction & Landscape Total $374,677.00
15% Contingency $56,201.55
13% Soft Costs $56,014.21
Estimated Total $486,892.76
Cost per Acre $380,384.97
Cost Per SF $8.73
TCW has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or market conditions. TCW makes no warranty or representation that the actual cost will not vary from the Owner's budget or from this opinion of probable costs.

AR-61 (1.87 AC)
Item/Description Qty. Unit Unit Price Total
Construction
Hardscape
Paving at Shade Structure 670 sf 8.00 5,360.00
5' Walkways at Park (concrete) 5,965 sf 8.00 47,720.00
Masonry
Entry Sign Wall 1 allow 8,000.00 8,000.00
Park Site Features
Playground Structures 1 allow 80,000.00 80,000.00
Shade Structures at Tot Lot 1 ea 45,000.00 45,000.00
Trash Receptacles 2 ea 800.00 1,600.00
Bench 4 ea 1,000.00 4,000.00
Picnic Tables 2 ea 2,200.00 4,400.00
Drinking Fountain 1 ea 5,000.00 5,000.00
Lighting
Security Lighting 2 ea 3,000.00 6,000.00
Utilities
Sanitary Sewer Service Stub 1 allow 2,000.00 2,000.00
Recycled Water Stub 1 allow 1,500.00 1,500.00
Domestic Water Service Stub 1 allow 1,500.00 1,500.00
Storm Drain Service Stub 1 allow 2,000.00 2,000.00
Construction Total $214,080.00
Landscape
Shrubs 33,622 sf 1.00 33,622.20
Turf (seed) 41,200 sf 0.35 14,420.00
Automatic Irrigation 74,822 sf 1.50 112,233.30
General SiteDrainage (HDPE Pipe w/ inlets) 1.87 ac 20,000.00 37,400.00 Landscape Total $197,675.50
Construction & Landscape Total $411,755.50
15% Contingency $61,763.33
13% Soft Costs $61,557.45
Estimated Total $535,076.27
Cost per Acre $286,137.04
Cost Per SF $6.57
TCW has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or market conditions. TCW makes no warranty or representation that the actual cost will not vary from the Owner's budget or from this opinion of probable costs.

AR-62 (10.11 AC)
Item/Description Qty. Unit Unit Price Total
Construction
Hardscape
Paving at Pavillion/Overhead Structures
(Concrete) 900 sf 8.00 7,200.00
Asphalt Paving at Parking Lot w/ Aggregate Base 32,720 sf 3.00 98,160.00 Walkways at Park (natural gray, light wash finish) 15,800 sf 8.00 126,400.00 Masonry
Entry Sign Wall 1 ea 8,000.00 8,000.00
Park Site Features
Playground Structures 1 allow 80,000.00 80,000.00
Basketball Court 2 ea 35,000.00 70,000.00
Shade Structure at Playground Area 1 ea 40,000.00 40,000.00 Trash Receptacles 10 ea 800.00 8,000.00
Picnic Tables 5 ea 2,200.00 11,000.00
6' Benches 12 ea 1,000.00 12,000.00
Drinking Fountain 4 ea 5,000.00 20,000.00
Restroom Building / Snack Shop 1 allow 300,000.00 300,000.00 Ball Fields
Baseball (Outfield and Infield) 3 ea 100,000.00 300,000.00 Soccer Field Overlay 1 ea 58,000.00 58,000.00
Fencing (Chainlink) 750 lf 37,500.00 50.00
Lighting
Security Lighting 20 ea 3,000.00 60,000.00
Utilities
Sanitary Sewer Service Stub 1 allow 2,000.00 2,000.00
Domestic Water Service Stub 1 allow 1,500.00 1,500.00
Recycled Water Service Stub 1 allow 1,500.00 1,500.00
Storm Drain Service Stub 1 allow 2,000.00 2,000.00
Construction Total $1,243,260.00
TCW has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or market conditions. TCW makes no warranty or representation that the actual cost will not vary from the Owner's budget or from this opinion of probable costs.

AR-62 (10.11 AC)
Item/Description Qty. Unit Unit Price Total
Landscape
Shrubs 40,200 sf 1.00 40,200.00
Turf (seed) 109,500 sf 0.35 38,325.00
Automatic Irrigation 360,500 sf 1.50 540,750.00
General SiteDrainage (HDPE Pipe w/ inlets) 10.11 ac 20,000.00 202,200.00 Landscape Total $821,475.00
Construction & Landscape Total $2,064,735.00
15% Contingency $309,710.25
13% Soft Costs $308,677.88
Estimated Total $2,683,123.13
Cost per Acre $265,392.99
Cost Per SF $6.09
TCW has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or market conditions. TCW makes no warranty or representation that the actual cost will not vary from the Owner's budget or from this opinion of probable costs.

AR-63 (1.72 AC)
Item/Description Qty. Unit Unit Price Total
Construction
Hardscape
Bark Mulch/DG at Dog Park 26,835 sf 3.00 80,505.00
Paving at Shade Structure 1,425 sf 8.00 11,400.00
5' wide walkways at park (concrete) 2,650 sf 8.00 21,200.00 10' wide multi-purpose trail at park (concrete) 2,270 sf 8.00 18,160.00 Masonry
Entry Sign Wall 1 allow 8,000.00 8,000.00
Metal
5'-6" Dog Park Fencing 1,000 lf 50.00 50,000.00
Metal Dog Park Gates 4 ea 250.00 1,000.00
Park Site Features
Shade Structure 2 ea 45,000.00 90,000.00
Playground Equipment 1 allow 80,000.00 80,000.00
Trash Receptacles 4 ea 800.00 3,200.00
Benches 7 ea 1,000.00 7,000.00
Picnic Tables 4 ea 2,200.00 8,800.00
Drinking Fountain 1 ea 5,000.00 5,000.00
Lighting
Security Lighting 2 ea 3,000.00 6,000.00
Utilities
Sanitary Sewer Service Stub 1 allow 2,000.00 2,000.00
Domestic Water Service Stub 1 allow 1,500.00 1,500.00
Recycled Water Service Stub 1 allow 1,500.00 1,500.00
Storm Drain Service Stub 1 allow 2,000.00 2,000.00
Construction Total $397,265.00
Landscape
Shrubs 18,443 sf 1.00 18,443.20
Turf (seed) 23,300 sf 0.35 8,155.00
Automatic Irrigation 41,743 sf 1.50 62,614.80
General SiteDrainage (HDPE Pipe w/ inlets) 1.72 ac 20,000.00 34,400.00 Landscape Total $123,613.00
Construction & Landscape Total $520,878.00
15% Contingency $78,131.70
13% Soft Costs $77,871.26
Estimated Total $676,880.96
Cost per Acre $393,535.44
Cost Per SF $9.03
TCW has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or market conditions. TCW makes no warranty or representation that the actual cost will not vary from the Owner's budget or from this opinion of probable costs.

AR-64 (2.12 AC)
Item/Description Qty. Unit Unit Price Total
Construction
Hardscape
Concrete Paving at Shade Structure 4,500 sf 8.00 36,000.00 5' Walkway (concrete) 11,815 sf 8.00 94,520.00
8' Walk (concrete) 7,600 sf 8.00 60,800.00
Masonry
Entry Sign Wall 1 allow 8,000.00 8,000.00
Park Site Features 0.00
Playground Equipment 1 allow 80,000.00 80,000.00
Shade Structures 3 ea 45,000.00 135,000.00
Canvas Structure at Shaded Seating Area 1 ea 65,000.00 65,000.00 Crossfit Stations 3 ea 2,000.00 6,000.00
Trash Receptacles 4 ea 800.00 3,200.00
Benches 6 ea 1,000.00 6,000.00
Bike Racks 1 ea 1,200.00 1,200.00
Drinking Fountain 1 ea 5,000.00 5,000.00
Picnic Tables 6 ea 2,200.00 13,200.00
Lighting and Electrical
Security Lighting 6 ea 3,000.00 18,000.00
Utilities
Sanitary Sewer Service Stub 1 allow 2,000.00 2,000.00
Domestic Water Service Stub 1 allow 1,500.00 1,500.00
Recycled Water Service Stub 1 allow 1,500.00 1,500.00
Storm Drain Service Stub 1 allow 2,000.00 2,000.00
Construction Total $538,920.00
Landscape
Planting 43,432 sf 1.00 43,432.20
Turf (sod) 25,000 sf 0.75 18,750.00
Automatic Irrigation 68,432 sf 1.50 102,648.30
General SiteDrainage (HDPE Pipe w/ inlets) 2.12 ac 20,000.00 42,400.00 Landscape Total $207,230.50
Construction & Landscape Total $746,150.50
15% Contingency $111,922.58
13% Soft Costs $111,549.50
Estimated Total $969,622.57
Cost per Acre $457,369.14
Cost Per SF $10.50
TCW has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or market conditions. TCW makes no warranty or representation that the actual cost will not vary from the Owner's budget or from this opinion of probable costs.

AR-66 (3.04 AC)
Item/Description Qty. Unit Unit Price Total
Construction
Hardscape
Paving at Picnic Area 8,000 sf 8.00 64,000.00
Paving at Stage 1,200 sf 8.00 9,600.00
Walkways at Park (natural gray w/ finish) 12,000 sf 8.00 96,000.00 Surfacing at Game Area 6,750 sf 3.00 20,250.00
Surfacing at Bocce Courts 1,500 sf 3.00 4,500.00
Surfacing at Hard Courts 700 sf 10.00 7,000.00
Mowcurb at Horseshoes and Bocce 400 lf 15.00 6,000.00
Masonry
Entry Sign Wall 1 allow 8,000.00 8,000.00
Park Site Features
Playground Structures 1 allow 80,000.00 80,000.00
Covered Stage (Shade Sail) 1 allow 75,000.00 75,000.00
Restroom Building 1 allow 170,000.00 170,000.00
30' high Flag Pole 1 ea 600.00 600.00
Trash Receptacles 10 ea 800.00 8,000.00
Picnic Tables 20 ea 2,200.00 44,000.00
6' Benches 30 ea 1,000.00 30,000.00
Drinking Fountain 1 ea 5,000.00 5,000.00
Lighting
Security Lighting 10 ea 3,000.00 30,000.00
Utilities
Sanitary Sewer Service Stub 1 allow 2,000.00 2,000.00
Domestic Water Service Stub 1 allow 1,500.00 1,500.00
Recycled Water Stub 1 allow 1,500.00 1,500.00
Storm Drain Service Stub 1 allow 2,000.00 2,000.00
Construction Total $664,950.00
Landscape
Shrubs 30,500 sf 1.00 30,500.00
Turf (sod) 40,600 sf 0.75 30,450.00
Automatic Irrigation 71,100 sf 1.50 106,650.00
General SiteDrainage (HDPE Pipe w/ inlets) 3.04 ac 20,000.00 60,800.00 Landscape Total $228,400.00
Construction & Landscape Total $893,350.00
15% Contingency $134,002.50
13% Soft Costs $133,555.83
Estimated Total $1,160,908.33
Cost per Acre $381,877.74
Cost Per SF $8.77
TCW has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or market conditions. TCW makes no warranty or representation that the actual cost will not vary from the Owner's budget or from this opinion of probable costs.

AR-67 (2.0 AC)
Item/Description Qty. Unit Unit Price Total
Construction
Hardscape
Paving at Shade Structure 2,000 sf 8.00 16,000.00
5' Walkways at Park (concrete) 8,350 sf 8.00 66,800.00
Masonry
Entry Sign Wall 1 allow 8,000.00 8,000.00
Park Site Features
Playground Structures & Surfaces 1 allow 80,000.00 80,000.00 Shade Structure 2 ea 45,000.00 90,000.00
Trash Receptacles 2 ea 800.00 1,600.00
Picnic Tables 4 ea 2,200.00 8,800.00
6' Benches 8 ea 1,000.00 8,000.00
Drinking Fountain 1 ea 5,000.00 5,000.00
Lighting
Security Lighting 4 ea 3,000.00 12,000.00
Utilities
Sanitary Sewer Service Stub 1 allow 2,000.00 2,000.00
Domestic Water Service Stub 1 allow 1,500.00 1,500.00
Recycled Water Service Stub 1 allow 1,500.00 1,500.00
Storm Drain Service Stub 1 allow 2,000.00 2,000.00
Construction Total $303,200.00
Landscape
Shrubs 6,920 sf 1.00 6,920.00
Turf (seed) 65,000 sf 0.35 22,750.00
Automatic Irrigation 71,920 sf 1.50 107,880.00
General SiteDrainage (HDPE Pipe w/ inlets) 2.00 ac 20,000.00 40,000.00 Landscape Total $177,550.00
Construction & Landscape Total $480,750.00
15% Contingency $72,112.50
13% Soft Costs $71,872.13
Estimated Total $624,734.63
Cost per Acre $312,367.31
Cost Per SF $7.17
TCW has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or market conditions. TCW makes no warranty or representation that the actual cost will not vary from the Owner's budget or from this opinion of probable costs.

Exhibit Y
Open Space Areas
Open Space Preserves
Open Space Transition Zone
Open Space Avoidance Area
General Open Space
LEGEND
1 inch = ft.
( IN FEET )
800
NOTE: If any portion of this Exhibit is unclear,
the complete original document is available
at the Roseville City Clerk Department, 311
Vernon Street, Roseville, CA 95678
Exhibit AA
DUE Allocation to Specific Plan Parcels for CSP Reimbursements ARSP - DUE ALLOCATION TO SPECIFIC PLAN PARCELS FOR CSP REIMBURSEMENTS Exhibit AA Parcel Specific Plan Land Use Acres Units Density Water EDU's % of ARSP
Water EDUs Sewer EDUs
% of ARSP
Sewer EDUs
Recycled Water
EDUs
% of ARSP R.W.

EDUs Traffic EDUs
% of ARSP
Traffic EDUs
AR-1 LDR 20.2 70 3.4 85 4.41% 70 2.65% 85 4.41% 70 2.24% AR-2 LDR 24.7 101 4.1 101 5.25% 101 3.83% 101 5.25% 101 3.23% AR-3 LDR 27.3 84 3.1 102 5.30% 84 3.18% 102 5.30% 84 2.68% AR-4 LDR 7.2 31 4.3 31 1.61% 31 1.18% 31 1.61% 31 0.99% AR-5 LDR 2.4 9 3.8 9 0.47% 9 0.34% 9 0.47% 9 0.29%
AR-6 LDR 5.4 25 4.7 25 1.30% 25 0.95% 25 1.30% 25 0.80% AR-7 LDR 3.1 20 6.4 14 0.74% 20 0.76% 14 0.74% 20 0.64% AR-8 LDR 8.4 56 6.6 40 2.09% 56 2.12% 40 2.09% 56 1.79% AR-9 LDR 6.3 42 6.7 30 1.56% 42 1.59% 30 1.56% 42 1.34% AR-11 LDR 8.3 38 4.6 38 1.97% 38 1.44% 38 1.97% 38 1.21% AR-12 LDR 3.1 16 5.1 14 0.72% 16 0.61% 14 0.72% 16 0.51% AR-13 LDR 5.4 30 5.6 26 1.35% 30 1.14% 26 1.35% 30 0.96% AR-14 LDR 7.5 50 6.7 36 1.86% 50 1.90% 36 1.86% 50 1.60% AR-15 LDR 7.3 49 6.7 35 1.82% 49 1.86% 35 1.82% 49 1.57% AR-16 LDR 6.6 45 6.9 32 1.68% 45 1.71% 32 1.68% 45 1.44% AR-17 LDR 3.6 24 6.6 17 0.89% 24 0.91% 17 0.89% 24 0.77% AR-18 LDR 5.1 33 6.5 24 1.23% 33 1.25% 24 1.23% 33 1.05% AR-22 LDR 6.0 32 5.3 28 1.44% 32 1.21% 28 1.44% 32 1.02% AR-23 LDR 2.8 19 6.9 14 0.71% 19 0.72% 14 0.71% 19 0.61% AR-24 LDR 2.5 12 4.8 12 0.62% 12 0.45% 12 0.62% 12 0.38% AR-26 LDR 9.3 48 5.2 42 2.17% 48 1.82% 42 2.17% 48 1.53% AR-27 LDR 2.5 15 6.0 13 0.68% 15 0.57% 13 0.68% 15 0.48% AR-30 LDR 2.9 13 4.5 13 0.68% 13 0.49% 13 0.68% 13 0.42% AR-31 LDR 4.4 27 6.1 19 1.01% 27 1.02% 19 1.01% 27 0.86% AR-34 LDR 3.2 14 4.4 14 0.73% 14 0.53% 14 0.73% 14 0.45% AR-35 LDR 4.8 20 4.2 20 1.04% 20 0.76% 20 1.04% 20 0.64% AR-40 LDR 14.4 81 5.6 70 3.65% 81 3.07% 70 3.65% 81 2.59% AR-43 LDR 12.1 82 6.8 59 3.05% 82 3.11% 59 3.05% 82 2.62% AR-46 LDR 2.4 13 5.5 11 0.59% 13 0.49% 11 0.59% 13 0.42% 219.0 1,099 156.8 974 51% 1,099 42% 974 51% 1,099 35%
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Specific Plan
Low Density Residential
ARSP - DUE ALLOCATION TO SPECIFIC PLAN PARCELS FOR CSP REIMBURSEMENTS Exhibit AA Parcel Specific Plan Land Use Acres Units Density Water EDU's % of ARSP
Water EDUs Sewer EDUs
% of ARSP
Sewer EDUs
Recycled Water
EDUs
% of ARSP R.W.

EDUs Traffic EDUs
% of ARSP
Traffic EDUs
Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Specific Plan
AR-10 MDR 10.5 138 13.1 66 3.44% 138 5.23% 66 3.44% 138 4.41% AR-21 MDR 2.1 15 7.3 11 0.56% 15 0.57% 11 0.56% 15 0.48% AR-25 MDR 5.3 38 7.2 27 1.41% 38 1.44% 27 1.41% 38 1.21% AR-28 MDR 10.2 129 12.7 62 3.22% 129 4.89% 62 3.22% 129 4.12% AR-32 MDR 7.8 58 7.4 42 2.16% 58 2.20% 42 2.16% 58 1.85% AR-33 MDR 5.1 42 817.0 12 0.64% 42 1.59% 12 0.64% 42 1.34% AR-37 MDR 5.0 39 7.8 28 1.45% 39 1.48% 28 1.45% 39 1.25% AR-39 MDR 7.8 66 8.5 36 1.85% 66 2.50% 36 1.85% 66 2.11% AR-42 MDR 7.5 76 10.1 41 2.13% 76 2.88% 41 2.13% 76 2.43% AR-45 MDR 8.0 94 11.8 51 2.63% 94 3.56% 51 2.63% 94 3.00%

69.3 695 902.9 375 19% 695 26% 375 19% 695 22%
AR-19 HDR 9.3 230 24.6 68 3.53% 157 5.97% 68 3.53% 141 4.51% AR-36 HDR 7.5 113 14.9 54 2.82% 77 2.93% 54 2.82% 69 2.22% AR-38 HDR 15.1 380 25.2 112 5.82% 260 9.86% 112 5.82% 233 7.46% AR-44 HDR 5.9 150 25.4 44 2.30% 103 3.89% 44 2.30% 92 2.94%

37.9 873 90.1 278 14% 597 23% 278 14% 536 17%
AR-51 CC-VC 91 44 2.27% 62 2.36% 44 2.27% 56 1.79%
AR-51 CC-VC 14.3 62 3.21% 55 2.07% 62 3.21% 190 6.08%
AR-52 CC-VC 68 33 1.70% 47 1.76% 33 1.70% 42 1.33%
AR-52 CC-VC 13.0 56 2.92% 50 1.88% 56 2.92% 173 5.53%
AR-53 CC 23.7 103 5.33% 34 1.27% 103 5.33% 338 10.79%

51.0 159 297 15% 247 9% 297 15% 799 26%
377.1 2,826 7.5 1,925 100% 2,638 100% 1,925 100% 3,129 100% Note:
[1] One Water EDU = 600 gpd (Based on Table 1 of the ARSP Water Master Plan Final Report, February 2016) [2] One Sewer EDU = 190 gpd (Based on Table 1 of the ARSP Wastewater Master Plan Final Report, February 2016) [3] One Recycled Water EDU = 600 gpd (Based on Table 1 of the ARSP Recycled Water Master Plan Final Report, February 2016) [4] Based on Table 6 of the ARSP Final Traffic Study, December 5, 2015 Community Commercial
TOTAL
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
ORDINANCE NO.

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE

ADOPTING A 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)

AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY

OF ROSEVILLE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

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

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

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

4. The Second Amendment to 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 Development Agreement will provide sufficient benefit to the City to justify entering into said Amendment; [C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\72E59571-F75E-4195-8EC4-C470E455B736\Roseville.29503.1.Ordinance_- _Second_Amendment_to_Development_Agreement_(148.7_acres).doc: 4/5/22] 2 SECTION 4. The Second Amendment to Development Agreement, by and between the City of Roseville, Brookfield Sunset, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Brookfield”), and Jennifer M. Amoruso, Successor Trustee of the Amoruso Family Living Trust, Dated March 14, 2005, pertaining to the property located within the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan area (148.7 acres), 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 6. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its adoption.

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
1 SECOND AMENDMENT OF 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

RECITALS
A. Landowner and City entered into a Development Agreement (the “Development Agreement”) which was approved by the City Council of City on July 6, 2016, and recorded on August 24, 2016, in the Official Records of Placer County as Document No. 2016-0070352-00. City and Landowner entered into the Development Agreement relative to development within a portion of the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”, “ARSP”, or “Plan Area”), as such is more precisely described in Exhibits “A” and “B” of the Development Agreement (the “Property”), as those exhibits are amended by Exhibits “A” and “B” attached hereto. Except as otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Development Agreement.

C. Since approval of the Development Agreement, Brookfield Sacramento has become the fee title owner of a portion of the Property, as shown in Exhibit “D”

CC EXHIBIT E
2 attached to the First Amendment, and Brookfield remains under contract to purchase the balance of the Property from Amoruso, with all persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property being bound by the Development Agreement and this Second Amendment.

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

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

4. FORM OF AMENDMENT. This Second Amendment is executed in two duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original.

EXHIBIT “A”

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

Page 1 of 1 ends

Roseville City CouncilApril 20, 2022

Roseville City Council
April 20, 2022