Agenda — Roseville City Council, June 1, 2022 (part 3 of 4)

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2105
File #: 0900-04-01 & 0201-01
Title:

Sun City - Phase 2A Resurfacing Project - Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Project Identification & Budget Adjustment
Contact: Gursewak Singh 916-746-1305 [email protected] Meeting Date: 6/1/2022
Item #: 7.12.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends that City Council:

1. Adopt an ordinance to approve a budget adjustment in the amount of $2,500,000 from the Road Maintenance and Rehab Account (RMRA) Fund, and $400,000 from the Highway Users Tax and Roadway Fund, for a total of $2,900,000 for the Sun City Phase 2A Resurfacing Project;

2. Adopt a resolution, as required by Senate Bill 1 (SB-1), identifying the Sun City Phase 2A Resurfacing Project for use of the City's 2022-2023 funding allotment from the State Road Maintenance & Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Fund.

BACKGROUND
Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, was signed into law in April of 2017 to address the budget shortfall for maintenance of existing infrastructure throughout the State. As part of the legislation, local agencies are required to list all proposed projects scheduled to receive SB 1 funding by resolution prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA in the next fiscal year. The funding is restricted for use on street maintenance, rehabilitation, safety, and transit projects. The California Transportation Commission issued the requirement that project lists for the 2022-2023 fiscal year are due by July 1, 2022.

The scope of the Sun City Resurfacing Project is planned as a multi-year project with four separate phases: Phase 1, Phase 2A, Phase 2B, and Phase 3. Each phase will be funded annually in advance of construction. Resurfacing within the Sun City Phase 2A neighborhood includes the removal and replacement of failed asphalt roadway sections as well as the application of preventative maintenance surface treatments to a portion of the Sun City neighborhood. The streets scheduled to receive the maintenance and resurfacing application are shown on the attached Exhibit A.

The Engineer's Estimate for the Sun City Phase 2A Resurfacing Project is $2.68 Million. On July 21, 2021, Council approved the On-Call Roadway and Trail Maintenance Services Contract with Pavement Coatings Co. The scope of services offered by that contract align with the scope of resurfacing required within the Sun City Neighborhood, and Pavement Coatings Co. will complete this work. The requested budget adjustment will establish the budget for construction, staff time, and construction management.

The estimated useful life of these improvements is 7 to 10 years. Construction is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2022 and will continue through the end of the year. This project is part of the City's proactive street pavement maintenance program designed to seal, protect, and preserve the underlying pavement by placing relatively affordable asphalt resurfacing products.

Preventative maintenance surface treatments provide a waterproof membrane to protect the existing asphalt surfaces and extend the life of the underlying pavement. This keeps our streets in good condition avoiding pavement failures that would require more costly rehabilitation and reconstruction. In addition, the City maintains a pavement management software database to help guide staff as to which streets should be resurfaced in any given year based on field inspections and pavement condition data collected at 3-year intervals. The software allows staff to resurface streets in a systematic way that ensures we get the most out of the City's limited funding over the long term.

Staff will partner with our Public Information Officer and the contractor to continue the past two year of extensive outreach and communications with the Sun City community regarding this work.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Engineers Estimate for this project is $2.68 Million. The recommended budget adjustment will provide $2,500,000 in RMRA funds and $400,000 of Highway Users Tax funds, which will cover construction, inspection and staff time costs. No General Fund resources will be used on the project.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal A - Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Gursewak Singh, Assistant Engineer
Jason Shykowski, Public Works Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution 22-189
Sun City Phase 2A - Exhibit A
Ordinance 6499
Budget Adjustment
RESOLUTION NO. 22-189
ADOPTING THE SUN CITY – PHASE 2A RESURFACING PROJECT FUNDED BY SENATE BILL 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB-1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB-1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of our City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City must adopt a list of projects proposed to receive funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) created by SB-1 by resolution, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and WHEREAS, the City will receive an estimated $2,500,000 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2022-23 from SB-1; and
WHEREAS, this is the fifth year in which the City is receiving SB-1 funding and will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB-1; and WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management System to help develop the SB-1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost effective projects that also meet the communities priorities for transportation investment; and WHEREAS, the funding from SB-1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate roads throughout the City this year and many similar projects into the future; and WHEREAS, the 2018 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City’s streets and roads are in an “at-risk” condition and this revenue will help us increase the overall quality of our road system; and
WHEREAS, the SB-1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Roseville, as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The fiscal year 2022-23 list of projects planned to be funded with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues include:

The Sun City – Phase 2A Resurfacing Project. This project includes removal and replacement of failed asphalt concrete roadway sections and the application of a preventative maintenance surface treatment. Preventative maintenance surface treatments provide a waterproof membrane to protect the existing asphalt surfaces and extend the life of the underlying pavement. The streets scheduled to receive the maintenance and resurfacing application are shown on the attached Exhibit A.

The estimated useful life of these improvements is seven (7) to ten (10) years.

Construction is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2022 and will continue through the end of the year.

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________
City Clerk
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
S
B
L

ROSEVILLE PW
F
O
O
T
H
LI L
S
B
L

BLUE OAKS BL

PLEASANT GROVE BL
FID
D
Y
M
E
N
T
R
D

BASELINE RD
EXHIBIT A - SUN CITY RESURFACING PHASE 2A
Public Works - Engineering
0 1,250 2,500 5,000
[ Feet
SUN CITY PHASE 2A
ORDINANCE NO. 6499

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

BUDGET AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE IMMEDIATELY

EFFECTIVE AS AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. The City of Roseville Annual Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-22, is hereby amended as listed on the attached budget adjustment for the Sun City Phase 2A Resurfacing Project.

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

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

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

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

City Clerk
5/11/202210:06 AM
1 REQUEST FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
REQUESTER NAME & TITLE: Gursewak Singh, Assistant Engineer FISCAL YEAR: 2021-22 PREPARER NAME & TITLE: Gursewak Singh, Assistant Engineer COUNCIL DATE (if applicable): 6/01/2022 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Public Works Engineering ORDINANCE:

EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES/TRANSFERS OUT
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
2307 5411 84001 500117 2,500,000
2305 5301 84001 500117 300,000
2305 5080 84001 500117 100,000
2,900,000

REVENUES/TRANSFERS IN
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
-
2,900,000

FUND BALANCE
BUDGET ($)
Fund Account Center Project Adjustment
2307 3601 00000 (2,500,000)
2305 (400,000)
(2,900,000)
Justification for Budget Adjustment:

REQUESTING DEPARTMENT HEAD / DESIGNEE DATE BUDGET MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER / DESIGNEE DATE CITY MANAGER / DESIGNEE DATE

POSTED BY DATE
Revised: June 24, 2019
The Sun City Resurfacing existing project budget is $5,460,000 [$2,650,000 Highway Users Tax Fund (2305)] and [$2,810,000 Road Maintenance and Rehab Fund (2307)]. The full scope of the Sun City Resurfacing Project is planned as a multi-year project with four separate phases: Phase 1, Phase 2A, Phase 2B, and Phase 3. Each phase will be funded annually in advance of construction.

This budget adjustment of $2,900,000 [$2,500,000 from the Road Maintenance and Rehab Fund and $400,000 from the Highway Users Tax Fund] will result in a revised project budget of $8,360,000.

Establish Project Budget for Professional Services
TOTAL
TOTAL
Reduce Highway Users Tax Fund Balance

ACCOUNT STRING

DESCRIPTION
Supplements Existing Project Budget for Construction
Reduce Road Maintenance and Rehab Fund Balance
Establish Project Budget for Staff Time

NET ADJUSTMENT

ACCOUNT STRING

DESCRIPTION

ACCOUNT STRING

DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
REQUIRED APPROVALS:

BUDGET DEPARTMENT USE ONLY:

This budget adjustment is requested to fund the construction of Phase 2A of the Sun City Resurfacing Project. The scope of this project consists of resurfacing a portion of the Sun City neighborhood bound by Sun City Blvd to the West, and Del Webb Blvd to the North-West.

Jason Shykowski Digitally signed by Jason Shykowski
Date: 2022.05.11 10:55:50 -07'00'

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2110
File #: 0800-02
Title: Senate Bill 1383 - Roseville Municipal Code Amendments Contact: Michelle White 916-774-5774 [email protected] Meeting Date: 6/1/2022
Item #: 7.13.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Staff recommends the City Council adopt an urgency ordinance repealing and replacing Chapter

9.12 of Title 9 of the Roseville Municipal Code and amending Chapter 9.17 of Title 9 of the Roseville Municipal Code to conform with the requirements of Senate Bill 1383 – Short-lived Climate Pollutants and CalRecycle’s Organics Regulations (CCR Title 14 Division 7, Chapter 12), and declaring the ordinance to be effective June 1, 2022 as an urgency ordinance.

BACKGROUND
Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383), the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act, was signed into law in 2016 and is the most significant waste reduction mandate to be adopted in California in the last 30 years and establishes methane emissions reduction targets statewide to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. SB 1383 established statewide methane emissions reduction targets as part of the state’s larger strategy to combat climate change. Specifically, to reduce the potential for methane emissions associated with the decomposition of landfilled organic materials, SB 1383 requires a 50% reduction in the statewide disposal of organic waste from 2014 rates by 2020 and a 75% reduction by 2025. Although the bill was passed in 2016, CalRecycle did not finalize the regulations until November 2020. Local jurisdictions are now required to adopt an ordinance to comply with SB 1383 with enforcement beginning January 1, 2024.

CalRecycle oversees a variety of programs and policy initiatives to reduce the amount of solid waste sent to landfills and to promote recycling within the state, including organic waste recycling under SB 1383 requirements. SB 1383 is the successor to Assembly Bill (AB) 341 and AB 1826 and builds upon previous regulations to reduce the disposal of organic waste to landfills. To achieve the state’s goals, the regulations require a broad array of elements: adoption of organicsrelated ordinances, public and commercial education and outreach, waste collection route auditing and contamination monitoring, improved capacity for organics recovery and recycling, municipal procurement of recovered organic waste products, edible food recovery programs, compliance monitoring, reporting and enforcement. At the December 15, 2021, meeting, City Council approved a Procurement Policy to meet that portion of the SB 1383 requirements. These proposed Roseville Municipal Code updates address the enforceable mechanism requirement for the waste collection and edible food recovery programs to be compliant with SB 1383 regulations (CCR Title 14 Division 7, Chapter 12).

In 2022, SB 1383 requires the City to provide educational information to residents and businesses regarding the proper disposal of organics to prevent container contamination, the environmental impacts of disposing organic waste in landfills, and composting benefits among other organic-related information. In addition to education, the state requires an enforceable mechanism to ensure customers comply with the regulation. Similarly, SB 1383 requires the City to provide educational information to edible food generators regarding the City’s established edible food recovery program, food recovery services, and actions to prevent the creation of food waste. In addition to education, the state requires annual inspections be performed to ensure edible food generators have contracts with edible food recovery organizations and that they maintain records of all recovered edible food. The SB 1383 regulations define two tiers of organic waste generators and their associated timelines toward compliance. Tier 1 includes large grocery stores, wholesale food vendors, etc. and targets the distribution of longer shelf-life, packaged food. Tier 2 includes larger restaurants and hotels and focuses on prepared food that spoils more quickly. Tier 1 generator requirements went into effect on January 1, 2022, and Tier 2 goes into effect on January 1, 2024.

Environmental Utilities (EU) Waste Services staff have been actively working and planning for SB 1383 requirements by conducting pilot studies, completing a rate study and rate increase proposal, securing capacity for organics processing, creating an edible food recovery program, designing new educational materials, planning route adjustments to accommodate weekly collection of organic waste, and preparing a procurement policy that Council previously adopted in December 2021. The adoption of these Roseville Municipal Code amendments, mandated by SB 1383, are the next step in the process to ensure citywide SB 1383 compliant programs.

These municipal code edits are intended to comply with the new organic waste diversion requirements set forth in SB 1383 which redefine the terms “Garbage” and “Organic Waste” with a goal of reducing organic materials delivered to landfills. These proposed municipal code edits reflect the City’s current waste collection practice of using a two-container collection service and do not impose new systems or procedures for customers or the City as it relates to regular waste collection. If the City transitions in the future to a different container system (e.g. a three-container residential system), the City Council would be presented with further proposed amendments to the Roseville Municipal Code, as necessary, to remain in compliance with SB 1383.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed municipal code updates will have ongoing fiscal impacts on the EU Waste Services Operation Fund. A comprehensive rate analysis was completed and rate increases were approved for fiscal years 2021 and 2022 for EU Waste Services in anticipation of SB 1383 requirements and waste tipping and processing fees. In addition, enforcement efforts required by SB 1383 may result in minimal revenue to the Waste Services operating fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. The SB 1383 regulations were the subject of a program environmental impact report (EIR) prepared by CalRecycle and the activities to be carried out under this Ordinance are entirely within the scope of the SB 1383 regulations and that associated EIR. No mitigation measures identified in that EIR are applicable to the City of Roseville’s enactment of this Ordinance.

This Ordinance meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal E: Deliver exceptional City services
Respectfully Submitted,
Michelle White, Environmental Utilities Compliance Administrator Richard Plecker, Environmental Utilities Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Ordinance 6501

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2109
File #: 0800-02
Title: Second Reading - Municipal Code Amendments - Water Utility Contact: Sean Bigley 916-774-5513 [email protected] Meeting Date: 6/1/2022
Item #: 7.14.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 6500 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AMENDING SECTIONS 14.08.020 AND 14.08.060 OF CHAPTER 14.08 OF TITLE 14 OF THE

ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING WATER, AMENDING SECTIONS

14.09.030, 14.09.050, 14.09.060, 14.09.070, 14.09.080, 14.09.090, 14.09.100, 14.09.110 AND

14.09.120 OF CHAPTER 14.09 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING WATER CONSERVATION, AMENDING SECTIONS 14.10.020, 14.10.030,

14.10.040, 14.10.060, 14.10.080, AND 14.10.110 OF CHAPTER 14.10 OF TITLE 14 OF THE

ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING BACKFLOW PREVENTION

INSPECTION AND CROSS-CONNECTION CONTROL, AND AMENDING SECTION

14.11.040 OF CHAPTER 14.11 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING WELL WATER, for second reading and adoption.

BACKGROUND
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not applicable.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal F - Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Sean Bigley, Environmental Utilities Assistant Director Richard D. Plecker, Environmental Utilities Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Ordinance 6500
ORDINANCE NO. 6500

ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AMENDING SECTIONS

14.08.020 AND 14.08.060 OF CHAPTER 14.08 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING WATER, AMENDING SECTIONS 14.09.030, 14.09.050,

14.09.060, 14.09.070, 14.09.080, 14.09.090, 14.09.100, 14.09.110 AND 14.09.120 OF CHAPTER 14.09 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING WATER CONSERVATION, AMENDING SECTIONS 14.10.020, 14.10.030, 14.10.040,

14.10.060, 14.10.080, AND 14.10.110 OF CHAPTER 14.10 OF TITLE 14 OF THE

ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING BACKFLOW PREVENTION INSPECTION AND CROSS-CONNECTION CONTROL, AND AMENDING SECTION 14.11.040 OF CHAPTER 14.11 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ROSEVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING

WELL WATER
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDAINS:

SECTION 1. Section 14.08.020 of Chapter 14.08 of Title 14 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

14.08.020 Service connections—Application—Costs.

A. The water division shall install service connections and lay service pipes up to the coterminous of the public easement or interest in land and the property of the applicant, except in the case of improvements installed pursuant to the subdivision regulations, all of which improvements shall be the sole responsibility of the developer. Ordinarily, such service pipes shall terminate within two feet in back of a sidewalk. Where there is no sidewalk, the location of the terminal of the service pipes shall be determined by the environmental utilities director or designee based upon where a sidewalk would ordinarily be located. The responsibility of the city with respect to ownership, maintenance, and repair of any water service connections and service pipes shall not extend, in any case, beyond the terminal of the service pipes, or at the location of the coupling on the customer’s water meter, if one is installed.

B. The size of such service connections and pipes shall be determined by the applicant by reference to the Uniform Plumbing Code. The environmental utilities director is not responsible for verifying the calculations and is not responsible for any pressure problems related to improperly sized services.

C. Prior to the installation of such service connections and pipes, the applicant shall pay to the city the estimated costs of installation.

D. The cost of installation shall be established by the environmental utilities director or designee, based upon the estimated costs of labor, materials, equipment costs and rentals, and administrative costs. Upon the completion of an installation and approving inspection of any connection, the director or designee shall refund any amounts collected with the application which exceed the actual costs.

SECTION 2. Section 14.08.060 of Chapter 14.08 of Title 14 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

14.08.060 Tampering with city property—Bypassing meters. 2 It is unlawful for any person not authorized by the city to do so to tamper with any gates, valves, backflow assemblies, fire hydrants, meters, or any of the city’s property accessory or appurtenant to the potable and recycled water distribution systems, to break the seal on any water meter, or to cause water to bypass any water meter.

SECTION 3. Section 14.09.030 of Chapter 14.09 of Title 14 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

14.09.030 Definition of water waste.

Any of the following acts or omissions, whether willful or negligent, shall constitute the waste of water:

A. Causing or permitting water to leak, discharge, flow or run to waste into any gutter, sanitary sewer, watercourse or public or private storm drain, or to any adjacent property, from any tap, hose, faucet, pipe, sprinkler, pond, pool, waterway, fountain or nozzle. In the case of irrigation, “discharge,” “flow” or “run to waste” means that the earth intended to be irrigated has been saturated with water to the point that excess water flows over or through the earth to waste. In the case of washing, “discharge,” “flow” or “run to waste” means that water in excess of that necessary to wash, wet or clean the dirty or dusty object, such as an automobile, sidewalk, or parking area, flows to waste.

B. Allowing water fixtures (including, but not limited to, toilets, faucets, shower heads) or heating or cooling devices to leak or run to waste.

C. Maintaining ponds, waterways, decorative basins or swimming pools without water recirculation devices.

D. Backwashing so as to discharge to waste swimming pools, decorative basins or ponds in excess of the frequency necessary to ensure the healthful condition of the water or in excess of that required by standards for professionally administered maintenance or to address structural considerations, as determined by the city manager, or designee.

E. Operation of an irrigation system that applies water to an impervious surface or that is in disrepair.

F. Use of a water hose not equipped with a control nozzle capable of completely shutting off the flow of water except when positive pressure is applied.

G. Irrigation of landscaping during rainfall or 48 hours after a measurable rain event.

A measurable rain event is the equivalent of ¼ of inch of rain in an hour.

H. Overfilling of any pond, pool or fountain which results in water discharging to waste.

SECTION 4. Section 14.09.050 of Chapter 14.09 of Title 14 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

14.09.050 Groundwater use as an alternate supply.

While the city routinely pumps relatively small volumes of groundwater during all water year types for maintenance purposes, the city may use groundwater as an alternate source of water supply to aid in meeting demands associated with dry periods, peak demands, or due to surface water supply curtailments. The city may also use groundwater as an alternate source of water supply to achieve obligations associated with the Sacramento Water Forum, American 3 River flow standards, or when participating in groundwater banking to achieve California Water Code obligations under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act or to be consistent with other regional or statewide objectives.

SECTION 5. Section 14.09.060 of Chapter 14.09 of Title 14 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

14.09.060 Basic stage restrictions.

During the basic water conservation stage, the following restrictions shall be in force:

Water shall be used for beneficial purposes only; all unnecessary and wasteful uses (as defined in Section 14.09.030) of water are prohibited.

A. Water shall be confined to the user’s property and shall not be allowed to run off to adjoining properties, or to the roadside or to the gutter. Care shall be taken not to water past the point of saturation.

B. Free-flowing hoses for all uses are prohibited. Automatic shut-off devices shall be attached on any hose or filling apparatus in use.

C. All leaks (including irrigation systems, pipes, fixtures, pools, ponds, fountains and waterways) shall be repaired within five calendar days or less if warranted by the severity of the problem as determined in the discretion of the city manager, or designee.

D. All pools, spas, and ornamental fountains/ponds shall be equipped with a recirculation pump and shall be constructed to be leak-proof. Pool draining and refilling shall be allowed only to the extent required for health, maintenance, or structural considerations, and must otherwise comply with all applicable federal, state and local stormwater management program requirements, including, but not limited to, the urban stormwater quality management and discharge control ordinance set forth in Chapter 14.20 of Title 14 of the City of Roseville Municipal Code.

E. Landscaping.

1. All landscaping installed in the City of Roseville shall comply with the water efficient landscape requirements adopted by resolution of the city council.

2. Irrigation of new landscaping shall be allowed on any day of the week for a period of 30 days after the new landscaping is planted, unless the city manager, or designee, provides prior written consent to extend this time period based on plant type and the season when the new landscaping is planted. After the 30 days, irrigation days and run times should be decreased to settings appropriate for an established landscape.

3. Upon city declaration of a water shortage, the city manager or designee may impose revised and/or additional limitations on the irrigation of new landscaping, as specified in Sections 14.09.060 through 14.09.100, and no person shall use, or cause to be used, city water in violation of such limitations while the water shortage remains in effect. A waiver may be granted to irrigate during an establishment period for actively used turf areas and/or sports fields or as approved by the city manager or designee. Allowance shall also be made for irrigation testing and repairs.

F. All site reviews shall include an evaluation of using recycled water. Recycled water shall be required if economically feasible.

SECTION 6. Section 14.09.070 of Chapter 14.09 of Title 14 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
4 14.09.070 Stage one drought restrictions.

During a stage one drought, the following restrictions may be required, as determined by the city manager and upon notification pursuant to Section 14.09.020(E):

A. All basic stage restrictions required by Sections 14.09.030 and 14.09.060 shall continue in place, except to the extent they are replaced by more restrictive conditions imposed by this section.

B. Residential users and non-residential users shall reduce water usage up to 10 percent.

C. Residential water users shall be permitted to irrigate with city water on the following schedule, unless the city manager, or designee, provides prior written consent to a different irrigation pattern:

1. 1st day of November – last day of February: up to one day per week irrigation on Monday of each week, if needed.

2. 1st day of March – last day of April and 1st day of September – last day of October: up to two days per week irrigation on Monday and Friday of each week, if needed.

3. 1st day of May – last day of August: up to three days per week irrigation on Monday, Wednesday and Friday of each week, if needed.

D. Nonresidential water users (including without limitation, commercial, industrial, church, cemeteries, and publicly owned users) shall be permitted to irrigate with city water on the following schedule, unless the city manager, or designee, provides prior written consent to a different irrigation pattern:

1. 1st day of November – last day of February: up to one day per week irrigation on Tuesday of each week, if needed.

2. 1st day of March – last day of April and 1st day of September – last day of October: up to two days per week irrigation on Tuesday and Thursday of each week, if needed.

3. 1st day of May – last day of August: up to three days per week irrigation on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday of each week, if needed.

E. The limitations specified in subsections C and D shall not apply to a properly functioning low volume landscape irrigation system, the irrigation on container plants, or to the irrigation of new landscaping that is subject to the provisions of Section 14.09.060(E). Low volume irrigation means the application of irrigation water at low pressure through a system of tubing or lateral lines and low-volume emitters such as point source drip and in-line drip lines or soaker hose. These systems are specifically designed to apply small volumes of water slowly at or near the root zone of plants.

F. References in this section to any day of the week shall mean the period beginning at 12:00 a.m. on that day and ending 24 hours later.

G. City park sites shall, as an aggregate, reduce usage up to 10 percent.

H. Washing streets, parking lots, driveways, sidewalks or buildings, except as necessary for health or sanitary purposes or pursuant to a term or condition in a permit issued by a state or federal agency, is prohibited.

I. Water shall not be served at restaurants except by request.

J. Water shortage surcharges shall be implemented as set forth in Section 14.08.095.

SECTION 7. Section 14.09.080 of Chapter 14.09 of Title 14 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
5 14.09.080 Stage two drought restrictions.

During a stage two drought, the following restrictions may be required, as determined by the city manager and upon notification pursuant to Section 14.09.020(E):

A. All basic stage and stage one restrictions required by Sections 14.09.060 and

14.09.070 shall continue in place, except to the extent they are replaced by more restrictive conditions imposed by this section.

B. Residential users and non-residential landscapes shall reduce water usage up to 20 percent.

C. City park sites shall, as an aggregate, reduce usage up to 20 percent.

D. Residential water users shall be permitted to irrigate with city water on the following schedule, unless the city manager, or designee, provides prior written consent to a different irrigation pattern:

1. 1st day of November – last day of February: up to one day per week irrigation on Monday of each week, if needed.

2. 1st day of March – last day of April and 1st day of September – last day of October: up to two days per week irrigation on Monday and Friday of each week, if needed.

3. 1st day of May – last day of August: up to three days per week irrigation on Monday, Wednesday and Friday of each week, if needed.

E. Nonresidential water users (including without limitation, commercial, industrial, church, cemeteries, and publicly owned users) shall be permitted to irrigate with city water on the following schedule, unless the city manager, or designee, provides prior written consent to the Environmental Utilities-Water Efficiency Section for a different irrigation pattern:

1. 1st day of November – last day of February: up to one day per week irrigation on Tuesday of each week, if needed.

2. 1st day of March – last day of April and 1st day of September – last day of October: up to two days per week irrigation on Tuesday and Thursday of each week, if needed.

3. 1st day of May – last day of August: up to three days per week irrigation onTuesday, Thursday and Saturday of each week, if needed.

F. The limitations specified in subsections D and E shall not apply to a properly functioning low volume landscape irrigation system, the irrigation on container plants, or to the irrigation of new landscaping that is subject to the provisions of Section 14.09.060(E). Low volume irrigation means the application of irrigation water at low pressure through a system of tubing or lateral lines and low-volume emitters such as point source drip and in-line drip lines or soaker hose. These systems are specifically designed to apply small volumes of water slowly at or near the root zone of plants.

G. References in this section to any day of the week shall mean the period beginning at 12:00 a.m. on that day and ending 24 hours later.

H. Washing of vehicles or boats is prohibited except:

1. When using a hose that is equipped with a control nozzle capable of completely shutting off the flow of water except when positive action or pressure to maintain the flow of water is applied; or

2. When washed in either an automatic or manual commercial car wash that recirculates its water and uses high pressure/low volume wash systems.

3. Temporary car washes, held for fundraising purposes, are encouraged to partner with an automatic commercial car wash that recirculates its water and uses high pressure/low 6 volume wash systems. If run independently, the participants must use a hose nozzle that completely shuts off the flow of water when not in use and must comply with all applicable federal, state and local stormwater management program requirements, including, but not limited to, the urban stormwater quality management and discharge control ordinance set forth in Chapter 14.20 of Title 14 of the City of Roseville Municipal Code.

I. Water shortage surcharges and excess water use charges shall be implemented as set forth in Section 14.08.095.

SECTION 8. Section 14.09.090 of Chapter 14.09 of Title 14 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

14.09.090 Stage three drought restrictions.

During a stage three drought, the following restrictions may be required, as determined by the city manager and upon notification pursuant to Section 14.09.020(E):

A. All basic stage, stage one, and stage two restrictions required by Sections

14.09.060, 14.09.070 and 14.09.080 shall continue in place, except to the extent they are replaced by more restrictive conditions imposed by this section.

B. Residential users and non-residential landscapes are to reduce water usage up to 30 percent.

C. City park sites shall, as an aggregate, reduce usage up to 30 percent.

1. 1st day of September – last day of April: up to one day per week irrigation on Monday of each week, if needed.

2. 1st day of May – last day of August: up to two days per week irrigation on Monday and Friday of each week, if needed.

1. 1st day of September – last day of April: up to one day per week irrigation on Tuesday of each week, if needed.

2. 1st day of May – last day of August: up to two days per week irrigation on Tuesday and Thursday of each week, if needed.

G. References in this section to any day of the week shall mean the period beginning at 12:00 a.m. on that day and ending 24 hours later.

H. New or expanded landscaping is limited to drought-tolerant trees, shrubs, and ground-cover and be irrigated using a low volume irrigation system. No new turf shall be 7 planted, hydroseeded, or laid, unless prior written consent is received from the city manager or designee. Low volume irrigation means the application of irrigation water at low pressure through a system of tubing or lateral lines and low-volume emitters such as point source drip and in-line drip lines or soaker hose. These systems are specifically designed to apply small volumes of water slowly at or near the root zone of plants.

I. Except where recycled water is used, golf courses shall reduce irrigation up to 30 percent.

J. All decorative fountains, decorative (i.e., nonswimming) pools, and decorative waterways shall be shut off. Such fountains, pools, and waterways shall not be refilled until the city has returned to the basic water conservation stage unless for preventative maintenance.

Fountains, ponds or pools that are filled with recycled water are not subject to this provision.

Decorative ponds that contain fish as a feature shall be exempt from this restriction as long as the system is maintained in good working order with measures taken to reduce the volume of makeup water required for evaporative losses.

K. Except where recycled or other non-potable water is used or as otherwise provided in this subsection, use of water for dust control is prohibited. Dust control shall be augmented by hardened, temporary travel routes with materials that are accepted by the city manager, city engineer, or designee. Potable water is allowed for construction water only where and to the extent required for public health and safety reasons.

L. New swimming pools and spas may be filled after construction using customer’s metered water at then existing water rates. All new pools must include a means for minimizing evaporative loss, such as a pool cover, at time of final inspection by the city. After being filled with water for the first time, all pools and spas shall be subject to the requirements of Section

14.09.060(D).

M. Water shortage surcharges and excess water use charges shall be implemented as set forth in Section 14.08.095.

N. Automobiles or equipment shall be washed only at commercial establishments that recycle their water or by equipment and means that separates debris and revives wash water for continual use.

SECTION 9. Section 14.09.100 of Chapter 14.09 of Title 14 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

14.09.100 Stage four drought restrictions.

During a stage four drought, the following restrictions may be required, as determined by the city manager and upon notification pursuant to Section 14.09.020(E):

A. All basic stage, stage one, stage two, and stage three restrictions required by Sections 14.09.060, 14.09.070, 14.09.080 and 14.09.090 shall continue in place, except to the extent they are replaced by more restrictive conditions imposed by this section.

B. Residential customers and non-residential landscapes are to reduce water usage up to 40 percent.

C. City park sites shall, as an aggregate, reduce usage up to 40 percent.

1. 1st day of September – last day of April: No irrigation allowed. 8 2. 1st day of May – last day of August: up to one day per week irrigation on Monday, if needed.

1. 1st day of September – last day of April: No irrigation allowed.

2. 1st day of May – last day of August: up to one day per week irrigation on Tuesday of each week, if needed.

F. The limitations specified in subsections D and E shall not apply to a properly functioning low volume landscape irrigation system, the irrigation on container plants, trees or to the irrigation of new landscaping that is subject to the provisions of Section 14.09.060(E). Low volume irrigation means the application of irrigation water at low pressure through a system of tubing or lateral lines and low-volume emitters such as point source drip and in-line drip lines or soaker hose. These systems are specifically designed to apply small volumes of water slowly at or near the root zone of plants.

G. References in this section to any day of the week shall mean the period beginning at 12:00 a.m. on that day and ending 24 hours later.

H. Installation of any new landscaping is prohibited unless irrigation is provided through connection to an active recycled water system. In the case of new construction, the city’s building official will issue a temporary final upon completion of the structural development of the property. When the city has returned to a stage two drought restriction, landscaping installation can be completed and a building final will become available upon inspection by the city.

I. Except where recycled water is used, golf courses shall reduce irrigation up to 40 percent.

J. Automobiles or equipment shall be washed only at commercial establishments that recycle their water or by equipment and means that separates debris and recycles wash water for continual use.

K. Existing pools shall not be emptied and refilled using city water unless required for health or safety reasons until the city has returned to a stage two drought restriction. Pools may be re-filled only to the extent necessary to replace evaporative losses.

L. No commitments shall be made to provide water service as part of any new land use entitlement (general plan, specific plan or amendments requesting new water allocations) until the city has returned to a stage two drought restriction. Currently approved specific plans with accompanying development agreements and projects or properties that have received water allocations in advance of full entitlements may be issued building permits so long as they comply with the remainder of this chapter.

M. Water shortage surcharges and excess water use charges shall be implemented as set forth in Section 14.08.095.

N. Automobiles or equipment shall be washed only at commercial establishments that recycle their water or by equipment and means that separates debris and revives wash water for continual use.

SECTION 10. Section 14.09.110 of Chapter 14.09 of Title 14 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
9 14.09.110 Stage five drought restrictions.

During a stage five drought, the following restrictions may be required, as determined by the city manager and upon notification pursuant to Section 14.09.020(E):

A. All basic stage, or stage one, stage two, stage three and stage four restrictions required by Sections 14.09.060, 14.09.070, 14.09.080, 14.09.090 and 14.09.100 shall continue in place, except to the extent they are replaced by more restrictive conditions imposed by this section.

B. Residential customers and non-residential landscapes are to reduce water usage up to 50 percent.

C. Except where recycled water is used, water users shall reduce landscape irrigation as follows:

1. Turf shall not be irrigated.

2. Trees and shrubs may be irrigated with a properly functioning low volume landscape irrigation system or by use of a handheld hose equipped with a nozzle capable of completely shutting off the flow of water except when positive action or pressure to maintain the flow of water is applied. Low volume irrigation means the application of irrigation water at low pressure through a system of tubing or lateral lines and low-volume emitters such as point source drip and in-line drip lines or soaker hose.. These systems are specifically designed to apply small volumes of water slowly at or near the root zone of plants.

D. Filling new or existing swimming pools and spas with city water is prohibited.

E. Water shortage surcharges and excess water use charges shall be implemented as set forth in Section 14.08.095.

SECTION 11. Section 14.09.120 of Chapter 14.09 of Title 14 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

14.09.120 Determination of drought tolerance.

Where this chapter permits or prohibits acts based upon whether or not a planting, tree, shrub, or groundcover is “drought tolerant” the determination shall be made based upon Sunset’s Western Garden Book (most recent edition), or UC Davis Arboretum’s “All Stars” plant database (www.arboretum.ucdavis.edu), and WUCOLS (Water Use Classification of Landscape Species) most current edition. Where this chapter permits or prohibits acts based upon whether a form of irrigation is “low volume drip irrigation” the determination shall be made by the director, or designee, whose determination shall be final.

SECTION 12. Section 14.10.020 of Chapter 14.10 of Title 14 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

14.10.020 Definitions.

The following words are defined for purposes of this chapter as follows:

A. “Backflow prevention assembly” means an assembly or means designed to prevent the undesirable reversal of flow in a potable water distribution system as a result of a cross connection with a nonpotable supply or any matter that may alter the quality of the potable water.
10 B. “Backflow prevention assembly tester” means a person who is certified by the city to perform testing of backflow prevention assemblies owned by customers of the city and who has completed training and holds a current certification from the California-Nevada Section of the American Water Works Association. To maintain city certification, a backflow prevention assembly tester shall continually demonstrate competency in performing tests on backflow prevention devices to the Director’s or their designee’s satisfaction.

C. “Backflow prevention-inspection fund” means that special interest-bearing fund established pursuant to Section 14.10.040.

D. “Cross-connection” means an unprotected actual or potential connection or structural arrangement between the city’s potable water system, including a piping system connected to the city’s potable water system and located on the premises of a water user or available to the water user, and any source or distribution system containing liquid, gas, or other substances within a customer’s premises and/or customer’s water system which is not from an approved potable water supply. Bypass arrangements, jumper connections, removable sections, swivel and changeover devices, or other devices through which backflow or back-siphonage could occur, shall be considered to be cross-connections.

E. “Department” means the department of environmental utilities.

F. “Director” means the director of the department.

G. “Reinspection fee” means the fee required to be paid upon a finding by an inspector that a backflow prevention assembly is defective or not in compliance with the standards set forth in this chapter and requires retest after repair or replacement.

SECTION 13. Section 14.10.030 of Chapter 14.10 of Title 14 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

14.10.030 Backflow prevention assemblies required.

A. No water service connection to any commercial premises shall be installed unless the water supply is protected as required by this chapter.

B. In the case of premises having an auxiliary water supply that is not or may not be of safe bacteriological or chemical quality and that is not acceptable to the director or designee as an additional source, the property owner shall protect the public water system against backflow from the premises by installing an approved backflow prevention assembly in the service line.

C. The City may inspect the premises of existing customers to determine if, in the opinion of the director or designee, such premises may require a backflow-prevention assembly.

In the case of premises having either: (1) internal cross connections that cannot be permanently corrected and controlled, (2) intricate plumbing and piping arrangements where entry to all portions of the premises is not readily accessible for inspection purposes, or (3) a condition that in the opinion of the director or designee constitutes a hazard to health, the property owner shall protect the public water system against backflow from the premises by installing an approved backflow prevention assembly in the service line.

D. Failure of a customer or property owner to provide for the installation or the upgrading of a required backflow-prevention assembly, as specified in subsections (B) and (C) of this section, within 30 days following written notification from the city, and for the preservation of the health and safety of the public water supply, the city may temporarily shut off potable water service to the premises and/or customer’s system until the customer has installed or upgraded, and tested, an approved assembly to the satisfaction of the director or designee. 11 E. Any backflow-prevention assembly installed or upgraded on a customer’s premises shall be and remain the property of the customer.

SECTION 14. Section 14.10.040 of Chapter 14.10 of Title 14 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

14.10.040 Establishment and administration of backflow prevention inspection fund.

The finance director is hereby directed to establish a special interest-bearing fund entitled the backflow prevention inspection fund. All fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in the backflow prevention inspection fund and expended solely to finance the program set forth in this chapter.

This fee is allowed under the California State Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 12, Article 2, Chapter 5, Section 116805 (d) that allows water utilities implementing the backflow prevention program to recover their costs to administer the program SECTION 15. Section 14.10.060 of Chapter 14.10 of Title 14 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

14.10.060 Inspection.

A. After installation of a backflow prevention assembly, a backflow prevention assembly tester shall inspect and test the backflow prevention assembly.

B. Each backflow prevention assembly shall be inspected and tested at least once annually by a backflow prevention assembly tester.

C. Where city personnel are required to perform the test, an inspection fee shall be charged to the customer as established by Section 14.10.040.

D. If a backflow prevention assembly meets required standards established by this chapter, city will send the customer a notice of compliance.

E. The customer’s system should be open for inspection at all reasonable times to authorized representatives of the City of Roseville water department to determine whether cross connections or other structural or sanitary hazards, including violations of these regulations, exist.

F The City may terminate the customer’s potable water service if the customer fails to have a backflow prevention device inspected and tested within the time period required by the city pursuant to Section 14.10.030(D).

SECTION 16. Section 14.10.080 of Chapter 14.10 of Title 14 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

14.10.080 Reinspection.

A. If the backflow prevention assembly tester determines that the backflow prevention assembly does not meet the standards established by this chapter, the city will issue the customer a notice to correct. The customer shall make the necessary repairs or replacement within 30 days of issuance of the notice to correct.
12 B. The backflow prevention assembly shall be reinspected by a backflow prevention assembly tester within 30 days, at which time a reinspection fee shall be charged to the customer as established by resolution adopted by the city council, as amended from time to time.

C. Each time a reinspection is required, an additional reinspection fee will be charged to the customer, until such time that the city sends the customer a notice of compliance.

SECTION 17. Section 14.10.110 of Chapter 14.10 of Title 14 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

14.10.110 Enforcement.

A. Failure to maintain a backflow prevention assembly as required by this chapter shall be a violation.

B. If the director or designee determines that a customer’s failure to install, adequately maintain ,or otherwise finds evidence that an installed backflow prevention assembly has been bypassed or rendered ineffective and constitutes a threat to the potable water supply, the director may order that water services to the noncomplying customer be discontinued. The director shall notify the customer at least 30 days prior to the proposed determination of service; provided, however, that if the threat to the potable water supply is so immediate that a delay in terminating water service may threaten the public health and safety, the director may terminate service without prior written notice.

C. A customer who has received a notice of termination of water services from the director may appeal the decision in writing to the environmental utilities director. The appeal must be received by the environmental utilities director prior to the proposed termination date, in which case the termination of services will not occur until after the appeal is heard.

SECTION 18. Section 14.11.040 of Chapter 14.11 of Title 14 of the Roseville Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

14.11.040 Well permit application – Regional Water Quality Control Board consideration.

A. Applications for well permits shall be made to the environmental utilities director on forms provided by the city and shall contain all information as required by the city to accomplish the purposes of this chapter. Each application shall be accompanied by a site assessment work plan.

B. The city manager, or designee, shall determine if the applicant shall be required to obtain consideration and/or approval of the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to the issuance of the well permit by the environmental utilities director or designee.

SECTION 19. This ordinance shall be effective at the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of adoption.

SECTION 20. 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. 13 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Roseville this ___ day of _______________, 20__, by the following vote on roll call:

AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2099
File #: 0600-02
Title: Out-of-State Travel - Parks, Recreation & Libraries Department Contact: Julie Sparkes 916-774-5244 [email protected] Meeting Date: 6/1/2022
Item #: 7.15.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Recommend the City Council approve out-of-state travel request for five Parks, Recreation & Libraries staff members to visit successful multi-sport field complexes and universally accessible playgrounds in Johnson County, Kansas, in preparation for the construction of the Roseville Sports Complex and accessible playground.

BACKGROUND
The 12-field Scheels Soccer Complex in Overland Park, Kansas, opened in 2009, is one of the premier soccer complexes in the nation. In the same county is the 9-field Garmin Soccer Complex in Olathe, Kansas that opened in 2019. Both of these successful state-of-the-art complexes feature artificial turf fields and support amenities similar in vision to the proposed Roseville complex.

An additional feature at the Roseville complex will be a universally accessible playground.

Johnson County, Kansas offers several such playgrounds unlike any in the Roseville region. This trip will benefit PRL development, maintenance, and programming staff to see these complexes and facilities, meet with operators to learn their successes and challenges, and help guide decision making for the Roseville complex.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for travel and lodging for all five staff is estimated to be $7,500. There are sufficient funds in the Parks, Recreation & Libraries budget in the General Fund to cover the expenditure.

No additional funds are being requested.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C – Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal D – Enhance economic vitality
Goal E – Deliver exceptional city services
Goal F – Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth Respectfully Submitted,
Julie Sparkes, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Manager
Jill Geller, Parks, Recreation & Libraries Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2098
File #: 0709-02-01
Title: HOUSING AUTHORITY/CITY COUNCIL - Quarterly Status Update Contact: Suzi Cook-Turner 916-774-5414 [email protected] Trisha Isom 916-746-1239 [email protected]
Meeting Date: 6/1/2022
Item #: 7.16.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
The City Council, acting as the Roseville Housing Authority Board, is not required to take any action on this item. This quarterly report is for informational purposes only.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the bylaws of the Roseville Housing Authority, the City Council, acting as the governing board for the Housing Authority, holds its quarterly meeting the first Wednesday of March, June, September, and December, or as soon as possible thereafter. Staff has prepared the following status report regarding lease-up activity for the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. The HCV Program provides income-qualified households in Roseville and Rocklin with rental assistance using funding from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This assistance is utilized at rental units that meet program specific housing standards, are owned by a willing landlord, and are within Roseville or Rocklin city limits. This rental assistance ensures that the household is able to afford to live in safe and decent housing.

RHA is authorized to provide 795 households with HCV rental assistance. This total includes 75 vouchers allocated specifically for families on the waiting list with a head-of-household or spouse that are non-elderly and disabled (NED vouchers), 75 Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers used with veteran households that come by referral from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Department, and 33 Mainstream vouchers that assist households who have a non-elderly adult person with a disability and are transitioning out of institutional and other segregated settings, or are currently homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.

RHA administers the Family Self-Sufficiency Program (FSS) which is a component of the HCV program that provides additional assistance to families who are working to become free of public assistance. RHA staff is working hard to update the way it communicates with its FSS participants.

An FSS Facebook page was launched February 25, 2022 providing participants and the public with information and resources related to self sufficiency such as job fairs, work shops, scholarship opportunities, job leads, etc.

Roseville Housing Authority received and is administering 50 Emergency Housing Vouchers (EHV). EHVs provide rental assistance to individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness; at risk of experiencing homelessness; fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking; or were recently homeless and for whom providing rental assistance will prevent the individual or family’s homelessness or high risk of housing instability. These special vouchers are filled through a direct referral process from the Coordinated Entry System managed by the Homeless Resource Council of the Sierras (HRCS). Participants have access to additional resources such as application fees, deposit assistance, landlord incentives, and utility assistance. These resources are funded through the HUD-issued service provider fees. At end of the first quarter of 2022, 44 EHV vouchers had been issued and 16 households have leased a unit with their voucher. These vouchers were made available due to the pandemic; they are not a permanent addition to RHA’s budget authority.

Issued EHVs that subsequently become available may be re-issued until September 30, 2023.

Each housing authority is required to be at least 95% leased-up for its voucher allocation or utilizing at least 95% of its annual budget authority to remain in compliance with HUD’s requirements. The lease-up rate for a calendar year cannot exceed 100% of its allocation of vouchers (per voucher type), and/or 100% expenditure of its annual budget allocation for the program. Agencies leasing up or expending 98% or more of its allocated vouchers and/or budget can reach high-performing status. RHA continues to meet HUD program requirements for highperforming status through 100% expenditure of its annual budget allocation.

Lease-up has stayed consistent during the first quarter of 2022. EHV utilization is low but increased from 2.3% in the fourth quarter 2021, to 17.3% end of first quarter 2022. Staff continues to attend bimonthly check in meetings to work with the Homeless Resource Council of the Sierras and referring agencies to address any barriers to housing that may arise. The attachment provides a monthly summary of RHA’s voucher programs for the first quarter of 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT
This Housing Authority Quarterly Status Report does not create any additional cost to the City's General Fund.

The Roseville Housing Authority Quarterly Report meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Goal C - Maintain a safe and healthy community
Goal D - Enhance economic vitality
Respectfully Submitted,
Suzi Cook-Turner, Housing Supervisor
Melissa Anguiano, Economic Development Director
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
RHA Voucher Lease Up Qtr 1
Quarterly Newsletter
Roseville Housing Authority Voucher Lease-up Quarter 1 2022 Actual Leaseup of
Mainstream
12-HUD
Mainstream
(33)
Jan-22 542 562 69 75 58 75 30 33 3 50
Feb-22 544 562 67 75 57 75 28 33 11 50
Mar-22 538 562 67 75 58 75 28 33 12 50
Apr 22
YTD
Total 1624 1686 203 225 173 225 86 99 26 150
YTD % Leased
Actual
Lease-up
of VASH
11-HUD
VASH (75)
Actual Leaseup of EHV
21-HUD
Emergency
Housing
Vouchers
(EHVs) (50)

96.3% 90.2% 76.9% 86.9% 17.3%
2022 Actual
Lease-up
of Regular
10-HUD
Regular
(562)
Actual
Lease-up
of NonElderly
Disabled
5-HUD NonElderly
Disabled
(75)
NAHRO contest – What home means to me
Since 2008, this contest has recognized the amazing,
poignant art of children who live in affordable housing across the country. Each piece of art visually shares the child’s thoughts on what their home means to them.

Each year, hundreds of children, ages 5-18, participate in the contest. Their heartfelt messages about their homes underscore the importance of the work that houses and
community development professionals do.

The final contest, conducted in Washington, D.C., is the culmination of numerous poster contests held by public
housing authorities all across the United States. Three judges choose 13 winners from hundreds of entries to be featured in NAHRO’s “What Home Means to Me” calendar.

All winners receive cash prizes.

The grand prize winner, whose art is featured on the
calendar cover, will also receive a trip to NAHRO’s
Washington Conference to meet our membership and
his/her Congressional representatives. Visit nahro.org/ news-publications/what-home-means-to-me/ for more
information.

The deadline for the contest is Friday, August 5, 2022.

May 2022
Roseville Housing
Authority Newsletter
This scholarship incentive program is
for graduating high school students
and continuing college students
who reside in public housing or
Section 8 housing!
PSWRC will award one scholarship
in the amount of $1,000/year and
will renew this award annually for
the maximum of four (4) years based
on the academic performance of
the winner.

Visit nahro.org/membership/
scholarships for more information.

Deadline for submission is
June 3, 2022
Don't miss this amazing PSWRC-NAHRO scholarship opportunity! Roseville Housing Authority
316 Vernon St., Ste 150
Roseville, CA 95678
916 774-5270
916 746-1295 (fax)
roseville.ca.us /housing
Check out the Roseville Housing Authority’s
Facebook page for the Family Self-Sufficiency Program!
What is the Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) Program?
The FSS program can help you build a more stable
financial future.

As your Income from work increases, your rent increase
is saved in an escrow account that you’ll receive when
you successfully complete the program. FSS is a
five-year program.

Resident Advisory Board
The Roseville Housing Authority is now looking for
Housing Choice Voucher Program Participants that
are interested in volunteering for a position on the
Housing Authority’s Resident Advisory Board (RAB).

The RAB typically meets one to two times each year.

We are currently compiling an interest list to draw
from as positions need to be filled.

If you have any questions or if you are interested
in applying for a position on the Resident Advisory
Board, please contact [email protected] or
call (916) 774-5270. If you are interested, you will be sent some additional information about the Resident
Advisory Board and a short application to complete.

We looking forward to working together and
hearing your input!
The deadline to request an
application is July 29, 2022.

Scan here to
find out more!
Roseville Housing Authority
Monday
9 a.m. – 3 p.m.

Tuesday – Thursday
9 a.m. – 5 p.m.

Friday
8 a.m. – noon
Closed every day from
noon – 1 p.m. for lunch
211 Placer
Free, Confidential, Multilingual
Available 24/7
Dial 2-1-1 • TTY: 1-833-DIAL211
Text your zip code to 898211
Your text plan’s rates will apply
Online at 211Placer.org
Project Sentinel
Providing Housing Solutions and
Community Mediation since 1976.

Call (888) 324-7268 or email
[email protected] for help
with: Housing Discrimination
and Tenant-Landlord
Dispute Resolution
AffordableHousing.com
Search for available units, connect
with property owners, apply
for public housing assistance
and manage your waiting list
applications – all in one place.

Plus, it’s FREE to sign up!

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2100
File #: 0102-10
Title: Resolution - Rosalinda Parra
Contact: Blair Hutchison 916-774-5266 [email protected] Meeting Date: 6/1/2022
Item #: 7.17.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Commend Rosalinda Parra for her 18 years of outstanding service and dedication to the City of Roseville, congratulate her for her many accomplishments, and wish her a long, healthy, and enjoyable retirement.

BACKGROUND
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS
Not applicable.

Respectfully Submitted,
Blair Hutchison, City Clerk Technician
Carmen Avalos, City Clerk
_____________________________
Dominick Casey, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Resolution - Rosalinda Parra

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
CC #: 2108
File #: 0400-04-12-2 & 0400-03 & 0400-04
Title:

Sierra Vista Specific Plan JMC Tentative Map #4 - General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Development Agreement Amendments Contact: Shelby Maples 916-746-1347 [email protected] Meeting Date: 6/1/2022
Item #: 8.1.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
At the April 28, 2022 Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council take the following actions on the project:

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

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

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

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

5. Adopt the five (5) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the Second Amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and SV218, LLC relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan and authorizing the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville;

6. Adopt the five (5) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the Second Amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and Mourier Investments, LLC relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan and authorizing the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville; and

7. Adopt the five (5) findings of fact and introduce for first reading an ordinance approving the Sixth Amendment of the Development Agreement by and between the City of Roseville and SVC2, LLC relative to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan and authorizing the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City of Roseville.

BACKGROUND
The project site is within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) area. The SVSP was adopted on May 5, 2010 and includes 2,064 acres west of Fiddyment Road, north of Baseline Road. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was adopted with the SVSP. Additionally, the City entered into several Development Agreements with the property owners of the SVSP parcels to outline development obligations within the plan area.

The requested entitlements (described in further detail in the Project Description section below) will allow the development of 516 single-family residential units on Parcels CO-1, CO-2, CO-3, CO-20, CO-21, and CO-22 (Tentative Map #4). Additionally, the project will modify the land use and zoning designations for Parcels FD-7, FD-24, FD-32 (into 32A and B), FD-41, JM-1, and JM-20 to facilitate future development.

Project Description
The proposed project includes the following entitlements:

General Plan Amendment (GPA): The project includes a General Plan Amendment to: move Parcel CO-21, which has the effect of changing 7.8 acres of Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR); change Parcel CO-22 from 4.8 acres of MDR to 4.81 acres of LDR; change Parcel FD-7 from 8.97 acres of LDR to 8.34 acres of MDR; separate High Density Residential (HDR) Parcel FD-32 (8.9 acres) into HDR Parcels FD-32A (3.81 acres) and FD-32B (4.23 acres) and reduce the HDR acreage by 0.86 acres; and increase Community Commercial (CC) Parcel FD-41 from 5.71 acres to 6.24 acres. This will result in a net decrease of 27.3 acres of LDR land use and a net increase of 27.3 acres of MDR land use, a net decrease of 0.86 acres of HDR, and a net increase of 0.53 acres of CC within the SVSP.

Specific Plan Amendment (SPA): The project includes an Amendment to the SVSP, which includes land use changes consistent with those described in the General Plan Amendment, as well as unit transfers between Parcels CO-1 through CO-3, CO-20 through CO-22, FD-7, FD-24, FD-32 A and B, FD-41, JM-01, and JM-20. The land use for FD-41 will be modified to remove the mixed-use overlay, and the units reallocated amongst the parcels. Additionally, the Amendment will transfer the obligation to construct affordable middle-income purchase units from Parcel CO20 (34 units) and DF-20 (four units) to new parcel FD-32B, and convert those units to 19 low and 19 very low income rental units. The SPA includes changes to the text, tables, and figures to reflect the land use changes and unit transfers.

Rezone (RZ): 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 and boundaries of the zoning designations to be consistent with the proposed land use adjustments and the large and small lot maps.

Development Agreement Amendment (DAA): The project also includes the amendment of three development agreements within the SVSP: the second amendment of the Mourier Investments, LLC (Conley) DA; the second amendment of the DF Properties DA; and the sixth amendment of the Federico DA. The DAAs reflect the proposed land use changes and the change in the number of units within the affected development agreements. Additionally, the DAAs will remove fee deferrals for the Public Facilities and Public Benefits fees, consistent with other DAs in the area, as well as the transfer of the affordable unit obligation of middle income purchase units from CO-20 (34 units) and DF-20 (four units) to FD-32B, and the conversion of those units to 19 low and 19 very low income rental units. The Conley DA will include the payment of supplemental park and bike trail fees to alleviate the shortfall created by the proposed rezone and previous rezones approved for properties developed by JMC.

Summary Evaluation - General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Rezone As described above and in the Planning Commission staff report (provided as Attachments 1.1 through 1.4), the project involves the reconfiguration of parcels and unit transfers among several large lot parcels within the SVSP area. The amendments will not change the overall number of residential units within the SVSP. The General Plan land use map and associated table will be updated to reflect the land use changes. Text, table, and figures of the SVSP document will be updated to reflect the land use changes and unit transfers. The Rezone will align with the proposed land use modifications.

The project also includes several modifications to the SVSP in addition to the transfer of units.

The project includes a modification to the affordable housing requirements, proposing the transfer of middle income purchase units from Parcels CO-20 (34 units) and DF-20 (4 units) to new parcel FD-32B, which is a High Density Residential (HDR) lot. As the minimum required density on HDR parcels is 13 dwelling units per acre, the primary development type that occurs on HDR parcels is multi-family apartments. Therefore, in order to allow the transfer of the 38 units and make their future development feasible, the units will also be converted to 19 low and 19 very low income rental units. Additionally, the project proposes a modification to the current land use designation for Parcel FD-41, which is Commercial Mixed Use, and zoning designation of CMU/SA, to Community Commercial (CC). The acreage of Parcel FD-41 will increase by approximately half an acre, from 5.71 acres to 6.24 acres. With the modification, the 40 units allocated to FD-41 will be removed, with 16 units transferred to FD-32 (HDR) and the remaining units transferred to the Conley parcels (Tentative Map #4) to bring the total within the subdivision to 516 units. Finally, the applicant has requested a minor revision to the SVSP to identify new gated subdivisions. Section B.8 of the SVSP Design Guidelines includes design requirements for gated subdivisions, and identifies the location of areas which are permitted to be gated in SVSP Figure B-25. The applicant has proposed gating subdivisions CO-1, 2, 3, 21, and 22. Of those parcels, CO-1 and CO-3 are shown as gated in the current version of the Specific Plan. The proposed project was found to be substantially consistent with the General Plan and SVSP goals and policies.

Summary Evaluation - Development Agreement Amendments
The project also includes three (3) Development Agreement Amendments (DAA) within the SVSP. All three DAs will reflect updates associated with the proposed project, as well as eliminating fee deferrals for the Public Facilities and Public Benefit fees. This is consistent with other recent DAA approvals, and allows these fees to be collected prior to the termination of the DA.

The Conley DA will be modified to reflect the proposed unit transfers within the plan area, as well as revise the parties’ obligations with respect to groundwater production wells and recycled water facilities, and update the evaluation of water conservation goals. The Conley DA includes parcels which will be converted from LDR to MDR uses, and the project overall results in a net decrease of 27.3 acres of LDR land use (loss of 197 units) net increase of 27.3 acres of MDR land use (addition of 223 units), a net decrease of 0.86 acres of HDR (addition of 14 units). The fee programs for both the Neighborhood Park Fee and the Bike Trail fee allocate different contribution rates based on density (LDR, MDR, and HDR), with the highest fees apportioned to LDR parcels. Therefore, reducing LDR units and increasing MDR and HDR units results in a shortfall of contributions to both of these programs. The DA provides the City with a mechanism to recapture the lost park fees and the bike trail fees (Section 3.12.3 and 3.12.7), as land use modifications due to changing market conditions were anticipated. At Planning Commission, modified language to allow a one-time payment to address the shortfall was added to the DA Amendment.

Due to the transfer of the affordable obligation from Parcel DF-20 to FD-32B, the DAA for DF Properties proposes the removal of Sections 2.6.1.1 through 2.6.1.6 from the agreement. These sections pertain to the provision of four (4) middle-income affordable purchase units on DF-20, which is no longer applicable with the transfer.

The Westpark Federico (Federico) DA will be amended to reflect the proposed project, changes, as well as the transfer of affordable units to FD-32B. As described in the Affordable Housing discussion, 38 middle-income purchase units will be transferred to new parcel FD-32B, with four (4) units transferred from Parcel DF-20 and 34 units transferred from Parcel CO-20. FD-32B is a HDR parcel; therefore, middle income purchase units are unlikely to be developed. In order to make development of affordable units feasible, the 38 units will be converted to 19 low and 19 very-low income rental units. This change will support the affordable housing goals of the City, and will provide a benefit to the City in that the conversion will help reduce the deficit of low and verylow income rental units identified in the City’s Housing Element.

In summary, City staff has found the proposed DAAs to be consistent with the General Plan, SVSP, and the Zoning Ordinance. The DAAs are in conformance with the public health, safety, and welfare, will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values, and provide a sufficient benefit to the City.

Public Outreach
Early notification of the project was provided to the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA) board. A notice of the Planning Commission hearing was sent to neighbors and property owners within 300 feet of the project parcels, as well as published in the newspaper and online. No comments were received on the project.

Summary of Planning Commission Meeting
The project was heard by the City’s Planning Commission on April 28, 2022. The applicant’s representative addressed the Commission, spoke in favor of the project, and requested that the Commission take the actions recommended by staff. As discussed in the Planning Commission staff report, staff and the applicant had not yet completed negotiations regarding the payment of the parks and bike trail fee shortfall at the time of report publication. Staff introduced a memorandum at the Planning Commission hearing with the revised Conley Development Agreement, including the one-time payment of fees, as well as other minor revisions to the staff report. No comments from the public were received. Ultimately, the Planning Commission approved the Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map, Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map, and Design Review for Residential Subdivision entitlements, which facilitate the development of 516 single-family residential parcels known as JMC Tentative Map #4. Additionally, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Development Agreement Amendments.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, regarding previously certified and adopted Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), an Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010) has been prepared to cover the minor technical changes and additions necessary to describe the impacts of the proposed project. The SVSP EIR Addendum is provided as Exhibit A. The proposed project does not change the area of disturbance beyond what was previously evaluated in the SVSP EIR, and no new or substantially more severe impacts will occur with the development of the proposed project; therefore, no additional analysis is required.

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

Description
Vicinity Map
Attachment 1.1 - April 28, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report andAll Attachments Attachment 1.2 - April 28,2022 Planning Commission Staff Report andAll Attachments Attachment 1.3 - April 28,2022 Planning Commission Staff Report andAll Attachments Attachment 1.4 - April 28, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report andAll Attachments Exhibit A - SVSP EIRAddendum
Resolution 22-191
Exhibit B - General PlanAmendment
Resolution 22-192
Exhibit C- Specific PlanAmendment
Ordinance - Rezone
Exhibit D- Rezone
Ordinance - SecondAmendment to SV218 DA
Exhibit E - SecondAmendment to SV218 DA
Ordinance - SecondAmendment to Mourier Investments DA
Exhibit F - SecondAmendment to Mourier Investments
Ordinance - SixthAmendment to SVC2 DA
Exhibit G- SixthAmendment to SVC2 DA
Exhibit H- SVSP Change Pages
Sierra Vista Specific Plan – JMC General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Development Agreement Amendment Vicinity Map
CO-22
CO-03
CO-2
CO-20 CO-21
CO-1
JM-1
FD-24
JM-20
DF-20
FD-32
FD-41
Vista Grande Bl. Westbrook Bl.

Market St.

Planning Division Staff Report
Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 2022
Prepared by: Shelby Maples, Associate Planner
ITEM 6.3: General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, Development Agreement Amendments, Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map, Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map, Design Review for Residential Subdivisions – 3801 Santucci Bl. – SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4 – PL21-0223

REQUEST
The proposed project will create 516 single-family residential lots within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) for a subdivision known as JMC Tentative Map #4, as well as reconfigure land use and zoning designations throughout the SVSP. The project includes a General Plan Amendment to: move Parcel CO-21, which has the effect of changing 7.8 acres of Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR); change Parcel CO-22 from 4.8 acres of MDR to 4.81 acres of LDR; change Parcel FD-7 from 8.97 acres of LDR to 8.34 acres of MDR; separate High Density Residential (HDR) Parcel FD-32 (8.9 acres) into HDR Parcels FD-32A (3.81 acres) and FD-32B (4.23 acres) and reduce the HDR acreage by 0.86 acres; and increase Community Commercial (CC) Parcel FD-41 from 5.71 acres to 6.24 acres. This will result in a net decrease of 27.3 acres of LDR land use and a net increase of 27.3 acres of MDR land use, a net decrease of 0.86 acres of HDR, and a net increase of 0.53 acres of CC within the SVSP. The project also includes a Specific Plan Amendment to reflect the General Plan land use changes, remove the Mixed-Use overlay from Parcel FD-41, reallocate the affordable unit allocation of 34 middle-income purchase units from CO-20 and four (4) middle-income purchase units on DF-20 to new Parcel FD-32B, and to transfer units among several large lot parcels within the SVSP. A Rezone is requested to align zoning designations with the revised parcels and land use designations. The project also includes Amendments to three (3) Development Agreements, including the Fifth Amendment to the Federico Development Agreement, Second Amendment to the Mourier Investments LLC Development Agreement, and the Second Amendment of the DF Properties Development Agreement to reflect the project changes and reallocation of affordable units. Several additional entitlements are requested to support the development of JMC Tentative Map #4, including a Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map, Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map for 516 single-family residential parcels, and a Design Review for Residential Subdivisions to evaluate architecture and modified development standards for Parcels CO-20, CO-21, and CO-22. The overall unit count within the SVSP will remain the same.

Applicant – David Cobbs, Baker Williams Engineering
Owner – Ryan Biziewski, Mourier Investments, LLC

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

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

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

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

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

5. Recommend that the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the second amendment to the Mourier Investments LLC Development Agreement;

6. Recommend that the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the second amendment to the DF Properties Development Agreement;

7. Recommend that the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the fifth amendment to the Westpark Federico Development Agreement;

8. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map subject to seventy (70) conditions of approval;

9. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map subject to eighty-five (85) conditions of approval;
CC ATTACHMENT 1
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 2 of 37

10. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the Design Review for Residential Subdivisions subject to twenty-six (26) conditions of approval.

SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES
At the time of staff report publication, City staff and the applicant team were still in the process of negotiating conditions of approval regarding supplemental fees for both the Neighborhood Park Fee and Bike Trail Fee, as described in the Development Agreements.

Both of these fee programs allocate a higher fee payment to Low Density Residential (LDR) units than to Medium Density Residential (MDR) units or High Density Residential (HDR) units; therefore, modifying the land use to reduce LDR units by 197 units, increase MDR units by 223 units, and increase HDR units by 14 units results in a shortfall of funds for both fee programs. Staff will propose new conditions to recapture the loss of fees.

Figure 1: Project Location
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 3 of 37

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
General Plan Amendment (GPA): The project includes a General Plan Amendment to: move Parcel CO21, which has the effect of changing 7.8 acres of Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR); change Parcel CO-22 from 4.8 acres of MDR to 4.81 acres of LDR; change Parcel FD-7 from 8.97 acres of LDR to 8.34 acres of MDR; separate High Density Residential (HDR) Parcel FD-32 (8.9 acres) into HDR Parcels FD-32A (3.81 acres) and FD-32B (4.23 acres) and reduce the HDR acreage by

0.86 acres; and increase Community Commercial (CC) Parcel FD-41 from 5.71 acres to 6.24 acres. This will result in a net decrease of 27.3 acres of LDR land use and a net increase of 27.3 acres of MDR land use, a net decrease of 0.86 acres of HDR, and a net increase of 0.53 acres of CC within the SVSP. Exhibit B includes the General Plan Amendment exhibits.

Specific Plan Amendment (SPA): The project includes an Amendment to the SVSP, which includes land use changes consistent with those described in the General Plan Amendment, as well as unit transfers between Parcels CO-1 through CO-3, CO-20 through CO-22, FD-7, FD-24, FD-32 A and B, FD41, JM-01, and JM-20. The land use for FD-41 will be modified to remove the mixed-use overlay, and the units reallocated amongst the parcels. Additionally, the Amendment will transfer the obligation to construct affordable middle-income purchase units from Parcel CO-20 (34 units) and DF-20 (four units) to new parcel FD-32B, and convert those units to 19 low and 19 very low income rental units. The SPA includes changes to the text, tables, and figures to reflect the land use changes and unit transfers. Exhibit C includes the proposed amendments to the land use map, and Exhibit E includes the proposed change pages for the text, tables, and figures of the SVSP.

The Rezone exhibit is located in Exhibit D.

Development Agreement Amendment (DAA): The project also includes the amendment of three development agreements within the SVSP: the second amendment of the Mourier Investments, LLC (Conley) DA; the second amendment of the DF Properties DA; and the fifth amendment of the Federico DA. The DAAs reflect the proposed land use changes and the change in the number of units within the affected development agreements. Additionally, the DAAs will remove fee deferrals for the Public Facilities and Public Benefits fees, consistent with other DAs in the area, as well as the transfer of the affordable unit obligation of middle income purchase units from CO-20 (34 units) and DF-20 (four units) to FD-32B, and the conversion of those units to 19 low and 19 very low income rental units. The DAAs are included in Exhibits F, G, and H.

Tentative Subdivision Maps: The project includes a Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map (LLTSM) to align with the revised land use plan. Additionally, the project includes a Small Lot Tentative Subdivision (SLTSM) to subdivide approximately 83.64 acres into 516 single-family residential units. Parcel CO-1 will be an 87-unit, gated LDR subdivision; CO-2 will be a 43-unit LDR subdivision connected to CO-1; CO-3 will be a 67-unit, gated LDR subdivision; CO-20 will be a 94-unit MDR subdivision; CO-21 will be a 193- unit, gated MDR subdivision; and CO-22 will be a 32-unit, gated MDR subdivision. The LLTSM are located in Exhibit I, and the SLTSM are in Exhibit J.

Design Review for Residential Subdivisions (DRRS): The project includes unit designs with modified development standards for the proposed MDR subdivisions. The modified development standards are SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 4 of 37
consistent with those approved for similar subdivisions within the SVSP. The development standards are included as Exhibit N and the proposed elevations are included as Exhibit O.

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

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

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

2. The General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.

The proposed project will reallocate units, land use, and large lot parcels throughout the SVSP, as shown in the table below (Table 1). The General Plan and the SVSP will be amended to reflect the proposed reconfiguration of large lots and units. The Rezone is requested to adjust the acreages and boundary locations of zoning designations to be consistent with the proposed parcel adjustments, including modifications to residential, open space, park, and commercial parcels. A total of 18 large lot parcels will be adjusted with the proposed project.

The project proposes to change the land use on several large lot parcels. The land use for Parcel CO-22 will change from MDR to LDR, Parcel FD-7 will change from LDR to MDR, and Parcel FD-41 will change from CMU/SA to CC (removing the mixed-use overlay and reallocating 40 units). Given that the locations of some of the parcels are being moved (for example, Parcel CO-21 will keep the same name and land use designation but move from the east side of Santucci to the west side), the net change in land use provides a clearer picture of the modification. As proposed, the project would result in a net decrease of

27.3 acres of LDR land use and a net increase of 27.3 acres of MDR land use, a net decrease of 0.86 acres of HDR, and a net increase of 0.53 acres of CC within the SVSP. This includes a decrease of 197 LDR units, 40 units from the removal of the mixed-use designation on FD-41, and an increase of 14 HDR units and 223 MDR units. The overall number of units will remain the same within the SVSP.

Table 1: Land Use Modifications
Parcel Existing
Land Use
(General
Plan/Specific
Plan)
Proposed
Land Use
(General
Plan/Specific
Plan)
Existing
Units
(du)
Proposed
Units
(du)
Unit
Change
Existing
Density
(du/ac)
Proposed
Density
(du/ac)
CO-01 LDR/LDR Same 86 87 +1 5.0 5.3
CO2ALDR/LDR - 71 - - 5.0 -
CO2BLDR/LDR - 73 - - 5.0 -
CO-02 None LDR/LDR None 43 +43 None 4.9
CO-03 LDR/LDR Same 78 67 -9 5.0 4.3
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 5 of 37
CO-20 MDR/MDR Same 84 94 +10 8.9 7.4
CO-21 MDR/MDR Same 62 193 +131 7.9 7.6
CO-22 MDR/MDR LDR/LDR 38 32 -6 7.9 6.6
FD-7 LDR/LDR MDR/MDR 57 58 +1 6.4 7.0
FD-24 MDR/MDR Same 84 135 +51 7.8 8.2
FD-32 HDR/HDR 178 20.4
FD32ANone HDR/HDR None 78 +78 None 20.5
FD32BNone HDR/HDR None 116 +116 None 27.4
FD-41 CC/(CMU/SA) CC/CC 40 0 -40 20.0 0
JM-1 MDR/MDR Same 135 134 -1 7.9 Same
JM-20 MDR/MDR Same 322 271 -151 8.1 8.0
FD-77 OS/OS Same - - - - -
JM-70 OS/OS Same - - - - -
CO-70 OS/OS Same - - - - -
CO-71 OS/OS - - - - - -
CO-50 PR/PR Same - - - - -
While changes are occurring on a large number of parcels due to the shifting of lines and redistribution of units, the overall modification is consistent with the original intent of the Specific Plan. The overall number of units remains the same, though the number of LDR units decrease from 3,169 to 2,792 (a reduction of 197 units), the removal of the mixed-use designation on FD-41 resulted in a loss of 40 units, MDR units increase from 2,431 to 2,654 (an additional 223 units), and HDR units increase from 2,337 to 3,351 (an additional 14 units).

Affordable Housing
The project proposes the transfer of middle income purchase units from Parcels CO-20 (34 units) and DF20 (4 units) to new parcel FD-32B, which is a High Density Residential (HDR) lot. As the minimum required density on HDR parcels is 13 dwelling units per acre, the primary development type that occurs on HDR parcels is multi-family apartments. Therefore, in order to allow the transfer of the 38 units and make their future development feasible, the units will also be converted to 19 low and 19 very low income rental units.

Staff supports the proposed transfer, as the City is currently in a deficit for housing units in these categories.

The Federico DA will also be modified to reflect the change.

FD-41 Mixed Use Overlay
The project proposes a modification to the current land use designation for Parcel FD-41, which is Commercial Mixed Use, and zoning designation of CMU/SA, to Community Commercial (CC). The acreage of Parcel FD-41 will increase by approximately half an acre, from 5.71 acres to 6.24 acres. With the SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 6 of 37
modification, the 40 units allocated to FD-41 will be removed, with 16 units transferred to FD-32 (HDR) and the remaining units transferred to the Conley parcels (Tentative Map #4) to bring the total within the subdivision to 516 units.

Per the SVSP, the intent of the mixed-use overlay is to provide an approximate development allocation of 60% commercial/office and 40% high density residential. The SVSP acknowledges that each CMU parcel will develop differently, in some cases completely commercial, as long as some non-residential use is provided. With the removal of the overlay, the units will be reallocated in the SVSP and future development of FD-41 will be consistent with the CC land use designation.

Gated Subdivisions
In addition to the above amendments, the applicant has requested a minor revision to the SVSP to identify new gated subdivisions. Section B.8 of the SVSP Design Guidelines includes design requirements for gated subdivisions, and identifies the location of areas which are permitted to be gated in SVSP Figure B-25. The applicant has proposed gating subdivisions CO-1, 2, 3, 21, and 22. Of those parcels, CO-1 and CO-3 are shown as gated in the current version of the Specific Plan.

The SVSP includes an administrative approval process for gating additional areas, stating “additional parcels may be determined appropriate for a gated subdivision if it can be demonstrated that the gates will not preclude adequate through-access for pedestrians, cyclists, or automobiles.” As shown, the proposed gating of CO-1 and CO-2 would limit access to FD-1; however, the internal design of CO-1 and CO-2 is such that there are no roadways connecting to FD-1, and FD-1 has more direct access along Earl Rush and Silver Spruce Drives. Furthermore, CO-1 was already anticipated to be gated in the SVSP, and CO-2 is being reconfigured in the proposed project to function as part of the same subdivision as CO-1.

Figure 2: Revised Locations of Gated Subdivisions
Proposed gated
subdivisions
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 7 of 37
Parcel CO-22 is identified in the current SVSP as providing connections to FD-2, an LDR parcel to the east.

However, the approved subdivision map for FD-2 (Solaire Phase 6, File #PL21-0111, approved by Planning Commission August 26, 2021) does not provide any roadway connections to CO-22 to the west, instead relying on access from Earl Rush and Silver Spruce Dr. As this was the only through connection anticipated for CO-22, gating the subdivision does not impede access to any facilities.

For Parcels CO-20 and CO-21 on the west side of Santucci Bl., the parcels are reconfigured so that CO-20 is gated, and located to the north of CO-21. In the prior plan, CO-21 was a narrow strip that separated two large lot parcels from Santucci Bl. Both CO-20 and CO-21 will be directly accessible from Santucci Bl. with the proposed project. Parcel CO-21 will not be gated, and will maintain public access both to Santucci Bl. and to the future Urban Reserve parcel (UR-92) to the west. In order to maintain access for pedestrians, a gate is proposed between these two subdivisions to allow residents of CO-20 to provide a more direct pedestrian connection to the public park on Parcel CO-50. While no vehicular access will be provided internally between CO-20 and 21, vehicles from CO-20 may still use the park within CO-21 by exiting onto Santucci and entering the subdivision to the south. While some changes will limit internal connections, staff finds that the proposed gated subdivisions do not significantly impede or modify access within the Specific Plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Development Agreements (DA) are binding contracts that set the terms, rules, conditions, regulations, entitlements, obligations, and other provisions relating to the development of the covered properties. The SVSP is subject to ten development agreements, and the current project proposes amendments to three of those agreements: the second amendment to the Mourier Investments, LLC (Conley) Development Agreement; the second amendment to the DF Properties Development Agreement; and the fifth amendment of the Westpark Federico Development Agreement.

All three DAs will reflect updates associated with the proposed project, as well as eliminating fee deferrals for the Public Facilities and Public Benefit fees. This is consistent with other recent DAA approvals, and allows these fees to be collected prior to the termination of the DA. The following sections disclose the changes proposed to each individual DA.

Neighborhood Park and Bike Trail Fees
The Mourier Investments, LLC, or Conley, DA and the Federico DA include parcels which be converted from LDR to MDR uses, and the project overall results in a net decrease of 27.3 acres of LDR land use SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 8 of 37
(loss of 197 units) net increase of 27.3 acres of MDR land use (addition of 223 units), a net decrease of 0.86 acres of HDR (addition of 14 units). The fee programs for both the Neighborhood Park Fee and the Bike Trail fee allocate different contribution rates based on density (LDR, MDR, and HDR), with the highest fees apportioned to LDR parcels. Therefore, reducing LDR units and increasing MDR and HDR units results in a shortfall of contributions to both of these programs. Both DAs provide the City with a mechanism to recapture the lost park fees (Section 3.12.3 for both the Conley and Federico DAs), as land use modifications due to changing market conditions were anticipated.

At the time of staff report publication, City staff and the applicant team were continuing to negotiate language for new conditions of approval to address the loss in fees. Staff will propose new conditions of approval on the Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map for consideration by the Planning Commission.

These conditions will ensure no net loss in bike trail or park fees.

Conley Development Agreement
The Conley DA will be modified to reflect the proposed unit transfers within the plan area, as well as revise the parties’ obligations with respect to groundwater production wells and recycled water facilities, and update the evaluation of water conservation goals. Per the previous section, the DA is impacted by the fee shortfalls for both the Neighborhood Park Fees and Bike Trail fees. New conditions are forthcoming to address the loss of fees.

DF Properties Development Agreement
Due to the transfer of the affordable obligation from Parcel DF-20 to FD-32B, the DAA for DF Properties proposes the removal of Sections 2.6.1.1 through 2.6.1.6 from the agreement. These sections pertain to the provision of four (4) middle-income affordable purchase units on DF-20, which is no longer applicable with the transfer.

Westpark Federico Development Agreement
The Westpark Federico (Federico) DA will be amended to reflect the proposed project, changes, as well as the transfer of affordable units to FD-32B. As described in the Affordable Housing discussion, 38 middle-income purchase units will be transferred to new parcel FD-32B, with four (4) units transferred from Parcel DF-20 and 34 units transferred from Parcel CO-20. FD-32B is a HDR parcel; therefore, middle income purchase units are unlikely to be developed. In order to make development of affordable units feasible, the 38 units will be converted to 19 low and 19 very-low income rental units. This change will support the affordable housing goals of the City, and will provide a benefit to the City in that the conversion will help reduce the deficit of low and very-low income rental units identified in the City’s Housing Element.

In summary, City staff has found the proposed DAAs to be consistent with the General Plan, SVSP, and the Zoning Ordinance. The DAAs are in conformance with the public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values.

Therefore, the proposed DAAs are consistent with findings 1-5 above.

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

1. The size, design, character, grading, location, orientation, and configuration of lots, roads and all improvements for the tentative subdivision map are consistent with the density, SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 9 of 37
uses, circulation and open space systems, applicable policies and standards of the General Plan and the Community Design Guidelines, and the design standards of Title 18 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the Roseville Municipal Code.

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

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

The proposed project includes a LLTSM to align with the proposed land use map, as well as create new large lot parcels, CO-2 and FD-32A and FD-32B. As discussed in the SLTSM section of this report, CO-2 will be designed to accommodate a LDR subdivision adjacent to Village CO-1. The subdivision will provide adequate access to the parcel, and all lots within the subdivision meet the proposed LDR density and lot size requirements. The division of FD-32 into FD-32A and FD-32B is substantially consistent with the previous parcel layout, and units are apportioned to each new parcel.

The proposed parcels are of sufficient size and shape to accommodate development that is consistent with the applicable zoning and design requirements. The reconfiguration of the parcels will result in lots which can be used and built upon, and which are practical for improvement based on the existing topography. Additionally, the proposed parcel configurations do not change the location of watercourses or create a physical condition that would be impractical for the proposed improvements.

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

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

1. The size, design, character, grading, location, orientation, and configuration of lots, roads and all improvements for the tentative subdivision map are consistent with the density, uses, circulation and open space systems, applicable policies and standards of the General Plan and the Community Design Guidelines, and the design standards of Title 18 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the Roseville Municipal Code.

The proposed project includes a tentative subdivision map for Parcels CO-1 through CO-3 and CO20 through CO-22 to create 516 single-family residential lots. Table 2 below provides a summary of each large lot parcel within the proposed subdivision. At least two entrance points will be provided into each subdivision, and the single-family lots are oriented onto public streets. Approximately 17 lots will be located on a stub court, which will require special provision for trash service. These parcels will be required to bring their waste bins to the public street, as specified in Condition No. 65 for the project CC&Rs and shown in Exhibit M. The subdivision layout and street design were reviewed by SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 10 of 37
the City’s Engineering Division and the Fire Department to ensure there are adequate street widths for circulation and emergency response.

Villages CO-20 and CO-21
Parcels CO-20 and CO-21 are located on the west side of Santucci Bl., north of open space Parcel CO-8. Both subdivisions will be developed with MDR lots. CO-20, the northern of the two parcels, will be a private, gated subdivision with 94 units, whereas CO-21 (with 193 units) will be served by public streets. The park parcel, CO-50, is located within the CO-21 subdivision. In order to allow residents of Village CO-20 access to the park, a pedestrian gate will be located between the subdivisions, near the northwest corner of CO-21. A detail of the proposed wrought iron pedestrian gate is included with the Tentative Subdivision Map. Additionally, as the southern boundary of CO-21 is adjacent to Open Space Parcel CO-80, tubular steel fencing will be provided in the rear yards of the parcels that back onto the open space. Modified development standards are proposed for Parcels CO-21 and CO-21, which are evaluated in the DRRS section of this report, along with the proposed architecture.

Table 2: Proposed Villages for JMC Tentative Map #4
Parcel Land Use
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Units
(du)
Gross
Acreage
(ac)
Proposed
Density
(du/ac)
CO-01 LDR RS/DS 87 16.30 5.3
CO-02 LDR RS/DS 43 8.77 4.9
CO-03 LDR RS/DS 67 15.66 4.3
CO-20 MDR RS/DS 94 12.71 7.4
CO-21 MDR RS/DS 193 25.39 7.6
CO-22 LDR RS/DS 32 4.81 6.6
Villages CO-1, CO-2, and CO-22
Large lot parcels CO-1 (87 units), CO-2 (43 units), and CO-22 (32 units), located to the east of Santucci Bl., are all LDR subdivisions. As discussed in the Gated Subdivision section of the Land Use Evaluation, all three subdivisions will be gated. However, CO-1 and CO-2 are internally connected to create a larger subdivision spread over two large lot parcels. While CO-22 will be converted from MDR to LDR, the subdivision proposes lots which do not meet the standard RS/DS requirements. Therefore, the same development standards and architectural elevations applied to Villages CO-20 and CO-21 will also apply to CO-22. A further evaluation of the modified development standards and architecture is included in the DRRS Evaluation section of this report.

SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 11 of 37
Figure 3: Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 12 of 37
Village CO-3
Village CO-3 proposes the development of 67 LDR units. Given the irregular shape of the large lot parcel (located adjacent to open space), the configuration includes a number of stub streets. This configuration also resulted in 25 lots with rear yards backing onto open space. All rear yards facing onto Open Space Parcel CO-81 will have tubular steel fencing along the open space boundary.

Additionally, a total of 17 residential lots will be exclusively served by stub streets, requiring special placement for waste bins. Exhibit M shows potential bin placements along the primary residential streets.

Access to Village CO-3 is provided from Vista Grande Bl. As only one access point is proposed, the subdivision requires an emergency vehicle access (EVA) onto Santucci Bl. to ensure there is adequate access available to the subdivision in the event of an emergency. The EVA will be gated to ensure it will be used by Emergency Services personnel only.

In conclusion, the proposed subdivision will be consistent with the General Plan, SVSP, and Subdivision Ordinance in terms of circulation, density, configuration, and design.

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

EVALUATION: DESIGN REVIEW FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS (PARCELS CO-20, 21, 22) Section 19.10.045 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that a Design Review Permit is required for all compact residential development (attached or detached single-family units on land with a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential or higher) or for any residential projects of any density on a parcel or parcels zoned Small Lot Residential (RS) where modifications to the RS supplemental design standards are requested. Design Review gives staff the opportunity to examine the proposed design to determine compatibility with the surrounding community, and compliance with the intent of the Community Design Guidelines and other applicable design standards. Pursuant to Zoning SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 13 of 37
Ordinance Section 19.78.060, the required findings for a Design Review Permit for a Residential Subdivision (DRRS) are as follows:

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

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

The project is subject to the development standards of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Community Design Guidelines (CDG), and the SVSP. The applicant is proposing modified development standards for CO20, CO-21, and CO-22 to allow for a smaller lot size and reduced setbacks. The proposed standards are included in Exhibit N, and the conceptual elevations showing architectural treatment, floor plans, and color schemes are included as Exhibit O.

Plan Types: The project includes 11 plan types with a mix of one-story and two-story, ranging in size from approximately 1,200 square feet to approximately 2,500 square feet. The units will be single-family, detached, front-loaded product types with two-car garages, and similar in height, bulk, and arrangement to other planned homes in the vicinity. Table 2 identifies the square footage, number of bedrooms, and the number of floors for each plan type.

Table 3: Plan Types
Plan Type Square Footage Bedrooms Floors
Plan 1203 1,203 3 1
Plan 1343 1,343 3 1
Plan 1405 1,405 3 1
Plan 1504 1,504 4 1
Plan 1717 1,717 3 2
Plan 1814 1,814 4 1
Plan 1964 1,964 3/4 2
Plan 2051 2,051 4/5 2
Plan 2184 2,184 4/5 2
Plan 2340 2,340 4/5 2
Plan 2492 2,492 4/5 2
Streetscape: Each of the floorplans will be offered in one of three architectural styles – Farmhouse, Cottage, and Villa. Five color palates are provided for each of the architectural styles. Building projections and varying roof forms are used to provide visual interest in the streetscape. For the sides and rear of the homes, each elevation includes both a standard and an enhanced set of plans. The enhanced elevations will be used on lots adjacent to the roadways and all street-facing elevations on corner lots.

Enhancements include the addition of window fittings such as shutters, window trims, and the use of additional materials on the façade. Figure 3 includes an example of the streetscape.

SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 14 of 37
Figure 4: Streetscape
Color and Materials: Visual interest on the homes’ facades are provided by the variation in materials and architecture. Each architectural style will be offered in five color schemes, consisting of natural or neutral tones. The designs incorporate a mix of materials, such as stucco, lap siding, and stone, and decorative embellishments (i.e., shutters and decorative woodwork) which help further emphasize façade articulation in the streetscape.

Landscaping: The applicant has included typical landscaping plans showing the proposed plant palate and layout. The plans include a mix of trees, shrubs, and groundcover, using a palate that will create seasonal visual interest consistent with the SVSP Landscape Guidelines. The project is conditioned to comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO).

Development Standards: The project request includes modified development standards to deviate from the RS/DS standards. The front yard setback will be reduced from 14 feet to 12.5 feet, and the interior side yard setback will be reduced from five (5) feet to four (4) feet. These reduced setbacks will help facilitate the single-story units planned for the subdivision. Staff is supportive of the setback reductions, as single-story units help to vary the streetscape views and massing for the residential units. In addition, the setback reductions are consistent with other DRRS approvals in the SVSP area, and the massing and varying wall planes of the building design will reduce the visual impact of the reduced setbacks.

The size and overall design of the project is compatible with the other approved subdivisions in the nearby area. The project is also consistent with the applicable design guidelines, as the design has included architectural treatments and details which will create street presence and character.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
The proposed project was distributed to the various agencies and departments which have requested notice of City applications, and all comments were considered and incorporated into the Conditions of Approval, as appropriate. Notice of the application was also distributed to the Roseville Coalition of SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 15 of 37
Neighborhood Associations (RCONA). No comments were received. A public notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published on April 8, 2022, and was distributed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site and to the RCONA webpage. To date, no comments have been received.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, regarding previously certified and adopted Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), an Addendum to the Sierra Vista Specific Plan EIR (SCH #2008032115, certified May 5, 2010) has been prepared to cover the minor technical changes and additions necessary to describe the impacts of the proposed project. The SVSP EIR Addendum is provided as Exhibit A. The proposed project does not change the area of disturbance beyond what was previously evaluated in the SVSP EIR, and no new or substantially more severe impacts will occur with the development of the proposed project; therefore, no additional analysis is required.

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

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

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

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

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

5. Recommend that the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the second amendment to the Mourier Investments LLC Development Agreement;

6. Recommend that the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the second amendment to the DF Properties Development Agreement;

7. Recommend that the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the fifth amendment to the Westpark Federico Development Agreement;

8. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map – 3801 Santucci Bl. – SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4 – PL21-0223 subject to seventy (70) conditions of approval;

9. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map – 3801 Santucci Bl. – SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4 – PL21-0223 subject to eighty-five (85) conditions of approval;

10. Adopt the two (2) findings of fact and approve the Design Review for Residential Subdivisions – 3801 Santucci Bl. – SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4 – PL21-0223 subject to twenty-six (26) conditions of approval.

SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 16 of 37
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LARGE LOT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FILE # PL21- 0223

1. This Tentative Subdivision Map approval shall be effectuated within a period of two (2) years from April 28, 2022 and if not effectuated shall expire on April 28, 2024. Prior to said expiration date, the applicant may apply for an extension of time, provided this approval does not extend the expiration beyond April 28, 2025. (Planning)

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

3. The approval of a Tentative Map and/or tentative site plan does not constitute approval of proposed improvements as to size, design, materials, or location, unless specifically addressed in these conditions of approval. (Engineering)

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

5. The developer shall not commence with any on-site improvements until such time as grading and/or improvement plans are approved and grading and/or encroachment permits are issued by the Department of Public Works. (Engineering)

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

7. The project shall comply with all required environmental mitigation identified in Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report and shall include all applicable mitigation measures as notes on the grading plans. (All Departments)

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

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

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

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

10. The grading and improvement plans shall be designed in accordance with the City's Improvement Standards and Construction Standards and shall reflect the following:
a) Street improvements including, but not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, drainage systems, traffic striping, signing, medians and markings, etc. along all existing and proposed City streets, as required by Engineering.
b) Grading shall comply with the City grading ordinance. Erosion control devices (sediment traps, ditches, straw bales, etc.) shall be shown on the grading plans. All erosion control shall be installed prior to the onset of wet weather. Erosion control is installed to minimize silt discharge from the project site. It is incumbent upon the applicant to ensure that SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 17 of 37
necessary measures are taken to minimize silt discharge from the site. Therefore modification of the erosion control plan may be warranted during wet weather conditions. c) A rough grading permit may be approved by the Engineering Department prior to approval of the improvement plans.
d) Access to the floodplain as required by Engineering and the Streets Department. e) Standard Accessible ramps shall be installed at all curb returns per City Standards. (Engineering)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. A note shall be added to the grading plans that states:
“Prior to the commencement of grading operations, the contractor shall identify the site where the excess/borrow earthen material shall be imported/deposited. If the borrow/deposit site is within SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 18 of 37
the City of Roseville, the contractor shall produce a report issued by a geotechnical engineer to verify that the exported materials are suitable for the intended fill, and shall show proof of all approved grading plans. Haul routes to be used shall be specified.” (Engineering)

18. Traffic signals shall be constructed and reimbursed per Section 3.5.7 of the Development Agreement and the approved JMC TM4 Utility and Infrastructure Phasing Plan. This includes the following signals:
a) Santucci/Vista Grande- finish signal including mast arm and controller cabinet as part of the construction of Village CO-3.
b) Santucci/Earl Rush – install signal infrastructure including conduit, loops and poles as part of the construction of Village CO-2, CO-21 or CO-22, whichever commences first. (Engineering)

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

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

21. The developer may qualify for reimbursement of non-CIP improvements through the Sierra Vista Fee Program per the Federico-Mourier Development Agreement. (Engineering)

22. The phasing of infrastructure shall be consistent with JMC TM4 Utility and Infrastructure Phasing Plan, the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, and as defined by the Development Agreement between the City of Roseville and Mourier Investments, LLC. (Engineering)

23. The applicant shall provide a right turn lane (per City Standard) for entry into Villages CO-1, CO-3, CO20, and CO-21. The applicant shall also provide a right curb flare for entry into Villages CO-2 and CO22. (Engineering)

24. The applicant shall provide an egress only, paved vehicular access, from Village CO-3 (Street A) to Santucci Boulevard. (Engineering)

25. The developer shall provide a primary residential road section from the northern entry of CO-21 up to, and around the proposed park site. (Engineering)

26. The applicant shall provide City of Roseville standard tapers from the existing interim median located at the northern project boundary on Santucci Boulevard south to the proposed median. (Engineering)

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

28. * A standard bus shelter pad shall be installed along:
i) Northbound Santucci Boulevard, north of Earl Rush Drive (Shelter #321), ii) Southbound Santucci Boulevard, south of Earl Rush Drive (Shelter #322) and iii) Westbound Vista Grande Boulevard, west of Santucci Boulevard (Shelter #323) (Engineering)
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 19 of 37

29. Developer shall be responsible for the installation of a bus shelter and related improvements conforming to the city's current standards on the shelter pad as conditioned above. Upon installation and final inspection by the City of Roseville, the bus shelter and related improvements shall become property of the City of Roseville. The Developer and City may enter into a construction fee agreement or other agreement based upon a construction cost of $10,000 per shelter for future construction of the following Bus Shelters:
a) Northbound Santucci Boulevard, north of Earl Rush Drive (Shelter #321), b) Southbound Santucci Boulevard, south of Earl Rush Drive (Shelter #322), and c) Westbound Vista Grande Boulevard, west of Santucci Boulevard (Shelter #323). (Engineering, Alternative Transportation)

30. The applicant shall dedicate all necessary rights-of-way for the widening of any streets required with this entitlement. A separate document shall be drafted for approval and acceptance by the City of Roseville, and recorded at the County Recorder’s Office. (Engineering)

31. The applicant shall dedicate a separate drainage easement to the City of Roseville for the storm drain facility required to transfer public storm waters through the site. The easement document shall be drafted for approval and acceptance by the City of Roseville, and recorded at the County Recorder’s Office. (Engineering)

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

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

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

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

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

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

38. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or approval of Improvement Plans, the grading plans shall clearly identify all existing water, sewer and recycled water utilities within the boundaries of the project (including adjoining public right of way). Existing utilities shall be identified in plan-view and in profile- SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 20 of 37
view where grading activities will modify existing site elevations over top of or within 15 feet of the utility.

Any utilities that could potentially be impacted by the project shall be clearly identified along with the proposed protection measures. The developer shall be responsible for taking measures and incurring costs associated with protecting the existing water, sewer and recycled water utilities to the satisfaction of the Environmental Utilities Director. (Environmental Utilities)

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

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

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

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

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

44. Minimum fire flow is 1,500 gallons per minute with 20 pounds of residual pressure. The fire flow and residual pressure may be increased, as determined by the Fire Marshall, where the project utility lines will serve non-residential uses. (Fire)
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 21 of 37

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRIOR TO OR UPON RECORDATION OF FINAL/PARCEL MAP

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

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

53. The City shall not approve the Final Map for recordation until either:
a) A subdivision agreement is entered into along with the necessary bonds and insurance as required by the City. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. i) OR
b) The improvement plans are approved, and the improvements are constructed and accepted as complete. In this case, the subdivider shall enter into a one-year maintenance agreement concurrent with the recordation of the Final Map. (Engineering)

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

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

56. The Final/Parcel Map shall include an irrevocable offer to dedicate public rights-of-way and public and/or private easements as required by the City. Lettered Lot//Parcel along major roads shall be dedicated as landscape/pedestrian/public utility easements and in fee to the City as open space. (Engineering)

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

58. The Final/Lot/Parcel/Parcel Map shall be submitted per, “The Digital Submittal of Cadastral Surveys”.

Submittal shall occur after Engineering approval but prior to Council approval. (Engineering) SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 22 of 37

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

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

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

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

OTHER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upon completion of the establishment period, all plant material shall remain under warrantee for an additional 9 months minimum. Any plant material which does not survive during the establishment period shall be immediately replaced. Any trees or shrubs which do not survive during the warrantee period shall be replaced one month prior to the end of the warrantee period. Tree or shrub replacement made necessary due to acts of God, neglect or vandalism shall be exempt from the warrantee. (Parks, Recreation, and Libraries)
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 23 of 37

70. The Tentative Subdivision Map shall not be deemed approved until the actions on the Rezoning, Development Agreement and Specific Plan Amendment are approved and become effective. (Planning) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SMALL LOT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FILE # PL21- 0223

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

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

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

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

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

8. Fulfillment of all backbone dedication requirements for Irrevocable offers of dedication and easements shall occur prior to the approval of any Improvement, Grading Plans, and/or recordation of any Final or Parcel Map as required by the Development Agreement between the City of Roseville and Mourier Investments, LLC. (Engineering)

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

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

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

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

11. The grading and improvement plans shall be designed in accordance with the City's Improvement Standards and Construction Standards and shall reflect the following:

SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 24 of 37
a) Street improvements including, but not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement, drainage systems, traffic striping, signing, medians and markings, etc. along all existing and proposed City streets, as required by Engineering.
b) Grading shall comply with the City grading ordinance. Erosion control devices (sediment traps, ditches, straw bales, etc.) shall be shown on the grading plans. All erosion control shall be installed prior to the onset of wet weather. Erosion control is installed to minimize silt discharge from the project site. It is incumbent upon the applicant to ensure that necessary measures are taken to minimize silt discharge from the site. Therefore modification of the erosion control plan may be warranted during wet weather conditions. c) A rough grading permit may be approved by the Engineering Department prior to approval of the improvement plans.
d) Access to the floodplain as required by Engineering and the Streets Department. e) Standard Accessible ramps shall be installed at all curb returns per City Standards. (Engineering)

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

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

14. All private subdivision entrances shall be designed and constructed per City Standards. The entrances shall be owned and maintained by the HOA. (Engineering)

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

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

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

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

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

SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 25 of 37
d) Ensure that construction vehicles are cleaned prior to leaving the construction site to prevent dust and dirt from being tracked off site.
e) The City shall have the authority to stop all grading operations, if in the opinion of city staff, inadequate dust control measures are being practiced or excessive wind conditions contribute to fugitive dust emissions. (Engineering)

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

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

21. Traffic signals shall be constructed and reimbursed per Section 3.5.7 of the Development Agreement and the approved JMC TM4 Utility and Infrastructure Phasing Plan. This includes the following signals:
a) Santucci/Vista Grande- finish signal including mast arm and controller cabinet as part of the construction of Village CO-3.
b) Santucci/Earl Rush – install signal infrastructure including conduit, loops and poles as part of the construction of Village CO-2, CO-21 or CO-22, whichever commences first. (Engineering)

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

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

24. The developer may qualify for reimbursement of non-CIP improvements through the Sierra Vista Fee Program per the Federico-Mourier Development Agreement. (Engineering)

25. The phasing of infrastructure shall be consistent with JMC TM4 Utility and Infrastructure Phasing Plan, the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, and as defined by the Development Agreement between the City of Roseville and Mourier Investments, LLC. (Engineering)

26. The applicant shall provide a right turn lane (per City Standard) for entry into Villages CO-1, CO-3, CO20, and CO-21. The applicant shall also provide a right curb flare for entry into Villages CO-2 and CO22. (Engineering)

27. The applicant shall provide an egress only, paved vehicular access, from Village CO-3 (Street A) to Santucci Boulevard. (Engineering)
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 26 of 37

28. The developer shall provide a primary residential road section from the northern entry of CO-21 up to, and around the proposed park site. (Engineering)

29. The applicant shall provide City of Roseville standard tapers from the existing interim median located at the northern project boundary on Santucci Boulevard south to the proposed median. (Engineering)

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

31. A standard bus shelter pad shall be installed along:
i) Northbound Santucci Boulevard, north of Earl Rush Drive (Shelter #321), ii) Southbound Santucci Boulevard, south of Earl Rush Drive (Shelter #322) and iii) Westbound Vista Grande Boulevard, west of Santucci Boulevard (Shelter #323) (Engineering)

32. Developer shall be responsible for the installation of a bus shelter and related improvements conforming to the city's current standards on the shelter pad as conditioned above. Upon installation and final inspection by the City of Roseville, the bus shelter and related improvements shall become property of the City of Roseville. The Developer and City may enter into a construction fee agreement or other agreement based upon a construction cost of $10,000 per shelter for future construction of the following Bus Shelters:
a) Northbound Santucci Boulevard, north of Earl Rush Drive (Shelter #321), b) Southbound Santucci Boulevard, south of Earl Rush Drive (Shelter #322), and c) Westbound Vista Grande Boulevard, west of Santucci Boulevard (Shelter #323). (Engineering, Alternative Transportation)

33. The applicant shall dedicate all necessary rights-of-way for the widening of any streets required with this entitlement. A separate document shall be drafted for approval and acceptance by the City of Roseville, and recorded at the County Recorder’s Office. (Engineering)

34. The applicant shall dedicate a separate drainage easement to the City of Roseville for the storm drain facility required to transfer public storm waters through the site. The easement document shall be drafted for approval and acceptance by the City of Roseville, and recorded at the County Recorder’s Office. (Engineering)

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

36. All storm drainage, including roof drains, shall be collected on site and treated with Best Management Practices (BMP’s) per the City’s Stormwater Quality Design Manual. All storm water shall be routed to the nearest existing storm drain system or natural drainage facility. Drain outfalls shall extend down to the receiving water and shall be constructed with adequate velocity attenuation devices. The grading/improvement plans for the site shall be accompanied with a shed map that defines that area tributary to this site and all drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate the tributary flow. If located within a private subdivision, the storm drain system and proposed BMP’s shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner, unless otherwise identified on the approved tentative map. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the owner shall provide a plan for the maintenance of the proposed BMP’s. (Engineering)
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 27 of 37

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

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

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

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

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

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

43. Improvement plans shall show the Preserve boundary and label it as a protected area. The PreConstruction meeting shall address the presence of the Preserve, the sensitive habitats present and minimization of disturbance to the Preserve. During grading and construction the preserve area shall be avoided and shall not be used for parking, storage, or project staging. The contractor shall remove all trash blown into the preserve from adjacent construction on a daily basis. After construction is complete, the temporary fencing shall be removed from the preserve, along with all temporary erosion control measures (e.g., straw bales, straw waddles and stakes, silt fencing). (Engineering, Development Services, Planning)

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

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

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

47. Prior to the approval of the Improvement Plans, the project proponent shall provide proof of preparation and submittal of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Proof shall be in the form of the Waste Discharge Identification SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 28 of 37
Number (WDID#), provided to the applicant from RWQCB, placed on the coversheet of the improvement plans. Upon approval of the improvement plans, a copy of the SWPPP shall be required onsite and available for viewing by City inspection staff upon request. (Engineering)

48. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or approval of Improvement Plans, the grading plans shall clearly identify all existing water, sewer and recycled water utilities within the boundaries of the project (including adjoining public right of way). Existing utilities shall be identified in plan-view and in profileview where grading activities will modify existing site elevations over top of or within 15 feet of the utility.

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

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

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

52. A note shall be added to the Improvement Plans stating that all water backflow devices shall be tested and approved by the Environmental Utilities Department prior to the Notice of Completion for the improvements. (Environmental Utilities)
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 29 of 37

53. Dead ends cul-de-sac without the turnaround bulbs cannot be serviced by refuse. Residents will need to bring the trash bins out to the main street to the designated pick up location. Wording to this effect shall be included in the CC&R’s.(Engineering)

54. Prior to approval of improvement plans, confirm that assumed water and sewer mains have been constructed. If this project precedes construction of those facilities, then sewer main and 12” water main loop will be built with this project. (Engineering)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRIOR TO OR UPON RECORDATION OF FINAL/PARCEL MAP

63. The following easements shall be provided and shown on the Final Map or by separate instrument, unless otherwise provided for in these conditions:
a) A 12.5 foot wide public utilities easement along all road frontages; b) Water and sewer easements;
Easement widths shall comply with the City’s Improvement Standards and Construction Standards. The easement documents shall be drafted for approval and acceptance by the City of Roseville and recorded at the Placer County Recorder’s Office. (Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering)

64. All existing easements shall be maintained, unless otherwise provided for in these conditions. (Environmental Utilities, Electric, Engineering)
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 30 of 37

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

66. A declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs), in a form approved by the City Attorney, shall be recorded on the entire property concurrently with the Final/Parcel Map. The CC&Rs shall include the following items: (Attorney, Planning) a) A clause prohibiting the amendment, revision or deletion of any sections in the CC&Rs required by these conditions of approval without the prior written consent of the City Attorney.
b) A clause excluding any property owned by the City from the terms of the CC&Rs. c) Residents in courts or other dead-end areas shall be required to bring their trash bins to a designated trash pickup area on the main street, because refuse trucks are not able to turn around in dead end streets. Designated pick-up areas shall be established to Environmental Utilities satisfaction, and shall be memorialized in the CC&Rs. (Environmental Utilities) d) A clause noting that the two required vehicle parking spaces within the garage must be kept clear and maintained for parking at all times. Storage of items which causes an inability to park within the required spaces is prohibited.
e) There shall be clear language regarding maintenance and common easements agreement for servicing all fire protection systems and gates used by the first responders. A service company shall be obtained to maintain all on-site fire protection systems including all common interior adjoining fire sprinkler-piping penetrations and private fire hydrants. An agreement between owners and tenants shall be made to allow permission to enter the premises to inspect all apparatuses associated with fire protection. Draft documents shall be provided to the Fire Department for review. (Fire)
f) Landowner shall provide educational and marketing materials for alternative modes of transportation. (Alternative Transportation)

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

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

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

69. The Final/Parcel Map shall include an irrevocable offer to dedicate public rights-of-way and public and/or private easements as required by the City. Lettered Lot//Parcel along major roads shall be dedicated as landscape/pedestrian/public utility easements and in fee to the City as open space. (Engineering)

70. The words "traffic control appurtenances" shall be included in the list of utilities allowed in public utilities easements (PUE's) located along public roadways. (Engineering) SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 31 of 37

71. The Final/Lot/Parcel/Parcel Map shall be submitted per, “The Digital Submittal of Cadastral Surveys”.

Submittal shall occur after Engineering approval but prior to Council approval. (Engineering)

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

73. The applicant shall pay their fair share for the update of the City’s Long Range Transit Master Plan, Short Range Transit Plan Update, and Bicycle Master Plan Update.(Alternative Transportation)

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

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

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

OTHER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

82. The project is subject to the noise standards established in the City's Noise Ordinance. In accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance project construction is exempt between the hours of seven a.m. and SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 32 of 37
seven p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m. Saturday and Sunday. Provided, however, that all construction equipment shall be fitted with factory installed muffling devices and that all construction equipment shall be maintained in good working order. (Engineering)

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

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

85. The Tentative Subdivision Map shall not be deemed approved until the actions on the Rezoning, Development Agreement and Specific Plan Amendment are approved and become effective. (Planning) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS FILE # PL21-0223

1. The development standards, unit designs and landscape plans for SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, File #PL21-0223 are approved as described in Exhibits N and O, except modified by these conditions of approval. (Planning)

2. This permit shall expire on the same date as the Tentative Map for SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, File #PL21-0223, which is April 28, 2024. Prior to said expiration date, the applicant may apply for an extension of time, provided this approval does not extend the expiration beyond April 28, 2025.

Effectuation of this DRRS shall occur with the first residential Building Permit. (Planning)

3. The landscape plan shall comply with the Landscape Guidelines for the Sierra Vista Specific Plan and the City of Roseville Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. (Planning)

4. The project shall comply with all required environmental mitigation identified in Sierra Vista Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, and shall include all applicable mitigation measures as notes on the grading plans. (All Departments)

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

6. Enhanced elevation details, as shown in Exhibit O, shall apply to all lots adjacent to the roadways and all street-facing elevations on corner lots. (Planning) PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:

7. The project Landscape Plans shall comply with the following:

SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 33 of 37
a) The Landscape Plan shall indicate the location of, and be designed to avoid conflicts with, all pole-mounted light fixtures and utility equipment including (but not limited to) electric transformers, switchgear, and overhead lines, backflow preventers, fire department connections, and public water, sewer, and storm drain facilities. (Planning, Fire, EUD, Electric, Public Works)
b) At a minimum, landscaped areas not covered with live material shall be covered with a rock, (3") bark (no shredded bark) or (3") mulch covering. (Planning)

8. All on-site external lighting shall be installed and directed to have no off-site glare. (Planning)

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

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

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

12. Testing of all fire systems shall be performed prior to opening the sales office for business. (Fire)

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

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

15. All electric metering shall be directly outside accessible. (Electric)

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

OTHER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

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

18. The developer (or designated consultant) shall certify that the building foundation location has been placed according to all approved setback requirements shown on the approved site plan. The SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 34 of 37
developer shall prepare a written statement confirming building placement and provide an original copy to the City Building Department Field Inspector at the time of or prior to the foundation inspection. (Building)

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

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

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

21. All alley loaded driveways shall have the address and street name of the designated unit as identified on the approved city lot maps. (Fire)

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

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

24. Fences and walls shall be consistent with the locations and treatments specified in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Design Guidelines. (Planning)

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

26. Any relocation or modification to the existing utility facilities or other existing improvements required for the development of this subdivision shall be at the developer’s expense. (Electric, Environmental Utilities, Engineering, Fire)
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4, 3801 Santucci Bl.; PL21-0223 Planning Commission –April 28, 2022 – Page 35 of 37
Exhibits
A. Addendum to the SVSP Environmental Impact Report
B. General Plan Amendments
C. Specific Plan Amendments
D. Rezones
E. Specific Plan Change Pages
F. Second Amendment to Mourier Investments, LLC Development Agreement G. Second Amendment to DF Properties Development Agreement H. Fifth Amendment to Federico Development Agreement
I. Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Maps
J. Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Maps
K. Preliminary Grading and Utility Plans
L. Utilities and Infrastructure Plans
M. Fencing and Bin Placement
N. Development Standards for CO-20, 21, and 22
O. Elevations and Color Palates for CO-20, 21, and 22
Note to Applicant and/or Developer: Please contact the Planning Division staff at (916) 774-5276 prior to the Commission meeting if you have any questions on any of the recommended conditions for your project. If you challenge the decision of the Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you or someone else raised at the public hearing held for this project, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Manager at, or prior to, the public hearing. 916.774.5276  Fax 916.774.5129  TDD 916.774.5220  www.roseville.ca.us

MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Commission
From: Shelby Maples, Associate Planner
Date: April 28, 2022
Re: SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4 – Revised Development Agreement Language and Clean-up Items, File # PL21-0223
The purpose of this Memorandum is to provide the Planning Commission with revised language in the Mourier Investments LLC Development Agreement for the SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4 project, File #PL21-0223, as well as minor clean up items identified in the staff report.

Background
At the time of staff report publication for the April 28, 2022 Planning Commission hearing, staff and the applicant were still negotiating supplemental park and bike trail fees for the Tentative Map #4 project.

The fees, which are calculated at different rates based on density in the Development Agreement, will be less than previously anticipated as a result of the proposed rezone (reducing Low Density Residential and increasing Medium and High Density Residential units). Therefore, an additional payment is necessary to make up the shortfall. This is discussed further in the Planning Commission staff report.

Ultimately, it was determined that a one-time payment would make up the shortfall in park and bike trail fees caused by the proposed project amendments. Language to memorialize this payment is proposed in the Mourier Investments, LLC Development Agreement. The timing of the payment will occur prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the final map for large lot parcel CO-01.

Revised Language – Mourier Investments LLC Development Agreement f. The second paragraph of Section 3.12.3 of the Development Agreement for the Second Amendment Property is hereby amended and revised in its entirety to read as follows:
“The Neighborhood Park Fee, as calculated herein, is figured on 100% of the total dwelling units proposed to be entitled in the Plan Area for construction of Neighborhood Parks within the SVSP. City may conduct an annual re-assessment of Park fees for the Property subject to this Agreement and adjust the fee upward if underutilization of entitled dwelling units for the Property subject to this Agreement exceeds 10%. In the event of a rezoning of any parcel(s) in the Property that creates a park funding shortfall, City shall require supplemental neighborhood and City-Wide park fees to fund such shortfall from the rezoned parcel(s). In recognition of a current shortfall related to past and current rezones of parcels in the Property, Landowner agrees that prior to or concurrent with recordation of a final map for parcel CO-01, Landowner shall make a one-time payment to City in the amount of $141,990, subject to annual adjustment, on July 1, based on the percentage change in the Construction Cost Index (CCI), for neighborhood and city-wide park fees.
g. The second paragraph of Section 3.12.7 of the Development Agreement for the Second Amendment Property is hereby amended and revised in its entirety to read as follows:

Page 2 of 2 ends

916.774.5276  Fax 916.774.5129  TDD 916.774.5220  www.roseville.ca.us agrees that Prior to or concurrent with recordation of a final map for parcel CO-01, Owner shall make a one-time payment to City in the amount of $15,998, subject to annual adjustment, on July 1, based on the percentage change in the Construction Cost Index (CCI), for bike trail improvements.

Clean-up Items
Clean-up items were identified in the staff report after publication. The staff report incorrectly identified the Development Agreement Amendment for Westpark Federico as the fifth, rather than the sixth, amendment. The Fifth Amendment was approved by City Council as a part of the Solaire Phase 6 project (PL21-0111) in fall of 2021. Additionally, a minor correction to the General Plan Amendment Exhibit, Exhibit B, is included with this Memorandum. Parcel CO-22, which will be modified from MDR to LDR, was incorrectly labeled as “MDR” in the “proposed” condition.

Conclusion
With the revised language and the minor clean-up items, the project is consistent with the General Plan, Sierra Vista Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance, and the required findings for approval can be made.

Attachment 1 – Revised Exhibit B – General Plan Amendment Attachment 2 – Revised Exhibit G – Second Amendment to Mourier Investments LLC Agreement �F�-92
11[) UI\
CO-2A
LOR

14.3 Ac.
\'v'B-22
� Ar\[)
IVIUI\
CO-21
MOR

7.8Ac.

CO-70
OS

0.25 Ac.

CO-28
LOR

14.6 Ac.
\'v'B-23
�Ar\[)
IVIUI\
80-SG
cs
'vVB-50
PF�
CO-1
LOR

17.2 Ac.

CO-22
MOR

4.8Ac.
rr- 1
1-U- I
L.DF�
CO-71
OS

0.52 Ac.

FD-2
L_DF�
CO-40
cc

0.2Ac.
f'f'

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
SCALE: 1 "=300'
■
■
�F�-92
I ID
UI\
\'v'B-22
MDF�-6.7
CO-20
MOR

12.7 Ac. Net
CO-21
MOR

25.4 Ac. Net
\
A
✓B-23
MDF�-7.2
'NB-50
F)F�
CO-1
LOR

16.3 Ac. Net
f'r\_>(n
>...JV .._.,u
CO-2
LOR

8.8 Ac. Net
CO-22
LOR

4.8Ac.
rr- 1
ru- 1
L_DF�
CO-70
OS

0.67 Ac.

FD-2
L_DF�
CO-40
cc

0.2Ac.
r-r\ An
ru-'"t-u
f'f'

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
SCALE: 1 "=300'
SCALE: 1"=300' GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT
BAKER-WILLIAMS ENGINEERING GROUP --------1 THE VILLAGES at SIERRA VISTA Engineering/ Surveying/ Land Planning/ Entitlement Processing/ GPS Services 6020 Rutland Drive, Suite 19 ~ Carmichael CA 95606
(916) 331-4336 - fax (916) 331-4430 ~ [email protected] JOB #: 18-03-010 --------1
PARCELS CO-01, CO-02, CO20, CO-21, CO-22 & CO-40
DATE: JUNE 2021 CITY of ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA

PC EXHIBIT B

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Document entitled to free recording
Government Code Section 27383

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City Clerk
City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, CA 95678
(SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER’S USE)

SECOND AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND MOURIER INVESTMENTS, LLC,

RELATIVE TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
This Second Amendment of Development Agreement is entered into this ____ day of ________, 2022, by and between the CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a municipal corporation (“City”), and MOURIER INVESTMENTS, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Mourier”) pursuant to Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the Government Code of California.

RECITALS
A. Mourier and City entered into a Development Agreement (the “Development Agreement”) which was approved by the City Council of City on May 19, 2010, and recorded on June 18, 2010, in the Official Records of Placer County as Document No. 2010-0045949-00.

B. Mourier and City entered into the Development Agreement relative to development within a portion of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Area as defined in Exhibit “A” and depicted in Exhibit “B” of the Development Agreement (the “Property”). Except as otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Development Agreement.

C. Mourier 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 21, 2021, and recorded on July 1, 2021, in the Official Records of Placer County as Document No. 2021-0085265-00.

D. Mourier and City entered into the First Amendment relative to development within certain portions of the Property as described in Exhibit “A” and depicted in Exhibit “B” of the First Amendment.

PC EXHIBIT G
E. This Second Amendment to the Development Agreement (the “Second Amendment”) affects certain portions of the Property owned by Mourier (the “Second Amendment Property”) as described in Exhibit “A” and depicted in Exhibit “B” attached hereto. Mourier and City intend for this Second Amendment to document certain unit transfers within the Plan Area, revise the parties’ obligations with respect to groundwater production wells and recycled water facilities, update the parties’ evaluation of water conservation goals, and resolve the parties’ inconsistent interpretations of Subsection

3.17.1.2(i) of the Development Agreement.

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

NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
a. The term “Entitlements” set forth in Recital F of the Development Agreement for the Second Amendment Property is hereby revised to include the Sierra Vista Specific Plan and Design Guidelines, as amended and adopted by Resolution No. ___-___.
b. The land use designations, approximate acreages, and unit counts in Section 2.2 of the Development Agreement for the Second Amendment Property are hereby revised as follows:

Low Density Residential 197 units on 40.8 Net Acres;
Medium Density Residential 319 units on 42.8 Net Acres; Community Commercial 0.2 Net Acres;
Park 1.1 Net Acres;
Open Space 36.8 Net Acres;
Open Space (paseo) 0.7 Net Acres;
c. Section 3.7.2 of the Development Agreement for the Second Amendment Property is hereby amended and revised in its entirety to read as follows:
“3.7.2 Groundwater Wells. If applicable, Landowner shall dedicate to City Parcels JM-60 and FD-63 for two (2) groundwater wells at the approximate locations shown in Exhibit “Q”. The City shall be responsible for the construction of monitoring wells for determining water production and quality and the topside improvements.

Landowner shall be responsible for drilling and completing the production wells (but not above ground well improvements such as pumping and treatment facilities) as further described below (“Well Construction Requirements”). To facilitate the drilling of the monitoring wells Landowner will provide City and its contractors access to and within the location of the well site to enable City to install monitoring wells to confirm desired capacity and water quality.

It is the intent of this section (and the Parties) that the groundwater well locations identified within the SVSP shall be capable of achieving a yield of approximately 1,800 gallons per minute 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, Landowners shall, at its own cost, work with the City to relocate well sites within the SVSP until these objectives are satisfied.

The Landowner shall contact the City Environmental Utilities Department prior to construction of the production wells.

Landowner shall receive approval from the City of the well design and drilling method prior to commencement of this work. Wells shall be drilled at the time of occupancy of any residential units within 500 feet of the well site. Landowner shall include noise curtains for a particular well if at the time of construction of the well homes are occupied between 500 feet and 1000 feet of the well.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the City adopts a revised water connection fee which is uniformly applied on a City-wide basis and encompasses the costs of the Well Construction Requirements, Landowner shall be relieved of the Well Construction Requirements set forth in this Section 3.7.2 so long as Landowner pays the applicable fee.”

d. Section 3.7.4 of the Development Agreement for the Second Amendment Property is hereby amended and revised in its entirety to read as follows:
“3.7.4 Water Conservation Goal. The City has determined, and Landowner agrees, that the available water supply is sufficient to serve all phases of the Project. This determination was the conclusion of a review of the demand and source issues created by the projected build-out of the Project based upon the various technical studies completed in connection with the environmental review of the Project. The demand for water at build-out of the Project was determined by reference to the City's current information on water usage by the various land uses included and permitted within the City and the proposed land uses within the Project and by reference to the Landowner’s Sierra Vista Specific Plan Water Conservation Plan which includes a reduction in water use by 17% over current use characteristics.

The sources for water evaluated for the Project are the same types of sources currently used throughout the City; namely, surface water contracts with federal and local agencies and the use of groundwater. City and Developer are satisfied, based upon detailed technical analysis, that the demand and source assumptions relied upon to assure water for the Project are valid. However, the Parties have agreed to the following procedure to assure the continued validity of the underlying assumptions and the continued availability of sufficient water to service all phases of the SVSP Project.

With the implementation of the City’s Advanced Metering Infrastructure (“AMI”) system, the City will have the ability to monitor potable water consumption on a near real term basis. If the City determines that water consumption exceeds what was anticipated and will negatively affect the City’s ability to provide water for the Project, then the Parties shall meet and in good faith attempt to implement whatever measures are needed to assure the water supply will meet the Project’s demands. In the event that the City adopts a City-Wide requirement for a reduction in water use by more than the 17% over current potable water usage as set forth herein, and the then built portion of the SVSP has met its 17% objective set forth in this Section 3.7.4, the residential units for which building permits have not yet been issued shall be required to implement such measures necessary to achieve such City-Wide requirement, above the 17% objective set forth in this Section 3.7.4.

Development and implementation of such measures shall be at Landowner’s cost. The foregoing notwithstanding, should City achieve its adopted City-Wide water conservation goals, the SVSP Area shall not under any circumstances be deemed out of compliance with its Water Conservation Plan water conservation objective as set forth herein.”
e. Section 3.9 of the Development Agreement for the Second Amendment Property is hereby amended and revised in its entirety to read as follows:
“3.9 Recycled Water Facilities. Landowner shall construct recycled water system facilities as provided in this Section 3.9 and the Phasing Plan in Section 3.3, and as shown in Exhibit “U”, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Recycled water shall be used for irrigation of parks and landscape setbacks, medians, paseos adjacent to collector streets and other landscape areas including all multi-family and non-residential landscaping uses. Landowner shall construct and dedicate upon completion thereof, a recycled water distribution system as generally shown in Exhibit "U”. In the event that the WRSP has not constructed recycled water facilities necessary to serve the SVSP, Landowner shall construct the necessary off-site recycled facilities and obtain reimbursement from the WRSP in accordance with Section 4.2.2 herein.

City shall construct a recycled water tank(s), pump station expansion and appurtenant recycled water facilities on City property in the WRSP as required for the Project. City shall be responsible to dismantle and eliminate each potable water charging station (5 total) as set forth in Section 3.3, and make the appropriate connections to the WRSP recycled water system as part of the construction of the recycled water tank(s) and pump station expansion on City property in the WRSP. City costs, estimated at $5.3 million, associated with the recycled water tank(s), pump station expansion, elimination of the potable water charging stations and connections to the West Roseville Specific Plan recycled water system, and appurtenant recycled water facilities (hereinafter, the “Recycled Water Facilities”), which include, but are not limited to, permitting, design, construction, design support during construction phase, construction management, inspection, and City’s
administrative and labor costs, shall be paid through a combination of methods, as follows:

The City shall, as part of maximum special taxes in the Project CFD(s), as defined in Section 3.17.1 of the Agreement, include in such levy of maximum special taxes on all DUEs in the Specific Plan, comprised of 6,650 residential units and 2,095,236 square feet of non-residential building square footage, an amount of $30/sewer equivalent dwelling unit (“sewer EDU”)/year starting at the time a water meter is installed for the particular land use or as classified as a developed parcel in the rate and method for the Project CFD(s); The City shall levy up to maximum special taxes in the Project CFD(s), as defined in Section 3.17.1, necessary to generate what is estimated at $2.4 million (in year 2010 dollars), adjusted annually by the CCI, for a portion of the Recycled Water Facilities to be financed pursuant to this Section 3.9. Such maximum special taxes shall be levied at issuance of building permits in the case of residential land uses, and at certificate of occupancy for nonresidential land uses, on a pro-rata basis for a Landowner’s proportionate share of its obligation under this Section 3.9, with sewer EDUs on all properties in the SVSP as the denominator, and the sewer EDUs in a large lot parcel as the numerator, and shall remain in place until Landowner’s proportionate share of the $2.4 million in pay-as-you-go special tax revenue for such Recycled Water Facilities set forth in this Section 3.9, as may be adjusted by the CCI, is fully paid.

City shall impose a charge for recycled water of $20/sewer EDU/month (based on meter size) over the standard City charge for irrigation service (including the use of potable water on an interim basis) as such standard recycled water charge may from time to time be adjusted by City, charged to future recycled water billing accounts in the Plan Area for landscape setbacks for high density residential and non-residential land uses, until such time as $2.9 million for the Recycled Water Facilities, beyond the $2.4 million of maximum special taxes collected, is fully funded; and If the costs of the Recycled Water Facilities fall below or rise above the $5.3 million estimated cost, City shall adjust accordingly the amounts financed as set forth in this Section 3.9.

All recycled water system facilities including storage tank(s), pump station, transmission, distribution and public and private irrigation systems shall be designed and constructed pursuant to City’s then current Improvement Standards, unless modifications are otherwise mutually agreed to by Landowner and the Environmental Utilities Director, and shall be subject to City plan review, construction, inspection and final approval and payment of all applicable fees for plan review, mapping and inspection of such improvements.

If City adopts a revised water connection fee (which is uniformly applied on a City-wide basis and encompasses the estimated $5.3 million for the “Recycled Water Facilities” described in this Section

3.9), Landowner shall not be responsible for the payment of the estimated $5.3 million pro-rata share of the cost of the Recycled Water Facilities, except through the payment of the City’s 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 Recycled Water Facilities.”
f. The second paragraph of Section 3.12.3 of the Development Agreement for the Second Amendment Property is hereby amended and revised in its entirety to read as follows:
“The Neighborhood Park Fee, as calculated herein, is figured on 100% of the total dwelling units proposed to be entitled in the Plan Area for construction of Neighborhood Parks within the SVSP. City may conduct an annual re-assessment of Park fees for the Property subject to this Agreement and adjust the fee upward if
underutilization of entitled dwelling units for the Property subject to this Agreement exceeds 10%. In the event of a rezoning of any parcel(s) in the Property that creates a park funding shortfall, City shall require supplemental neighborhood and City-Wide park fees to fund such shortfall from the rezoned parcel(s). In recognition of a current shortfall related to past and current rezones of parcels in the Property, Landowner agrees that prior to or concurrent with recordation of a final map for parcel CO-01, Landowner shall make a one-time payment to City in the amount of $141,990, subject to annual adjustment, on July 1, based on the percentage change in the Construction Cost Index (CCI), for neighborhood and city-wide park fees.
g. The second paragraph of Section 3.12.7 of the Development Agreement for the Second Amendment Property is hereby
amended and revised in its entirety to read as follows:

The bike trail fee, as set forth herein, is calculated based on 100% of the total dwelling units entitled in the Plan Area for construction of the bike trails within the SVSP. City may conduct an annual reassessment of bike trail fees for the Property subject to this Agreement and adjust the fee upward if underutilization of entitled dwelling units for the Property subject to this Agreement exceeds 10%. In recognition of a current shortfall related to past and current rezones of parcels in the Property, Landowner agrees that Prior to or concurrent with recordation of a final map for parcel CO-01, Owner shall make a one-time payment to City in the amount of $15,998, subject to annual adjustment, on July 1, based on the percentage change in the Construction Cost Index (CCI), for bike trail improvements.
f.h. Section 3.17.1.2(i) of the Development Agreement for the Second Amendment Property is hereby amended and revised in its entirety to read as follows:
“(i) For the Second Amendment Property, the previous fee deferral provisions of this subsection are hereby deemed null and void and the only fee deferral eligible to be paid with bond proceeds from future bond sales commencing in the year 31 timeframe shall be fifty percent (50%) of the SPRTA Tier II Traffic Fee pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Tier II Development Fee Deferral Program and one hundred percent (100%) of the City-Wide Park Fee that would otherwise be paid at the time of issuance of building permits for low, medium, and high density residential dwelling units. The amount of the SPRTA Tier II Traffic Fee deferral provided by this Section shall be adjusted as the SPRTA Tier II Traffic Fee may be subsequently adjusted. The amount of the CityWide Park Fee deferral provided by this Section shall be adjusted as the City-Wide Park Fee may be subsequently adjusted pursuant to Section 3.12.4 of the Development Agreement.”

2. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN. The City Council has found and determined that this Second Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the Sierra Vista Specific Plan.

3. AMENDMENT LIMITED TO SECOND AMENDMENT PROPERTY.

This Second Amendment is limited to and applies only to development of the Second Amendment Property and does not affect or apply in any manner with respect to the development of any other property within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Area, including without limitation, any other portion of the Property.

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

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, has authorized the execution of this Second Amendment in duplicate by its City Manager and attested to by its City Clerk under the authority of Ordinance No. ______, adopted by the Council of the City of Roseville on the ____ day of _______, 2022.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE,
a municipal corporation
By:______________________________
Dominick Casey
City Manager
ATTEST:

By:______________________________
Carmen Avalos
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM;
By:______________________________
Michele Sheidenberger
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE:

By:______________________________
Mike Isom
Development Services Director
MOURIER INVESTMENTS, LLC, a
California limited liability company
By:____________________________
John L. Mourier, III
Managing Member
Exhibit A
Legal Description of Second Amendment Property
All those portions of Section 26, 27, 34 and 35 of Township 11 North, Range 5 East, M.D.B.&M., more particularly described as follows:

The west 801.429 feet of the south 1056 feet of Section 26; the south 1056 feet of the east 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 27, excepting therefrom the west 471.429 feet thereof; the east 1/2 pf the northeast 1/4 of Section 34, excepting therefrom the west 471.429 feet thereof; the west 801.429 feet to the north 1/2 of Section 35.

Excepting from the north 1/2 of Section 35 an undivided 50% of all oil, gas, hydrocarbons and any other minerals below 500 feet from the surface, as reserved in the deed from Mable H. Tyler, Executrix, recorded on February 13, 1959, in Book 786 of Official Records, at Page 33, Placer County Records.

And excepting from those portions of the above described land lying within the south 1056 feet of the southeast 1/4 of Section 26, and the south 1056 feet of the west 1/2 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 26, an undivided 50% of all oil, gas, hydrocarbons and any other minerals below a depth of 500 feet from the surface, as conveyed in the deed from Agnes C. Conley and Sally S. Taketa, as Trustees , to Mable H. Tyler, Executrix, Et Al, Recorded on December 28, 1979 as Document Number 56281, in Book 2210, Page 502, Placer County Records.

APN: 017-150-032-510 and 017-150-036-510
Exhibit B
Depiction of Second Amendment Property
PC Exhibit A – SVSP EIR Addendum has been removed
from this attachment and included as CC Exhibit A.

PC Exhibit B – General Plan Amendment has been
removed from this attachment and included as CC
Exhibit B.

PC Exhibit C – Specific Plan Amendment has been
removed from this attachment and included as CC
Exhibit C.

PC Exhibit D – Rezone has been removed from this
attachment and included as CC Exhibit D.

PC Exhibit E– SVSP Change Pages has been removed
from this attachment and included as CC Exhibit H.

PC Exhibit F – Second Amendment to DF Properties
Development Agreement has been removed from this
attachment and included as CC Exhibit E.

PC Exhibit G – Second Amendment to Mourier
Investments Development Agreement has been
removed from this attachment and included as CC
Exhibit F.

PC Exhibit H – Sixth Amendment to Westpark Federico
Development Agreement has been removed from this
attachment and included as CC Exhibit G.
iPC EXHIBIT I

PC EXHIBIT J

PC EXHIBIT I

PC EXHIBIT J

PC EXHIBIT K

UTILITY & INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING PLAN: A PORTION OF SECTIONS 35 AND 36, T. 11 N., R. 5 E., M.D.M.

City of Roseville, State of California Scale 1" = 200' November, 2021 Sheet 1 of 6 Project Address - 3871 Santucci Boulevard File No. - PL21-0223 PHASE CO-01, CO-02, CO-03, CO-20, CO-21 AND CO-22 CALIFORNIA LIC. 613004 B Roseville, Ca 95747-7143 JOHN MOURIER CONSTRUCTION INC. 1430 Blue Oaks Blvd. Ste 190 Office: 916-782-8879 Fax: 916-960-5322 PLACER COUNTY SACRAMENTO COUNTY HWY. 65 I-80 VICINITY MAP PHASE CO-20 SEE SHEET 4 PHASE CO-1 SEE SHEET 2 PHASE CO-22 SEE SHEET 6 PHASE CO-21 SEE SHEET 5 SANTUCCI BOULEVARD

SANTUCCI BOULEVARD

VISTA GRANDE BOULEVARD
EARL RUSH DRIVE PHASE CO3 SEE SHEET 3 PHASE CO-2 SEE SHEET 2 S:\BWEG Jobs\2020 Jobs\20-04-018 Conley Property - Sierra Vista\Planning\2004018-EXH-INFRA-PHASE-PLAN.dwg, SHT1-CVR, 11/23/2021 3:09:45 PM, David Cobbs

PC EXHIBIT L
PHASE SANT-2
PHASE ER-1 PHASE LINE 78+18
PHASE LINE WAT-2 RW-2 DR-2 WAT-2 SW-2 WAT-3 DR-3 RW-3 DR-3 WAT-3 RW-3 DR-2 DR-2 WAT-2 PHASE SANT-2 DR-2 RW-2 RW-2 UTILITY & INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING PLAN: A PORTION OF SECTIONS 35 AND 36, T. 11 N., R. 5 E., M.D.M. City of Roseville, State of California Scale 1" = 40' November, 2021 Sheet 2 of 6 Project Address - 3871 Santucci Boulevard File No. - PL21-0223 PHASE CO-01 AND CO-02 SANTUCCI BOULEVARD EARL RUSH DRIVE VILLAGE CO-1 VILLAGE CO-2 S:\BWEG Jobs\2020 Jobs\20-04-018 Conley Property - Sierra Vista\Planning\2004018-EXH-INFRA-PHASE-PLAN.dwg, SHT2-CO-01-02, 11/23/2021 3:10:01 PM, David Cobbs PHASE SANT-1 RW-1 DR-1 WAT-1DR-1 OUTFALL 2 DR-1 ARCH CULVERT PHASE LINE 37+50 DR-1 OUTFALL 1 DR-1 VGB-1 (BY OTHERS) RW-1 SW-1 WAT-1 DR-1 PHASE SANT-1 SW-1 DR-1 UTILITY & INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING PLAN: A PORTION OF SECTIONS 35 AND 36, T. 11 N., R. 5 E., M.D.M. City of Roseville, State of California Scale 1" = 50' November, 2021 Sheet 3 of 6 Project Address - 3871 Santucci Boulevard File No. - PL21-0223 PHASE CO-03

SANTUCCI BOULEVARD
VISTA GRANDE BOULEVARD VILLAGE CO-3
S:\BWEG Jobs\2020 Jobs\20-04-018 Conley Property - Sierra Vista\Planning\2004018-EXH-INFRA-PHASE-PLAN.dwg, SHT3-CO-03, 11/23/2021 3:10:20 PM, David Cobbs PHASE SANT-2
PHASE ER-1 PHASE LINE 78+18 WAT-2 RW-2 DR-2 WAT-2 SW-2 WAT-3 DR-3 RW-3 DR-3 WAT-3 RW-3 DR-2 DR-2 WAT-2 PHASE SANT-2 DR-2 RW-2 RW-2 UTILITY & INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING PLAN: A PORTION OF SECTIONS 35 AND 36, T. 11 N., R. 5 E., M.D.M. City of Roseville, State of California Scale 1" = 40' November, 2021 Sheet 4 of 6 Project Address - 3871 Santucci Boulevard File No. - PL21-0223 PHASE CO-20 SANTUCCI BOULEVARD EARL RUSH DRIVE VILLAGE CO-20 S:\BWEG Jobs\2020 Jobs\20-04-018 Conley Property - Sierra Vista\Planning\2004018-EXH-INFRA-PHASE-PLAN.dwg, SHT4-CO-20, 11/23/2021 3:10:38 PM, David Cobbs PHASE SANT-2
RW-2
DR-2 WAT-2
SW-2
RW-2
DR-2 WAT-2
SW-2
DR-2
SW-1 RW-1
DR-1 WAT-1
DR-1 OUTFALL 2 DR-1 ARCH CULVERT
DR-3
WAT-3 RW-3
DR-1 OUTFALL 1
DR-1
PHASE LINE 54+25 PHASE SANT-2 PHASE SANT-1 DR-2
RW-2
SW-2
WAT-2
SW-2 RW-2
SW-1 UTILITY & INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING PLAN: A PORTION OF SECTIONS 35 AND 36, T. 11 N., R. 5 E., M.D.M.

City of Roseville, State of California
Scale 1" = 50' November, 2021 Sheet 5 of 6 Project Address - 3871 Santucci Boulevard File No. - PL21-0223 PHASE CO-21 SANTUCCI BOULEVARD PARK VILLAGE CO-21 PHASE SANT-1 S:\BWEG Jobs\2020 Jobs\20-04-018 Conley Property - Sierra Vista\Planning\2004018-EXH-INFRA-PHASE-PLAN.dwg, SHT5-CO-21, 11/23/2021 3:10:56 PM, David Cobbs PHASE SANT-2
PHASE ER-1 PHASE LINE
RW-2
DR-2
WAT-2
SW-2
RW-2
DR-2
WAT-2
SW-2
DR-2
SW-1
RW-1
DR-1
WAT-1
DR-1
OUTFALL 2
DR-1

ARCH CULVERT
WAT-3
DR-3
RW-3
DR-3
WAT-3
RW-3
PHASE LINE 54+25
PHASE SANT-2
PHASE SANT-1
DR-2
SW-2
WAT-2
SW-2
RW-2
SW-1 UTILITY & INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING PLAN: A PORTION OF SECTIONS 35 AND 36, T. 11 N., R. 5 E., M.D.M.

City of Roseville, State of California
Scale 1" = 40' November, 2021 Sheet 6 of 6 Project Address - 3871 Santucci Boulevard File No. - PL21-0223 PHASE CO-22 SANTUCCI BOULEVARD EARL RUSH DRIVE VILLAGE CO-22 S:\BWEG Jobs\2020 Jobs\20-04-018 Conley Property - Sierra Vista\Planning\2004018-EXH-INFRA-PHASE-PLAN.dwg, SHT6-CO-22, 11/23/2021 3:11:15 PM, David Cobbs

PC EXHIBIT M

SVSP JMC Subdivision; CO-20, CO-21 & CO-22

DEVELOPMENT FEATURE PROPOSED
Lot Size (minimum)
Area, Interior Lot 2,600 sf
Area, Corner Lot 2,900 sf
Width, Interior Lot 38 ft minimum
Width, Corner Lot 44 ft.

Permitted Density (maximum per lot)
Residential Density 1 dwelling; 1 second unit
Setbacks (minimum)
Front Yard Setback 12.5 ft. to living space/porch; 18’ min. driveway depth with roll up garage door
Side Yard Setback 4 ft. interior lot, 12.5 ft. – street side of corner lot Rear Yard Setback
Coverage (maximum)
Site Coverage None & no minimum useable open space required Height (maximum)
Height 35 ft.

Other Provisions Proposed
Front Yard Stagger None required, but optional per unit design 2nd story wall separation 8 ft.

Two Story Mix No limit
Stagger for 3rd Car Garage 2 ft. feet between third car bay and two car garage Additional Design Standards
Street facing elevations shall have a single-story element or enhanced treatment with grid and trim at windows and incorporation of decorative trim details and variation of colors similar to the front elevation on the two-story elements.

The front façade shall incorporate a minimum of two building façade element breaks with varied depth. Two story homes to have a variety of one- and two-story components. All two-story homes shall incorporate a covered porch element of at least 50 sf or a covered single-story entry with single story living space at the front of the home.

The exterior building materials shall include:
 A minimum of three elevations per plan with at least one elevation style to be other than stucco;
 Each elevation to have distinct design elements such as column style, siding, masonry, architectural details, roofing, etc;
 All homes to be finished consistent with the approved colors and materials board with at least three paint colors; body, shadow, trim and accent; and  All windows, openings and gable vents to have trim appropriate to the architecture.

Adjacent lots shall have different plans or elevations.

All lots to have enhanced landscaping as shown on the approved landscape plan.

At least 40% of the two-story homes shall include a front porch.

PC EXHIBIT N

SIERRA VISTA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
CO-20, CO-21, CO-22
Setbacks • Front: 12.5 ft front; 18 ft driveway depth with roll-up door • Sides: 4 ft interior; 12.5 ft street side on corner • Rear: 10 ft min for single story portion of home 15 ft min for second story portion of home
Coverage
None.

Street Facing Enhancements • Window and door trim on all sides of home. • Enhanced side and/or rear elevations when facing a street or open space (see attached photos)
Front Façade
Minimum 2 building façade element breaks with varied depth on two story homes. Two story homes to have a variety of one and two story components along with a variety of large and smaller covered porches.

Exterior Building Materials
Minimum 3 elevations per plan. Min of one elevation style to be other than stucco.

Each elevation to have distinct design elements such as column style, siding, masonry, architectural details, roofing etc… per attached plans.

All homes to be finished consistent w/ attached colors and materials palette.

All windows, openings and gable vents to have trim appropriate to the architecture.

Lot Repetition
Adjacent lots must have different plans or elevations.

Garage Roll-up Door
Garage door to have windows.

PC EXHIBIT O
Materials - A Variety of Colors & Textures
Varied Elevation Elements
- Combined One and Two-story elements
Garage Doors
Architecture– Warm… Traditional… Timeless
Farmhouse Cottage Villa
CORONADO STONE:

QUICK STACK SIOUX FALLS
ELDORADO STONE:

TUNDRA BRICK - CHALK DUST
CORONADO STONE:

MOUNTAIN LEDGE GRAY

QUARTZITE
CORONADO STONE:

HONEY LEDGE PALOMINO
CORONADO STONE:

SAWTOOTH LEDGE NORTHLAND
CORONADO STONE:

IDAHO DRYSTACK ANTIQUE BUFF

MATERIAL PALETTE
JOHN MOURIER CONSTRUCTION INC.

Roseville, California

ROOFING MATERIAL
GAF ROOFING: TIMBERLINE CHARCOAL GAF ROOFING: TIMBERLINE SHAKEWOOD GAF ROOFING: TIMBERLINE WEATHERED WOOD ELEVATION “A” STONE VENEER ELEVATION “B ” STONE VENEER ELEVATION “C” STONE VENEER

COLOR SCHEMES
JOHN MOURIER CONSTRUCTION INC.

Roseville, California

STUCCO BODY &
GARAGE DOOR:

SW 7006 EXTRA WHITE
1 A
Elevations
B
Elevations
C
Elevations
TRIM / GABLE CORBELS:

SW 7006 EXTRA WHITE

ENTRY DOOR, SHUTTERS,

GUTTER FASCIA, BARGE

BOARDS, PORCH POSTS &
PORCH CORBELS:

SW 7076 CYBERSPACE

ENTRY DOOR, SHUTTERS,

GUTTER FASCIA, BARGE

BOARDS, PORCH POSTS &
PORCH CORBELS:

SW 7076 CYBERSPACE

STUCCO BODY &
GARAGE DOOR:

SW 7005 PURE WHITE

TRIM / GABLE CORBELS,

GUTTER FASCIA & BARGE
BOARDS
SW 7005 PURE WHITE

ENTRY DOOR, SHUTTERS,

PORCH POSTS & PORCH
CORBELS:

SW 7600 BOLERO
2 STUCCO BODY &
GARAGE DOOR:

SW 7649 SILVERPLATE

TRIM / GABLE CORBELS
SW 7004 SNOWBOUND
3 STUCCO BODY &
GARAGE DOOR:

SW 7005 PURE WHITE

TRIM / GABLE CORBELS
SW 7757 HIGH REFLECTIVE WHITE

ENTRY DOOR, SHUTTERS,

GUTTER FASCIA, BARGE

BOARDS, PORCH POSTS &
PORCH CORBELS:

SW 0032 NEEDLPOINT NAVY
4 BODY & GARAGE DOOR:

SW 7516 KESTREL WHITE
6 TRIM / ENTRY COLUMNS /
FASCIA / GABLE CORBELS:

SW 7005 PURE WHITE
BOARD & BATT:

SW 7511 BUNGALOW BEIGE
7 8

ENTRY DOOR, SHUTTERS,

PORCH POSTS & PORCH
CORBELS / KNEE BRACE:

SW 7616 BREEZY
BODY & GARAGE DOOR:

SW 7644 GATEWAY GRAY

TRIM / ENTRY COLUMNS /
FASCIA / GABLE CORBELS:

SW 9180 AGED WHITE
BOARD & BATT:

SW 9172 STUDIO CLAY

ENTRY DOOR, SHUTTERS,

PORCH POSTS & PORCH
CORBELS / KNEE BRACE:

SW 2838 POLISHED MAHOGANY
BODY & GARAGE DOOR:

SW 7516 KESTREL WHITE

TRIM / ENTRY COLUMNS /
FASCIA / GABLE CORBELS:

SW 7028 INCREDIBILE WHITE
BOARD & BATT:

SW 9086 COOL BEIGE

ENTRY DOOR, SHUTTERS,

PORCH POSTS & PORCH
CORBELS / KNEE BRACE:

SW 7519 MEXICAN SAND
BODY & GARAGE DOOR:

SW 7672 KNITTING NEEDLES

TRIM / ENTRY COLUMNS /
FASCIA / GABLE CORBELS:

SW 7028 INCREDIBLE WHITE
BOARD & BATT:

SW 7024 FUNCTIONAL GRAY

ENTRY DOOR, SHUTTERS,

PORCH POSTS & PORCH
CORBELS / KNEE BRACE:

SW 7675 SEALSKIN
9 STUCCO BODY & GARAGE
DOOR:

SW 7036 ACCESSIBLE BEIGE
11 STUCCO SHADOW / EXPOSED
TIMBER AT GABLES:

SW 7051 ANALYTICAL GRAY

TRIM / FASCIA / EXPOSED
TIMBER AT GABLES:

SW 7028 INCREDIBLE WHITE
12 13

ENTRY DOOR, SHUTTERS,

PORCH POSTS & PORCH
CORBELS / KNEE BRACE:

SW 7018 DOVETAIL
BODY & GARAGE DOOR:

SW 9173 SHIITAKE

TRIM / ENTRY COLUMNS /
FASCIA / GABLE CORBELS:

SW 7507 STONE LION
BOARD & BATT:

SW 7039 VIRTUAL TAUPE

ENTRY DOOR, SHUTTERS,

PORCH POSTS & PORCH
CORBELS / KNEE BRACE:

SW 7069 IRON ORE
BODY & GARAGE DOOR:

SW 7649 SILVERPLATE

TRIM / ENTRY COLUMNS /
FASCIA / GABLE CORBELS:

SW 7017 DORIAN GRAY
BOARD & BATT:

SW 7004 SNOWBOOUND

ENTRY DOOR, SHUTTERS,

PORCH POSTS & PORCH
CORBELS / KNEE BRACE:

SW 7076 CYBERSPACE
BODY & GARAGE DOOR:

SW 7023 REQUISITE GRAY

TRIM / ENTRY COLUMNS /
FASCIA / GABLE CORBELS:

SW 9169 CHATURA GRAY
BOARD & BATT:

SW 7004 SNOWBOUND

ENTRY DOOR, SHUTTERS,

PORCH POSTS & PORCH
CORBELS / KNEE BRACE:

SW 7076 CYBERSPACE
14 STUCCO BODY &
GARAGE DOOR:

SW 7662 EVENING SHADOW

TRIM / GABLE CORBELS
SW 7006 EXTRA WHITE

ENTRY DOOR, SHUTTERS,

GUTTER FASCIA, BARGE

BOARDS, PORCH POSTS &
PORCH CORBELS:

SW 7069 IRON ORE
5 BODY & GARAGE DOOR:

SW 7028 INCREDIBLE WHITE

TRIM / ENTRY COLUMNS /
FASCIA / GABLE CORBELS:

SW 7006 EXTRA WHITE
BOARD & BATT:

SW 7028 INCREDIBLE WHITE

ENTRY DOOR, SHUTTERS,

PORCH POSTS & PORCH
CORBELS / KNEE BRACE:

SW 7674 PEPPERCORN
10 BODY & GARAGE DOOR:

SW 7037 BALANCED BEIGE

TRIM / ENTRY COLUMNS /
FASCIA / GABLE CORBELS:

SW 7504 KEYSTONE GRAY
BOARD & BATT:

SW 6084 MODEST WHITE

ENTRY DOOR, SHUTTERS,

PORCH POSTS & PORCH
CORBELS / KNEE BRACE:

SW 7510 CHATEAU BROWN
15 TYPICAL LANDSCAPE: LEGEND STANDARD LOT TYPICAL LANDSCAPE: LEGEND CORNER LOT N 1430 BLUE OAKS BLVD. #190 ROSEVILLE, CA 95747 OFFICE: (916) 782-8879
FAX: (916) 960-5322 CA. LIC. 613004 WWW.JMCHOMES.COM SIERRA VISTA CO-20, CO-21, C0-22, TYPICAL LANDSCAPE 1405 1964 2184 1343
2051 1504 1717 2340
1203 2492 1814
FIRST FLOOR PLAN GARAGE MASTER BEDROOM KITCHEN MST. BATH LAUNDRY MASTER CLOSET FAMILY ROOM COUNTRY BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 ENTRY BATH 2 1203 FLOOR PLAN John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 1234 FRONT ELEVATION 'A' REAR ELEVATION 'A' LEFT ELEVATION 'A' RIGHT ELEVATION 'A' 1203 'A' ELEVATIONS John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 1234 FRONT ELEVATION 'B' REAR ELEVATION 'B' RIGHT ELEVATION 'B' LEFT ELEVATION 'B' John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 1203 'B' ELEVATIONS 1234 FRONT ELEVATION 'C' REAR ELEVATION 'C' RIGHT ELEVATION 'C' LEFT ELEVATION 'C' John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 1203 'C' ELEVATIONS FIRST FLOOR PLAN 2-CAR GARAGE FAMILY ROOM DINING KITCHEN BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 MASTER BEDROOM MASTER BATH MASTER CLOSET LAUNDRY ENTRY BATH 2 PORCH OPT. COVERED PATIO 1343 FLOOR PLAN John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 1234 FRONT ELEVATION 'A' REAR ELEVATION 'A' LEFT ELEVATION 'A' RIGHT ELEVATION 'A' 1343 'A' ELEVATIONS John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 1234 FRONT ELEVATION 'B' REAR ELEVATION 'B' RIGHT ELEVATION 'B' LEFT ELEVATION 'B' John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 1343 'B' ELEVATIONS 1234 FRONT ELEVATION 'C' REAR ELEVATION 'C' RIGHT ELEVATION 'C' LEFT ELEVATION 'C' John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 1343 'C' ELEVATIONS FIRST FLOOR PLAN GARAGE MASTER BEDROOM FAMILY ROOM KITCHEN BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 ENTRY MST. BATH LAUNDRY BATH 2 MASTER DINING CLOSET NOOK OPT. COVERED PATIO 1405 FLOOR PLAN John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California FRONT ELEVATION 'A' REAR ELEVATION 'A' LEFT ELEVATION 'A' RIGHT ELEVATION 'A' 1234 1405 'A' ELEVATIONS John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California FRONT ELEVATION 'B' REAR ELEVATION 'B' RIGHT ELEVATION 'B' LEFT ELEVATION 'B' 1234 1405 'B' ELEVATIONS John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California FRONT ELEVATION 'C' REAR ELEVATION 'C' RIGHT ELEVATION 'C' LEFT ELEVATION 'C' 1234 John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 1405 'C' ELEVATIONS FIRST FLOOR PLAN 2 CAR GARAGE BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 4 KITCHEN DINING FAMILY ROOM MASTER BEDROOM M. CLOSET LAUNDRY MASTER BATHBATH 2 BATH 3 ENTRY OPT. COVERED PATIO 1504 FLOOR PLAN John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California FRONT ELEVATION 'A' REAR ELEVATION 'A' LEFT ELEVATION 'A' RIGHT ELEVATION 'A' 1504 'A' ELEVATIONS John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California FRONT ELEVATION 'B' REAR ELEVATION 'B' LEFT ELEVATION 'B' RIGHT ELEVATION 'B' John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 1504 'B' ELEVATIONS FRONT ELEVATION 'C' REAR ELEVATION 'C' LEFT ELEVATION 'C' RIGHT ELEVATION 'C' John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 1504 'C' ELEVATIONS

FIRST FLOOR PLAN M. CLOSET LAUNDRY MASTER BATH BATH 3 ENTRY 2 CAR GARAGE PORCH BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 4 KITCHEN DINING FAMILY ROOM MASTER BEDROOM BATH 2 OPT. COVERED PATIO 1814 FLOOR PLAN John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California FRONT ELEVATION 'A' REAR ELEVATION 'A' LEFT ELEVATION 'A' RIGHT ELEVATION 'A' 1814 'A' ELEVATIONS John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California FRONT ELEVATION 'B' REAR ELEVATION 'B' LEFT ELEVATION 'B' RIGHT ELEVATION 'B' John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 1814 'B' ELEVATIONS FRONT ELEVATION 'C' REAR ELEVATION 'C' LEFT ELEVATION 'C' RIGHT ELEVATION 'C' John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 1814 'C' ELEVATIONS GREAT ROOM 2-CAR GARAGE ENTRY PORCHKITCHEN DINING MASTER BEDROOM MASTER CLOSET MASTER BATH POWDER LAUNDRY OPT. COVERED PATIO BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 BATH 2 BONUS ROOM (BEDROOM 4 OPT) FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1964 FLOOR PLAN John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California FRONT ELEVATION 'A' REAR ELEVATION 'A' LEFT ELEVATION 'A' RIGHT ELEVATION 'A' 1964 'A' ELEVATIONS John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California FRONT ELEVATION 'B' REAR ELEVATION 'B' LEFT ELEVATION 'B' RIGHT ELEVATION 'B' John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 1964 'B' ELEVATIONS FRONT ELEVATION 'C' REAR ELEVATION 'C' LEFT ELEVATION 'C' RIGHT ELEVATION 'C' John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 1964 'C' ELEVATIONS FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN M. CLOSET BATH 2 ENTRY MASTER BATH BATH 3 2 CAR GARAGE FAMILY ROOM DINING KITCHEN BEDROOM 3 /BEDROOM 5 BEDROOM 2 MASTER BEDROOM BONUS ROOM OPT. COVERED PATIO LAUNDRY PORCH 2051 FLOOR PLAN John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California FRONT ELEVATION 'A' REAR ELEVATION 'A' LEFT ELEVATION 'A' RIGHT ELEVATION 'A' 2051 'A' ELEVATIONS John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California FRONT ELEVATION 'B' REAR ELEVATION 'B' LEFT ELEVATION 'B' RIGHT ELEVATION 'B' John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 2051 'B' ELEVATIONS FRONT ELEVATION 'C' REAR ELEVATION 'C' LEFT ELEVATION 'C' RIGHT ELEVATION 'C' John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 2051 'C' ELEVATIONS 2-CAR GARAGE FAMILY ROOM DINING KITCHEN OPT. COVERED PATIO BEDROOM 4 BATH 3 ENTRY PORCH MASTER BEDROOM BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 LAUNDRY BATH 2 MASTER BATH HIS HERS (BEDROOM 5 OPT.) BONUS ROOM BEDROOM 5 FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN BEDROOM 5 PLAN 2184 FLOOR PLAN John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California FRONT ELEVATION 'A' REAR ELEVATION 'A' LEFT ELEVATION 'A' RIGHT ELEVATION 'A' 1234 2184 'A' ELEVATIONS John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California FRONT ELEVATION 'B' REAR ELEVATION 'B' LEFT ELEVATION 'B' RIGHT ELEVATION 'B' 1234 John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 2184 'B' ELEVATIONS FRONT ELEVATION 'C' REAR ELEVATION 'C' LEFT ELEVATION 'C' RIGHT ELEVATION 'C' 1234 John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 2184 'C' ELEVATIONS FIRST FLOOR PLAN OPT. COVERED PATIO DINING KITCHEN PANTRY 1 CAR GARAGE GUEST SUITE GUEST BEDROOM GUEST BATH GREAT ROOM 2 CAR TANDEM GARAGE HOME OFFICE POWDERPORCH MASTER BEDROOM MASTER BATH MASTER CLOSET BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 5 OPT BONUS ROOM LAUNDRY BATH 2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 2340 FLOOR PLAN John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California FRONT ELEVATION 'A' REAR ELEVATION 'A' LEFT ELEVATION 'A' RIGHT ELEVATION 'A' 2340 'A' ELEVATIONS John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California FRONT ELEVATION 'B' REAR ELEVATION 'B' LEFT ELEVATION 'B' RIGHT ELEVATION 'B' John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 2340 'B' ELEVATIONS FRONT ELEVATION 'C' REAR ELEVATION 'C' LEFT ELEVATION 'C' RIGHT ELEVATION 'C' John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 2340 'C' ELEVATIONS BEDROOM 5 PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN 3 CAR GARAGE PLAN DEN ENTRY PORCH 2 CAR GARAGE GREAT ROOM DINING KITCHEN PANTRY BATH 3 BEDROOM 4 COVERED PATIO OPT MASTER BEDROOM BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 BED 5, BATH 4 OPT. ENTRY BATH 2 MASTER BATH HIS HERS BONUS ROOM/ 3 CAR GARAGE OPT BEDROOM 5 BATH 4 2492 FLOOR PLAN John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California FRONT ELEVATION 'A' REAR ELEVATION 'A' LEFT ELEVATION 'A' RIGHT ELEVATION 'A' 1234 2492 'A' ELEVATIONS John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California FRONT ELEVATION 'B' REAR ELEVATION 'B' LEFT ELEVATION 'B' RIGHT ELEVATION 'B' 1234 John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 2492 'B' ELEVATIONS FRONT ELEVATION 'C' REAR ELEVATION 'C' LEFT ELEVATION 'C' RIGHT ELEVATION 'C' 1234 John Mourier Construction Inc. Roseville, California 2492 'C' ELEVATIONS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT–PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon St, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276
8th ADDENDUM TO THE SIERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2008032115, ADOPTED ON MAY 5, 2010)
Project Title/File Number: SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223 Project Location: 3801 Santucci Boulevard, Roseville, Placer County, CA 95747; The project includes several parcels within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan, which are generally located which are generally north of Baseline Road, west of Upland Drive, south of Pleasant Grove Boulevard, and east of the City of Roseville limits
Project Description: The proposed project will create 516 single-family residential lots within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) for a subdivision known as JMC Tentative Map #4, as well as reconfigure land use and zoning designations throughout the SVSP. The project changes will The project includes a General Plan Amendment to: move Parcel CO-21, which has the effect of changing 7.8 acres of Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR); change Parcel CO-22 from 4.8 acres of MDR to 4.81 acres of LDR; change Parcel FD-7 from 8.97 acres of LDR to 8.34 acres of MDR; separate High Density Residential (HDR) Parcel FD-32 (8.9 acres) into HDR Parcels FD-32A (3.81 acres) and FD32B (4.23 acres) and reduce the HDR acreage by 0.86 acres; and increase Community Commercial (CC) Parcel FD-41 from 5.71 acres to

6.24 acres. This will result in a net decrease of 27.3 acres of LDR land use and a net increase of 27.3 acres of MDR land use, a net decrease of 0.86 acres of HDR, and a net increase of 0.53 acres of CC within the SVSP. The project also includes a Specific Plan Amendment to reflect the General Plan land use changes, remove the Mixed-Use overlay from Parcel FD-41, reallocate the affordable unit allocation of 34 middleincome purchase units from CO-20 and four (4) middle-income purchase units on DF-20 to new Parcel FD-32B, and to transfer units among several large lot parcels within the SVSP. A Rezone is requested to align zoning designations with the revised parcels and land use designations.

The project also includes Amendments to several Development Agreements to reflect the project changes and reallocation of affordable units. Several additional entitlements are requested to support the development of JMC Tentative Map #4, including a Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map, Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map for 516 singlefamily residential parcels, and a Design Review for Residential Subdivisions to evaluate architecture and modified development standards for Parcels CO-20, CO-21, and CO-22. The overall unit count within the SVSP will remain the same.

Project Applicant: David Cobbs, Baker Williams Engineering Group Property Owner: Mourier Investments LLC

CC EXHIBIT A

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 2 of 45 ends

Lead Agency Contact: Shelby Maples, Associate Planner; Phone (916) 746-1347 An Addendum to a previously certified and adopted negative declaration or environmental impact report may be prepared for a project if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred (California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines [CEQA] Section 15164). Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the below analysis has been prepared in order to demonstrate that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred and that only minor technical changes or additions are necessary in order to deem the adopted negative declaration adequate to describe the impacts of the proposed project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 also states that an addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can be included in or attached to the adopted negative declaration for consideration by the hearing body. This Addendum focuses only on those aspects of the project or its impacts which require additional discussion.

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 3 of 45 ends

Table of Contents
Project Description …………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Purpose and Scope of Addendum ………………………………………………………………… 5 Initial Study Checklist
I. Aesthetics ……………………………………………. 10
II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources ………………….. 12
III. Air Quality ……………………………………………. 14
IV. Biological Resources ………………………………… 15
V. Cultural Resources ………………………………….. 17
VI. Energy ……………………………………………… 18
VII. Geology and Soils …………………………………... 18
VIII. Greenhouse Gases …………………………………... 22
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ………………….. 23
X. Hydrology and Water Quality ………………………… 25
XI. Land Use and Planning ………………………………. 27
XII. Mineral Resources ………………………………….. 29
XIII. Noise …………………………………………………. 30
XIV. Population and Housing ……………………………... 32
XV. Public Services ……………………………………….. 33
XVI. Recreation …………………………………………… 35
XVII. Transportation ……………………………….. 36
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ……………………………. 38
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ………………………… 40
XX. Wildfire ………………………………………………. 42
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ………………….. 44
Environmental Determination …………………………………………………………………….. 45 Attachments ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 45

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 4 of 45 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location
The project address is 3801 Santucci Boulevard. The project site consists of several parcels located within a portion of the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP), which are generally north of Baseline Road, west of Upland Drive, south of Pleasant Grove Boulevard, and east of the City of Roseville limits (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Project Location (parcels bordered in red)
Background
The SVSP was approved on May 5, 2010 (file #2007PL-044). An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified and a Mitigation Monitoring Program was adopted with the SVSP. The plan area includes 2,064 acres west of Fiddyment Road, north of Baseline Road. The SVSP at a program level anticipated development of the plan area with a mix of residential, commercial, parks and open space land uses. Additionally, Development Agreements with the property owners of the SVSP parcels and the City were entered into to outline development obligations within the SVSP.

Environmental Setting
The project site is undeveloped, and is dominated by relatively flat topography supporting annual grasslands.

There are no structures on the properties. No native oak trees or other trees are present on the subject parcels, as the area has historically been grazed and maintained. Existing and new subdivisions under development are located in the vicinity of the project area. The project parcels are generally located adjacent to residential land uses, as well as Open Space and an Urban Reserve parcel.

CO-2
CO-3
JM-1
JM-20
FD-24
CO-1
DF-20
CO-22
CO-20
CO-21
FD-41
FD-32

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 5 of 45 ends

Proposed Project
The proposed project will create 516 single-family residential lots within the Sierra Vista Specific Plan (SVSP) for a subdivision known as JMC Tentative Map #4, as well as reconfigure land use and zoning designations throughout the SVSP. The project entitlements are discussed below.

General Plan Amendment (GPA) – The project includes a GPA to move Parcel CO-21, which has the effect of changing 7.8 acres of Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR); change Parcel CO22 from 4.8 acres of MDR to 4.81 acres of LDR; change Parcel FD-7 from 8.97 acres of LDR to 8.34 acres of MDR; separate High Density Residential (HDR) Parcel FD-32 (8.9 acres) into HDR Parcels FD-32A (3.81 acres) and FD-32B (4.23 acres) and reduce the HDR acreage by 0.86 acres; and increase Community Commercial (CC) Parcel FD-41 from 5.71 acres to 6.24 acres. This will result in a net decrease of 27.3 acres of LDR land use and a net increase of 27.3 acres of MDR land use, a net decrease of 0.86 acres of HDR, and a net increase of 0.53 acres of CC within the SVSP.

Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) – The project includes an Amendment to the SVSP to reflect the General Plan land use changes, remove the Mixed-Use overlay from Parcel FD-41, reallocate the affordable unit allocation of 34 middle-income purchase units from CO-20 and four (4) middle-income purchase units on DF-20 to new Parcel FD-32B, and to transfer units among several large lot parcels within the SVSP.

Rezone – The Rezone is requested to align zoning designations with the revised parcels and land use designations.

Development Agreement (DA) Amendments – The project includes Amendments to several Development Agreements, including the Fifth Amendment to the Federico Development Agreement, Second Amendment to the Conley Development Agreement, and the Second Amendment of the DF Properties Development Agreement to reflect the project changes and reallocation of affordable units.

Several additional entitlements are requested to support the development of JMC Tentative Map #4, including a Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map, Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map for 516 single-family residential parcels, and a Design Review for Residential Subdivisions to evaluate architecture and modified development standards for Parcels CO-20, CO-21, and CO-22. The overall unit count within the SVSP will remain the same.

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

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

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 6 of 45 ends

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

The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when it certified the SVSP EIR. The EIR identified the following impacts associated with development of the SVSP area, including the buildout of the project area, as significant and unavoidable:
• Conversion of agricultural land to developed uses
• Inducement of substantial population growth
• Increased traffic on City of Roseville roadways
• Increased traffic on State Highways, including Interstate 80 • Increased traffic on Placer County roadways
• Increased emissions of fugitive dust and PM10 from grading and trenching activities (short term) • Increased emissions of ozone precursors during construction (short-term) • Increased emissions of air pollutants during operation • Loss of oak trees of greater than 6 inches diameter breast height (dbh) (short-term) • Removal of historically significant properties and/or loss of historic integrity of such resources • Increased demand for solid waste services at the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill • Increased demand for solid waste services at the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) • Construction debris demand for solid waste services
• Alteration of the visual character of the site and vicinity • New sources of light and glare
For build out of the SVSP project area, the SVSP EIR also identified the following cumulative impacts as significant and unavoidable:
• Agricultural land conversion
• Air pollutant emissions from construction
• Air pollutant emissions from operation
• Contribution to greenhouse gas emissions/global warming • On-site noise levels that exceed City standards
• Off-site noise levels that exceed City standards
• Traffic impacts to Roseville, Placer County, Sacramento County, Sutter County and State facilities • Increased demand for water
• Increased demand for recycled water distribution system • Increased generation of solid waste
• Change in visual character
The analyses below rely on the EIR analysis with minor supplements or technical updates where appropriate.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR ADDENDUM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The purpose of this checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any “changed condition” (i.e. changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 7 of 45 ends

environmental result. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, but that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed in prior environmental documents.

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

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

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

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 8 of 45 ends

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

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

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 9 of 45 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed uses are substantially consistent with the build out assumptions and would not increase the severity of already identified significant impacts.

The project has been evaluated for compliance with the City’s Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and the design guidelines established in the SVSP. The CDG establishes common design elements and expectations for development within the City. The CDG includes provisions related to architectural design, site design and landscape design, to enhance the visual character of the urban environment. The CDG recommends preserving, to the extent feasible, visual resources such as native oak trees and creek or wetland resources. The site does not contain any creek or wetland resources, nor does it contain any protected oak trees. The project has been reviewed by City staff and was found to be consistent with the goals and policies of the CDG, the SVSP, and applicable zoning regulations.

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 11 of 45 ends

As it relates to light and glare, Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.13-1 requires all light fixtures for commercial and office uses to have glare shields and all new buildings to be constructed with low-glare materials. While the project does not involve development of the commercial parcel (Parcel JM41) at this time, MM 4.13-1 is still applicable. In addition, lighting is conditioned to comply with City standards (i.e., CDG) to limit the height of light standards and also require cut-off lenses and glare shields to minimize light and glare impacts. Based on the reasons listed in this section, there would be no new significant impacts not previously identified in the SVSP EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred” relative to aesthetic resources.

Mitigation Measures: SVSP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.13-1 (use low-glare materials) remains applicable to the proposed project. This mitigation measure can be found in the table of applicable mitigation measures included with this Addendum (see Attachment 1).

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 12 of 45 ends

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

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

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 13 of 45 ends

(Parcel CO-20) is located adjacent to Urban Reserve Parcel UR-92 on the west. According to the SVSP EIR, the California Department of Conservation (CDC) classifies the Urban Reserve area as Farmland of Local Importance. However, the project does not involve changes in the existing environment that could result in conversion of Farmland. For these reasons, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required for the project with respect to agricultural and forestry resources.

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

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 14 of 45 ends

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

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

4.5-1, and MM 4.5-2
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? Same No No No None
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number
of people?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The SVSP EIR concluded that standard dust control and other construction measures would be sufficient to avoid particulate matter and ozone precursor construction impacts, but that reactive organic gases would remain significant. Construction activity associated with the proposed project remains consistent with the scale of activity and resulting scope of impacts anticipated in the SVSP EIR. For operational impacts, the proposed project changes the balance of land uses in the area, but not in a manner that would increase emissions. The impacts of the project fall within the scope of the impacts and mitigation already established in the SVSP EIR.

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

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 15 of 45 ends

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

Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures Implemented or
Addressing Impacts.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
SVSP EIR Section

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

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 16 of 45 ends

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

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

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

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure MM 4.8-1 (wetland permits and no net loss), 4.8-2 (relocate western spadefoot), 4.8-3 (protection for nesting birds), 4.8-4 (preservation of grassland habitat), 4.8-5 (wildlife movement protection), 4.8-6 (habitat restoration), 4.8-7 (off-site surveys for infrastructure), and 4.14-3 (avoid light spill into Curry Creek open space) were identified to reduce the impacts to biological resources to less than significant. Not all of these measures are applicable to the currently proposed project, as the proposed development covers a smaller area within the SVSP project area. The Curry Creek open space is not within or adjacent to the proposed project, so none of the measures specific to the Curry Creek area apply to the current project. This includes portions of MM 4.8-3 dealing with bird species which nest in Curry Creek marsh habitat, and MM 4.14-3 to avoid light spillage into Curry Creek. The remaining adopted measures are applicable to the proposed project.

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 17 of 45 ends

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

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

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

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

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 18 of 45 ends

VI. Energy
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) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?

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

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

The project involves the creation of 516 single-family residential lots and the transfer of units among several large lot parcels within the SVSP.

The total number of units in the SVSP area will remain unchanged. The project would consume energy both during project construction and during project operation. During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. However, the energy consumed during construction would be temporary, and would not represent a significant demand on available resources. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment or methods that would be less energy-efficient or which would be wasteful.

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

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 19 of 45 ends

The SVSP EIR included an assessment of energy impacts for the entire plan area. The analysis included consideration of transportation energy, and evaluated walkability, alternative transportation modes, and the degree to which the mix and location of uses would reduce vehicle miles traveled in the plan area. The EIR also included a citywide assessment of energy demand based on the existing and proposed land uses within the City and Specific Plan. Impacts related to energy consumption were found to be less than significant. The proposed project is consistent with the existing land use designation, and therefore is consistent with the current citywide assessment of energy demand, and will not result in substantial unplanned, inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy; impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 20 of 45 ends

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

Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstanc
es 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) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

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

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 21 of 45 ends

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

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

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

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

ADDENDUM
April 2022
SVSP JMC Tentative Map #4; File #PL21-0223

Page 22 of 45 ends

Roseville City CouncilJune 1, 2022

Roseville City Council
June 1, 2022